Skip to main content

Planning – Application Comments

Help with this page (opens in a new window)

HS/TL/22/00527 | Proposed 5G telecommunications installation: 18m street pole and 3 additional ancillary equipment cabinets and associated ancillary works. | Pavement, Bohemia Road, Hastings (east of The Oval and Opposite Summerfields Sport Centre Car Park)
  • Total Consulted: 0
  • Comments Received: 49
  • Objections: 48
  • Supporting: 1
  • View all comments icon

Search Filters

Collapse All|Expand All|Showing 1-10 of 49|1|2|3|4|5|

Ms Cibdy Chin Sang

Comment submitted date: Fri 12 Aug 2022

I object to this mast proposal. I can't believe that we are constantly inundated with these types of application when there is so much evidence out there which demonstrates that this technology is not safe. All we see these days is profits of the corporations put above the well being of humans, animals and the planet. Things need to change!

On a purely aesthetic note, a mast here would be totally unsightly. Existing masts are so imposing and obtrusive and we really do not need or want any more.

Please do the right thing and refuse this mast.

Alan Murphy

Comment submitted date: Mon 08 Aug 2022

I wish to comment on this proposed installation of a 5G mast (and all such existing and proposed installations).

WiFi in the town (including public transport) is already beyond harmful levels.
If 5G is fully installed as planned (for highly dubious reasons), consequencies will be devastating.
But iIf you choose to ignore the overwhelming scientific evidence you will have failed and played a part in the condemnation of humanity and the planet.

Please find the courage and integrity to do the right thing and stop this evil technology while there is still time. PLEASE.
The health, well being, and future of our children is paramount.

Mr Matt Brooks

Comment submitted date: Mon 08 Aug 2022

I object to this mast as it is overbearing and unfitting to the surrounding area. There is evidence in the Kostoff 2020 paper ( and that the emissions from masts are a pollutant which cause adverse health effects, beyond the effects which are recognised in the UK adopted ICNIRP guidelines. Despite the policy to only consider ICNIRP under NPPF para 118, it is important to make an evidence-based determination of the material planning consideration 'incompatible and unacceptable use' of land under NPPF para 185. The 2018 EECC code transposed into Law in Dec 202O also clearly states that public health is an imperative and competent authorities should be reconciling the risks. In view of the mounting evidence of harm and any uncertainty, please apply precaution and refuse this mast."

Ms Jana atupa

Comment submitted date: Mon 08 Aug 2022

"This is a siting issue - it is 'incompatible and unacceptable use' of land and that is a material planning consideration. There is evidence of a pollutant involved causing adverse health effects which need to be evaluated under sentence 1, section 185 of the NPPF, and the Planning department has to take account of that evidence. The polluting effects have to be investigated by competent persons. That competence falls under the environmental health/director public health remit. The evidence shows this application is unsustainable under the NPPF social sustainability objective - there is no net benefit - the application should be refused."

Mr Malcolm Robertson

Comment submitted date: Mon 08 Aug 2022

Major new (Jan 2021) evaluation from BERENIS, the Swiss expert group on electromagnetic fields and non-ionising radiation, finds that the majority of research studies demonstrate effects on oxidative stress BERENIS group Jan 2021. This review confirms there is scientific evidence showing adverse impacts from RFR as the "majority of the animal and more than half of the cell studies provided evidence of increased oxidative stress caused by RF-EMF or ELF-MF." Despite some methodological issues in the body of research "EMF exposure, even in the low dose range, can lead to changes in oxidative balance." Furthermore, as pre-existing conditions, such as immune deficiencies or diseases (diabetes, neurodegenerative diseases), compromise the body's defence mechanisms, "it is therefore possible that individuals with these conditions experience more severe health effects."

David Carey

Comment submitted date: Sun 07 Aug 2022

I wish to object to the installation of a 5G mast on Bohemia Road opposite Summerfields sports centre car park.

Apart from being unsightly, the technology associated with 5G is untested has been shown to have a detrimental effect on some people, nature & the environment.

Mark Butler

Comment submitted date: Sat 06 Aug 2022

I strongly object to the proposed mast as my wife has %comment redacted% and masts are known to increase health problems.
It would also be an eyesore and ruin a popular green open space affecting the ecosystem as well.

Miss Sam Glazier

Comment submitted date: Sat 06 Aug 2022

I strongly object to the proposal of a 5G telecommunications installation on the oval opposite summerfields leisure centre.

The safety of 5G is not clear.

Close to homes, children, animals and wildlife. Risk to all.

I walk the area 3-4 times daily.

It's proposed on a beautiful site with wonderful views. This would destroy the beauty of the site and disrupt future healthy development for the area. Close to another installation already near by at the cricket ground.

Please only consider development and changes that pose no risk to health and have no negative aesthetic consequences.

Mel Young

Comment submitted date: Sat 06 Aug 2022

I wish to object to this application on grounds of ugly, incongruous, and probably heath risk.

Mrs Marissa Singer

Comment submitted date: Sat 06 Aug 2022

A 5G is not safe for people with health issues %comment redacted%

Showing 1-10 of 49|1|2|3|4|5|

an Idox solution