Installation of 22.5m monopole supporting 9 antennas, two 300mm transmission dishes, 2 equipment cabinets and associated ancillary equipment including 15 Remote Radio Units (RRUs) and 1.8m high fence.

Huddersfield Civic Society is objecting to this planning application at Lindley Bowling Club, Daisy Lea Lane, Huddersfield, Lindley, HD3 3LP. The photo shows the car park where the installation is due to be sited.

Planning application number is 2026/N/92702/W (click on link to see the full planning application).

The public consultation has started and ends on October 30, 2026, with a decision expected around November 18.

This is the full Huddersfield Civic Society response to the application.

A keen eye can spot several monopoles, responsible for the current, generally very good, 4G mobile service in the area between the centre of Huddersfield and the section of M62 between J23 (Outlane) and J24 (Ainley Top). They all look to be between about 8m and 15m in height, the smaller ones typically being ‘disguised’ as flue pipes on the side of a building and the larger ones often ‘disguised’ as additional lamp-posts along the side of a main road. None look to have a substantive structure supporting multiple antennae at the top.

This application is to replace a barely visible short ‘pipe’ structure (possibly 8m to 10m high?), attached to nearby Lindley Liberal Club, with a small building in a nearby car park supporting a 22.5 metre mast, the top of which has two transmission dishes and a frame supporting 9 antennae.

Huddersfield Civic Society supports the principle of masts providing 5G and improved 4G coverage and notes that government guidance (https://www.gov.uk/government/news/new-laws-to-end-mobile-coverage-no-bar-blues) suggests good 5G coverage may require a mast up to 5m higher than a 4G mast it replaces.

Huddersfield Civic Society objects to both the size and the location of this particular proposed monopole for the following reasons:

* The height of the replacement monopole looks to be much higher than the ‘up to 5 metres’ additional height suggested as necessary for good 5G coverage in just the area covered by a 4G monopole to be replaced.

* For a much taller ‘replacement’ monopole there is no explanation as to why only a restricted elliptical area leading away from Lindley Liberal Club was considered.

* There is no assessment of any options of possible sites in nearby industrial, existing tall building or car park locations, which happen to be close but outside the chosen search area.

* There is no assessment of alternative possible solutions consisting of several shorter monopoles in different locations, such as at or near existing local monopole sites.

* The chosen location is unsatisfactory because it is very close to 26 Daisy Lea Lane and also to several other residential properties. Various statements by the applicant about the monopole not being prominent or not in direct view of windows in nearby houses are simply incorrect, as comments submitted by several other respondents confirm.

* A 22.5m monopole in this location is detrimental to the ‘setting’ of the nearby part of the Edgerton Conservation area which the applicant’s own map shows starts 20m to the south and (which the applicant omits to mention) also starts approximately 30 metres to the east.

* A 22.5m monopole in this location is detrimental to the ‘setting’ of nearby listed properties, including Briarcourt and Lindley Clock Tower, and of green spaces such as Daisy Lea Lane recreation ground and nearby allotments, the latter reaching up to the existing hedge only 1metre from the proposed new base structure to support the proposed monopole.

* Being higher than most of the nearby trees, the proposed monopole would be the most prominent nearby structure in the view from the top of (listed) Lindley Clock Tower at all times of year and also from a wide surrounding area, especially at times of year when there are no leaves on nearby deciduous trees.

* A visit to the site shows that the applicant’s assessment of the number of car parking places is incorrect. The loss of car parking here would add to parking congestion on Daisy Lea Lane.

In summary, this site in a residential area and with multiple negative impacts is unsuitable for the proposed structure. Other potential nearby locations and/or monopole size/area configuration options ought be suitable for providing local 5G services throughout the local area without such negative effects.

To approve this application could set a worrying precedent for future requests for tall buildings or structures reaching above the tree line in residential areas, let alone in a location with multiple negative factors.