bd23/07 installation of … · an application has been lodged with council for the installation of...

Environment and Planning Committee 7 May 2007 7

Wollongong City Council

ITE

M 2

REF: BD23/07

INSTALLATION OF TELECOMMUNICATIONS FACILITY - DA-2006/1417 - LOTS 432 AND 433 DP14939 - 48 ILLAWARRA STREET, PORT KEMBLA Report of Manager Development Assessment and Compliance (VD) 17/04/07 DA-2006/1417

PRECIS

Applicant Telstra Corporation Zoning 2(b) Medium Density Residential Value of Development $260,000 Existing Use Light industry

Public Comment a Number of submissions – 131 b Informal Planning Conference – 6 December 2006

Relevant Planning Controls

- Department of infrastructure, Planning, Natural Resources Draft Telecommunication Guidelines

- State Environmental Planning Policy 71 - Wollongong Local Environmental Plan 1990 - Technical Policy 97/10 - Siting of Telecommunications and Radio-

communications Facilities (Adopted by Council 25 May 1998) - Draft Policy- Siting of Telecommunications and Radio-communications

Facilities (yet to be adopted by Council)

Main Issues

- The need for the facility - Proposed location - Visual impacts - Health impacts - Environmental impacts - Interference with electrical equipment

RECOMMENDATION

Council approve Development Application DA-2006/1417 and delegate authority to the Chief Executive Officer for the imposition of conditions substantially in accordance with the conditions attached to this report.

BACKGROUND

An application has been lodged with Council for the installation of a Telstra mobile network base station to supply 3GIS service to the immediate Port Kembla area. Telstra is a licensed carrier under the Telecommunications Act 1997 (Telco Act) and seeks approval from Council for the installation of the tower. As a licenced carrier, Telstra must operate within the provisions of the Telecommunications Act 1997. The Act exempts carriers from the provisions of planning legislation if the facility falls under the definition of the Telecommunications (Low Impact Facilities) Determination 1997. The facility requires the installation of a new monopole and associated equipment and as such, is not defined as a “low impact” facility. Therefore, the proposal is subject to the provisions of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979. The development consists of the installation of a 19.86 high monopole with 3 sectors of Telstra antennas housed on a turret style mount with an overall height of 22.7m. Community consultation has been carried out incorporating an Informal Planning Conference. A total of 131 submissions were received objecting to the location of the proposal given the residential zoning of the site and subsequent impacts upon nearby residents. Details of submissions and compliance with relevant legislation are provided in this report.

Environment and Planning Committee Page 18 7 May 2007


ITE

M 2

Site Details The site is located on Lots 432 and 433 DP14939, 48 Illawarra Street, Port Kembla. The site has frontages to both Illawarra Street and Sixth Street. The site currently accommodates an existing building used as an auto electrician. The proposed monopole will be situated on the north eastern corner of the site which is currently vacant land and heavily vegetated with overgrown plants and weeds. Also situated on this corner is an existing power pole. In total, Telstra proposes to use 39.25 sqm of the site for the proposed works and there are no changes proposed to the remainder of the site. Adjoining the site to the east along Sixth Street are single and double storey detached residential dwellings. Residential development adjoins the site to the north and the west. Further south of the site is Coomaditchy Lagoon Reserve, habitat for the Green and Golden Bell Frog and other wildlife species. A locality plan can be found in Attachment 1. PROPOSAL

The development application seeks approval for the construction of a mobile network base station. Specifically, the following is proposed: • The installation of a 19.86 high monopole with 3 sectors of Telstra antennas housed on a turret

style mount with an overall height of 22.7m. • The installation of a telecommunications equipment shelter adjacent to the proposed pole. • Installation of Telstra air conditioning compressor units on the external wall of the equipment

shelter. • Fencing of the monopole containing the equipment and supplementary landscaping. The location of the equipment fronts Sixth Street and comprises a 3GIS equipment shelter, 7.5sqm in area and 3m high. The equipment shelter and monopole will be screened by a proposed 2.4m high galvanised chain wire fence. Various types of planting is proposed to be carried out to provide screening to the equipment shelter. Plans of the proposed works can be viewed in Attachment 2. CONSULTATION AND COMMUNICATION

In accordance with Council’s Notification Policy, the development application was placed on advertising from 9 October 2006 to 1 November 2006 (7 day extension granted). A total of 131 submissions objecting to the proposal were received followed by an Informal Planning Conference held on 6 December 2006. Minutes from the IPC are found in Attachment 3. The following issues were raised during exhibition: 1 The need for the facility in Port Kembla The applicant has submitted a map showing the location of nearby existing telecommunication facilities located in Port Kembla, Warrawong (Port Kembla Hospital) and Kemblawarra (Shellharbour Road). The applicant has indicated that the proposed tower is needed to fill in a ‘gap’ in the local coverage network. Attachment 4 indicates the extent of the area needed to cover the proposed tower.

Environment and Planning Committee 7 May 2007 Page 19


ITE

M 2

2 Proposed Location A number of objections raised concern over the proposed location of the tower, stating that it is an unsuitable location given the residential zoning of the site and proximity to dwelling houses and environmentally sensitive locations. Assessment Comment The submitted Statement of Environmental Effects (SEE) outlined the process for selecting the subject site. Investigations into other sites were undertaken and the results referenced in the SEE. Below is a summary of the four sites investigated by Telstra: Site A: 48 Illawarra Street, corner of Sixth Avenue, Port Kembla This site has been chosen as the preferred site for the telecommunications facility. The reasoning for this site is that it provides a central location and with the aid of a monopole, can service the whole of the area with one installation. Site B: Corner of Sixth Avenue and Illawarra Street, Port Kembla The site has an existing power pole and the option involved the installation of the antenna on top of the power pole. This site was not considered an option as Integral Energy wouldn’t allow an antenna to be installed at the top of the pole for access and safety reasons. Site C: Outside 69 O’Donnell Street (opposite Charles Street) This site is immediately outside a church school and not considered a viable option due to its location next to a church and school. Safety and access from Integral Energy prevented the progress of this option. Site D: O’Donnell Street, Port Kembla This option provided an existing pole with acceptable height however was not an option due to issues raised by Integral Energy over access and safety. There was also insufficient space to locate a facility shelter at the base of the pole. Alternative Options Investigated Following an Informal Planning Conference held on 6 December 2006 the applicant was requested to explore other sites for the location of the facility. Alternate site options were provided by a group of residents and forwarded to the applicant to investigate. Descriptions of the options along with comments from the applicant are provided below. Option 1 – Old Fire Station With the assumption that base stations must be within 1.5km of each other, one of the preferred options forwarded by the residents is for a high impact installation at the Old Fire Station which is situated 400m from the subject site. Comment from Applicant Response from the applicant concludes that consideration of base station spacing include factors such as terrain, topography, local building heights and forecasted telecommunication subscribers in the area. The applicant states that the fire station is unsuitable and is located too far away from the target service area. Also, the assumption that base stations need to be located 1.5km of each other is incorrect and would only operate in a perfect scenario, ie. flat land and no trees or houses. The applicant further suggests that it is technically inappropriate to overlap coverage areas and radiofrequency communication. The option of the fire station does not provide a central enough



ITE

M 2

location to meet coverage requirements. It would also require the installation of two or more antennas elsewhere to service the same area which is unsustainable and unnecessary. Option 2 - A number of low impact installations This option by the residents involved the installation of a number of smaller low impact facilities. Visual impact is a large concern by the residents and having smaller installations would help minimise this impact. Comment from Applicant The applicant advises that whip or omni antennas can be used on buildings so to supplement poor coverage in existing networks but is not feasible to use when trying to provide a cell within a network. This option is not a desirable solution by the applicant for the following reasons: • Low impact sites can also be full installations, ie, full base stations; • 4 or more low impact sites may be required to replace the existing monopole creating more

visual clutter • A low impact solution is likely to contribute to greater RF signal at ground level within the

immediate vicinity due to proximity to ground level in comparison to monopoles • It is environmentally financially and technologically unviable.

Given the above reasons, the proposed monopole is a preferred solution by the applicant. Option 3 – Installation of 2 large towers- Old Fire Station and Kemblawarra Site This option proposes the installation of 2 large towers, one at the old fire station and one at the secondary Kemblawarra site. The distance between the two towers is 1.29km and they are in direct site of each other. Comment from Applicant The applicant claims that the Kemblawarra proposed facilities is located within the coverage area of the adjoining radio frequency cell servicing Kemblawarra to the south. The height and position would not be able to provide sufficient coverage to the whole of the area required due to topography. The secondary Kemblawarra site is also impractical as it will cause interference with the signal broadcast from this site. The applicant also advised that the old fire station is located outside the area required to meet coverage objectives so therefore is not an option. 3 Visual Impacts Concerns were raised over the visual impacts associated with the proposal. Assessment Comment The applicant offers the following comments in relation to visual impact:

The proposal has been designed to minimise adverse visual impacts on the site and surrounding environment. The monopole will be a slimline monopole structure painted neutral; colour matched to the background and utilising turret mounted antennas rather than a headframe arrangement in order to minimise the visual impact of the facility.



ITE

M 2

The proposal is considered to be visually unobtrusive given its height has been greatly reduced due to its central location within the coverage area. The base is located behind the existing bushes and fence planting which will obscure line of site from the east when viewed from residential dwellings in that aspect and blend through matching colour from the opposite in the western aspect. The slim line nature of the pole means it will not be largely visible from the ridges when viewed from escarpment lookouts a considerable distance from the site. It is anticipated that the top of the monopole (the antenna portion) may be slightly visible however by utilising the turret mount this will greatly reduce its bulk and presence.

The applicant claims that the visual character of the locality is characterised by the copper smelter on Military Road which is visible from the site and surrounding locality. Other visual characteristic of the area is that of one-two storey residential dwellings. The applicant suggests that the visual impact of the proposal has been minimised through a slimline pole design and appropriate landscaping around the equipment shelter. The site is situated within a Residential Zone and the proposed tower will be visible to all surrounding residents. There is an existing power pole on the site, however, the proposed tower will reach nearly twice the height of the existing power pole. There is an immediate visual impact due to the height of the tower which can readily be seen from residents surrounding this site and residents entering Port Kembla and other high view points surrounding the locality. It is not an option for the height of the tower to be minimised as height is necessary in order for communication with other existing towers. 4 Health Impacts

Concerns were raised over potential health impacts associated with the exposure to radiofrequency electromagnetic fields. Assessment Comment

Electromagnetic Energy or Emissions (EME) is described as waves of electric and magnetic energy moving together through space and is emitted through natural sources such as the sun and the earth. It can also be emitted through artificial sources such as mobile phones and base stations. Radiofrequency (RF) radiation is the transfer of energy by radio waves and lies in the frequency range between 3 kilohertz (kHz) to 300 gigabertz (GHz). A number of agencies regulate the standards to which telecommunication facilities operate within. In Australia, the Australian Radiation Protection and the Nuclear Safety Agency (ARPANSA), an agency of the Commonwealth Department of Health has the regulatory responsibly to protect the health and safety of persons exposed to RF EME from radiocommunications transmitters. On 2 May 2002, ARPANSA published a radiation protection standard “Maximum Exposure Levels to Radiofrequency Fields – 3kHz to 300 GHz” which sets public and occupational limits of exposure to EME fields. The Australian Communications and Media Authority (ACMA) mandates these exposure limits. The predicted maximum RF EME is represented as a percentage of the maximum allowable output. These are measured at 1.5m above ground level at certain intervals from the transmission source. Information on the estimated RF EME levels around the proposed mobile phone base station proposed at Port Kembla has been provided from the applicant. Estimated EME levels are calculated at distances of 5, 50, 100, 200, 300, 400 and 500m from the base station and the estimates have been developed in accordance with ARPANSA’s standards (RPS3).



ITE

M 2

Distance from the antennas at Port Kembla

Church Street bearing 120.96degrees (m)

Maximum Cumulative EME Level- All Carriers

(% of ACMA mandate exposure limits) 5 0.0022 50 0.0042 100 0.16 200 0.057 300 0.026 400 0.015 500 0.0095

Maximum EME level 104.75m, 120.96 degrees from proposed

antenna

0.17%

Testing in accordance with the above standards has concluded that the proposed mobile phone base station at Port Kembla has a maximum Cumulative EME level of 0.17% of the ACMA mandate exposure limits (ie. less than 1% of the emissions identified as being acceptable). Australian Standard RPS3 is a credible scientific standard and is based on the 1998 International Committee on Non-ionising Radiation Protection (ICNIRP) Guidelines of the International Commission on Non-Ionising Radiation Protection (“ICNIRP Guidelines”). The NSW Land & Environment Court judgement in Telstra Corporation Limited v Hornsby Shire Council [2006] NSWLEC 133 (24 March 2006) ruled that ‘it is not appropriate for a court to set aside or disregard such an authoritative and scientifically credible standard, … nor is it appropriate for a court to pioneer standards of its own. The creation of new standards is the responsibility of other authorities with special expertise, such as ARPANSA’. Accordingly, Council is not in a position to standardise the RF EME limits placed upon mobile phone base stations as this is legislated by the Commonwealth and credible agencies have been established to regulate the health impacts. 5 Environmental Impacts Concern was raised over potential impacts upon Coomaditchy Lagoon, approximately 300m away from the subject site. Specifically, concern was raised over the impacts of the proposal upon the Green and Golden Bell Frog, listed as a Threatened Species. Assessment Comment An assessment of the impacts upon the Green and Golden Bell Frog has been undertaken by LesryK Environmental Consultants using the criteria listed in Section 5A of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979. The report concludes that the development of the site would not present any barriers to the dispersal and interbreeding needs of the Green and Golden Bell Frog individuals or their populations. The development site is not considered to be important habitat for this species. Recommendations were forwarded to ensure that works are undertaken in an ecologically sustainable manner including effective erosion and sediment controls.



ITE

M 2

6 Property Devaluation Comments have been received suggesting that the proposal tower will result in devalue adjoining properties. Assessment Comment It is difficult for Council to assess impacts on property values and this in itself is not an issue for consideration under section 79C of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act. 7 Interference with electrical equipment Issues were raised over potential interference with electrical equipment such as mobile phones, TV and radio reception. Assessment Comment Mobile phone carriers along with television network broadcasters are licensed to broadcast on a specific band width to minimise interference between signals. The ACMA (Australian Communications and Media Authority) regulate any interference which may occur and have published information on this issue. Should interference by a carrier be suspected, the ACMA can be contacted to assist to rectify the problem if it is found to be the result of the Carrier. PLANNING AND POLICY IMPACT

Commonwealth Legislation In 1991, the Commonwealth Government initiated a major reform of the telecommunications industry to regulate the establishment of telecommunication facilities. The following Legislation was introduced: Telecommunications Act 1997 (Cth) The Act was established to regulate the telecommunications industry and the main entities of the industry being the Carriers and Service Providers. In particular, a carrier is exempt from any need to obtain development consent when: a installing a “low impact facility” within the meaning of the Telecommunications (Low-impact

Facilities) Determination 1997 (as amended by Amendment No. 1 of 1999) published by the Minister pursuant to the Telecommunications Act and

b “maintaining” a facility pursuant to divisions 3 and 4 of Schedule 3 to the Telecommunications

Act. Given that the proposal requires the construction of a new monopole within a residential zoning, the facility does not qualify as low impact under the Schedule to the Telecommunications (low impact facilities) Determination 1997. As such, approval is required by Council and is subject to the provisions of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979. The Act also specifies that carriers must comply with the Telecommunications Code of Practice. Telecommunications Code of Practice 1997 Along with the Telecommunications Act and the Telecommunications Low Impact Facilities Determination in 1997, the Code of Practice provides regulation over the manner in which



ITE

M 2

telecommunications carriers and providers presented themselves and conducted themselves in relation to providing a safe and efficient network and service to the customer. Department of Infrastructure, Planning and Natural Resources Draft Telecommunications Guidelines These Guidelines provide assistance to consent authorities in developing policies for telecommunication facilities. In particular, the Guidelines encourage the following: • Servicing Needs: that Council should consider the extent to which the development meets

current and future needs for competitive telecommunications facilities in the locality. • Visual Impact: Council must consider the visual impact which may be minimised by any one

or more of the following:

- By integrating the facility with the design and appearance of any building or structure on or within which it is located;

- By screening, where practical, any equipment associated with the facility so as to reduce its visibility;

- By avoiding the obstruction of views of significant vistas, significant landmarks or items of the environmental heritage;

- By ensuring that the facility as installed is in keeping with the streetscape and/or surrounding environment;

- By ensuring that the colour and finish of the facility are in keeping with the locality; - By ensuring that the scale of the facility is in keeping with the locality, bearing in mind

the scale may be affected by the intended coverage of the facility.

• Co-location of facilities: this should be achieved wherever possible in order to achieve the best environmental outcome.

• Health Standards: facilities must be designed, installed and operated to comply with

Commonwealth standards. Statutory Consideration- Section 79C(1)(i)-(iii) The site is zoned 2(b) Medium Density Residential under Wollongong Local Environmental Plan 1990 (WLEP 1990). The proposed development is permissible with consent from Council. The following Environmental Planning Instruments and policies are applicable. State Environmental Planning Policy 71- Coastal Protection The proposal is located within the coastal zone and therefore certain provisions of SEPP 71 apply. Clause 7 requires Council to consider the provisions of Clause 8 before determining the proposal. The proposed development does not contravene any of the matters listed under Schedule 8 of the SEPP. Illawarra Regional Environmental Plan No. 1 (IREP) The application does not contravene any of the objectives and regulations of IREP 1. Wollongong Local Environmental Plan 1990 The WLEP 1990 is the relevant LEP for the site and the clauses which are relevant to this proposal are:



ITE

M 2

Clause 6 – Definitions The proposed development is defined as a ‘utility installation’ with the following definition: a a building or work used by a public undertaking or by a public or private communication undertaking

(excluding buildings designed wholly or principally as administrative or business premises or as a showroom), or b an access way, road, conveyor or work for the drainage of water or the damming or filling of a watercourse, or c a pipeline. Clause 8 and 9 – Zoning and Development Control Tables The objectives of 2(b) Medium Density Residential Zone pursuant to Clause 9 of the WLEP 1990 are: a to cater for a wide range of housing types, especially domestic in scale and character, and b to allow for a range of residential densities and for urban consolidation in appropriate locations, and c to allow some diversity of activities and densities providing: i scale and height are comparable to those of the locality; ii there is little increase in traffic generation, and iii there will be no significant detraction from the character of the locality or the amenity of any existing or

proposed development nearby. A utility installation is permissible with consent from Council in 2(b) Medium Residential Density Zone. Clause 29C - Development in the Vicinity of a heritage item This clause applies to proposed development within the vicinity of a heritage item and requires the following:

Before granting consent to development in the vicinity of a heritage item, the consent authority must assess the impact of the proposed development on the heritage significance of the heritage item and of any heritage conservation area.

The site is not located within a heritage conservation area. However, the site is in the vicinity of two heritage items listed within the WLEP 1990. Across the road is The Former NES Hall, which was recently destroyed by a fire. Saint Kilment Ohridski Macedonian Church situated at 58-60 Keira Street and is listed as a heritage item. An assessment carried out by Council’s Heritage Officer deemed the application to be acceptable given there is adequate separation between the proposal and heritage items. Council’s Codes and Policies • Technical Policy 97/10 - Siting of Telecommunications and Radio-communications Facilities

(Adopted by Council 25 May 1998)



ITE

M 2

The objectives of this policy are to: - Minimise any health risks associated with the provision of mobile telephone infrastructure; - To minimise the visual impact of infrastructure associated with the provision of mobile telephone services; - To facilitate the provision of efficient and reliable telecommunication services in the City of Wollongong Siting Guidelines

The policy outlines measures to reduce visual impacts of facilities which include:

- Co-location and use of existing structures - Use of vegetation for screening - Use of materials and finishes consistent with surroundings - Facility should be integrated into the overall architecture of the host building - Towers should be slimline monopole construction wherever possible Furthermore, the policy requires consideration of natural landform and heritage items. To reduce visual impacts, structures should be visually obtrusive from the fronting road at pedestrian eye level and wherever feasible, located toward the rear of a building roof top. Electromagnetic Radiation

In regard to EME, the Policy states that towers and antennas should meet the following precautionary siting requirements: - Not within 300m from any residential dwelling unless average exposure at the nearest dwelling is less thatn

0.2uW/cm2

- Not within 300m from any school, child care centre, hospital or aged care centre and annual average exposure at these land uses must be less than 0.2uW/cm2

Where the developer can demonstrate, to the satisfaction of Council, that the design of the structure will ensure the emissions are directed away from the abovementioned land uses, the distance restriction may be modified to reflect emission field. Assessment Comment

The RF EME emitted from a tower is regulated by Commonwealth legislation as discussed previously. Recent Land and Environment Court rulings have dismissed some Council’s policies requiring buffer zones and their own standards and believe that Council’s should not come up with their own standards as Federal standards are now in place. This is evident in Hutchinson Telecommunications (Australia) Pty Ltd v Baulkham Hills Shire Council [2006] NSWLEC 104 (26 March 2004) where the Court ruled that they should not impose a stricter limit than that contained in the ARPANSA standard in the absence of another recognised standard. In this regard, a review of Technical Policy 97/10 (Siting of Telecommunications and Radio-communications Facilities) has been undertaken and a draft policy in line with current Australian Standards has been established and yet to be adopted by Council. • Draft Policy- Technical Policy 97/10 -Siting of Telecommunications and Radio-

communications Facilities (to replace former policy mentioned above).

This policy is currently draft and will replace the former Technical Policy 97/10. The purpose of this policy to update controls contained within the previous policy. In particular, this policy recognises the ARPANSA standard for RF EME and repeals the former standard (mentioned in previous section) derived by Council.



ITE

M 2

The draft policy also lists preferred land uses for the siting of telecommunications towers including: - Industrial areas - Rural areas - Low use open space - Commercial centres (provided they have not been identified as existing or future mixed

commercial/residential areas. The site is zoned residential and is, therefore, not a preferred land use option under the Draft Policy. The likely impacts of the development – Section 79C(1)(b) Context and Setting The site is situated in a residential zone which under the Draft Council Policy - Siting of Telecommunications and Radio-communications Facilities, is not a preferred land use. However, consideration to Residential Zones is allowable providing the applicant has demonstrated that alternate options have been investigated. In this regard, alternative sites have been investigated and the most viable option for Telstra is the subject site. Privacy There are no privacy impacts associated with the proposed development. Overshadowing Overshadowing issues are not applicable to the proposed development. Access, Transport and Traffic The proposed development is not traffic generating therefore there are no issues applicable to the proposed development. Public Domain The main impact upon the public domain will be the visual impact from the proposed height of the monopole. Attempts have been made by the applicant to minimize the impact by proposing a slim line pole design. Height reduction of the proposed pole is not an option due to the required height required to provide network coverage. Utilities All services and utilities are available to the site. Heritage The heritage implications have been assessed and deemed to be satisfactory as there will be minimal impact upon nearby heritage items. Other land resources/water/soils/air and microclimate Should the application be approved, appropriate conditions of consent will be imposed to minimise any impacts upon other land resources.



ITE

M 2

Flora and Fauna An assessment of the impacts upon the Green and Golden Bell Frog has been undertaken by LestryK Environmental consultants in accordance with Section 5A of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979. The report concludes that the development of the site would not present any barriers to the dispersal and interbreeding needs of the Green and Golden Bell Frog individuals or their populations. Recommendations were forwarded to ensure that works are undertaken in an ecologically sustainable manner including effective erosion and sediment controls. Social and economic impact of the locality Social Impact Previous NSW Land & Environment Court rulings have found that a fear or concern without rational or justified foundation by itself, cannot be considered as an amenity or social impact (New Century Developments Pty Ltd v Baulkham Hills shire Council (2003) NSWLEC 154 (30 July 2003). In this instance, there are perceptions from the residents of an adverse effect on health and safety of people living near the development due to exposure to RF EME emitted from the proposed base station. The NSW Land & Environment Court judgement in Telstra Corporation Limited v Hornsby Shire Council [2006] NSWLEC 133 (24 March 2006) established that the concerns of residents in relation to social impacts are not intangible matters, rather, ‘the concerns relate to matters which are capable of measurement and testing against established standard to see whether the concerns are justified or not’. This testing is carried out against relevant Australian Standard RPS3, which proves that the concerns are not justified. In this instance, the court offered little, if any weight to resident’s perceptions. Economic Impact As stated previously, Council cannot assess impacts on property values and this is not an issue for consideration under section 79C of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act. There are no other economic impacts associated with the proposal. Site design, internal design and construction The design of the proposal is acceptable and construction will need to be carried out in accordance with the Building Code of Australia. Cumulative Impacts The proposed facility will provide coverage to the whole network area and the installation of a single monopole has reduced the need for many low impact facilities around Port Kembla which may have greater RF EME impacts. Suitability of the site It is acknowledged that there is a gap in the coverage network for the Port Kembla area. The applicant has satisfactorily demonstrated that alternate options have been investigated and that the subject site is the preferred location.



ITE

M 2

Following investigations into several alternate sites, Council is satisfied that the subject site is suitable for the mandatory provision of 3GIS services to the Port Kembla area. The site is zoned Residential and the proposed facility is permissible under WLEP 1990. Submissions/Community Consultation - Section 79C(1)(d) The application was advertised in accordance with Council’s Notification Policy. 131 submissions were received objecting to the proposal and a summary of objections raised within the submissions is provided within the ‘Consultation and Communication’ Section of this report. The public interest - Section 79C(1)(e) Notification of this development has resulted in 131 submissions objecting to the proposal being received by Council. Further consultation with the community at the Informal Planning Conference held on 6 December 2006 enabled a continued discussion of the issues raised in the submissions, focusing on: site location; visual impacts; health impacts associated with RF EME; environmental impacts and the need for the facility. An outline of the impacts and a response to each has been provided. As required by Council, the applicant was required to investigate alternate site options for the installation of the tower. Following investigation of each site, the application remains proposed on the subject site which is zoned residential. Federal legislation mandates the level of emissions from telecommunication facilities and this is a national standard upheld by the NSW Land & Environment Court. Therefore, Council cannot be in a position to enforce other unrecognised standards. On this basis, the public interest is not considered to be adversely affected by the proposal. ECOLOGICAL SUSTAINABILITY Ecological Sustainable Development (ESD) is most commonly defined as ‘development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs’ (Our Common Future- World Commission on Environment and Development 1987 also know as the Brundtland Report). The principles of Ecologically Sustainable Development as related to this development are discussed as follows: • The Precautionary Principle

The precautionary principle can be considered as the framework of risk management, which requires a risk/benefit analysis of a particular situation before a decision can be made. It is based on the premise that where there is uncertainty, caution should be undertaken.

In July 2005, the International Expert Group and Independent Authority Reports related to Radiofrequency (RF) Safety issued the following statement:

To date, all experts reviews on health effects of exposure to RF fields have reached the same conclusion: There have been no adverse health consequences established from exposure to RF fields at levels below the international guidelines on exposure limits published by the International Commission on Non-ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP 1998). These guidelines were developed to limit human exposure to electromagnetic fields (EMF) under conditions of maximum absorption of the fields which rarely occurs…thus the limits in the ICNIRP guidelines are highly protective and are based on all the available scientific data.



ITE

M 2

The precautionary principle has been applied to Australian Standard RPS3. Through Commonwealth legislation, the level of RF EME emitted from the base station will need to comply with this standard. In this regard, the precautionary approach has already been adopted in the standard setting process. In Telstra Corporation Limited v Hornsby Shire Council [2006] NSWLEC 133 (24 March 2006), the court found that the precautionary approach was undertaken in regards to the following: • the standard setting process which required a review of all relevant scientific literature

relating to RF EME • the adoption of the Australian Standard RPS3 with margins of safety • the requirements of the relevant industry code to comply with the adopted standard • the measurement of existing and predicted EME levels from the proposed base station • the selection of equipment and antennas to minimise RF EME The RF limits are designed to protect against harmful effects of heating and muscle and nerve stimulation. There has been concern about cancer, and in this regard, the following position statement has been issued from the NSW Cancer Council: Mobile telephone base stations are low power radio transmitters with antennae mounted on either freestanding towers or on buildings. Radio signals are fed through cables to the antennae and then launched as radio waves into the area, or cell, around the base station. Two types of antennae are used for the transmissions; pole-shaped antennae are used to communicate with mobile telephones and dish antennas communicate to other base stations and link the network together. The radio waves produced by transmitters used for mobile phones are sufficiently weak that the exposure limits can only be exceeded if a person is able to approach to within a few metres in front of the antenna. Radio wave strengths at ground level and in regions normally accessible to the public are many times below hazard levels and no heating effect has been detected. The transmissions from any particular base station are variable and depend on the antenna type, the mobile frequency being used, the number of transmitters in operation, the local environment and the height and tilt of the antenna. In general, the following points are relevant to the exposure of people to RFE emitted by base stations. • The antennae are the sources of the radiated energy and operate at power levels consistent with their aim

of communicating over short distances. Typical power levels are not more than a few tens of watts. • The power is radiated in conical fan-shaped beams, which are essentially directed towards the horizon

with a slight downward tilt so the energy levels below the antennae and at the base of the towers will be considerably below recommended exposure limits.

Experience with typical installations has shown that there may be regions within a few metres and directly in front of the antenna, where radio wave levels can exceed exposure recommended levels. These regions are generally not accessible to the public. Accordingly, the precautionary principle has been applied to the RF field. However, a literature review from a range of different sources recommends that further scientific research should be undertaken to provide data that helps reduce the degree of uncertainty about the long term effects from RF.



ITE

M 2

• The Intergeneration Equity

Data received by Council indicated that the proposal will not significantly affect the ability of future generations to enjoy the present health, diversity and productivity of the environment. Hence, the issue of intergenerational equity is satisfied.

• Conservation of Biological Diversity and Ecological Integrity An assessment upon the impact of the Green and Golden Bell Frog has been undertaken by qualified Environmental Consultants as requested by Council. The proposal will not affect the biological diversity or ecological integrity of the area.

• Environment Cost Benefit Considerations (the polluter pays principle) The proposal achieves environmental goals in a cost effective manner and provides a satisfactory solution to the constraints of the site.

RISK ASSESSMENT

Refer to Precautionary Principle discussed in previous section.

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

Section 94 Contributions in accordance with Council’s adopted 94A Plan will be required for the development and included in the draft conditions of consent (Attachment 5). OPTIONS

1 Council delegate authority to the General Manager to determine the application subject to conditions, or

2 Council resolve to refuse the application and provide reasons for refusal. CONCLUSION

An assessment of the potential impacts associated with the installation of the telecommunications tower has been undertaken. The application has been assessed having regard to the heads of consideration under Section 79C(1) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (NSW) and the provisions of all relevant Council Policies and Development Control Plans. Following detailed assessment, it is recommended that the application be approved subject to the conditions as substantially provided in Attachment 5.

Name Position Title Date Signature This report provides Councillors with all the relevant information and is correct at the time of writing.

This information has been relied upon in preparing the report and its recommendations. Signed by:

Vanessa Davis Senior Development Project Officer Assessment East

19/4/07

John Gilbert Manager Development Assessment & Compliance

24/4/07

Peter Kofod Acting Group Manager Sustainability 24/4/07



ITE

M 2

ATTACHMENTS

1. Locality Plan 2. Plans of Proposed Works 3. Informal Planning Conference Notes 4. Existing and Proposed Network Coverage Map 5. Draft Conditions of Consent 6. Fact Sheets Published from the Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Agency

ATTACHMENT 1 - Locality Plan Page 33


ATTACHMENT 2 - Plans of Proposed Works


ATTACHMENT 2 - Plans of Proposed Works Page 35


ATTACHMENT 2 - Plans of Proposed Works


ATTACHMENT 2 - Plans of Proposed Works Page 37


ATTACHMENT 3 - Informal Planning Conference Notes


INFORMAL PLANNING CONFERENCE HELD ON WEDNESDAY 6 DECEMBER, 2006

PROPOSED TELECOMMUNICATIONS MOBILE PHONE BASE TOWER

48 ILLAWARRA STREET, PORT KEMBLA - DA 2006/1417 Present: Councillors K Jonovski (Chairperson) and Z Esen, R Zwicker – Manager East Team; V Davis & R Harrison – Planning Officers; P Nolan- Telstra, M Hampson- Telstra, L Dickenson - EMC Technologies, S Goodwin – GPS, Residents/Interested Parties Apologies: Lord Mayor Councillor Jonovski opened the meeting and introduced Council Officers. He advised how an Informal Planning Conference progresses and invited representatives of those present to speak. PROPONENT’S OVERVIEW Mr Steve Goodwin, Town Planner from CPS Global addressed the meeting and provided an overview of the application. The proposal is worthy of Council and local resident support as it will improve telecommunications in the Port Kembla and surrounding area. A slimline tower will be used which will reduce bulk at the top of the frame. The site is one of 85 sites identified in the Illawarra for improvement providing a range of benefits for the new 3rd Generation services provided by Telstra. Les Dickenson, EMC Technologies Mr Dickenson spoke on the electromagnetic energy emanating from the towers. He advised it is a very small amount and that electro magnetic energy is everywhere in our lives including TV, FM Radio, microwave ovens, etc. OWNERS/RESIDENT’S SUBMISSIONS Rachel Troncone – addressed the meeting and read a detailed submission against the placement of the tower in this position. Some of the issues were:

• Undertook research and found interesting and worthy information. • Mobile phones and base stations have only been in existence a short time, and long

term effects are not known. • There is no conclusive evidence against their use, but no evidence for their use either.

Health affects cannot be agreed upon. • These towers should not be allowed in residential areas. We do not want it in our

street. Rade Brbevski - stated that a lot of people who are here tonight did not receive knowledge of tonight’s meeting and only found out by word of mouth.

ATTACHMENT 3 - Informal Planning Conference Notes Page 39


Ron Zwicker apologised that an administrative error had occurred in advising residents, however the issue is the concern, not the number of people who attend. Mr Brbevski advised a lot of residents in the area are from non- English speaking backgrounds and therefore not able to understand and not able to attend tonight’s meeting. He questioned whether anyone present tonight has the authority to prevent this tower from happening or not. Ron Zwicker advised Council looks at information from this meeting and if there is enough information Council can make a decision, if not, then further information is required. A decision is then made whether to proceed and whether to go through delegated authority or to Council. Councillor Jonovski questioned if Council refused the application what can Telstra do in relation to legislative powers through Federal and/or State governments? Telstra advised that if the mono pole is refused, under legislation for low impact determination, then there may be Federal legislation which may allow the tower go ahead. Telstra has looked at all sites and this is the best position to place the pole to get the coverage required. Existing sites are at Kemblawarra and Port Kembla Hospital and this pole will cover the remaining area where presently a “hole” exists. Mr Brbevski questioned the suitability of positioning of the pole behind Coomaditchy and whether it is in the area of coverage? Ron Zwicker suggested if residents have any other suitable sites, then advise Council who will forward this information onto Telstra. Mr Brbevski also commented on:

• Environmental issues. • Visual impact (it should comply with zoning in the area). • Decrease in valuation of properties (A comparison of sale prices of streets in Dapto

affected by overhead power lines was read out). • Listed a number of reasons from a publication as to reasons why it should not go

ahead in this residential area. Rev Fr Drapaniotis - commented on the advancement of telecommunications as a part of today’s world, however placing a tower in the heart of our suburb harms the residents of the area, especially the children. It has a cumulative affect on health risks. Port Kembla as a suburb will not go ahead. Having this tower in the middle of the suburb would deter future investment. Non English speaking residents are at a disadvantage as to what is happening and any health risks that could be involved. They do not fully understand. The applicant has not taken Wollongong City Council’s draft Telecommunications Policy or the residents of Port Kembla into account. Residents will have to suffer at the expense of big corporations.

ATTACHMENT 3 - Informal Planning Conference Notes


Councillor Jonovski asked how many towers are there in the Wollongong local government area and how many are in residential areas? He was advised the greater Wollongong area from Scarborough down to Windang/Warilla has 54 sites and the majority are in residential areas. Telstra has tried to use existing structures where possible such as roof tops, light poles, etc. In this location Telstra has looked at a suitable position that would give low impact and has come up with this site. We need a particular site as the waves can only travel in a straight line. The height of the tower was queried. It is 22.6 metres high. Telstra advised previously some Councils required a 300m setback from residential areas, however this requirement is now being withdrawn as the carrier says it is unjust and there is no proof or otherwise of its use. Renee Stannett - commented on her concerns on the affects on the nearby nature corridor and the habitat of the wild life and endangered species. Her son has autism and is susceptible to any noise ie the hum of the air conditioning motors. This is a multi cultural area and people do not know. These non English speaking residents are very frightened as to what this means. It will have a negative impact on all residents. We do not want this in a 2(b) residential area. This tower will be in close proximity to the Federation/Centenary Walkway. This land was reclaimed and has 44 species of bird life. It is also one of only two places in the Illawarra where the Golden Bell Frog can be found. Ron Zwicker – WCC Negotiations have been held between Telstra and the property owner. Council is not involved in private lease agreements between these parties. A development application is before Council and the planning team will review issues raised tonight prior to making a decision. Ron explained the legislative regime and the legal, and risk perspective. He advised those present to read the study of the court case (copies provided) which is the most recent court case for this type of development. Les Dickenson Advised that many studies have been done on mobile phones over the years since the 1950’s. An ongoing study has been done since television commenced in 1956 with no adverse affects are known. It is now over 20 years since mobile phones have been around and base stations were switched on. Electromagnetic energy is only at the tower itself. There will be no interference to TVs, radios, cordless phones, etc. from the base station. The air conditioners used are domestic sized units with a dBA of 80. Only one unit will be used at a time, with the other for back up. If both air conditioners failed, the unit would switch itself off and an alert would go back to a central location.

ATTACHMENT 3 - Informal Planning Conference Notes Page 41


P Nolan - Telstra Summarised Telstra’s position:

• Tower has to be placed where it will work. • Look for customers feedback and customer impact. • Look at environmental impact. • One 22m tower or could have 4 smaller ones. • Telstra will consider feedback and objections from residents.

Question: What other options are considered by Telstra? Answer: Looked at all sites and this is the best site to suit the need. Question: Has anyone ever complained about non coverage in that area? Answer: Current occupants will change over time and future residents will want mobile coverage. Councillor Jonovski questioned if the tower is removed, what impact would it have on other services and how many people in Port Kembla will this affect and improve coverage for? Answer: 3G (3rd generation) coverage is on existing towers in the Illawarra. It is a Federal government mandate that carriers must provide coverage for all areas. In summary:

• Additional information will be requested from the applicant as to how the system works.

• Alternate sites - if residents provide comments on other suitable sites and pass this information onto Council, Council will then pass this information onto Telstra.

• Community concern will be looked at by WCC who will be guided by public interest and issues raised tonight.

• Australian Standards and the Australian Telecommunications Act will be looked at. • Issues raised tonight will be communicated back to Telstra.

Ron Zwicker advised this matter would carry over until the New Year and then if required, possibly another meeting would be held. Notes of tonight’s meeting will be forwarded to those in attendance. There being no further discussion and the time being 7.50pm, Councillor Jonovski thanked everyone for their attendance and declared the meeting closed.

ATTACHMENT 4 - Existing and Proposed Network Coverage Map


ATTACHMENT 4 - Existing and Proposed Network Coverage Map Page 43


ATTACHMENT 5 - Draft Conditions of Consent


ATTACHMENT 5 - Draft Conditions of Consent Page 45


ATTACHMENT 5 - Draft Conditions of Consent


ATTACHMENT 6 - Fact Sheets Published from the Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Agency Page 47


ATTACHMENT 6 - Fact Sheets Published from the ustralian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Agency


bd23/07 installation of … · an application has been lodged with council for the installation of...

Documents