Make over of Fir Park continues

[stv]

11 hours ago, Spiderpig said:

Excellent might get a decent mobile signal in the ground for a change.

Only if your vaccinated tho.

[The African]

Was involved in a very small way in the possibility of a smaller 5g tower here, on property owned by a local sports club. The mobile phone company were looking to lease rather than buy the land. Would have been a nice little earner for the club, but local opposition proved too big an obstacle to it going ahead.

[Busta Nut]

15 hours ago, Kat said:

I don't know if the club were planning to sell land or if its linked to the club itself, but I see plans have been submitted for a 45metre 5g tower which will be ensconced just behind the South Stand near the old Fir Park Primary School. From the plans it looks to be on the land of Fir Park. The height surpasses the stand by quite a large margin. 

treat me as if i'm 8 years old and point out where it's going on a map please.

[Kat]

1 hour ago, Busta Nut said:

treat me as if i'm 8 years old and point out where it's going on a map please.

[Kat]

[ropy]

I can’t even get a page up with the half time scores so if this helps bring it on.  I will line my Tammy with tin foil.

[StirlingDosser]

An absolute meltdown is taking place on a well fans Facebook page over this mast. It is quite incredible actually. There are some fans claiming the club are acting in a despicable way, that Burrows should be sacked and that it is going to Floor property values around Fir Park. All absolute pish.

I highly doubt this is going to make a blind bit of difference to anyone's property value. I'll need to watch out for any 5G masts next time I'm buying a house and ask for a 20 grand deduction. Given an absolute monstrosity of a stand will be right beside it, a 5G mast is hardly going to make an impact on the glorious vistas around your house in Motherwell.

If a phone company renting a few square meters of land off the club is an additional income source then let's get this thing built pronto.

 

Edit: do the club not own that row of houses on Fir Park Street that back onto the mast anyway?

[Spiderpig]

4 minutes ago, StirlingDosser said:

An absolute meltdown is taking place on a well fans Facebook page over this mast. It is quite incredible actually. There are some fans claiming the club are acting in a despicable way, that Burrows should be sacked and that it is going to Floor property values around Fir Park. All absolute pish.

I highly doubt this is going to make a blind bit of difference to anyone's property value. I'll need to watch out for any 5G masts next time I'm buying a house and ask for a 20 grand deduction. Given an absolute monstrosity of a stand will be right beside it, a 5G mast is hardly going to make an impact on the glorious vistas around your house in Motherwell.

If a phone company renting a few square meters of land off the club is an additional income source then let's get this thing built pronto.

 

Edit: do the club not own that row of houses on Fir Park Street that back onto the mast anyway?

Totally agree mate the 5G conspiracy theorists are in their element with stuff like this all over social media, ironically a technology made all the better over fast 5G networks so they don't mind using it, they are all fuckwits and should be ignored.

 

 

[Kat]

I had seen the info posted yesterday on a local community group who were trying to muster up objections. I don't know what it is with the town but everything seems to cause an uproar whether that was the Sainsburys down by Airbles Road, the Tim Hortons, the Ravenscraig dept and so on this will be no different. 

For what it's worth, I used to stay behind the ambulance depot down Shieldmuir way for many a year, they used to have a big mast, didn't do anything to our health or house value. 

[Jonesy]

On 9/2/2021 at 4:34 PM, Spiderpig said:

Excellent might get a decent mobile signal in the ground for a change.

 

9 hours ago, ropy said:

I can’t even get a page up with the half time scores so if this helps bring it on.  I will line my Tammy with tin foil.

It's been a good while since I posted in this hell scape but here goes. There's already 2 phone masts attached to the floodlights so if you've no phone signal in the stadium currently I doubt this will improve things much.

1 hour ago, StirlingDosser said:

An absolute meltdown is taking place on a well fans Facebook page over this mast. It is quite incredible actually. There are some fans claiming the club are acting in a despicable way, that Burrows should be sacked and that it is going to Floor property values around Fir Park. All absolute pish.

I highly doubt this is going to make a blind bit of difference to anyone's property value. I'll need to watch out for any 5G masts next time I'm buying a house and ask for a 20 grand deduction. Given an absolute monstrosity of a stand will be right beside it, a 5G mast is hardly going to make an impact on the glorious vistas around your house in Motherwell.

If a phone company renting a few square meters of land off the club is an additional income source then let's get this thing built pronto.

 

Edit: do the club not own that row of houses on Fir Park Street that back onto the mast anyway?

No the club don't own that row of houses. 

 

I don't see how the property prices won't be affected. Those houses already have a tougher time selling than others because of the South Stand but I'm not sure that's an argument for making that even more difficult by sticking a 45 metre high tower right at the bottom of the gardens.

I'm not sure people understand the scale of this thing, it's 50% taller than the stand so it'll tower above that never mind everything else round about it. The South Stand is 30metres high this mast will be 45metres.

There's a notice on the governments own site warning against having them places in residential areas or near schools (it's right over the fence from Fir Park School) as a precaution against any unknown negative health impacts. I'm far from an anti 5g head case but there must be a far more sensible place to put it where it'll not take over the place and can be hidden from sight a bit easier.

 

Motherwell aren't receiving a penny from this apparently. John Boyle signed a one-off deal back in the day allowing the mobile company access the site for 50 years.

[Spiderpig]

20 minutes ago, Jonesy said:

 

Motherwell aren't receiving a penny from this apparently. John Boyle signed a one-off deal back in the day allowing the mobile company access the site for 50 years.

So John Boyle allegedly signed a deal probably over 10 years ago as he stepped down as chairman in 2011 to do a deal with a mobile company for a 5G phone mast to support a technology that would not be possible for at least another 5 or 6 years. I wonder if there was a Delorean parked  outside with Marty Mcfly and Doc Brown negotiating for the mobile company.

[Electric Blues]

11 minutes ago, Spiderpig said:

So John Boyle allegedly signed a deal probably over 10 years ago as he stepped down as chairman in 2011 to do a deal with a mobile company for a 5G phone mast to support a technology that would not be possible for at least another 5 or 6 years. I wonder if there was a Delorean parked  outside with Marty Mcfly and Doc Brown negotiating for the mobile company.

[Jonesy]

9 minutes ago, Spiderpig said:

So John Boyle allegedly signed a deal probably over 10 years ago as he stepped down as chairman in 2011 to do a deal with a mobile company for a 5G phone mast to support a technology that would not be possible for at least another 5 or 6 years. I wonder if there was a Delorean parked  outside with Marty Mcfly and Doc Brown negotiating for the mobile company.

That's not what it says at all now is it?

I'm sure the deal he signed was more to do with access to the masts being attached to the floodlights at the time years ago and any upgrades and maintenance they would need over time but this new mast is obviously the mobile company trying to push this on to the next level.

FWIW not all residents were made aware of these plans. Only a select few were notified ahead of time with most of them only finding out over the last few days when the notice was posted in the Motherwell Times.

[weeyin]

1 hour ago, Jonesy said:

FWIW not all residents were made aware of these plans. Only a select few were notified ahead of time with most of them only finding out over the last few days when the notice was posted in the Motherwell Times.

 

"Well you found the notice didn’t you?"

"Yes. It was on display in the bottom of a locked filing cabinet, stuck in a disused lavatory with a sign on the door saying 'Beware of the Leopard'".

 

[Kmcalpin]

Agree that the club doesn't own the houses on Fir Park Street. The phone company behind the application will know the technicalities behind their signal coverage and I'm sure they wouldn't go to the hassle and expense of promoting this application if it wasn't required. It may or may not affect property prices in the immediate area but that is not a planning consideration and cannot and will not be taken into account in determining the application. I'm not sure of the scale of the proposed structure but I'd guess that its a few metres higher than the  existing floodlight pylons.  The only other locations in which you could sensitively site the structure would be amongst high rise blocks and that would almost defeat the purpose of the allicationand certainly affect signal strength and coverage you'd think. Such structures have to be higher than surrounding buildings. Its a classic planning scenario of local inconvenience versus wider area gain. I doubt very much if local residents would give much thought to the negative environmental effects elsewhere  of the generation of power that they use in Fir Park Street or the quarrying of aggregates that have gone into building or extending their homes and again why would they? Residents of the wider area who would gain from 5G coverage provided by this structure won't be overly concerned about this application and again why would they?

Its up to the Council's Planning Committee to weigh up and balance the benefits and disbenefits of this application, taking into account objections and letters of support, recommnendatios from professional planners and Scottish Government planning guidelines. Anyone can object but also support the application.  

I have no idea about the John Boyle ownership issue that you raise. Incidentally what is the reference to the Scottish Government's website?

[StirlingDosser]

4 hours ago, Kmcalpin said:

Agree that the club doesn't own the houses on Fir Park Street. 

They definitely own at least the one which is where the 'missing' main stand section should be, as it was purchased some time ago. 

[Kat]

40 minutes ago, StirlingDosser said:

They definitely own at least the one which is where the 'missing' main stand section should be, as it was purchased some time ago. 

The house closest to the Main Stand was actually sold earlier this year, I always assumed that this was the one that they had owned and used for offices previously. 

[Jonesy]

5 hours ago, Kat said:

The house closest to the Main Stand was actually sold earlier this year, I always assumed that this was the one that they had owned and used for offices previously. 

They have owned both houses closest to the stand at various times though never both houses at the same time. Most recently they owned the 2nd closest house but that was sold to one of the directors when we went into administration.

[Jonesy]

20 hours ago, Kmcalpin said:

Agree that the club doesn't own the houses on Fir Park Street. The phone company behind the application will know the technicalities behind their signal coverage and I'm sure they wouldn't go to the hassle and expense of promoting this application if it wasn't required. It may or may not affect property prices in the immediate area but that is not a planning consideration and cannot and will not be taken into account in determining the application. I'm not sure of the scale of the proposed structure but I'd guess that its a few metres higher than the  existing floodlight pylons.  The only other locations in which you could sensitively site the structure would be amongst high rise blocks and that would almost defeat the purpose of the allicationand certainly affect signal strength and coverage you'd think. Such structures have to be higher than surrounding buildings. Its a classic planning scenario of local inconvenience versus wider area gain. I doubt very much if local residents would give much thought to the negative environmental effects elsewhere  of the generation of power that they use in Fir Park Street or the quarrying of aggregates that have gone into building or extending their homes and again why would they? Residents of the wider area who would gain from 5G coverage provided by this structure won't be overly concerned about this application and again why would they?

Its up to the Council's Planning Committee to weigh up and balance the benefits and disbenefits of this application, taking into account objections and letters of support, recommnendatios from professional planners and Scottish Government planning guidelines. Anyone can object but also support the application.  

I have no idea about the John Boyle ownership issue that you raise. Incidentally what is the reference to the Scottish Government's website?

It's taller than the floodlights by 10metres, that's almost by an extra 1/3 - and they are at least part of an existing building/structure. This mast will sit behind the Stand completely on its own and it basically the height the South Stand would be if it had a 3rd tier on it, it's fucking huge. It'll likely need an aircraft warning light installed on top of it.

Clearly wherever they put it it's going to be visible but there must be a corner of somewhere like Eurocentral or Ravenscraig where it is far enough away from any housing  and some sort of attempt could be made to hide it in amongst some trees or something so as not to become a nuisance to the residents and be such an obvious eyesore.

[Kmcalpin]

3 hours ago, Jonesy said:

It's taller than the floodlights by 10metres, that's almost by an extra 1/3 - and they are at least part of an existing building/structure. This mast will sit behind the Stand completely on its own and it basically the height the South Stand would be if it had a 3rd tier on it, it's fucking huge. It'll likely need an aircraft warning light installed on top of it.

Clearly wherever they put it it's going to be visible but there must be a corner of somewhere like Eurocentral or Ravenscraig where it is far enough away from any housing  and some sort of attempt could be made to hide it in amongst some trees or something so as not to become a nuisance to the residents and be such an obvious eyesore.

The starting point for any planning application is that there is a presumption in favour of approval and so its up to the Planning Authority to justify reasons for refusal if it is is rejected.  You're right about alternative locations.  I'd imagine, at  some point in the process, the applicants will need to demonstrate that they've considered alternative locations, which were discounted for whatever reason.  What we don't know yet is their technical/spatial justification for wanting to site the structure inside Fir Park. I have very little knowledge of these matters and it may be that other locations don't provide the same extent of geographical coverage that the company and its customers require. At the end of the day someone somewhere will be disadvantaged by its location.

Finally, the Scottish Government is strongly promoting the extension of 5G coverage (rightly so) and many customers are already clamouring for it.  Its an issue that won't go away. 

[numpty]

3 hours ago, Jonesy said:

Clearly wherever they put it it's going to be visible but there must be a corner of somewhere like Eurocentral or Ravenscraig where it is far enough away from any housing  and some sort of attempt could be made to hide it in amongst some trees or something so as not to become a nuisance to the residents and be such an obvious eyesore.

Trouble with 5g is the range is much shorter, so you need to put the masts closer together. If people want the same coverage they had with 4g, there will need to be more masts, and they will need to go where they need to go.

[Spiderpig]

2 hours ago, numpty said:

Trouble with 5g is the range is much shorter, so you need to put the masts closer together. If people want the same coverage they had with 4g, there will need to be more masts, and they will need to go where they need to go.

Spot on the max range of a 5G antenna is only about 1,000 feet I was involved in a project with BT a few years back just after they bought EE and they reckoned then that to provide adequate 5G coverage, lots of antennas would be required, they also began developing mini antennas to attach to buildings and lampposts etc where there is no space for larger structures.

So people will need to get used to more masts etc if they want the benefits 5G brings, the council planners know this as well, so I would be surprised if any proposed structures are refused planning permission. 

[steelboy]

5 hours ago, numpty said:

Trouble with 5g is the range is much shorter, so you need to put the masts closer together. If people want the same coverage they had with 4g, there will need to be more masts, and they will need to go where they need to go.

Who exactly wants it?

[weeyin]

21 minutes ago, steelboy said:

Who exactly wants it?

People younger than me (and you) that consume all their UHD streaming content (from Netflix to Twitch to TikTok) on their phones.

[Motherwell Daft]

For me let’s just stick to 4G, that mast will be a fecking eyesore