Environmentalists have questioned the ability of regulators to monitor Bermuda’s growing cellular network after a cell tower in Devonshire was approved over the objections of area residents.

According to the Bermuda Environmental Sustainability Taskforce (BEST), planning authorities lack a comprehensive method for evaluating applications for towers, or for monitoring their radio emissions.

The group expressed disappointment that greater oversight had not been put in place in the wake of controversy over the tower, which was placed on a wooded hillside overlooking Devonshire Bay after approval was granted in August.

In a statement issued by Kim Smith of BEST, the group said the Development Applications Board (DAB) had approved at least nine more applications for additional antennae and radio substations “without having the information they claimed they needed to be able to make those decisions”.

In approving the Devonshire tower, the DAB wrote that it encouraged the creation of a guidance note to help in assessing applications, along with a monitoring plan for radio emissions.

“In this regard, current and continually updated data from the Regulatory Authority to track the telecommunications towers and other installations throughout the island network is required,” the approval added.

However, BEST said it had found no evidence of either a guidance note or monitoring plan ever being drawn up — or that a comprehensive list was being kept of antennae, towers and radio subsystems across the Island.

The statement said that as such, the DAB had no means of comprehensively assuring the public that they were not being exposed to unsafe levels of emissions. The health implications of cellphones and the infrastructure that provides their signals has been debated ever since the emergence of the technology.

While the DAB referred to an independent study concluding that the tower’s emissions were 130 times below the safety threshold set by the Federal Communications Commission in the United States, BEST said clarification was needed.

“We are uncertain that the figure was derived from an actual study because, in reviewing the DAB report, it appears it was simply a calculated estimate of emissions expected once the tower was erected and operational,” BEST’s statement continued.

“The public depends on the Regulatory Authority (RA), as the industry watchdog, to monitor the carriers’ activities and protect consumers’ interests. With no monitoring plan currently in place, we would pose the question to the RA: who is ensuring that the public is, in fact, safe?”

BEST said it preferred not to study each application for a cellular installation.

However, “until a regulatory framework and structure is in place, we would be remiss if we did not review every application and object to keep the process deficiencies in the spotlight”, the statement added.

The group said it appeared that the authority lacked a plan to give adequate confidence in the over-intensification and monitoring of emissions.

“At the same time, the DAB is compounding the problem by not deferring new applications until they have the information they claimed they needed in order to review them.”

According to a Planning spokeswoman, the department is “aware of the matter and has reached out to the Regulatory Authority for their input”.