Unacceptable telecommunications masts (7) – the impact on wild land in Scotland

February 12, 2024 David Craig 12 comments
Nominal sites in the initial radio plan approved by Ofcom in 2021.

It took five FOI requests, but this week I finally managed to get Grid References for the masts the UK Government plans to build for the Shared Rural Network srn.org.uk.  These are plotted above on the Wild Land areas designated by NatureScot nature.scot/doc/wild-land

Wild Land is of course uninhabited, with no public roads or premises. This makes it hard to see how these publicly-funded masts “will improve the lives of millions of people in rural parts of Scotland, giving them the connections they need to work, access services and keep in touch – both at home and on the go”

Never in the history of phone masts have so many served so few – at such cost.  The financial cost is around £1M per mast. But the real cost is the insult to the wildness of these areas; this comes not just from the masts but also generators, tracks, and refuelling vehicles.

Wild Land is generally protected from development by Scotland’s National Planning Framework (NPF4), adopted by the Scottish Parliament. One might expect a bit of give and take on the margins, but the SRN is a nationwide head-on challenge to this philosophy. All Wild Land is threatened, because it is wild.

While telecommunications masts are classed as permitted developments, which don’t require full planning permission in Wild Land Areas – a loophole in planning law – the access roads necessary to maintain them are classed as full developments so the legal protection offered by NPF4 still applies.

The SRN was doubtless well-intentioned; but it has led itself astray by expressing its mission as the elimination of NotSpots. In Scotland, most 4G NotSpots are in Wild Land.

Wild Land does not ‘suffer’ from NotSpots, any more than it suffers from a lack of roads. This is a feature of Wild Land, which Scotland recognises, values, and has a responsibility to preserve. Ofcom has a duty to improve connectivity to the disadvantaged rural communities around (but not in) these wild areas. Most such areas are current “partial not spots” places where there is some coverage. This is where public money is needed, and where benefits will outweigh the costs, however you measure cost.

I hope the map I have drawn helps everyone to understand what is at stake, and inform their views.

As Burns said ‘Facts are chiels that winna ding’. Sadly, I fear there are some who would prefer to suppress this information. Proponents of SRN should be proud of their plan, but not so proud that they do not want to listen.

The SRN plan dates from 2021, but has never been published. As I have mentioned, it took five FOI requests to obtain it. Ofcom declined first because it ‘would adversely affect national security’ (see here) [Ed, just like the funicular (see here)!] and later said the information would be ‘potentially misleading to the public at large’ (see here).

The SRN is now claiming:

“The list of proposed locations shared by Nature Scot is out of date and does not reflect the current SRN plan. Almost all proposed locations listed have either been removed from the plan or moved location. As sites enter the planning process they will be available on the relevant LPA’s planning portal.”

Indeed so; the actual sites, as they dribble out in planning applications, are often moved by a few km and the number of sites now proposed appears to be 274 compared the 320 nominal ones. But the sites now proposed remain in Wild Land, and have to remain there because of the contractual requirement in the SRN programme to reduce the area of NotSpots.  Looking at the sites one-by-one as applications are lodged means you the public, planning departments and politicians cannot see the overall picture.

 

12 Comments on “Unacceptable telecommunications masts (7) – the impact on wild land in Scotland

  1. How much is the yearly subsidy/ compensation paid to landowners allowing these masts to be erected, along with all the associated infrastructure?

    1. Interesting. I asked because I know a farmer with a mobile mast in one of his fields. We were talking about it one day and he was moaning that the rent was being reduced to £1500p.a from the £10k he had been getting. This man is no fool. He invested in and built a green recycling plant. He gets paid to take the green stuff off contractors, cooks it and then puts it back into his land. It’s the first time I have ever seen a ploughed field that you could dig with your bare hands! His wheat and barley go to the distilleries, so must be of good quality.

    2. The link is worded ” for as little as £45/year” so this doesn’t cover the full range of remuneration available.

    1. That is the case being made. Unfortunately, the distant people who are adept at claiming this do not appear to realise that no one is there, no one lives there. They should ask mountain rescue teams. They will discover they use other ways to communicate..always have. As for people who head to these “not spots” expecting to be rescued when they get into trouble, a far cheaper way of dealing with this, and at the same time preserving what little remains of Scotland’s suviving wild land for future generations to experience, would be proper training courses. After all, a thorough training in self-reliance is why many of us have survived this long.? A mobile phone connection has no need to be considered part of essential mountaineering equipment.

    2. It would make me less likely to want to visit the area. Where’s the fun if you can’t die?
      It’s actually a serious point. Adventure sports – climbing, sailing, kayaking etc – carry very real risks. The challenge is to learn about the environment you’re in, learn the skills & equipment you need to cope with it, and then have the discipline to always make the right decisions no matter how tired or exhausted you are. Get that right, and you can manage the risks down to a safe level – or at least as safe a level as you are willing to accept.
      Facing real challenges leaves you a different person at the end. You learn so much about the land you are exploring or the sea which throws your little boat around. You develop new skills like navigation. You learn to make careful judgements about your own capabilities and the threats posed by adverse conditions. You cannot bring your old world with you. You must learn about the beauty of the natural world on its own terms and, perhaps, some humility.
      There’s something primal about this direct relationship with the natural world, holding your fate in your own hands – no doubt an echo of our past career as hunter-gatherers. Latent skills which we are all primed to learn for our own survival.
      In a sense, danger is the whole point. Taming the wilderness, trying to make it “safe” removes the challenge and degrades the whole experience. We’d be pushing it away instead of embracing it and learning from it, experiencing all it has to give.
      What would the world be, once bereft
      Of wet and of wildness? Let them be left,
      O let them be left, wildness and wet;
      Long live the weeds and the wilderness yet.
      Gerard Manley Hopkins

      1. This point of view is broadly supported by Mountaineering Scotland and to some extent by the JMT who argue that part of the wildness is its inaccessibility – by any means.

    3. At first glance, yes. But should we consult those for whom we’re taking decisions? I accept that consulting casual hillwalkers is difficult, but maybe Mountaineering Scotland could speak for them? Getting a mountain rescue opnion would be easier.

  2. Hi David – thanks for another really interesting post, it’s opening my eyes to the issue. I’m a freelance planner who works with communities to produce Local Place Plans in the Highlands, including in some of the wild land areas on the map you’ve produced. I’m keen to raise the issue of phone masts with communities as part of discussions about Local Place Plans, so that they can use their LPPs to raise the issue if they wish (rather than miss the opportunity through lack of awareness). I’d be very interested to get access to the map that you’ve produced, as it could be very powerful. If that’s a possibility, could you email me so we can discuss? Thanks.

  3. Repeating what I’ve posted elsewhere on this site:
    The lastest update on the John Muir Trust website shows applications have been submitted for a mast next to Blackwater Dam (Highland Council, 23/05603/FUL) and one above the Water of Nevis (23/05699/FUL), south of Stob Coire an Laoigh, a stone’s throw from the long-distance path through from Steall to Luibelt bothy. There are other new applications I’ve not had time to look at, This is madness. Did Highland Council ever write that letter, does anybody have an update?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *