Masts in Riverstown and Skreen now WILL be built
TWO telecommunications masts in different parts of the county, which were objected to by a large number of local residents, and which had been refused planning permission by Sligo County Council, have now been granted approval by An Bord Pleanala.
The appeals to the board were taken by telecommunications company Cignal Infrastructure Ltd.
In one case they sought permission to construct a 24m high monopole telecommunications mast, carrying antenna and dishes with associated ground cabinets at Doonflin Upper, Skreen.
And in the other they applied for permission for a 39m high multi-user lattice tower communications structure, carrying antenna and dishes at Carrownagark, Riverstown.
In both cases there was significant local opposition, with a total of 35 submissions from local residents in Riverstown and 24 submissions (including one signed by 93 people) objecting to the Skreen mast.
SKREEN MAST
In relation to the Skreen mast, Cignal said that the mast “has been designed to address a coverage blackspot for this area but also to meet future services delivery as customer requirements of the network increase”.
They said that at present the Skreen area and its immediate environs “is currently experiencing deficiencies in 3G and 4G coverage” and they say that “more recently there has been a steep increase in the use of mobile wireless networks and electronic communications services in general as a result of people working from home in recent months”.
However, many local residents were strongly against what one described as “a 9-storey mast” at the location.
One said that the location of the mast “will have the maximum
Signage against the installation of a mast. possible negative impact on residential amenity”.
“The backdrop of the sea and mountains limit the capacity of the landscape to absorb this overly dominant development. The proposed development is surrounded by 11 archaeological monuments and it is within close proximity to Knockalongy corrie and cliffs, Aughris, Dunmoran Strand etc. which attracts tourists and cyclists to the area therefore it will also have a negative impact on tourism in Sligo.” They also felt it was inappropriate to locate it across from the “award-winning Mud and Wood House”.
Those were also some of the concerns expressed by many others in the objections submitted.
Other issues raised were a potential negative impact on the value of propertries, possible “radiation damage” caused by this mast, the adverse affect on a bat colony and corncrake nesting and a potential traffic hazard at the site entrance.
The council planner Mihaela Davidescu considered that the technical justification for the mast was “largely in accordance with national and regional planning guidance”.
The only grounds on which she agreed with the objectors was in relation to the visual impact.
She considered that the structure would have a negative impact on the landscape and on the protected views of the Ox Mountains, as seen from the scenic route N59 in the townland of Doonflin and adjoining areas.
The An Bord Pleanala inspector Paul Caprani agreed with the council planner that the visual impact from the proposed structure would be “unacceptable” and would result in a development that would “seriously injure the visual amenities and scenic qualities of the area” and considered the decision of the council should be upheld.
An Bord Pleanala acknowledged that it had decided not to accept its inspector’s recommendation but said it was “satisfied that having regard to its limited nature and scale” the mast would not “seriously injure the residential amenities of adjoining properties and would not seriously injure the visual amenities of the area”.
RIVERSTOWN MAST
The local opposition to the mast near Riverstown included a total of 34 submissions from residents in Riverstown and Drumfin area, including from Riverstown-based councillor Martin Baker and a petition against the mast, signed by 213 people, was submitted to the council.
Also, an observation on the An Bord Pleanala appeal was lodged by Councillor Gerry Mullaney from Kilmactranny.
The council had considered that while the development was “generally compliant with national planning guidance” in relation to telecomunnications structures but it was not in accordance with policy in relation to control of development on or near national roads (it is near the new N4). There had been an objection from Transport Infrastructure Ireland (the national authority responsible for all national roads) on this point on the original planning application.
The planner recommended refusing permission because the site was located within the N4 Castlebaldwin to Collooney road construction project and the proposal was considered “premature pending the completion of this project”.
In her report, the An Bord Pleanala inspector Louise Treacy said that the site was adjacent to the west of the N4 Collooney to Castlebaldwin road.
She summarised the issues raised by the objectors as health risks, impact on property values, negative visual impact, noise pollution, distraction to traffic, impact on wildlife, conflict with the regional spatial and economic strategy, impact on population growth, that it would contribute to climate change, the impact on the Carnagark group water scheme pump house and that the development “contradicts the sustainability of community development and consultation”. In its grounds of appeal Cignal pointed out that the council planner considered the mast was acceptable in principle, with the prematurity of the development pending the completion of the N4 project being the central issue.
They argued that the refusal was “unwarranted” given that a condition could be attached which restricted the commencment of construction works pending the completion of the road project. Cignal also submitted that the new mast would “make a positive contribution to the area by enhancing social and economic life for the local residential, civic and business communities through the provision of mobile and broadband services infrastructure” and that customers would benefit from greater choice of network operators for highspeed broadband and mobile data services.
She said that the observation on the appeal by Cllr Mullaney raised no issues which hadn’t been raised by the other objectors.
The inspector noted that the route corridor for the N4 had already been determined, with work on the road anticipated to be completed later this year and that having regard to that she considered “it would be unreasonable to refuse planning permission on the basis of prematurity”.
She said that postponing the commencement of work on the mast until the road was completed would be reasonable in this instance having regard to the likely construction timeframe involved (that the road will be completed by the end of this year). In relation to the objections, she said the nearest dwellings were approximately 225m to the east on the opposite side of the N4 and approximately 460 metres to the south-west and she considered the mast would have “no undue impact on any neighbouring residential property, including any impact on property values”.
In regard to the health concerns, she said that it had been determined that this was a matter for other bodies and not for planning authorities.
She also felt that the mast “would not seriously injure the visual amenities of the area or property in the vicinity”
She recommended a condition that work on the site should not commence pending the completion of the N4. An Bord Pleanala went along with the inspector’s recommendation in allowing the appeal and granting planning permission.