Councillors are being advised to throw out plans for a new mobile phone mast in Rottingdean.
Mobile Broadband Network Limited (MBNL) wants to put up a mast and antenna for mobile phone companies EE and Three – and related equipment – on the roof of St Margaret’s Court, High Street, Rottingdean.
The proposed mast would replace emergency equipment in the Marine Cliffs car park, in Marine Drive, put up after the previous mast was removed during the refurbishment of the White Horse pub and hotel.
People in Rottingdean complained about the loss of mobile phone coverage, making it harder to pay for parking and shopping.
A report to Brighton and Hove City Council’s Planning Committee recommends refusing the application next Wednesday (4 December).
Planning officials said that the telecoms mast would be “highly visible” on the roof of St Margaret’s Court, with no shield or camouflage.
MBNL said: “The development has been positioned near users to meet operational needs. The existing telecoms site on the rooftop of the White Horse Hotel is an accepted feature to the Brighton area.
“We believe that by positioning the replacement site on the rooftop of St Margaret’s Court the development’s impact would be maintained at an acceptable level due to the site’s distance from more sensitive users and given that the equipment proposed is already an accepted feature of the area.”
The emergency masts would be removed from Marine Cliffs.
St Margaret’s Court was built in 1938, designed by Richard Jones and built by Charles Neville’s Saltdean Estate Company.
The company also built the grade II* listed Saltdean Lido and grade II listed Ocean Hotel in Saltdean which were also designed by Jones.
A report to the Planning Committee said: “It has clear aesthetic interest and is a good quality example of an inter-war Moderne style apartment building in the streamlined style taking advantage of its seafront location and reflecting the period aesthetic derived from ocean liners.”
Two dozen objections have been received by the council, some saying that the temporary base should be used, that the masts would affect roof access and have a detrimental effect on the listed building.
One anonymous objector, whose details were redacted by the council, said: “These extra masts would be an eyesore seen from a large area and will adversely affect the look of the building and the area.
“The masts are not planned for a roof but for our roof terrace. The roof terrace is a flat roof. It is an amenity owned by the leaseholders and for them to go on and use as allowed by the management company. New masts would be a loss of this amenity.”
Six comments in support said that the masts would improve telecommunication infrastructure, allow removal of the temporary base in the car park and would update the existing base station.
An anonymous supporter, whose details were also redacted, said: “I support this application to improve connectivity for local businesses and residents and to reduce signal interruptions.
“The rooftop of St Margaret’s Court already has telecommunications equipment so sets a strong existing precedent.
“The current temporary installation in Marine Cliffs car park is unsightly, potentially dangerous in such an exposed position and occupies many car parking spaces which creates a loss of amenity for the residents and local businesses.”
The Planning Committee is due to meet at Hove Town Hall at 2pm next Wednesday (4 December). The meeting is scheduled to be webcast on the council’s website.
No wonder nothing ever gets done in this country with NIMBYs like this.
If I were the mobile phone company I would say **** you lot , have no coverage then !
I tend to agree, just threaten the council with this option or walk away. By there very nature mobile masts are highly visible, if they weren’t they wouldn’t work, which I believe is the problem!!?? It’s better than being on the Downs.
There are already mobile masts on the roof, are there not?
There are already Antennae on the roof – this is an obvious place for a mast. FAR BETTER than Marine Cliffs Car park. I cannot see what the fuss is about!!!!
Arguments like this, which fundamentally comes down to “does it look nice”, when in consideration to the already massively restricted development space of Brighton, makes me think that minor Listed Buildings and aspects are more a hindrance on balance on effective and modern development.