Plans submitted to Wakefield Council for 60ft 5G mast in Normanton

This application refer to land at Beckbridge Court.

Previously applications submitted for other part of the district have been met with significant opposite though government experts insist there is no risk to human health.

In November last year a mast was approved for Silcoates Lane in Wrenthorpe despite objections.

The mast – and others like it around the country – are seen by the government and mobile infrastructure companies as essential to modernisating the UK’s mobile phone networks.

Just some of the complaints submitted were about health concerns – others included the potential ‘eyesore’ appearance of the mast.

In a letter to local authority chief executives, included with the latest planning application, the government said: “We know that some constituents have expressed concerns about the potential harmful effects on human health of 5G.

"Public Health England (PHE), the Government’s independent advisers on matters of public health, is clear that there is no credible evidence of a negative impact of mobile technology, including 5G on people’s health.”

Mobile UK, the trade association for the UK’s mobile network operators - EE, Virgin Media O2, Three and Vodafone, submitted a document with the planning application that defended the safety of 5G.

It said: “Research into the safety of radio waves has been conducted for more than 80 years, across the UK and around the world.

"The strong consensus of scientific opinion and public health agencies, such as the World Health Organisation (WHO), is that no dangers to health have been established from exposure to the low level radio signals used for mobile communications, including 5G, when used within guidelines."

In 2021 plans for a mast on Dewsbury Road in Lupset were turned down after a protest by residents.

But later that year government officials, who looked at the case after the developers appealed, disagreed with that assessment and overturned the decision.

In their findings, the Planning Inspectorate described the mast as "essential" and said the need for "an electronic communications system should not be questioned".

In their report, the Planning Inspectorate said the mast will "not unacceptably harm the character and appearance" of the area.