50 Renwick Street, Wyoming NSW 2250

Section 4.55 - Change to Lease Area, Shelter & Headframe, Number of Antennas & other Ancillary Equipment

External link Read more information

We found this application for you on the planning authority's website about 2 months ago. It was received by them 3 days earlier.

(Source: Central Coast Council (Gosford), reference 011.2018.00054415.002 )

76 Comments

Have your say by adding your own comment.

  1. Dale smth commented

    To who it may concern i think putting a tower in a family friendly park is just stupid not only is there kids and family's around but the damage it will do to the ground in the Naberhood on top of the hill is a better coverage anyway

  2. Scott commented

    We have some questions/issues around

    Safety: (possible mobile tower radiation)
    Safety: (security fence around base & how much it impedes on field)
    Access: when ? how long?
    Construction: trenching for cabling and proposed routes. Is it around/ through the ovals?
    Damage: Damage to surface, new irrigation/drainage by heavy equipment
    Fees: Do we see a reduction in ground leasing fees with Optus paying council leasing fees for the space?
    Maintenance - further maintenance or expansion- will Optus make it bigger over the coming years?
    Visual - there was only three visual considerations. We couldn't find a visual from clubhouse/ oval perspective?

  3. Dave commented

    A Mobile Tower near where kids play and families live?

    Why do the people need to speak up about this STILL? Maybe everyone isn't willing to act on it but everyone knows how bad these towers are for us. Especially when you live within 500 or 1000 meters of them, and there are definitely a lot of houses within this distance of the proposed position.

    All The evidence is there that Mobile Towers are no good for us and cause CANCER in our bodies. Watch this for an eye opener -https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=320&v=ISCmIFKSTKE

    Want MORE EVIDENCE - Just Google "The Dangers of Mobile Towers" and you get 38 MILLION results!

  4. Nicole pigott commented

    What is the rationale for putting a tower at this site?
    Despite other structural and aesthetic issues please see the below link for safe levels of RF exposure.
    By my calculations if we were playing at the oval with our kids that would 2.95% the allowed limit of radiation.
    Absolutely not.
    https://www.rfnsa.com.au

  5. Jesse Wark commented

    A few concerns:
    1. How much of this development will impede on the area that is currently used by sporting clubs and community groups.
    2. A 37m tower in this area sorrounded by residential dwellings will be a significant eye sore and may/will affect property prices in the area.
    3. The removal of trees and diminishing of green space. Please provide specifics on what trees would be removed and how you will integrate the fencing to minimise the visual impact of securing the site.
    4. The effectiveness of a phone tower in a valley section of Wyoming.

    Overall I am opossed to the installation of this tower in this area.

  6. Jess commented

    So basically right next to the newly installed kids playground? Not to mention the hundreds of children and adults that use the oval for organised sports, and alike all year, every year.

    Optus coverage in the area isn't an issue, so why is it even necessary? Especially in a valley area.

    I'm opposed to the to the installation within metres of where my kids play, and live.

  7. Melinda commented

    I am oppossed to this as well. I could give my reasons but everyone else has done a great job of covering all my concerns.

  8. Neil Griffin commented

    I Think its a great idea about time the 4G coverage is boosted in the area, i live in Wyoming area and only experience weak signal and lower speed internet.

  9. Eri commented

    This is such a family oriented park and area. I don’t think this is appropriate nor safe in this location. Not to mention unsightly.
    Please consider another location for this.

  10. Craig Franklin commented

    I seriously oppose to installing this tower in such close range of children and family homes and in the middle of an oval used by so many people.
    Everybody now knows the risks associated with these towers so why cant it be stuck up in the hills in the bush?.
    Mobile towers - Sometimes installed on the tops of buildings. Mobile towers are especially dangerous because they emit microwaves at a frequency of 1900 MHz. Recent studies have shown that the intense radioactivity from mobile phone towers adversely impacts every biological organism within one square kilometer.
    The microwaves from cell phone towers can interfere with your body’s own EMFs, causing a variety of potential health problems, including:

    Headaches
    Memory loss
    Cardiovascular stress
    Low sperm count
    Birth defects
    Cancer

  11. Scott Snodgrass commented

    Dear Council,

    We were not notified of this DA in 2017, nor it seems our governing body Central Coast Football - we as primary users along with Narara Wyoming cricket deserve an opportunity to comment.

    Were local residents and businesses given this opportunity? From those surveyed it appears not.

    We deem it a horrible decision to allow this application to be approved and will be detailing our members thoughts in formal submission along with contacting our local member for the area.

  12. Brooke Mills commented

    To Whom it may concern,

    Being informed via my local football club that you are planning to install a Optus Tower in such close proximity to homes, childrens soccer/ cricket fields and A CHILDRENS PLAYGROUND seems completely ludicrous. Im sure you don’t need me to list my many concerns as others have but I do beg you to reconsider your terrible decision and place your Optus tower in a more appropriate place. In case my complaint is falling on deaf ears I have also contacted my local member of parliament to help resolve this issue.

    Regards,
    Brooke Mills

  13. Wendy peach commented

    I live across road from proposed site and I strongly hope it doesn't go through. I already suffer from ms and blood clots and struggle most days but the closeness of it I'll be able to hear it buzzing and will cause me constant migraine headache where I'll need hospitalization. Please can you consider my health when making your decision as constant hospital treatment will add up to hundreds of thousands of dollars. Thank you

  14. Symone Atherton commented

    I have recently been informed by my local football club of your plans to install a 37m mobile phone tower between the playing fields at Allan Davidson Park.

    I am strongly opposed to this for several reasons that have been clearly laid out by others. This is a highly used sporting field and family park. Last year the council improved the area by installing new play equipment and made significant improvements to the grounds drainage for extended sporting use. The installation of said tower seems counter productive to these endevours and would negatively impact a lovely family environment.

  15. Haley Hawkins & Warren McAndrew commented

    We oppose to the tower being installed as this is a sports ground, play ground and a place regularly used by families. We are concerned for our families health and that of others who also visit the oval on a regular basis.
    Thank you

  16. Amy commented

    Absolutely appalling that this is even being considered!

    This is a community space that is utilised year round; there is no benefit in reducing it! That is before you consider the concerns about radiation and tree removal. Also logic would suggest the towers are best off being in an elevated area - which this is not!

  17. Alison Kelly commented

    I am completely against this. Even though I live in Wyoming and my mobile phone signal is extremely poor I would rather do without signal than the effects of such a tower. Putting this on an area where people are playing sports etc is ludicrous. Research shows they definitely have an effect on people's health. I certainly would sell my house and leave if this goes ahead.

  18. Rebecca Baxendale commented

    I am opposed to this tower. My house backs onto this oval. The negative health impacts are extremely concerning, as is the aesthetic concerns. There are many houses which line the borders of this sports ground and most have families with small children. Not to mention the potential impacts o the value of our properties. There is so much more land available on top of the mountain which is not populated and surely would give greater coverage to the area. I would prefer to have lower coverage and know my children's health is ok.

  19. Ainslie Quilty commented

    To whom It May Concern
    I am opposed to the construction of the mobile tower - the Optus website shows that Wyoming is fully covered by three other towers in close proximity. It also does not make sense to build the tower in a valley.
    Local residents and businesses were not contacted regarding the DA neither were the sporting clubs who lease the field.
    This is a park utilised by families, sporting clubs and people all year round and a park is no place to build a mobile tower.
    The heath concerns listing by many other people above should be enough for this to not go ahead however I will also be contacting my local member to oppose this.
    I implore you to reconsider and not go ahead with construction for the sake and wellbeing of the community.
    Many thanks
    A local resident and local business

  20. Jo Chondroyiannis commented

    I cannot believe that Council would even consider such an application for this site. It is public space with sport being played all year round by people of all ages. It is used by local schools for carnivals and is smack dab in the middle of suburbia. What will happen to the football fields and cricket pitch? What is the liability to all involved for long term issues from radiation and safety of children climbing fences etc. Needs to be a public meeting to explain why it needs to be there.

  21. Michelle commented

    Dear Sir or Madame,
    As a resident of Wyoming, I strongly oppose the shocking decision.
    I believe it is wrong to build a mobile tower in a residential valley area. Has the council considered the harm to people's health with the long term exposure to mobile tower radiation?
    Please do review your terrible decision!

    Regards,

    Michelle

  22. Shirley Rutter commented

    I am strongly opposed to this . Shorely the can find a more suitable site than an area where hundreds of children play. What are you thinking Opus. Come on Council do something.

  23. S. Mulvaney commented

    Central Coast Council

    Chief Executive Officer
    Mr Gary Murphy,

    Council Property Officer
    Mr James Landis,

    I am another resident and ratepayer of Wyoming who wishes to protest about the proposed application to build an Optus Mobile phone telecommunications tower in Alan Davidson oval. This area is totally inappropriate for this type of construction. It is a children’s playground.
    Research (provided here by fellow residents opposed to the tower) demonstrates that these towers emit dangerous radiation which will have a severe impact on people’s health. This should be enough of a reason that this tower should not go ahead. Wyoming is a densely populated area. Our community’s health must come before any profits.
    I am also a current soon to be former Optus customer.

    S. Mulvaney

  24. Yvonne commented

    I am absolutely against this proposal and feel the benefits (if any) are far out-weighed by the detriment it will cause to locals and the environment.

  25. John Eden commented

    Dear Council,

    I am very strongly opposed to this proposal.

    1) It appears that the proposed tower will be situated either on a current playing field, or in the small space between two playing fields. Either way it and the barrier that would need to surround it would impact on the ability for people to play football and cricket here.

    2) The Central Coast is surrounded by bushland, if a tower is needed it should not be in the middle of a Council park which is used for sport all year around, and near a recently built kid's playground. The field is also at approx. the lowest altitude in the area, a tower would be more effective on one of the nearby hills in bushland.

    3) Such a tower would lead to a rick of injury and sports players dive of the field/s to kick, stop, or catch balls.

    4) The fact that sports are played here means that the tower itself may be damaged by cricket balls, footballs, and even sportspeople who may accidentally collide with the tower or it's barrier.

    5) Construction of a tower would no doubt damage the fields, as well as make them unusable for the construction period. Field 2 was recently unusable for several months due to being over-watered, and the use of heavy machinery is only likely to do much, much more damage than a simple hose.

    6) Many people have no problem with phone service in the area, so it needs to be clearly explained why this tower might be needed.

    7) Allowing a tower in this community park sends a terrible message to Optus - that they might be able to build their towers wherever they want regardless of community concerns or they effects on park amenity. Please reject their proposal.

    8) Looking at the other comments on this page, it appears they are overwhelmingly opposed to the tower proposal. On this basis alone the proposal should be rejected.

    Please Council members, it seems that Optus wants a tower here for whatever money-making commercial reasons it has. However many, many people are opposed to such a tower, even though some of these people will be Optus customers. Please do not give in to big business on this one.

    Thank you for considering the views of myself and other residents. John

  26. Neil commented

    I agree that a mobile tower in a playground is not a good thing.
    If it has been well thought out then the only reason it would be approved is monerary gain.

    there is plent of bush space available at the top of the mountain - use it.

  27. Marie Frost commented

    DEFINITELY not a suitable place for any such tower. It is a parkland for children and adults and is constantly used for sports and many other activities.

  28. Barbara commented

    I would like to add my name to the growing list against the mobile phone tower in Alan Davidson Oval. The Council should not expose our community to serious health risks.

  29. Marg Smith commented

    I am vehemently against a mobile tower being built in Alan Davidson Park, Wyoming. Council has recently put a fabulous playground and updated ball playing facilities to attract more active kids. We want them off their electronic devices and out in the open CLEAN air, playing in a safe environment, not worrying about health risks to our younger generation. My grandkids use this park at least 4 times a week with the sporting activities that are held here. Don't we pay enough in rates to not need this in such a sensitive and heavily used public area.

  30. Mark Gattenhof commented

    We only found out about this proposal when someone dropped a leaflet in our letterbox today. When checking this web site I noted that there are no details about exactly where this tower is to be erected, what size it will be, what disruption to the use of the oval will take place or anything else about it.

    As residents of Wyoming for the past 48 years, we would expect the council to have the courtesy to inform ALL residents in the area of what is going on - but they haven't.

    Alan Davidson Oval is used by hundreds of people of all ages each week either for sporting activities or relaxation and all these people could be affected by this tower if it is to be erected. We would oppose this application on the grounds that it is an unsuitable area for this type of structure.

  31. Camilla commented

    I note that the visual impact assessment includes three locations only. This assessment does not include an assessment from North of the proposed location. As such, it has not taken into consideration the experiences of community members who may be participating in or watching sporting events (including both organised sports and annual school carnivals), enjoying the new playground as or with children, or exercising, picnicking and generally enjoying their local open space.

    Each of the impact factors - period of view, number of viewers, distance of view, visibility, visual absorption capacity, visual impact rating - would achieve a higher rating if assessed from a location to the north of the proposed site.

    This structure should not go ahead without a more comprehensive assessment of the impact to the area.

  32. Peter Carstairs commented

    I am opposed to the proposed construction of a mobile phone Tower 37 m high in Alan Davidson Park in Wyoming on the following grounds/queries:
    Does the Proposed Tower comply with Council Zoning regulations or will be regulations have to be changed to include it? The proposed tower is not a passive entity, e.g., a vent
    The proposed tower and compound are an inappropriate intrusion into a recreational, sporting and quiet residential area. It is “not the best fit.” There are many other areas available for this type of tower.
    .The proposed tower is supposed to be located in a compound. The tower and compound would have to be accessed in the event of emergencies or for regular servicing. In the event of emergency there could be serious problems with evacuating people in the park and the precinct surrounding it.
    I am also concerned that sections and/or attachments to the tower might breakaway during or after an extreme weather event and injure/kill a person (s).
    There is also the contested area of the health hazards associated with microwave emission from these types of towers. The proposal to locate the tower in an area that is utilised for sporting events where families attend, usage by local schools, social clubs, people using the playground facilities for small children, practice areas for cricket and football, and families just playing or relaxing is endangering these citizens, children and foetuses unnecessarily. In addition nearby are two childcare facilities and two primary schools.

  33. Ros L commented

    The first we heard about this proposal was yesterday when a leaflet was dropped in our letterbox. Why are we only being informed of this now when submission close on April 4? I don't believe that CC Council and Optus would even consider erecting a mobile tower in this highly populated area. Alan Davidson Oval is used EVERY DAY OF THE WEEK by thousands of people. many, many children use this oval for soccer, cricket and recreation. There is a Pre-School, School and Guide Hall all located near to this area. It is a known fact that these towers emit dangerous radiation which is detrimental to our health. I have lived in this area for almost 48 years and I never thought I would see the day this would happen. There are many places in this area where a tower could be erected away from the population. I have poor mobile reception but I am more than happy to put up with this rather than having a tower erected in this area. If this proposal goes ahead I will walk away from Optus

  34. Lucky MacKenzie commented

    I am totally in agreement with all that has been said. There is no reason to put a tower
    In a very public area that's known for all the negative that it produces.

  35. N Lara commented

    This is a highly populated, surburban area. This will pose a significant risk to the health of residents. Central Coast Council please do not allow this to happen!

  36. Stacie Mulvaney commented

    I am against the tower being built in a local park which is used for sporting events and childrens playground. This is endangering the health of those using the park, not to mention the residents living nearby, children attending the nearby schools/kindies.

  37. Alan G commented

    I do not support a mobile tower in this location. It does not support the local topography and will be an eyesore to this community park. Please do not place a mobile tower here. There are surely more discrete locations.

  38. Tamara S commented

    I’m also another local resident of Wyoming & in total agreement with everyone above. The site chosen for the new Optus tower is clearly not suitable, the oval is a public space used by families & children everyday. The research done on the effects of microwaves on the human body should be enough for the tower to moved to a location further up the mountain. The families surrounding the proposed site have every right to be concerned for the welfare of their children.... the question is: “why aren’t you?!”....

  39. Julian A Savage commented

    I am in full support of this application.

    There is no evidential link between mobile phone towers and any adverse health impacts.

    As a resident of Wyoming in reasonable proximity to this proposed development and an Optus network user, I am highly conscious of the poor coverage that this tower will alleviate.

  40. Steven Baxter commented

    I am strongly against this tower being built in such a densely populated area and of all places right next to a children's play ground which I take my children to on a regular basis. They have just recently built the new playground only to have it ruined by this tower.

    I especially feel for the houses that will be so close to this tower not only in reference to their health concerns but also on a aesthetic level, as well as the potential impact on property value.

    I am unsure why this site has been chosen but there seems to be a lot of vacant land throughout the area why does it need to be in someones backyard? If this is due to it being the most cost effective means of installing this tower it disgusts me that this is the only consideration.

    I implore the council to consider the importance of public areas like this rather than someone mobile reception.

  41. Katrina Jefferson commented

    I have only recently been made aware of this. Surely there must be an option that is not near a childrens playground and soccer club. What research has the council done to prove that this is safe for the long term of our community? I would like to see the scientific test results and alternative sites please.

  42. Linda van Epen commented

    I am opposed to the installation of this tower due to the documented health risks associated with its erection within the park. As a resident in Wyoming this proposed site impacts directly on all park users such sports clubs, schools sporting events, families, apart from residents, aged care facilities, schools and businesses within its close proximity. The park is constantly being used by many members of the community on a daily basis all year round. With council completing $600,000 renovation of the fields surface area and upgrade of facilities prior to its amalgamation with Wyong Council.

  43. Jacqueline Watters commented

    I’m adding my support in request not to go ahead with this re the dangers of these towers in close proximity to people, especially children. Others have provided links to evidence of these dangers so no need for me to repeat.

  44. Sonja commented

    Like all the above residents I am concerned about health risks, security risks and the General appearance of the tower/structure.
    This is a beautiful oval and used by so many people.
    I am sure there are many other unused areas where such a structure would be out of the way and to no one’s health risk.

  45. Jessica Gilkes commented

    No, no. Absolutely not.
    1. Not needed, there's no issue with phone service
    2. What an eyesore!
    3. It's a children's park!! A phone tower next to a children's park? Surely you have some evidence that shows that this is not beneficiary to our future generations

  46. Peter Knight commented

    I am absolutely shocked to find that this has been approved only metres away from my home and on an oval were families frequent every day.
    Please reconsider this before it is to late. Surely there has to be a better position not in a residential area for this.

  47. Ainsley Knight commented

    The location selected for this tower is beyond inappropriate. I am a current Optus customer and have no coverage issues whatsoever, therefore I see no valid reason for this tower. I am not convinced of the safety of emissions from these towers and vehemently believe they should be only ever be placed well away from residential areas. There are many people within the community that are highly sensitive to the output from these towers and are affected negatively from proximity to them. Council, please think about this - would you be happy to have a tower like this in YOUR backyard? I am not against progress, but I am against anything that benefits the few and disadvantages many. The cost here would not just be financial for some...

  48. Graham Steinthal commented

    Graham
    It is quite obvious that the telecommunications companies don't take into consideration when they plan the location of their telecommunication towers and what long term affect that it will have on the surrounding residence. Most telecommunication towers are designed to be located on the top of a hill or mountain for maximum reception and not down in the valley on Alan Davidson Oval which would seem to be an inefficient location for this tower. Not to mention how ridiculous this thing would look on our local playing fields, it would be a complete eyesore to look at and would spoil the appearance of our natural parkland. There must be a better option for this tower.

  49. Dan Wolski commented

    I don't understand why a family park has been chosen as a Telco tower site? Hundreds of people use the park on weekends. There is empty land next to the rail line not even 700m from the park. Why can't some of this land be used?

  50. Rebecca Wolski commented

    As a resident living only 500m from the proposed site, I am appalled to think that this park would even be considered as a possible location for a mobile tower.

    I strongly oppose the proposal and ask that you consider a more appropriate location away from a residential area.

  51. Hayley Spencer commented

    I am completely opposed to this tower being placed in the park. I am a resident who lives very close to this area and often enjoy the facilities with my family which includes small children. There must be alternatives to the proposal as the health risks are not worth it. You cannot put a price on outdoor spaces that are enjoyed by so many.

  52. Margaret commented

    No! No! No!
    I am totally AGAINST the tower in Alan Davidson Oval. Keep these towers AWAY from the population.

  53. Pauleen commented

    I have concerns regarding the impact this structure will make to the playing fields for both the players and spectators and possibly the health implications. We have large areas away from playing fields and residential areas that surely could be used for this structure

  54. Phil Kesby commented

    To even consider Alan Davidson Oval as a site for this type of construction is absurd.
    There must be other locations.

  55. Sheri Hatter commented

    The risk of radiation to residents and children and visitors to the oval is unacceptable. These towers not only are eyesores they are dangerous to the community. I live close by and my grandchildren play on the oval regularly . I could understand if this area was never accessed however this oval is used by many people all year round. I thoroughly oppose this plan for a tower.

  56. Julie Kesby commented

    No!No!No!Surely there must be another site to build this tower on! My son is often down at Alan Davidson playing footy with his friends and along with all the other kids who play soccer,cricket or play in the Park.
    This is a really bad decision and I am thoroughly opposed to it.

  57. Ngaire commented

    I cannot believe this tower is even being considered for a public park!
    Why is it not going on a mountain like most others, away from the population?
    Alan Davidson Oval is a widely used park by locals and many sporting clubs from around the Central Coast as well as being in a heavily populated area.

    As a nearby resident I STRONGLY OPPOSE the installation of this tower at Alan Davidson Oval.

  58. Helen commented

    To Whom It May Concern,
    As parents we spend our whole life trying to protect our children, only to have Optus wanting to situate a mobile phone tower on top of our local sporting fields and playground. I have grave concerns and strongly oppose this due to safety issues.
    Please reconsider for the safety of our community. There are other sites and options that are far less intrusive.

  59. Kevin Stone commented

    A very definite NO! Children's playgrounds and playground equipment throughout the Wyoming area over recent years, have been closed down and play equipment removed. Please don't destroy one of the few green areas left in Wyoming for young families to enjoy! The installation of Mobile phone towers and the harmful radiation emitted in and around families and Children is not a good mix! Once again, a very definite No to the whole concept! Wyoming is a vast heavily populated area, please leave the families of Wyoming alone and allow them to have one last safe haven in which they are able to go and enjoy!

  60. Gina Hamilton commented

    My concern is safety .
    Question !!! Is this going to be a 5G tower . In which case it should not be allowed to go ahead anywhere .... ever . So dangerous to our bodies .
    And putting a 4G tower near a built up area and directly above children’s play areas ... really where is the common sense .
    .
    Not happy at all !!!!!!

  61. Kelly Pereira commented

    I believe this is a huge safety issue. Not only will there be issues regarding radiation which will lead you to be held liable in future which will cost rate payers but also if you think that bored teenagers will not break in, damage or attempt to climb this tower given how easily accessible it will be in that location then you are absolutely niave. This is in the middle of a busy, active sporting field/playground area. This is not the place for this kind of infastructure. My son plays soccer on this field and if this goes ahead I would encourage sporting clubs to petition to remove their play/competition from this field and local parents to bypass use of the beautiful new playground area.

  62. Joanne commented

    To the members of Council,

    As a rate payer and member of our community, I am unequivocally opposed to the installation of a phone tower at 50 Renwick Street Wyoming for the following reasons: Potential HEALTH IMPACTS on residents and visitors to the area, the potential DEVALUATION OF PROPERTY PRICES and SIGNIFICANT VISUAL IMPACT on the area.

    The application to build a telecommunications tower at this site is fundamentally flawed, as it does not take into consideration the potential physical and monetary burden it places on a large proportion of the community, in particular young children and families who utilise this area for recreation and those who live or own property within 1km radius of the area.

    THE PROPOSED SITE IS UNSUITABLE as it is in the close proximity to: Local Preschools, -Primary school, - Girl Guides hall, -Church and Community Hall, - Shopping Centre, Pub/Hotel, and Various other businesses. The proposed site is WITHIN A CHILDREN'S PARK/PLAYGROUND AND PUBLIC RECREATION AREA AND HAS SIGNIFICANT HIGH DENSITY HOUSING BORDERING THE LAND ON ALL SIDES. The direct and long term impact on these residents and rate payers must not be underestimated.

    Based on research I have undertaken in the last day on the internet, I have found the following: “A growing chorus of doctors and researchers warns that electromagnetic fields from many of the hallmarks of modern life have been linked to a wide variety of health risks ranging from sleeplessness to cancer". “The microwaves from cell phone towers can interfere with your body’s own EMFs, causing a variety of potential health problems, including: Headaches, Memory loss, cardiovascular stress, low sperm count, birth defects and cancer".

    What appears to be clear is that not enough research has been done and that the long term health impacts of EMF radiation from Cell Towers being built in residential areas. That there appears to be a GROWING CHORUS OF EVIDENCE COMING TO LIGHT OF THE IMPACTS OF EMF ON PUBLIC HEALTH THAT SHOULD NOT BE IGNORED by Council. (You just have to do a google search to see the overwhelming evidence of people who are significantly concerned about health dangers associated with EMF and Cell Towers)

    Based on information I located online from multiple sites and studies, I am significantly concerned about the potential health risks that are posed when Cell Towers are installed in Residential areas. As a resident of Wyoming and a regular user of 50 Renwick St site, I do not want to be subject to the bombardment of EMF radiation 24/7 from a large Telecommunications Tower being built on my doorstep and in my recreation area. I do not want my families nor my health to be put at these potential risks due to living within metres of this proposed development.

    I would like to know can Council unequivocally guarantee its residents that their health will not be put at risk by the installation of a telecommunications tower in a high traffic and residential site?

    I also ask that Council Members also take into consideration the potential DEVALUATION of property prices in the area, when considering this development application. When I researched the impact of cell tower installation on property prices I found the following information online - Quote: “Research indicates that over 90% of home buyers and renters are less interested in properties near cell towers and would pay less for a property in close vicinity to cellular antennas. Documentation of a price drop up to 20% is found in multiple surveys and published articles ….” That would effectively equate to a $100,000.00 drop in value on a modest family home.

    I ask the Council to also consider that a reduction in property value could potentially have a knock on effect on Council revenue. Would owners be entitled to request a review of land value by the Valuer General if their property is impacted by the development? Could a significant wide spread property value drop mean a reduction in annual council rates for each property that is impacted by the Telecommunication Tower. It stands to reason that the revenue that could be potentially derived from leasing of the land (for the compound/tower) could potentially be significantly negated by the reduction in land rates paid by property owners (as rates are calculated on property valuations – reduction in property value = reduction in annual rate payments).

    As to suitability of the site it should be considered that the proposed site is in a low lying parcel of land (50 Renwick street is situated in one of the low lying area of Wyoming Valley) and would not offer a good vantage point for mobile coverage. It would make sense to relocate this tower to the higher mountain area where there are large green spaces away from residential homes and high traffic public spaces.

    The potential social, health and economic impacts on residents must be considered when weighing up this development and its location. Based on these concerns raised by many in the community, I feel that it is not in the interest of the community, rate payers or council to approve the application at 50 Renwick St Wyoming to build a telecommunications tower on this site.

    Also it is important to note as a resident who will be significantly impacted by this development that it is disappointing that we first we heard about this proposal yesterday as both Council and the Developer did not send a letter to announce this planned development. It begs to ask how many other residents are unaware this proposal has been submitted to council and that they have not been given sufficient notice to comment on this proposal. Something as significant as this should require Council to send notification to all rate payers within a minimum of a 5km radius of the development.

    Thank you for taking my feedback into consideration

  63. Natalie commented

    My name is Natalie, I am 18 years old and I live within 250 meters of the proposed site for this new cellular tower. As a young adult of this community I am deeply concerned about the community’s safety and the safety of future generations that live in this area. As I understand it, the purpose of this new cellular tower is to increase the mobile signal for people around the suburb, but I feel that the major negative health impacts are being underestimated by those who wish to place this high frequency tower in such a highly populated area. Some of these major health effects include; memory loss, birth defects, cardiovascular stress, migraines, sleeps deprivation, cancer and many more.
    Another concern of mine and many of the people I have spoken to, who live in the area, is how close the selected area for the tower is to the business area and playground for children in Wyoming. Not only will this affect adults but it will also affect the health and development of the children which live and play in the area. I am worried that because cellular radiation and its effects are so erratic we do not know what other negative health effects could arise, such as the development of learning, mental and behavioural disabilities within children, teenagers and adults.
    For these reasons I strongly oppose the placement of this new cellular tower within Wyoming.

  64. Kimberley Stone commented

    I must ask that these developments are moved elsewhere. I know it is difficult to find appropriate areas for such things, however, a child's playground and sporting field in the center of a very active suburb, inches away from homes, schools, and shopping centers is not the location for anything industrial, let alone something which poses an insidious health risk. Please continue consideration for other more appropriate sites, thank you.

  65. Bruce Wood commented

    Dear Gosford Council,
    I strongly appose this construction and installation of a new phone tower in Wyoming
    This location my have not been thought out thoroughly
    Not only do we have the sports ground next to the suggested location
    It is also located near a scout hall, child care, hydrotherapy pool, local shopping centre, local hotel, doctor surgeries and residential housing
    Not that long ago smoking was not harmful and was prescribed by you local GP and asbestos was safe to use in houses

    Thank you for the opportunity to lodge this comment

    Bruce Wood

  66. Britta Wilson commented

    I am not consenting for antennas and mobile phone towers to be erected at Alan Davidson Oval due to unsafe levels of radiation emitted. Members of the community using this beautiful recreational space, including the new playground would be exposed to those unsafe levels of radiation. For many years have we waited for this playground. Mobile towers are especially dangerous because they emit microwaves at a frequency of 1900 MHz. Recent studies have shown that the intense radioactivity from mobile phone towers adversely impacts every biological organism within one square kilometer.
    https://www.safespaceprotection.com/emf-health-risks/emf-health-effects/cell-towers/
    Please reject this application and suggest other spaces outsides this densely populated area and right next to sport fields and playgrounds.

  67. Amy Asmanas commented

    I am writing to ask the Central Coast Council to consider the opinions of Wyoming residents when approving a large telecommunications tower inside a community space. I have read conflicting reports about the safety of these and will freely admit to not being a scientist. I am however, a mum and have 2 children as well as a large number of family friends who use Alan Davidson Oval regularly.

    I am confused about a tower being built in a low lying area. A brief look at satellite images of Wyoming and surrounds show areas that would be expected to provide better reception/coverage from a higher elevation. Although I assume the cost to build is greater in these less accessible areas. I would hate to think that an area of such community importance was chosen due to financial savings for Optus.

    If having the tower in a lower area does in fact provide better coverage and has no health implications to locals but is just a hideous eyesore, why is being placed in an area Council has spent a large amount of money developing in recent years?

    Has the land adjacent to the corner of Renwick St and the Pacific Highway (train track side of the Highway) been considered?

  68. Hannah Benjamin commented

    I’m concerned about the RF levels and the health concerns it may bring. Also the environmental issues it could create. The impact on the oval is also a concern. Why and what need, do they have to put a tower up on the oval?

  69. Helen Pickett commented

    Helen P
    I feel a more appropriate place could be found for a mobile tower, not in a sporting ground surrounded by a densely populated area.

  70. Samantha L commented

    Dear Central Coast Council,

    I’m DEFINITELY opposed to the installation of this monstrosity.

    I’m absolutely without question beyond shock to hear of this tower situation, the location is definitely inappropriate. I’m a (former) Optus customer how could they possibly think to put such a dangerous phone tower on an oval/park where many children & adults play.

    Not to mention the residents, Dr Surgeries, Childcare Centres, Shopping Centre just to name a few.

    I’m very concerned about the health risks this will cause, also the environmental impact just to name a couple.

    -Regards, Samantha

  71. Robert B commented

    Dear Central Coast Council,

    I’m another very concerned resident of Wyoming, opposed without a doubt of the installation of this tower.

    I have children that play soccer & play at Alan Davidson Oval, health factors are a major concern.

    Surely, there's another alternate location away from residents, Childcare Facilities, Doctor Surgeries the list goes on.

  72. Michele Hayden commented

    Michele H
    Dear Central Coast Council,

    My sons played soccer for Wyoming soccer club at Alan Davidson Oval, so I am concerned that this public space is to be reduced and subjected to the installation of this kind of equipment. There is plenty of space along the many ridge tops in the area for this type of tower to be located, well away from the public and urban centres.

  73. Leanne stone commented

    I agree with comments already made , no yo mobile phone tower in wyoming. There is a park and oval where children and adults play sports. Safety and disruption to everyone. Not a good idea . Thank you

  74. Joanne Masters commented

    To Central Coast Council
    No mobile phone tower in or near Alan Davidson oval, Wyoming.
    I live close to Alan Davidson Oval and I am definitely against having a mobile phone tower being installed. It is absolutely ridiculous to have a mobile phone tower in such close proximity of the sports playing field and children's play ground and residential area.
    I have concerns about the health risks and the environmental impact this tower will bring.
    I surely don't want to wake up every day to seeing and ugly mobile phone tower. A lot of money and time has been spent to have Alan Davidson Oval looking so nice why do you want to destroy this?
    Why am I hearing about this from a flyer put in my letterbox by a concerned local and not from the council or Optus? Are you trying to hide this from the locals so we won't have a chance to be heard and argue against this?
    I know big businesses like to make lots of money regardless but come on Optus and Central Coast Council isn't peoples lives more important than money.
    My mobile phone signal is extremely poor but I would rather do without a signal than the effects of such a tower.
    Thank you for taking the time to read my say on this matter.

  75. Dr Guy Strazzullo commented

    The proposed location for an Optus mobile tower in Alan Davidson Park, Wyoming is anti-community. It tests families’ trust in a Council that on the one hand made tremendous structural/aesthetic improvements to the park while on the other, wants to plonk a major structure in the middle of it. This will have significantly negative impact on people’s life on so many levels as stated by others here. The feasibility study by the council prior to DA approval should be tabled in all its details, including Council’s revenue from Optus at this proposed location as opposed to a safer one further up the mountains. The implementation of such irresponsible decision to allow this tower on the grounds will be a betrayal and a spear to the heart of the Wyoming community. I sincerely hope you come to your better judgement and save our park and our lives from this monstrosity.

  76. Joe Bloggs commented

    This is a test
    please disregard

  1. Have you made a donation or gift to a Councillor or Council employee? You may need to disclose this.

  2. Please use your real full name if possible.

  1. We never display your street address. Why do you need my address?

This week

Find PlanningAlerts useful?

This independent project is run by a local charity, the OpenAustralia Foundation. PlanningAlerts is powered by small, tax-deductible donations from the people who use it to stay informed about changes to their local area. If you find it useful, chip in to support PlanningAlerts.

Back PlanningAlerts