APPLAUSE rang out from the public gallery at Forde House, Newton Abbot, on Monday as Teignbridge councillors overwhelmingly refused permission for a controversial second telephone mast on one of Bishopsteignton's highest hills. Their decision went against the advice of planning officers who had recommended approval, subject to a landscaping agreement, and is likely to trigger an appeal. The site, at Lea Park Nurseries, Ashill, is already home to one mast that was automatically given permission in 2005 after the council failed to consider the case within the allotted time. The mistake meant that mobile giants Hutchinson were allowed to press ahead and install the 3G mast that had attracted opposition from communities throughout the Teign Estuary. Now rival firm O2 has submitted a bid to erect a 41ft high 'replica telegraph pole', fitted with three antennae. It said the prominent site, within an Area of Great Landscape Value and a Coastal Protection Zone, was ideal as it provided an uninterrupted 'field of vision' for the signal. But it was the prospect of an uninterrupted sight of a second mast that prompted 39 letters of objection and a personal appearance in the chamber by protester, Alan Williams. A resident of Fore Street, he told councillors the erection of the first mast could not legitimately set a precedent as it had gone up 'by default'. It was the current application that would set the precedent, he argued, and rounded on the council for not backing residents' wishes. 'This apparent unwillingness to listen to local concern must be corrected,' he said. Mr Williams soon found plenty of allies, the first being Cllr Jim Grimble. He said 'two wrongs do not make a right' and that the council should 'rigorously' defend the Coastal Protection Area. Cllr David Cox described the Teign Estuary as 'the district's greatest asset' and said it would suffer visually if a second mast were approved. Cllr Keith Smith accused mobile phone companies of trying to get away with the cheapest option which meant tall poles. He also said the application site had a 'footprint' of some 2,000sq ft, similar to a house. 'If a dwelling of that size had been proposed for the site it wouldn't even make it to this committee,' he said. Councillors voted 21-0 for refusal with two abstentions.
