Residents staged a demonstration against plans to build a mobile phone mast on top of their homes.
Telecommunications company Orange wants to improve local reception by putting up the 9ft mast at Wilbury Lodge, Hove.
But people living in the block of flats in Eaton Road, fear the weight of the equipment would damage the building.
They also said it would contravene Brighton and Hove City Council's rules on building in a conservation area.
They hope to win support from Hove MP Ivor Caplin in their battle against the proposals.
Resident Ted Bailey said: "I will write to him to ask if there is anything he can do to stop this from going ahead.
"We thought we had won this battle when Orange withdrew its original application after we made it clear we did not want it a year ago during a public meeting.
"Now they have come back with an even bigger application for a mast, two transmission dishes and four other antennae on the building itself."
Audrey Manchester, who also lives in the block, said: "We are worried the roof will not be able to take the weight of all that equipment and will need strengthening.
"That will cause even more noise and disruption and we are not happy about it at all. The whole thing is wrong."
Conservative councillor Brian Rowe, who will contest Goldsmid ward in May's local elections, joined the protest.
He said: "I think it is terrible that the people who live here could be forced to have this on top of their homes when it is quite clear none of them want it.
"If the council allows this to go ahead, it will contravene its own rules on building in a conservation area.
"There would be no point in having those rules in the first place."
Orange promised to look for another site after hearing residents' objections at the meeting last year.
However, the company said its investigations found there were no suitable alternatives to the Wilbury Lodge proposal.
Claire Barry, Orange's community liaison officer, said the most suitable option would be to use the floodlights at nearby Sussex County Cricket Club to take its antennae but investigations had shown they were not strong enough.
In a letter to residents, she said: "The only alternative to the floodlights would be a free-standing tower, which would need to be just under 100ft tall to provide the coverage needed.
"It would also need to be relatively bulky to support its own height. Such a structure would not be a suitable alternative and its size would be prohibitive in planning terms."
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules hereComments are closed on this article