Just yesterday I received news that a TETRA had been refused retroactive planning permission in Hove.

Congratulations are due to two Brighton women for single (well double!) handedly being responsible for planning consent being refused for the TETRA mast at Court Farm, Upper Dyke Road, Hove, thereby saving hundreds, possibly thousands of people from serious adverse health effects and possibly worse. They simply sent two letters of objection.

What has really surprised me is that just two people have been able to get a mast refused planning permission. One of the women told me that the case didn`t have to go to committee as there were no letters of support, only their letters of objection, and under Delegated Powers officers can refuse an application on this. Does this mean ANY mast can be refused if either (1) objections outnumber support letters or (2) there is only ONE objection and no support? If so, why is this not mentioned in MS? Am I missing something?

The other is that not one other person wrote either to object to or even support the mast. This is quite disturbing - especially in view of the countless anti TETRA letters written by me and published in the local media over the past year.

However, if this method of mast rejection is effective, it's amaxing news...the message would be: keep an eye on local planning applications and if you see a mast in the pipeline, write a letter of objection and get a friend to do the same. Then PUBLICISE.

Gary K