News RSS Feed


Mast plan angers residents

8:38am Wednesday 14th March 2007

comment Comments (4)   Have your say »


Residents in North Oxford are protesting against plans for a mobile telephone mast near the entrance to a recreation ground.

T-Mobile has notified Oxford City Council that it plans to erect the 30ft high mast outside the Five Mile Drive playing fields, in Cutteslowe.

Five Mile Drive residents are protesting against the plans and have notified the Summertown Stars football club, which uses the ground.

Residents held a meeting on Monday to discuss the best way to protest against the mast, and have been told to make their objections known to the council by March 25.

Dominique Barrett and husband Chris, of Five Mile Drive, said at least 30 residents were opposed to the plan and the number was growing.

Mrs Barrett said: "The mast will be right by the gate that leads into the recreation ground and I don't think it should be so close to a children's play area.

"There's no proof that there are health risks associated with mobile phone masts, but there's no proof otherwise at the moment.

"There are other sites the company could choose. I don't think it's right to have the mast so near where children play football and so close to people's homes."

Mr Barrett added: "There's a lovely line of cherry trees along Five Mile Drive - Japanese tourists come and photograph them when they are in bloom - and this mast, which will have an ugly box of tricks at its base, will not be in keeping with the style of the road."

Alan Glanville, 64, who lives opposite the mast site, added: "It would look completely out of place in this tree-lined street.

"I have got seven grandchildren who come here and we would rather not have the mast so close to our house."

Mobile phone companies have permitted development rights to erect phone masts below 50ft in height, which means they do not need planning permission.

T-Mobile planning consultant Richard Nash told the city council that the mast was needed to improve 3G mobile phone coverage.

He added that the company planned to paint the mast and cabinet green "in order to further reduce their limited impact".

Last July, the council passed a motion that phone companies should warn people about their proposals, regardless of whether planning permission was needed.

The vote came after protests brought a halt to proposals to build masts at the Marlborough House pub, in Grandpont, and the Chester Arms, off Iffley Road.

T-Mobile agreed to review its plans and put the installations on hold after hundreds of people turned out at public meetings to oppose masts being put on the pubs.


Your Say YourOxford Mail

Andy, says...
12:26pm Wed 14 Mar 07

Do I take it then that none of the residents have a mobile phone??? The masts have to go somewhere for the phones to work. Double standards by these residents as I don't hear them complaining about any other masts in Oxford.

Noam, Oxford says...
3:52pm Wed 14 Mar 07

Exactly right Andy. I can't get a signal downstairs in my house (I am 1.25 miles from Carfax) because my area is plagued with the same breed of NIMBYs as the area in the story. I bet at least some of them drive everywhere and take two flying holidays a year.

Dennis Cannon, Lancashire says...
11:40pm Wed 14 Mar 07

It should be noted that a 30ft mast does NOT qualify for permitted development rights. Masts up to 15m fall into the prior approval category, which requires planning consent. It is necessary also for the LPA to notify the operator of their planning decision within 56 days or approval can be taken as read. Permitted development covers the situation where antennae are mounted on an existing structure{ ie already insitu} and here no planning consent is required.
These rules apply in England and Wales only, for in Scotland and N. Ireland full planning consent is needed for all base stations. The Welsh Assembly recently unaimously voted to bring similar rules to Scotland into Wales but this was refused by the UK government.
Referring to earlier comments where local residents were referred to as NIMBYS. It should be noted that in 2000 the Stewart Report concluded that biological effects could occur at power levels below those stated in the guidelines and for this reason recommended a precautionary approach until more robust scientific evidence became available. In the ensuing 7 years no robust evidence to show safety has been forthcoming although many studies have produced adverse biological effects and there have been thousands of reports where people living close to a mast have attributed their illness to radiation emitted from it. There have been many illnesses cited including a number of cancer clusters around masts getting up to 10 years since commmissioning. A german doctors group showed a proven correlation between their patient's illnesses and exposure to the microwave radiation emitted from phone masts. Is it any wonder that people have concerns and wish to protect themselves and their families ?
Yet here we have two men that are asking these people to ignore all this just so that they can get a good phone signal.
Who is being the most selfish here ?

Dennis, North West

Sid Hunt, says...
8:44am Fri 16 Mar 07

Noam wrote:
Exactly right Andy. I can't get a signal downstairs in my house (I am 1.25 miles from Carfax) because my area is plagued with the same breed of NIMBYs as the area in the story. I bet at least some of them drive everywhere and take two flying holidays a year.
The lack of signal is more probably to do with the surrounding buildings than the lack of a mast. The 3G masts provide data feeds and services such as mobile TV signals (watching TV on a mobile phone) - there is very little demand for these services even from youngsters.

Comments are closed on this article.

UK Debt Help and Advice | IVA help and advice | The truth about IVAs | Stay with Prague Hotels | Visit Spain with Barcelona Hotels

Local Advertisers


Local Information

Enter your postcode, town or place name

House prices »   Schools »   Crime »   Hospitals »