An Bord Pleanala - Institute of corruption?

[Owenmoresider]

Just wondering what other's views are on our wonderful planning appeals authority, which IMHO appears to be as corrupt as hell. In the few last few weeks we have had a number of planning applications in Sligo, refused by the Council, now overturned by ABP, including four telephone masts. The story from the Champion two weeks ago accounts for three of them:

Three telemasts get planning green light

Wednesday July 18 2007

An Bord Pleanala has given the go-ahead for controversial telecommunication masts at three separate locations in County Sligo.Planning permission for the structures was refused by Sligo County Council because the proposals were contrary to the policy of the County Development Plan that telecommunications masts are not located within 1km of smaller towns and 400m of private dw

By Leo Gray

An Bord Pleanala has given the go-ahead for controversial telecommunication masts at three separate locations in County Sligo.
Planning permission for the structures was refused by Sligo County Council because the proposals were contrary to the policy of the County Development Plan that telecommunications masts are not located within 1km of smaller towns and 400m of private dwellings.
However, the Planning Appeals Board has overturned the decision of the County Council Council and granted planning permission for the structures.

Permission has been granted to the ESB for a 20 metre high structure at its existing sub-station in Tubbercurry while 02 Communications (Ire) Ltd have received permission for 30m lattice structures at Lisananny More, Ballymote, and Castleview, Drumfin.
Objections against the developments at Tubbercurry and Ballymote had been lodged with Sligo County Council by local residents and landowners.

The planning authority refused planning permission for all three structures but these decisions were appealed to An Bord Pleanala by the applicants.

In the case of the ESB development at Tubbercurry, An Bord Pleanala's planning inspector recommended that planning permission be refused.

The inspector pointed out that the site was some 700 metres from the town centre and on the edge of an established and growing residential area that included a nursing home and a school.

It was national and local policy that telecommunications masts should only be located within a small town or village or within a residential area, where the site was one of last resort and it had been clearly demonstrated to be so.
The inspector said she was not satisfied that the information presented clearly demonstrated that a rigourous examination was carried out and all potential sites were assessed and the information submitted allowed for independent verification of the facts made in support of the site.

She also considered that the design of the proposed pole was unlikely to facilitate co-location and said she would be concerned that the solid brown pole would be visually obtrusive and set a precedent for similar development on the site.
In deciding not to accept the inspector's recommendation to refuse permission, An Bord Pleanala said it had particular regard to the relevant Government guidelines whereby a location within a site already developed for utilities was favoured and noted that the current site was within an ESB compound.

The Board did not consider the development would be visually obtrusive, particularly given its scale and location, and was satisfied that reasonable efforts had been made to locate on other existing support structures.
Compliance

The Board considered that subject to compliance with a number of conditions, the proposed development would not be visually obtrusive or seriously injure the amenities of the area or of property in the vicinity and would be acceptable in terms of traffic safety and convenience.

The application for planning permission was made by the ESB on behalf of Hutchinson 3G and a letter lodged with the application indicated that Vodafone, Fastcom Broadband and Magnet Networks would also be interested in using the site.
In regard to the O2 Communications proposals at Ballymote and Drumfin, the planning inspector recommended that planning permission be granted in both cases.

In a report on the Ballymote appeal, the inspector noted that the site was in a rural area and that up to four dwellings were within 400m of the mast.

There was, she said, no substantive evidence that adverse health effects could occur if people were exposed to non-ionising radiation below the levels endorsed by ICNIRP. The Assessment of Compliance submitted indicated that the level of radiation would be insignificant and complied with guidelines.

Acceptable

"In view of the limited number of dwellings in the vicinity of the site, the absence of opportunities for co-location, I am satisfied that the proposed development is acceptable in principle", said the inspector.

She also considered that the proposed mast, which was located beside a group of trees, would not be visually obtrusive as viewed from the main roads in the area.

The mast will give Universal Mobile Telephone System (UMTS) coverage to the Dublin/Sligo railway between Collooney and Boyle as well as to Ballymote town and surrounding areas.

In recommending planning permission for the O2 Communications mast at Castleview, Drumfin, the planning inspector said that in view of the limited number of dwellings in the area, she was satisfied that the proposed development was acceptable in principle.

Furthermore, she considered that the proposed mast, which would be grouped visually with a number of ESB pylons, was acceptable in terms of visual amenity, given the nature and designation of the surrounding landscape and the limited views available of the proposed mast.

The mast will give Universal Mobile Telephone System (UMTS) coverage to the N4 between Collooney and Castlebaldwin.

As highlighted there, one of the applications was rejected by ABP's own inspector, yet it was approved, and this is a worryingly common outcome. In the week this article was published, another mast was given the green light, not very far from our area, indeed overlooking it in one sense. This was refused TWICE by SCC, went to ABP, as with the Tubber mast, the inspector advised against it, and yet it was granted, for reasons amongst others being that it wasn't located on the summit of the hill it will be erected on, which is of little comfort to anyone in this area.

But that didn't take the biscuit, no that was devoured last week, in the case of this application:

06/57: Carrowhubbock South, Enniscrone, Co. Sligo. (#220845)

Sligo County Council

211 no. houses, 3 no. retail units, creche, new road, carparking for 424 no. cars, retention and refurbishment of existing farm buildings, landscaping and all associated site works.

Case reference: 21 220845

Case type: Planning Appeal

Applicant: ----- (Applicant)

EIS required: No

Parties
Appellant: -----
Decision: Grant permission with revised conditions


This had been granted by SCC somehow (when the local area plan's projected no of housing developments was already exceeded), but went to ABP. Again, the Inspector recommended it should be refused, for a very good reason - it was an excessive development and would not constitute proper sustainable development in Enniscrone. And ABP said? Plough ahead lads.

For Stephenite and others, you may know Enniscrone is a popular coastal resort out near Ballina, and has been a nice small village in that time. However the wonderful housing boom has left the area with more houses than people, thanks to all the many holiday homes built. And now another 200+ are heading their way, leaving Enniscrone to join Coolaney, Collooney, Ballisodare, Ballymote, Dromahair etc. as towns/villages in the county and surrounds, to have been turned into little playthings for developers to build at their convenience. No doubt the boys are working the oracle once more this week.

And the other thing is - if you happen to be a rural club who plan to develop a pitch and training facility, in conjunction with the county board, you will be objected to by, in chief, a person who doesn't live where they say so, and will be subsequently turned down. No doubt we'll have to go through this process whenever we get our plans in motion, while the same folks allow the local town to sprawl at an enormous rate.