Sir, – Further to "Three Ireland ordered to remove Dublin phone mast" (May 20th), the telecoms mast at Slaney Road, Dublin 11, has been submitted to Dublin City Council three times for planning permission and has been refused permission on each occasion.
The first time was in 2002 when permission was sought to replace an existing 20m lattice steel mast with a 45m tower structure. The local residents were not aware at that time of the application, refusal and subsequent appeal to An Bord Pleanála. The site notice had been located in the industrial estate that has a separate road access and is away from the “beaten track” There was no consultation with the locals.
An Bord Pleanála, on appeal, gave the operator, then O2, two enabling temporary five-year permissions, the first to allow the impact of the then proposed structure to be assessed, the second in 2010 to allow the operator to relocate the structure within the industrial estate, and away from the residential areas. Telecoms operator Vodafone had previously, in similar environmental circumstances, successfully relocated within this same 57-hectare estate, away from housing. The site area of the 3 Ireland mast is less than 50 square metres.
The reason given by the planning inspectors for rejecting this structure was that it has a huge overbearing relationship with these nearby dwelling houses.
In May of this year An Bord Pleanála had no alternative but to refuse permission for retention. The operator, now 3 Ireland, had failed to observe the five-year temporary permission and had not made any provision for relocating as required by that permission.
The planning inspectors were fully aware of the operator’s claims of disruptions. The Bord Pleanála inspector in his recommendation for a refusal in May of this year observed that the site location was not in compliance with section 15.9 of the Dublin City Development Plan, where developments detrimental to the amenities of the adjoining contiguous more environmentally sensitive (housing) area should be avoided.
It was not prudent for the operator to include the mast as a critical location for the provisions of services when no permanent permission for this structure ever existed.
The applicant had not presented a comparative study of the level of service provided at this structure against the likely alternative service provision at another location within the industrial estate. – Yours, etc,
EDWARD McKIERNAN,
Glasnevin, Dublin 11.
