Proposed base station installation with 20 metre mast

Southwark Council have recently published the following planning application notice.  Please note that you must submit your comments on this application by 14th January. Details on the application and how to submit your comments are on the forms below.

23_AP_3268-SITE_NOTICE-3778371

 

23_AP_3268-SITE_LOCATION_PLAN-3765911

Comments

  1. Agree reception is dire – but so many questions – what would the pole and antenna look like? A photo of an equivalent installation would be helpful so we know the visual impact on a conservation area? Also would be good to understand they ‘why’ – why this site? What other options have been explored? And what would be the benefits? Would the RA help get answers to these questions?

    1. Yes the RA will but individual residents must actually reply to the planning application.

  2. You can see one if you drive through Norwood and get to the right turn for Crystal Palace FC, it is on the left before the lights.
    I suggest no one would like it in view of their house………….

  3. Apologies for yet another comment. Lots more info on the Southwark planning portal, answering most if the questions above. The pole would be quite slim, hidden by trees and would be consistent with existing street furniture structures in terms of colour etc. The installer indicates that Vodafone coverage would improve considerable (not sure about other providers, it mentions Vodafone only). It doesn’t really cover the question as to why other sites haven’t been considered though, which would be my only remaining question. . Given that at some point, if we want to have better coverage, we will need something like this, I wouldn’t object.

  4. The principle is fine & can be supported but the proposed location is terrible – just about as bad as it could be. It is on the Dulwich Village side of The Old Burial ground and the mast would be visible from just about anywhere in the Village in an area already cluttered with Southwark’s unsightly & excessive street furniture (and more tome with CPZ?). Surely it would be possible to find a less obtrusive location. Obvious examples might be behind the velodrome or in The Griffin sports ground. If it has to be on public land, then the closed off sections of Gilkes Place and Gilkes Crescent would be preferable or even on the other side of the Burial Ground near the junction of Court Lane & Dexter oe prehaps amidst the trees on the triangle at the Village Way/DV junction. Incidentally the link to the website with the illustration appears to be non-functioning. I tried several times & it was showing “link not available”.

  5. ps – The mast would not be shielded by street trees – the mature trees have now all been taken down in that area. Whereas the Village Way triangle trees would shield it if it were to be planted in the middle of that small area rather than at the road-side.

    1. That is correct re trees as they are at present. “Not in our lifetime” may be the way to judge the potential positioning being shielded from sight.

  6. I cannot support a mast in such a dangerous position near and surrounding so many small children who are not able to defend themselves from masts negative health damage.

  7. Comments from me as Chair: The Councillors have both objected but the alternative site proposed by Cllr. Leeming was rejected. By the way, the Council planning app. suggests there will be nimby comments but I don’t believe so far that there have been any such comments. As far as the stink pipe is concerned, I reckon that green pipe has been there since before any of us was born and probably pre-dates the Conservation Area by decades.
    Please make sure anyone with a view, that you post on the Council Planning site AP/23/3268

  8. I object to the proposal because it is unsightly and has a negative impact on visual amenity of the village. I do not believe there is a need for a mast, I have no difficulty making mobile calls in the village on the O2 network.

  9. I agree with Clara, this is way too close to a school.

    I have read the safety info on the council’s proposals and I am still not convinced we should be placing these 5G towers so close to schools.

  10. Absolutely opposed. Far too close to schools and residents. Will fight all the way.

  11. I believe the General Public Precautionary level is around a quarter of a mile. The proposed mobile site to well within this range to both the locals village schools and local residents. Please have a care and relocate the mast to a less populated site.

  12. I appreciate it might not look fantastic but I think it is critical for a functioning capital city to have first class telecommunications. I have zero mobile phone reception which i think is appalling in 2024 and work from home a lot.

    I think it is important that rumours of health hazards (cancer, proximity to schools etc) are fact checked before circulated. My understanding is that there is no evidence of them being a health hazard (if they were, the telco companies would be out of business within 2 weeks of any factual evidence being known).

    Could they be camouflaged in any way? Can the tall trees near them dampen the visual impact of the mast?

    All in all, i am sympathetic to residents concerns about their appearance….but pragmatism must be the first priority, and having good communication links is vital for any big international commercial city (you may not want to live in one, but sadly, you are).

    I am pretty sure house prices wont tumble too much, or our quality of life fall off a cliff, because of a mast. Let’s try to keep things in perspective.

  13. The issue is less whether it should be erected but rather where? The proposed location is just about the most obtrusive they could have found and not at all hidden by the mature trees. Do we know where Cllr Leeming wanted to put it? Oddly enough, it is hardly consistent with LBS’s fanciful vision of the Mediterranean piazza (a.k.a. “Dulwich Square” & the proposed Turney Parkway). We should, however, oppose solely on logical environmental quality/aesthetic grounds & not on the supposed health hazards, which are (to be generous) controversial and mostly unproven so likely to undermine rather than support objections. As to the sewer vent, that could hardly have been placed other than above the sewer and, in any case, as Bridget observes, predated the conservation area by many decades.

Add A Comment

To prevent spam, your comment will be approved by the webmaster before it appears here

We're glad you have chosen to leave a comment. Please keep in mind that all comments are moderated according to our privacy policy, and all links are nofollow. Do NOT use keywords in the name field. Let's have a personal and meaningful conversation.

Copyright ©DulwichRA 2021