SWINDON Council will have to pay about £120,000 after admitting an administrative blunder that saw a mobile phone mast controversially erected on a telephone exchange in Stratton St Margaret.

And among the seven families in line for compensation payments of between £10,000 and £20,000 is a former mobile technologies worker well versed in the problems associated with telecommunication stations.

Andrew Thomas, 37, lives with his wife, Amanda, and their children Serena, 17 and Daniel, 15, in Ermin Street.

He said: "We have heard reports saying it's safe to be underneath a mast and others that say it's bad for people's health, but the impact on health is not known yet. I used to work for a company that dealt with that sort of thing so I know quite a bit about mobile phone masts.

"Within days of this application going through, the masts were up, and instead of one there were three on the building.

"The mast is just horrible to look at and it's worse in the back garden. In truth we don't really know the impact it will have on the value of our house until we come to sell it, but it's definitely devalued the property."

The Evening Advertiser revealed that families living close to the 20 foot tall One2One (now T-mobile) mast were due compensation after the Local Government Ombudsman Jerry White found the council guilty of misadministration causing injustice. Council planners had planned to oppose the application, saying the mast, which stands on top of a 30ft building and close to four schools, was detrimental to the visual amenities of nearby residents. But an office error meant the department failed to respond within the statutory 28-day period.

The compensation payment will come out of the council's £4 million reserves, but director of resources Ian Thompson, admitted the blunder was an expensive "cock up".

He said: "The money will be paid in one hit from the reserves. This is money that we would rather not spend, but is the reason we have reserves. This was a planning blunder and what happened was a cock up basically if the proper procedures had been in place then it might be different. But the council has held its hands up and will pay out."

Campaigners living close to mobile phone masts have wrongly thought this case might pave the way for compensation claims, but the fact that a mast is installed and might be a danger to health is not in itself enough for the Ombudsman to get involved.