This article is from page 106 of the 2008-02-26 edition of The Clare People. OCR mistakes are to be expected so download the original SWF or the rendered page 106 JPG
A LONG running battle which Car- rigoran Nursing Home and _ local residents in the Newmarket-on-Fer- gus area have waged to prevent a 100 foot high mast from going ahead has EDU (oreR
An Bord Pleanala has overruled the recommendation of its own inspector to refuse telecommunications com- pany “three” planning permission for the proposal.
Last year, Clare County Council refused planning permission after
it concluded that all options for the co-location of the mast had not been maximised.
In their initial objection, Carrigoran Nursing Home, through Sr Christina Murphy, said, “Our nursing home is within 200 metres of the proposed mast. The nursing home has 152 beds and a staff in excess of 70 people.
“The residents range from short- stay medical care to ages in excess of 80 years of age. In this, patients will have a range of illnesses includ- ing Alzeimer’s.
“Our mother house in the US 1s
extremely concerned, particularly of the health hazard created by the development and of the high level of energies emitting from the develop- ment.:
However, in its appeal, “3” stated: “We believe that it has been demon- strated that a rigorous search of the area was undertaken by “3” before nominating the appeal site as the pre- ferred option in terms of coverage, acquisition and planning issues.
In his recommendation, the board inspector stated that the proposal would not reliably accommodate fu-
ture telecommunication installation, would be needlessly intrusive in the area and would not be in accordance with the proper planning and sustain- able development of the area. However, the inspector’s recom- mendation was overturned after the board of An Bord Pleanala consid- ered the national strategy regarding the improvement of mobile commu- nications services. Its decision was also based on the guidelines relating to telecommunications antennae and support structures and the location of the proposed development on a site
which did not come within the scope of specific restrictions with regard to development in scenic areas.
The board ruled that the plan would not seriously injure the amenities of the area or of property in the vicin- ity, would not be prejudicial to public health and would be in accordance with the proper planning and sus- tainable development of the area.
It stated that it decided not to ac- cept the inspector’s recommendation to refuse permission, noting the lack of landscape designation and the dis- tance to residential properties.