THE cost of a better mobile phone reception appears higher than one Wensleydale community is willing to pay.

Hawes is in a blind spot for some national networks and, after years of delicate negotiation with the Yorkshire Dales National Park Authority, Vodafone had hoped to have found a solution.

Planning officers and the clergy had agreed a telecommunications mast disguised as a flagpole on the roof of the market town's St Margaret's Church would suit everybody.

There would be no need for an antennae in the heart of the Dales countryside while the mast on the church roof would blend with the existing townscape. And yet the company's application has still run into resistance.

Both Hawes and High Abbotside Parish Council and governors of Hawes Primary School are not convinced that radiation from Vodafone's facility does not pose a threat to the health of local children.

The school playground lies 200 yards from the church and there is concern that there is not enough evidence to counter allegations that mobile phone masts are dangerous.

A letter from the school's governors, pressing for research into another site, will be tabled when Yorkshire Dales National Park's planning committee meets at Bolton Abbey Village Hall, on Tuesday.

The council said: "A better site with no potential impact on health could, and should, be found somewhere on the fellside above Hawes - and there appear to be several choices of location available."

However, a report by the authority's own planning officers recommends Vodafone's application is approved.

Officers acknowledge concerns over health but point out, although a Government report into the issue did not give mobile phone masts a clean bill of health, neither did it expressly condemn them as a risk.

It also emphasises the mast will only be given temporary permission for ten years.

Planning officer Mark Williams said: "While it is acknowledged that local residents have serious concerns about the health implications of such equipment, these are not borne out by the scientific evidence to date.

"Government guidance is clear and it is considered that the perceived health risks would not be a defensible reason to refuse the application.