Plans for 5G masts within 30 metres of both St Peters Community Primary and Nursery School and Hove Junior School have been submitted to the council for approval by the operators of the Three mobile network in the UK.
Local campaigners who fought against an almost identical application at Fishersgate Terrace last year want to keep masts away from schools as a precaution.
Carol Springgay of the Stop 5G mast by St Peters School campaign group said: “We feel the precautionary principle should be adhered to and secondly the telecoms company should exhaust all other options before they consider putting it beside a sensitive site which the school is.
“We don’t feel they have exhausted all the options so they should be demonstrating that they have.”
Previously, the anti-5G campaign group raised more than £12,000 to launch a judicial review against the council’s approval last year of a 15 metre mast in Fishersgate Terrace.
The review succeeded, on the grounds the council had not taken into account the concerns of its own highways department.
But the new planning application suggests a mast in exactly the same location, with more detailed drawings showing how much cabinets at the base of the mobile phone mast would reduce motorists’ visibility.
The petitions have been submitted to the council’s planning team.
Hove MP Peter Kyle has also submitted letters of objection to both planning application consultations.
His letter about the mast opposite St Peter’s School says: “I know the area well and I believe that there are plenty of other locations which the telecom company could have considered which will not be directly by the school.”
A Three spokesperson said: “5G rollout is vital for residents and businesses of Portslade. We want to offer the community a reliable network experience and this site will be critical to making that happen.
“Masts need to be situated where people will be using the service and, in many cases, in precise locations to ensure the widest breadth of coverage.
“We carry out extensive searches and evaluate a wide range of options before submitting any planning applications.”
The Fishersgate Terrace application can be found under reference BH2022/03457. The parents’ petition is here.
The Portland Road application can be found under reference BH2022/03509. The parents’ petition is here.
The laws around 5G mast installation are rigged in favor of the companies.
They can demand access to private property and force their ways without proper consideration.
If (or when) they go bust their rusting unwanted equipment will be left for others to sort-out.
Just remember all the unwanted non BT phone boxes that cluttered the streets for decades after they melted away.
Many of these old boxes are being replaced by BT Street Hubs that offer free phone calls and WiFi and cab act as 4g and 5g masts. Went near to one in Brighton and was getting 120 Mbit/second download speeds.
See https://business.bt.com/public-sector/street-hubs/street-hubs-for-councils/
Under current rules it seems 5g masts can be installed near to current ones without any planning permission. It’s a shame they are so obtrusive.
For new masts elsewhere consent is required, and as long as the levels EMF from the towers are within WHO defined safe levels for children why not go ahead?
After all the frequencies used are those freed up from Freeview and similar to Wi-Fi that we are continually bathed with.
Everyone wants a great phone signal so what’s the objections to these masts? None of the objectors make it clear what the problem is with 5G. They’re ugly? They can go elsewhere? They just object and don’t say why.
Is this a ‘tinfoil hat’ objection from a bunch of people who have ‘done their research’ on Youtube who think that the 5G will trigger the chip that Bill Gates injected into all of us with the Covid vaccine?
The objection from me is they have a RIGHT to install THEIR equipment on anyone’s private property and the owners have VERY LITTLE rights to stop them.
Remember these are private companies who’s ONLY interest is profit.
Their installed equipment devalues any property.
There is NOT system in place to remove it once it become obsolete.
The system to object in real terms DOSE NOT EXIST.
Thank you so much to all the people who have signed our petition. We are two mums who feel that telecom masts should be located further away from schools. The exclusion zones for these masts (areas not deemed safe for public) are too close for comfort to our children who spend 30hrs per week on these sites. We are concerned parents just opposing these masts only and we are not ‘anti 5G campaigners’
Perhaps make it clear that you are against all mobile phone transmitters?
What have the telecoms companies said about the exclusion zone needed to keep emission levels below WHO recommended limits for children?
Do you know what current EMF levels in the playgrounds are?
And how did your court case go last week?
The available studies do not provide adequate and sufficient information for a meaningful safety assessment, or for the question about non-thermal effects.
Are you worried about all EMF (including satellite, Freeview TV, and FM/DAB radio, WiFi, DECT phones, Bluetooth, and smart meters), just that from 5g, or from all mobile phone communications (including GSM, 3g, and 4g)?
What non-thermal effects do you think exist?