Campaigners oppose ‘urgently needed’ 5G mast in Hove

Campaigners against 5G masts are sharing their opposition to plans for a 20-metre (65ft) high pole at a shopping parade in Hove.

But thousands of O2 and Vodafone mobile phone customers could face even more signal problems unless the mast is approved, a telecom business has warned.

Clarke Telecom has applied for planning permission to put up a mobile phone mast and equipment cabinets outside Uncle Sams, in Queen’s Parade, Hangleton, opposite the Grenadier pub.

The mast would include three shrouded antennas and three unshrouded antennas, a dish, GPS module and remote radio units.

It would replace the existing base station across the road where Clarke Telecoms, a specialist support business, said that the roof height was too low to upgrade the site to 5G.

It is the second application to attract opposition within days after 160 people wrote to object to a mast proposed for the corner of Ditchling Road and Upper Hollingdean Road, Brighton.

Dozens more have contacted Brighton and Hove City Council to object to the mast planned in Hangleton.

Clarke Telecom said: “To avoid a situation where there is no coverage for Telefonica in this busy area, there is an urgent need to provide replacement coverage as soon as possible.

“The operator’s customers will soon be unable to utilise the latest technologies for their handheld devices in this area.”

The mast would be covered by an arrangement between O2’s owner Telefonica and rival Vodafone to share network infrastructure.

But objectors have cited a number of concerns including safety, how the mast would look and how close it would be to Goldstone and Hangleton primary schools.

One objector, whose details have been redacted by the council, said: “For what purpose is it? The height of this mast is totally out of keeping with the rest of the area. It will tower over the landscape and be seen from many points of view.

“I believe that this monstrosity will have an adverse effect on the surrounding properties, as who would want to live next to a 20m mast.

“In my opinion, this will impact negatively on property prices in the area.

“It’s also at a traffic junction and I think this huge tower will act as a distraction for both drivers and pedestrians alike, putting people at the risk of injury.”

Another objector, whose details have also been redacted, said: “I object to the installation of a 20m monopole due to very bad design.

“A lot of street clutter will be created as a result of this development. Such an unpleasant looking mast should be located far away from the city where no one can see it.

“Finally, such masts should not be allowed to be built until independent experts have proven that it is safe for our health.”

Campaigners have been lobbying the council about the safety of 5G technology. But when the council’s Health and Wellbeing Board met in January, Brighton and Hove’s director of public health Alistair Hill said that Public Health England provided the statutory advice on this subject.

He also said that peer-reviewed research had considered both the short and long-term effects of 5G technology and concluded that there were no adverse health effects.

At the same meeting, the council’s assistant director for development and regeneration Max Woodford said that the council could not stop the spread of 5G from a planning perspective “even if it wanted to”.

Councillor Tony Janio

Clarke Telecom said that it had contacted the three ward councillors for Hangleton and Knoll, Hove MP Peter Kyle and the head teacher of Hangleton Primary School.

Independent councillor Tony Janio, a physicist, is quoted as responding: “Marvellous. We need 5G cover.”

For more details, go to the council’s website and search for planning application BH2020/00954.

  1. Rob Ng Stad Reply

    I hope it gets the go ahead. We need good comms.

  2. Mel Reply

    “Finally, such masts should not be allowed to be built until independent experts have proven that it is safe for our health.”

    Experts? Similar to what they once said about smoking.

  3. Kevin Gander Reply

    No one objected to all the stuff on top of the Butchers shop across the road when it got the go ahead (nothing to do with the Butchers) why was this ? Cos out of site out of mind I feel. Us neighbours never got planning letters about this when it was granted, wonder why ? probably back then too many people making money out of it.
    The landlord who owns the roof over the road receives money to have them on his property, will the council now receive money because it’s on the pavement that they own ?

  4. peter Graham Reply

    As usual the council will ignore the public and do as they want

  5. bob snoakes Reply

    Theres several issues with this article – not least the fact that its implying that if it doesn’t happen then Telefonica customers’ service will be affected. This is for 5G which you need to buy a new phone to use. Existing 3G & 4G customers would not be affected. 5G masts are not replacing existing 3G & 4G systems – so they will be adding to the digital smog of Brighton. In fact due to how 5G works the number of masts will be approx 5x whats needed for 4G.

    No known telecoms industry studies or research have been conducted on the adverse effects of Radio Frequency – Electro Magnetic Fields (RF-EMF) from 5G technology yet. There have however been many peer reviewed, scientific studies done on 3G & 4G some of which have resulted in the IARC classifying them as class 2B potential carcinogen (cancer causing), the same class as DDT.

    PHE (Public Health England), WHO (World Health Organisation), ICNIRP (International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection) & other such bodies are all quoting outdated research and all have legal disclaimers relieving them of any liability for the info on their websites. PHE are a govt body, & the govt have a vested interest in 5G and its infrastructure – this constitutes a conflict of interest for PHE.

    More than 230 scientists from 41 countries have expressed their “serious concerns” regarding the ubiquitous and increasing exposure to EMF generated by electric and wireless devices, already existing before additional 5G rollout.

    House prices can be affected by up to 20% when masts are cited nearby.

    I’m very concerned to see Tony Janio, a local councillor, quoted as saying “Marvellous. We need 5G cover.” Surely one of your key duties to local residents is to ensure their right to good health and basic human rights are upheld? 5G technology is in direct conflict with our right to live in a clean, healthy environment and contravenes our human rights as this is being rolled out without our consent.

    We should be adopting a “precautionary approach” and stopping any 5G rollout until scientific research has proven whether or not 5G is safe to our environment.

    5G has been halted in the Netherlands, Russia, Slovenia, Australia, Switzerland, Bad Wiessee, Germany and 100+ Municipalities in Italy until its safety can be proven.

    Dont get me wrong – I am a fan of technology – providing my children are not at increased risk of increased cancer, cellular stress, increase in harmful free radicals, genetic damage, structural & functional changes of their reproductive system & neurological disorders.

    EU scientists appeal against 5G – https://www.jrseco.com/european-union-5g-appeal-scientists-warn-of-potential-serious-health-effects-of-5g/

    • Daniel Reply

      Its scientific fact that they’re no harm to human health.

    • Phill Reply

      Very well put mate, and there’s plenty of people around that agree with everything you’ve said 100%

      Members of Parliament, and members of the local council, are elected by us; supposedly to reflect the opinions and wishes of the majority of their constituents (who voted them in).
      It is not for them to decide what’s best for us, or what technology we need.. It is their job to represent the wishes of the majority.
      I for one, see absolutely no requirement for 5G….unless having my fridge connected to the Internet of things is a deal breaker.
      I can stream films at a speed adequate to watch them, I can game, I can search any information I require and have to wait, at the most, seconds before it us available.
      To aggressively roll out an untested technology, based simply on a desire to have faster Internet is ridiculous.
      We do not need it.
      This is the view that I would like representing…..
      Unfortunately this stopped happening a long time ago.

      • Slap Reply

        Why do you think it’s untested? who said that, when technology is developed it is tested, how else do you know that it works, why are people so easily mislead, 2g,3g,4g oh we are over that now but 5g, hold the F on a minute, that’ll kill you, idiot

    • Pippy Reply

      Bob, 5g is non-ionizing, people have had microwaves in their houses for decades, do they cause cancer too, people said the same about 3g and 4g, you better get a thicker tin foil hat so 5g can’t penetrate it, idiot

    • Chris Symonds Reply

      Totally agree, upgrade 4G in the area until independent review can prove 5G is safe.

    • Peter Challis Reply

      Where did you get your scientific information to suport the claims you are making? Citations please!

      • Mikhail Reply

        The need for 5G is that our 2G, 3G and 4G Networks are getting very saturated and overwhelmed.
        5G simply means the 5th generation of mobile networking, and the wavelengths and frequencies it uses are below the ones of visible light. In fact we are exposed to wavelengths and frequencies up to 50x the strength of 5G, eg: lightbulb.

        • keoghan Reply

          Mikhail light and pulsed radiation are different. 5g is very dangerous.

      • Siward Beorn Reply

        SHOCKING!
        THE DUTY OF CARE IS TO PROOF! !!
        IT IS 100% SAFE! NOT FOR THE PEOPLE TO PROOVE! IT ISN’T!(SO CALLED INDEPENDENT PEER REVIEWED STUDIES, HAVE NEVER BEEN UNDERTAKEN IN THIS COUNTRY!) FURTHER IRRATIONAL NAME CALLING AN AD HOMINEM ATTACKS, OF A PERSON WHO VOICES CONCERN, RENDER ALL OF SAID ATTACKERS STATEMENTS ILLOGICAL AN UNFOUNDED!AN THERBY IRRELAVANT!
        SO I THOUGHT! I WOULD DIG OUT THE ANSWERS NONE OF YOU SEEM TO KNOW!
        AN SEEM S9ME ARE SO WILLING TO OVERLOOK!
        HERE IS THE INDEPENDENT REVIEWED STUDIES SUPPRESSED BY OUR GOVERMENT!!

      • Rauhl Reply

        Pippy if you stick your head in the microwave I garuntee you will die instantly

  6. Paul Hove Reply

    How many of these nimby objectors have a mobile phone? Over 99% at a guess. If they are worried about a new Nast why on earth aren’t they worried about radiation from their own mobile phone??
    These same people will soon be whining when they can’t get a signal to update their unsocial media

    • J povey Reply

      Some of us have given up our smart phones in protest

  7. Claudia Reply

    Stop this from happening, if u care about ur children’s health..and ur own for thst matter.i can’t believe they’re actually putting one near schools..its a crime.

    • Paul Hove Reply

      If you are so bothered about your children’s health, then don’t allow them to have a mobile phone or WiFi.
      The reality is there is no danger to health from a Phone mast, be more worried about the pollution from all the mothers driving kids a few yards to school and back.

  8. Mark the engineer Reply

    You all need to get a life and stop listening to IKE and the likes of him this is completely safe tech I work and install it every single day, the same was said about 2, 3 and 4 g but you all use wi-fi mobile phones and every other single bit of tech, you need to concentrate on what they are not saying that pollution is the carrier of covid19 the droplets ride on the pollution as they are bigger than covid19 why do you think it’s worse in city’s, do your research people and stop listening to complete and utter rubbish. Period

  9. Phill Reply

    Very well put mate, and there’s plenty of people around that agree with everything you’ve said 100%

    Members of Parliament, and members of the local council, are elected by us; supposedly to reflect the opinions and wishes of the majority of their constituents (who voted them in).
    It is not for them to decide what’s best for us, or what technology we need.. It is their job to represent the wishes of the majority.
    I for one, see absolutely no requirement for 5G….unless having my fridge connected to the Internet of things is a deal breaker.
    I can stream films at a speed adequate to watch them, I can game, I can search any information I require and have to wait, at the most, seconds before it us available.
    To aggressively roll out an untested technology, based simply on a desire to have faster Internet is ridiculous.
    We do not need it.
    This is the view that I would like representing…..
    Unfortunately this stopped happening a long time ago.

    • Wayne Reply

      What a load of nonsense in most of these comments. These same people who cry when they have poor reception are also complaining about the expansion of the network. The numpties were getting worked up when we went from analogue to digital, from 2g to 3g, from 3 to 4g.
      Stop this unfounded scaremongering.

  10. Ian Hughes Reply

    5g is a marketing tool, to sell new phones to people who already have one. Most of 5G is identical to 4G, while the differences are in the wired core, not the last few hundred wireless metres. A tall mast is for wide-area coverage, so would not use the new, higher frequencies allowed (but not required) for 5G, so any new mast of this sort is to improve coverage, allowing handsets to operate at lower power, meaning users are exposed to lower levels of RF.

    Current 5G handsets are not worth buying, as the chips are early versions, taking up more space and using more battery power. Wait for better-integrated, second generation 5G handsets to appear, before buying a new one!

  11. Peter Challis Reply

    5g is safe – it uses the same freqencies as WiFi and that freed up by the Freeview retune.

    Perhaps get some proper scientific education rather than accepting scaremongering misinformation from the anti-5g activists (much of it detailed above).

  12. deve Reply

    I wonder how many of the people against 5G are believers in conspiracy theories such anti vac, new world order, the Illuminati, corona virus come from a biological weapon programme, Princess Diana was assassinated, Area 51 and other conspiracy theories. Stop using high power smart phones and take them of your kids if you really believe the damage they do.

Leave a Reply

*

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.