Concerns raised about Waterford telecommunication companies
“I would agree with Cllr Geoghegan on the use of 254 processes in respect of telecommunication infrastructures. In my opinion, it is entirely inappropriate” - Ivan Grimes, Director of Services
Waterford councillor Damien Geoghegan has accused telecommunications companies of “engaging in sharp practices”.
He said at this month’s sitting of Dungarvan-Lismore District Council that companies were using 254 licenses to avoid the planning permission process.
His comments were in relation to An Bord Pleanála's decision to overturn the local authority’s refusal for a licence for an 18m mast close to Waterford Greenway.
“The reason they are going down the 254 route is because if they went down the actual route for normal planning, they would certainly… that permission would not be forthcoming - that’s the reality.
"There is a loophole here,” said Cllr Geoghegan.
The councillor said that the use of Section 254 of the Planning and Development Act 2000 means the public cannot make submissions, and the development does not have to come before councillors.
The councillor said 254 licenses were for things like street furniture, not masts.
“It’s an unsatisfactory situation at the moment, and I think that telecommunications companies are engaging in sharp practices, and I don’t think it is acceptable,” said Cllr Geoghegan.
The Director of Services for Planning, Corporate, Culture, HR & IS Ivan Grimes said he agreed with Cllr Geoghegan.
“I would agree with Cllr Geoghegan on the use of 254 processes in respect of telecommunication infrastructures. In my opinion, it is entirely inappropriate,” said Mr Grimes.
The issue was first raised by Cllr Thomas Phelan, who said locals had held a meeting to discuss the development and asked him to put some questions before the council.
On behalf of the locals, Cllr Phelan asked if the consent of the council as the landowner was required for the development to progress.
He asked if consent had been given and if it could be revoked.
And if it is not required and the council cannot act, could the relevant legislation be cited?
Cllr Kate O’Mahoney asked if the council could take a judicial review of An Bord Pleanála’s decision.
Cllr Joe O’Riordan asked the council to commit to taking the judicial review to “vindicate and stand up for” its decision to refuse the licence.
Mr Grimes asked that councillors give him time to research response options before he answers their questions.
“What I would say is certainly, if the council owns the land, then our consent is required for the use of the land and I have asked our property management section to review the files and see if any contact has been made by this company and if consent was given prior,” said Mr Grimes.
The planning director went on to say that there was nothing preventing them from taking a judicial review, but judicial reviews are expensive, and he believes there is a better way.
“I’m not committing to do that here for the simple reason that I have to look further into the files.
"And I would say this morning, I received the legal bill from the other side of another judicial review that we lost last year and it's well in excess of six figures. It’s an extremely expensive process,” said Mr Grimes.
Mr Grimes said that ultimately, An Bord Pleanála are the final decision makers in planning. But if council consent is required to use the land, then that would be a much cheaper option.
"A judicial review might not be the most optimal way of dealing with this issue,” said Mr Grimes.
The contentious development consists of an 18m telecommunications mast and associated works on the Clonea Road, Skehacrine (Humble) in Dungarvan.
Emerald Tower Limited applied for a licence under Section 254 of the Planning and Development Act 2000.
Section 254 is usually for the licensing of appliances and cables on public roads.
Waterford City and County Council refused the licence in September 2023 on the basis that the site in question was close to the greenway, a tourist amenity that should be protected.
The council concluded that the development was “highly obtrusive” and would have an “adverse visual impact” on the area.
Emerald Tower Limited appealed the decision, but the council came to the same conclusion.
The company then appealed with An Bord Pleanála in October 2023.
An Bord Pleanála overturned the planning authority’s decision in December 2024.
