Cllr. Fitzmaurice raised the issue of Section 254 planning notices regarding mobile communication mono-poles. He stated two such structures were located in Gortaganny and at the Eire Óg GAA grounds outside Loughglynn:

·         Local concerns had been expressed over the location of both structures

·         Concern about lack of consultation with locals

·         How can this be appealed?

·         One of the structures is located outside a boundary wall on the roadside with a question as to who owns the road where the structure is located, between the boundary wall and the road itself.

·         Should there not have been a wayleave sought?

·         The locals are not opposed to the masts, just to their locations.

·         A woman offered a location on her lands away from houses for a mast and since this mas was erected, she has a problem with her television working.

·         If this process can be appealed, why was there not a notice in place to allow people the opportunity to do so?

·         Clarification on who owns the ground from the boundary to the public road?

Acting Director of Services Greg O’Donnell replied, stating Section 254 planning provisions were introduced to expedite the roll-out of broadband. He said there were a lack of suitable locations for the erection of such structures. Where possible, local Area Engineers engage informally with local communities where such structures were being considered to assess suitable locations. However the structures were erected subject to licence. He said he was not in a position to comment on specific locations and said there was an appeal process in place to An Bord Pleanala in legislation.

Mr. O’Donnell said that if the n Bord Pleanala.  find against the local authority, then a licence for such a structure could be revoked. He said boundaries of properties in the normal planning process where folios go to the centre of the road, boundaries are set back and technically in the ownership of the owner. It could be dedicated to public use.

The Chief Executive said the structures in question were exempt from the planning acts to expedite the roll-out of broadband with certain telecommunications criteria to make them exempt from the planning acts and treated the same as additional communications poles. He stated Comreg ensures compliance with national guidelines, claiming there was no obligation under Section 254 that public notices were required. He said there is an appeals process, and such poles are considered in the same manner as street lighting in respect of planning regulations.

Members said similar issues with communications infrastructure have also arisen in Dangan where a Community Centre and Church and national school are located, believing the structure in question should be placed at the rear of the Church.  Not withstanding the need for such infrastructure, there needs to be more consultation and a site notice erected.

Arguments were also made for undergrounding wiring to replace over ground poles with claims that poles as large as 50 to 60 feet, featuring drop wires, were unsightly.

The debate concluded with claims that communities affected were not opposed to new communications infrastructure being erected but concerns remain over the lack of consultation and the location of such poles, which were being erected as being the cheapest option, but instead should be more sympathetic to residents living in the areas concerned.

On the PROPOSAL of Cllr. Waldron

SECONDED by Cllr. Ward

It was AGREED to write to the Minister seeking a review of exemptions currently in force in relation to Section 254 planning provision in relation to erection to monopoles in order to allow more consultation with local communities.