Go-ahead sought for mast on Firhouse Rd

PLANS have been submitted for telecommunications masts on the Firhouse Road and in Citywest, while a licence has been refused for a proposed mast in Killinarden.

The three separate licensing applications were recently submitted to South Dublin County Council.

Cignal Infrastructure Ltd, noted in their application as being a Cellnex company, is seeking a licence for a mast on the Firhouse Road.

The proposal is for an 18-metre free-standing street pole with one alpha 2.0 shrouded antenna, and a dish to be included only if there is no fibre infrastructure in the area.

The application is for the continuation of the licence for the structure, which was first granted in 2021 for a period of three years.

In a separate application, Three Ireland Hutchinson Limited, is seeking permission for the installation of telecommunications equipment in Citywest.

The subject site is Block A2 and A3 at The Quarter in Citywest View, Cooldown Commons, Fortunestown. The proposed equipment includes three ballast-mounted shrouded antennas, one ballast-mounted dish, remote radio units (RRUs), cable trays, GPS.

It is noted that the works will take place on the building rooftop to provide for high-speed wireless data and broadband services.

Decisions on the applications by Cignal Infrastructure Ltd and Three Ireland Hutchinson Limited, which were lodged this month, have not yet been made by South Dublin County Council.

However, a decision was made on an application for a telecommunications pole in Killinarden, as South Dublin County Council decided to refuse permission for the structure on August 6.

Emerald Tower Limited’s proposal was for a street works solution to address identified mobile and wireless broadband coverage blackspots in Killinarden Heights.

South Dublin County Council refused a licence for the structure in Killinarden, referring to setback distances between it and an existing surface water sewer.

“Inadequate setback distances have been maintained between the proposed development and the existing 450mm surface water sewer adjacent,” stated the council in its refusal.

“The development in its current form would block access to the 450mm surface water sewer for maintenance purposes.

“Inadequate setback distances have also been maintained between the proposed development and the 900mm diameter pipe shown on drawing submitted by applicant.

“Supporting the development in its current form would be prejudicial to both public health and safety and the proper planning and sustainable development of the area.”