Plans for a 108 foot telecoms mast near Oran have been turned down by Roscommon County Council as council planners deemed that the proposed development would “endanger public safety by reason of a traffic hazard”.
Cignal Infrastructure Limited had applied for permission for a 108 foot high multi-use lattice tower telecommunications structure carrying antenna and dishes enclosed within am eight foot high palisade fence compound at Ballindall Townland, Roscommon. The site is located approximately half way between Oran GAA Club and Roscommon Town on the N60 national secondary road.
The plans also involved associated ground equipment and associated site works including new access track along with retention permission for a new wall and gated entrance that forms access to the lands. The development of the telecoms mast on the site was dependent on the use of an agricultural access off the N60, at a location where the maximum speed limit applies.
Roscommon County Council turned down the mast application on three grounds. Firstly, the council said that the development failed to demonstrate how in practical terms the required sightlines in both directions from the proposed access could be achieved unless works were to be carried out on lands “outside the identified site and outside the control of the applicants and landowner.” The local authority said that “no evidence of consent to undertake such works” had been demonstrated.
“The proposed development would therefore endanger public safety by reason of a traffic hazard and would be contrary to the proper planning and sustainable development of the area,” said the Council Chief Executive’s order in the decision to refuse permission.
The local authority also said that the proposed development would give rise to “the intensification of use of an agricultural access off the N60 national secondary road”. It said this intensification would occur particularly during the course of its construction, when turning movements have the potential to seriously interfere with the safety and free flow of traffic on the national route.
The final reason for refusal stated that the proposed internal access road had been demonstrated to be of insufficient width to accommodate the movements of large construction related traffic within the confines of the access road and the associated identified site boundary. “The development would therefore be dependent on the undertaking of further works on lands outside the identified site boundary and which have not formally been proposed as part of the subject application. The proposed development would therefore be contrary to the proper planning and sustainable and orderly development of the area,” the council said.
There valid submissions were received in relation to the development. A number of concerns were raised in these submissions including impact on residential amenity, traffic safety, health and safety and devaluation of property.
