A BID to build a phone mast which provoked more than 500 letters of protest has been rejected by councillors.
Campaigners fighting a proposal by communications company Hutchinson 3G UK to erect a mast at Pelaw Grange, are celebrating a decision by district councillors to refuse planning permission.
The bid was turned down at Chester-le-Street District Council's planning meeting on Monday on the grounds that it would create an eyesore for nearby residents. The construction would have been ten metres higher than the average mast.
Speaking on behalf of residents, William Jackson from Lyndhurst Avenue said the level of feeling against the plans was demonstrated by the fact that more than 500 letters of objection had been sent to the council.
He said they were concerned that the mast was only about 100 metres from Park View Comprehensive School and said residents' concerns outweighed any benefits of broad band technology provided by the mast.
Justine Yarwood, an agent speaking on behalf of Hutchinson 3G, told the meeting that they had looked at several other sites before settling on location, but they were unsuitable. She said the emissions were well within recommended levels and there was provision for other mobile phone operators to put their own antenna on the mast, limiting the number built in the area.
Coun John Evans criticised the Government's planning guidelines covering mobile phone masts.
He said: "We're not allowed to consider the perception that masts might result in health problems. We're not allowed to consider need for these masts in terms of guidance that we get. I would like to know just what the devil we are allowed to consider.
"We're only in a position to consider siting or appearance. Well, 150 metres from somebody's front door is an unsatisfactory siting by anybody's reckoning."
Councillors voted unanimously to reject the plans, against the planning officers recommendation.
Speaking after the meeting, Mr Jackson said they had expected the decision. He said: "We know the strength of opposition, almost 50 per cent of the local community - that's households, not individuals. The health factor is not recognised in planning procedure and they'll have to come to terms with it at some point."
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules hereComments are closed on this article