Archive navigationWelcomeHeadlinesSearch
.
CategoriesArchives
SettingsLog InCredits |
20/12/2009 at 10:16:21
By MICHAEL CUMMINGS - Editor - Manawatu Standard OPINION: The rules around the erection of a Telecom cellphone tower is causing consternation in Palmerston North, and city leaders should listen to residents' concerns and ensure planning restrictions reflect community expectations. A 20-metre tower popped up on Tremaine Ave last week, angering nearby residents because they weren't consulted before it was built. They weren't told about it because the tower was built in an industrial zone and its specifications complied with the district plan. Telecom was therefore given a certificate of compliance by the Palmerston North City Council, and the project was not publicly notified. Telecom stuck to the letter of the law and, while one might argue it had a moral obligation to inform residents, it would be naive to hope a multimillion-dollar national company would put a handful of people in Milson ahead of its broader business objectives. It's easy for people not living in the shadow of such an unsightly construction to label the affected Milson residents as NIMBYs (Not In My Back Yard), but as a community we should look at the issue more deeply than that. The question we must ask is: do we want cellphone towers in anyone's back yard? The council's planning rules should serve the people of this city as best they can. Obviously, effective cellphone coverage is important, but that community need must be balanced against other community needs. Pillorying Telecom will not reach a constructive solution. Attention should instead be focused on the process by which Telecom could build a cellphone tower so close to residential properties without having to tell the public first. In cases where industrial zones adjoin residential ones, local bodies should consider whether homes on the border have the same protection they have deemed it necessary to give homes that aren't. If residents in central suburbs must be notified if a cellphone tower is going to be built nearby, why should the rules be different for residents who live adjacent to an industrial zone? It's quite likely the Telecom tower on Tremaine Ave would have been built even if residents had been consulted, but it's important a decision to make such a significant change to the landscape is made via a process that can be respected, if not accepted. In this case, it seems the process that has led to the tower's erection has raised issues of fairness that need to be addressed. That will be best done by reviewing the city's planning rules, rather than Telecom's community conscience. One more thing: With Christmas frighteningly close, time is running out to get that essential shopping done. It's ironic that a day of peace and goodwill is preceded by a week of frantic stampedes in shopping malls, but I guess it's all part of the fun. Do take a breath and smile, though, and try not to let stress overcome what should be a time to take life a little slower. 16/12/2009 at 18:41:32
By EVAN HARDING - The Southland Times Invercargill Mayor Tim Shadbolt and city councillors have copped flak for letting their internal squabbles get in the way of helping residents in need. City man Paul FitzGerald, a spokesman for angry residents opposing Telecom's plans to build a cellphone tower in King St, said Mr Shadbolt and councillors had not gone in to bat for them. Speaking at a city council meeting yesterday, Mr FitzGerald said no councillor had bothered to meet the concerned residents when they were fighting against the proposal, while Mr Shadbolt had not replied to his request for assistance. "Disunity in the council is absorbing your time. Concentrate on the ratepayers and residents. Telecom is walking over us," he told Mr Shadbolt and councillors. Mr FitzGerald did, however, thank senior council manager William Watt for his help during the residents' fight. Mr FitzGerald said it was disgraceful Telecom had ignored the residents' 655-signature petition. He asked the council to push for changes to the district plan so it was harder to put cellphone towers beside people's homes. Cr Norman Elder suggested Mr Shadbolt approach Telecom directly. Mr Shadbolt said the council would make another submission to Telecom. "We can have another go at it, that's all we can do." With Telecom allowed to build cellphone towers without resource consent if they meet certain requirements, Telecom subsidiary Chorus has a compliance certificate from the city council and plans to build the mast behind United Video. The mast can be 18m high and will be sited as little as 10m from neighbouring houses in King St.
By BRONWYN TORRIE and JESSICA SUTTON - Manawatu Standard It isn't good enough that residential property owners, a daycare centre and a primary school were neither informed nor consulted about the decision to build a cellphone tower on Tremaine Ave, says Palmerston North MP Iain Lees-Galloway. Cellphone towers can be built without any permission from neighbours if the owners tick off all the compliance rules set down by local councils. But this isn't good enough say Palmerston North residents who woke up to find a 20 metre-high tower looming over their backyard this month. The Tremaine Ave tower, which backs on to Matamau St houses, is not operational. Sonya Holm, whose son attends a nearby school, is calling for Telecom to keep it out of action until neighbours are consulted. "They're really exploiting a loop hole by putting them in what are, in fact, residential areas. They're just technically zoned industrial," Ms Holm said. "They can do the right thing and do the proper consultation." She is concerned with the number of towers which could pop up along Tremaine Ave without any public consultation. "If they can only confirm that one tower is safe, what does it mean if there's more than one in a given area?" After contacting the council, Telecom and contractors, Ms Holm hasn't had a straight answer on who would be responsible if people suffer health problems caused by the tower. Mr Lees-Galloway said one of his constituents would like Telecom to carry out the consultation process before the tower becomes operational. In response, Telecom media relations executive Katherine Murphy said it does not wish to seek the approval of affected parties as it had complied with all district plans. Telecom is prepared, said Mrs Murphy, to independently test the tower to confirm that it is not detrimental to people's health. Mr Lees-Galloway said he is looking into the central government legislation that determines the local government district policies around cellphone towers. Telecom expects to have the tower operating early next week. CELLPHONE TOWER RESTRICTIONS Building a cellphone tower in industrial and rural-zoned land is a permitted activity in Tararua, Horowhenua, Palmerston North and Manawatu. If the telecommunication company can tick all the compliance boxes, nearby residents or affected people don't need to be consulted. Cellphone towers lower than 15 metres in Tararua towns that complied with other rules could be built without consultation, environmental services manager Mike Brown said. "If they want to build higher than 15m in a residential area they do need to deal with the resource consent process. What you have to do is [find out] who's likely to be affected and consult with them." Erecting towers was also a permitted activity in industrial and rural zones if they were up to 20m high, he said. The distance a tower needed to be from a residential boundary was calculated by the height, Mr Brown said. "Network utilities" were a permitted activity in Horowhenua's residential zones as long as they met the height, radio frequency levels and distance from boundary rules, environmental and regulatory services manager Tony Thomas said. But they could be up to 8.5m high only. Towers could be built up to 15m high in industrial zones. Emission levels were governed by the national environment standards which superseded any rules in district plans that did not comply with the 2008 standards, Mr Thomas said. Manawatu District Council's district plan states a cell phone tower can be no more than nine metres high, and boundaries between the zones are calculated by the maximum height. Palmerston North City Council was looking at "telecommunication facilities" during the district plan review, with the aim of "balancing community aspects against infrastructural needs", head of planning services Russell O'Leary said. This topic was last reviewed in the mid-1990s. TOWER HEIGHT Palmerston North City Council height restrictions on cellphone towers: * Inner Business Zone - 20 metres * Outer Business Zone - 15 metres * Local Business Zone - 10 metres * Industrial Zones - 20 metres * Airport Zone - 20 metres * Institutional Zone - 18 metres * Rural Zone - 15 metres * Conservation and Amenity Zone - 5 metres * All other zones and places - 10 metres 12/12/2009 at 19:25:09 By MATTHEW THEUNISSEN - The Southland Times A controversial cellphone tower will be built in Windsor despite opposition from residents and attempts by the Invercargill City Council to have it moved. The council gave permission in January 2008 to Telecom subsidiary Chorus to build an 18-metre tower behind United Video on King St. Nearby residents said they had not been consulted about it even though it would be built as close as 10m to some properties. At a public meeting last month, residents raised concerns about the visual impact of the tower, the possible effects of radiation, the wind noise it would generate, and the degradation of property prices. After receiving complaints from concerned residents, ICC environmental and planning services director William Watt emailed Chorus asking the tower be built elsewhere. While Chorus was not breaching any laws, it had a moral responsibility to consider residents' concerns, he said. "If this tower were to be placed alongside my own property, while I might accept the current `science' regarding (radiation) emissions, I would still be very concerned about the appearance of a tall tower close to my boundary and about the wind noise it is bound to generate, so I can understand why the residents are agitated," he says in the email. He proposed two locations for the tower on Herbert St that would be more acceptable to residents but Chorus turned these down, he said. Chorus community relations manager Kathy Wiltshire said the tower's design would be altered to meet community concerns. It would be a slim-line version with antennas flush-mounted. The alternative sites proposed by Mr Watt were unsuitable because they were too close to Windsor North School, and would not achieve the required coverage, she said. King St resident Caren Hall said the modifications would not change the way she felt about the tower. "It's still the same sort of thing. But I'm more annoyed that they have hidden the whole thing from us for two years." Her views were shared by Antrim St resident Joan Kennedy. "It's so disappointing that they won't change their minds. They're not listening to the people. It's like we don't have any say or any rights," she said. A 600-signature petition was sent to Telecom chief executive Dr Paul Reynolds and organisers are waiting for a response. An act was passed last year by the Labour-led Government allowing cellphone towers and wireless broadband transmitters to be built without resource consent. 10/12/2009 at 22:21:28 By BRONWYN TORRIE - Manawatu Standard
A Matamau St family was shocked to see a 20-metre high cellphone tower loom over their backyard this week. They had no idea it was going to be built. It fell within Palmerston North City Council district plan rules, so it did not need a resource consent notification. Telecom built the tower on a Tremaine Ave industrially zoned property which backs on to residential houses. Telecom now has 15 cellphone sites in the city, including a tower recently built behind the Click Clack factory on Tremaine Ave. A woman, who did not want to be named, said her family would look at selling up and shifting because of the possible and unproven health risks associated with cellphone tower radiation. "I don't know what it's going to do to us," she said. "I think it's one of those things like asbestos – you're not going to know the effects of it until later down the track. I just don't think it's worth the risk." The woman and her husband would not have spent $100,000 on renovating their home during the past two months if they had known a tower was going to be built over the back fence. The couple are concerned the tower would hurt the resale value of their property. "They should have let the community know. They should have told people." Telecom confirmed the two new towers belonged to it. The company followed council district plan requirements when applying to build towers, spokeswoman Katherine Murphy said. "It's important to us that we engage with local communities when building or upgrading mobile cell sites, as you can appreciate we all have houses too. The cell site on Tremaine Ave is in an industrial area, which has a different engagement process to a residential area." She was unable to say how many more towers or sites are in the pipeline for the city. "We have sites of all different sizes and designs. They range from small antennas on traffic lights, panel antennas on the sides of buildings, large guyed wire masts in forests, sites on the top of light poles and slim line masts." Palmerston North City Council granted Telecom a certificate of compliance for the Tremaine Ave tower, which is 18 metres from residential boundaries, in January last year. Neighbours on Matamau St were not consulted because the towers met the district plan rules for an industrial zone and were classed as a permitted activity, said the council's head of planning services Russell O'Leary. Network operators are granted a certificate to construct a tower in Palmerston North if it is less than 20 metres high and at least five metres away from a residential boundary. They also have to meet standards for radio frequency levels, Mr O'Leary said. Other telecommunication companies have built cellphone sites in Palmerston North. The total number of sites could not be confirmed. Recent newcomer to the market 2degrees is planning on expanding its network coverage in provincial areas, including Palmerston North. It could not confirm what type of sites would be built and when. 05/12/2009 at 21:54:07
2nd December 2009 Aucklander Congratulations! I bought the Herald on Thursday in order to read John Landrigan's (excellent) article and found myself very impressed with The Aucklander altogether. It shall be a Thursday treat from now on. Thank you for giving this issue publicity. As someone who has been trying since August 2008, believe me, it has been heartbreakingly difficult to convince the major media of its importance. Worringly, almost everyone in New Zealand is going to end up living somewhere within an 800m radius of at least one, probably three (one for each company) phone mast. Cellphone companies insist that phone masts are safe, but refuse to sign any guarantee of safety or to monitor the health of people living in proximity to a mast. Alarmingly, insurance companies refuse to insure against harm. It is acknowledged that our children absorb about twice as much electromagnetic energy as adults. Our children are facing a lifetime of exposure to the effects of an unknown technology for the benefit of a colossal industry with profit as its bottom line. S Honeychurch, Waiheke I've been told Fiona Jeffcoat was fined $300 for hanging a 'No cellphone towers' sign on her own home fence, without permission from Manukau City Council. Since when has this freedom of expression, posted on your own property, been an offence? To add further insult, her husband also got a $300 fine for being married to her and agreeing with the message on her sign. Good job I didn't walk past and say "Good on ya, mate'' or I might have copped a fine too. Have the Nazis taken over, or what? Brian Morris Flatbush John Landrigan | 26th November 2009 From Green Bay to Waiheke, from Birkenhead to Pakuranga, everyday Aucklanders are revolting.
They talk about health risks. They talk about invasions of their human rights. And they talk about their property values. The councils say: Don't blame us. Blame Wellington. The Government and big business pooh-pooh the protest. They may be making a big mistake. John Landrigan has been to the front line. They've put the microwave on top of the pole, shouts Nigel Edwards in the background. Karen Pilbrow is talking on the phone to me about cellphone antennae sprouting around Auckland when her neighbour yells out the news. Mrs Pilbrow's voice wavers. She is angry and incredulous. "We had a group together who were going to stop them. We've stopped them so far ... health risks aside, this is a human rights invasion,'' she cries. Literally: she weeps. An invasion, health risks, human rights tampered with, suburban mums and dads blocking telecommunications workers. What's going on? read more :The Aucklander 02/12/2009 at 22:42:18 Will Liechtenstein call time on the mobile industry? A referendum triggered by a new environmental protection law may result in the principality becoming the first country in the world to reject the benefits of mobile communications in favour of tighter protection against electromagnetic radiation. Liechtenstein's proposed new limits are ten times stricter than the existing regulations One of Europe's smallest sovereign states might be about to become the first country in the world to turn its back on mobile communications, depending on the results of a referendum to be held this week. Liechtenstein's population this week gets the chance to vote on whether to overturn the Environmental Protection Law introduced in May 2008. Article 34 of the law includes the provision that “The holder of base station sites are due to take all appropriated arrangements in order to technically keep the electromagnetic field as low as possible in order to have the regulation reduction to be feasible and reached by the end of 2012, which will be an real mean of electromagnetic fields limited to 0.6 V/m [volts per metre]”. By way of comparison, the major European countries including the UK, France, Spain and Germany set a limit of 41 V/m; neighbouring Switzerland sets a limit of 6 V/m, the same standard to which Liechtenstein has hitherto adhered. The proposed reduction therefore reduces the permitted base station exposure by a factor of 90%. The Swiss regulations already make it difficult for operators in that country to effectively roll out their networks. The 41 V/m limit is based on the recommendations of the World Health Organization. The figure of 0.6 V/m is cited in 'The BioInitiative Report', published by a group of independent scientists and health professionals in September 2007, where it is proposed as a “recommended cautionary target level”. Surprisingly, Liechtenstein (population 35,000 and area 160 sq km) has four mobile operators. All have submitted reports to the government stating that they will not be able to comply with the new limit. One, Orange, has said that it may close down its network if the legislation is allowed to stand. Liechtenstein's Chamber of Commerce and Industry campaigned for the new Environmental Law to be set aside. The Liechtenstein government agreed, but this was rejected by the national parliament, and this in turn has led to the referendum, which seeks to overturn the law. A victory for the campaigners for stricter limits will have implications for operators in other countries It would be easy to dismiss the events in Liechtenstein as a storm in a Ruritanian tea cup. Liechtenstein is a very small country, with an unusual constitution. It is not part of the EU, and the build-up to the new law and the consequent referendum has passed almost unnoticed by much of the mobile industry. Nevertheless, if the new Environmental Protection Law stands then it will encourage anti-mast campaigners across Europe to renew their efforts. It will also raise the status of the scientist 'outsiders' whose work informs the theoretical basis for the legislation. They will now be able to point to a proper parliament that appears to have considered the evidence and acted on their advice. Although the BioInitiative Report has been criticised as unscientific and partial by authorities in Australia, Germany and the Netherlands, it has also been cited in debates about emissions in France, the European Parliament, and lately in Belgium, which is now moving towards an emissions threshold of 3 V/m. The next domino to fall might be France, where a government-led 'round table' process is reconsidering existing emissions limits and has called for city administrations to apply to take part in a trial of 0.6 V/m limits. 01/12/2009 at 21:36:26 1st December 2009
Dear Submitter Outcomes of Public Consultation on the Guidelines for Undertaking Community Engagement for Wireless Telecommunications Facilities Thank you for your interest and submission on the Guidelines for Undertaking Community Over 50 submissions were received on the draft Guidelines. The purpose of this letter is to summarise the key themes raised in these submissions; to detail how the TCF responded to these; and to inform you of what changes were made to the Guidelines as a result.
Timing and Nature of Engagement A number of submitters commented on the original proposal which proposed three levels of engagement. The first level did not allow for engagement prior to construction, and only the third level involved engagement with those in the relevant community prior to obtaining council approvals. As a result of numerous suggestions in the submissions received, the Working Party substantially increased the level of engagement prescribed by the Guidelines. The final version recently approved by the TCF has been refined to only having two levels of engagement:
Consistency of Language and Terminology As a result of feedback received, particularly from Territorial Authorities, the definitions and terms used throughout the Guidelines were reviewed and amended to make definitions within the Guidelines more consistent with other documents, such as the National Environmental Standard and the Resource Management Act. The Principles The "Principles" section of the Guidelines was also substantially amended as a result of the submissions made. These changes streamlined and clarified the principles to make them more relevant to the scope and purpose of these Guidelines. Comments on the New Zealand Standard for Radiofrequency fields; National Environmental Standards for Telecommunications Facilities; Resource Management Act Many submitters expressed their opinion concerning the inadequacy of aspects of the regulatory framework for locating Wireless Telecommunications Facilities. Examples of these opinions are that the levels in the New Zealand Standard for Radiofrequency fields are set too high; or that Council District Plans, the Resource Management Act or the National Environmental Standards do not sufficiently allow for community engagement or participation in the decision making process. These matters lie outside the scope of the Guidelines for community engagement and therefore could not be given consideration by the TCF in its review of the submissions received. However, the TCF takes this opportunity to clarify its broader position on these matters. On the subject of the New Zealand Standard for Radiofrequency fields, the TCF notes its understanding that the Standard is based on sound scientific principles and is consistent with the majority of international guidelines in use around the world. The TCF also notes that the guidance given by the International Commission on Non Ionising Radiation Protection (ICNIRP) which forms the basis of most standards for radio frequency used in the world today, including New Zealand, has recently been reviewed by that body and found to be still appropriate. On the subject of the National Environmental Standard for Telecommunications Facilities, the TCF notes a significant degree of public misunderstanding about the purpose and impact of these as they relate to the rollout of wireless networks and would welcome public communications from the relevant public agencies to address these misunderstandings. Finally, the TCF would like to underline that the Guidelines have been designed to work alongside and augment the existing regulatory frameworks. The Guidelines cannot legally effect statutory or district plan changes. Should submitters feel that further changes are needed to these regulatory frameworks, and then the TCF encourages them to contact the relevant regulatory authority to understand the process through which these may be reviewed. Location of Wireless Telecommunications Facilities Submissions were received that argued that due to the perceived risk of negative health impacts, operators should not build Wireless Telecommunications Facilities near public or residential areas, or near any public facilities. Submitters argued for "exclusion zones" ranging from 100 metres to over five kilometres. The TCF felt that consideration of concepts such as "exclusion zones" were beyond the scope and authority of these Guidelines. It is the role of the relevant Territorial or Unitary Authority to specify appropriate land use and activities via the District Planning process. However we note that such an approach would be at odds with the Resource Management Acts effects based approach. The TCF also notes that such concepts would make it difficult, if not impossible, to design a correctly functioning wireless network, particularly in urban areas. Furthermore, the notion is inconsistent with the principles of efficient wireless network design where sites are located as close as possible to users to minimise power output and radio frequency emissions from both the site and the devices using the site. Finally the notion has no scientific backing and therefore is inconsistent with World Health Organisation guidance that all consideration of effects should be based on scientific study. Accordingly, such limitations were not included in the final version of the Guidelines. Emerging Research on the Impact of Wireless Telecommunications Sites Submissions were received that highlighted pieces of research that alleged various negative impacts of mobile phones upon the health and wellbeing of the public. The majority of these submissions asked the TCF to ban the construction of further Wireless Telecommunications Facilities. The TCF does not have a position on the relevance or applicability of this research, and considers matters such as these to be out-of-scope of these Guidelines. The TCF continues to encourage operators to monitor the latest research undertaken in this area, and to continue to follow the advice of the Ministry of Health, the Ministry for the Environment and the World Health Organisation. The TCF has built into the Guidelines a requirement for operators to refer members of the public to sources of information that are recognised by the national and international public health authorities as part of the community engagement process. Thank You Once again thank you for your interest and submission on the Guidelines. Yours sincerely David Stone Chief Executive Officer Telecommunications Carriers' Forum
This website is a single issue community site dedicated to reflecting the current concerns of the people in the area of Corder Park, Nelson. The content is under constant review and is changed and updated regularly by volunteers. Thank you for visiting and please check back soon for the latest reports. |
|
Atawhai
Ban the tower - Atawhai
One year of battle!
One year of battle!
Cellphone towers are popping up around Palmerston North without any warning, with residents worried about possible health risks and the impact on property values.
Via Email
