An Bord Pleanála Ref.: PL21.221753

An Bord Pleanála

Inspector’s Report

Development: 25 metre telecommunications support structure carrying antennae dishes and associated equipment containers, access track and fencing. Doon Hill, Carrownree, Ballynacarrow, Co. .

Planning Application

Planning Authority:

Planning Authority Ref.: 06/1159

Applicant: O2 Communications Ltd.

Planning Authority Decision: Refuse Permission

Planning Appeal

Appellant Same

Type of Appeal: First Party V. Refusal

Observers: John and Mary Kerins; Leo and Cathriona Kerins; Kevin and Amenda Kilcoyne; Patrick Coleman

Inspector

Lorna Crawford

PL21.221753 An Bord Pleanála Page 1 of 6 1.0 SITE The 0.04h site is located approximately 13km south of Sligo town, in a hilly, wooded rural area with a dispersed development pattern. The site is in the north-east corner of a field bounded by mature trees and hedgerow, which is just over 100m north of the summit of Doon Hill. The site is approximately 800m east of the R293 and 2km east of the N17, both of which run roughly north-south.

2.0 THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT The proposal is for a 15m x 15m compound bounded with 2.4m high palisade fencing and containing a 4.1m x 2.1m x 2.7m high equipment cabin and a 25m high tapered monopole, with 3 no. antennae and 2 no. dishes at the top part of the pole. An access track some 500m in length is proposed from an existing farm yard, through a number of fields bounded by mature trees/hedgerow.

3.0 PLANNING HISTORY It is understood that 05/628 refers to a similar proposal in the area, which was refused due to visual amenity and archaeological concerns, and that this was subject to an appeal, possibly ref. PL06.441.

4.0 PLANNING AUTHORITY DECISION In January 2007 the Council decided to refuse permission for the development. The two refusal reasons relate to conflict with Development Plan policy requiring that such masts should not generally be constructed within 400m of dwellings, and visually obtrusive feature on open rural landscape.

5.0 DEVELOPMENT PLAN The Sligo County Development Plan 2005-2011 is the adopted plan for the area. Policy is to achieve a balance between facilitating the provision of telecommunications services in the interests of social and economic progress and sustaining residential amenities, environmental quality and public health. It also states that masts should not generally be constructed within 400m of a private dwelling. In addition the Plan states that the Council will have regard to the provisions within the DEHLG Guidelines on Telecommunications Structures.

The site is within a ‘normal rural landscape’.

6.0 GROUNDS OF APPEAL The appellant makes the following points:- • Proposal is in compliance with DOE Guidelines.

• Proposal is not as strident/obtrusive as envisaged by Council. Slim line monopole chosen instead of lattice design. Necessary height will make structure inevitably visible in limited number of places, but oblique not terminating views, and distant from main travel routes or walking routes. In

PL21.221753 An Bord Pleanála Page 2 of 6 addition views are set among hills, forest and intervening objects. These issues are acknowledged in Government Guidelines. Structure will be completely hidden from some viewpoints. Proposed landscaping and colour scheme will further lessen visual impact. Screening can be up to 15m high. In PL13.130258, site was not within designated landscape area, and it was concluded that landscape was not important to County as a whole.

• Site is not within a designated landscape area or within important view/prospect.

• Any loss of visual amenity is compensated for by the benefits that would be provided for the mobile phone service in the surrounding area. 3G/UMTS coverage plots are provided to show need. There is a large area with no coverage and proposal would result in good coverage for this area.

• Council’s distance criteria, based on perceived health issues, have no rational basis in planning, Government policy, The Stewart Report and U.K. law. This unnecessarily restricts the potential of identifying a base station. In addition, some councils do not have such restrictions, and such an inconsistent approach is contrary to the Government Guidelines. The Inspector dealing with PL21.130241 stated that there is no basis to the 500m separation distance referred to by the planning authority. In addition, in PL21.210776 the Council stated in a letter dated 25 February 2005 that distance constraints have no rational basis. In any case closest dwelling is 350m away.

• Archaeological Report concludes that site would have negligible impact on closest recorded monument, which is at the summit of Doon Hill, but completely surrounded and almost covered in trees.

7.0 RESPONSE SUBMISSIONS The Council responds that the mast is considered to be obtrusive in this area of open countryside. In addition, whilst the details relating to distance criteria are noted, the proposal nonetheless conflicts with the Development Plan, and must be refused accordingly.

8.0 OBSERVATIONS The points made are combined as follows:- • Consider mast would cause serious risk of harm from radiation emission, including children, as proven in recent medical research.

• Mast will have negative visual impact on this beautiful landscape and will be visible for several miles.

• Mast will have serious negative implications for house and land values, including impact on people who intend building in area.

PL21.221753 An Bord Pleanála Page 3 of 6 • Previous application was rejected in 2006.

• Consider that there is no need for further mast, as there are already 4 in operation very close by.

9.0 ASSESSMENT I consider that the main issues in this appeal relate to health, visual impact, archaeology and need.

Health With regard to the Plan’s 400m ‘exclusion zone’ from residential properties, the national guidelines do not specifically support such a policy specifying distances. Rather it is advised that a planning authority should indicate any locations where, for various reasons, telecommunications structures would not be favoured such as designated areas of high amenity or beside schools. In this respect visual impact is a material issue, which is addressed below. The proposal complies with the International Commission on Non-Ionising Radiation Protection (ICNIRP) Guidelines regarding radiation emissions. In addition, the issue of a perceived threat to health is not a material factor in evaluating the planning merits of the proposal.

Visual Impact The DOE Guidelines state that in most cases the applicant will have only limited flexibility regarding location. It is stated that the extent to which a mast is noticeable/intrusive is influenced by factors such as intermediate objects, scale of the mast in the wider landscape and position in respect of the skyline.

The Visual Assessment report submitted with the application contains maps which indicate that the proposed mast would be visible from all but one aspect of a 360degree fan taken spreading to a 5km radius of the site. The mast will be visible from stretches of the N17 and to a much lesser extent the N4, local roads closer to the site, but not from the R293.

I note that the Guidance states that:- • Some masts will remain quite noticeable in spite of the best precautions. In this case, the issue of whether the mast is seen from major roads and walking routes, but not as a terminating view, or as intermittent views, i.e where the mast would not overly intrude on the general view/prospect.

• Masts on hilltops will by definition be visible, yet if these were all rules out the consequence would be that the operator might not be able to service the area or that a number of structures may be required.

The mast is located adjacent to a wooded area, which will reduce visual intrusion. However, due to its location close to the top of a hill, it will be clearly seen on the skyline from various points on public roads in the area. However I accept that due to roadside vegetation and route directions it will mainly be seen indirectly and intermittently from public roads, particularly the N4. However notwithstanding the intermittent views, I consider that it will be a dominant feature along points of the

PL21.221753 An Bord Pleanála Page 4 of 6 local roads in the site vicinity, and also from several dwellings in this area, which would be overly obtrusive in this attractive hilly landscape.

On balance therefore I consider that the site should only be sanctioned as a ‘last resort’.

Archaeology An Archaeological Impact Assessment report was submitted with the application. This confirms that the site is outside the area of constraint surrounding the Recorded Mound Monument on the summit of Doon Hill. It is stated that the monument is screened from view up to 2-3m by vegetation and that the impact of the proposal is therefore considered negligible.

The DEHLG notes this report but is still concerned about the possible negative impact. It is stated that map and aerial photographic evidence suggest that the development site is within a large ancient enclosure, defined by field fences, with a Recorded Bowl-Barrow Monument within this. The Department recommends that a further Archaeological Assessment be undertaken, to include a geophysical survey, as detailed in its letter. It states that if there is significant archaeological impact a refusal or redesign may be recommended.

On balance I consider that these requirements could be incorporated by way of a condition, specifying that development shall not be sanctioned unless the further details are acceptable.

Need The 1996 DEHLG Guidelines for Telecommunications Antennae and Support Structures accept the importance of a high quality telecommunications service. The applicant has demonstrated the significant improved coverage that would be achieved by the proposed site, via ‘before’ and ‘after’ maps. In particular areas along the N4 and N17 where there is currently little or no coverage, would now be served. From the maps I estimate that an approximate 8km stretch of the N17 area and 5km of the N4 area would benefit from significantly improved coverage. In addition the R293 between the N17 and , a distance of approximately 8km, and the railway line from Colloney to Ballymote, a distance of approximately 10km, will receive coverage, where previously there was little or none.

The applicant’s submission states that the site selection involved investigation of the possibility of using existing high buildings and other structures. In this respect it is stated that there are no other telecommunications structures/sites in the search area which would be of any benefit in providing the required coverage. Four existing such masts are listed to have been investigated:- • Vodafone Ballymote – too far away

• Lavagh – O2 already has base station here

• Colloney – O2 is co-located on the existing Garda structure

• Eircom – O2 are already co-located here.

PL21.221753 An Bord Pleanála Page 5 of 6 I note that there is a further mast along the N17, close to its junction with the R293, which it is understood has been erected relatively recently. Location of O2 apparatus here, either by co-location on the existing mast, or, if necessary, erection of a further mast would, in my view be less visually obtrusive due to the lower ground, but should at the least provide the required coverage deficit along the N17and surrounding hinterland and much of the R293 and railway. From the information on file, I am therefore not convinced that the applicant has fully investigated all alternatives.

10.0 RECOMMENDATION

From my assessment I recommend that permission be refused for the reasons below.

REASONS AND CONSIDERATIONS

Having regard to-

(a) the guidelines relating to telecommunications antennae and support structures which were issued by the Department of the Environment and Local Government to planning authorities in July, 1996,

(b) the location of the mast close to the top of a hill it is considered that the proposed development would be visually obtrusive and would seriously injure the amenity of the area and of property in the vicinity. Furthermore, the Board is not satisfied that a more suitable site might not be available. The proposed development would, therefore, be contrary to the proper planning and sustainable development of the area.

Lorna Crawford Planning Inspector 7 June 2007

PL21.221753 An Bord Pleanála Page 6 of 6

PL21.221753 An Bord Pleanála Page 7 of 6