Cambridge residents voice objections to taller, more powerful phone mast
By Siobhan Middleton
Residents have objected to plans to replace a mobile phone mast in Cambridge with a more powerful version.
They have voiced concerns over the potential health implications of cell towers and their unsightliness.
Hutchison 3G UK intends to use permitted development rights to remove the existing 17-metre phase four cell tower at The Paddocks industrial estate, on Cherry Hinton Road, and replace it with a 19-metre phase eight cell tower, along with a wraparound cabinet.
It has given the council one month’s notice of its intentions, which expires on Thursday, May 12.
Damian Curtis, who lives on Perne Road, just off Cherry Hinton Road, said: “The tower to be upgraded points at my house and overlooks my GP surgery, and the entire area is a school zone. I am concerned about the long-term health consequences of radiofrequency radiation (RFR) exposure.
“There is already a really big cell tower on Perne Road less than 60 metres from this new proposed one, and three in total in the area.
“It is ridiculous to have multiple high-powered cell towers grouped together in a residential area, and it is a dangerous precedent to allow mobile phone companies or the council free rein to build these.
“The existing tower is clearly visible from our upstairs window. It is already significantly taller than all the surrounding houses and quite out of character with the area.
“I have already objected to these plans twice.”
A letter by Hutchison 3UK to the chief planning officer for Greater Cambridge Shared Planning explains that the area surrounding the tower will remain compliant with International Commission of Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP) guidelines. According to advice by Public Health England, ICNIRP guidelines should be followed to limit radiation exposure from cell towers.
A 2020 statement on behalf of Physicians’ Health Initiative for Radiation and Environment (PHIRE) and the British Society for Ecological Medicine argued that RFR has been shown to damage biological systems at intensities below ICNIRP guidelines.
It claimed that public exposure to RFR is already harmful, citing problems such as increased cancer risk, learning and memory deficits and structural and functional changes to the reproductive system.
But the World Health Organisation states: “A common concern about base station and local wireless network antennas relates to the possible long-term health effects that whole-body exposure to the RF signals may have.
“To date, the only health effect from RF fields identified in scientific reviews has been related to an increase in body temperature (>1°C) from exposure at very high field intensity found only in certain industrial facilities, such as RF heaters. The levels of RF exposure from base stations and wireless networks are so low that the temperature increases are insignificant and do not affect human health.
“The strength of RF fields is greatest at its source, and diminishes quickly with distance. Access near base station antennas is restricted where RF signals may exceed international exposure limits. Recent surveys have indicated that RF exposures from base stations and wireless technologies in publicly accessible areas (including schools and hospitals) are normally thousands of times below international standards.
“In fact, due to their lower frequency, at similar RF exposure levels, the body absorbs up to five times more of the signal from FM radio and television than from base stations. This is because the frequencies used in FM radio (around 100 MHz) and in TV broadcasting (around 300 to 400 MHz) are lower than those employed in mobile telephony (900 MHz and 1800 MHz) and because a person’s height makes the body an efficient receiving antenna.
“Further, radio and television broadcast stations have been in operation for the past 50 or more years without any adverse health consequence being established.”
There are six public comments currently listed under the planning application on the Greater Cambridge Shared Planning website, all of which are objections.
One states: “I believe that the proposed installation may be an eyesore, is not wanted by people living their lives in the shadow of the proposed installation, and the technology involved may be harmful.
“Even if the first two points are ignored – if the feelings of locals do not matter – the installation should be refused pending a comprehensive study into the potential harms that it could cause.”
Details of the case can be viewed online via the Greater Cambridge Shared Planning Service website using reference number 22/01768/TELNOT.
