Anger Over Proposed Mast at Brentham Meadows |
|
Local conservationists dub application as 'totally unacceptable'
October 9, 2025 A planning application to install a 17.5-metre telecoms mast on Brentham Meadows in Ealing has drawn strong opposition from local environmental groups, who argue the development threatens one of London’s most ecologically sensitive green spaces. The proposal, submitted by Mobile Broadband Network Limited (MBNL)—a joint venture between EE and Three—is currently under consultation, with public comments invited until 14 October. Brentham Meadows, a 9.5-acre site at the northern end of Brent River Park, is designated both as Metropolitan Open Land (MOL) and a Site of Importance for Nature Conservation (SINC)—protections equivalent to Green Belt status. The proposed mast, which is by the allotments, would replace a previous installation on the roof of the Westworld building near the A40, which has since been decommissioned. According to planning documents submitted by MBNL, the mast is required to restore mobile coverage for EE and Three customers following the loss of the Westworld site. The company claims to have assessed alternative locations, including rooftops and brownfield sites, but found none suitable due to technical limitations, lack of landlord consent, or inadequate elevation. The application argues that Brentham Meadows is the only viable location that meets operational requirements, and that the mast’s slimline design and limited footprint will minimise visual and environmental impact. While acknowledging the need to remove a mature oak tree and other vegetation, the applicant states this is necessary for installation and access. MBNL is seeking prior approval for siting and appearance under permitted development rights, citing national planning policy that supports digital infrastructure rollout. The company contends that the public benefit of improved mobile connectivity outweighs the localised impact. Local organisations including the Brent River Park charity, Ealing Wildlife Group, Ealing Parks Foundation, and Brentham Allotment Gardens Society have united in opposition, warning that the mast could cause irreversible harm to a rare meadow habitat and set a precedent for development on protected land. Campaigners have raised several concerns about the proposed development. They note that meadow habitats have declined by 98% since the Second World War, and Brentham Meadows currently supports important bat foraging routes and bird nesting areas, making biodiversity loss a significant risk. The proposal would also require the removal of a mature oak tree that is believed to have centuries of life remaining. Additionally, the site lies on a functional floodplain within Brent River Park, raising concerns about increased flood risk. It is also argued that the development may conflict with the Environment Act 2021 and local biodiversity policies. Finally, they emphasise the community impact, pointing out that Brentham Meadows is regularly used for recreation and wellbeing and forms part of a vital green corridor in the area.
Katie Boyles of the Brent River Park charity said, “Attempting to install a telecoms mast on both Metropolitan Open Land and a Site of Importance for Nature Conservation is wholly unacceptable. We strongly urge the applicant and council to seek alternative sites that do not threaten biodiversity and well-being on our doorstep.” Sean McCormack, Chair of Ealing Wildlife Group, added, “Constructing the mast would require the removal of a mature oak tree that has centuries left to live. It sets a dangerous precedent and is totally unacceptable.” Robin John of Brentham Allotment Gardens Society questioned the claim that no alternatives exist, noting that the mast is intended to replace one previously located on a nearby brownfield site. He says, “If it was on a building before, put it on another building.” The planning application can be viewed here, and residents can submit comments via the Ealing Council planning portal. The Brent River Park charity has published a template objection letter for those wishing to respond.
|