by A controversial offer for the construction of a 20-meter 5g mast in a “ridiculous position” was rejected by the planners of the Isle of Wight Council.
The district hall rejected the proposed application for the mobile Broadband Network Limited (MBNL) for a proposed 20 -M monopoly, which supports nine antenna openings and two 0.3 -M dishes on land next to 1 Perowne Way, Sandown.
The rejection follows the proposal after numerous objections, including the district councils Ian Ward and Paul Brading.
Opponents of the mast gave problems such as “health risks”, the development that made up a “eyesore”, transparency and public commitment, the environment, the amount of the mast and the proximity to neighboring home.
Cllr Brading said: “I can’t believe that someone thinks it is appropriate to bring a mast into such a ridiculous position and to be so low if there are much higher and more appropriate places in Sandown if necessary.
“This is an area with excellent natural beauty that will not improve a 20-meter monopoly, and the boxes below and of course in a nature reserve.
“A residential consultation would have been appropriate, but was never carried out.”
In a document that provides in the application of MBNL, “5G and future technology – the telecommunications futures in Great Britain, it says that the 5G telecommunications technology” undoubtedly bring new possibilities and enormous advantages “, but” new structures, antennas and side equipment “is required.
It is: “It is estimated that 5G will contribute to one year in the British economy of £ 7th in just six years after the introduction.
“In addition, 5G download speeds that go far beyond what can be achieved today, even through broadband with a fixed line.
“The Internet and mobile connectivity are based on the provision of new fiber optic networks.
“By using these fiber networks, each mobile base station can link again to the broader core network. However, the requirements in the future will be for omnipresent coverage and this will require the more complex, remote locations across the country.”
County Hall has not yet published a report in which the rejection was explained.
