AN APPLICATION for a phone mast to be put in at a railway station behind a pub has been refused.

Prior approval was sought by Cornerstone for the proposed installation of a 20m lattice tower and associated works, at Newton-le-Willows Railway Station at a location to the back of the Millstone public house.

A description of the proposed works in the plans says there would be a 20m lattice tower on a new concrete base, together with three antennas, one dish, two Cabinets, a one-metre cabinet and associated ancillary works.

A document in the plans stated: "Cornerstone is the UK's leading mobile infrastructure services company. We acquire, manage and own over 20,000 sites and are committed to enabling best in class mobile connectivity for over half of all the country's mobile customers".

A previous application for a mast at the site had been submitted but was withdrawn earlier this year.

In a report, planning officer Alex Ball said the proposed mast would cause visual "harm".

The report said: "The public house would provide some screening to the lattice tower, however, given the height of the structure, and its proposed position on a raised embankment these factors together would make the proposal a very prominent addition to the street scene, when compared to the existing built form."

It was added: "Overall, it is considered that the siting of the lattice tower and equipment would be a dominant feature that would be obtrusive in this location and visually detrimental to the area."

The report also said: "In relation to the site selection process, the applicant states that alternative sites were considered but were discounted. Whilst it is agreed that some of these sites may not be suitable, it is unclear why a less sensitive and less visually obtrusive site could not be found."

Mr Ball added: "Overall, it is not considered that the information submitted with this application provides sufficient evidence to justify the siting and position of the development.

"Whilst recognising the difficulties in finding a suitable site, based on the evidence available to me, I consider that suitable alternative means of providing coverage have not been fully explored and that there remains a possibility that the use of alternative, less harmful locations may merit further discussion."

Prior approval for the mast was refused.