Leitrim county councillors decided to revoke planning permission for an Eircell mobile phone mast in Ballinamore after local people voiced "considerable fear, apprehension and opposition" to the development, the High Court was told yesterday.
Mr Thomas McCartin, for the council, said many representations against the mast were made by members of the public to him and other councillors.
Given the intense opposition, the council met on March 1st and unanimously voted to revoke the permission granted to Eircell, Mr McCartin said. The county manager had informed them the planning officer had certified that the required change in circumstances had not occurred to allow them revoke permission.
Mr McCartin said the councillors took the view a change in circumstances had occurred. These changed circumstances included the considerable fear, apprehension and opposition which had built up within the community, relating to considerations of health, the impact on property values and the adverse impact on tourism. It was the opinion of all the councillors that considerations of proper planning and development were "not confined to an academic exercise" but involved broad consideration of all matters relating to the environment, personal perceptions of it and social and economic considerations. An affidavit from Mr McCartin was read to Mr Justice O'Donovan during a challenge by Eircell to the council's decision. The hearing concluded yesterday and judgment was reserved.
Mr Paul Gallagher SC, for Eircell, said it had secured permission for a 32 metre mast and associated development works at Tully, Ballinamore, on June 23rd 1998. Leave for a judicial review challenge to An Bord Pleanala's refusal to accept an appeal by Mr John Toolan, a local resident, against the development was secured on November 23rd, 1998, but that hearing had yet to be determined.
In an affidavit, Mr Thomas Murtagh, of Eircell, said Leitrim County Council decided to revoke the permission and informed Eircell its reason was "changed circumstances". The revocation stated that " considerable fear, apprehension and opposition within the local community of Ballinamore as to the health implications, impact on property values, tourism and visual implications of the proposed development have been expressed to the elected members and this was not a matter the elected members had been aware of at the date of the grant of permission".
Mr Murtagh said the council was not entitled to revoke the permission unless there was a change in circumstances relating to the proper planning and development of the area concerned and such change had occurred since the granting of the permission. No such change had occurred and the council had acted outside its powers, he said.