A Laois resident who claimed his human rights would be violated if plans for a 24 metre telecommunications mast beside his property went ahead has won his appeal.
An
appeal was lodged with An Bord Pleanála by William Keegan, Dublin Road, Morette against the structure.
Laois County Council previously granted Vantage Towers Limited permission for the development along with a 1.2 metre high raised foundation, associated antennas and dishes at the site in the townland of Morette which is 2.2km south of Emo. The company was also granted permission to remove the existing 15 metre mast and replace it with the bigger structure.
While the An Bord Pleanála inspector had advised planning permission should be granted, the Board overturned Laois County Council's decision and refused permission.
In his letter of appeal Mr Keegan claimed the decision was granted without any consultation with affected residents, despite the fact that this tower is positioned "dangerously close" to his home.
He claimed the approval process "failed to properly assess the real impact this expansion will have on my family and the surrounding community, as the planning application contained serious misrepresentations and omissions that concealed the true extent of its consequences", he said.
"This structure is visible from every front-facing room in my home and is so close it feels as though it is inside our property. The expansion will only intensify this, further diminishing our quality of life and creating an even greater visual and environmental burden," Mr Keegan said in the appeal.
The appeal outlined health and safety concerns, traffic and road safety risks and it also argued that there was no justification for the expansion.
Mr Keegan said the decision to grant planning permission raises serious human rights concerns in relation to the right to respect for private and family life, home and correspondence.
"If necessary I will escalate this case to the European Court of Human Rights and other relevant bodies should An Bord Pleanála fail to uphold basic residential protections," said Mr Keegan who also requested an oral hearing.
In their application to the local authority Vantage Towers Limited outlined that to provide sufficient 4G services to a wider area a new structure with the increased height is required. A Technical Justification for the development was submitted to the local authority and these documents indicate that the proposed development is required by Vodafone. They said this is due to inadequate infrastructure in the wider area and the need to fulfil current and future demand as the area has a deficiency in 4G and 5G coverage.
In their response to Mr Keegan's appeal the company acknowledged that the existing structure creates a visual impact from the house and driveway. They said there was no deliberate intention to conceal any information with respect to the appellant's home. The company claimed that at 57m, "the property is not dangerously close to the appellant’s home and that shadows would be cast over the appellant’s farmland rather than the house."
The applicant said it did not take the investment lightly and that the proposed structure will provide enhanced service over a much wider area than it currently achieves, to the benefit of a wider community.
Making their decision the Board said "the applicant had not demonstrated that the proposed development to erect a 24 metre lattice telecommunications support structure on a 1.2 metre high raised foundation would not be visually impactful on the adjacent residential property. The proposed development would, therefore, be contrary to the proper planning and sustainable
development of the area.
"The Board considered that the proposed development is a project for the purposes of the Environmental Impact Assessment Directive. However, the Board concluded that the proposed development does not fall within a class of development set out in
Part 1 or Part 2 of Schedule 5 to the Planning and Development Regulations 2001, ABP-321817-25 Board Direction Page 1 of 2
as amended , and, therefore, no preliminary examination, screening for Environmental Impact Assessment, or Environmental Impact Assessment is required.
"In deciding not to accept the Inspector's recommendation to grant permission, and having regard to the existing structure on site, the Board noted the existing lattice structure on site and the Applicant’s acknowledgement that it creates a visual impact
from the house and driveway. The Board did not concur with the Inspector’s assessment that a 24 metre lattice structure at this site would not result in significant adverse impacts on the visual amenity of the nearby Appellant’s residential property."
