Brighton and Hove Council has been taken to the local government watchdog over its decision to allow a controversial mobile phone mast to be built near homes.

The newly-installed 60ft mast towers over homes at the northern end of Hangleton.

Residents say it is an eyesore and are worried about possible health risks linked to such masts.

Two separate complaints have been made to the Local Government Ombudsman calling for planning permission to be reversed and for the transmitter to be taken down.

Michael Smith, of Hangleton Valley Drive, said the council had failed in its duty of care to the community by not properly investigating possible health risks.

He also claims the council is guilty of abuse of process over the way it granted planning permission. Local councillor Mark Barnard has submitted a complaint on similar grounds.

Mr Smith said: "There is growing evidence to show that there are health risks involved in having people living close to powerful transmitters. The Government is concerned enough to advise that they should not be sited near schools and that young children should not use mobile phones too much." He also complained about the way Hangleton councillor Peter Willows was prevented from speaking at the planning committee meeting when permission was granted.

Coun Willows was told the day before that he could speak, but at the meeting the council's legal advisers ruled that he had an interest in the matter because he had supported a petition against the mast and so could not take part in the debate.

The application was later granted on the casting vote of the committee chairman. A council spokeswoman said: "We take all complaints to the ombudsman very seriously and this will be investigated. The council has a very good track record, with around 12 complaints being made last year and none proved.

"There are very real fears that these masts could have an adverse effect on health, particularly of children. Members of our planning committee have voiced serious concerns about this and in most cases they reluctantly grant consent.

"But we are still being advised that these fears alone do not constitute sufficient grounds to refuse permission. If we were to refuse without proper grounds it would lead to very expensive appeals procedures."