Highland phone masts will cost millions. Will anyone benefit?

Mr Craig’s maps reveal that all of the publicly funded masts are far from habitation and in some of Scotland’s most remote and dramatic landscape.   "Wild Land,” he said “is a precious and fragile sanctuary; and its casual systematic destruction borders on sacrilege".  

He also observed that the plan was not deilvering for Scotland’s rural populations: “It is now becoming clear that the SRN’s area-driven planning algorithm doesn’t deliver in the Scottish Highlands.”

Among those who have also called  for a rethink are the John Muir Trust, Mountaineering Scotland, Torridon and Kinlochewe Community Council and other groups in a wider coalition which earlier this year wrote a letter to the UK Minister of Media, Data and Digital Infrastructure, saying that such masts would “despoil some of our most remote and beautiful landscapes and cause significant environmental damage.”

The mast installations, the letter said, could also lead to the wasting of “up to £500 million of taxpayers’ money.”

The Shared Rural Network was originally born as one of  Boris Johnson’s 100-day pledges in the 2019 election campaign. The promise was that it would deliver better rural coverage and levelling up.

87 days after the election, the £1 billion contractual plan was signed by the Government and the four network operators, Three, Vodaphone, EE and Virgin Media O2. The confidential details of the plan included 320 nominal sites for new masts in Scotland. 

UK Government funding of £500 million was dedicated to building new masts in areas known as ‘total not spots’ - landscape without any coverage, much of which has no population, roads or other infrastructure. The plan set a target that 4G should reach 95% of UK landmass by the end of 2025.

A further £500 million of investment was agreed by mobile industry operators to fill what are called 'partial not-spots': areas which do not have coverage from all four of the UK’s mobile operators. But last autumn Vodafone, Three and Virgin Media O2 wrote to the UK Government asking for a delay of up to two years to complete this stage of the network.

Communities, campaigners and walkers are increasingly questioning whether the policy is working for Scotland and if investment might be better used.

Ofcom's latest data, revealed to Mr Craig,  indicates that 274 masts are now planned for ‘total not spot’ areas of Scotland, each of them costing between £500,000 and £1 million of UK Government money.  Mr Craig observed: “Never in the history of phone masts have so many served so few – at such cost.”

Mr Craig observed that the information he used to create the maps was not easy to obtain. It took him five freedom of information attempts. “I believe this culture of secrecy has contributed to the ignorance apparent in SRN planning."

 “These total not spot masts,” he said, “will not help communities - and indeed they will help no one - because these areas are what NatureScot has designated ‘Wild Land’: where there are no buildings, no roads, and virtually no people.”

NatureScot nominal mast sites (red) mapped against Wild Land (green) (Image: David Craig)

The Shared Rural Network has a target for the reduction of Total Not Spots that revolves around the area of new land covered rather than people, premises or roads “This area approach,” he said, “may work in other parts of the UK, but it doesn’t deliver in the Highlands – e.g. Gairloch... The SRN should first tackle 'Partial Not Spots' like Gairloch, before seeking to tame the total not spot wilderness.”

There is a target for Partial Not Spot reduction. The plan is that, in the Highlands, 4G coverage from all four operators should rise to a minimum of 68%, up from 26% and 4G coverage from at least one operator will increase from 73% to 91% by the end of the programme.

But, for those areas, all this means is a guarantee of coverage by one of the four operators. Those moving around could easily find themselves without signal, through being on the wrong operator.  Mr Craig said:  "Being able to choose from more operators does not help the local communities. They still have to look for the single operator who gives them the most coverage locally."

There are, he said, two possible and obvious solutions to this problem in the Highlands. “One,” he said, “is to enable handset roaming in rural Highlands areas, so that phones would just connect to the nearest available mast."

“Another,” he suggested, “would be to concentrate available resources (private and public) on providing one excellent network with say 99% coverage of populated areas and roads.”

Caroline Hamilton, chair of Torridon and Kinlochewe Community Council, a key force behind the letter to the UK Minister of Media, Data and Digital Infrastructure, echoed these concerns that masts are being erected where they are unnecessary, yet some villages and roads still have poor, or no coverage.

Ms Hamilton had also seen eleven maps showing coverage areas for the masts proposed for the Torridon and Kinlochewe area.

She observed: “Of these fifteen, seven do not reach any road, let alone any house, three cover small stretches of road that already have signal. Only one, which covers quite a lot of road, appears to be useful, and that seems to be in exactly the same place where there is proposed to be an emergency services network mast. There’s no point having two masts next door to each other – why can’t they share that one?” ”

“There needs to be a cost-benefit analysis,” she said, "especially if that's  £274 million coming to the Highlands and at a time when the Highland council is facing a £113 million deficit in its budget over three years and the council is consulting with people here about which services are important to them and which they can cut.

“We want to work with Shared Rural Network to establish what the community’s needs are, where the deficits are, and the best way to address them. We are not a campaign against investment. We are saying, 'Talk to us and then we can make it better and spend your money – taxpayers’ money – more wisely, and ultimately save money that could be used on something else that we really want, like buses and care homes.'”

Beinn an Eoin, in an area that could be despoiled by masts (Image: Rob Bruce)

Also key in the campaign around the masts is the John Muir Trust, which is calling for "an urgent meeting with Julia Lopez, the UK Government minister in charge of telecoms".

Mike Daniels, Head of Policy  said: “The John Muir Trust has been working with a coalition of over a dozen community and environmental organisations which is now calling for an immediate pause to the scheme pending a proper review.

“The coalition is clear that we urgently need improved rural connectivity. The programme, however, should have a laser focus on households, businesses and transport networks with the aim of delivering 100% coverage for people and communities. Instead, we have a flawed, map-based scheme drawn up remotely that fails to take into account population distribution.

“Our concern is twofold. First, as a charity whose mission is to protect wild places, we are alarmed that damage will be inflicted on landscapes and wildlife for no other purpose than to meet crude top-down government targets. And second, we are concerned that public money is being wasted in unnecessary locations, with the sole beneficiaries being the four big telecom companies who are aggressively imposing these installations upon community, public, private and charity landowners."

READ MORE: 4G Scotland: NTS and John Muir Trust oppose mast expansion

READ MORE: 4G Scotland. Masts will despoil Highland wilderness, say locals

READ MORE: Beauly pylons 'will be a scar on Highlands'

A chief reason often given for installing the telecoms masts on Wild Land is the need for connection in situations of emergency.

But critics point out that already there are emergency signal devices that mountaineers can use in remote areas: these are more reliable than phones and provide 100% coverage.

A recent blog on parkswatchscotland  by Robert Craig outlined why the masts are not necessary, or even the best option, in an emergency or rescue situation – for instance personal locator beacons and SPOT devices.   

“There are here and now,” he described, "reliable communication means, costing much the same as a mobile phone or landline, which work in remote areas. We don’t need land-based infrastructure – the infrastructure is up there in space, out of sight.” 

He also noted that even these means of communication “are already becoming out of date” and that “all iPhones, from iPhone 14 onwards, already have emergency calling via satellite.” 

Stuart Younie, CEO of Mountaineering Scotland, the representative organisation for hill walkers, climbers and snowsports tourers in Scotland said: “The SRN programme claims that it is in the interests of public safety and will benefit hillwalkers and climbers visiting remote areas, however there are already many devices available on the market which provide connectivity using satellite technology and the latest generation smart phones are also equipped with that facility.

“A better value approach would be to promote the use of these devices by the relatively small number of people who visit these areas rather than installing huge pieces of infrastructure which will have a negative impact on the landscape and environment, detract from the sense of wildness that people are there to enjoy and come at massive cost to the public purse.“

A Department of Science, Innovation and Technology spokesperson said: “The Shared Rural Network is a once-in-a-generation chance to bring fast, reliable 4G mobile coverage to the hardest-to-reach parts of the country, helping emergency services save lives, supporting tourism and driving economic growth. Regardless of the number of premises in some locations, the masts will provide coverage for those who live, work, and explore in those rural communities.

“Local planning authorities are responsible for approving applications which form part of this programme. Publicly funded masts will be shared by all four mobile network operators to minimise impact on the environment and, wherever possible, the programme will utilise existing infrastructure.”