Council rejects ‘ominous’ 60ft 5G tower in conservation area

Croydon Council has refused permission to build a 60-foot tall 5G mast on Fitzroy Gardens in Upper Norwood’s Church Road conservation area, following objections that included that the tower would be a dangerous distraction to car drivers and pedestrians.

Poles apart: Hutchison’s application for a mast like this on Church Road was made without a site visit

The application was made without the engineers for Hutchisons, one of the world’s biggest and most profitable mobile phone operating companies, even bothering to conduct a site visit.

The council’s decision was published just before Christmas, and was reached following objections from Transport for London and the Norwood Society.

The application, on behalf of CK Hutchison Networks, the multi-billion international commercial operators of the 3 mobile phone network, wanted to plonk the massive pole and associated cabinets on the corner of Church Road and Fitzroy Gardens, adjacent to 124 Church Street and opposite the locally listed Queen’s Hotel.

Objectors noted that the tower would “overshadow ominously” the two oldest and unique listed buildings in the conservation area, hunting lodges built in the Great North Wood in 1832 and 1833.

The council planning official’s report states, “The proposed monopole, cabinets and ancillary equipment would cause significant harm to the setting, visual appearance, street scene and character of the Church Road Conservation Area by virtue of their size, design and siting.”

Excessive: 3 will need to find another site for their 5G mast

The report highlighted the scheme’s “excessive street clutter”, which it stated would hinder pedestrian movement and limit useable space on the pavement.

The council planners appeared to accept TfL’s objections, too, as they noted that the mast would “adversely impact upon the safe operation of the highway”.

Significantly, the planning official noted, “The applicant has failed to demonstrate that there are no existing buildings, masts or other structures on which the proposed apparatus can be sited.”

The Norwood Society’s objections claimed that the applicant had submitted their request based solely on a desktop study, without a site visit, and that no where in the application “has any reference been made to the proposed site being within a conservation area or close to listed buildings”.

The Society’s objection states: “The applicants have therefore failed in their assessments of locating a suitable site for a 5G mast in the vicinity of Church Road having missed these facts.”

TfL was concerned with maintaining the Strategic Road Network, or SRN, of which the A212 Church Road forms part. “TfL has a duty under the Traffic Management Act 2004 to ensure that any development does not have an adverse impact on the SRN.”

They said, “TfL has concerns that the equipment will reduce the width of the footway.

‘Ominously overshadowing’: one of the documents submitted with the Hutchison mast planning application, which made no mention of the Church Road conservation area

“The monopole will form an incongruous feature in this location, noting the current height of buildings and trees in this location.

“TfL therefore has concerns that the introduction of an 18-metre high monopole in this location will distract all drivers within this area. As such, the equipment will impose risks to pedestrians and other vulnerable road users, which is contrary to the Mayor’s Vision Zero approach, which seeks to eliminate all fatalities and injuries on London’s transport network.”

Become a Patron!

About insidecroydon

News, views and analysis about the people of Croydon, their lives and political times in the diverse and most-populated borough in London. Based in Croydon and edited by Steven Downes. To contact us, please email
This entry was posted in Business, Community associations, Crystal Palace and Upper Norwood, Norwood Society, Planning, TfL and tagged , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

2 Responses to Council rejects ‘ominous’ 60ft 5G tower in conservation area

  1. Ian Kierans says:

    The mast should probably not be there but the rationale given by both TfL and the Council are smelly at best.

    I have no doubt that the reasons are regulatory valid, but strangely I have never been distracted by a mobile mast. I have found some horrendous structures that actually are distracting and are ”perfectly legal developments”.

    Strange also that those self same reasons for objecting to other developments made by residents are ignored.

    The amazing gymnastics of Croydon planners astound – no wonder ombudsman and regulators have a field day with Croydon

    • The Norwood Society’s objections to the scheme were – as they always are – thoroughly balanced, and exposed the opportunistic nature of the application, which was made with no reference to the conservation area and without a single site visit.

      What is it – 200 yards up the road? – there’s a towering television broadcasting tower, one of the two in Crystal Palace. If the phone network operators are incapable of finding a way of utilising that tall structure, which was built for the very same purpose, then they should not be wasting any more public time and money.

Leave a Reply