A plan to put more phone masts on top of a locally listed block of flats in Rottingdean has been refused.
Mobile phone firms Three and EE wanted to put antenna and associated equipment on the roof of St Margaret’s, at the southern end of Rottingdean High Street.
The plans were submitted to Brighton and Hove City Council by telecoms infrastructure firm Mobile Broadband Network Limited (MBNL) on behalf of the phone two networks.
There were 32 objections, many from residents of the flats who each own a share of the freehold, and seven comments in support, highlighting the need to improve the mobile signal in the area.
Supporters also mentioned the need to remove the temporary base station in the Marine Cliffs Car Park.
The chair of St Margaret’s freeholders Bill Ainscow spoke about potential permitted development rights on the roof of the building.
An existing mast installed by another telecoms infrastructure firm, Cornerstone, has already increased in size – and the firm now plans to add more antennas through permitted development rights.
Mr Ainscow said: “We have one mast. We’ll have three masts in no time if we’re not careful – and if you (the council) give planning permission to MBNL, we’ll have five masts.
“When they’ve used their permitted development right, we’ll have seven or eight masts.
“My worry is that you’ll drive into Rottingdean from any direction and you’ll see what looks like a telecoms building.”
Brighton and Hove Independent councillor Bridget Fishleigh, who represents Rottingdean and West Saltdean, said that she was neutral on the application.
Councillor Fishleigh said: “I completely understand why the owners and residents don’t want more equipment imposed against their will – and what Bill said about the other operator imposing equipment is completely accurate.
“But at some point, the telecoms merry-go-round in Rottingdean has to be resolved because the tower that’s in the car park, which is about 10 to 20 metres east of St Margaret’s building, the permission for that ran out last year.”
Communication Property Services director Chris Stratton, for MBNL, said that St Margarets was the only site that would work for the required network connectivity.
He said that the EE network provided the network for the emergency and health services.
Mr Stratton said: “Any alternative to this proposal would need at least two, possibly three new sites. Inevitably, these will be masts and at least one will have to be located within the conservation area.
“They will be neither as good in operational terms nor comply with planning guidance as well as St Margaret’s Court.”
Brighton and Hove Independent councillor Mark Earthey, who also represents Rottingdean and West Saltdean, said that there was “a lot of” anecdotal evidence that the area was a black spot for the emergency services.
Councillor Earthey, who voted in favour of the mast, said: “Can we please see completely clear and unambiguous evidence why we can’t put this anywhere else and why the planning officers really object to it.”
Green councillor Raphael Hill said: “Based on the fact that (mobile) black spots are really a threat to life, (that) would have to take precedence.”
Conservative councillor Carol Theobald said: “This would be very highly visible. This has increased in size and there’s be a threat of extra masts if this got passed.
“I do have sympathy because I know the network is not that good in Rottingdean but I don’t think it’s life-threatening.”
Labour councillor Alison Thomson, who chairs the Planning Committee, said that there should have been more discussion between the applicant and officials before the application was submitted to find a solution.
Councillor Thomson said: “When you’re told, ‘oh well, if we don’t have this mast people’s lives are at risk,’ that’s a pretty heavy thing to hang over us.
“For us then to say, ‘oh well, we like the building because it’s locally listed and we’re upset by the visuals of the mast, versus ‘if you don’t provide this connectivity people will die’, that’s quite a thing to have to weigh up.”
The committee voted to refuse the application by seven votes to three.
I’m guessing these masts would affect property values
I’m guessing that they would look unsightly and damage the fabric of the building.
Well, ambulances have their own phone signal boosters installed in them, and they use a priority system over residential usage, so I’m not sure how accurate it is to say there are black spots for emergency services.
Black spots affecting residents and visitors who may need to call the emergency services yet cant reach them because they have no or a poor signal?
On the flip side, making an emergency call uses any phone network available, as required. It’s why you can make emergency calls even if your mobile is showing no signal.
Good. Hideous things. These things should be getting smaller not larger.
As a Rottingdean resident, mobile signals are terrible. It’s 2026, land lines are almost gone , connected cars and another tech require signals. If many of my fellow residents had there way ,not only would only white people be allowed to live in the village , but electricity lines removed and horse drawn transport because brought back
There was an opportunity to resolve these issues when The White Horse was redeveloped. It seems that the telecom companies didn’t want to pay the fees. Now they want to atone for their myopic approach by foisting this carbuncle on the residents of a beautiful, listed art deco building. I am glad they are not being allowed to further vandalise this heritage asset.
Interesting decision – rooftop sites on residential blocks are always contentious, and the concerns about access and maintenance are understandable. For buildings that already host equipment, residents’ companies and freeholders sometimes don’t realise the lease can be dealt with separately: it can be kept as ongoing rent or sold to a specialist investor such as Telecom Infrastructure Partners for an upfront sum, which some blocks use to fund repairs.