UKH

Planning applications are coming thick and fast for 25 metre comms masts in remote hill country in Scotland. Some appear to have almost no public benefit and are proposed for Scotland's finest landscapes. Anyone for near to the Falls of Glomach (Highland Council planning reference – 23/04108/FUL)? Or how about Beinn Dronaig (Highland Council planning reference – 23/04209/FUL)?

As well as objecting to individual applications, a coalition of voluntary orgs is campaigning for a pause in applications so that the bigger picture regarding need and landscape is considered at national level. This coalition is urging people to write to their MPs see here-

https://www.mountaineering.scot/news/shared-rural-network-statement

If you would like to write (and the more of us who do, the more likely it is that something will happen) please consider the following-

-the scheme is UK wide so it is your MP and not your MSP- find them here- https://www.theyworkforyou.com/mps/

-while the Shared Rural Network is to be supported, the exercise is turning out to be a top down one with little consideration as to whether specific masts are necessary or what their impacts are for some of Scotland's finest landscapes.

-Ask your MP to write to the Minister to a) consider the concerns being raised and also to take these up with OFCOM and suggest that a pause be implement to address the concerns.

-Ask your MP to let you know what the Minister says (important- this makes it more likely your MP will contact the Minister).

-Even though what is happening makes the blood boil (it does mine)- we need to be polite!!

Thanks

George Allan (North East Mountain Trust SC008783)

Probably won't be popular for saying this but in my opinion the only people who should have a say are people who live in the area. 

What right do I living in Leeds have to demand the Scottish hills are kept in the dark ages. 

I guess I'd want to know on what basis you think there is no public benefit - and why then are they being put up, since that is a costly exercise for the phone company?

Pretty much nobody lives in the areas mentioned above such as Beinn Dronaig.

https://www.ukhillwalking.com/logbook/r/?i=1465

We're talking wild land, which should be preserved as such for the benefit of everyone. There's precious little left as it is.

We should instead concentrate on improving connectivity in actual villages - speaking as someone whose internet connection is literally in the dark ages. 

The huge proliferation of phone masts in remote parts of Scotland is not predicated on an established local need, but an arbitrary national target (95% coverage) set by central government in consultation not with communities but telecoms companies.

Please do object to the most onerous and damaging proposals, on behalf of those of us who do live here in the Highlands and on behalf of the nation which is impoverished by the continual erosion of its remaining wild land. We in the area are few and our voices are too often ignored by the powers that be (who generally seem to consider northern Scotland to be a receptacle for infrastructure and grandiose schemes with little reference to what people here actually want or need).

No one is suggesting abandoning the Shared Rural Network. Improved telecoms is essential. North Trust Mountain Trust has only objected to those which a) have high levels of landscape detriment in sensitive areas and/or don't seem to serve businesses or habitation.

Dan Bailey has summarised the situation well in his post on this thread.

A reported £500m is being paid by the Government with the rest coming from four operators who are under pressure to deliver within a tight time scale to get the public funds. Its a completely top down exercise being rushed through. No local consultation or publically available masterplan. Just a series of applications being thrown at planning authorities which, I suspect, are struggling to cope.

There are several proposed around Affric/Mullardoch area where we are, in addition to the recent ones installed. One or two will have some benefit to rural residents. At least one, by Athnamulloch/Strawberry Cottage will serve no permanent residents or businesses (there is another lower down the Glen that will cover Affric Lodge) and is located on the path up the Corbett. 

One slightly absurd aspect to these, is that because they are in places where it is infeasible to put in a grid connection, they are likely to be powered by a genny  (according to the relatively generic application documents). So not only are they likely to be of little benefit in many cases, they're going to burn a load of diesel in the process!

That and the £500 million govt money starts to explain these applications

The whole point of the SRN as an industry response to Ofcom's requirements is that the habitation and business model for mobile phone coverage is a faulty one because it is not when they are at home that people most need their mobile phones. 

Based on objections and refusals to recent applications, it looks like the law of unintended consequences may enforce its chilling grip on the lives of people like recreational hillgoers and estate workers when their plans go badly wrong. Those with £1200 satellite phones with a £60pm subscription and those with £300 satellite messaging devices with a £25pm subscription will get rescued alive in the first few hours and the bodies of those who bought a PAYG SIM in a £30 Nokia from Tesco will be found eventually. 

Actual examples of such outcomes from the areas referred to in these applications have occurred in recent times. 

I should have added that If writing to your MP, please add your address as they can only deal with matters from their own constituents.

Also many of these masts will likely be microwave relays for data from the isolated villages they state should be the priority, they need to link into the wider grid somewhere.  

In reality if the Highlands were natural again, a mosaic of mixed forest upto the 900m ish mark, then these masts would barely be noticed at all. The only reason they stand out so much is because we've stripped the land of vegetation higher than 30cm. 

It's not only masts - it is the access roads to the sites that have to be constructed as well.

I have a friend who was involved in the initial Mercury site rollout and they considered helicopter access was probably more cost effective than constructing access roads.

While you make a good point about safety, there is an alternative to satellite phones- locator beacons. They work via satellites and the cost (there are no subscription charges) is within the reach of almost everyone going to the hills (McMurdo Fastfind 220 available online for around £200). We should be publicising locator beacons much more.

It's worth noting that the Shared Rural Network will not provided 100% mobile coverage across remote and hill country- I suspect a couple of masts high on every hill would be needed for that!

You raise a valid point about safety, but people should not rely upon their mobile phones to get them out of trouble should things go wrong - even here in the crowded Lake District there are plenty of remote valleys where there is zero signal, and it would be impractical to provide coverage everywhere.

I also suspect that Mr Musk's Starlink network may well make all of these masts redundant within a decade or two in any case, leaving behind the ugly scars of the disused access roads for generations to come.

Judging by this thread you would think nobody ever survived a trip to the hills before phones were invented.

Every walk and climb involved dicing with death and stepping over piles of missing hill walkers on the way to the crag.

Or not.

That also means they need to hire helicopters to service, repair etc... plus a storm blows through and a mast requires urgent work to maintain connectivity, but the weather means they can't fly. 

But it's very hard for any rural guest house, farm, etc to survive in the modern world without connectivity. Not all masts will be linking to user, they are relays avoiding the need to dig in 100s of kilometres of cabling. 

Satellite data exists already, but it's slow and expensive compared to 4g, 5g, fibre etc... there so much junk drifting around up there, inevitably there will be a collision and the risk of suddenly losing gps and data Satellites isn't that remote. Some starlink Satellites were also fried by cmes from the sun. 

Don't disagree with the need for rural connectivity, and I'm not opposed to all masts on principle.

I just find the attitude that phones are essential to safely going outside a bit silly.

Agreed. I often do. However, the temptation to buy something more expensive that enables them to call home every 10 minutes is often too strong and the PLB option gets shelved.

But what about the same storm blowing through "downing" the mast, yet no vehicles can get up the (expensive eyesore of a) track due to the 6 feet of snow ?

One of the insane things about the planning application for the Ben Dronaig mast is that the total lack of human habitation nearby is seen as a benefit, meaning that there is a reduced negative impact of the development.

"Notably, there are no significantly inhabited areas, towns, or villages near to the site."

https://wam.highland.gov.uk/wam/files/DFEB8899BC842BEF7F2B6EC6A7EACD1E/pdf/... 

Clearly some remote masts do help build connectivity for remote communities by acting as relays. This is not the case for the Ben Dronaig mast - there are no sites of habitation in the local area, nor further up the glen. The given need is to remove a 'Total Not Spot', a mountain area with - intolerably - no 4G coverage. It's worth noting that safety is not the given reason for this; the mast is intended to improve the experience for visitors to the area who 'suffer from spotty mobile connectivity'.

For the sort of stalker, angler and hillwalker that seek out the wilder reaches of Monar and Attadale, the net effect on the outdoor experience of a mast served by a chugging diesel generator and with a flashing beacon on top (see MOD response) would be overwhelmingly negative. These remote masts which serve the homes of no local residents are clearly a cynical attempt to cash in on public money and must be opposed.

Indeed. How rash of me to go climbing without a satphone or mobile in the 1980's.

Indeed. The UKC majority often seem to be in favour, on balance, of continuously more development, infrastructure, bright (probably 'lightweight' ) clothing, beacons, other technocratic nonsense. Strange it seem to me.

When you look at what’s being developed for VLEO satellite provided mobile phone service, it seems clear to me that remote, ultra low population density areas will soon be able to be serviced from orbit.  Look to the future and we don’t need to smash paths up all these hills for masts.

We knew what we were getting into. Late off a big route on the BenN, late start, dropped ice axe, two of were still stumbling down the hill at 9 or 10pm. We had no mobile phone to ring the Clachaig and tell folks we were OK but one friend, already virtually legless drunk, got in his car to come and rescue us. Fortunately, the roads were empty and nobody died. Two years later, the same guy ran down from a high corrie about 6km to a phone box to report an accident. That was just how it was.

I did carry a personal electronic device though. It was a strobe light, so not quite the communications utility of modern devices.

I knew off by heart where the telephone boxes were throughout the Highlands where I could phone home and check in that I was safely down off the hill....that one in Shiel Bridge used to be ma doonfall, staggering back tae ma tent fae the Kintail Lodge hotel I would phone the wife and have absolutely no recollection of the conversation when I returned home. I used those same phone boxes for my "Mountain Call East/West"  daily forecasts. 

I suspect PAYG satellite comms at affordable pricing is some way off yet.

Think they’re bad, what about wind turbines?

Remember the one at Derry?  Very handy that one.

If they just painted the posts green and the blades yellow then they'd look wonderful.

I had a mishap on a hot day in summer 1983, hurtled 600ft down steep snow off Sron na Lairige and ended up with a hole in my side through which I could see some of my guts, quite interesting. Managed to get down to the Lairig path but that was far enough so my pal then scurried off and called for the yellow budgie from the Derry Lodge phone.

The ones on the other side of the hill from me have been painted green fading to white the higher up the post.  Apparently there's a plan to paint the blades black or purple to stop birds flying into them. Meanwhile somewhere in germany they're getting it right.. https://inhabitat.com/horst-glasker-transforms-drab-wind-turbines-into-insp...

oh wow, spectacular.

I wonder what it is about those colours that make them easier to spot by birds. Fully in favour of anything that reduces bird strikes, regardless of whether they are an eyesore to humans or not.

They're point-to-point backhaul comms for the likes of CityFibre, TrueSpeed, etc, providing 21st century broadband to remote parts of the Highlands.

Much as they're unsightly, I would imagine the majority of residents across NW Scotland would opt for digital equity with the south of the UK; namely usable internet and home audio-visual entertainment, over a few eyesores on the horizon. 

Point-to-point microwave comms are markedly cheaper and more reliable than digging up hundreds of km of roads across Scotland to lay fiber, which in turn would yield armies of nimbies similarly fighting planning applications, while satellite comms are prohibitively expensive. 

Obviously I imagine my comment will get down-voted on a climbing/walking forum, dominated by southerners from cities with ultra-fast broadband on tap, who don't have to endure long dark winters with mediocre internet.

I'm merely from a comms background, throwing in my penny's worth.

Give your comms background, can you advise on the precise value of the proposed masts at the Falls of Glomach and Beinn Dronaig, with particular reference to residential areas (or even remote homesteads and farms) which would benefit from point-to-point backhaul comms.  

(Written by a resident of a small country town on the southern edge of the Highlands with acceptable but far from ultra-fast broadband.)

The masts, antenna, radio frequency amplifiers, etc, are extremely costly and given how few people live in remote areas, it does strike me City Fibre are installing it as much on government directives for levelling up, than any meagre profit they can expect to make beyond the decades it will take to simply break even on the initial investment for infrastructure. Back in the nineties, it was only profitable to install fibre in towns/cities, hence they dug up all the pavements, whereas villages remained stuck with poor internet. I guess only now has demand for rural connectivity increased to a point to make it even close to profitable, though more likely subsidised by town/city customers.

Most existing rural internet relies solely on twisted pair copper phone lines, installed by BT during the latter part of the 19th and early 20th century. ADSL simply cannot exceed speeds of low tens of Mbps (depending how far you are from the exchange, quality of the wires, etc). Optical fibres connecting towns/cities and microwave links to villages/hamlets offer hundreds of Mbps, with the potential for fibre-to-the home Gbps, which China are decades ahead of us in rolling out.

I guess rural residents must decide whether they wish to remain with ADSL, or opt for vastly improved fibre and microwave links, at some visual cost to the landscape. The only issue is websites and streaming services are becoming ever more bandwidth intensive, making ADSL more painful with each passing year. The outcome is inevitable, it's just how long a minority of people fight it. 

The only other potentially viable option is Elon Musk's Starlink, but let's see how that pans out.

Fascinating, but not an answer to my question. Looking at a map of the areas where these masts are proposed, who precisely is going to benefit?

Bear in mind the fact that in order to achieve line-of-sight, these masts will need to be sited at some elevation on the hills, while the few people who live in these areas tend to live in the valley floors, obscured by hills. It is already the case that phone reception may be possible on the hilltops, while the neighbouring valley floors have no reception. 

This is fantastic news.

Instead of having to wait for my favourite Vloggers to process and upload their videos of hiking and camping I'll be able to watch the whole thing live!

Don't think I'll bother replacing my worn out boots.

You will know much more than I do about the technical issues but a couple of points:

-The Shared Rural Network is a partnership between four mobile operators (EE, Three VMO2 and Vodafone)- it is aimed at improving 4G coverage. https://srn.org.uk/about/. It is a UK wide programme heavily funded by the UK government.

-The Scottish Government's 4G In-fill programme, which, I think, is almost complete was aimed at improving connectivity in small communities across remoter areas. It was subject to a full government consultation, unlike the rollout of the SRN.

To say that SRN is heavily funded by government does not give the correct impression of how this came about. SRN is industry's way of avoiding Ofcom fining them eye-watering amounts of money for not providing worthwhile mobile coverage in rural areas. The government then adds what, from the outside, looks like match funding but I think it was arrived at in another way. The government desperately needs people in rural areas to have cheap reliable connectivity so that they can pay their taxes and so on. 

If we bolted some holds onto the masts it could turn some of the really tedious Scottish hills into a more fun day out?....

I stay in a rural area in the North -East

Mobile coverage is randomly erratic

Is it a problem? 

Not on a day to day level ...

But I suspect there's not many folk who'd be pissed off there's a nearby mast the day someone they care about is crying in pain as their body fluids leak out onto the ground...

4G isn't just about phone calls. In many places it's the only option to get above very low mbps or kbps speeds for internet connectivity, which has become pretty much essential for paying bills, contacting the council, taxing the car, banking or working from home.

That said, focusing on geographic area rather than population unable to get internet access / reliable telephony seems perverse.

 and that’s why it’s the role of decision makers to balance the range of needs and come to a sensible decision on the balance of interests, benefits, impacts and risks of a proposal.  The argument here is that the balance is skewed and that we’re building fairly intrusive infrastructure in remote areas for no real purpose.  The vanishingly small numbers of people who need emergency comms (and no guarantee with no line of sight that’ll even be the case) are a bit of a side issue and not a reason for such a large project with negative impacts on our limited areas of unbuilt on land.  Those who are that bothered could purchase a sat communicator or phone which will be more reliable connection wise anyway.
 

and I say that as a ‘stakeholder’ who may well in future have an interest in making a call because I’m injured on the hill.

That’s my experience on the north coast of Caithness, terrible phone signal in the village but good 4G in the flows and hills to the south.