DISTRICT councillors recognised that fear of radiation from mobile phone masts could have as big an impact on communities as actual physical danger when they threw out a planning application for antennae at Pewsey Vale Football Club.

More than 30 residents who live close to the club's base on the village Recreation Ground turned up at last Thursday's meeting of Kennet District Council's regulatory committee to voice their objections to the plan by O2 (UK) Ltd to replace the lighting gantry with a telecommunications mast.

The council had received 27 letters of objection and five petitions with a total of 72 names on them.

During a public open forum, resident Ann Mantle said the guidelines issued to councillors by the Government were out of date and more recent evidence contested the view that emissions from phone masts were safe.

She said: "The local authority has a responsibility to consider the level of fear in the community."

Hugh Murray-Gourlay, for the applicants, said that an increasing number of people were using mobile phones and were demanding an upgrade of the network. He said his clients took a responsible attitude to the siting of masts, and avoided putting them near schools and hospitals.

He said: "The siting of the mast at this location is logical and justifiable."

A report to the committee said that the scheme had the necessary certificate from the International Commission on Non-Ionising Radiation Protection that the mast's emissions would be within safety levels.

Coun Ann Hayhoe, who represents Pewsey, said that the council's planning officers, in insisting that health issues were not a planning consideration, were fettering their discretion.

She said: "The O2 representative say they like to site their masts sensitively, so why are they putting it in the middle of the Recreation Ground?"

More than one councillor noted that a report of an expert group chaired by Sir William Stuart in 1999 noted that "the insensitive siting of base stations may cause anxiety to sections of the community and in that respect may indirectly affect health and quality of life".

Councillors voted by eight to one to reject the application because they were not convinced that all alternative sites had been fully investigated.

After the meeting, protester Phyllis Mason said: "We are over the moon, but we're not home and dry. We realise the company can appeal but for the moment we are enjoying our victory."