By Maura Bowman

DUNDEE COUNCILLORS last night rejected plans for three mobile phone masts in the city.

An application by Vodafone for an 18-metre cypress tree mast in the grounds of the Territorial Army property at Seathwood, Perth Road, was unanimously turned down by members of the council’s development quality committee, after being recommended for refusal by director of planning and transport Mike Galloway.

The committee heard from a representative of the company that it had proved difficult to locate a mast in the vicinity, because of restrictions imposed by the historic character of the area, the number of listed buildings, its dense residential nature and the number of forested areas.

He accepted that a mast could not enhance such an environment but said it was the best available site and that everything possible would be done to minimise its impact.

However, in his report, Mr Galloway suggested that the mast would adversely affect the character of the conservation area.

In addition, Vodafone had failed to demonstrate that the mature trees surrounding the mast would not require repeated pruning to ensure its successful operation. Such pruning would be likely to affect the appearance of the trees adversely, to the detriment of the area.

The committee also unanimously rejected a second application from Vodafone for a 22-metre mast in Broughty Ferry. The company had planned to site the mast, again disguised as a cypress tree, in a wooded area next to playing fields south of Ceres Crescent.

This time, Mr Galloway had recommended approval of the application.

Residents in the area have been very vocal in their opposition to masts in the past and the Vodafone representative accepted that telecom development in the area had been “problematic”.

He added that the site had been identified with the help of council officials.

However, recommending refusal of the application, development quality convener Rod Wallace said he felt “ill at ease” with the chosen location.

He suggested that the structure would be in close proximity to residential property and the public playing fields.

In addition, the mast would require an enclosure and there was no guarantee that its successful operation would not require further removal or pruning of trees to maintain the strength of the signal. There was also the potential adverse visual impact on the area.

Councillor Wallace also pointed out the strength of local feeling against the mast, with the council receiving 49 letters of objection and a petition bearing 353 signatures.

“Residents feel that this area has been peppered and overdeveloped with masts in a very short radius,” he continued.

He added, “We as a council have taken steps to keep masts away from public parks and I feel for a very good reason.”

The third application, by O2 for a mast in Berwick Drive, was rejected by the committee by 18 votes to 6.

This time Councillor Willie Sawers moved refusal on the grounds that the 15-metre mast would have an adverse effect on visual amenity and trees and could obscure sightlines for drivers.

He said it was inappropriate to locate masts close to housing.

Councillor Wallace had moved approval of the application, in line with the director of planning’s recommendation.