PEOPLE are accusing Darlington Borough Council of double standards after it passed proposals for a mobile phone mast just weeks after a similar mast on the same road was refused.

Residents of Coniscliffe Road, Darlington, are furious that the council's planning committee approved an application for a second mobile phone mast on a traffic island at the road's junction with Carmel Road.

They had expected the application from Hutchinson 3G to be refused after an application from Orange for a mast half a mile away, near St Augustine's School, was refused on health grounds last month.

Twenty letters were sent to the council objecting to the Hutchinson 3G mast on health grounds because there are three schools nearby, as well as playgroups at the nearby Elm Ridge Methodist Church.

Resident Myra Apps said she and her neighbours were furious at the council's double standards and were considering appealing against the decision.

"There is already one mast on the roundabout, so we did not think they would let this one go ahead as well. It is double the health risk," she said.

"We cannot believe they have passed it after throwing the other one out on health grounds."

Ms Apps said that at the meeting council leader Councillor John Williams warned members that if they refused the application on health grounds an appeal by the company could cost a lot of money.

"If they couldn't reject it on health grounds, then why did they reject the last one, which was just half a mile away, on health grounds? We all live on the same road and pay the same taxes. It is double standards," she said.

MEP Stephen Hughes objected to the mast near St Augustine's School, in Coniscliffe Road, and is supporting residents who are opposing the mast at Elm Ridge

"I am very concerned about the cumulative affect of these masts. I don't think they should be concentrated in one place until we have definitive proof on the health effects," he said.

However, Coun Williams said Government guidelines on phone masts stated health issues could not be considered. Only planning issues can be used as reasons for refusal. He said he could not comment on the decision for the first mast because he was not at the meeting.

"The simple fact is if people want to use mobile phones there have to be these masts," he said.