Public meeting called in Westgate over phone mast installation concerns

Resident Del Bentley at the mast site

A public meeting will be held next week to discuss concerns over the siting of a 20ft phone mast to be installed next to St Saviour’s junior school.

The go-ahead was given last year to Mobile Broadand Network Limited (MBNL), EE Limited and Three (H3G) UK Limited to install the 20m high Monopole disguised as a Cypress Tree with 6 antenna apertures & 2 600mm dishes after Thanet council decided prior approval was not required.

It is to be installed at green space at Westgate Cricket Club which is also St Saviour’s school playing field.

But residents have raised a petition in a bid to stop the installation from going ahead and asked the Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing & Communities, to step in.

An open letter has also been sent to Kent County Council leader Roger Gough outlining KCC’s refusal in 2020 for a former application by a different operator to install a telecoms mast at the same site.

The letter quotes KCC as saying “KCC are not able to progress [the] proposal any further” due to  a “precautionary approach”  ‘particularly the case on land in the vicinity of schools, where potential health and safety issues are of most concern.”

The letter goes on to ask what has changed since that date.

The application for Westgate says: “This proposal is required to provide continued mobile coverage to the local area, as the existing MBNL (EE and Three) base station, which is situated at St Peters Church, Archdiocese of Southwark Canterbury Road, Westgate, is due for removal.

“This telecommunications site currently provides network coverage to the surrounding area and the potential loss of this site from the network, will result in a loss of communications and data services locally and a wider disruption to the mobile network, if a replacement site, which replicates the lost coverage, cannot be identified and integrated into the network at the earliest opportunity.

“This operational base-station must be decommissioned in the near future, generating need for a replacement site to avoid a coverage gap in the mobile network.”

The public meeting takes place on Tuesday (August 9), 7.15pm, at Christ Church URC, Westgate Bay Avenue and will be attended by school governors, St Saviour’s church members, councillors and residents.

Find the petition here


  1. If you use a mobile phone then these mast allows you to do so to object to them is akin to protesting about roads being built when you drive a car. Go protest about something else I’m sure there are other more important things.

    • The problem with your analogy, Billy Boy, is that it doesn’t account for proximity of the mast to the school, a place where people send their children to learn in a safe environment. Parents have concerns about these masts, so they are well within their rights to protest.

      By your ‘logic’, if you use electricity, you’d have no grounds for complaint if EDF built a nuclear reactor in your back garden. Now, quit making a fool of yourself and do some productive.

  2. Agree with Bill stop moaning, phone masts are everywhere,personally I hate smart phones, but I don’t object to them or their masts

    • “Phone masts are everywhere” is hardly a defence for putting one up on a school field, is it? Sewage works/prisons/coal-fired power stations are everywhere. By your logic, this means there is no issue with plonking one in a school field, in a hospital car park or in your back garden.

  3. So why didn’t anyone complain when a mast was in St Peters Church(across the road) then when the church was closed the temporary one went up( again across the road)

    • Again, nuance does appear to be lost on the goodbergers of Thanet. The difference here is that a church and a school are two entirely different things, with the latter a place parents send their children to learn in a safe and suitable environment. If there is any chance, no matter how slim, that a mast or any other development poses a risk to the health of children, the proposal should simply not be allowed.

      • Are these the same children who live in homes with 3 or 4 mobile phones and internet via WiFi or different children?

        • Rob, Robbie, the Big Robster… As previously pointed out to other commenters who wilfully mislead, the difference between a personal mobile phone or WiFi router and a gargantuan 5G mast on a school field is obvious, even for the ill-educated and uninformed to see.

          • Except, they all emit/receive the same non-ionising radiation, MargateJim. Your microwave gives off more harmful radiation…

  4. The precautionary principle used to exist across Europe to not site telecoms masts near community centres/schools etc. 20 years ago the parents and local community at my children’s primary school in West Kent stopped a telecoms mast from being sited by their playground due to health risks. Risks from 5g military grade technology nowadays are even higher. The major insurance companies have little know EMF exemption clauses for health harms. There are many scientific studies citing concerns, and yet local planners use studies with organisations sponsored by the telecoms industry itself. One study here: And concerns re: wildlife here: The debate here should be grown up. The above links are fact. Anyone trotting out the tired old cliche ‘conspiracy theory’ may find that the theorists are the ones who figured out the truth first (remember Jimmy Savile, weapons of mass destruction, thalidomide, smoking calms pregnant women ad claims, cladding on all tower blocks protects from fire etc etc). Indeed, some more astute house buyers I know, will not be buying homes near the 5g masts coming in on the Canterbury Road, Margate as they have the concerns of their families at their hearts. Children’s skulls are still developing remember.

    • Democrat is correct in saying the telecom company’s use there own biased sponsored studies and not a non sponsored in anyway study, I have a grandson and am glad he will not be going to a school near a phone mast, I don’t believe in the scare mongering theories just facts from unbiased studies, why put more masts up when the signal is very good in the area, you can hear a buzz sound when you get within 400 yards to them, it’s to near the school.

      • Wait until you realise most local schools have 4/5g repeater systems in them for their wifi networks. You’ll be crying the hardest you’ve ever cried in your life.

        Talking about “facts” and unbiased studies, when all you’re doing is repeating the same tired, disproven talking points of the chemtrail/antivax/qanon crowd…

    • Cell masts do not emit ionizing radiation and infact emit less radiation than your satellite tv/microwave.

      “cellphonetaskforce” is such a legit source, and totally not a dark money funded culture war grift aiming to exploit the gullible, who are afraid of emerging technologies they don’t understand…

  5. If there are concerns regarding children’s susceptibility, and there are many, because their brains and skullls are still growing, why don’t councils err on caution and just site these clear of schools or youth clubs? It seems so logical! There is one sited near the Quarter Deck Youth Club in Cliftonville opposite Aldi which I was rather angry to see or perhaps people and or authorities don’t really care about (poor) children’s health !!!

      • Again, as I’ve just said in response to Bill’s comment, this is a false equivalence. A mast is clearly going to be working at a significantly higher capacity than a mobile phone. But, now you mention it, there are also studies that suggest children should not use mobile phones whilst their brains are still developing.

        But, and this doesn’t happen often, we do actually agree on one thing! Children under 18 should not be using smartphones. Life was infinitely more enjoyable before social media.

        • Capacity means nothign mate, the masts emit non ionising radiation and therefore cannot change a persons cellular make up. If you passed your GCSE physics, you’d know this.

          You get worse ionising radiation, from the god damn sun, ffs.

          “life was infinitely more enjoyable before social media”7

          Then stop using social media “margatejim”, you know, like the comments section of media outlet…

    • You are right Donna that it was ridiculous to site a new 5g mast by the Quarter Deck Youth Club and Aldi in Cliftonville. There were objections to the planning application on that precisely citing the youth club. Seems the lack of caution principle applies to Thanet.

    • Donna, they’re harmless. Actual, real life scientists and joe public (who passed gcse physics) realise they do not emit ionising radiation. Your microwave or satellite TV are worse for your health…

  6. Margate Jim boy.
    Most children these days are either on their mobile phone / iPad /tablets. We were in a restaurant yesterday and four children with different families were aged between 4 to 9 years we’re playing games on their phones or IPads all with their parents seemingly happy that the children were distracted whilst they awaited to be served or to order their food. There is no clear scientific evidence that mast poles cause children or anyone else any harm. This is just another case of moan moan moan from the National Moan brigade. What has been proven is the children of today are far more intelligent for their ages compared to children in the 80s when there were no mobile phones / iPads / tablets. The children will not be climbing these poles or kissing them like the tree huggers do to trees and weeds.

      • Peter, you’re in every comment section on nearly every article on this website. Your own hypocrisy knows no bounds.

    • Again, Billy Boy, you use a false equivalence to try and make your point. A child being near a mobile phone or tablet device or, indeed, using a mobile phone or tablet device is clearly not the same as having a 5G mast within close proximity, Monday to Friday, 9-3pm. This clear difference shouldn’t need to be explained to an adult, yet here I am having to.

      There are many scientific papers which suggest their ‘may’ be negative effects associated with these masts, just the same as there are with pylons etc. I am not a scientist and, clearly, neither are you. But, if there is ever any doubt as to what impact something can have on the health of children or, indeed, any person, the obvious course of action is to not do that thing, just in case.

      If you want to play it fast and loose with the health of your loved ones, great! But, don’t judge other people for expressing legitimate concern about the health of their children.

    • Bill you are using some fake claims here. There is a great deal of scientific evidence citing dangers of placing masts near communities. And of the extra dangers of 5g. Go and research them if you have the capability. Just trying to shout down or belittle other commentators is not a good look. It says more about you than them. I posted just one link to a scientific study above which you seemed to ignore. “This article also presents evidence that the nascent 5G mobile networking technology will affect not only the skin and eyes, as commonly believed, but will have adverse systemic effects as well.”

      • 5g is non ionising radiation.

        Going outside in the sun for half hour is worse for your health than spending a decade stood next to a phone mast.

        I did my research. I have a degree in comms infrastructure.

        Do you, “democrat”?

        The “scientific study” you posted is a biased study by an organisation dedicated to removal of phone masts of all varities. They’re grifting you for donations and book sales and exploiting your ignorance, cognitive deficit and cognitive biases.

        You’re the product of billions of years worth of evolution, with the sum of human knowledge at your fingertips.

        Act. Like. It.

      • “Go and research them if you have the capability. Just trying to shout down or belittle other commentators is not a good look”

        Neither is using the clarion call of conspiracy theory kooks and fans of Qanon/chemtrails/haarp/rothschilds/icke etc al worldwide.

        If you cannot prove your own hypothesis when asked to do so, your hypothesis holds NO weight.

        PS…a single, highly biased source like that “cellphonetaskforce” is not a good look. 😉 Its almost as if they’re on a crusade…like you.

  7. Margate Jim boy, You talk a lot about rubbish. What time up to date Scientific papers are you referring to ? Written by who ?? What about all the new electrical car chargers that are being built do you think the will turn dogs into cats when the dogs lift their legs up them???

    • Billy, Billy, Billy… I see you are now resorting to humour to illustrate your point, having failed to do so with analogies. Your wilful ignorance is unsurprising and, much like the dogs and cats you refer to in your previous post, I suspect the concept that people have legitimate concerns about this new technology being installed on a school field is a little beyond you. This member of the National Moan Brigade has tried his best to explain the concerns of parents but, if you can’t grasp that simple premise, I can’t help you.

      • Oh as I suspected moaning Jim you are a member of the National moan brigade by your own admission that speaks volumes. “ what do we want out out out” “ What do we want moan moan moan”

        • I don’t know you, Billy Boy, but I suspect you are ruddy of face, portly, support a beautiful British Brexit, covet your blue passport like Golum eyeing his ring (double entendre intended) and think everything was better when television and radio stars were enabled to act terribly through complicit silence. You know, like the good old days.

          • So, if you don’t know him, your entire post is projection of how you feel subconsciously about yourself. “accuse the other side of which you are guilty” and all that 😉

  8. No one seems to comment on the content of the open letter referred to in the article. Why is that? KCC, by their own admission cited their own policy and it’s precautionary principle due to potential harm to children not to grant a lease extension and therefore permission to erect a mast at this location. This was January 2020. What changed in 1 year?

    Yet this elephant in the room is ignored over tit for tat arguments over cat and dog analogies.

    As I often say to my children, grow up!

  9. This was January 2020. What changed in 1 year?

    Someone went back to school and redid their physics GCSE and realised the only reason people think masts are bad is because they failed physics and radiation basics…

Comments are closed.