Red light for Roscrea mast plan

An Bord Pleanála has overturned the granting of planning permission for a telecoms mast outside Roscrea following a successful third party appeal.

Local resident Elizabeth Gleeson was one of several parties that lodged objections to Cignal Infrastructure Ltd's plan to construct a 36m telecoms structure and associated works at Benamore. Tipperary Co Council granted conditional permission for the plan and Ms Gleeson subsequently appealed that decision to An Bord Pleanála. Her appeal was supported with observations submitted by fellow Benamore residents Ronan and Orlaith Middleton, and Gavin Hannon.

She raised a number of points in relation to visual impact that were agreed with by Bord Pleanála Inspector Catherine Dillon. The appellant described the greenfield site, located 1.5km east of the town, as “a major gateway into and out of Roscrea... the mast will impact on the first focal point to the town”.

Ms Gleeson also submitted that the applicant had not demonstrated why it was not possible to share the Civil Defence mast, located 200m from the subject site.

Following her assessment of the case, Ms Dillon concluded that the proposed mast “would be a dominant structure on the site and would contrast in scale and character to the immediate area and other structures close by”. The inspector's opinion was the proposal would “have an overbearing and prevailing effect” on local residence, and she agreed with the appellant that the 36m mast “would detract from the area, and the attractiveness of one of the gateways into Roscrea”.

The inspector also took the point about the Civil Defence mast - “less intrusive and dominant within the area” - and noted that the Cignal proposal would result in two masts of between 30m and 36m height in close proximity to each other, close to the exit/approach to the town.

A Technical Justification accompanied the Cignal proposal; it stated that the compound equipment and mast had been designed to accommodate multiple network operators and national broadband providers, allowing mobile and broadband operators to effectively deliver services to the local and wider area.

But the inspector considered that the applicant “has not adequately demonstrated there is no potential to cluster the proposed mast adjacent to the existing mast, and thereby avoid the unnecessary proliferation of masts in the area and reduce visual impact”.

She therefore recommended refusing planning permission, a recommendation accepted by the board. “It is considered the development would be visually intrusive by reason of its height, scale and design, and would add to the existing clutter in the area and would adversely injure the visual amenities of the area,” the board reasoned.

“The proposed development would, therefore, be contrary to the proper planning and sustainable development of the area.”