This article is from page 13 of the 2006-05-09 edition of The Clare People. OCR mistakes are to be expected so download the original SWF or the rendered page 13 JPG
RESIDENTS living close to the Éire Óg GAA grounds in Ennis say they are shocked by a decision to allow the ESB build an 80 foot high mast.
The telecommunications mast for the ESB’s compound at Cahercalla More got the go-ahead after An Bord Pleanála chiefs overruled a strong recommendation from their own inspector.
“I am absolutely gutted by the decision,” a local resident told
.
“Citizens have no rights and everything is dictated by Government. It is an absolute disgrace that the Board has granted permission for this mast and ignored the recommendation of its own inspector.
“This mast will tower over all of us. It is extremely distressing. I feel absolutely powerless.
“There is no resource to any other body as our only option would be to seek leave for a Judicial Review which could cost between €25,000 and €100,000.”
The ruling may come against future objectors to mobile phone masts, because with regard to this mast’s height, the Board cited the presence of Ennis Cathedral spire.
Local residents had told the appeals board that the structure was of excessive height, out of keeping with existing development in the area and would effect a significant visual impact, including the protected view on the Rocky Road. They also claimed it would depreciate the value of properties in the vicinity.
The Board’s inspector agreed, writing, “The proposed development would set an unwelcome precedent for similar development within urban areas. The proposed development would therefore be contrary to the proper planning and sustainable development of the area”.
However, rejecting the inspector’s recommendation, the Board had regard to national policy, the commercial zoning of the site, and fact that the site consisted of an existing ESB substation.
When refusing planning permission, Ennis Town Council stated that the mast would materially contravene the Ennis and Environs Development Plan.
The Board stated that it noted that the council had decided to refuse permission. But it cited Department of Transport guidelines to conclude that it was not constrained in granting permission.
As a result, the Board granted planning permission.