DELIGHTED parents got the result they wanted when councillors voted to block alterations to a mobile phone mast at Orchard JMI School.

But the victory was tempered with warnings the fight was not over and Watford Council would face a costly appeal.

Chairman of the planning and licensing committee councillor Geoff O'Connell said: "The council's planning officers have made it clear in their report there are no grounds under planning law for us, as a council, to object to these alterations to an existing mobile phone transmitter."

He added: "It is not a question of money. Although at this time, when there is already a black hole in the council's finances, the district auditor is not likely to be too happy with us wasting ratepayers money on what might be seen, in some quarters, as a politically frivolous gesture of defiance."

He said Watford would be penalised for Hertfordshire County Council's decision to allow the mast to be sited on school grounds in the first place.

Council leader Vince Muspratt said: "I believe Orange will appeal and win."

The emergency meeting last Thursday was convened to make a final decision on whether to allow mobile phone company Orange to add the mast, which stands just 12 metres away from classrooms.

A representative for Orange said the mast would operate "within national and international guidelines" and increasing its power would not pose a threat to pupils at the school in Gammons Lane, Watford.

But, parents who collected more than 800 signatures on a petition were adamant the safety of youngsters as young as four would be put at risk.

Mum Mrs Julie Robinson, who threatened to withdraw her two children from the school, said: "At last, finally, they have listened to what we have said. If we don't fight for the children, who will?"

Mrs Julie Langdale, who has a daughter at the school, said: "What price can you put on a child's life?

"We didn't know about asbestos or Thalidomide, so why should we just wait and see with phone masts?"

Her husband, Martin, added: "The school earns about £4,000 a year from having the mast. As parents, we would be prepared to pay that to protect our children."

There were more people in the public gallery than in the council chamber at the sparsely attended full council meeting, where members voted 14 to seven in favour of a Conservative motion to refuse planning permission.

Tory group leader Tim Williams argued the mast did not tie in with the "precautionary principle" advocated in the Government-commissioned Stewart report.

But, others looked to a recent unsuccessful attempt to stop two phone masts going up on the Cassiobury estate, which cost the council £11,000.

This amount is the minimum Watford can expect to lose if unsuccessful in an appeal against the Orchard mast decision.

However, independent councillor Ian Brown said: "I am not convinced we would lose an appeal. I think it is worth giving it a go. We owe it to our people and we owe it to the next generation."