Councillors to decide whether to allow 5G mast to serve Brighton suburb

Councillors are to decide whether to grant planning permission for a 5G phone mast in Brighton at a “virtual” meeting next week.

More than 120 people have sent objections to the plans for the mast and equipment cabinets to Brighton and Hove City Council.

At 20 metres (65ft) high, the proposed pole would be almost twice the height of an existing 11.7m (38ft) pole.

The plans include the removal of the existing pole as part of an upgrade by mobile phone operators EE and Three.

Without it, they said, thousands of people in the surrounding area would be likely to suffer from a weaker and less reliable mobile phone signal.

And they would be less likely to reap the benefits of 5G as the latest generation of mobile phone technology becomes more widely available.

The proposed pole would go up in Carden Avenue, opposite the bottom end of Dale Drive.

Officials have advised the council’s Planning Committee to grant planning permission at a “virtual” meeting next Wednesday (6 May).

Some objectors have complained about the way that the mast would look while one, whose details were redacted by the council, said: “No to 5G! It is a weapon system and very likely the cause of the coronavirus.

“While Public Health England and the WHO (World Health Organisation) regards 5G to be safe, I do not find this to be compelling.

“These bodies take their information from the ICNIRP (International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection) who have links to the telecommunications industry and thus have a vested interest in the roll-out of 5G.”

Patcham ward councillors Lee Wares and Alistair McNair have also formally objected to the plans.

They said that the existing 11.7m pole is about the same height as the trees, slender and with little visible telecoms equipment at the top.

The proposed mast would be twice as high and “top heavy”, they said, adding: “The proposed 20m mast, with its additional height over the existing mast, trees and lampposts, would lead it to become significantly visually prominent within the area, compounded by the girth of the pole and the equipment at the top.

“The proposal is of a significantly greater scale and would be overly dominant and highly visible from every direction, causing harm to the setting of Carden Avenue, Dale Drive, Patcham and Hollingbury in general and the character of the local street scene.”

Council planning policy states that new masts are permitted only if they have minimal visual impact, nearby masts or buildings cannot be used and they do not interfere with other radio signals.

A report to the Planning Committee said that the site was “an established location for telecommunications apparatus”.

The Planning Committee meeting is due to be webcast from 2pm. Watch the webcast at

  1. Nick M Reply

    You quote an objector saying “No to 5G! It is a weapon system and very likely the cause of the coronavirus” without any rebuttal. This has been shown to be untrue and their rationalisation (that the group investigating it has links to the telecoms industry which has to be true if they are telecoms experts) is also quoted without challenge.

    Yes, it’s fair for people to have views – even the most tin foil hat wearing conspiracy theorists. But to quote them without a statement showing that the 5G and coronavirus links have been disproved and are wrong/dangerous is not good journalism in the current situation. We have seen attacks on much-needed telecoms equipment (including extra resources being delivered to serve a Nightingale hospital) and engineers have been attacked and threatened. There is no link between 5G and coronavirus.

    • Liam Reply

      Many of the people who are opposing 5G have not stated that there is any link between 5G and coronavirus. The concerns as to the health implications of increasing radio frequency radiation has been going on for far longer than this current pandemic.
      There are thousands of independent Peer-reviewed studies which outline the health risks associated with RFR. The long term effects of implementing 5G including all of the mini transmitters they require is simply not known.
      I’d personally prefer to have slower internet and wait for more long term health studies to be conducted Conducted then risk our next generations of health. The thousands of scientific studies indicating health risk of NIR such as RFR could all be wrong. But I don’t think that risk should be taken especially as to the harm which could be brought about based on the results which have so far been obtained.

  2. Rupert Cacatto Reply

    There is no scientifc link between 5G and coronavirus. Please stop spreading ridiculous claims even if quoting them from the mouths of uninformed individuals, as many other uninformed individuals may just believe them and that’s just dangerous.

  3. Liam Cook Reply

    There are thousands of independent peer-reviewed studies which highlight the dangers of radio frequency radiation especially to children. This has been a subject of medical and scientific controversy for decades. Considering the industry does not understand the full effect that the current levels of RFR have on the human race considering the current levels have only been around for less than a decade, ass yet another and different type of RFR Is risky and irresponsible. There are already clear links between RFR and cancer in thousands studies conducted over the last couple of decades. To brush these aside and say “there is no scientific proof” is simply a lie. These studies can easily be found and read. The problem is we rely on industry loyal organisations such as Ofcom and ICNIRP to determine what is safe when they are funded by the industry. Independent and impartial investigations as to safety are the only reliable sources of information. Dismissing all the studies which have clearly stated that RFR is a health hazard and not insisting on Studies which determine The long term effects Of 5G could lead to A health pandemic on a decade or so. Our lives won’t fall to bits because 5G is delayed to conduct further investigations into its health risks. But if it is not safe and is deployed then yes it could be.
    I believe that safety and well being of our citizens takes priority over internet coverage.
    Because if they are wrong then much more is at risk tab whether or not we have a good signal.

Leave a Reply


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