RESIDENTS of Critchmere Lane are celebrating after winning their second battle against mobile phone giants Orange.

Last week Waverley planners decided that although the telecommunications company had agreed to erect the 15 metre or 45 ft mast a further 80 metres away from the nearest dwelling than in a previous application, they could not allow it to go ahead because of health concerns.

"It's fantastic news," said Bela Hartmann who lives near the proposed mast site and who launched a campaign last year against the siting of it.

"We've won another round in the battle."

In all the council had received 24 letters of objection to the scheme, along with a petition containing 82 signatures from neighbours. Residents were worried about health risks associated with telephone masts, a lack of need and the fact that it had been previously refused.

People had also expressed concerns over the position of the mast, on the southern boundary of the sewage works, located south of the railway, that separates the sewage works from homes in Critchmere Lane and Border Road.

They objected because of the effects if would have on the densely populated surrounding area.

"It doesn't seem that there is a particular necessity for the mast, I haven't met anyone in this area who has an Orange phone who has any problem with reception," claimed Mr Hartmann.

"The mast would cover a very small radius, sited in the bottom of a valley with Liphook Road to one side and Woolmer Hill on the other," he believed.

An original planning application was submitted earlier in 2001 on a site on the other side of Critchmere Lane, which raised objections from Haslemere Town Council and led to an amended plans for it to be sited at the sewage works, which were supported.

Waverley development control and policy manager John Anderson told a crowded meeting of the Waverley southern area development control sub-committee, held in the Haslemere Hall, that prior approval had already been given for the mast in line with government guidelines.

A former planning application, he told the meeting, was refused by Waverley under delegated powers because the proposed mast was too close and Waverley was now recommending that the plan went ahead.

David Harmer told the meeting: "Some councils are operating blanket refusal policy" referring to the concerns over safety of telephone masts.

And Jacquie Keen added: "We are hearing the concerns of local people on health grounds and I am not convinced this is safe. We have not been given enough information."

She was backed up by Jean Mansley, who said: "I am very conscious about the health factors. If we refuse this it must be based on a perception of a health risk and people are not convinced there is no health risk."

Endorsing other comments Douglas Commaille said that "at the end of the day the guidelines do not recognise the fears and perception of health risks.

"The country is littered with examples where people fears have not been taken into account," he declared.

Only one councillor, Susan Campany, spoke in favour of the planning application, saying that she had been involved in a working party on telecommunications masts, carried out by the council some 18 months ago.

"We took a lot of scientific advice and came to the conclusion at that time there there was no major health risks from them."

The committee agreed to refuse planning application for the mast on the grounds that there was a public perception of a health risk.