Plans to put up 5G mobile phone masts on two sites in Brighton have been turned down for a second time.
Three submitted separate planning applications to Brighton and Hove City Council for 50ft or 50-metre-high masts, with cabinets at the base, in Eastern Road, Kemp Town, and Bexhill Road, Woodingdean.
The council turned down the Eastern Road application in October 2021 and the Bexhill Road proposal in June last year.
Three appealed against the council’s decisions and the Planning Inspectorate recently published the outcome of both appeals, with the refusals upheld.
The council turned down the Woodingdean proposal because the pole and cabinets would “create a significant obstruction” on the footpath.
The council said that Three had not demonstrated “robust site selection” and the design was described as “top-heavy”, detracting from views of the South Downs National Park.
The Eastern Road proposal was rejected because the mast’s position, height and width would create “undue visual clutter” on the street scene, “detrimental to the setting” of the Queen’s Park Conservation Area.
CK Hutchison Networks (UK) Ltd, which operates the Three mobile phone network, said that the Eastern Road proposal would not affect the visual amenity of the area and would cover a 5G “black hole”.
In response to the objections to the Bexhill Road proposal, the company said: “The installation itself (pole and cabinets) is designed to be deployed upon pavements and verges in such urban locations.
“In terms of the discreet location and nature of the scheme proposed, it is considered the apparatus will blend into the existing street scene and the overall scheme represents an appropriate balance between visual impact and operational requirements.
“The mast is, at 15m, at the absolute minimum height which can be deployed to bring the benefits of 5G. We have also coloured the pole and cabinets grey to help assimilation here.”
Planning inspector Luke Simpson rejected both appeals.
He said that the Bexhill Road proposal would affect views of the South Downs National Park.
He also said: “The mast would be obtrusively prominent, particularly when viewed from the south, east or west.
“It would not be sympathetic to the more modest scale of development to the south and it certainly wouldn’t be in keeping with the rural open character of the open fields to the north.”
Mr Simpson said that, in relation to the Eastern Road site, he gave “great weight” to potential harm to the Queen’s Park Conservation Area over the need for 5G.
So where was the Bexhill Road one supposed to be? I was walking up there the other day and thought that the large aerial mast at the top of the hill was looking a little empty. Are they charged too much rent to put it up there then? Seems the most logical place to put these.
Pleased to see that the masts were only rejected for physical location reasons, and not because of scaremongering misinformation about dangers of EMR from the likes of Stop5g and the Sussex Residents Association.
Please point us to the safety data for 5G. Thank you!
Well it’s the same frequencies as we’re used by Freeview together with higher frequencies similar to that used by Wi-Fi – perhaps read https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/5g-technologies-radio-waves-and-health/5g-technologies-radio-waves-and-health
Perhaps provide citations from qualified experts, rather than conspiracy theorists such as the turquoise one, stating why 5g is dangerous.
Would you’ve worried about 4g?
Are you worried about mobile handsets, Wi-Fi, Bluetooth, cordless phones, power lines, zigbee, TV and Radio transmitters, satellites, microwave ovens and sunlight – all are different frequencies of Electromagnetic radiation.
“the design was described as “top-heavy”, detracting from views of the South Downs National Park”
Isn’t being top-heavy a natural feature of the thing-on-a-mast?
5G can go to the hell-fire
I do not want to get Cancer from mobile phone masts
Good thing there’s no such credible evidence base that suggests such a ridiculous notion then, Mary.
Please show us where you have seen the safety data so we can be reassured.
In 2011 the WHO and IARC classified non ionising radiation as a class 2b carcinogen. The same classification as DDT and lead in petrol. Members of IARC with collective judgment found scientific consensus in reaching this decision. The vote was nearly unanimous: 29 to 1. The evidence of increased cancer risks has since been strengthened by further human studies, as well as toxicology studies in animals, which demonstrated clear evidence of tumours. The US govt paid $30 million to the NTP. The Italian Ramazzini Institute ten-year research project also found clear evidence of malignant tumours. Two different institutes with laboratories in different countries, totally independent of each other and both producing parallel consistent findings, reinforces the validity of these ground-breaking animal studies. Risks associated with this type of radiation are not limited to cancer. Here are some of the most reported symptoms:
– Headaches
– Insomnia
– Fatigue
– Tinnitus
– Heart arrhythmia/palpitations
– Decreased immune function
– Irritability
– Decreased cognitive function
The law also needs to be considered with regards to wireless technology.
Six Italian courts have ruled mobile phones cause brain tumours.
Here are two important recent UK legal developments regarding Electrosensitivity -:
The case, EAM v East Sussex County Council (Special educational needs) features a child who suffers electrosensitivity. Upper Tribunal Judge Jacobs found that the child should be considered disabled under the Equality Act 2010, and she required an Education, Health, and Care Plan (EHCP).
June 2022, a 59-year-old UK social worker won ‘early ill health retirement’ for disabling ‘Electromagnetic Hypersensitivity (EHS): In relation to EHS
Good to see Eileen O’connor getting involved from the West Midlands.
Wasn’t she the one who sadly developed breast cancer, and blamed it on a mobile phone mast 20 years ago?
Experts discounted her claims, but she still continues with her crusade posting scaremongering misinformation across the UK.
Eileen refreshing to read your post. You are 150% Correct!
If only people took the time to do proper research they would be shocked.
Queen’s Park conservation area. Have the planning inspectors looked at the monstrous Brighton College sports hall that many people mistake for an Amazon warehouse. In addition huge new County Hospital has just opened. Imagine all those people trying to use mobiles, tablets etc at peak times, no signal. Those who think that not granting planning permission for these masts Is great MUST NOT complain when they have no phone signal
I bet most people want good 5g connections. Many are ditching fixed broadband for mobile 5g and saving £30/month.
You can put up with a bit of street clutter for that kind of money !
I saw an unlimited data/phone/text for £20 a month.
But the planning inspector decided that the residents of the Queens Park area don’t need 5g 😒
The certainly did not decide that.
The inspector determined that the particular type of mast applied for didn’t conform with planning law.
An application for a different type of mast may very well get approved.
If they provide shorter masts then they require more of them to cover an area. Will you support more antennas across Queens Park?
AHH, that well known beauty spot…Bexhill Road
I have to say I think its a bit of a laugh talking about south downs views in Bexhill Road where industrial units are a bigger detraction from the views than a phone mast. I do sometimes despair of local council officers who make so called decisions on what is acceptable and what is not. For example the removal of historical lamp post and totally unsympathetic to conservation areas modern replacements.
Ever tried to get 5G in Hove. Lol good luck. Always some lizard moaning about the view. Hence why house prices are a joke, nothing ever gets built.
There is much evidence about the harm 5g can cause. It is worrying when these masts etc are placed often near playgrounds and schools. It is especially alarming when the effects have totally not been proven…we would leave a micwave oven switched on with the door open … and force everyone in the local area teel the effects. To those who are young or care for children or are vulnerable. We all need to to think seriously about what our councillors are visiting on the health of you the people.
Why are you commenting here when Tothill is in Plymouth? Are you just wanting to spread scaremongering misinformation to other locations?
Telephone masts are not microwave ovens – are you equally worried about all electromagnetic waves including Wi-Fi, cordless phones, Bluetooth, zigbee, broadcast TV and radio, satellites, overhead power lines, mains wiring, sunlight, and of course mobile phone handsets themselves?
I’m not scared of the 5G, and neither should you be!
A new 5g mast was erected in the front opposite Arundel road. The old mast has gone but the old cabinets remain alongside the new ones. One mast four cabinets two of which are rusty. They don’t help themselves do they ?