Skip to main content

Planning – Application Comments

Help with this page (opens in a new window)

HS/TL/22/00528 | Proposed 5G telecommunications installation: 18m street pole, 3 ancillary equipment cabinets and associated ancillary works. | Pavement western side Warrior Square Gardens, Warrior Square, St Leonards-on-sea (Opposite 13-15 Warrior Square)
  • Total Consulted: 0
  • Comments Received: 284
  • Objections: 280
  • Supporting: 4
  • View all comments icon

Search Filters

Collapse All|Expand All|Showing 1-10 of 284|1|2|3|4|5|6|7|8|9|10|

Miss Nicola Helgesen

Comment submitted date: Tue 02 Aug 2022

I contacted ofcom to confirm that CK Hutchison Networks (UK) Limited has been granted powers under the Electronic Communications Code and they confirmed they had and ofcom also sent me the results of the government consultation about how the recent changes to permitted developments effect conservation areas and this proposal does not fit into those guidelines. It is not only within a conservation area but it is in site of a grade 2 listed historic monument and others grade 2 listed buildings. Warrior Square should now become a Registered park, if possible, in order to ensure it has greater protection in future.

Im hopeful that this application will be rejected based on government guidelines relating to communication mast sites.

Dr Martin Liebscher

Comment submitted date: Tue 02 Aug 2022

Dear council,



I am a resident at Warrior Square. The windows of my flat are facing directly the proposed mast. I bought this flat two years ago as I was enchanted by the view and the prospect to live at such a historical place. It was important for me to know that this is a conservation area. I am shocked to read of the proposals to instal a 5G mast on Warrior Square which will damage the historical appearance of the square. I cannot understand that a place that thrives on tourism will even contemplate such an undertaking. I strongly object to the installation of this mast on Warrior Square.



With kind regards



Dr Martin Liebscher

Ms Tracy Birrell

Comment submitted date: Mon 01 Aug 2022

No,just no.

Ms Marie Corette

Comment submitted date: Sat 30 Jul 2022

5G is a killer this will harm all people with the radiation this 5G will emit. It will cause health problems like cancer, headaches, hearing and vision, sleep problems and much more. It will harm the bees, birds etc and we need them. So I object greatly to this mast going up. Lives is more important than technology which can destroy lives like this 5G. So please do not ruin this area with this monstrosity of an eye sore that will kill and do harm to people lives.

Thank you

Marie

Pat Morley

Comment submitted date: Sat 30 Jul 2022

Fantastic news, Hastings becoming part of the modern age. Cell internet speeds are terrible in Hastings. Lucky people who live nearby, not only will their wireless internet devices work well but I'm sure property prices will increase as it's near the top of the buying for sure renting list when considering property.

Please approve, this is much needed basic infrastructure to keep the town competitive and relevant in the imminent 5g connected modern world.

Mrs Susan Lawrence

Comment submitted date: Sat 30 Jul 2022

I'm sure there is another place which is less noticeable to the visitors of our town Warrior Square is a beautiful space to sit and enjoy which goes with the setting don't spoil it

Mr Adam Wide

Comment submitted date: Fri 29 Jul 2022

Hello and good morning,



I would like to add my robust voice to the general clamour of despair at the application to erect a 5G mast in Warrior Square.



It goes without saying that this is a historic, beautiful and much-photographed location of central importance to a town which has an economy based on tourism.



It would be commercial and aesthetic suicide to go ahead with this proposal.





If you could add this message to the tsunami of those against this application I would be most grateful.



Thank you,





Adam Wide

Ms Sally Mundy

Comment submitted date: Thu 28 Jul 2022

This falls within a conservation area - a beautiful Victorian square with a green space for public recreation which this horrendous mast would destroy - an absolute degradation of the visual amenity of the area. Conservation areas are supposed to be protected. NPPF 2019 8b) states: 'The purpose of the planning system is to contribute to the achievement of sustainable development...[Meeting the] social objective [requires] support[ing] strong, vibrant and healthy communities, by ... fostering a well-designed and safe built environment, with accessible services and open spaces that reflect current and future needs and support communities' health, social and cultural well-being.' - 'Local planning authorities should...work proactively with applicants to secure developments that will improve the economic, social and environmental conditions of the area.' (NPPF 2019: para 38).

Please also note obligations under the Health & Social Care Act 2012, which states:

'2b) Functions of local authorities and the Secretary of State as to improvement of public health: 'Each local authority must take such steps as it considers appropriate for improving the health of the people in its area. (3) Subsection (4a) the protection of the public from ionising or non-ionising radiation.'

Local authorities' public health responsibilities standard note SN06844 March 2014 states:

'Local authorities have, since 1 April 2013, been responsible for improving the health of their local population...Health is a devolved matter'

The separate Library Note, Health and Wellbeing Boards (England), states that these Boards are intended to: 'improve the health and wellbeing of the people in their area; reduce health inequalities; and, promote the integration of services, including providing assistance to help individuals minimise risks to health arising from their accommodation or environment.'

Regulation 8 imposes a duty on local authorities to provide information and advice to certain persons and bodies within their area in order to promote the preparation of, or participation in, health protection arrangements against threats to the health of the local population, including environmental hazards.

Health should be a material planning consideration: A 2021 legal challenge against Brighton Council for permitting a base station was successful with a Judicial Review hearing granted at the High Court of Justice. Health, environmental, and aesthetic grounds were all conceded and the council was ordered to pay costs. .....The judge stated that 'the Council failed to address the health impacts of this particular proposal and to obtain adequate evidence of the assessment of the proximity to the school and the amended proposal'. Whilst the grounds for refusal state "for this particular proposal"; health impacts apply to all masts; and studies show that detrimental health effects are experienced within 500m. The ecological damage 5g will cause by being a major contributor to massively increased energy consumption and the associated collateral damage from this is contrary to any Green or Climate change agenda.

The Code (Code of Best Practice 2016: Edition Agreed: 24.06.2016) stipulates that telecommunications providers should adhere to principles of the National Planning Policy Framework: framework--2 : '2.5 The NPPF advises that...developments improve the environmental conditions of the area.' Any new mast or addition to existing masts will necessarily degrade the environmental conditions of the area. : '5.7 Good mobile connectivity...contributes to minimising pollution, and mitigating climate change and helps in the move towards a low carbon economy.' This mast would violate this point as a) the energy required by phone masts is high and provably a major contributor to carbon dioxide emissions; b) masts emit a toxic effluent which is a proven pollutant. Where NPPF policies conflict, material planning considerations and related evidence will be decisive.

The application can be refused through a determination that ICNIRP certification made by the applicant is insufficient to counter the evidence that on siting grounds the applicant's proposal is an 'incompatible or unacceptable use' of the land that the applicant intends to deploy. Although IARC (International Agency for Research on Cancer) has classified EMF as a possible carcinogen, the main reference organisation (ICNIRP) adopts a policy re non-ionising radiation that is closer to promotion than to protection. In contrast to ionising radiation protection policy, ICNIRP does not recommend the use of dose constraints. This policy means that the public is not adequately protected or even informed. - https://www2.irpa.net/members/IRPA13-abstract-USB-FINAL.pdf 2012 (Page 187)

Invalidity of ICNIRP guidelines: Note that Public Health England/COMARE does not itself review RFR research, but follows guidelines set by ICNIRP (the International Commission on Non-Ionising Radiation Protection).

- A 2020 ruling by the Court of Appeal of Turin stated that the ICNIRP are biased towards the industry and that their views should not be used as guidance - https://microwavenews.com/.../italian-supreme-court...

- A detailed 2020 report by the MEPs Michele Rivasi and Klaus Buchner exposed the ICNIRP as being biased and having financial conflicts of interest: - https://www.michele-rivasi.eu/.../ICNIRP-report-FINALJUNE...

- A presentation of conflicts of interest amongst PHE and ICNIRP by neuroscientistDr Sarah Starkey whose evidence to Westminster preceded the disbanding of AGNIR: - https://www.degruyter.com/.../reveh/31/4/article-p493.xml

- A group of scientists states that ICNIRP's opinion and guidelines are unscientific and protect industry, not public health - https://www.emfcall.org/the-emf-call/

- In 2020, the ICNIRP removed the 'vulnerable groups' section, which included children, from its guidance. Yet its 2002 guidelines stated that 'vulnerable people, such as the sick, elderly and children, would need non-thermal limits below its heatings-only limits.'

In May this year a French court issued an order for a 4g antenna to be switched off for harming the health of nearby cows: https://www.connexionfrance.com/article/French-news/French-court-orders-4G-antenna-switch-off-over-cow-health-concerns

Please see this list of studies regarding potential harm to wildlife compiled by the Environmental Health Trust, a US foundation run by the Nobel lead author and eminent environmental oncologist Dr Devra Davis environment: https://ehtrust.org/science/bees-butterflies-wildlife-research-electromagnetic-fields-environment/

A field monitoring study spanning 9 years involving over 100 trees found trees sustained significantly more damage on the side of the tree facing the antenna, leaving the entire tree system prone to degradation over time: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/27552133/

A 2020 Consensus Statement by PHIRE Medical declaring that microwave radiation from masts and devices causes harm has been signed by 3,500 medical and scientific experts: https://phiremedical.org/2020-nir-consensus-statement-read/

Possible decrease in spawning of worms: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/35544783/

Research suggests cell-tower radiation harms wildlife: https://www.publicnewsservice.org/2022-02-10/endangered-species-and-wildlife/research-suggests-cell-tower-radiation-harms-wildlife/a77814-1

(This includes a quote from Dr. Albert Manville, adjunct professor at Johns Hopkins University, retired biologist with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and a co-author of the study, said industry profits should not override environmental concerns - "Yet the industry has proceeded, going ahead," ... "Now we have 5G rolling out in massive quantities, without due diligence to determine are these sources of radiation safe not only for humans but for wildlife. And the answer is, no, they are not.")



The France, Spain and California Green Parties, the France Climate Change Council, and Greenpeace East Asia have all warned of the climate footprint of 5G.



The British Ecological Society has identified RFR as one of the top emerging issues that could affect global biological diversity and conservation. https://www.cell.com/trends/ecology-evolution/fulltext/S0169-5347(17)30289-6

Physicians for Safe Technology have stated that wireless radiation is being increasingly recognised as an environmental pollutant. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0013935118300161?via%3Dihub

Experts have warned that RFR encourages drug resistance in microbes. https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/8665432

A 2021 article in the British Medical Journal by epidemiologist Professor William Frank calls for a halt to the 5G rollout and outlines the proven health issues caused by microwave radiation:: https://www.bmj.com/company/newsroom/stop-global-roll-out-of-5g-networks-until-safety-is-confirmed-urges-expert/

The Federal Court in America has recently ordered the FCC to explain why it ignored scientific evidence showing harm from wireless radiation. "On August 13 [2021], the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit ruled that the FCC failed to provide a reasoned explanation for its determination that its current human exposure guidelines adequately protect the public against all the harmful effects of exposure to 5G, cell tower, cell phone and wireless technologies." This alone should be enough for caution against the continuation and proliferation of 5g masts.

Each 5G mast requires approximately 3 x more power than a 4G mast (as much as 73 typical homes).

More information around the effects of 5g should be explored before planning is approved - no risk assessment has been undertaken regarding 5g and no insurance against health liabilities are in place. It has NOT been proven that 5g and EMFs are safe for both humans and the environment. In view of the mounting evidence of harm and any uncertainty, please apply precaution and refuse these masts.

Mr Nigel Ford

Comment submitted date: Thu 28 Jul 2022

These masts are necessary. The council will have to decide whether the precise location is the right one from the streetscpae point of view, but I urge Councillors to listen to independent expert opinion regarding the safety of 5G, rather than ill-informed opinions picked up from sensationalist sources or conspiracy theorists

Ms Suzanne Sutcliffe-Bowes

Comment submitted date: Thu 28 Jul 2022

I would like to register my objection in the strongest possible terms both as a Hastings resident and St. Leonard's business owner. The placing of this monopole is entirely inconsistent with the conservation area and the historic surroundings in which it would be located. Its placement here would have a hugely negative visual impact for the residents of the square, those who enjoy its amenity and visitors who come to take in the seafront promenade and its environs. Many local residents and business owners are working hard to improve and restore the area to its former glory and the council should look to work together to achieve this aim not against it by permitting such an inappropriate development. A 5G mast should clearly be sited in an industrial area NOT a residential and public one of historic architectural importance. I believe that this development would be in contravention of the council's own stated aims in this regard.

Showing 1-10 of 284|1|2|3|4|5|6|7|8|9|10|

an Idox solution