|
|
 |
| |
Protesters campaigned against the erection of a 15-metre mast in Iverson Road, but failed; right: an antenna in Kentish Town |
Not in my back yard – it’s full
Despite health fears, politicians say they are powerless to stop phone masts spreading across the borough.
THE rooftops of Camden High Street are lined with them. Hampstead High Street has almost as many.
Now, West Hampstead is becoming the new phone mast battleground as residents and global giants clash over the applications for dozens of new antennae.
The maps above, based on research by industry regulators Ofcom, show how the heart of Camden Town and Hampstead are already densely populated with a forest of masts. Each triangle represents a mast.
The third map reveals why phone companies are desperate to take a hold of West Hampstead where only a handful of antennas are so far in place.
In the past year Iverson Road has been the subject of four applications, three of which were approved. Last month O2 won its bid to put up one of the largest masts in the area – 15 metres high with six antennae.
As the applications come in, residents are finding that there is little they can do to stop them.
When they complain to councillors and MPs at their surgeries, the response is ‘Sorry, would like to help but can’t’.
Karina Leapman, a family lawyer with her own firm in West End Lane, was one of more than 250 who signed a petition saying they did not want it.
She said: “Masts are a risk analysis and I don’t like the idea that we find out in years to come that they’re harmful.”
She added: “I’m expecting the local authority to be up on (the health concerns) and not be brow beaten by wealthy telephone companies.”
In a rare win for campaigners, just streets away from Iverson Road, a mast in Dynham Road was turned down last year because councillors felt it would clutter the street. After a lengthy appeal by phone giant Orange, the bid was finally thrown out last month by the Planning Inspectorate, a body which reviews decisions made by local councils which are challenged.
Finance chief, Councillor Janet Grauberg, who helped block the initial application, called the win “a victory for local people and local action”.
But she admitted the council is relatively toothless, adding: “I think it needs to be a more level playing field for the residents and the planning system – councils have their hands tied.”
Currently local councils do not have the power to reject masts on the grounds of health concerns, and can only take into consideration ‘environment’ issues such as whether they ‘unacceptably’ clutter the pavement.
If councils can’t help, some residents think the government should intervene.
Hampstead and Highgate MP Glenda Jackson wanted to see the government give local councils more powers but said the government had rejected all calls from MPs to change the law.
She said: “Most MPs in the House of Commons have been urging the government to change the rules.
“I think the government should re-examine existing rules to local authorities. They’re not allowed to consider the issue of health danger. We all feel that (policy should be reviewed) but the government is obdurate.”
However she stopped short of calling for another government investigation into phone masts. She said: “This is not an issue that is going to be solved easily because the scientific evidence isn’t there.”
The government-funded Stewart Report, concluded seven years ago, was the last major investigation into the health risks posed by phone use and mast radiation.
Since then technology has moved on, with masts now conducting videos and the internet.
Critics have called for a review in the wake of these technological improvements, and cite the use of ‘microwaves’ – the same waves that cook food in a microwave – as a major cause for concern.
Stephen Jones, a plumbing and heating engineer who lives in Iverson Road, said: “You can’t just say people can’t have mobile phones but they should devise the technology so it’s not as potent.” He added: “They turn up the strength of transmissions far higher than they need to.”
James Stevenson, the communications manager for O2, the company behind the 15-metre mast, denied phone masts were dangerous and claimed television sets were more of a threat.
He said: “They don’t give out anything – there is a misconception that they give out radiation.”
He added his voice to the call for another government investigation into dangers of masts, “if it would allay peoples’ fears”, but added: “Since the Stewart Report there’s been hundreds of reports carried out and not one has come up with any significant proof that masts are harmful.”
But countering Ms Jackson’s claim that the majority of MPs were calling for a change in the law, he said only 50 had added their name to the cause.
|
 |
|
| |
| Your Comments: |
| |
| |
| |
|
|
|
