Edinburgh locals are mustering support to object to an application for Prior Approval lodged with the council earlier this week by agents of telecoms company Vodafone to erect a 20 metre high mast on Balgreen Road at the junction with Glendevon Park.
Tall grey ground-based telephone masts have become a more usual sight in Edinburgh with the advent of 4G and now 5G services. The Scottish Government issued its 5G Strategy for Scotland aiming to ensure that everyone can benefit from connectivity – which they say is good for the economy and people benefit socially. It was always anticipated that there would be an increase in the development of this street furniture in Scotland, but it is not always welcomed by people living here who would then have to look at the masts from their homes.
Balgreen
In Balgreen the triangular area at this junction has been dug up twice this year – the first time the firm of contractors excavated and removed the memorial rose garden on the street and replaced it with a tarmac covered path, grass and trees.
The second time involved the excavation of a T-shaped area of the newly laid footpath. It took place without any permission from the Scottish Roadworks Commissioner, according to their records, but telecoms company Cornerstone have confirmed that this was a “trial hole dig to assess the location for suitability for a mobile phone base station”. The company has also confirmed that they submitted a notice to The City of Edinburgh Council before the works commenced.
Cornerstone represents Vodafone, which has confirmed its plans to put up a 20 metre high mast in the space, saying they want to improve both 4G and 5G services in the area by installing a base station on the island. The triangular island lies alongside a main road, but is in full view of many surrounding houses in a mainly residential area.
Voluntary Site Notice – and Cornerstone’s plans
Last month a Voluntary Site Notice was attached to a lamppost nearby. on behalf of Cornerstone and VodafoneThree, notifying the proposed “mobile telecommunications development prior to the submission of a planning application”. The notice sets out that the company proposes to erect a “20 metre high street pole with six antennas and a transmission dish” on it. It also states that there would be three equipment cabinets and “ancillary development”. A drawing of a similar style “street pole” can be viewed below and the approved planning application here.
A Cornerstone spokesperson said that following publication of the Voluntary Site Notice in July, seven people have contacted them. The spokesperson said: “Cornerstone always aims to work closely with local communities and planning authorities.
“Our aim is to minimise local impact while addressing practical technical constraints to enable quality digital connectivity to the communities we serve. As part of our assessment of possible mobile phone base station locations in the local area seventeen alternative options were considered before progressing with the current option in Balgreen Road.
“An application for Prior Approval for a mobile phone base station at Balgreen Road was submitted to Edinburgh City Council on 18 of August 2026 and is currently awaiting validation.”
Jenners Depository
As to alternative locations, Cornerstone has confirmed that they investigated the possibility of using the roof at Jenners Depository near the tram and train lines, but have discounted this proposal. They considered putting up a pole on the roof of the Category B listed building, but believe it “would have the potential to adversely affect its architectural character and special historic interest. Pole mounted telecommunications equipment on this rooftop would extend above the existing rooflines with the potential to detract from the character, appearance and significance of the listed building. In comparison, the proposed development avoids any direct impact on designated heritage assets whilst meeting the operational requirements of the network.”
As well as any visual intrusion, Cornerstone say that the Jenners building is on the southernmost boundary of their search area – where they already have a site.
A spokesperson explained: “Installing equipment on this rooftop would result in an overlap of 5G coverage provided by an adjacent site to the South, while reducing the level of 5G coverage provided to the north end of the target area. The proposed application site’s position further north in the search area provides a far superior coverage solution to meet the demand for high quality 5G coverage across the target area. As such, this rooftop was discounted.”
The company confirmed they have developed other similar developments including two sites which were approved last year – at 632 Queensferry Road and at 408 Gilmerton Road showing a grey street pole with the antenna at the top.
When an application is made to the council there is a consultation period during which people living near the proposed site are able to comment. When the application for Balgreen Road has been validated the time for comments will be made known on the council website.
The Balgreen drawings are published below and show a structure which is about twice the height of nearby lamp posts:
Local campaign
Neil McLean lives close to the triangular-shaped open area on Balgreen Road, and has been working on highlighting the matter. He wrote to his local councillor, Alan Beal, on 26 February 2026 advising that, in his view, the local community would not in any way agree to a mast being put up in the space.
Meantime a local campaign against the mast has been gathering steam under Mr McLean’s direction. He has had leaflets printed and has delivered them door to door in the local area.
Mr McLean said to The Edinburgh Reporter: “I think there are other sites in the area which would be much more suitable. And they’re trying to fly it under the radar without anybody knowing, with a minimum amount of publicity, and that’s exactly what they did at Saughtonhall Drive.”
At a meeting on Balgreen Road on Friday, locals gathered to take a look, and without exception they said they object to the proposal and that as soon as any planning application has been made they will object.
A woman in her eighties, who wanted to remain anonymous, said she has lived nearby for fifty years. She said: “I don’t really understand it. This area was just done. I don’t want to have the mast here. I do have a mobile phone, but I will be objecting to any application.”
Alison Rintoul lives in the area. She said: “I don’t actually see the purpose of it. I don’t think anyone has any particular problem getting broadband or anything like that here. We have “Balgreen Eyes and Ears” where people occasionally complain about loss of service, but it is always sorted immediately.
“I agree with whoever said that if they put one mast up then everyone else will be coming along. And then there are these little cabinets which go with the mast. This has just been restored so it’s nice and we have fences up so that for rugby matches people can’t park here. This is a residential area and I don’t see why we have to have it here.”
A man who is also a near neighbour said: “Aesthetically it will be awful. I don’t know whether this is progress or what, but certainly it would be dreadful to look at it.”
Eleanor Young lives close to the main road. She said: “I only found out about this because of the flyers that were put through the door. There has been no communication coming from the council on what the implications of this would be.
“I will be lodging an objection – but I don’t have any objection to them putting in a 5G mast somewhere in the neighbourhood. The point is the lazy finding of sites, the inability to consider other proposals like the Jenners building or the golf course, other areas where it would have less impact. This is a patch of green space right in the middle of a residential area.”
Local councillor Alan Beal who joined the residents on Friday said: “I have been in touch with some residents about this. I have done a lot of work to get this patch grassed and fenced over the last 18 months, and have also been in touch with the planning agent. And so, no I do not wish to see the mast installed!”
Christine Jardine, MP for Edinburgh West, said: “I haven’t actually had any correspondence from constituents about this but I am, as always, happy to hear from them and to pass any concerns to the council as the relevant authority.”
Local MSP, Alex Cole-Hamilton said to The Edinburgh Reporter: “At the moment, planning consent for telecom infrastructure is too heavily weighted towards the companies and with legitimate concerns of communities and residents being unheard.
“This particular site could be relocated, and I urge the Council and the service provider to think again and to listen to residents.”
Murrayfield Community Council has said that it will discuss the matter at its meeting of 25 August.
John Yellowlees, Chair of Murrayfield Community Council said: “A balance must be struck between quality of reception and the visual intrusion of the proposed mast. The campaign has concerns about the manner in which the application was progressed and about digging up the surface again so soon after it was relaid.”
The Balgreen triangle
Balgreen Road is the marker for the Controlled Parking Zone – one side of the street is controlled and the other on the west side is not. On match and concert days at Murrayfield this has led to drivers believing they could park on the triangular shaped area. The council had removed the perimeter fencing, although the perimeter fencing has recently been replaced.
Contractors put up a new low wooden fence, and earlier works included resurfacing the path, planting trees and laying new turf.
During the dry spells of weather this summer the young trees required regular watering, particularly as they do not have any watering tubes installed. Mr McLean attended to them, but said the trees do not have protective fences around them or supportive stakes which he believes they should.
Planning restrictions
In Scotland, there are restrictions on how high any masts can be, and poles up to 30 metres high may be covered by permitted development rights. There are also designated areas where the planning regulations are stricter. Full planning applications must be submitted to councils for masts which are to be more than 30 metres high.
No matter what the planning rules say the operator must submit either a prior approval or prior notification application and it can be left up to the council to decide on both siting and appearance.
The council has guidelines for the public to advise on the procedure for telecoms companies erecting masts of this type, explaining that 5G masts are different from earlier 3G and 4G versions, mainly in relation to weight and size.
Other Edinburgh sites
According to planning website, Plota, there have been 65 mast and antenna applications submitted in Edinburgh in the last year. All 55 which have been decided so far in the last 12 months have been approved.
On Saughtonhall Drive (Western Corner) an application for a similar mast was rejected by planners in August 2024. (See the documentation below)
The most recent application on the Plota website was made for a location at 139 Leith Walk where three antennas will be placed on a rooftop of a building. There are different planning considerations if the antenna are placed on a building rather than a ground based mast proposed for Balgreen Road.
In 2018 a 20 metre high mast at 191 Balgreen Road adjacent to a large roundabout was deemed “Permitted Development”, and the mast has been erected – although it should be noted that this structure replaced a previous 15 metre high mast in the same location.
Three years ago people living in The Grange objected to plans lodged with the council by agents for Vodafone to erect a 15 metre high 5G mast. Planners refused permission on the basis of its “utilitarian design” and said it would harm the conservation area.
To search the council planning portal for telecoms applications the council has just introduced new search terms to narrow down the results.
- These codes are:
- FULTEL – Full Planning Applications for Telecommunications
- PATEL – Prior Approval for Telecommunications
- PNTEL – Prior Notification for Telecommunications
The Cockburn Society
We approached the civic association, The Cockburn Society, about telecoms masts in the city to obtain their views.
A spokesperson said: “The Cockburn Association recognises that telecommunications infrastructure is necessary in a modern city. Our concern is not with the provision of that infrastructure in principle, but with ensuring that new masts and associated equipment are appropriately sited and designed, particularly where they may have a significant effect on Edinburgh’s townscape, community amenity or historic environment.
“Telecommunications masts can be substantial structures, and their visual impact depends very much on their height, design and location. In sensitive locations, we would expect an application to provide sufficient information to demonstrate how the proposal would affect important views, streetscape, amenity and heritage assets, and why the particular site and design have been selected. Good visualisations can be especially important in allowing both the planning authority and the public to understand the likely impact.
“We would also expect applicants to demonstrate that reasonable alternatives have been considered, including whether infrastructure can be located or designed in a way which reduces its visual impact. The planning system has to balance the need for improved digital connectivity with the protection of the qualities which make Edinburgh and its communities distinctive.
“The Cockburn has commented on telecoms proposals in the recent past. Earlier this year, for example, we objected to two applications for telecommunications infrastructure in particularly sensitive parts of the city. Our concerns included the absence of adequate verified visualisations, insufficient assessment of heritage and townscape impacts, and a lack of information demonstrating that alternative sites or solutions had been properly explored.
“Each proposal does, of course, need to be considered on its own merits and against the relevant planning policies and the particular characteristics of its site. We would therefore normally wait until an application has been submitted, and the supporting information is publicly available, before commenting on any individual proposal.”
