People living near the proposed site of a 66ft (20-metre) mast have started a petition against the plan for the spot at what they said was the green gateway to the city.
The Dyke Road residents are concerned about the visual impact of the proposed mast which would go on the pavement by green space near the traffic lights at The Upper Drive, Hove.
The petition on the Change.org website – Stop the installation of a 60ft telecoms mast at Dyke Road / The Upper Drive – had more than 260 signatures at the time of writing.
The application was submitted by telecommunications company Cornerstone, which works with various mobile phone operators, including the newly merged Vodafone and 3.
The proposal is with Brighton and Hove City Council’s planning team after the company requested “prior approval” – a streamlining of the planning process.
Residents Tim Parsons and Jez Pegg want to make more people aware of the application because a notice was sent just to the direct neighbours in Dyke Road and four flats in The Martlets.
Mr Parsons said that he was not against 5G technology but did not feel that the mast would be in the right place. He said: “It’s hard to believe that this is the optimum solution for everyone concerned.
“This particular site, a key entry point into the city, has been chosen, it sounds like, because it’s optimum for the telecommunications company, which they more or less say by saying they’ve ruled out other sites. But to what degree they’ve looked at them is the question.”
Cornerstone has previously submitted two applications to put up masts on the roof of the Park Lodge flats on the southern side of the Dyke Road crossroads with The Upper Drive and Highcroft Villas.
Other mobile masts are concealed in a false chimney stack on the roof of the Territorial Army barracks on the Brighton side of Dyke Road.
Mr Pegg said: “We were completely blindsided by what was going on and how it was going through and who was made aware of it. There were half a dozen houses made aware. Our neighbours were not.”
Mr Parsons and Mr Pegg have contacted the Green MP for Brighton Pavilion, Siân Berry, and the Labour MP for Hove and Portslade, Peter Kyle. The proposed mast is on the Hove side of the boundary of the two constituencies.
When the campaigners contacted the team at the grade II-listed Dyke Road Tavern, opposite the site, they were surprised to learn that they were not aware of the application.
The two schools in The Upper Drive – Cottesmore St Mary’s RC Primary School and Cardinal Newman Catholic School and Sixth Form College – were informed.
As well as visual impact, the campaigners were concerned about control boxes narrowing the pavement – not least because of the volume of students walking along the road at the start and end of the school day.
More than 3,000 students attend nearby BHASVIC, the largest sixth form in Sussex, and more than 2,500 pupils attend Cardinal Newman, the largest secondary school in Brighton and Hove.
Good luck with that. There is already one at the bottom of the Upper Drive; near Newman, Cottesmore, a nursery and an old people’s home. Put up during Covid with limited notice or time to lodge a complaint. Being near schools or the vulnerable apparently is not an issue.
Certainly isn’t! Visual impact would be the best argument in my opinion, but as you said, there’s been a few installed already, so it is normalised structure, which weakens that argument significantly.
After a while you get used to them and they are really no worse than street lights, telephone poles, or CCTV masts.
With the higher frequencies used for high performance 5g, the signals are easily absorbed by vegetation so you need direct line of sight with the transponders.
They anti-5g nimbys are getting pretty desperate with their attempts to stop these masts going in – now trying to get MPs involved.
That pavement looks to be very wide with plenty of space for a few telecommunication cabinets.
Aye, health is not a good argument. There is no credible scientific evidence that 5G masts pose a health risk. In fact, planning law specifically prohibits refusal of mobile infrastructure on health grounds.
Not in the right place? You need repeaters every so often otherwise the signal degrades.
Evidence of health risks of 5G technology has been ignored by the 3 mobile company and it’s agents.
Members of this Facebook group have posted some of the researched.
https://www.facebook.com/groups/Brightonandhoveforsafetechnology/?ref=share
The planners at Brighton and Hove council have already dealt with many objections to 5G masts. Why do we need to repeatedly point out to them why people don’t want them.
Anyone can read the comments on the planning page and familiarise ourselves with why people don’t want them. Several campaigns have already resulted in planning rejection. But why do we have to do the job of officers?
They have to do more than just read the application – ban this technology in the city so the residents will not have to do the ground work for them.
We need to be vigilant. One application came from a person whose address was given as the council.
There is no evidence of health risks from “5g technology”.
If you claim there is then please supply details of what you claim are the risks and what you claim is “5g technology”?
Some 5g is as new higher frequencies to allow faster data rates, but others is reusing frequencies previously used for 3g and for Freeview. Are these also risky?
Were 2g and 4g risky?
Is it the frequencies used and how do these compare to other forms of EMF? Is it the power levels? Do you think it is linked to Covid vaccines inserting nanobots into our bodies?
How do you know “people do not want 5g masts”? Is it based upon ignorant claims from anti-5g activists who do not understand technology and science, who spread scaremongering information about EMF causing almost every ailment but do not understand the difference between “correlation” and “causation”?
Your reply seems to be quoting Mobile UK Briefing Note: 5G and Health. They have vested interest in spreading 5G. You did not follow the link above or see the reference to objections 5G to planning applications in our city – there are objections in other cities too. You did not do any independent research. The details are involved and numerous and the article here cannot give you everything. You have been alerted to an issue and you can take an interest and follow through. It takes time to get to the truth in these times when money speaks very loud.
If you are still interested, here is an opportunity to inform yourself if you so wish.
https://www.ukcolumn.org/event/5g-expose
Elsewhere, an issue was highlighted at Worthing council meeting (17 October 2023) is the harmful effect of 5G wavelength anyone with metal in their bodies! – Surgical – metal pins, plates, rods, discs, screws e.g. scoliosis surgery and joint replacement of knees and hips.
Also I came across an excerpt from a letter to The Rt Hon Caroline Dineage MP Minister for Digital and Culture at the Department for Digital, Culture, Media & Sport from Wera Hobhouse MP for Bath on 27 February 2020: “Lloyds of London has refused to insure against health effects from all wireless technology since 2010 (Exclusion 32) and there are currently no insurers in the world who will cover this.
5G is rated a high impact risk by reinsurers Swiss Re in their Emerging Risks Report (May 2019) ”
Hope this helps.
No, I just understand the technical aspects, and your total ignorance about EMF is patently obvious as you are unable to explain what it is about 5g that concerns you.
Perhaps get out from your Facebook echo-chamber of conspiracy theorists and pseudo-science and get properly educated!