A mobile phone company which wanted to add more masts and dishes to a mill roof in Wibsey has been told to look elsewhere.

Planners rejected an application to add three antennae, three dishes and an equipment cabinet to the roof of Park View Mills, on Wibsey Park Avenue, after hearing from objectors that there could be more than 30 such pieces of equipment already up there.

Residents feared that the accumulated effect of this number of telecommunications equipment, and the possible hazard to their health, had not been taken into account.

One resident, the Rev David Griffiths, said that from his bedroom window alone he could see 13 pieces of equipment and he was concerned about the amount of electric and magnetic activity.

The equipment already makes it impossible to use a car immobiliser in the area and affects car alarms and television reception.

Councillor Keith Thomson (Ind, Wibsey) also objected to the plans.

"We just don't know the cumulative effect if you keep installing antennae in one area. It seems not unreasonable that the emissions from one piece of equipment will be multiplied," he said.

But Ben Strutt, representing mobile phone company Three, presented Bradford Area Planning Panel with a certificate that confirmed the equipment met international standards. Council officers had already told the panel that possible health implications of the equipment were not a planning consideration.

Mr Strutt added that the company had a legal obligation to provide 80 per cent of the population with network coverage and that if it could not use this site, it would have to look elsewhere in the vicinity. He warned that the applicant would be likely to go to appeal if refused.

Coun Paul Flowers (Lab, Great Horton) said he refused to be blackmailed: "It is too close to where people live. It is not an appropriate use of this site.

"The proliferation of masts on this site is simply an example of greed on the part of the owners of the site, and nothing else. We have to give a signal out to the applicants today: they do have to find other sites and other sites that are not close to where people live."

The panel voted five against the application and two for it.