Go ahead for mast

A MOBILE phone mast in an area of outstanding natural beauty has been given the go ahead, despite residents' concerns.

A MOBILE phone mast in an area of outstanding natural beauty has been given the go ahead, despite residents' concerns.

Lewes District Council granted planning permission for the 12-metre mast at Seaford on condition that trees were planted in front as camouflage.

Hide Ad
Hide Ad

The pole will be placed immediately adjacent to Dymock Farm. The farm is within the Sussex Downs area of outstanding natural beauty (AONB), close to the eastern edge of the town.

The mast would be disguised as a telegraph pole and would be used with the T-Mobile (formerly One2One) mobile phone network.

A petition of 35 signatures and six letters were received from local residents, all objecting to the proposal.

Views expressed included worries about health and the harm the mast would do to an AONB.

Hide Ad
Hide Ad

According to T-Mobile there is a gap in its coverage along a stretch of the A259 from the eastern edge of Seaford, through Exceat and towards Friston. The mast would fill that hole and T-Mobile would be meeting the obligations of its licence, to provide network coverage.

The Sussex Downs Conservation Board objected to the proposal on the grounds of landscape impact. It said the pole, 'would be visually prominent in the context of the low profile buildings around. The strong vertical emphasis would not be in keeping with the otherwise flat open landscape of the AONB.'

Cllr Les Whittle said: 'These days we are told what to do and what not to do from all sorts of governing bodies. I think we should do what the locals want. The public have a fear about health issues, they should be listened to.'

Cllr David Neighbour, a member of the Sussex Downs Conservation Board, said: 'This is the first time I have gone against the board. I don't own a mobile phone so I don't have a vested interest in a mast.

'I don't think there is a problem with the mast. It has got to go somewhere.'

The planning committee voted for the mast with two members voting against.