An 82ft phone mast planned for farmland close to prime Wainwright walking territory in the Lake District has been refused.
The scheme in the Buttermere Valley, complete with antennas and ground-based equipment, was submitted to Lake District National Park Authority planners on behalf of telecoms provider, EE Ltd.
It aimed to provide excellent coverage across a wide-ranging not spot which would help the emergency services.
“The siting and appearance of the proposal is considered the best possible to improve 4G connectivity across the widest area,” the applicants told the park authority.
But national park planners rejected the project, saying: “When viewed from public vantage points the proposal would result in the addition of a highly utilitarian and incongruous feature that would result in an adverse visual and landscape impact which is inconsistent with the landscape character of the area.
“The development would adversely impact on the character of the extraordinary beauty of the English Lake District World Heritage Site and result in harm to a designated heritage asset.”
The location of the proposed mast was on agricultural land owned by William and Maureen Richardson, close to Peggy’s Bridge and Gatesgarth Farm, between Honister Pass and Buttermere.
The application attracted more than 60 letters of representation to the LDNPA. The National Trust was among those to object, along with the Friends of the Lake District, and the Campaign for the Protection of Rural England.
Gordie Oliver, of Air Ventures Paragliding School, who has taught paragliding in the area for 30 years and organises the annual Buttermere Bash, had given his support.
He told the authority that that area of Buttermere, was at a huge disadvantage due to lack of adequate mobile signal.
“Over the years I have needed to raise the emergency services on a number of occasions which has been extremely problematic due to the poor mobile phone signal, resulting in undue stress placed on injured parties I am responsible for,” he said.
“As technology evolves it is totally appropriate that this development is allowed for the benefit of all. I have read in detail all the objections and I see no solid reason or justification for not allowing this development. Most objections appear to be from a sentimental view point with little fact based argument,” he told planners.
