Dear Jack Summers (Planning Officer - Brighton and Hove City Council

Less than one month after the Refusal of BH2022/03509, WHP telecom have resubmitted an almost identical application (BH2023/00230) for a 15m high Phase 9 slimline telecommunications monopole with associated equipment cabinets and ancillary works, RIGHT NEXT to Hove Junior School, adjacent to West Hove Infants plus many residences and businesses nearby.  The deadline for comments is 20th February

 

WE OBJECT TO THIS APPLICATION 

The grounds given in the Refusal of BH2022/03509 have NOT been addressed in this second revised application, namely;

▪︎APPEARANCE: Unacceptable in terms of appearance, the cabinetry would form blocky and functional additions to the streetscene, obscuring the boundary fence which is a positive visual contribution to the streetscene. The mast would be disproportionately tall within this part of the streetscene and would be incongruous within its setting in front of the single storey Victorian school buildings, contrary to policy DM25 of the Brighton and Hove City Plan Part Two.

▪︎ ALTERNATIVE SITE: Evidence has not been provided to demonstrate the applicant has explored the possibility of erecting antennas on existing buildings, or upgrading existing equipment, contrary to the National Framework Policy 117(c) and Policy DM25 of the Brighton and Hove City Plan Part Two

▪︎ CONSULTATION: No Evidence of the outcome of Consultation with the Local Planning Authoirity and Hove Junior School has been submitted, contrary to paragraph 117(a) of the National Framework.

Hove Junior School and West Hove Infants have not been meaningfully consulted, only receiving correspondance shortly prior to the application submission.  Hove Junior School and West Hove Infants have since submitted a formal Objection.  Residents in the houses and flats and business in the immediate proximity to the proposed location have not been consulted.   

In addition we dispute the applicant's claims;

The mast is "sited away from the residential properties, towards an area of commercial use" and "suitably distant from potentially sensitive users"

Contrary, this mast is DIRECTLY OUTSIDE  Hove Juniors and adjacent West Hove Infants were 850 pupils and staff attend during school term as well as flats and houses on all sides in what is stated by the applicant as a "residential area".

The "site has been selected on a wide adopted area of the highway in a position that cabinetry will not impede pedestrian flow... sited on a wide pavement"

Contrary, the mast and cabinets are outside the school gate with heavy pedestrian traffic passing in both directions to and from Hove Juniors and West Hove Infants with pushchairs, wheelchairs, scooters and bicycles.

Whilst the proposal claims there will be no adverse impact on the amenity, landscape and nature conservation in the locality, it cannot prove that there will not be adverse health effects on local people, for example local residents and the primary school aged children, who would spend 6 or more hours per day within the immediate area of the mast, during which time they will be bombarded with radio frequency radiation.

It has been found that children are inherently more susceptible to harm from radio frequency radiation (RFR) because of their greater surface area to weight ratio and thinner skulls. Modelling has shown that 5-year-old children have a specific absorption rate (SAR) of 125% the ICNIRP basic restriction when exposed to ICNIRP public exposure reference levels. Therefore, the guidelines set by ICNIRP are NOT safe for young children. Many European countries, such as Italy, Bulgaria and Poland use an exposure limit up to 100 times lower than the UK.

Please do the right thing for the School and this community and REFUSE this second application.

Sincerely,

Catherine Michie & Deborah Griffiths 
Parents, Hove Junior & West Hove Infant School