East Preston 5G mast plan rejected - This is why

Planning permission was sought last year for a 5G telecoms installation – a 15m street pole and additional equipment cabinets – in Sea Lane, East Preston.

The application had been submitted by CK Hutchison Holdings, on behalf of The Three mobile network. East Preston Parish Council lodged an official objection after a meeting on October 24.

Arun District Council has refused planning permission for the mast. A decision notice read: “We strongly object to the proposals on the following grounds; impact on visual amenity of the area; insufficient analysis of other sites; health implications and application inconsistencies.”

Local resident Tony Miles, who led a campaign against the application, said the council’s decision was ‘great news for the village and everyone who uses the beach’.

He added: "We are relieved, as are the people who signed the petition and came down to express their anxieties about what was being proposed.

"They [the district council] have done the right thing and have been very careful about how they've dealt with it. They've taken into account the concerns of residents which is great. It's very reassuring.

"We aren't against digitalisation of East Preston or anywhere. We understand that connection has to happen but it needs to be done in a reasonable way.”

Similar plans for a 5G mast in a Littlehampton residential estate were approved despite concerns from locals – including the town council – in August last year.

If the latest plan was approved, the mast would have been next to Dean House residential care home. Mr Miles said the mast might have affect people who have dementia.

Speaking last year, he said: “The top of the mast will be about 26 metres from the top floor of my house but I can choose to go somewhere else. The care home residents have no choice.”

West Sussex County Council confirmed it received a safeguarding referral after a member of the public raised concerns about proposals for a 5G mast in East Preston.

‘Following consideration’, it was decided ‘no further safeguarding action was necessary’, the council said.

Why was the application refused?

Residents held a campaign day on Saturday, November 12 at the site of the proposed ‘massive MIMO monopole’. More than 250 people signed petitions, opposed to the proposal.

The developers had argued that there were ‘no satisfactory alternatives’ for telecommunications. They had considered possibility of mast sharing and ‘mounting the antennae required on existing buildings or other structures’.

They said the proposal would not have an ‘unacceptable impact’ upon the landscape, areas protected for nature conservation or heritage assets – and that it would not have an ‘adverse impact on the amenity of local residents’.

The district council said previous ‘unsuitable and inappropriate’ applications in Arun had been refused for similar works with proposed monopolies measuring 13m in height, ‘due to their impact in the area of character’.

A spokesperson said: “The proposal by reason of the height and mast and provision of cabinets would conflict with the local planning authority’s intention to protect and, where possible, enhance the visual amenities and environment of such areas.

"It was considered that a 15m pole would appear out of scale with the surrounding properties and street furniture, particularly in views from Sea Lane. Views would be available from all surrounding streets and the wider locality causing a negative impact in terms of the character of the area.

"It was considered that the proposal would have a significant harmful impact on the character and appearance of the area to the detriment of the visual amenity of the locality and neighbouring residents.”

Have you read?: Video: delays on the A27 outside Arundel after fuel spillage

Littlehampton RNLI station manager celebrates 40 years of saving lives at sea

Public urged to use NHS services appropriately as critical incident is stepped down across Sussex