This article is from page 14 of the 2007-08-07 edition of The Clare People. OCR mistakes are to be expected so download the original SWF or the rendered page 14 JPG
A BATTLE by Carrigoran Nurs- ing Home and local residents in the Newmarket-on-Fergus area to pre- vent a 100ft-high mast from going ahead is to continue.
This follows *3’ appealing Clare County Council’s decision to refuse planning to the third-generation mo- bile phone company for the mast at Carrigoran.
The council turned down the con- tentious plan after it concluded that all options for the co-location of the mast have not been maximised in re- spect of the proposed development.
Residents will be concerned that the reason put forward by the coun- cil is not a strong one and they are expected to make submissions to An Bord Pleanala to counter the argu- ments made by °3’.
In their initial objection, Sr Chris- tina Murphy of Carrigoran Nursing Home said, “Our nursing home is within 200 metres of the proposed mast. The nursing home has 152 beds and a staff in excess of 70 people.
“Our mother house in the US is extremely concerned, particularly because of the health hazard created by the development and of the high level of energies emitting from the development.”
However, in its appeal, °3’ stated,
‘In assessing this appeal, it is 1m- portant to consider that *3’ 1s under a Government obligation to provide 3G broadband coverage to this area of Newmarket.
“The evidence provided…demon- strates the technical need for a 3G base station at the Urlan farm and highlights the lack of suitable alter- native sites in this search area that provide both a technically viable and feasible acquirable solution.
‘The Urlan farm site has been de- signed to have as low a visual impact as possible using a slimline mo- nopole construction with expansion for additional operators in the future and without compromising the qual- ity of signal to the objective in the surrounding area.
“The reason for refusal implies that we had the option to co-locate on the Meteor monopole 1.5km away but that we did not do so, which 1s fundamentally wrong of the council to imply. We sought permission from the landowner to swap out the exist- ing structure for a larger one but this was refused.
“We would contend that we have exhausted the possibility of co-locat- ing on an existing structure in the area…and that we are in full compli- ance with the local area plan.”
A decision is due on the application later this year.