RESIDENTS have won their battle against the erection of two mobile phone masts -- even though company bosses offered to put them into the area in disguise.

People in Mellor Brook and Ramsgreave are delighted that two applications for masts disguised as timber telegraph poles were thrown out by Ribble Valley planning committee members.

They said their health was the main reason they did not want the equipment in their back yard but planners said there was no firm evidence of a health risk turned the scheme down because it would spoil the view.

And a spokesman for One2One, which submitted the scheme, today insisted that mobile phone masts do not pose a health risk.

The proposals to site the equipment near residential properties in Branch Road, Mellor Brook and Ramsgreave Road, Ramsgreave attracted almost 100 letters of objection and a 70 signature petition.

Mary Brogden, of Ramsgreave Road, said: "We are happy that it is all over and we have been successful."

James Harrington, also of Ramsgreave Road, said he was equally delighted. "It has gone in our favour. Common sense prevailed in the end and hopefully they won't come back here again," he said.

Mr Harrington was one of the objectors who spoke at the planning meeting and cited health as the residents' main concern.

Those living in Mellor Brook were equally vociferous in their objections.

Resident Mr Taylor said he believed the 12 metre mast proposed for Branch Road, was certainly a health risk and believed health matters were planning issues.

"Those who choose to use mobile phones do so from choice. But those who are living in the shadow of phone masts have no choice. One2One has said reception in the area is good so I feel there is no need for the mast anyway," he said.

Planning officers told the meeting that applications for masts could not be refused on health grounds because no one yet knows for definite whether they cause any, and that the reasons to refuse the applications were on their impact on the visual amenity.

In determining both applications, members of the planning committee agreed the plans for both applications should be refused because their siting should affect view in the area.

A spokesperson for One2One, Nicola Whitehead, said: "All sub-stations put up are done so within the most stringent guidelines of the International Commission of Non-Ionising Radiation Protection. We are satisfied and confident that sub-stations are safe and do not present a risk to the public."