ocm148.3/08/16 summary of submissions shanley road, … · 2020-03-09 · shanley road, mardella...

SUMMARY OF SUBMISSIONS Shanley Road, Mardella #217 (L47) 400084 - Proposed Telecommunications Infrastructure

Submitter No Submitter Comments Officers Comment Officers Recommendation

Water Corporation

The Water Corporation offers the following comments in regard to this proposal.

The subject Lot is not serviced by Water Corporation services, the proposed development will not impact on the Water Corporation.

Should you have any queries or require further clarification on any of the above issues, please do not hesitate to contact the Enquiries Officer.

Noted. No action required.

JM & HP Johnston PO Box 334 MUNDIJONG WA 6123 A196500

We have no objections to this proposal.

Noted. No action required.

NR & NG Gardiner PO Box 62 MUNDIJONG WA 6123 A186100

Quite surprised to hear about the Development Application-Consultation and Referral Shanley Road, Mardella #217 (L47), L48, L49, L808 & L809-Telecommunications Infrastructure.

The intensity of the radio waves, due to how close they are to us and the Serpentine Youth Camp

I personally having a Heart Pacemaker fitted am very concerned of what might

In accordance with the ARPANSA (Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Agency) EME Report of the predicted maximum EME output levels from the facility levels are approximately 0.046%, less than the 1% maximum level specified under the relevant mandatory Australian safety standards.

No action required.

OCM148.3/08/16


be outcome. Since installed I am not allowed anywhere near electronic equipment, example airport security, have to be done by hand before boarding the aircraft.

Therefore, a letter is required to assure me that NBN will Honour any health problems caused by the fixed wireless transmission 50m high lattice tower and radio transmission equipment facility proposed to be located at 17 Shanley Road, Mardella being Lot 47 on Deposited Plan 55712(volume 2684, folio 183)

Cornerstone Legal on behalf of – R Blackburn & J Bowen PO Box 124 BYFORD WA 6125 A187400

INTRODUCTION

1. These submissions are in response to the development application lodged by NBN (' the Applicant') for a proposed Telecommunications Infrastructure for a fixed wireless facility ('the Development') at Lots 47, 48, 49, 808 and 809 Shanley Road, Mardella ('the Site').

2. We act for Mr Robert Blackburn and Ms Jacqueline Bowen ('Our Clients'), who are affected landowners of the Development.

3. Our Clients are the registered proprietors of the land located at 1908 South Western Highway Mardella, being Lot 99 on Deposited Plan

Noted.

Noted.

Noted.

No action required. No action required. No action required.

OCM148.3/08/16


139146 being the whole of the land contained in Certificate of Title Volume 1590 Folio 489 ('Our Clients' Land'). Our Clients' Land is identified on the map annexed hereto and marked ' Annexure 1'.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

4. In summary, Our Clients object to the Development for the following reasons:

(1) The Development directly interferes with Our Clients' proprietary right to use and enjoy their land for the purposes of undertaking building works and earthworks;

(2) The Application incorrectly treats the whole of Our Clients' Land as being a Bush Forever protected area. Our Clients' Land is the subject of a development approval for a Plant Nursery (annexed hereto and marked ' Annexure 2', and includes a residential dwelling.

(3) The Application does not identify appropriate vehicle access points to access the Site;

The proposed development does not impose any land use restrictions on adjoining lots for either existing or approved development.

Noted. This is not grounds for objection.

Access is identified on the site plan submitted as ‘existing gravel access track via unmade road reserve’.


OCM148.3/08/16


(4) The Applicant has fail led to provide any noise assessment report in relation to the construction and operation of the proposed Telecommunications Infrastructure;

(5) The Development is not appropriately screened from Our Clients' residence that is located 260 metres from the Site; (6) The Development may present adverse health risks to residents in the locality. The Applicant has not given due consideration to health implications. Accordingly, the Shire is not in a position to adequately assess potential health risks; and

Section 5.1.5 of the Submission addresses noise during construction and for the operation of the facility. Noise emissions during operation are akin to a domestic cooling unit, which the applicant has advised will be required to operate in accordance with regulatory requirements.

There are no nearby sensitive noise receptors within 200 metres to warrant such a report.

The nearby residence is 260 metres from the location of the proposed telecommunications infrastructure. The ground level infrastructure will be screened by existing vegetation. It is not a reasonable requirement to screen a 50 metre high lattice tower.

In accordance with the ARPANSA (Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Agency) EME Report of the predicted maximum EME output levels from the facility levels are approximately 0.046%, less than the 1% maximum level specified under the

No action required. No action required.

OCM148.3/08/16


(7) Our Clients did not receive notice of the proposed Development until June 2016, and are likely to be affected by the Development.

BACKGROUND

5. On or about 26 February 2016 the Shire of Serpentine Jarrahdale ('the Shire') received a development application from the Applicant for approval to develop Telecommunications Infrastructure on the Subject Land ('the Application').

6. Our Clients are in the business of growing cactus and succulent plants, and are the owners and directors of WA Cactus and Succulent Supply (ABN 42 867 483 522). Our Clients hire contractors and employees to work on Our Clients' Land, maintain plants and prepare them for sale.

7. On 1 June 2016 the Shire granted Our Clients conditional development approval to extend an existing Plant Nursery and to undertake retrospective earthworks on Our Client's Land.

8. By letter dated 10 June 2016, the Shire invited residents to comment on the Application.

The adjoining landowners have been extensively consulted in accordance with Town Planning Scheme No.2 requirements.

Noted.

Noted.

Noted

Noted.

No action required. No action required. No action required. No action required. No action required.

OCM148.3/08/16


9. A portion of the Subject Land affected by the Development is owned and enjoyed by Our Clients.

THE PROPOSED TELECOMMUNICATIONS INFRASTRUCTURE

10. The proposed Development does not account for Our Clients' interest on the Site and their existing and likely future land use.

11 .The Development encroaches on Our Client's land, with an underground telecommunications cable being constructed over a portion of Our Clients' Land (see clause 5 .1.4 on page 21 of the Application). A1rnexed

The proposed development is wholly contained within lot 47 Shanley Road. The original plan indicated underground power passing through the adjoining Lot 99 South Western Highway, however this power connection has been re-routed to be outside of all privately owned land, with the exception of Lot 47 Shanley Road.

Discussed in the Land Use section of the Council Report.

The development is wholly contained within Lot 47 Shanley Road and is accessible via existing access arrangements that do not encroach upon private land.


OCM148.3/08/16


hereto and marked 'Annexure 3' is a map highlighting the proposed location of the Site. 12. In assessing Our Clients' Land as part of the proposed Development, the Applicant failed to appropriately consider interference with existing development and land use, interference with amenity, and potential occupational health and safety issues.

13. Accordingly, we consider the Development should not be approved in its current form.

RELEVANT CONSIDERATIONS

14. The City Council ('Council') is required to consider the Application in accordance with the Shire ofSe1pentine Jarrahdale Town Planning Scheme No. 2 ('TPS2').

15. Notably, clause 6.4.2 of TPS2 requires Council to have regard to (a) the purpose for which the land is reserved, zoned or approved for use under the Scheme; (b) the purpose for which land in the locality is reserved, zoned or approved for use under the Scheme, and (h) the preservation of the amenity of the locality.


Noted.

Noted.


OCM148.3/08/16


16. The Application fails to properly consider existing land uses and development approvals on land immediately adjacent to the Site.

TELECOMMUNICATIONS ACT

17. The Application identifies the proposed facility in Mardella South as a low impact site as a "low-impact facility" (see Figure 2 of the Application). Under the Telecommunications Act 1997 (Cth) (' the Act'), development approval is not required for low-impact facilities.

18. The Act defines "facility" to mean:

(a) any part of the infrastructure of a telecommunications network; or

(b) any line, equipment, apparatus, tower, mast, antenna, tunnel, duct, hole, pit, pole or other structural thing used or for use in or in connection with a telecommunications network.


Figure 2 was provided for the purposes of illustrating the interdependencies between proposed nbn facilities in the locality. No exemption has been sough under the Telecommunications (Low-impact Facilities) Determination 1997 as evidenced by an application for Development Approval being lodged to the Shire for approval.

Noted.


OCM148.3/08/16


19. Division 3, clause 6(1) provides that a carrier may for purposes connected with the supply of a carriage service, carry out the installation of a facility if: (b) the facility is a low impact facility (as defined by subclause(3)).

20. The Telecommunications (low-Impact Facilities) Determination 1997 (' the Determination') identifies the types of low-impact facility specified by the Minister for the purposes of cl 6(1 )(b) of Div 3 of Pt 1 of Sch 3 of the Act, and the areas in which they may be installed.

21. We consider the proposed facility is not a low-impact facility for the purposes of the Act. Development approval is therefore required under the Planning and Development Act 2005 ('PDA') for the portion of the Development that intersects Mardella South.

Noted.

Noted.

The submission is mistaken that the application relates to the Mundijong facility and not the Mardella South facility that will be a low-impact facility. The introduction to the Submission clearly identifies the site seeking approval for at Mundijong as a wireless fibre hub site with connectivity with nbn facilities in Baldivis, Baldivis South and Cardup.


OCM148.3/08/16


22. Further, it is clear from the Applicant's application for development approval that the Mardella site is in fact a site requiring development approval.

FAILURE TO PROPERLY IDENTIFY OUR CLIENTS' LAND

23 . The Application incorrectly assumes that the whole of Our Clients' Land as being reserved for Bush Forever, and is not likely to be developed (see page 18 of the Application).

24. This is untrue given that only a portion of Our Clients Land is zoned Bush Forever, and the majority of Our Clients' Land is used for a Plant Nursery. In addition, a portion of Our Clients' Land includes a residential dwelling.

Noted. This is the application for development.

The reference on this page is to an existing base station, not the facility subject to this application.

The Development Application states that the subject land adjoins Lot 99 South Western Highway that is used for Plant Nursery and includes 2.06ha of land reserved ‘Bush Forever’. It is this bush forever portion of the lot adjacent to the proposed nbn facility that is assumed will not be further developed.


OCM148.3/08/16


25. The Application makes no reference to Our Clients' development approval and/or the existing use of the land. Page 18 of the Application incorrectly states: "The nearest property boundary measured from the compound fencing is 3m to the south being to an unmade and heavily vegetated road reserve... We would understand that there is also no likely hood of this adjacent land [Lot 99] being developed as U is reserved/or Bush Forever".

26. This statement is misleading and demonstrates that the Applicant has failed to properly consider the effect of the Development on Our Clients' Land and the locality.

27. A plant nursery is a sensitive land use on Our Clients' Land. Our Client intends to develop its existing plant nursery in accordance with its development approval.

Noted.

Discussed in the Land Use section of this report.

A plant nursery is not a sensitive land use. See Schedule 1 Part C of the Environmental Protection (Noise) Regulations 1997.


OCM148.3/08/16


INTERFERENCE WITH OUR CLIENTS' LAND USE

28. In considering the surrounding area likely to be affected by the Development (see page 16 of the Application), the Applicant did not consider the ownership and use of Our Clients ' Land.

29. Our Clients have approval to use their land for to extend the existing Plant Nursery on Our Clients ' Land. This involves building and excavation works in close proximity to the Telecommunications Infrastructure.

30. The Development intersects a portion of Our Clients' Land and proposes to run underground power below a portion of Our Clients' Land (see clause 5.1.4 on page 21 of the Application).

The landowner was consulted by the Shire in accordance with Town Planning Scheme No.2.

Noted.

The original plan indicated underground power passing through the adjoining Lot 99 South Western Highway, however this power connection has been re-routed to be outside of all privately owned land, with the exception of Lot 47 Shanley Road.


OCM148.3/08/16


31. The Site is located only 260 metres from Our Clients' residential dwelling (see clause 5.2 on page 22 of the Application), and the compound fencing of the Site is only 18 metres from the southernmost part of Our Clients' Land (see page 18 of the Application).

32. The proposed Development is likely to affect Our Clients' ability to perform extension work on its existing Plant Nursery, in accordance with their existing development approval.

33. The Development unreasonably and unjustifiably deprives Our Clients of the ability to use and enjoy their land. The position at law is clear that there should be no unreasonable interference with a person's proprietary right.

34. We consider the adverse interference of the Development would outweigh the benefit to telecommunications in the locality.

Noted.

The proposed development does not propose works within the adjoining lots, nor does it propose land use restrictions or buffers over adjoining properties.

The proposed development does not interfere with the adjoining property. It is not a matter for submissions to determine matters of law - that is the responsibility of the Western Australian Justice System.

Discussed in the Development Form section of the Council Report.

No action required. No action required. No action required. No action required.

OCM148.3/08/16


Further, there are various alternate sites in the locality that would provide the same wireless coverage with less impact on existing developments and land use.

AVAILABILITY OF ALTERNATE SITES

35. The proposed Site is not a suitable location for the Telecommunications Infrastructure due to the impact it would have on Our Clients' use and enjoyment of their land. 36. Alternate candidate sites have been identified for comparison in the Application (see page 12 - 13 of the Application).

37. Although the availability of other sites is not in itself determinative, it is a relevant factor when considered in the context of other elements. As noted by Member Jordan in Telstra Corporation Limited and City of Mandurah [2013] WASAT 135, the availability of other sites, together with other factors "might well determine whether a proposed tower is either allowed or refused" at [ 46].

38. Member Jordan further stated that:

"The starling point must be whether, on balance, the site that was the subject of the application for the telecommunications tower is

Discussed in the Development Form section of the Council Report. Discussed in the Local Planning Policy No.3 section of the Council Report. The example case does not have a consistent factual ratio to be relevant to the proposed development. This is demonstrated by the case referring to a telecommunications facility on land


OCM148.3/08/16


acceptable. In making that determination, the existence of potential other sites simply lessens the weight to be afforded any argument that a refusal of the proposed tower would deprive this locality of the needed additional ·wireless capacity" at [4 7].

39. We consider if the Application is capable of approval, it should be relocated to an area that does not cause significant impacts on existing developments and residences.

immediately abutting land zoned Urban Development and 150m from land zoned Residential. This is substantially different to the subject application. The applicant has referred to Telstra Corporation and City of Wanneroo [2011] WASAT 77 “The Tribunal considers that whether there might be other sites available is not determinative of this matter. While another site might be found, the essence of the matter before the Tribunal is whether the visual impact of the proposed facility on the site would be such that the development should be refused, notwithstanding the benefits it would bring to telecommunications in Tapping and Ashby.” at [72]. Officers consider the proposed development to be consistent with State Planning Policy No. 5.2 as demonstrated in the Land Use section of the Council Report.

No action required.

OCM148.3/08/16


INADEQUATE ACCESS POINTS

40. The Applicant is proposing to access the Site using trucks, through a narrow cleared existing road. The road is an unmade and heavily vegetated road reserve.

41. It is unclear from the map provided in the Application where the existing gravel access road is located (see Figure 8 on page 20 of the Application).

42. The proposed vehicle access point may impact Bush Forever protected area described as Site 71 (Transit Road Bushland). The vegetation has been identified as the Floristic Community Type 3b Corymbia calophylla - Eucalyptus marginata woodlands on sandy clay soils (Vulnerable ranked Threatened Ecological Community). This Bush

The applicant has identified that tree limbs requiring lopping, no vegetation will be removed. The existing track is of a standard that will accommodate a small number of movements by commercial vehicles and ongoing infrequent use upon commissioning. The access is clearly identified on the site plan submitted to the Shire. Bush Forever Site No.71 is located within Lot 99 South Western Highway Mardella and does not extend into the adjoining unmade road reserve.

Condition of planning approval restricting tree pruning to limbs which need to be removed to allow construction vehicle access. No action required. No action required.

OCM148.3/08/16


Forever vegetation also occurs in the adjacent road reserve. 43. Clause 5. 1.1 (ii)(c) of the State Planning Policy 5.2 Telecommunications Infrastructure ('SPP 5.2') provides that Telecommunications Infrastructure should not be located on sites where environmental, cultural heritage, social

and visual landscape values may be compromised.

44. There is a potential risk that the Development may impact a Bush Forever protected area that is in directly adjacent to the Site.

Discussed in the Development Form section of the Council Report. The proposed development is located outside Bush Forever Site No.71.


OCM148.3/08/16


CONSTRUCTION AND NOISE IMPLICATIONS

45. In addition, the Applicant has failed to properly consider the impact of noise and vibration emissions on local residents.

46. Our Clients have a residential dwelling in close proximity to the Site, and are likely to be effected by noise generated during the construction of the proposed facility.

47. Construction works are proposed to occur as early as 7:00am and continue to 6:00pm (see clause 5.1.5 on page 22 of the Application). Our Clients' residential dwelling is located only 260 metres from the proposed

The build program is limited to 10 weeks and will occur within assigned hours and noise limits specified by the Environmental Protection (Noise) Regulations 1997. Notwithstanding the requirement to comply with the Environmental Protection (Noise) Regulations 1997, this dwelling is located 260m from the nbn compound. Construction noise travelling over this separation distance is further mitigated by substantial commercial buildings and structures, dense mature vegetation, and background noise from the South Western Highway located less than 100m from the dwelling. Noted. See above.


OCM148.3/08/16


Site (see clause 5.2 on page 22 of the Application).

48. The Applicant has not provided any noise assessment report outlining the noise likely to be emitted from the facility. Accordingly, the Applicant has not proposed any mechanism for monitoring and/or reducing noise.

49. The Application states that the access road will provide 24 hour access to the network facility, and use of the road is anticipated to continue for a 10 week period (see page 20 of the Application).

50. The Development will involve the use of a truck and a crane to construct the Telecommunications Facility (see page 20 of the Application).

Section 5.1.5 of the Submission addresses noise during construction and for the operation of the facility. Noise emissions during operation are akin to a domestic cooling unit, which the applicant has advised will be required to operate in accordance with regulatory requirements. Noted. Noted.


OCM148.3/08/16


51. If the Development is approved, Our Clients may be impacted from maintenance works that are likely to be required on the Telecommunications Facility if it is developed and operated (see page 21 of the Application).

52. The Application does not sufficiently consider the extent of adverse traffic implications on residents such as Our Clients, including potential road closure, and ongoing maintenance of the facility.

Maintenance activities are proposed to be infrequent. Noise will be required to comply with Environmental Protection (Noise) Regulations 1997 which is outside the scope of this application. Access for maintenance purposes is anticipated to occur between 2-6 times per annum off a major highway located less than 100m from the residence in question. There is no requirement for any road closure or other disruption to the South Western Highway. Vehicles are able to exit the nbn compound in forward gear at a location with adequate sight lines. Officers consider the traffic movements to be minor and unlikely to affect adjoining property owners.


OCM148.3/08/16


INADEQUATE SCREENING FROM OUR CLIENTS' RESIDENCE

53. The Application incorrectly reasons that the facility is positioned behind "substantial strands of mature vegetation located within the highway road reserve" (see page 31 of the Application).

54. Notably, clause 5.1.2 on page 19 of the Application states that: "the facility will be screened from public view by existing mature vegetation and is not located on a ridgeline or is otherwise elevated above the surrounding land".

55. The Development is not sufficiently screened from our Clients' Land, nor has the Applicant proposed any methods of screening the Development from public view.

The location of the development is behind existing vegetation. Noted. The State Planning Policy Framework does not require the facility to be invisible. “The planning framework does not require the tower to be invisible.” Telstra Corporation v Shire of Waroona [2012] WASAT 179. Indeed, height is an integral part of the successful functioning of fixed-wireless technology. The site takes advantage of existing screening and will not unreasonably impact on a locally or regionally significant view. It is not reasonable to screen a 50 metre tall lattice tower.


OCM148.3/08/16


56. Our Clients' Land is directly adjacent to the Development. The Applicant has not proposed any landscaping to screen the Development from Our Clients' residential dwelling (see clause 5.1.2 on page 19 of the Application).

INSUFFICIENT NOTICE TO AFFECTED LANDOWNERS

57. Our Clients' Land is the nearest residence to the Development and is most likely to be affected by the proposed Telecommunications Infrastructure, being only 260m southeast of the Development (see page 31 of the Application).

58. Our Clients' Land is directly affected by the proposed Development. Notwithstanding this, the Shire did not provide Our Clients with any notice of the Development until 10 June 2016.

Officers consider the existing vegetation to be a sufficient screen. Additional landscaping in the area may be detrimental to the biodiversity of the nearby Bush Forever Site No.71. Noted. The proposed development was advertised to adjoining landowners in accordance with Town Planning Scheme No.2, as detailed in the Introduction and Consultation sections of the Council Report.


OCM148.3/08/16


ADVERSE HEALTH IMPACTS

59. In addition, the Application does not adequately consider the importance of protecting human health against electromagnetic emissions.

60. Under cl 67 of Sch 2 of the Planning and Development (Local Planning Scheme) Regulations 2015 (WA) ('2015 Regulations'), a mandatory consideration is "the suitability of the land for the development taking into account the possible risk to human health or safety". 1

61. There is a potential risk that the proposed Development may emit electromagnetic radiation. It is uncertain whether the proposed Telecommunications Infrastructure presents any short-term or long-term

In accordance with the ARPANSA (Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Agency) EME Report of the predicted maximum EME output levels from the facility levels are approximately 0.046%, less than the 1% maximum level specified under the relevant mandatory Australian safety standards. The proposed development complies with the current ARPANSA standards. Noted.


OCM148.3/08/16


radiation risk to nearby residents, such as Our Clients.

62. Electric and magnetic fields exist wherever electricity is generated, transmitted, or distributed in power lines or cables, such as the proposed Development.

63. Our Clients have a number of employees and contractors working on their land in close proximity to the proposed Development. Additionally, Our Clients have a residential dwelling near the Site.

64. Although the risk of harm to health has not been conclusively determined, the Shire ought to adopt a precautionary approach to considering the Application. In particular, where a development includes threats of harm to the environment or human health, precautionary measures should be taken before approving such a development.

65. No assurance has been made to Our Clients that the Development will not cause any health implications.

Noted. Noted. The suggestion of a precautionary approach is noted. The State Administrative Tribunal (SAT) has ruled that it is disingenuous to demand a guarantee of no adverse health impact when all the currently available expert material in this field suggests that the issue simply does not arise on the basis of present knowledge and research.

No action required. No action required. No action required. No action required.

OCM148.3/08/16


CONCLUSION

66. For the reasons outlined in these Submissions, Our Clients object to the proposed Development of the Telecommunications Infrastructure.

67. Our Clients are of the view that the Shire should not approve the Applicationin its current form on the basis that:

(1) The Development directly interferes with Our Clients' right to use and enjoy their land in accordance with a development approval; (2) The Application incorrectly treats the whole of Our Clients' Land as being a Bush Forever protected area. It does not properly consider the effect of the Development on Our Clients' Plant Nursery, and residential dwelling.

(3) The Application does not identify appropriate vehicle access;

(4) The Applicant has failed to provide any noise assessment report;

(5) The Development is not appropriately screened from Our Clients' residence that is located in close proximity to the Site;

(6) The Development may present adverse health risks to residents in the

The summary of concerns is noted, as responded to earlier in this schedule.

No action required.

OCM148.3/08/16


locality, including Our Clients. The Shire is not in a position to adequately assess any potential risks; and

(7) Our Clients are directly affected by the proposed Development, and did not receive notice of the Application until June 2016.

Visual and Amenity Impact

NATURE OF CONCERN

APPLICANT RESPONSE

The proposal will have an undue visual impact on the immediate locality and should be screened

We contend that the visual impact does not outweigh the public benefit of providing fast, reliable and affordable broadband services to the local community. Additionally we contend ground level infrastructure is adequately screened and the development will not impact on locally or regionally significant views.

The NBN should consider alternative sites.

We contend that the location and siting is consistent with the State Planning Policy Framework.

OCM148.3/08/16


Property Access

NATURE OF CONCERN

APPLICANT RESPONSE

The Application does not identify appropriate vehicle access points to access the Site.

The proposed vehicle access point may impact Bush Forever protected area described as Site 71 (Transit Road Bushland). The vegetation has been identified as the Floristic Community Type 3b Corymbia calophylla - Eucalyptus marginata woodlands on sandy clay soils (Vulnerable ranked Threatened Ecological Community). This Bush Forever vegetation also occurs in the adjacent road reserve.

Independent 24-hour access to the proposed nbn compound is identified on the site plan submitted as ‘existing gravel access track via unmade road reserve’. We understand that the bush forever reservation BF71 is wholly contained within Lot 99 and not any road reservation through which access is sought. This assessment is based on GIS mapping and Table 3 in the Bush Forever Site Implementation Recommendations (p. 57) that states the land has both a LPS and MRS zoning of ‘Rural’.

OCM148.3/08/16


Health Risks

NATURE OF CONCERN

APPLICANT RESPONSE

Radiofrequency exposure may cause health issues to human residing and working within close proximity to the proposal including people with pacemakers.

We recommend that the Shire direct the submitter to make further inquiries with the manufacturer of the device in relation to the potential for interference. Given the prevalence of mobile and fixed wireless base stations (and other transmitters) in the Australian environment and worldwide, the potential for interference would be well documented. We note that there is a difference between the relative exposures from devices in immediate proximity to a medical device versus the exposure from a radio transmitter in the broader environment. According to a search of the Radio Frequency National Site archive (www.rfnsa.com.au), we note that there are more than 50 mobile network base stations in Australia located within the grounds or on the rooftop of a hospital (or within very close proximity of a hospital). We draw this to the Shire’s attention because this is a strong indicator of the ease with which these facilities are accepted as not impacting upon medical devices. Mobile network base stations use the same broad technology as an NBN Fixed Wireless Facility (LTE, 4th Generation). Our EME Environmental Report shows that the levels of RF EME emitted from the proposed facility are 0.046% of the maximum allowable limits. This equates to approx. 2173 times below the allowable limit. We note that this is a very low level of RF EME. Back in the mid-1990’s as mobile technology was emerging, a study by the UK Medical Devices Agency found no significant levels of interference to medical devices from mobile phone base stations. (MDA Device Bulletin DB9702:

OCM148.3/08/16

http://www.rfnsa.com.au/


Electromagnetic compatibility of Medical Devices with Mobile Communications, 1997). We encourage the submitter to contact the Australian Communications and Media Authority on 02 6219 5555, for information relating to regulation of the radio spectrum in Australia and your device.

Noise Impacts

NATURE OF CONCERN

APPLICANT RESPONSE

The Applicant has fail led to provide any noise assessment report in relation to the construction and operation of the proposed Telecommunications Infrastructure.

Section 5.1.5 of the Submission addresses noise during construction and for the operation of the facility. Noise emissions during operation are akin to a domestic cooling unit and will be within DER Guidelines. We additionally submit that there are no nearby sensitive noise receptors to warrant such a report given the nature of the development.

Development Across Boundaries

NATURE OF CONCERN

APPLICANT RESPONSE

OCM148.3/08/16


A portion of the Subject Land affected by the Development is owned and enjoyed by Our Clients.

The nbn development is wholly contained within lot 47 on Deposited Plan 55712 for which a current copy of title has been provided with the owner identified as Paul Gangemi. Access to the proposed nbn facility is via an unmade road reserve (State of Western Australia we would understand vested to the Shire) and onto the South Western Highway Road Reservation (State of Western Australia we would understand vested to Main Roads). The proposed development or access or egress from it does not encroach into lot 99.

Future Development on Nearby Lots

NATURE OF CONCERN

APPLICANT RESPONSE

The proposed Development does not account for Our Clients' interest on the Site and their existing and likely future land use

Disagree, an assessment of the current planning controls including the Rural Strategy Review 2013 is addressed in the Development Application.

OCM148.3/08/16

ocm148.3/08/16 summary of submissions shanley road, … · 2020-03-09 · shanley road, mardella...

Documents