U-turn on mast by school

Thursday, 25 June 2009
By AMANDA KING Howick and Pakuranga Times

















A SCHOOL under threat of sharing its boundary with a telecommunications antenna and service box is breathing a sigh of relief after a new site was confirmed.
Cockle Bay Primary School launched a full-scale petition last week after being told new telco 2degrees was planning to install a cellphone mast just metres away from classrooms.
Due to the negative reaction to the proposal, Manukau City Council and 2degrees decided to relocate the site across the road at the entrance to Paparoa Park, opposite the Litten Road shops.

Councillor Jami-Lee Ross has worked with 2degrees in assigning the most appropriate locations in the area and says within a week of hearing negative feedback from the school, he took action to have the site revised.

?This just goes to show this is what consultation is all about,? Mr Ross told the Times. ?We took on-board the negative reactions from the school and acted.?



Earlier in the week, Mr Ross and councillor Dick Quax were criticised for showing poor judgement in choosing the school boundary as a possible site.

Principal Graeme Lomas was in disbelief when he saw draft plans.

?I can?t believe two councillors would have helped to choose such an inappropriate site. They should have pre-empted no one would be happy with this outcome.

?People don?t want them close to houses but it raises questions about the value of one household with more than 700 students.?

But Mr Lomas was delighted when the Times contacted him yesterday to say a new location had been identified.

?I hope this gesture of goodwill will satisfy our parents, who obviously have strong views on such sites being located on school boundaries,? he says.

In two days, the school received more than 200 responses from parents, grandparents and students opposing the mast, mainly on health grounds.

Following concerns from Manukau residents in April, eight initial sites for the cellphone masts were revised to be further away from residential properties.

Mr Ross says the new site at the entrance to Paparoa Park is suitable because it?s designated as a road reserve ? towers cannot be placed on park reserve unless it is absolutely necessary.

His priority is for antennae to be as far away from residential areas as possible.

?I was happy it was going to be moved away from residents? properties,? says Mr Ross. ?I suppose we did not give enough thought to the school, and whether or not there would be concerns from the school.

?The company responded to those concerns and that?s a good thing.?

The consultation period for the new sites is open until this Friday for residents and schools to have their say.

Cellphone site desires await clarification

By TRACY NEAL - The Nelson Mail

Vodafone has renewed interest in a new cellphone site in north Nelson it earmarked five years ago, to expand its new mobile broadband technology.

The company has applied to the city council as landowner, to seek resource consent to set up a new telecommunications site at the seaward end of Boulder Bank Drive, near the waste-water treatment plant.

It wants to provide the new-era 3G technology coverage to Atawhai, and is seeking an eight-metre by four-metre footprint area on which to establish a mast, on which panel and dish antennae would be attached. Three associated equipment cabinets are planned for the site.

Vodafone also plans to build a new site in Stoke, near the junction of Bail St and Songer St on Main Rd Stoke, city councillors heard at a recent meeting. The company applied to the council to establish a new cellphone site at the location in 2004, when the council agreed to the idea, subject to Vodafone gaining resource consent and agreeing to various conditions.

A similar recommendation from a recent infrastructure committee meeting was turned down. Council staff were asked to produce a "more holistic" approach to the supply of telecommunications transmitters. This was partly driven by the lack of resolution over Telecom's desire for a cellphone tower in Atawhai for Dodson Valley.

Strong public opposition last year to Telecom's controversial cellphone tower proposal for Atawhai was partly the reason it put on hold its plans to build new cellphone towers in Nelson until at least this year.

Cr Rachel Reese, at a recent infrastructure committee meeting, said the council ought to wait until each telecommunications company identified specific technical needs and sites before agreeing to land use.

Cr Ali Boswijk said the council needed to show that it wanted firms to be able to do business in Nelson, but in a way that did not undermine communities, particularly with the concerns expressed by the public over cellphone towers.

The council's business assets adviser, Ian Morrison, said the council needed to "facilitate co-operation rather than competition".

He later told The Nelson Mail that the two companies shared a code which allowed them to share sites around the country.

Telecom spokesman Ian Bonnar said yesterday that the company was in the early stages of investigating a couple of alternative sites on council land in Atawhai. Telecom was now seeking permission from the council to present these options to the Atawhai community.

"There is a long way to go before any decisions are made, but we remain hopeful of reaching a solution that meets everyone's needs," Mr Bonnar said.

The council will discuss the recommendation around Vodafone's request at a full council meeting on Thursday.

Concerns over emissions

Thursday, 07 May 2009 Howick and Pakuranga Times

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

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.

Cell company gets poor reception

By MATT BOWEN - Eastern Courier Last updated 05:00 20/05/2009



It just seems to be all wrong to me." Howick resident Geoff Rean is talking about NZ Communications' repeated attempts to have telecommunications equipment located outside his house.
He only learned of its intentions after seeing his rental property address listed in an Eastern Courier story.
"Why do I have to have this damn thing stuck outside my fence?
"Admittedly that?s council ground and if the council gave approval I don?t know what I?d do about it," he says.
"I?d be stuck with a four-metre-long cabinet outside the front fence and a cellphone tower that I don?t particularly want and the neighbours in the street also don?t want."
Mr Rean thinks they should be placed across the road in or around Stockade Hill where they won?t affect anyone?s property value.

Manukau city councillors agree.
Last month NZ Communications sought permission to put telecommunications equipment at eight sites including 16 Ridge Rd, 6 Belinda Ave and 104 Botany Rd, on the corner of Lastel and Sandspit roads, and on the corner of Himalaya and Prince Regent drives.
No public consultation was carried out.
The company was told to find alternative sites and consult affected property owners.
But they arrived at last week?s policy and activities committee meeting with no changes.
The company says it is unable to use alternate sites for various reasons.
Councillors again refused the request, telling council officers and NZ Communication to give meaningful consideration to alternative sites with less impact on residential properties, such as outside parks or commercial properties.
One of the proposed sites is 10 metres from Shelly Park resident Derek Richardson?s living room and the bedrooms of his three young children.
His concerns are the possible health effects of radio frequency fields on his children, lowering his property value and the intrusive nature of the equipment.
"The thing is right outside my window. It?s in my face. It?s in my kids? face. And obviously I don?t like that," he says.

Howick councillor Sharon Stewart says NZ Communications consultation was also poor.
"Letters should have been sent to the property owner, not the resident," she says.
"People who rent, move on. The letters should be addressed to the ratepayer."
And the company?s invitation to residents to discuss their concerns at a cafe isn?t very professional, she says.

Fellow Howick councillor Jami-Lee Ross is unimpressed with the latest request.
"The report was quite a brush-off from NZ Communications and, unfortunately, our own officers."
It?s highly unusual for report-backs in only a few weeks, Mr Ross says.
"That tells me there wasn?t a lot of consideration given to alternative sites.
"In fact, the reasons they gave for not entertaining the alternative sites we suggested were quite weak."

Mayor on mast mission

By ROMY UDANGA - Manukau Courier
Last updated 05:00 23/05/2009

The siting of cellphone towers is an issue of national significance that?s "coming to a head", says Manukau mayor Len Brown.

He wants the government to change the law so the council can have more say on where the towers go.

The Manukau City Council this week again withheld its approval for eight new cellphone sites in the city. Instead it ordered NZ Communications, which wants the sites, and council officers to find sites with less impact on homes.

The council will also hold urgent talks with Communications and Information Technology Minister Steven Joyce about the rollout of telecommunication and cellphone towers in the city, as well as "the delineation of authority" between central and local government.

The council has no policy on cellphone masts and cabinets. They?re governed by regulations set out in the national environmental standards for telecommunication facilities.

Under the regulations, installing a cellphone tower is "a permitted activity" that doesn?t need resource consent if the equipment meets specified limits for cabinet size, location and noise; mast and antenna height and size; and maximum exposure levels of radio frequency fields.

Installations that don?t meet those criteria require resource consent.

"Ultimately we have to realise that unless we change that law, we have little power to stop permitted activities," Mr Brown says.

"We are stuck in a very difficult situation, especially if the community doesn?t like the masts and cabinets.

"There should be serious discussions with the ministry on how to move forward."

The council granted NZ Communications the right to install and operate telecommunication equipment on various sites in the city past year but the company?s request for eight more was deferred when it was considered by the policy and activities committee in April and again earlier this month.

In the meantime the council has asked NZ Communications and other telecommunications companies to adopt a "good neighbour policy" by informing and consulting with the communities in which they intend to site cellphone towers.

The council is expected to look at the matter again next month.

Row brews as approval of masts delayed

By MARIANNE KELLY
Times on lineMonday, 25 May 2009
Howick and Pakuranga Times

CITY councillors are digging their heels in over teleco 2degrees? rejection of alternative sites for eight new masts and service cabinets.
They have told the company, which used to be called NZ Communications, and council officers to look again for alternative sites.

At its April meeting Manukau City?s policy and activities committee deferred approval to add eight sites to 2degrees? network licence until officers and the company could identify alternatives in consultation with affected property owners.

However, the list of eight sites recently came back to the committee with 2degrees? reasons why the alternatives are unsuitable. The company investigated all street poles in the vicinity, including those by parks and reserves areas.

The committee was unimpressed with the report the company and council staff came back with, says Howick councillor Jami-Lee Ross.

?We told them to give meaningful consideration to alternate sites, particularly adjacent to parks, reserves or commercial properties,? he says.

?We don?t feel the company has engaged in suitable consultation with the residents.

?We?ve been told letters went out to some residents offering to meet at a café in the middle of a working day.

?One person only received their letter the day after we were asked to approve the sites at our meeting.?

Mr Ross takes issue with many of the company?s reasons for turning down the alternative suggestions.

?So far our staff and NZ Comms don?t seem to be getting the message. Until they do come back to us with more information we won?t approve the sites.?

Because new legislation requires the council to make street-side reserve land available to telecommunications companies under licence, there is no obligation on the telcos to consult with the residents who are affected.

The council does not have a policy on masts and cabinets, which are governed by the National Environmental Standards (NES) introduced last October.

If the equipment meets specified limitations for cabinet size, location and noise; mast and antenna height and size; and maximum exposure levels of radio frequency fields, then it is a permitted activity.

Activities not permitted under the rules require resource consent, for example cellphone towers which are more complex structures than the masts which are usually attached to street-light poles.

Criteria for choosing mast and service cabinet sites include the best height position for the radio frequency (RF) signal to be located, in view of topography and nearby obstructions such as trees and buildings.

Commercial areas that fit the RF criteria are sought but where none are available, roadside reserve sites are investigated.

The landowner?s view is considered which, in the case of roadsides, is the local council.

But, because the structures don?t need resource consent, the council is obliged ? under the regulations ? to issue a licence.

Other issues that need to be considered are ground conditions, space, available electrical supply, access, ability to accommodate the service cabinets and potential road or traffic problems.





Read more.

Where they are... and could soon appear

Times on line ,Monday, 08 June 2009
Howick and Pakuranga Times

The following list shows the status of cellphone masts and service cabinets installed or planned for Manukau East by the three telcos.

TELECOM

• Sites operated under licence:

Dannemora, Chapel Road; Flat Bush, corner Murphys and Thomas Roads; Highland Park, outside 224 Bucklands Beach Road.

VODAFONE

• Already built under resource consent:

Botany Downs, adjacent to 8 Leixlep Lane; Eastern Beach street light; Half Moon Bay, at intersection of Mark Edward and Dianne Louise Drives; Half Moon Bay, outside 131 Gills Road; Highland Park, outside 94 Aviemore Drive; Howick, adjacent to 186 Ridge Road; Mellons Bay streetlight; Pakuranga Bridge, corner of 37 Pakuranga Road and Millen Avenue; Pakuranga Heights, outside 244 Pakuranga Road (replaced planned Gossamer Drive site); Point View, outside 2 Kilkenny Drive.

• Resource consent granted but not built:

Flat Bush, outside 290 Murphys Road; Half Moon Bay, corner Broman Place and Himalaya Drive; Shelly Park, outside 8 Pounamu Place (alternative at 117 and 119 Sommerville Road being investigated).

• Licence approved only:

Bucklands Beach, outside 127 Clovelly Road (site not applied for); Dannemora, outside 6 Lansell Drive (awaiting council response to new location); Mellons Bay, corner of Page Point and Colmar Road (design submitted to council); Mellons Bay, outside 5 Paisley Street (site not applied for); Somerville, outside 117 and 119 Somerville Road (design submitted to council); Shelly Park, outside 156 John Gill Road (design submitted to council).

2DEGREES

• Already built under resource consent before the rules changed:

East Tamaki Heights, opposite 557 Chapel Road; Farm Cove, outside 2 Elimar Drive; Somerville, outside 112 Whitford Road; Bucklands Beach, outside 47 Macleans Road.

• Decision pending on whether the site is permitted under the NES:

Mellons Bay outside 5 Page Point.

• Proposed sites but alternatives are being investigated:

Botany Downs, outside 104 Botany Road; Chapel Downs, outside 104B Boundary Road; Cockle Bay, corner Lastel Place and Sandspit Roads; Eastern Beach, outside 204B Clovelly Road; Flat Bush, outside 6 Belinda Avenue; Half Moon Bay, outside 52 Prince Regent Drive; Howick, outside 16 Ridge Road; Point View, outside 2 Santa Ana Drive.

Source: Manukau City Council

Phone mast petition to go to the top

Wednesday, 24 June 2009

Times on line Howick and Botany Times

Councillors have started a community pressure group to take the cellphone masts fight to Parliament. By JO TUAPAWA.

A COMMUNITY-initiated petition against building telecommunications masts and cabinets within 500 metres of education facilities has been launched.
Community Spirit ? Howick, Pakuranga and Botany Ratepayers and Residents is being spearheaded by Sharon Stewart and David Collings.

The councillors have started the petition to voice the community?s concerns about where cellphone antennae and equipment is installed.

Mrs Stewart started the new campaign in earnest by taking the petition to the Highland Park shopping centre on Monday afternoon.

'I only hit the street for a very short time and had more than 60 signatures in less than an hour,' she told the Times.

'So far, every single person I've spoken to is in support of this petition.?



Read more.

PROBLEM SOLVED: From left: Manukau city councillors Jami-Lee Ross and Dick Quax, Howick resident Geoff Rean and 2degrees manager Jason Britten outside Mr Rean’s property, one of the disputed sites.

Cellphone company tries again

Last updated 05:00 17/06/2009

View article...

Eastern residents who’ve been battling mobile phone company 2degrees are welcoming its decision to move eight disputed antenna sites.

The company has identified eight new sites following talks with Manukau city councillors Jami-Lee Ross and Dick Quax after the original locations were twice rejected by the policy and activities committee.

Ridge Rd property owner Geoff Rean has faced two attempts by 2degrees, formerly NZ Communications, to put a four-metre cabinet outside the fence and an antenna on the lampost seven metres from the main bedroom.

The new proposal, which is still subject to council approval next month, is to locate the cellphone equipment at the carpark on the corner of Picton and Wellington streets.

Despite his anger at the process so far, Mr Rean says it’s an "excellent" development.

Other property owners agree.

Previously, Valerie and Derek Richardson faced having a cellphone mast just metres away from their Shelly Park home.

"We’re happy that it’s not going to be directly outside our living areas and our three children’s bedrooms," Mrs Richardson says.

Site acquisition manager Jason Britten says 2degrees has found more suitable sites for all eight disputed locations.

It’s helped that the council has eased restrictions on telecommunications equipment along main roads and outside reserves.

Mr Britten says the company is consulting landowners and others within 50 metres of the eight proposed sites.

"We’ll give them two weeks to respond and offer to meet with them or take questions by phone," he says.

Mr Ross is "very pleased" with the cellphone company’s willingness to negotiate with him and Mr Quax.

"Until we spoke with them none of the elected councillors had gone to them saying: ?Hey, I’d like to work with you and try to come up with a good alternative’."

His preference is to locate cellphone equipment outside commercial property or parks, with residential properties as a last resort.

Mr Ross says although two proposed sites at 145 Clovelly Rd and 25 Pigeon Mountain Rd are still in residential areas, the others have been moved to commercial areas or vacant lots.

The other proposed sites are: 7-9 Picton St, the shops at 1 Litten Rd, 106 Botany Rd, the shops at 739 Chapel Rd, and the petrol station at 136 Dawson Rd.

To send feedback to 2degrees by June 26, phone 0800 718-000 or email community@2degreesmobile. co.nz

View article...

Plan change mooted for telecomms gear Friday, 29 May 2009, 1:11 pm Press Release: Wellington City Council

NEWS RELEASE
29 May 2009



Plan change mooted for telecomms gear



Wellington City Council is reviewing the rules in the District Plan (the city’s rule book for planning) that manage telecommunication structures ? the cell towers, antennae and cabinets that keep mobile phone and broadband connections working.



The Council’s Urban Development Portfolio Leader, Councillor Andy Foster, says the aim of the review is to align the District Plan rules for telecommunication structures with the new national standard introduced by the Government last year.



?The new national standard sets heights and sizes for structures on the road reserve that district plans can’t override. Our District Plan rules cover structures on private land and road reserve where the structures are taller or bigger than the national standard allows. Some of the existing District Plan rules are more generous than the standard and we are looking to make the rules the same, no matter where these structures are.



?There’s been ongoing concern from some communities about the size, location and number of these structures, especially cell towers, in residential areas. We encourage residents to give us their feedback on these proposals before we formally notify any District Plan changes later in the year. We’re also working with telecommunication companies to make sure the revised rules still allow them to maintain and expand the networks.



?We need to find a balance that allows this vital infrastructure to be developed but in a way that reduces the impacts on our residents. One of the challenges is that there is often a trade-off between more and smaller towers, and fewer larger ones to get the same coverage.?



One of the proposed District Plan changes is that all new telecommunication masts in residential areas or open spaces such as parks or sportsfields (called ?open space A’ zones) will be assessed through the resource consent process. Currently the Council has no choice but to grant consent in many instances. The proposed changes would increase the Council’s decision-making powers.



Another proposed change is to clarify the few exceptions where the District Plan is allowed to overrule the national standard. The standard allows District Plan rules to protect listed trees, heritage sites, places recognised by the District Plan as particularly scenic ? such as major ridgelines ? and land on the seaward side of a coastal road.



The National Environmental Standard for Telecommunication Facilities allows telecommunications companies to install their structures on any existing power pole or streetlight on the road reserve or install a replacement structure. The standard also regulates how the companies install antennas and cabinets on the road reserve and the noise effects of cabinets, and ensures antennas meet the New Zealand Standard for Radiofrequency Fields. As such, emissions from antennae are not an issue the District Plan can manage.

Cellphone tower irritations rile residents

Thursday Jun 18, 2009
By Helen Twose

Sleepless nights, dropped mobile calls, flickering lights and Sky TV interference are just some of the problems Pakuranga residents are linking to the arrival of mobile operator 2degrees.
Since 2degrees installed a transmission tower and associated cabinet on Elimar Drive in Pakuranga’s Farm Cove suburb, Mike Davidson, who lives over the road from the site, says he has been kept awake at night by the high-pitched humming of the cabinet.
"It’s an irritation that you can’t get rid of" he said.


Read more.

Sue Kedgley opposes more cell towers

Cell Tower public meeting ? Pakuranga :Speech ? Sue Kedgley



10 June 2009




Every other week I am contacted by communities around New Zealand that have suddenly discovered a cell tower or some other telecommunications equipment (or EMR emitter, as it is known in the trade) is about to be installed next to their homes, their pre-schools or schools, without any prior knowledge or consent.



The Atawhai Playcentre in Nelson discovered by accident one day that a 22metre celltower was about to be built right next to their playcentre and another childcare centre. No one had bothered to tell them. Residents in Titahi Bay Wellington woke up one day to discover that construction had begun on a 12metre cell tower in the middle of a residential area. The same thing happened to Kapiti residents a few weeks ago. It’s been happening in your community, and all around New Zealand, and communities are fighting it neighbourhood by neighbourhood, street by street. Just as you are here today.



A few weeks ago I was contacted by elderly residents who live in a Metlifecare retirement village at Green Bay in Auckland. They discovered that three cell towers had been erected on top of the apartments without their knowledge or consent. Indeed Telecom staff and staff who worked in the village were under strict orders to tell residents that it was air-conditioning units not cell towers, that were being constructed on their roof!



The clandestine erection of cell towers all over New Zealand is a new phenomenon, sparked by two and now three mobile operators scrambling to establish competing telecommunications networks in New Zealand. But it has also been sparked by the progressive liberalising of the laws and regulations around the construction of telecommunications equipment in New Zealand.



In the 90’s, telecommunications companies had to apply for resource consent, and most were publicly notified. I remember being a Commissioner on a hearing for a cell tower to be erected on a church in Ngaio Wellington. The whole community protested, and there were several days of hearings, and Telecom brought what it said was an independent expert witness, Dr David Black, to assure commissioners and the public that cell towers were absolutely and completely safe. I grilled Dr Black about his credentials and he was forced to admit that far from being independent, he worked as a consultant for Vodafone and Telecom most of the time. Despite this, the same Dr David Black has been wheeled out as a so-called independent expert witness in just about every hearing and every dispute about cell towers in New Zealand to assure everyone that cell towers are safe. He is also an influential member on the government’s Inter-Agency committee that monitors whether electromagnetic radiation (EMR) is safe.



Frustrated by the time and expense of these public hearings, telcos lobbied the government to enable them to install telecommunications infrastructure around New Zealand as of right.



The 2001 Telecommunications Act was the first step. It stipulated that if a telecommunications structure is erected on a designated site then telcos don’t have to seek permission for construction ? it is a permitted activity. Telcos then went round making submissions to Councils to get designated land in their district plans. It also allowed telcos to install masts, antennas and cabinets on road reserve land.



Then, to make it even easier to roll out their networks, telcos persuaded the Labour government to pass the so-called National Environmental Standard ? a standard drawn up by the telco industry, rubber stamped by Labour Minister Trevor Mallard -which allows telcos to install their structures (EMR emitters) masts, micro-cellular transmitters for example? on any existing power pole or street light on road reserve (that is on the side verges of roads) as of right ? as a permitted activity, so that they would not need to inform or consult with local communities even if the structure was to be located right outside a person’s home.



The Green party vigorously campaigned against this proposed outrageous standard, and constructed a mini cell tower in Wellington, but we could get little media or public interest in our campaign and so the new standard went through Parliament with the support of National and Labour and came into force last year.



As a result of the new standard, there has been a proliferation of hundreds, possibly thousands, of new masts and microwave micro cellular transmitters all over New Zealand, and more powerful transmitters have been added to the existing 2600 older sites. The new 3G technology requires a more intensive network which requires cell towers every 800 metres, and so cell towers have been constructed all over New Zeaaland for this purpose.



Vodafone has completed its 3G network, and I am told that Telecom has recently switched on its 3G network in Auckland. And of course we have a third operator rolling out hundreds of new emitters around NZ ahead of its launch later this year. It said it needed to build a further 1320 new cell towers in NZ for its new network. And all of these EMR emitters-- even if they are a lamppost ? can emit EMR to be the same high level as the NZ standard.



Then we have yet another technology ? Telstra ? operated by Kordia (a government agency) which has slipped in to NZ without any public discussion and of course overseas there are already new 4G networks being constructed in countries like Japan. Where will it all end?



All of these telecommunications structures are changing the face of our communities, towns and cities and constantly increasing the electromagnetic radiation we are exposed to ? so that most of us, especially in cities, are exposed to a constant cocktail of WIFI networks, cellular networks and power lines. As a result more and more people are becoming electromagnetically sensitive.



Sweden compensates 3% of its population whom it assesses are electromagnetic sensitive.



All of this has been allowed to happen without anyone in NZ assessing what cumulative effect all these increased EMR’s may be having on human health ? particularly on children’s health. Or even measuring what is the cumulative EMR we are being exposed to.



Meantime overseas, especially in Europe, more and more evidence is emerging about the chronic long term health effects of cell phones and EMR. Following the release of a new Bioinitiatives report which confirms that there can be chronic long term effects of exposure to EMR, Europe and many other countries are reviewing their standards to
1. take a much more precautionary approach
2. to put controls on emissions of EMR
3. to provide more protection for communities and individuals



Overseas, one can sense that the tide is turning as more and more evidence of chronic long term effects emerges.
? France is removing cell towers near schools
? Europe is reviewing its standards
? Belgium has just announced moratorium on building any new cell towers until the European standard has been reviewed



Meanwhile, we in NZ are going in the opposite direction ? weakening controls and taking an even more permissive approach.



Our government is refusing to review our 1999 EMR standard which is one of the most permissive in world. This standard is based on the false assumption that EMR can only cause acute effects and not long term chronic effects.



Our government’s approach is to assume that EMR is safe until such time as there conclusive evidence of harm is proven. It is exactly the opposite of a precautionary approach.



Our exposure limits have been set so high in the New Zealand standard that no matter how much additional wireless radiation is added to the national exposure through erection of thousands of new transmitters they will always be ?within the standard?.



So it’s a standard to protect the telco industry, not New Zealanders and our public health and we need to be very clear about that.



Our lax hands off approach is no doubt partly due to the fact that the government appointed committee which oversees EMR ? the Interagency committee on health effects of radiation ? meets in secret and has representatives of telcos and other industry representatives with vested interests on it, but very few community representatives.



I wonder how many of you saw the Sunday programme the other night ? Dr Charles Teo and other doctors stated that there had been a recent, exponential increase in brain tumours which they believed correlated with long term use of cell phones. They were adamant that prolonged use of cell phones can double your risk of getting a brain tumour. One expert who disputed this nevertheless conceded that electromagnetic radiation penetrates in to your head and heats up your brain but then argued that the emissions were so low that it was nevertheless safe.



Their concerns mirror the results of a 17 nation, World Health Organisation inter phone study which was set up to study safety of cell towers. New Zealand is one of the countries included in the study which was supposed to be a huge and conclusive study which would end the debate about whether cell phones were safe. The study was due to release its results in 2004 but they have been stalling for five years because the results apparently also confirm a link between use of cell phones and increased risk of tumours on the side of the head where cell phone use is prolonged.



And this begs the question-- if cell phones which officials have insisted were safe turn out to increase our risk of cancer, what about cell towers, cabinets, WIFI dishes and all the rest?



The fact is that the current New Zealand standard and current guidelines are not designed to be protective of human health. They do not take in to account chronic cumulative exposure ? only short term acute effects. We urgently need to review our national standard and develop a new one based on the precautionary approach, and which protects human health ? not telcos.



So what can you and your community to about it? Exactly what you are doing here tonight. Make as much fuss as possible ? embarrass telcos and remind them that the communities they are riding roughshod over are comprised of their consumers.



It’s my observation that if a community is organised, telcos will step back and start to consult. If it isn’t, they will just go straight ahead and erect their towers and equipment.



In the case of Atawhai and Titahi Bay, which organised major protests, the telcos halted the construction of their towers and have come up with new consultation process, involving the establishment of a working group comprised of representatives of council, consumers and telcos to work out what sites are least harmful and least intrusive to a community.



That’s what needs to happen here. You need to set up a working group to work out where your community would agree to construct cell towers that are least harmful and intrusive to your community.



But we also need to revise our national standard and make it a precautionary one. The Green Party has been campaigning for this for five years and we will continue to do so



I have also been trying to get an inquiry in to our standard ? and the whole issue of people’s right to be consulted on the placement of cell towers and other EMR emitters? so far without success. We must also set up a genuinely independent committee to oversee EMR ? and remove people like Dr Black and others with vested interests from that committee.



As well as updating our radiation exposure standards, we must develop a national database which would enable citizens to identify location of transmitters in their area.



We must also insist on routine compliance testing of every transmitter site in NZ.



And we must reinstate communities right to be notified, to be consulted and to have a say on where EMR emitters are located, and set up working parties comprised of representatives of Councils, the community and telcos, to decide on installation of masts where residential properties are least affected.



Much of the rest of the world has come to recognise that EMR causes or contributes to a range of acute and long term health effects ? including debilitating adverse effects of electromagnetic sensitivity ? and is progressively tightening up controls to better protect communities. New Zealand must do the same.

Phone masts battle cry Monday, 15 June 2009 Howick and Pakuranga Times Green MP Sue Kedgley is urging people to stand up against the telecommunications companies.MARIANNE KELLYwent along to a public meeting attended by more than 200 concerned residents. TAKING ACTION: From left, Nigel Edwards, who chaired the meeting, Green MP Sue Kedgley, Howick councillor Sharon Stewart and Pakuranga councillor David Collings. Times photo Marianne Kelly. EAST Manukau residents ? confronted with a plethora of tele-communications masts and cabinets outside their houses ? have been challenged to take collective action against the companies installing the equipment. People living near proposed telco sites being negotiated with Manukau City Council packed Pakuranga Bowling Club for a meeting organised by Howick councillor Sharon Stewart. Guest speaker, Green MP Sue Kedgley, suggested the residents set up a working group made up of representatives of the community, the telcos and the council. ?Don’t leave it up to council officials,? she told the meeting. ?Try to negotiate some of the situations. ?For example, the Reserves Act says telecommunications equipment cannot be put in parks and reserves unless there is no alternative. We would say there is no alternative because the residents don’t want it.? Both the National and Labour parties should be lobbied, Ms Kedgley said. ?They have gone about this [the telco legislation] holus-bolus. They need to know it is not acceptable here or anywhere else in New Zealand.? Mayor of Manukau, Len Brown, said the council supported the residents’ position and was already trying to rework more appropriate sites. ?As for the need for a working group, you’ve got one here and you need to stick together,? he said. ?We’ll work with you and will take your concerns on board. We will work with the telcos to get better consultation.? Mr Brown said that potential law changes should be tackled through Parliament. ?We need to look at what we can do about reserves. I don’t see why we shouldn’t put the equipment on berms in front of reserves.? Ms Kedgley said she was contacted almost every week by someone about teleco equipment about to be installed by homes and schools. <!--page-->She was critical of the National Environmental Standards (NES), which require councils to make street-side reserve land available to telcos under licence. Masts attached to street-light poles and service cabinets do not require resource consent but more substantial cellphone towers do. Calling the legislation ?environmental standards? was ?outrageous?, said Ms Kedgley. ?The NES enables the environment to be littered. ?The standards were drawn up by the telco industry and rubber-stamped by the Government. This sneaked through Parliament last year.? New Zealanders were exposed to ?a cocktail? of networks constantly increasing levels of electro-magnetic radiation (EMR), she said. ?No one is measuring the cumulative exposure. Overseas, particularly in Europe, more evidence is emerging about the long-term chronic effects of cellphones and EMR. ?Europe has agreed to review its standards and adopt a more precautionary approach. France has started to remove towers near schools.? New Zealand, she said, was moving in the opposite direction with the Government refusing to review a lax 1999 standard, which is one of the most permissive in the world. ?What can we do? Unfortunately we have created a situation where there is not much room to move.? But, she said, when communities made a huge fuss ? ?which is what you are doing? ? eventually the telcos would wake up to the fact affected residents were also their customers. ?I’ve recommended to people that communities make so much fuss that it will be a PR disaster for the companies. They will negotiate and start to consult. ?Communities that are organised will work out the sites with the least intrusive impact.? Parliament, she said, needed to throw out the NES and the committee that oversaw the standards needed to be ?genuinely independent?. ?We need a national data base and should demand routine comprehensive testing. We also need to reinstate the community’s right to be notified and consulted through working groups which consist of the residents, the council and the telcos.? Telco blows out meeting ?2degrees declined to attend the public meeting. The telco said it would have attended if the meeting was chaired by the Mayor of Manukau, if council officers were in attendance to address questions, and if a recognised third-party spokesperson was speaking about telco facilities, public health and safety concerns. ?The meeting was chaired by Elimar Drive resident Nigel Edwards. Mayor Len Brown and resource consents manager Brett O’Shaughnessy represented Manukau City Council, while Green MP Sue Kedgley and Pakuranga councillor David Collings spoke about health and safety issues.

Couple furious over telco lease

4:00AMMonday May 25, 2009
ByAnne Gibson

Mark and Wendy Rolston and the Telecom microwave tower on their Ihakara Hill farm near Shannon. Photo / Mark Mitchell

NZHERALD

A Horowhenua farming couple are outraged that Telecom is paying them a pittance to lease land for a transmission tower.

Wendy and Mark Rolston say instead of the meagre $199.36 a year they are getting, they should be paid around $10,000.

Sites usually net landowners at least $5000 a year, telco experts say.

But the Rolstons’ attempts to negotiate with the company have failed and the couple - who each have Telecom cellphones due to the area’s excellent reception - say they are angry about the situation.

"I wish I could afford an expensive lawyer to fight this for us," Mrs Rolston said.

But Brett Jackson, communications manager at Telecom network arm Chorus, said the facility was a digital microwave radio site transmitting regular phone communications but not a cellphone tower site linking networks.

"It is linked to other sites along the Kapiti Coast but is only used for long distance voice/data traffic. This traffic has diminished with the evolution of technology and is now generally carried via fixed network.

"We’ve been negotiating with the landowner for some time now. We did make an offer of what we considered to be reasonable market value ($3000) and that was turned down so according to the original terms of the lease the $199 rental continues. We are hopeful of reaching an agreement with the landowner and will continue working to that end," he said.

The tower is on a site of just over 500sq m on the couple’s Ihakara hill farm near Shannon. As well as the tower, Telecom owns associated buildings on the site and is allowed access through the farm to its installations.

The farm’s previous owner struck the lease on January 12, 1988 for just $150.

That edged its way up with inflation over the years to a princely $180.11 by late last year and the lease came up for renewal in January this year for a further 21-year term.

Wendy Rolston said the couple had waited almost two decades for the new payment conditions to be set, expecting a much higher and fairer rent.

But Telecom has so far offered only the $19.25 rise and its argument is that its payments are completely fair and reasonable.

Via David Shaw of DTZ property consultants in Wellington, Telecom initially extended an offer to increase payments from $180.11 to $3000.

"My client Telecom New Zealand is prepared to offer you a revised rental of $3000 plus GST per annum for the microwave site on your property at Arapaepae," he offered the Rolstons on January 23.

The couple wrote back, rejecting that and seeking $10,000.

Shaw in turn wrote back last month withdrawing the $3000 offer because Telecom had decided to stick to the original $199.36.

That left them enraged and vowing to fight on. Mrs Rolston said it was laughable that the payments were CPI-linked, pushing up annual payments from the original $150 paid 21 years ago to today’s $199.36. "We’re paying at least $60 a month to Telecom for one of our cellphones," she said, adding she would prefer Vodafone but reception was not as good.

TOWER PAYMENT

* 1988: $150.
* 2009: $199.

Copyright ©2009, APN Holdings NZ Limited

The Dunedin City Council is waiting for the outcome of a new landscape assessment before deciding if plans for a new communications tower near Brighton will be the publicly notified in full. Vodafone New Zealand has applied for resource consent to build a 30m tower on council land overlooking Brighton, about 1.5km from Brighton beach and 2km from the Saddle Hill conservation area. However, Vodafone’s plans were dealt a blow late last month, when the company’s application was set aside at a meeting of the council hearings committee after doubts were raised about the adequacy of public consultation. Yesterday, committee chairman Cr Colin Weatherall told the Otago Daily Times a new independent landscape assessment was being carried out, examining the impact of the proposed tower’s height on surrounding residents. The work was expected to be complete by the end of the month, after which council staff would decide whether to proceed with a full 30-day public notification period, which would give anyone the opportunity to make a submission. Alternatively, staff could choose to proceed with a second round of limited notification with a revised list of parties deemed to be affected by the proposed tower, Cr Weatherall said. A second hearing would then be held, which was not likely to take place until mid-to-late July at the earliest, he said. The landscape assessment was being carried out on Vodafone’s original tower proposal. No new application had been received, although it was possible the company could withdraw its original application and lodge a new one, Cr Weatherall said.

Colin Weatherall

Brighton cell tower row sparks new report. Published on Otago Daily Times Online By Chris Morris