Court rules against councillors on mast
Councillors kept in dark as manager's decision upheld.
High Court Judge O'Donovan last week upheld Eircell's challenge to a decision by Leitrim County Councillors, who overturned their manager's decision to give planning permission for a mast at Tully, Ballinamore.
In an historic decision last March, the councillors had voted unanimously for a motion proposed by Sinn Féin's Liam McGirl under Section 30 of the 1993 Planning Act, to overrule their manager's decision to grant planning permission for the mobile phone mast.
The High Court ruling on Friday, 29 October, is significant for the many people across the country who have protested at the erection of masts, and for several councils - the most recent being Wicklow County Council, which followed Leitrim's lead with a Section 30 motion overturning their county manager's decision.
As Liam McGirl points out, ``the issue goes right to the very heart of planning decisions, where councillors' obligation to represent their constituents comes into conflict with the county manager''.
Managers have given planning permission for masts across the country despite the often strong objections of local people. There is a growing body of evidence that masts have a serious effect on the health of people who live nearby.
``It is amazing'', says Michael Colreavey, another Sinn Féin Leitrim County Councillor, ``that the councillors who overturned the manager's decision were not even informed of the original High Court hearing on 4 October.'' Councillors have not been given access to the documentation on the case, despite repeated requests to the manager. Neither were councillors given the opportunity to be at the hearing.''
At the council meeting last Monday, 1 November, McGirl asked why councillors had not been informed of the hearing and had not even received a copy of Judge O'Donovan's decision. The manager, present at the meeting, was not apparently sure that the council itself had been represented at the hearing, although County Secretary Martin Dolan confirmed to this reporter that of course it had been.
Dolan said on Wednesday, 3 November, that he had not yet received the judgement, though he understood it was available on the Internet. The council was in the process of moving offices and he did not have access to the Internet.
``Strange carry-on indeed when one party to a high court case is not informed of the hearing, or the judgement,'' comments Liam McGirl, ``and even stranger that, in an instance where local people are very concerned at the outcome, that they and their elected representatives should be kept in the dark.''
``Furthermore'' Liam McGirl points out, ``there is the question of liability, if and when the question of compensation for damage to health due to masts arises in the courts, which recent scientific research suggests is only round the corner. What provision has been made by the council against such claims?''
Martin Dolan was not able to quote any particular scientific authority which the council has consulted on the possible health dangers of masts. He did say that a bond against future damages ``wouldn't work,'' and that ``people who didn't want something would clutch at anything to prevent it''.
![[An Phoblacht]](http://republican-news.org/graphics/title_gifs/aprn.gif)