Home News Latest News Council rejects mast plan

Council rejects mast plan

Thursday, 26 November 2009

LOCAL residents in Finglas have expressed their relief following the city council’s decision to reject a controversial mast plan. The proposal to erect a giant mast in the heart of the village sparked uproar among locals who feared that the 30-metre high structure proposed for the former ESB premises on McKee Avenue would discourage much-needed future development in the area. The city council rejected the plan to erect the freestanding communications monopole earlier this month. Local resident Marie Duffy welcomed the council’s decision. She believed the mast would have been unsightly and could have posed a possible health risk to the local community. “It’s great news and many people are delighted that the plan hasn’t gone through,” she told Northside People. “It would have been a disaster for the area to have such an ugly structure in the village.” Ms Duffy said the plan was far from what Finglas needed, especially when the village is so “run down”. Philomena Byrne-Murphy, who also vehemently opposed the plan, echoed these sentiments. “The structure would be an insult to the people of Finglas who have been crying out for the village to get the redevelopment it was promised over 10 years ago,” she said. Local councillor Paul McAulliff (FF) also feared that if the mast had been approved it would have significantly compromised the city council’s regeneration strategy for Finglas village. “The site on McKee Avenue forms part of a previous planning application made by Superquinn, an application which, it is hoped, will begin the process of renewing the building stock of Finglas,” he explained. “I’m really pleased that this application has been rejected and I’d like to congratulate local residents and other public representatives who opposed it.” The city council’s planners ruled that the freestanding communications monopole was unsuitable on several grounds. “The proposed development, by virtue of its scale and proximity to existing dwellings and land zoned for residential development, would be visually obtrusive and cause serious injury to the amenities of residences in the area and result in the depreciation of property value in the vicinity,” it was stated in the council’s report. “The proposed development would be prejudicial to the carrying out of an approved development plan for the comprehensive redevelopment of a strategic site contrary to the Finglas Framework Development Area.” The planners also stated that the mast proposal would contravene the council’s guidelines for telecommunications antenna and support structures given that the location was not an industrially zoned area.