The public inquiry into the siting of an Orange phone mast has exposed massive communication gaps between Winchester City Council officers and planners.

The council told the hearing on Wednesday that it would prefer to site the 12-metre mast, proposed for Byron Avenue, in the railway station car park, near rows of terraced housing in Stockbridge Road and Clifton Road.

But planning chairman, David Atwell, said later he knew nothing of the proposal and strongly opposed it. "I would have grave concerns about the proximity of the mast to homes. It is dangerous to advocate this as an alternative site."

Labour leader and planning committee member, Patrick Davies, said that the council's suggestion could open the door for another phone company.

"This could open up the worst of all worlds. The inspector could approve Byron Avenue and then we have identified another site for another developer."

He also said it was Mr Atwell's job to chase officers to find out about the proposals. Residents in Stockbridge Road were dismayed to find they may be facing a phone mast battle similar to the one in Byron Avenue.

Nigel Fox, of Stockbridge Road, attended because his children had attended Western School, near the proposed Byron Avenue site. "This was complete news to me. A real surprise. I'm unhappy about the siting of these masts in residential areas."

Winchester City Council has also identified the police HQ in Romsey Road, as an alternative, but this has been rejected by police.

The public inquiry, which got off to a noisy start on Tuesday when 200 protesters packed into St John's Rooms, The Broadway, will give a ruling on whether the mast can go in Byron Avenue, Winchester.

Orange's case is now focused on proving that the alternative sites were fully explored and were not considered suitable.

On Wednesday, planning consultant, Nick Heywood, admitted that if there were no other sites, the mast would have to go at Byron Avenue to meet the need for more phone coverage.

The council's case hinges on whether public concern, or public perception of harm, is a "material consideration". Orange says the planning system is not the place to determine health arguments.

"Whether such matters are material is a matter for the courts," Peter Goatley, representing the phone company, told the inquiry.

But city council and campaigners say objection in Winchester is "unprecedented" and should be given weight in the debate.

Timothy Comyn, representing the council, said: "The engendering of public anxiety by the inappropriate development of a telecom mast is a health factor. Putting it bluntly, the community has to live with it."

He agreed there were "gaps in knowledge" about the health effects of phone mast radiation and government guidelines on siting masts were not comprehensive.

Orange says Winchester City Council's policy reasons for refusing the mast are weak. It claims planners ignored national guidance and their reasons for refusal were not "full, complete and precise".

The campaigners' group, Action Against Byron Avenue Mast, has yet to call its witnesses.

But protester, Karen Barratt, was positive. "I feel there has to come a point where common sense plays its part. We have a very good case. Orange has yet to prove there's a need for this."

The inquiry continues.