A MARCH of the masts has been halted at a Christchurch beauty spot after residents branded a new antenna application an "insult".
Proposals to erect another telecommunications tower at Chewton Common, Highcliffe - the third of its kind - caused uproar in the area, sparking strong condemnation from the local residents' association and more than 130 letters of protest.
And, while reluctant to pass judgement on any possible public health concerns, Christchurch planners threw out the bid on the grounds it would make an "unacceptable" intrusion into the lives of nearby people.
Two 20-metre mobile phone masts for Orange and Vodafone were approved for the open space area - one of Highcliffe's key 'green lungs' and a Site of Nature Conservation Interest - in the late 1990s, and a request to add a third was made by Hutchinson 3G UK.
The company claimed there is a gap in coverage and capacity in the Highcliffe area due to strong local demand, and tailored their plan to meet government guidelines.
But many locals felt the development - which would be sited near a scout hut, plus Highcliffe Junior and St Marks schools - was a step too far.
Highcliffe Residents' Association said a third mast would be an "insult" to the local community, compounding health worries about the possible effects of radiation and ruining the appearance of the site.
This stance was backed by 133 objection letters, with claims that it would blight the skyline, harm property values, damage the environment as well as pose long-term health hazards.
Principal planning officer David Williams told the borough's development control committee it was not members' place to weigh up health risks - but outlined concerns about another transmitter on the sensitive site.
"The cumulative effect of the three masts creates a clutter and overpowering visual presence, which adds to the imposing and intrusive effect of such alien features, which will have a significantly greater impact during winter months when less vegetation is on the trees," he said.
Members backed the recommendation, and rejected the plan.
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 The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.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