Plans to site a 5G Phone mast on top of a retirement complex in Godalming have been scuppered after councillors voiced concerns about its impact on the residents and surrounding area.

The application, by phone provider EE, had attracted dozens of complaints from residents of Caesars Place in Ockford Road.

A decision on the scheme, which would have seen the five-metre mast, four satellite dishes and four equipment cabins placed on the roof of the building, had been in abeyance since it first came before planners in February.

Godalming Central and Ockford councillor Paul Follows had led objections to the scheme, and in February had asked for a decision to be deferred so councillors could visit the site for themselves.

Once the Coronavirus pandemic struck, the site visit was pushed back to last week. And tonight (Wednesday), councillors rejected the plans by nine votes to six.

Cllr Follows told Nub News after the meeting: "The applicant needed to demonstrate that the general community benefit was greater than the specific harm to the residents that would be impacted.

"In my view the applicant did not demonstrate that benefit, while the harm was clear.

"Certainly I would welcome a discussion with operators about a proper 5G and telecoms strategy for Godalming as I do believe there would be benefits, they were just not articulated here."

Waverley planning officers had recommended approval of the scheme, saying that while the mast would inflict 'harm' on the Conservation Area of Mill Lane, from which it would be visible, the benefits of providing a 5G network to the residents of the town would outweigh that harm.

But councillors voiced concerns that the single mast had not been presented as part of a strategy to bring 5G coverage to Godalming, and therefore the benefits had not been outlined sufficiently to outweigh the harm on the Conservation Area.

Liz Townsend told fellow councillors: "I have done a lot of reading around 5G and I understand that it works on a close network of a lot of 5G towers. What I can't understand is where the rest of the network is. This needs to be part of a broader network connectivity plan.

"There is no getting away from it, it is intrusive on the landscape there."

"Where are the other masts? Is this one needed to be so tall and high because there are very few other masts around? Have we got any idea of a bigger plan for this?"

Planning officer Beth Howland-Smith said she didn't know of any other applications in the borough.

Planning officer Tracy Farthing, in response to questioning from committee chairman Richard Coles, said that the applicant had looked at other sites and decided on Caesars Place as the best spot to erect the mast.

Steve Cosser told the committee that he had had to deal with "a number of prior notice applications" for telecoms masts in his Godalming Charterhouse ward over the past year.

"Having looked round the site it did seem to me that apart from the people living in the development - and we need to take account of their views - there is not going to be very significant difficulty for visual amenity from this particular mast," he said.

Joan Heagin said she could not see the benefit of having one mast in the town.

"I can't get my head around how improving this one mast in isolation can deliver the benefits of 5G if other masts are not going ahead," she said.

"If we are not sure that this mast in isolation is going to deliver any significant benefits, surely one of the reasons for approval is removed."

John Gray voiced concerns about telecoms staff gaining access to the building, which had been marketed as a secure community when it was constructed. He said maintenance crews would need to walk up through the floors to gain access to the roof.

"There is no independent access to this building," he said. "They will need to maintain the mast 24/7: but the building is not manned at some times of the week. It is locked and secure at night. I can't see how it's going to be maintained at night."

And George Wilson hit out at the building's developers.

"I find it reprehensible that McCarthy and Stone, the owners of the building, are looking to put the interests of the residents second to the financial considerations of a telecoms company," he said.

He added: "The original advertising for a two-bed flat for half a million pounds said: 'These retirement living developments are professionally designed to provide the very best in independent living within a safe and secure environment, with the opportunity to benefit from companionship when required'.

"This is false advertising if any Tom, Dick or Harry can come in." Michael Goodridge pointed out: "If it is necessary for a 5G network to have lots of sites you have got to start somewhere. If they can find other sites and can get permission I suspect they won't put [a mast] up. When they have got sufficient sites close to each other, then they will develop." Councillors voted by nine votes to four to reject the plan: the reasons for rejection were outlined in a motion put forward by Cllr Follows and seconded by Cllr Townsend. The reasons given were: 1. The benefits of providing 5G mobile coverage to the public would not outweigh the adverse impacts in relation to the limited less than substantial harm to the Conservation Area.

1. Impact on residential amenity by virtue of its oppressive form.

The motion was passed by 10 votes.