Masts threaten heritage

(via Times Newspapers Online)
Thursday, 07 May 2009
By JACKIE RUSSELL ? Howick and Pakuranga Times

NOT HERE: Geraldine Kasper talks to workers about cellphone towers at Page Point. Times photo Wayne Martin.

ASSURANCES from city councillors may do little to prevent telecommunication equipment being put into a heritage area.
Angry resident Geraldine Kasper contacted the Times when a cherry picker vehicle turned up at Page Point, Mellons Bay.
Workers told her they were testing for transmission signals and investigating options two houses away from her home, where neighbours have put up a sign protesting against cellphone towers.
?We’ve had a lot of communication from NZ Communications and we’ve been fighting this,? says Mrs Kasper.
?We’ve been to the mayor. We have been to the community board and we saw Brett O’Shaughnessy [Manukay City Council’s team leader resource consents] when they had to get resource consent last year.?
The community has been advised a Vodafone tower may also be installed on the corner of Page Point and
leakhouse Road, less than 100m from where NZ Communications has been testing.
?We went to a meeting at Bucklands Beach Yacht Club and Brett O’Shaughnessy said you’re not going to have a
ole in Page Point,? says Mrs Kasper. ?We thought that meant they [NZ Communications] had withdrawn interest

nd now they are all back on the scene.?
Mr O’Shaughnessy’s comment was made at a meeting of the Half Moon Bay Residents Association, attended by

the Times, at which he said NZ Communications had abandoned the Page Point site and was no longer interested
in it.
A spokeswoman for NZ Communications confirms the company put up a temporary installation in Page Point last

week.
The installation was used for testing only and has since been removed. ?We are also not intending to proceed with any site installation at Page Point at present, as we are working through other possible locations with Manukau City Council,? says the spokeswoman.
Mrs Kasper says three sets of telecommunication workers visited Page Point in a week.
?I know they scoff and say there are no health issues, but I’m still not happy living between two towers with all of the emissions,? she says. ?They don’t know long term, do they??
Page Point is in the Howick Heritage 7 area and is protected to preserve its character.


Howick city councillor Sharon Stewart says the Page Point site is unsuitable for a telecommunication mast because it’s in the heritage 7 protection zone and also interferes with sea views and landscape.




?At the public meeting held at the Bucklands Beach Yacht Club, the Kaspers were assured the application had been withdrawn,? says Mrs Stewart.
?This will be a good test case to determine if Manukau City’s interpretation of the act is correct.
?I believe resource consent is necessary for cases like this.?
The issue is being discussed further by the council, which is getting a legal opinion on Page Point’s heri-tage status.



National environmental standards introduced in October 2008 allow masts and service cabinets to be installed on public roadsides without applying to councils for resource consent.
But free-standing structures ? that are placed outside roads or adjacent to landscape and heritage areas which the community wants protected ? do require consent, as do cellphone towers.
Mrs Kasper uses a mobile phone and has good reception in Page Point, but believes cellphone users across the Mellons Bay valley suffer poor reception.

? What do you think about the invasion of cellphone masts? Email your letters to editor@times.co.nz and please include your address and daytime contact information.

It’s time to talk about invasion of the masts

Thursday, 07 May 2009
By MARIANNE KELLY ? Howick and Pakuranga Times

PUBLIC remonstrations about phone equipment being installed in residential streets have prompted an about-turn by Manukau City councillors.

Times photo Wayne Martin

To date, little public consultation has taken place because new legislation requires the council to make street-side reserve land available to telecommunications companies under licence.





The lack of consultation has upset affected residents who fear for the structures’ impact on their property values and the perceived impact the technology may have on their families’ health.



Now the council’s policy and activities committee has recommended the council defer an application to add eight sites to NZ Communications’ network site licence.



Council officers and NZ Communications will now be asked to identify alternative sites in consultation with affected property owners.



The committee wants the council to review the policy on telecommunications masts (antennae) and cabinets, which do not require resource consent, to see whether they should be allowed to be installed adjacent to parks and reserves.



The council’s parks department is opposed to the structures being installed in the parks and reserves because of the ?cluttered? effect they would have on the landscape.



The committee has also recommended that the council asks the telecos to adopt



?a good neighbour policy? by informing and consulting with the communities where they intend to locate cellphone towers. More substantial towers require resource consents under the law.



Vodafone’s plans to install a mobile telephone antenna and a service cabinet in Lansell Drive, Dannemora, have been the subject of fierce objections among residents since last December.



They are upset at the potential impact the structures will have on the value of their houses and the health implications for their families.



Now residents in Elimar Drive, Farm Cove, are up in arms about a NZ Communications antenna and service cabinet which appeared in their street after they were notified by letter of its construction only the night before.



?No one was given an opportunity to do anything about it,? Nigel Edwards, a spokesman for residents, told a Half Moon Bay Residents Association meeting.



?We are told the council won’t allow the equipment to be installed in parks and reserves. Is that because of potential lawsuits against the council? It just stinks.?



WHERE THE SITES ARE

EIGHT additional network sites have been applied for by NZ Communications.

Manukau City Council is expected to defer applications until after consultation with the residents. The sites are:

• Botany Downs: outside 104 Botany Road.
• Chapel Downs: outside 104B Boundary Road.
• Cockle Bay: corner Lastel and Sandspit Roads.
• Flat Bush: outside 6 Belinda Avenue.
• Half Moon Bay: corner of Himalaya and Prince Regent Drives.
• Howick North: outside 16 Ridge Road.
• Manurewa: outside 143D Alfriston Road, Randwick Park.
• Point View: outside 2 Santa Ana Drive.

– Source: Manukau City Council

Concerns over emissions
Thursday, 07 May 2009


Howick and Pakuranga Times

CHILDREN’S health is a key issue for parents living near phone masts.

Aviemore Drive, Highland Park

They are concerned about telecommunications equipment constantly transmitting possibly harmful radio-frequency emissions, even if they are low-powered.



Green MP Sue Kedgley last year supported residents in Lansell Drive, Dannemora, who were opposed to a mast being installed in their street.



She said electro-magnetic frequencies were increasingly recognised as a potential trigger for cancers such as childhood leukaemia.



The new telecommunications regulations use the existing standard for radiofrequency fields and draw on existing Ministry of Health (MoH) and Ministry for the Environment (MfE) guidance for radiofrequency fields.



Typical maximum readings around low-powered roadside sites are below one per cent of the standard, a spokesman for Vodafone says.



The MfE says the World Health Organisation updated its research in 2006, concluding: ?Considering the low exposure levels and research results collected to date, there is no convincing scientific evidence the weak RF signals from base stations and wireless networks cause adverse health effects.?



The standards will be reviewed by the National Radiation Laboratory if new research showing any effects on health comes to light.



The results of independent monitoring of Vodafone’s sites are published on the MoH’s National Radiation Laboratory website at www.nrl.moh.govt.nz.



Information on the scientific studies on cellphone sites and health can be found on the World Health Organisation’s website at www.who.int.
 

Retired engage in cell tower battle | Stuff.co.nz





The installation of three cellphone towers on the roof of a west Auckland retirement village has angered a number of the residents who say they weren’t notified.
The Telecom towers were erected about two months ago on the roofs of Metlifecare Pinesong on Green Bay’s Avonleigh Rd.


Metlifecare chief executive Richard de Haast admits his organisation should have consulted with its clients.




We started discussions with Telecom at the start of 2008, he says.
At that point we should have advised the residents and that’s where we’ve made a mistake.
I don’t know why it didn’t happen.
But Telecom has assured us the towers meet New Zealand safety standards.

An angry resident, who wishes to remain anonymous, says they only found out about the towers after they had been installed.
"They’ve gone behind everyone’s backs to put these things up," he says. "And now we’ve heard they are going to put up another three.
"We’ve written to the management. They’ve really upset a lot of people here."

Green MP Sue Kedgley says it’s a shocking example of two corporates trying to ride rough-shod over the concerns of locals.
"I’m absolutely horrified," she says.
"Given the uncertainties around cellphone towers and their long-term health effects it’s shocking."
The towers were installed by Telecom subsidiary Chorus and spokeswoman Melanie Marshall says it was a non-notified consent.


"We do have resource consent for six on that site."
But Ms Marshall says there are no current plans to build the other three.

Telecom will meet with the tenants in the next fortnight to answer questions.

Council calls off cellphone tower plans | Stuff.co.nz
By MATT BOWEN - Eastern Courier

Go away, find alternative sites and consult with affected property owners.



That was the reaction from Manukau city councillors at this month’s policy and activities committee meeting to eight proposed sites for telecommunication equipment.



Howick councillor Sharon Stewart has been campaigning for the masts and cabinets to be sited where residential properties are least affected.



"We all want broadband but surely we can find some better places to put them," she says.



NZ Communications wanted to put equipment outside 6 Belinda Ave and 104 Botany Rd, on the corner of Lastel and Sandspit roads, at 16 Ridge Rd and on the corner of Himalaya and Prince Regent drives.



No consultation with the public was carried out because the decision was "not of significant significance".



"The main issue for me is that people don’t want them right outside their property," Mrs Stewart says.



She says there could also be health impacts but it’s yet to be proven.



Fellow Howick councillor Jami-Lee Ross says the company is looking for sites that suit it best and more often than not they’re right outside residential properties.



"We believe there are better sites nearby to those proposed that wouldn’t affect as many people."



It’s the first time the council has refused such requests, he says.



"It’s a step that should have been taken a long time ago. We should be honest with ourselves. We haven’t served property owners as well as we could have."



Mr Ross says they should be favouring sites on either businesses or park land owned by the council over those right outside residential property.



If a site 100 metres away wouldn’t affect residents there’s no reason to put masts or cabinets outside someone’s home, Mr Ross says.



"It does affect property values and people don’t like having the big cellphone tower outside."



Manukau City Council and NZ Communications Ltd entered into a network site licence on July 1 last year.



It provides for additional sites to be added upon request from NZ Communications.



Approval is for landowners’ consent only and if
telecommunication equipment is a permitted activity under the national environmental standards no resource consent is required.



A date to reassess the proposal hasn’t been finalised.