Email to Lewes District Council About Telecoms Mast on the Buckle Bypass

As detailed in a previous post, Vodafone & Telefonica have put in a planning application to install a new mast on the Buckle Bypass in Seaford.

Below is my email to Lewes District Council to raise some concerns and questions about the proposed installation.

For anyone else who wishes to contact the Council about this matter the deadline for this is Thursday 28th April – extended from the original deadline of the 21st:


This email relates to Planning Application LW/16/0185 for a new telecoms mast that is proposed for installation on the Buckle Bypass in Seaford.

The mobile phone signal here is poor, so I do not object to the principle of a mast being installed in the area.  If the proposed site is the most suitable location for this mast, then I also do not object to the proposal – it has to go somewhere.

However, I have some concerns about whether due diligence has been exercised by Lewes District Council with regard to assessing whether this site is suitable.  I would therefore be grateful if you could answer the following questions:

  • What tests have been carried out as to whether the ground on the proposed site is stable enough to support the weight of the base + mast on a long-term basis?  What were the results and conclusions of those tests?
  • During winter months storms batter the south coast on a fairly regular basis with wind speeds sometimes reaching 80mph or even higher speed.  What measures are planned to prevent damage to the installation such as the mast snapping (it is after all a very tall mast at 12.5 metres – 41 feet –  in height) or the entire structure including the base being dislodged?  If this were to happen, it could cause damage to properties underneath the mast or alternatively the mast could fall across the A259 potentially blocking the road, damaging vehicles or causing an accident.
  • If damage were to occur to surrounding properties as a result of the mast and/or base collapsing, what scheme do you propose to put in place to compensate the householders affected?
  • Other than the proposed site, which other sites in the area were considered for this installation and on which basis was this particular site selected over the alternatives?