High Court quashes licence for telecommunications pole

Concerns as development located close to a local school, community centre, and church
High Court quashes licence for telecommunications pole

The planned telecommunications pole at Dangan, Kilmore.

A decision granting a licence for a controversial telecommunications pole at Dangan, Kilmore has been quashed. The development is located close to a local school, community centre, and church, and was a cause of some concern among residents. Among the concerns were fears about exposure to non-ionising radiation from the pole's antenna. The licence for the development was granted by Roscommon County Council in June 2021.

In March of 2024, An Bord Pleanála upheld the council granting Cellnex, formerly Cignal Infrastructure Limited, a Section 254 Licence for the provision of a 15m smart streetpole and operator cabinet, after an appeal was lodged in May 2023.

The inspector recommended that the licence be refused. In making its decision, ABP did not accept the inspector’s recommendation.

Subsequently, in May of last year, a judicial review was taken by solicitors FP Logue LLP on behalf of a local resident, and the High Court has now quashed the planning permission. The applicant had argued that the decision was invalid because ABP “acted irrationally and contrary to fair procedures and natural justice by failing to have any or any adequate regard to the informed opinion of its inspector”.

When contacted by the Roscommon Herald ABP said the board conceded the judicial review “on core ground 2”, that the board failed to give any/adequate reasons for discounting the recommendation of the inspector to refuse the licence. It added that the applicant for the development, Cellnex, did not seek remittal, meaning there will be no reconsideration of the licence appeal by An Bord Pleanála.

When contacted Cellnex said it has been fully compliant with planning legislation in relation to the development at Dangan “and it will remain compliant with planning legislation in relation to this development”. When asked whether the development would now be removed, it declined to make any further comment.

More in this section