JOINT COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT debate -
Wednesday, 22 Feb 2006

Telecommunications Masts: Presentation.

Chairman

We will hear a presentation from the Office of Public Works on the construction of the telecommunications mast at Shankill Garda station. This meeting of the Joint Committee on Environment and Local Government has been convened specially, and at short notice, at the request of members to discuss the telecommunications mast at the aforementioned Garda station. I understand that a number of concerns were raised regarding the construction of this mast and that the local authority had written to the Office of Public Works requesting that works cease on the site. The clerk of the committee has circulated copies of correspondence to and from the Office of Public Works. I welcome officials from the office to discuss the matter. In attendance today are Commissioner David Byers and Ms Kathleen Morrison, assistant principal officer in property management.

Before the presentation by the witnesses, I draw attention to the fact that members of this committee have absolute privilege but that same privilege does not apply to witnesses appearing before the committee. Members are also reminded of the long-standing parliamentary practice to the effect that they should not comment on, criticise or make charges against a person outside the House or an official by name or in such a way as to make him or her identifiable.

Mr. David Byers

I will make a brief opening statement. The Office of Public Works, in accordance with the policy of efficiently utilising State property assets, is licensing mobile telephone operators to place antennae on State-owned buildings and masts on Garda stations. Installation licences are only awarded to ComReg licensed companies. The equipment must operate to a set of stringent health and safety rules which are comprehensively monitored to ensure compliance. The safe operation of the equipment is our primary concern and our licences contain a clause which obliges the operators to comply with all current and any future or revised regulations in this area.

In line with this policy, licences were issued to install antennae on the mast at Shankill Garda station. These installations are exempt developments under Class 31 of the Schedule of Part 1 of the Planning and Development Regulations 2001. Upon commencement of the work by the operators, Dún Laoghaire-Rathdown County Council requested that the work be halted pending its determination of whether it was an exempt development. As our firm view and legal advice was to the effect that the work was exempt, we supplied the council with full details of the work but declined to stop the work and incur penalty costs against the Exchequer. Dún Laoghaire-Rathdown County Council subsequently found that the installation was an exempt development and the installation work is continuing.

Chairman

Members have a number of questions to pose.

Deputy Gilmore

I wish to express my thanks to the Chairman for agreeing to facilitate this exchange this morning. I welcome Commissioner Byers and Ms Morrison from the Office of Public Works.

From the perspective of the local community, the story relating to this matter is quite different to that put forward by the Office of Public Works. Work began just over two weeks ago on what appeared to be the erection of a new mast at Shankill Garda station. There was no prior knowledge of this work in the local community and when queries were raised with the local authority, which is the planning authority for the area, it emerged that the authority knew nothing about the work either. It had not been notified by the Office of Public Works or by the contractors who were carrying out the work. The authority made some inquiries and initially requested that the Office of Public Works have work stopped on the development. That request was refused.

The initial information obtained by the authority was that the new mast was being erected for the purpose of Garda communications. That information subsequently changed and the authority was informed that the mast was being erected to facilitate telecommunications companies. It was only a week after work had commenced that correspondence was given to the county council, specifically three letters from three telecommunications companies, all of which are virtually identical in their text, claiming they were carrying out work which was exempted development under Class 31 of the Schedule of Part 1 of the Planning and Development Regulations 2001. Following on from that, the council took the view that the development was exempted.

This matter has been the subject of considerable disquiet in the local community and has given rise to serious concerns on planning grounds given the fact that the work was carried out without notification and with no regard for the planning authority. It has also given rise to serious health concerns regarding the impact of such masts and the radiation emitted from them on people living within the catchment area. Work has stopped on the site. Protest activity has taken place over the past two weeks and in recent days a formal request has been made by local residents for a formal declaration, under section 5 of the Planning and Development Act, from the planning authority as to whether this is an exempted development.

I would like to put a number of questions to Commissioner Byers arising from the short statement he has made. I also wish to challenge his assertion that the work in question involves the installation of antennae on the mast at Shankill Garda station. That is not what is involved. The work involves the erection of a new mast, which we have been told is a replacement structure. Can Commissioner Byers tell me who erected the original mast? To whom does the mast at Shankill Garda station belong? Will he clarify who is erecting the new mast? It is unclear whether it is being erected by the Office of Public Works, by Vilicom, which is the agent for his office, or by some or all of the telecommunications companies. I want to know who exactly is erecting the new mast. In the correspondence with the local authority, it is stated that this is a replacement mast and will be the same size as the existing one. If that is the case, why is it necessary to replace it? Will Mr. Byers describe the companies which will use the mast and outline the number of antennae or dishes each will install?

Mr. Byers

The original mast was erected by O2 as part of an agreement with the company to work on Garda masts and is owned by the State with the Office of Public Works as named landlords. The current work is being carried out by the mast's three new operators, Vodafone, Meteor and Hutchison 3G, while O2 continues to use the facility. We have a complex licence agreement in which the work is paid for by the operators using the mast, and the equipment — the mast — is owned by the State thereafter.

The reason for switching out the existing mast, even though its replacement will be the same size, is to erect a new mast which can carry the weight of the extra equipment. It is currently envisaged that Vodafone, Meteor, Hutchison 3G and O2 will use the mast, while the top 3m. is reserved for use by the new Garda digital radio system when it comes on stream. I am unsure how many antennae are proposed, although up to 12 could be installed in theory. The switching out of the mast is part of the exempt development provision in that, if the existing mast is deemed not strong enough to carry the extra equipment, a new one can be erected.

Deputy Gilmore

In the correspondence sentto the local authority, only three companiesclaim this is an exempt development, Meteor,Hutchison 3G and Vodafone.

Mr. Byers

O2 is already on the mast. A licence agreement has been in place with that company to use Garda masts for the past eight or more years and its equipment is already on more than 100 such masts. The new licence agreement recognises the fact that there are many more operators in the market. We are trying to respond in a coherent way to requests to use State property and have introduced this complex new licence agreement to cover all the potential users which are ComReg licensed for the new technologies. Therefore, O2 will remain on the mast and the other three operators will add their equipment.

Deputy Gilmore

If the other three operators were not involved in the first place and O2 replaced the mast, would it not still have to claim exemption? Why is O2 not making such a claim?

Mr. Byers

The O2 transmitters are already in place. The work is being carried out by the other three operators and a complex repayment arrangement for O2 has been encompassed in the licence agreement.

Deputy Gilmore

In correspondence to the local authority, it is stated that O2 will reduce the six antennae it has on the existing mast to three, while the others will each install three antennae on the new mast, for a total of 12.

Mr. Byers

Yes.

Deputy Gilmore

That is the limit.

Mr. Byers

Yes.

Deputy Gilmore

However, the Garda antennae will bring the figure over the limit.

Mr. Byers

That is a separate technology and is not covered by the part of the Planning and Development Act in question.

Deputy Gilmore

The number of antennae that may be put on a mast is limited to 12.

Mr. Byers

Twelve by statutory undertakers.

Deputy Gilmore

There will be 12 by statutory undertakers plus those the Garda installs. That will be more than 12, however Mr. Byers looks at the matter.

Mr. Byers

There may be more than 12 pieces of equipment but the law makes a distinction about that.

Deputy Gilmore

The exempted development is only for 12 antennae. We have a letter claiming an exemption from only three of the statutory undertakers. We have received no letter from O2 which until now had six antennae on the mast. We only have the word of the OPW's agents, Vilicom, that O2 will reduce its antennae from six to three. I do not know whether O2 will have more than three because it has not confirmed the figure. The Garda will add more equipment. There will be 12 antennae plus the Garda's and, possibly, the three currently installed by O2. However, the figures are added up, that is over the limit.

Mr. Byers

We do not share that analysis.

Deputy Gilmore

We can all count.

Mr. Byers

Our understanding is that the Garda equipment will be treated differently when it is installed on the mast.

Deputy Gilmore

How does Mr. Byers mean it will be treated differently?

Mr. Byers

It will not be installed by the statutory undertakers but by the Garda.

Deputy Gilmore

The planning issue concerns the mast, which is being erected by the statutory undertakers. The planning authority explained to the OPW that a different procedure would apply if the mast were erected by the Garda. Mr. Byers suggested that the exemption is being claimed under the statutory undertaker route but he cannot claim both.

Mr. Byers

I am claiming for our current approach, which is exempted development. We understand that there is a process by which the Garda can install digital radio on the mast when it is introduced. I may be wrong but I doubt it.

Deputy Gilmore

The local residents association made an application to the council, which it is entitled to do under section 5 of the Planning and Development Act, for a formal declaration whether it is an exempted development. While the local authority must respond to a request to pursue enforcement proceedings, the residents or the OPW will be entitled to seek a review by An Bord Pleanála if such a situation arises. Will Mr. Byers give an assurance to the committee that work will be suspended pending the outcome of that process?

Mr. Byers

No. We have a letter from Dún Laoghaire-Rathdown which informs us that the work is exempt.

Deputy Gilmore

That letter is not a declaration within the meaning of the section. Any person may make an application under section 5 of the Planning Act for a formal declaration from the planning authority. An application has been made by the residents association on a formal decision on whether the development is exempt. Following a decision by the planning authority, the parties concerned will have the opportunity to have it reviewed by An Bord Pleanála. That is a formal process which was provided for in the Planning and Development Act. The OPW is a State agency and, I am sure, will want to comply with that Act. Will Mr. Byers agree to suspend work pending the outcome of that process?

Mr. Byers

If it is required under the regulations that we suspend the work we will do so. I would have to get legal advice on it, although I doubt we are supposed to. If it is not required I do not see why we should suspend work as we have a letter from the planning office telling us it is exempt.

Deputy Gilmore

The planning authority has been asked to make a declaration and will have to make a decision, which is to be reviewed by An Bord Pleanála. Surely the OPW should await the outcome of that process.

Mr. Byers

If under the declaratory process we are required to do that then we will; if not, we will not.

Chairman

Will the OPW get legal advice on that?

Mr. Byers

Yes.

Deputy Cuffe

I welcome Mr. Byers and Ms Morrison and thank them for their time. My main concern is the extent of exempted development allowed under the regulations. I was taken aback to discover that under class 31 of Part 1, Schedule 2 of the Planning and Development Regulations 2001, up to 12 additional antennae can be placed on a mast. While I see a logic in combining the operators on to single masts, and we do not want each operator to have a separate mast, I am concerned at the number of additional antennae that can be added without any consultation process. This is a loophole and should be closed. Last week I asked the Minister whether he planned to close this loophole or change class 31 and he said he did not. I was disappointed with that reply.

I am concerned because there are three schools within 500m of this mast, not to mention the gardaí working underneath it and the homes nearby. Those concerns are being strongly voiced by the community. Some 300 people attended a meeting beside the mast last week. Another protest is planned for this evening.

Given that the OPW is a major facilitator of the erection and ongoing use of these masts, what studies has it undertaken on the health risks of non-ionising radiation from them? Is Mr. Byers aware that in June 2005 the Joint Committee on Communications, Marine and Natural Resources made 11 recommendations on this kind of radiation and specifically said that the planning guidelines and exemptions should be examined with a view to ensuring that no electromagnetic or radio frequency emitting equipment be permitted to be sited near schools or other sensitive sites such as playgrounds or pitches? I am concerned that three schools are located close to this mast and I wonder whether it is right to have such a mast so close to St. Anne's School, Scoil Mhuire-Rathsallagh Primary School and Rathmichael School. While there is a detailed scientific discussion as to where the radiation from these masts peaks, I understand the peak radiation is approximately 300m away from the mast. That is close to these three schools. Has Mr. Byers any views on this?

Who will own this mast? Who is paying for it? What licence fee is being paid to the OPW for it? Who covers the liability if health problems arise from the mast? I have a copy of the generic licensing agreement between the OPW and these operators and I am concerned that there seems to be a confidentiality agreement between the licensee and the licenser, particularly regarding the microwave radiation. Could Mr. Byers comment on that?

Mr. Byers

The first thing we did on moving forward the licence agreement was to rationalise the requests we were receiving on an ad hoc basis to put antennae on numerous sites. The guidelines on this area refer to concentrating antennae rather than spreading them in different areas. There are approximately 400,000 locations in the country. We have approximately 200 Garda masts and 200 buildings that may or may not be of use to these systems. The idea was to rationalise the approach of the OPW and the companies approaching us. We have carried out no health studies but have reviewed the existing literature and have built into the licensing agreement strict and comprehensive strictures on the telephone companies that they operate under the WHO guidelines set out by ComReg and under which we operate. The OPW is not a health body but works with best practice, namely the WHO guidelines. These guidelines are under constant review. The licence agreement states that if any regulations are changed following an Oireachtas decision or a new law, the operators are obliged to comply with the new regulations regardless of how strict they are. A mechanism similar to this was used in Spain recently. This is how these matters are dealt with and we are happy to work with that.

I am aware of the recommendations of the committee Deputy Cuffe mentioned. We have no problem with any of them and if they are enacted in law we will operate within them. One of them involves bringing the Radiological Protection Institute of Ireland into play to monitor the health and safety aspects and we have no problem with that. We understand that people have visceral, but nonetheless real, concerns about these installations being close to schools. However in this instance the mast is half a kilometre from schools. Given mobile phone penetration and the fact that practically everybody has one, many more of these antennae will be built, possibly on private buildings, which we cannot control.

When the dust settles, the State, through the OPW, will own this mast. The three operators, Vodafone, Meteor and Hutchison 3G, are paying for the mast to be built with a repayment agreement from O2. The licence agreement contains a liability clause in which the operators accept liability for any effects from the transmitters. The licence fees are commercially sensitive because other players may come into the market. The State is making approximately €1.5 million per year from leasing space on these masts and that will rise.

Deputy Cuffe

On how many masts does the State lease space?

Mr. Byers

Approximately 60.

Deputy Cuffe

Mr. Byers said when the dust settles the OPW will own the installations. Who owns the mast now?

Mr. Byers

I am making a property distinction. When the mast is screwed in place it is ours. If it is parked somewhere it is a piece of equipment which is not yet ours. Under the building contract it must be put on the site to be ours.

Deputy Cuffe

But the operators pay for its installation.

Mr. Byers

Correct.

Chairman

I call on Deputy O'Dowd. Deputy Andrews will follow and then Deputy Healy-Rae, the vice-chairman.

Deputy O’Dowd

This is a controversy which I have come across in many parts of County Louth in the past. It is clearly also a live issue in Dún Laoghaire. I do not know anything about the issue other than what has been said today, but what is different about this mast from all the other thousands of masts? What is unique about it that causes this problem?

Mr. Byers

Nothing.

Deputy O’Dowd

It is the same as other masts around the country.

Mr. Byers

Yes.

Deputy O’Dowd

There is no difference.

Mr. Byers

No.

Chairman

It is a useful exercise, though, because we all have examples in our own constituencies.

Deputy O’Dowd

I am trying to understand the issue, from an historical perspective.

Mr. Byers

We are incredibly high users of mobile technology. New systems are coming in for which there is a significant demand. If antennae were not erected in a controlled way they would be spread willy nilly throughout the area concerned. We are trying to achieve joined-up Government but it is happening in other areas and is proposed for still further areas. We are trying to leverage State assets to make money for the State but also to impose some order on the spread of antennae.

Deputy O’Dowd

I understand the physical appearance of antennae has changed with modern technology and they can now be located inside buildings such as shopping centres or car parks. Is the visual issue the problem here? Is there a way this antenna can be hidden?

Mr. Byers

I suspect it is not possible in this case and masts will never win awards for beauty.

Deputy O’Dowd

They can be flat against a wall rather than above the parapet.

Mr. Byers

Correct.

Deputy O’Dowd

Are there ways around that?

Mr. Byers

The issue is height. If they were erected lower down many more antennae would be needed. The Deputy will see antennae screwed to shop fronts and on windowsills but there are limits to the size in those cases.

Deputy Andrews

I thank the chair for allowing me to put questions. I cannot ask Mr. Byers to look behind the exempted development issue because it has been decided by the council. Is he familiar with the decision by the OPW late last year on a building in the Ranelagh-Rathmines area where the OPW decided not to proceed with further masts?

Mr. Byers

I made that decision. We are aware of the recommendation of the Joint Committee on Communications, Marine and Natural Resources to examine the effects of electromagnetic radiation and of people's genuine concerns about children. The building to which the Deputy referred is Ardee House which is much closer to schools than the mast at Shankill. The two operators at Ardee House work entirely within the guidelines and the installation meets the requirements of every applicable regulation. As a gesture of goodwill to people's very real concerns about children's health, even though we have no evidence to suggest there is any danger, we asked the operators to switch off the two installations pending the report of the interdepartmental committee, in case there were to be any changes to the regulations. For reasons which I fully understand, the operators said they would not switch them off because they felt that would be to admit something was wrong.

Both the operators and we feel we are in a catch-22 situation. We try to respond to the concerns of parents. The irony of equipment like this is that the emissions from a mast are the same as those from a handset. The further away a handset is from an antenna during a call the more powerful the handset must be to reach it. They are all within prescribed limits but it would be more reasonable to worry about a transmitter close to one's ear than one on a mast several hundred yards away. The logic of this is that the more antennae there are on buildings and masts the less powerful the handset needs to be to reach them. I am not a scientist but that is one of the logical arguments that have been made during the course of the debate on this issue.

Deputy Andrews

I am not a scientist either but if the OPW could make a gesture over Ardee House, based not on visceral but genuine concerns over the close proximity to a school, and following a joint committee recommendation, does Mr. Byers not see some merit in Deputy Gilmore's suggestion that the development be suspended until more information is available? Again, there are genuine concerns among people in the vicinity and it is a densely populated residential area.

The policy of the OPW should be to notify local residents anyway. I understand it claims exemption under class 31 of the Schedule to Part 1 of the 2001 planning regulations but exemptions do not exist as a general policy. They exist for developments that are too small or where there is fear of duplication. Given such an increase in antennae and that there are so many concerns about the masts, does Mr. Byers not think it would be sensible to operate a system of notification of local residents?

Mr. Byers

No is the short answer. We like to work within the law because the law was written for a purpose.

Deputy Andrews

Mr. Byers made a gesture over Ardee House. He wants it both ways.

Mr. Byers

I am sorry, Deputy, but I am not sure how notifying an amorphous group of residents would work. It would be more sensible to notify local authorities that we were about to start work on a site.

Deputy Andrews

It would be like a planning application. The OPW would post a notice.

Mr. Byers

We are trying to balance several things. These developments will happen anyway and need to be carried out in a timely manner. We and our technical advisers will discuss the issue with residents if they so wish. There probably will be dozens of new masts in the coming months and putting notices in a newspaper is not realistic.

Deputy Cuffe

Perhaps the OPW could post a simple site notice informing people of what is taking place, to address the information deficit in a small way. Many people felt there would be two antennae side by side, which may have given rise to a misunderstanding.

Mr. Byers

I am not mandated to say this by the board but I have some sympathy with what the Deputy is saying. I am aware how our gesture in Ranelagh was interpreted at times. I am disconcerted about that, but I will think about what the Deputy has stated.

Deputy Healy-Rae

I have a simple question. Will the same amount of radiation come from a mast placed in Dublin as one in Cork?

Mr. Byers

Yes.

Deputy Healy-Rae

Over the years, both Deputy Donal Moynihan and I have attended several meetings of the Southern Health Board in Cork where a large mast serving Cork city was discussed at length. It was placed beside Cork University Hospital. Why is it that a green light was clearly given for such a structure right beside the hospital? Nobody's health within the hospital, be they staff or patients, was deemed to be in danger. We are now asking Mr. Byers to stop work on a mast in Dublin, even though it was clearly indicated that the mast in Cork University Hospital, after all the examinations by qualified people, was not a health hazard. I would like somebody to clarify this matter.

The mast in Cork city was there while I was attending meetings of the Southern Health Board, with Deputy Donal Moynihan and many others. The mast was discussed at length and I could go on for hours about it. We were ultimately told quite clearly that there was no danger or health hazard. Now we are looking to stop work on a mast in Dublin. There is something wrong, and if Mr. Byers cannot tell me what it is, I would like somebody else to. How is there danger from a mast in Dublin but one in Cork creates no problem?

Chairman

This mast has an OPW involvement. Mr. Byers may comment if he wishes to.

Mr. Byers

The Southern Health Board put up the mast in that hospital. The OPW was not involved. In general, all the masts are the same, and this is the main point.

Chairman

Deputy Healy-Rae has again highlighted that this is an issue which all of us will confront in our public life in our constituencies. The meeting is useful from that perspective for all of us.

Deputy F. O’Malley

I thank the Chairman for allowing me to ask some questions and I welcome the representatives from the OPW. When was the last time Mr. Byers visited the site in question?

Mr. Byers

I have never visited the site.

Deputy F. O’Malley

So Mr. Byers would not be familiar with how close the three schools are to the proposed site.

Mr. Byers

I have some familiarity as I used to live in the area several years ago.

Deputy F. O’Malley

As Deputy Andrews has pointed out, the difficulty is the difference in treatment of people in Shankill, with children going to school, and those in Ranelagh. If a gesture is to be entertained by people in Ranelagh, the children and people in Shankill surely deserve the same consideration. All we are looking for is the same consideration to be given to the people in Shankill.

Mr. Byers

The difference between them is a distance factor. If I was to deal with the Ranelagh matter again, I probably would not have asked the companies to switch the mast off. It is an anomalous case where I have asked the companies and they have refused, and I understand the reasons for doing so. I had hoped to show that the OPW listens, but it has not worked out like that. We currently have the worst-case scenario being played out there. Ranelagh should not be used as an example. The schools there are much closer to Ardee House than the schools are in Shankill. The installation in Ranelagh is deemed perfectly safe.

Deputy F. O’Malley

The residents would be glad to hear that the OPW is interested in listening. Deputy Cuffe mentioned the question of informing people, and this is related to one of the offences committed by the OPW. It may not be required to indicate its proposed actions, but it is good practice to do so. We are all in the service of the community. If the mast is intended to improve communications, it would be seen as advisable to have alerted the community to what was happening.

Mr. Byers mentioned that there will not be a plethora of masts. I recommend he come out to visit Shankill. There is a second mast adjacent to this proposed mast. We are building capacity or overcapacity with this proposed mast, as was indicated through Deputy Gilmore's questioning. Not alone will there be 12 antennae, which is capacity, but there will be space for Garda telecommunications, which is bordering on overcapacity. There are also three proposed dishes to be constructed. Other operators were also mentioned. What is the long-term future of the mast if we have already reached overcapacity?

Mr. Byers

The mast can only take what it is mandated by regulations to take. If other operators gain licences from ComReg and they are not allowed to use the mast, they will not get on the mast. The last operator in with a ComReg mobile phone licence will have some catching up to do.

Deputy F. O’Malley

If an operator was too late to get on the 12 capacity mast, could it go to the OPW and ask for a third mast to be erected in the locality?

Mr. Byers

It does not work like that, and the answer is no. The OPW would not do so. The primary purpose of the masts is for Garda communication, and that is why the licence agreement holds the top 6m clear for that. The presence of other operators on the mast is an attempt to tidy up what the Deputy has correctly stated would be a plethora of applications all over Shankill by all the operators licensed by ComReg. It would also use State assets, owned by the taxpayer, to make some money for the State, as opposed to money going to private owners in the vicinity.

Deputy F. O’Malley

I have two final points. Mr. Byers has mentioned bringing in money for the State, but we are concerned, as are the residents, that whatever little amount of money is being made, the jury is still out with regard to the health and safety aspect of these masts and their radiation output. We are prepared to make some money. However, it seems as if we are signing a blank cheque because we do not know the health effects. What increase in radiation can the people in Shankill expect because of this new mast?

It was stated earlier that it was better to have a powerful mast 0.5km away than a powerful handset. Is the witness contending that the people in Dorney Court, who live beside and almost on top of the site, are as well off having the mast as their mobile phones cause almost as much radiation?

Mr. Byers

I do not accept the premise of the Deputy's question relating to the jury being out on health and safety aspects of these masts. This is legally regulated technology and more qualified people than I have determined that if the masts operate within the regulations concerned, they are safe. We are taking the position from other State authorities that this is the case. As far as we are concerned, we are operating within health and safety regulations and we are trying to carry out a form of joined-up Government. My understanding of handsets is that the closer one is to an antenna, the less power it has to put out to put a call through.

Deputy F. O’Malley

Could I get an answer regarding the percentage increase in radiation that residents will be subject to with an additional antenna on the mast?

Mr. Byers

I was well aware I was going to be asked a question like that. I cannot answer that question. What I can do is give the committee a written description of how all that works. Any radiation that will come from the antennae will be well within any limits.

Deputy F. O’Malley

I wish to make one final point. Would Mr. Byers agree it is a little dangerous to propose this if he does not know to how much additional radiation people will be subjected?

Mr. Byers

No. I do know, although I cannot explain it because it is quite technical. I am perfectly happy to give the committee the two or three page written explanation as to how the radiation emits and how it works. My primary concern is that it is within the legal limits.

Deputy F. O’Malley

I thank Mr. Byers.

Deputy Cuffe

I liked Deputy O'Malley's point about it being a sin of omission rather than commission. Telling people what one is doing is as important as doing it. On a specific issue, what was the distance between Ardee House masts and the schools?

Mr. Byers

My understanding is that one of the playgrounds was within a couple of hundred feet.

Deputy Cuffe

In Shankill, Rathsallagh school would be less than 250m away. I would be interested in a comparison of the two distances. I suspect it has more to do with ministerial influence than perceived dangers. That is a concern for us all.

Deputy Gilmore

I re-echo Deputy Cuffe's point in regard to the school. I would not accept that all the schools are half a kilometre from the mast. The grounds of Scoil Mhuire would be 200m, or 250m at most, from the mast.

Irrespective of how things developed, we are where we are and there is very strong local opposition to the erection of this mast. There have been protests there every morning. As Deputy Cuffe said, a big demonstration took place there last week and another is planned for this evening. We know from experience that where State agencies, and the OPW would have some experience of this, attempt to force the issue on a local community in the face of such opposition it always ends in grief. That is not in anybody's interest. Certainly it is not in the interest of the local community and it is not in the interest of OPW or of the plans in terms of telecommunications infrastructure.

Some thought needs to be given to how this issue is resolved. I suggested earlier the suspension of work pending the outcome of this declaration, the section 5 process. Deputy Andrews suggested waiting until further information is available. I think Mr. Byers indicated that in the Ranelagh case the operator was requested to turn it off until the outcome of the interdepartmental committee is known. However it is done, a hold needs to be put on this work and perhaps some direct discussions between officers of the OPW and representatives of the local community can take place on the issue. Certainly we will be in very difficult territory if there is an attempt by the OPW to force the issue.

While I thank Mr. Byers for answering all our questions, my concluding remark is that this issue should not be forced by the OPW. Some thought needs to be given to how it can be resolved. I am sure the public representatives for the area, certainly the four of us present, would be willing to help in any way we can in that process. Forcing or pushing the issue or an escalation of the dispute with the local community would not be advisable.

Chairman

Members will note from their briefing that opinion was sought from the parliamentary legal adviser on this matter and a copy of the reply has been circulated at this meeting. The advice notes the latest item on the correspondence between the parties is a letter from Mr. Cassidy, planning inspector, confirming that the development at Shankill Garda Station is exempted development under the 2001 regulations and as such planning permission is not required. The Oireachtas legal adviser did not note the existence of any correspondence which queried the planning report. All queries on file pre-dated the report. However, this does not excuse the fact that development went ahead prior to the receipt of Mr. Cassidy's report.

It is the wish of this committee that the OPW would do everything possible to try to resolve this issue. If that means ceasing work temporarily so be it. Also we would like Mr. Byers to come back to us on the legal advice he will be given in regard to the formal declaration under section 5.

I thank Mr. Byers and Ms Morrison for attending the meeting. It is much appreciated.