|
|
Controversial telecoms mast
erected
30.04.10
by Damian Dowds, Inishowen Independent
THE controversial telecommunications mast at
Drumfries was erected on Monday but local residents
are hoping their appeals to the Ombudsman and
Environment Minister will see it removed before it
becomes operational later this year.
Some 127 residents of the Drumfries area signed a
petition opposing the location of the mast at
Ballinlough, and several alternative sites were
offered.
“We’re not opposed to the mast itself and we accept
that it’s necessary, but we are opposed to its
location,” a spokesman for the residents said.
“There are 15 homes within 500 metres of it but
Tetra told the Council there was only one.”
Construction work on the site began earlier this
month when the foundations were laid, and
contractors erected the mast on Monday. The mast is
part of a national network designed to provide
secure communications services for the emergency
services, including ambulance, fire brigade and An
Garda Síochána.
Residents’ representatives have written to both
Ombudsman Emily O’Reilly and Environment Minister
John Gormley seeking an investigation into how
Donegal County Council granted planning permission
to Tetra Ireland Communications for the mast in
August 2009. |
 |
They are critical of a
number of aspects of the planning permission,
particularly the fact that the mast was built on a
property where the Council was already investigating
unauthorised developments. They also say the mast
breaches the County Development Plan in that it is
located in an Especially High Scenic Amenity.
Donegal County Council confirmed that the buildings
adjacent to the mast were unauthorised, and
documents seen by the Inishowen Independent show
that the Council served a warning letter on the
landowner in November of last year and their
investigations are ongoing.
An application for retention on the sheds made in
2007 was rejected by Donegal County Council. In a
statement, Donegal County Council said:
“A planning authority must assess and determine any
application submitted on its own merits without
using the planning application process to address
unauthorised development for which purpose a
separate statutory process exists. In this instance
as the unauthorised development relates to a
separate, albeit adjoining, site the matters are
clearly separate considerations.”
However, documents submitted by Tetra as part of its
planning application, stated that given the scenic
landscape, it had positioned the mast close to the
unauthorised sheds so as to ‘cluster’ with it. It
further stated that the unauthorised development
highlighted that the area had previously been
developed and altered within the planning
guidelines.
"There were a number of other errors in the planning
process and we have written to both John Gormley and
the Ombudsman seeking an investigation into how the
permission was granted on this site," said a
residents' spokesman. |
|
