Claims mast will disrupt broadband for businesses including radio station

PLANNING permission has been granted for a new telecommunications mast near Culfadda but it has been claimed by a wireless broadband provider that it will affect their service and cause disruption for businesses, including Ocean FM radio as well as local schools, churches and households. Cignal Infrastructure Ltd, a national provider of telecommunications infrastructure, was recently granted approval by Sligo County Council to construct a 36m high multi-user lattice tower telecommunications structure, carrying antenna and dishes at Greyfield, Culfadda.

The site is not far from the village of Culfadda and close to the railway line.

Cignal, which is presently appealing decisions by the council to refuse permission for similar masts at Skreen and near Riverstown, said that the Culfadda mast was necessary because of “black spots” for mobile voice and data coverage in the area.

However, there were six objections to the mast, from local residents, but also from Leah Farrell and Andrew Mills of West Connect Unlimited Broadband. They claimed the new mast would block coverage from their local mast and would cause “immediate loss of service” for a number of local businesses, including Ocean FM, Roadbridge (contractors for the N4 road project), Connolly’s Mercedes, Power Right security company, Gavagh wind farm, Markree Castle and a number of local schools, churches and residential customers.

They pointed out that West Connect’s existing mast in the area will have to be increased in height from 7m to 30m to provide clearance for links and they did not feel that they should be forced into having to finance this.

West Connect also pointed out that there was an existing mast approximately 2kms from the proposed mast which they claimed had additional space available. They also said that as Culfadda was already served with fibre-to-the-home broadband from Eir and by the West Connect wireless broadband there was no need or demand for additional broadband services in the village.

Their submission also included a letter from the chief executive of Ocean FM radio Niall Delaney confirming that they use West Connect for broadband and online radio streaming and maintenance/ monitoring of its FM network and stating that any disruption to this service would have a serious impact on their business.

There were also letters from PowerRight and Roadbridge expressing concern about any threat of disruption of their broadband service. The other objections were from Sinead McClure and Jho Harris, Peter McMenemy, Barry Underwood and Ciara Davis, and Miss and Mrs Bo’ness.

The issues raised by them were summarised by the council planner as the visual impact of the mast, that it was not in keeping with the landscape, would impact on natural heritage area and cause disruption of wildlife. It was claimed that it would cause a decrease in property values.

Concern was also expressed about noise pollution and that it was causing “stress and anxiety among the community”.

Some of the objectors spoke about its proximity to houses, school and Culfadda village and there were concerns expressed regarding the safety of children and affects on the health of humans and animals. It was also suggested that the access road may not be able to take the weight of heavy vehicles. Sinead McClure said she wrote and produced audio shows for the national children’s service themed around conservation and she was worried that EMF interference from the tower could potentially “wreak havoc with recording equipment” and was also concerned about the impact on existing broadband. In relation to visual impact, the council planner said that the site had the benefit of trees/ hedging within the immediate vicinity which would aid in screening the mast and considered that given that there was an existing forestry plantation to the north east, the proximity to Culfadda village and the distance from the public road that the visual impact was not deemed significant.

In relation to other concerns, the planner pointed out that the nearest house was 250 metres away on the opposite side of the forestry and while there were a further eight houses within 500 metres of the mast it was “not felt that it would have a negative impact on residential amenties”.

The planner pointed out that any concerns about health of children or animals were outside of the remit of the planning authority.

Recommending the granting of permission, the planner considered that the mast had been designed and located in accordance with the network operator’s indentification of “black spots” for mobile voice and data coverage and in accordance with national planning guidelines in relation to telecommunications infrastrusture.