Jump to content

Peckham Rye; Additional Telecommunication Masts & Satellite dishes

M1980

By M1980
in General ED Issues / Gossip

 Share

Recommended Posts

M1980

M1980

Posted
Posted

A planning application has been issued to install an additional 6 telecommunication masts and 2 satellite dishes to the roof of 136/ 134 Peckham Rye.


Planning Ref: 19/AP/1149


No notice has been given directly to the occupants & owners of the flats within the buildings or that of the language school and surrounding neighbours in the area.


136/ 134 Peckham Rye will become extremely top heavy with telecommunication equipment - the property is only 4 stories high and the equipment is deeply intrusive.


The development goes against all the clauses stated in the Southwark Plan.


Contractors enter the building without any consent from the owners of the flats.


Access concerns have been raised for maintenance; as previous concerns about blocking fire escapes from flats within the building have not been addressed.


The existing development already looms over the Gardens Conservation area.


I'd appreciate any support in objecting to these latest plans; which you can do so via the planning portal: [www.planning.southwark.gov.uk]


Proposed elevation plans attached.

Penguin68

Penguin68

Posted
Posted
I imagine this may be about 5G introduction - in which case probably a good thing. More masts than already exist on this roof won't be a major eye-sore - it's not as if it's really blocking a view from anywhere. Indeed, and in general, improved signal is generally a good thing, 4G or 5G. But the benefits from 5G, including integrated and real-time control of emergency services etc. is to be desired.
tsm83

tsm83

Posted
Posted

Great news, fully support the installation of new masts - I always notice a drop in signal around Peckham Rye, particularly when I'm on the train on the way to/from work. These masts along with phone poles and wires, electricity pylons etc. fade into the background in no time.


Obviously shouldn't be blocking a fire escape though.

James Barber

James Barber

Posted
Posted

The proposals could clearly be more discrete and achieve the same ends. Less iron work would also save the operator some money.


You can object for reasons of aesthetics and our of proportion to the property. I would always counsel where possible to make a suggestion of practical compromise.

JohnL

JohnL

Posted
Posted

"In theory, 5G will be able to simultaneously support more than a million devices per sq km (0.4 sq miles), a big jump over the 60,000-odd devices that 4G technology maxes out at.


But to make this possible, antennas will be needed all over the place - from lamp-posts to bus shelters, in addition to more of the rooftop masts we're already used to."


https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-48426481

  • 4 weeks later...

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share
Go to topic listing
  • Advertise Here

  • Latest Discussions

    • HeadNun
      Cllr Williams to stand down

      By HeadNun · Posted

      I edited my post because I couldn't be sure we were talking about politicians and I couldn't be bothered to read it all back. But it was off the back of a thread discussing labour councillors, so it went without saying really and I should have left it.  What I said was 'There's something very aggressive about language like that - it's not big and it's not clever. Some of the angry energy that comes from the far left is pretty self-defeating.' (In relation to a labour councillor rather immaturely, in my view, wearing a jumper that read 'fuck the Tories').  But I don't recall saying that "violent rhetoric" is exclusively the domain of the left wing. So I do think you're taking a bit of a bit of leap here. 
    • Sephiroth
      Cllr Williams to stand down

      By Sephiroth · Posted

      You literally just edited your earlier reply to remove the point you made about it being “politicians”.  Then you call me pathetic.    I’m  not trying to say you approve any of the ugly right wing nonsense.  But I AM Saying your earlier post suggesting  violent rhetoric being “left wing” was one-sided and incorrect 
    • HeadNun
      Cllr Williams to stand down

      By HeadNun · Posted

      I never said that. Saying I don’t like some of the rhetoric coming from the left doesn’t mean I approve of Farage et al saying that Afghans being brought here to protect their lives and thank them for their service means there is an incalculable threat to women.    Anything to score a cheap point. It’s pretty pathetic. 
    • Rockets
      Is Rachel Reeves becoming the new Liz Truss?

      By Rockets · Posted

      To be fair we are as hosed as the majority of other countries post-Covid. The problem is Labour promised way too much and leant in on the we need change and we will deliver it and it was clear to anyone with a modicum of sense that no change was going to happen quickly and actually taking the reigns may have been a massive poison- chalice. As Labour are finding to their cost - there are no easy answers.  A wealth tax seems straightforward but look how Labour have U-turned on elements of non-dom - why? Because the super rich started leaving the country in their droves and whilst we all may want them to pay more tax they already pay a big chunk already and the government saw there was a problem.

East Dulwich Forum

Established in 2006, we are an online community discussion forum for people who live, work in and visit SE22.

Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...