A mobile phone company has lost two planning appeals for 5G masts in Brighton – in Rottingdean and Westdene.
Brighton and Hove City Council planning officers refused the applications by CK Hutchinson last December and the company appealed in February.
The company, which operates the Three network, wanted to put up masts at sites in Bazehill Road, Rottingdean, and Copse Hill, Westdene.
In both appeals, CK Hutchinson said that the 4G network was under strain from greater demands for mobile data which was available only through the 5G network.
The two sites currently have no 5G coverage.
The company said: “The application site is within a suburban area with no existing 5G coverage and where there are no tall buildings or existing masts which could be shared by the appellant.
“Frankly, without installations such as this then suburban areas such as this will not get 5G coverage.”
The Copse Hill application had 52 objections from the public and a further 30 comments against the appeal. There were 14 objections to the Rottingdean site.
Brighton and Hove City Council said that the reason for refusing the Copse Hill application was because CK Hutchinson had “failed to demonstrate through a robust site selection analysis, including the assessment of other potential buildings, that there are no alternative sites for the proposal which would be acceptable in regard to siting and appearance”.
Planning inspector Sylvia Leonard said that the proposed pole for Copse Hill would be higher and wider than the existing street lights and the new equipment would be “visually prominent”.
She said: “While options for siting the development are limited by technical and operational constraints, and the appellant states that alternative locations have been fully assessed, having regard to the evidence before me in respect of other sites, it is not demonstrated that other more suitable and less harmful sites for the development do not exist, and this weighs against the proposal.”
For the Rottingdean site, the council said: “The development siting and appearance of the mast is not such that it would minimise as far as practical the visual impact on the South Downs National Park, contrary to its purpose of conserving the natural beauty of the area.
“The height of the mast would lead to it being highly visible above the surrounding treeline, presenting as an incongruous and alien addition to the landscape.”
For the Rottingdean proposal, the planning inspector cited the impact on the South Downs National Park (SDNP) as the reason for refusal.
The inspector said: “The purposes of the national park include conserving its natural beauty and promoting opportunities for the enjoyment of its special qualities.
“However, no compelling analysis of the visual impact of the development from locations within SDNP has been provided by the appellant.
“Nor has such analysis been provided in connection with the alternative sites identified by the appellant.”
Good. They are an abomination to look at. No one seems to be able to explain why they are so much larger and more hideous than previous phone masts in an age where everything is supposed to be getting smaller and better designed.
Agreed 👍 we spent two and a half years fighting Hutchinson who were trying to steal the roof of our home in Hove for giant mast station to host Three and EE masts. We won! It’s was David v Goliath. Incredibly stressful at times…which makes me so angry that the Government has enabled the law to allow private corporations to attempt to steal private property, land, and people’s homes without consent. Morally wrong besides all the environmental issues that 5G infrastructure roll out presents. Did you know 5G network and global supply chain used 3x as much energy that current networks. We don’t have 100 per cent renewable energies yet, and climate change is fueled by fossil fuel burning to create electricity to run these networks.
I thought that the mobile networks only used renewable energy.
Let me guess they GRANT the appeal to place in the Whitehawk estate next to the newly refurbished children’s playground. I can see the future now….
If anyone sees info on the appeal do share on the residents of whitehawk community facebook page so residents can resist the potential appeal plans
There!
Good to see the planning system works. Too many times the mobile companies want to install a massive mast when a number of smaller ones located on buildings would be much less obtrusive.
Confused. We got a new larger mast at the end of Arundel road, many objections to 5g but it went up. But no 5g coverage here still.
It might be planned to use the 3g frequencies for 5g?
I’d much rather have a couple of masts that I may glance at once in a while and be able to use my mobile phone.
This is exactly why it costs so much money to do anything in this country, people moaning about nothing. Get some hobbies
What a moronic attitude!
As against those who think mobile phone masts cause cancer?
You’ll soon be moaning when you have no 5G coverage for your latest mobile phone.
This certainly explains why the mobile signal in Rottingdean is shockingly bad.
NIMBY landowners making life difficult for real people again.
I bet most of the Nimby types who objected still use a landline.
Still when the landline network gets switched off next year and you need a mobile, I am sure they will regret their decision to object.
It’s rather like the anti Heathrow / Gatwick expansion types, that still want two foreign holidays a year
Landlines aren’t being switched off entirely, but the POTS network is being decommissioned. It will still be possible to have a telephone handset and a telephone number (even keeping the same one). It is true the new-style landlines will operate differently, and will probably fail in a power cut.
I don’t like looking at the telephone poles and wires running up and down my street. I also don’t like the large power lines. I wonder if people complained when they were originally installed ? It’s called progress. I’d much rather look at the odd mast and have 5G service than not. Personally I don’t spend much time looking at masts in the sky when I walk, cycle or drive around . As we embrace more and more technology in our lives we need the infrastructure to support it. We’re putting ourselves on the back foot and disadvantaged by not moving forward. Then people will complain they don’t get mobile service.
Good. I hate having a mobile phone signal
It doesn’t state the total demographic that would be served by these Masts. But 52 and 14 objections respectively doesn’t sound like a democratic majority! So I wonder how many of the silent hundred’s (000’s?) now have a sub-optimum 5G phone signal, because of a vocal minority?? I don’t live in either area, nor do I use the Three NW, so have no vested interest, other than we’re meant to be a democracy!!
If there are to be only VOIP telephones it seems that anyone without a router will be denied a ‘phone. How will safety call systems for the elderly and handicapped operate? More discrimination?