Torridon – proposed mobile phone mast, and “improvements” to trail

A planning application has been submitted to Highland Council for the construction of a new 20m high mobile phone mast, and associated works, some 4km up the trail from Annat – at the heart of the classic Torridon mountain bike routes. The mast will be adjacent to the trail, an absolute eyesore. Access to the site would be via an ATV track, the last 800 metres of which would be along the existing hill track, which would be “improved”.

Anyone who has been to this area will know what a special, wild place it is – and how superb the riding is. The proposed development would be an act of vandalism.

Justification for the mast is providing 4g coverage in a “Total Not Spot” (area with no coverages). This is just plain wrong. I went along the track on Sunday, and had good 4g signal (on EE) virtually everywhere within sight of the proposed site.

If you care about Torridon,  and mountain biking in the area, please object. Google Highland Council Planning, and search for Torridon. The reference number is 24/03722/FUL.

The mast will be adjacent to the trail, an absolute eyesore.

Seriously, no it won’t.

It’s a mast and you’ll barely be able to pick it out if below or on the hills around it.

As a tourist, I’d be more interested in whether or not the locals support it

Yep. Underserved community > dafties on pushies complaining about aesthetic interruption of huge swathes of managed (not wild in any way) land

If you look at the comments on the planning application, most of the objections are from locals. I’m relatively local myself, and have a few friends in the area.

One of the issues with many of these applications is that the various operators are supposed to look at mast sharing first and that are failing to do this. If you had an EE signal then it’s worth finding out who the application is being made by and chasing that up.

We have a few similar nonsense proposals in our area and they are also being opposed by the locals who would supposedly benefit. It’s a money making scheme to grab government grants.

I organise an event in that area each year (Celtman Triathlon). There was a similar scheme for a mast in the pass behind Liathach. We were asked by local groups to submit an objection (which we did). The mast would have helped us by removing a dead spot for our GPS trackers, but supporting the views of the local people was more important to us.

There’s a recognition locally that these remote places are a driver for tourism, and the ‘wildness’ needs to be preserved as far as reasonably possible. In the Liathach case, the only beneficiaries would have been any deer equipped with mobile phones and the occasional walker who either couldn’t use a map or needed MRT help. There was a poor ‘use case’ for local residents, who are either covered by existing masts, or would not be covered by these new ones.

One of the issues with many of these applications is that the various operators are supposed to look at mast sharing first and that are failing to do this. If you had an EE signal then it’s worth finding out who the application is being made by and chasing that up.

A quick look at the coverage map suggests that 4G coverage on EE and Vodafone in Annat itself (and the surrounding roads) is fine, but nothing on O2 or Three. Not sure which other communities that proposed mast would be covering, but there is a mast already very close to Annat for Vodafone.

https://www.cellmapper.net/map?MCC=234&MNC=15&type=LTE&latitude=57.54237384251849&longitude=-5.499611267444399&zoom=13.993044659787943&showTowers=true&showIcons=true&showTowerLabels=true&clusterEnabled=true&tilesEnabled=true&showOrphans=false&showNoFrequencyOnly=false&showFrequencyOnly=false&showBandwidthOnly=false&DateFilterType=Last&showHex=false&showVerifiedOnly=false&showUnverifiedOnly=false&showLTECAOnly=false&showENDCOnly=false&showBand=0&showSectorColours=true&mapType=roadmap&darkMode=false&imperialUnits=false

While it’s arguably a public good for these rural communities to have decent cellular access, having cellular access on all networks can’t be worth this, can it?

EDIT: A closer look at the map reveals that the Torridon Inn appears to be the only possible blind spot at the edge of the voda coverage of both the Annat mast and the one on the other side of the loch.

EDIT2: Their own coverage map says it’s effectively for a couple of sections of the A896 between Torridon and Loch Clair? https://wam.highland.gov.uk/wam/files/99D26AF7C1CD37E25502CDE2DA2B84A8/pdf/24_03722_FUL-RADIO_PLOTS_VMO2___22602-3398390.pdf

I’ve put my objection in. I’m not local but I do live in Scotland and feel strongly about how the landscape is managed. You will always get people trying to be “clever” saying that the land isn’t wild in any way. And technically this is true. If you want to be picky then nowhere in the UK is properly “wild”.

However Torridon is one of our few remaining fairly pristine environments. Bulldozing an unnecessary track that will be visible from all around is an act of environmental vandalism.

Justification for the mast is providing 4g coverage in a “Total Not Spot” (area with no coverages). This is just plain wrong. I went along the track on Sunday, and had good 4g signal (on EE) virtually everywhere within sight of the proposed site

A mast can cover radial distances of 10-20 miles though so could be providing coverage to dead spots outwith its immediate vicinity.

That aside, there is more info about the objection to these installations here:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cyj2ww73w17o

the Torridon Inn appears to be the only possible blind spot

Interesting. Where do the big bill mobile customers stay when they visit the area…?

You will always get people trying to be “clever” saying that the land isn’t wild in any way. And technically this is true. If you want to be picky then nowhere in the UK is properly “wild”.

It’s not being clever though. Scotland is in the bottom 15% of countries for ecology.

It’s not just a bit “not truly wild” it’s a ecological disaster area. we should always point that out so everyone gets a reminder that the status quo is so far away from being okay that it needs reversed not protected.

While it’s arguably a public good for these rural communities to have decent cellular access, having cellular access on all networks can’t be worth this, can it?

Tricky though isn’t it. You do need good coverage or you need phones with 4 Sims for the majority networks? Moving to VoIP would you rather have one mast or cables everywhere?

Of course there’s also a rush to cash in on the available funding before satellite phone technology (already available on some iPhones and Pixels) becomes commonplace – certainly for those venturing where 4G might not reach.

I offended a visitor by calling bits of our local landscape ‘post industrial’ where we have large swathes of clear-felling and all that remains is bare earth, ragged stumps and brash and nothing lives there. We only have a few areas of temperate, broad-leaf woodland that would have covered most of the island.

However Torridon is one of our few remaining fairly pristine environments. Bulldozing an unnecessary track that will be visible from all around is an act of environmental vandalism.

Presumably you live in a yurt in the middle of the wilderness with no infrastructure to serve you, right?  I have no strong view on whether this is necessary or any benefit outweighs the negatives but I think those of us living in “civilisation” need to be careful before deciding that other areas should be protected and essentially held back from economic development.   Objectors are almost always more vocal than supporters and it’s easy to find emotive words like vandalism.

we don’t want pylons because they blight the landscape;  then we question why there’s no infrastructure to make use of our natural resources, and complain politicians are short sighted.  We say we don’t want rural areas to be depopulated and only used as second homes, I wonder in 10 yrs time if we will complain that there was a lack of foresight in getting communications infrastructure into rural areas driving everyone to the cities…

the bike routes are great but that also means more people = more demand for connection.  Even if other masts have coverage they may not have capacity for projected growth.

The locals opinions do matter but whether for or against shouldn’t necessarily be definitive.   I would however put relatively little weight on voices arguing this is an idea rural isolation for mountain bikers – people who drive 5h there and back a couple of times a year at most.

Near me there have been two masts put into not spots. They are an eyesore but me annoyingly run off diesel generators.

And the erection crew shat in the woods and left shit stained toilet paper floating around.

Presumably you live in a yurt in the middle of the wilderness with no infrastructure to serve you, right?

KennyP is the most vocal Edinburger here ?

I think those of us living in “civilisation” need to be careful before deciding that other areas should be protected and essentially held back from economic development. 

Why does everywhere need to be developed economically? We have very few “wild” areas left in Scotland, why do we need to “develop” what ones we have left. Places like Torridon, Knoydart and the like are very special, we should be protecting them, not building on them. You would have a point if the vast bulk of the country was undeveloped. But why destroy the tiny amount of pristine land we still have left. Are people so attached to their phones that the thought of a few square miles where they can’t check Facebook horrifies them?

The locals opinions do matter but whether for or against shouldn’t necessarily be definitive.   I would however put relatively little weight on voices arguing this is an idea rural isolation for mountain bikers 

I totally agree. But my objections aren’t because I’m a mountain biker (I’m at the age where Torridon routes are just about beyond me anyway). They are based on giving people (whatever their reason) places where they can escape from modern life for a few hours or a few days and appreciate the sheer beauty of places like Torridon. There’s plenty of time to do their social media when they get home.

It’s not just a bit “not truly wild” it’s a ecological disaster area.

I’m genuinely interested in why you say that? What is it about Torridon that’s a disaster?

so Kenny to get this clear – you think people who want economic security/prosperity (at even a moderate level) should leave the highlands and move to the cities so that city dwellers can go to the highlands to digitally detox?

im being intentionally provocative but thats the eventual conclusion of your thinking.    I get that you think torridon is the last wilderness – in reality it’s just a particularly remote estate in a tough landscape.   There’s a risk that all the Highlands and Islands have a second highland clearances because there’s no employment for young people, no schools for their children, nobody who can afford to live there to provide services to an aging population and a tourist economy that disappears in summer.  Economic development doesn’t mean industrialisation, just as phone towers don’t just mean easier instagramming.

i don’t know that they’ve necessarily got the “not spot” policy right but I’m certain that treating rugged wild areas as human and digital deserts is neither the best way to let many people enjoy them nor to protect the landscape you want.

It’s a well known fact that all the best trails are on hills with a mast on them, make if that what you will.

Interesting debate about econom8c development, BUT…. this mast will only fill in a tiny corner of coverage for Vodafone / O2. Most of which is already served by other providers. The area covered will be empty landscape, so not local residents. So a vanishingly tiny number of people will benefit – if they feel the need to connect to the outside world whilst they are in the area. There’s no justification for emergency use either, as phones will connect to any network for emergency calls.

So, lots of money, damage and visual impact for virtually no gain.

so Kenny to get this clear – you think people who want economic security/prosperity (at even a moderate level) should leave the highlands and move to the cities so that city dwellers can go to the highlands to digitally detox?

Absolutely not. You are, for whatever reason, taking my views on (part of) the Torridon area and extrapolating them to suggest they are my views on the entire Highlands area. I’m quite happy for people to be able to make a living in the vast majority of the Highlands. What I am suggesting is that some parts of it (covering a very small amount of the total area) should be left largely untouched. That would benefit local people, people who live in cities and people who come from abroad to visit Scotland.

At no point have I tried to suggest that the Highlands should be “cleared”. I am talking about the preservation of fairly small parts of land. Look at what the Canadians and Americans do with their wilderness areas and national parks. I’m not even suggesting we go that far.

I get that you think torridon is the last wilderness

Again that is totally not what I said. I admit there is no genuine wilderness left in the UK. But Torridon and the like are the closest we have. I am aware that it’s an estate. I’ve been there often enough. I also know that a certain amount of land management does go on.

There’s a risk that all the Highlands and Islands have a second highland clearances because there’s no employment for young people, no schools for their children, nobody who can afford to live there to provide services to an aging population and a tourist economy that disappears in summer.

Wanting a tiny amount of the land space to be kept undeveloped doesn’t not mean I want the whole Highlands to become some sort of empty wasteland. I think it’s great that people live, and make a living there. Why shouldn’t they, it’s one of the most beautiful places in the world. I just think this modern attitude of demanding absolutely everywhere has to have mobile phone coverage, at whatever cost to the landscape, is a sad one. I love my mobile phone but when I’m somewhere like Torridon I’m happy for it to live in my rucksack for a few hours. I’d rather look at the scenery than a screen.

Why not redesign the phone mast into some kind of attraction in itself?

or will it work if placed horizontally? (there’s probably somewhere close that could benefit from a new footbridge).

here in Glasgow, we could do with a footbridge to span the chasm between the Slacks and Cochno hill.

great publicity if a mobile network could also incorporate 5g into it (hint, cough).

should leave the highlands and move to the cities so that city dwellers can go to the highlands to digitally detox

I’d be very surprised if the extra coverage this mast would supply is aimed at residents, not visitors.

I suspect all the land in Scotland has been modified by man along the way, so nothing is wild any more…remote but not truly wild.
I’d love somewhere to start scattering native tree seeds so we start getting more native trees in a more natural environment (instead of the Sitka farms)… won’t happen but it would be great if it happened on a large scale.

I’d love somewhere to start scattering native tree seeds so we start getting more native trees in a more natural environment

Better than that, let natural tree regrowth occur. It’s happening in some places, including Glen Feshie. Supplemented by removel of sitka and the planting of native species, there’s quite a lot going on.

https://cairngormsconnect.org.uk/

That’s a 200 year project. Let’s hope it continues.

Absolutely not. You are, for whatever reason, taking my views on (part of) the Torridon area and extrapolating them to suggest they are my views on the entire Highlands area. I’m quite happy for people to be able to make a living in the vast majority of the Highlands.

ah so it’s just the people of torridon who must live your digitally limited way so that when you come up from the city you can enjoy a version of highland life you believe is better?

What I am suggesting is that some parts of it (covering a very small amount of the total area) should be left largely untouched. That would benefit local people, people who live in cities and people who come from abroad to visit Scotland.

Your implication is that this is some sort of vast network of destruction.  It’s one mast for all 4 networks and an access track.  I’m sure it will be noticeable – I am also sure that such features are so common we almost don’t notice them around the country

At no point have I tried to suggest that the Highlands should be “cleared”. I am talking about the preservation of fairly small parts of land.

but that effectively will be the consequence if we leave places isolated – nobody will want to or be able to afford to live their permanently.  Torridon Primary School has either already closed or is ear marked for closure.  I’m not saying a cell tower would prevent that but we have a choice – invest in rural infrastructure or accept that it’s just a slow decline.

Look at what the Canadians and Americans do with their wilderness areas and national parks. I’m not even suggesting we go that far.

i don’t know how they assign National Park status, but here there are lengthy consultations.  They don’t preclude investment in infrastructure and indeed if Torridon was in a National Park it would probably increase demand for coverage!

I’d be very surprised if the extra coverage this mast would supply is aimed at residents, not visitors.

the two are not mutually exclusive.  It doesn’t need to service people’s homes to be useful to visitors – many people in an always connected society benefit from instant messages, emails, stw when they are on the go – if a villager has signal at home but not when travelling to the next village they are at a disadvantage over others.  As more and more stuff like banks, health services, education etc move to digital connections having to find a location with a signal is an inconvenience that might just be the difference between living in Torridon and living elsewhere (despite its selling points – you’ve stayed in civilised connected, tourist infested Edinburgh for some reason). Even if it actually directly benefits visitors more – if that means more visitors then economically that may be good for the area.

I love my mobile phone but when I’m somewhere like Torridon I’m happy for it to live in my rucksack for a few hours. I’d rather look at the scenery than a screen.

nobody is forcing you to use your phone any more than a Torridon resident is compelled to use their phone when down visiting Edinburgh.  BUT I have a concern when people choose to live in cities but then tell rural communities that they must remain more primitive so that they can use those area as their playgrounds.  To me that is just like an absentee landlord popping in for a few weeks of grouse shooting in the summer!

Why not redesign the phone mast into some kind of attraction in itself?

or will it work if placed horizontally? (there’s probably somewhere close that could benefit from a new footbridge).

it’s an interesting idea but:

– masts are generally to get height for more range the map included in the application shows an area of many Kms where no/poor coverage would be improved for all four networks.

– whilst concerns people had 30 yrs ago about radiation are mostly proven to be wrong – you really don’t want to be THAT close to a transmitter, and humans will block the signal (and even in torridon potentially be liable to vandalism)

– but it is an interesting question, there were masts in Dunblane or bridge of Allan 20+ yrs ago which were “disguised”, not perfectly big enough to be less obtrusive.  People built stone folly’s and monuments 150 ish yrs ago around the place which now are considered landmarks – perhaps the aesthetics could be designed in such a way to be more “Victorian” and get less abuse!  Actually I’d welcome an art installation but I suspect Kenny and others would find such a thing even more offensive.

I’m genuinely interested in why you say that? What is it about Torridon that’s a disaster?

If you are genuinely interested in land management how are you not aware that the west coast of Scotland should be awash with trees in a temperate rainforest.

The Highlands have been mistreated for centuries. It has been cleared of trees, grazed and drained and used for entertainment of the wealthy.

Species that should be roaming about (off the top of my head, excluding stuff like elk and mammoth that are thousands of years gone)

Beavers

Brown bears

Lynx

Great auk

Wild horses

Wolves.

Probably a lot of small mammals, probably a few reptiles and amphibians.

The topography is beautiful but using the word pristine is laughable. It’s a sad desolate place that should be teaming with life, and it can’t have escaped your notice that it bloody isn’t.

Interesting debate about econom8c development, BUT…. this mast will only fill in a tiny corner of coverage for Vodafone / O2. Most of which is already served by other providers. The area covered will be empty landscape, so not local residents. So a vanishingly tiny number of people will benefit – if they feel the need to connect to the outside world whilst they are in the area. There’s no justification for emergency use either, as phones will connect to any network for emergency calls.

And when there’s a failure in this mast and no mobile signals for anyone?

If you are genuinely interested in land management how are you not aware that the west coast of Scotland should be awash with trees in a temperate rainforest.

I am, and yes quite aware of that thank you. And all the other stuff. However to get back to that we would need to clear the Highlands entirely of people and all signs of human habitation, reintroduce various species and let Mother Nature do her thing. Would be an interesting experiment but it’s never going to happen. What I’m suggesting is that small areas of land (a tiny proportion of the country) be managed in a minimalist way to let some sort of recovery happen.

@poly you are deliberatley hugely misrepresenting, and wildly exaggerating, what I am saying, for whatever reason I don’t know. So in the interests of balance two can play at that game……

You seem to be arguing that Liathach should be flattened to improve the phone signal, and that Torridon be filled with McDonalds, theme parks, bingo halls and shopping centres, and that a four lane motorway be built through the middle of the glen to connect the peat fired power station at Kinlochewe (lots of jobs for the locals) with the dry ski slope at Annat (well if a huge track is to be bulldozed up the hill let’s make the most of it).

And don’t get me started on your ideas that we people in Edinburgh should have to throw our toilet waste out the top windows of our disease ridden tenement flats while shouting “Gardy loo” because the wealthy Torridonian tourists (having made millions from their chains of mobile phone shops)  coming down from the Highlands think life in the city should be like it was 300 years ago.

I would type more but I have to go off to help defend the city against the Jacobite army that’s outside the city walls. I hope my rickets won’t stop me doing my bit.

Hmmm Kenny. But the thing is that poly is making a lot of good points* whereas you are just waffling.

* Apart from his seeming inability to update his phone keyboard to automatically capitalise the first letter of each sentence. Cmon poly, it’s not that hard

Since we’ve agreed that the area is already denatured, we could try asking the folk in the Highlands what infrastructure could be provided to help in retaining the existing jobs, population, schools etc. I can assure you that better 4G isn’t going to be anywhere on that list.

KennyP is the most vocal Edinburger here ?

I think TJ, and anyone who’s ever heard of TJ, would beg to differ.

You seem to be arguing that Liathach should be flattened to improve the phone signal, and that Torridon be filled with McDonalds, theme parks, bingo halls and shopping centres, and that a four lane motorway be built through the middle of the glen

I mean, he’s not though, is he.

This discussion is interesting to me because it’s based on a misperception of the landscape and how it should be used, and much of it has been covered off in this discussion already. But I will reinforce the point that the Scottish highlands are ecologically deprived, and that so-called ‘wild’ places across the entire UK are venerated for their current natural beauty. But this is just a surface appreciation, which fosters the idea of ‘shifting baseline syndrome’ applied to nature, see this from Monbiot and co.: https://oceana.org/blog/daniel-pauly-and-george-monbiot-conversation-about-shifting-baselines-syndrome/

Or: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/dec/20/selective-blindness-lethal-natural-world-open-eyes-environment-ecosystem

The Lakes, Peaks, Wales’ ’empty’ mountain areas and countless other places, are seen as beautiful and in many cases are venerated and preserved as such by historical land use, or by national park status. But this view that we need to ‘protect’ these areas and keep them in their current state, is driven by a visual nostalgia, and ignores the ecological poverty of these areas. It’s a whole other discussion about what should happen, and it quickly ignores the whole host of subtleties on the spectrum of possibilities and goes straight into ‘humans excluded, introduce bison’ or some such. I cannot recommend enough this book, which should be the bible for anyone interested in how landscapes become what they are, and illuminates the millenia of human intervention, particularly on these isles (Yes, it’s English in the title, but equally applicable to the UK): W.G. Hoskins, The Making of the English Landscape.

Masts and pylons are totemic in terms of visual intrusion to a landscape, but the overgrazing from Deer in Scotland keeps the hills treeless and ecologically homogenous on a vast scale. What’s the priority to address and what truly is the balance of impact?

No-one disputes that ‘wilderness’ landscapes across the UK are far from pristine, and our nations should be doing more to put that right. But organisations that want to stick phone masts, noisy generators, and associated infrastructure into them should have to demonstrate significant public interest for the development.

I’m struggling to see how that case can be made for a mast which, unless I’ve misread their map, seems to deliver coverage to two very short stretches of the A896, rather than actual homes and businesses. Does their overall project have funding that relies on % increases in coverage, regardless of whether it is occupied or not?

Does their overall project have funding that relies on % increases in coverage, regardless of whether it is occupied or not?

They get paid regardless of how many people live in, work in, or travel through, the area.

Look, it’s well intentioned. Critical infrastructure shouldn’t be reserved to those areas with large populations and some sort of “subsidy” might be required – think ferries, Royal Mail etc. This one has missed the target though.

I am, and yes quite aware of that thank you. And all the other stuff

Why did you ask then?

I thought the Jacobites were the good guys???