Who'll win the mast lottery?

Now pupils face more masts being erected at their schools.

The controversial ruling by East Sussex County Council could open the floodgates for a host of planning applications from telecommunications companies.

In neighbouring West Sussex, however, a similar ban remains in place three years after being introduced.

Councillors there are waiting for further research into mobile phone safety before reconsidering policy.

Other local authorities also have a veto on their own buildings.

But most have differing policies and anti-mast campaigners fear other authorities could be bumped into following the lead of East Sussex by financial incentives from phone companies.

Ruling Conservative councillors at East Sussex overturned the policy of the previous Liberal Democrat/Labour administration despite being warned of a potentially huge increase in mobile masts.

Council officers predicted the number of telecommunications sites required could increase by as much as 300 per cent during the next few years as new technology becomes widespread.

So-called third generation mobile phones will need thousands of new base stations and masts to support the network.

Many of these will be in urban areas where phone use is concentrated.

East Sussex County Council receives £50,000 a year for housing installations at four schools and colleges.

Campaigner Francesca Luxmoore-Peake, of Stanley Road, Brighton, said: "Councils are under a lot of pressure financially and this is an easy way of making money.

"There is nothing to stop other councils rescinding their bans.

"It is incredibly alarming and we can only hope parents put enough pressure on the council to force a U-turn."

There is no clear policy across Sussex when it comes to council buildings and land.

Without clear guidance from the Government, it is up to local authorities to decide policy for the siting of masts on their own property and few have strict rules.

Hastings Borough Council does have a policy of refusing mast applications wherever possible.

Masts have been banned from council property since early last year.

A council spokeswoman said: "It's our duty as a responsible council to take precautions and ban mobile phone masts from our land until much more detailed information about health affects is available."

Adur District Council, by contrast, has no blanket ban on council buildings or land.

But its preferred policy, introduced in October last year, states masts should be a minimum of 50m from residential buildings or schools.

Neither Wealden nor Rother District Councils have a phone mast policy for their own property.

The same is true of Lewes District Council.

A spokeswoman said: "We do take account of the health and safety of people who live in the vicinity of masts but the advice is any health risk isn't a weighty factor."

There lies the crux of the problem.

Locally-elected councillors may face overwhelming public pressure over safety fears but applications refused for reasons other than planning grounds are likely to be allowed on appeal.

A costly and potentially embarrassing process.

Because most masts are under 15m (48.7ft) in height, they receive prior approval so local planning authorities can comment on them but have few grounds to turn them down.

As one senior officer admitted, councils can pay little more than "lip service" to these applications.

Eastbourne Borough Council has banned phone masts from its buildings and land and is calling on the Government to give local authorities more powers to refuse applications.

Councillor Pat Bowker, chairman of its planning and licensing committee, said: "At the moment we cannot consider cases appropriately and are threatened by possible planning appeal costs.

"Local planning authorities should be allowed to reflect the strongly-held public health concerns."

Until then, the best concerned residents can hope for is that councils will take a stand against masts on public property.

Something East Sussex County Council has now decided against.

David Lepper, Labour MP for Brighton Pavilion, who has campaigned for better regulation of masts, dubbed East Sussex County Council's policy change short-sighted.

He said: "It really is a question of owners of property taking a decision not to allow the siting of masts on their buildings.

"It seems the precautionary principle, particularly near schools and built up areas, is the best path to follow."

Mr Lepper is convinced something needs to be done to curb the spread of masts and wants to see an easily-enforceable blanket policy for all local authorities.

He said: "East Sussex County Council has been very short-sighted. This is a backwards step."

Daphne Bagshawe, Tory deputy leader of the county council, said a ban would be wrong unless it was supported by clear evidence and each new application should be considered on its own merits.