MOBILE phone giant O2 is demanding almost £214,500 from cash-strapped Sedgemoor District Council regarding an enforcement notice it issued for a project in Burnham.

The multi-million pound company wants an "award of costs" made against the council after an enforcement notice requiring the removal of a temporary telephone mast near Marine Drive.

The matter will be discussed by the council's development committee on Tuesday, March 9, but it appears that the council can only ensure such a mistake does not happen again.

The council took enforcement action following expiration of the temporary siting of the mast for six months, during which time O2 was permitted development. The company immediately appealed against the enforcement notice, which was upheld at a planning inquiry by a planning inspector.

A council spokesman said: "The inspector also ordered the council to pay O2's costs, and as usual, did not indicate the amount. As such this decision cannot be challenged."

The amount was later determined to be almost £214,500.

In May 2007 the council received notification from O2's agents that a temporary mast was being installed at the site.

Such operators have been permitted development rights for a mast for up to six months.

Residents complained about the mast but no action was taken by the enforcement team until February 2008, by which time the permitted development rights had expired. Following assessment, enforcement was served. In March 2008, O2's solicitors replied to the issue, stating the only interested bodies were the company and the landowner.

At the subsequent planning inquiry they pointed out the council had failed to serve a notice to the nearby RNLI.

A planning application was refused on May 28 because: "The mast is in a prominent position, a principle route between Highbridge and Burnham seafront.

"The mast by reason of its height, size, prominent location and utilitarian appearance has an adverse effect on the area.

"The mast can be viewed from nearby residential properties and has an unacceptable adverse impact on these properties."

It was found not all interested parties had been informed, the council had not been fair with the enforcement and could not prove unreasonable behaviour.

The payment and where the cash will come from is a separate matter the council will discuss later.