Appeal against 36-metre mast in Mayo village is rejected despite local concerns

A BID to halt the erection of a 36-metre lattice telecommunications support structure near the village of Ballyvary has been unsuccessful.

Robert Scoble and Letrisia Gridley appealed the ruling by Mayo County Council to grant permission to On Tower Ireland Limited for the development.

They argued that telecommunications guidelines advise that only as a last resort should free standing masts be located within or in the immediate surrounds of smaller towns and villages.

"In residential areas where the last resort test applies, the mast should be kept to the minimum necessary height and should be monopole.

"There would be a lower environmental impact from development of the current mast serving the area.

"The proposed mast at 36m height will be visually obtrusive and not aesthetically pleasing in a beautiful rural landscape."

They also pointed out in their appeal that the site landscape has completely changed due to the impact of Storm Eowyn with trees having fallen and the cut back of hedgerows.

They added inadequate screening is proposed to lessen the impact of the proposed mast.

"Concerns exist in relation to electromagnetic radiation (EMR) and the impact on human health and wildlife with the proposal close to their residence.

"Studies have shown adverse health effects from EMR and RF radiation in rats and more research is required.

"A study showed drastic reduction in honeybee populations from EMR from mobile phone masts and this is a warning to all living organisms."

The appellants further expressed concerns in relation to impacts from EMR on biodiversity, wildlife, habitats, flora and fauna, mammals, farm animals and birds including deer and migratory birds due to height of the structure.

In response to the health issues raised, the applicants said the proposal will be compliant with emission limits which are regulated while the planning appeals board has consistently maintained that health effects are not a material consideration.

Ciaran Daly, an inspector with An Coimisiún Pleanála, visited the site and studied the planning file.

In respect of the ecology and biodiversity concerns raised, Mr. Daly said the appellants had not specifically addressed any mechanisms by which significant impacts would arise to the environment, other than stating the height and access to the development would create issues.

"I note that migratory birds deal with tall features in the landscape which are not uncommon by flying around them and that deer interact with laneways as a matter of course with no significant intensification of use of the laneway expected.”

The inspector noted the appeal raised issues in relation to prolonged exposure to electromagnetic radiation (EMR) in terms of adverse effects on human health and animal health, bees and farm animals, with cattle noted to be located in the area.

“I also note the consequent potential issue raised for other species from adverse impacts on bee populations.

"Overall in relation to health considerations, a circular letter (07/12), issued by the Department of Environment and Local Government, reiterates the advice contained in the Telecommunication Guidelines - specifically that planning authorities should not determine planning applications on health grounds, that planning authorities should be primarily concerned with the appropriate location and design of telecommunications structures and do not have competence for health and safety matters in respect of telecommunications infrastructure.

"These matters are regulated by other codes and such matters should not be additionally regulated by the planning process and I consider this principle applies in relation to impacts on animal health.

"Accordingly, I do not consider that the appellants have raised any significant health related issues that would merit a refusal of permission or application of health related conditions should permission be granted."

In his recommendation, the inspector expressed the view that the proposed development would be acceptable and would not seriously injure the residential or visual amenities of the area or of property in the vicinity and would be acceptable in terms of design, visual impact, public health, ecological impact and traffic safety.