PlanningAlerts

19 Comments

Create an account or sign in to have your say by adding your own comment.

1. As a home owner and resident of Saratoga, I strongly object to this proposal.
   The objection is:
   1. The proposed height of the tower is too tall. It will be a scar on the local skyline and a devaluing eyesore for surrounding properties.
   2. The high frequency electromagnetic wavelengths emitted by 5G is not something I wish my home and young family to.

2. I object to any 5G transmission masts being placed in built up areas of the central Coast and raise the following:

   1/ Miicrowave energy produced by these installations in Australia in not to as high a standard of safety as other countries in the world. So there is a question why not?
   2/ These 5G installations are being put into suburbs where fibre optics should have been run in by the NBN. Why are people of the coast being subjected to another new technology that is an environmental eyesore, when fibre to the premises is better both safe & underground?
   3/ The NBN is a failure on the Central Coast in many areas, as they cannot deliver the Governments required line speed requirements via Fibre to the node tecnology. Council should reject 5G and send a clear message to the Federal Government to fix the NBN.
   4/ 5G is being pushed supposedly to increase data transmission on mobile phones? Why put these ugly 5G towers into suburbs like Saratoga under some illusion businesses run on mobile phone data.

   5/ If 5G is as safe as 4G then why do they have to build higher towers & not just put them on buildings like 4G or lower towers?

   I implore Central Coast Council to stand up for its residents against gready telecommunications companies. To fight to keep our environment safe & free of these hideous structures.

3. I totally agree & support Harry Machan

   I object to any 5G transmission masts being placed in built up areas of the central Coast and raise the following:

   1/ Miicrowave energy produced by these installations in Australia in not to as high a standard of safety as other countries in the world. So there is a question why not?
   2/ These 5G installations are being put into suburbs where fibre optics should have been run in by the NBN. Why are people of the coast being subjected to another new technology that is an environmental eyesore, when fibre to the premises is better both safe & underground?
   3/ The NBN is a failure on the Central Coast in many areas, as they cannot deliver the Governments required line speed requirements via Fibre to the node tecnology. Council should reject 5G and send a clear message to the Federal Government to fix the NBN.
   4/ 5G is being pushed supposedly to increase data transmission on mobile phones? Why put these ugly 5G towers into suburbs like Saratoga under some illusion businesses run on mobile phone data.

   5/ If 5G is as safe as 4G then why do they have to build higher towers & not just put them on buildings like 4G or lower towers?

   I implore Central Coast Council to stand up for its residents against gready telecommunications companies. To fight to keep our environment safe & free of these hideous structures.

4. I strongly object to this proposal.
   Not only will this telecommunications tower be an eyesore in beautiful Saratoga but the affect on health is even more worrisome.

5. I object to this proposal as I don’t believe the health and safety of 5G have been investigated thoroughly enough. Being a resident of Davistown with children at school at Saratoga I think it’s not a necessary health risk to our children and families in the area.

6. To: Central Coast Council
   CC: Kordia Solutions Pty Limited and Singtel Optus Pty Limited,

   I object to the installation of this tower. Please provide the following:

   - long-term, peer-reviewed safety studies that unequivocally proves that the 5G network will not cause the Australian people, animals, plants, soils, waterways, air, climate, and oceans serious adverse effects.

   - a full public consultation, and allow the citizens of Australia to decide whether they want such technologies activated, after disclosing the current scientific community’s stance on the health dangers they pose.

   - the mitigation strategies that were considered (if any), and associated cost models (if any) for the predicted negative health and environmental consequences of 5G technology.

   - emergency/safety advice around the dangers of 5G technology; and what citizens should do in the event that a tower is damaged, i.e. in the event of a car accident, or similar.

   Until such time, I request that you halt the rollout to this technology and object to this any 5G/4GX upgrades.

   Thank you.

   Regards,

7. I object to this installation due to the insufficient safety testing of 5G. In addition there is evidence showing that high levels of the subsequent radiation from these towers cause harm to our children, wildlife and environment.

   Thank you

8. I oppose this tower, and ANY others around the Central Coast! My reasons for this are that there has been very little community consultation and there is a distinct lack of study into the effects of 5G radiation! The necessity for antennae to be placed at shorter intervals and the point that we can never shut this off, (as many do with their wifi routers, to protect their families!). More and more people are experiencing health problems due to bombardment from radiation and to roll this out without being fully knowledgeable and aware of the consequences is plain ludicrous!

9. I object to the following:
   (1) The upgrade to a huge 27m monopole (which is absent from the RFNSA site). This is will be a huge eyesore in a residential area.
   (2) The increase in wasted power output being more than a 60% increase in V/m in the 50m range. Note that Australia has 100 times the limits of V/m output that many other countries have set.
   (3) The use of 5G phased array, which includes pulsed beams with targeting functionality. The health science of this is very questionable and all 5G should be put on hold until such time as the corrupt ARPANSA is made to include a review of the extensive research on damaging non-heat effects of EMF and especially 5G specific tests.
   The people of Australia do not require this imposition of 5G. What we want is fast FTTP NBN broadband (e.g. like South Korea) without the speed limiting.

10. I strongly object to this proposal. Firstly, the body that monitors and identifies solar radiation and nuclear radiation risks to the Australian population - ARPANSA - is making claims that it is safe for human health yet it has conducted no independent studies of its own and has ignored thousands of other independent research studies showing EME radiation can cause serious health issues. No long-term studies have be conducted with 5G on human health and a lack of evidence does not equate to there being no risk! Not known, because not looked for!

    If EME radiation does not damage human health, then why do insurance policies exclude claims for damages from wireless radiation? I request that a precautionary approach be undertaken and that the roll-out of 5G across ALL of the Central Coast be halted until the research is properly conducted and investigated.

    Secondly, placing these towers and antennae close to residential properties means that not only will local residents be unable to mitigate EMF's if they choose or need to, but that they are unsightly and have been shown to reduce property values.

    Thank you.

11. To Central Coast Council
    As a home owner and resident of Saratoga, I strongly object to this proposal as I don’t believe the health and safety of 5G has been investigated thoroughly enough. Living within a very short distance to the proposed construction of the tower, and having grandchildren at Brisbania School I think its a huge health risk to all of our children and families in this area.
    In addition the proposed height of the tower is too tall. It will be a blight on the landscape and a devaluing eyesore for surrounding properties. I beg Central Coast Council to stand up for its residents against gready telecommunications companies and to fight to keep our environment safe & free of these hideous structures.
    Yours faithfully
    Margaret Sbrocchi

12. I strongly object to this planned proposal due the the environmental impact it will have on residents in the area. This tower will be an eyesore and not fit in with the green space of the local Saratoga area. Also I am concerned about the biological impacts to human health and are yet to see clear scientific evidence to convince me of the safety of EMF frequencies put out by these towers.

    https://www.radiationresearch.org/articles/us-senator-blumenthal-raises-concerns-on-5g-wireless-technology-health-risks-at-senate-hearing-youtube/

    Please take the time to watch the above short video clip of a senate hearing into 5g technology and its rollout...

    Increasingly other countries are ceasing or halting the rollout of 5G/eEMF technologies yet it appears that the Australian telco industry has the accelerator pressed flat to the floor in moving forward to rollout this technology at breakneck speed. In other countries exposure standards are set much lower than the Australian standards.

    I draw your attention to this study too https://ehtrust.org/study-finds-cell-tower-radiation-linked-type-damage-human-blood-predicts-cancer/
    For these reasons I object to this development.

    Thank you.

13. There are a large number of inconsistencies and issues with the documents submitted to Council. See below summary; this is not an exhaustive list.

    1. Page 6 of the report acknowledges that the site is zoned R2 – Low Density Residential. This proposal is 18.3m higher than the allowed maximum height permitted for the area – No 4.6 Submission is included to address this.

    2. Page 8 of the report states that the intention is “to increase coverage in the area with minimal adverse impact on surrounding environments and the community”. Clearly a 27m tall tower in an R2 zoned area is not compatible with minimal adverse impact.

    3. Page 10 of the report states that “suitable candidate sites were examined” other than the proposed site. There is no evidence within this report of what other sites were considered.

    4. Page 11 of the report states that a thorough investigation of the Saratoga area and its surrounds was undertaken for a greenfield site, however there is still no evidence of this within the report.

    5. Under section 1.3 on Page 11, “the proposed land use is consistent with the setting and generally compatible with adjoining land uses”. Clearly, a 27m tall tower is not consistent with the adjoining land use, being low density residential.

    6. Page 11 of the report also states “Visual impact – As the proposal involves the upgrade of an existing facility, it is considered that the proposed site will not result in unacceptable loss of amenity;”.

    7. Table 2 on Page 20 states that as per (b), The visual impact of telecommunications facilities should be minimised, visual clutter is to be reduced particularly on tops of buildings, and their physical dimensions (including support mounts) should be sympathetic to the scale and height of the building to which it is to be attached, and sympathetic to adjacent buildings. Clearly the proposed development does not satisfy this requirement.

    8. As per Table 2 on Page 21, (g) A telecommunications facility should be located so as to minimize, or avoid the obstruction of a significant view of a heritage item or place, a landmark, a streetscape, vista or a panorama, whether viewed from public or private land. The report states that the proposed development meets this requirement. We strongly suggest that the DA does not in fact meet this requirement.

    9. Table 3 p 28 It is stated: “To ensure that non-residential land uses do not adversely affect residential amenity or place demands on services beyond the level reasonably required for low density housing.” The visual impact assessment is not accurate, nor up-to-date with current vegetation or views from surrounding properties.

    10. LEP table 4 page 30 “safeguarding the character and scenic landscapes of Saratoga through sensitive design of the facility.” DCP for Saratoga 6: Open Woodland Hillsides - Desired Character is not achieved. These should remain low-density residential areas where the existing scenic quality and amenity of prominent hillsides are enhanced.

    11. Section 6.0, conclusion, on Page 47 states that;
    • The proposal will not result in any adverse visual impacts
    • The proposal is fittingly located within the urban context and is consistent with adjacent land uses.

    12. The EME (radiation report) attached as an appendix to the report shows a 23% increase in the radiation to nearby receivers. This is a significant increase. There is no indication of the maximum wattage capacity that the tower is allowed to transmit. And the reading is at 1.5m above ground level. This does not take into account the second storey balconies, or the topography of the surrounding land. An independent analysis would be needed.

    From the above, it can clearly be seen that the proposal has not been given adequate planning, review, or analysis of more suitable solutions. It is totally out of place and scale, and totally incompatible with the surrounding residential neighbourhood.

    We urge Central Coast Council to review the above points, and take them, and their adverse effects on the families living underneath, and nearby to this proposed over scaled tower into consideration in their decision making, as well as the precedent decision on an almost identical issue (Wyoming Optus 5G Tower).

14. I strongly object to the new 5 G tower proposal at Saratoga. We live In direct line of site to the tower & we are extremely concerned about the radiation effects to ourselves & our children.
    Besides the fact that it this area is not zoned for such a tower & the unsightly effect it would have above the tree line, it is our health, that of our children & all The people that live directly around us we are concerned for.

15. I strongly object to the proposal based on the inappropriate location.
    • The proposal is not consistent with the stated objectives of the R2 – Low Density Residential zone,
    • The proposal is not consistent with the desired character,
    • The proposal is not in the public interest due to the negative visual impact and in a decreased level of amenity for the public.
    • The proposal adversely affects residential amenity beyond the level reasonably required for low-density housing.
    • The EME data included with the report does not include thorough and accurate data (refer point 12 below)

    With reference to the Statement of Environmental Effects:

    1. Telecommunications facilities are prohibited within R2 zone as telecommunications facilities is not listed as permitted with consent.
    Page 6 of the report acknowledges that the site is zoned R2 – Low Density Residential. This proposal is 18.3m higher than the allowed maximum height permitted for the area without the required 4.6 Submission to address this.

    2. A 27m tall tower in an R2 zoned area is not compatible with a statement minimal adverse impact, particularly given the topography of the land, with close proximity of houses. Meaning the residential floor levels are above the RL at the base of the pole. Page 8 of the report states that the intention is “to increase coverage in the area with minimal adverse impact on surrounding environments and the community”. This is not demonstrated

    3. Page 10 of the report states that “suitable candidate sites were examined” other than the proposed site. There is no evidence within this report of what other sites were considered.

    4. Page 11 of the report states that a thorough investigation of the Saratoga area and its surrounds was undertaken for a greenfield site, however there is still no evidence of this within the report.

    5. All other sites chosen within the 2251 postcode are located in zones that minimise the impacts on the village communities in their amenity and visual character objectives.
    Under section 1.3 on Page 11, “the proposed land use is consistent with the setting and generally compatible with adjoining land uses”. Clearly, a 27m tall tower is not consistent with the adjoining land use, being low density residential.

    6. Page 11 of the report also states “Visual impact – As the proposal involves the upgrade of an existing facility, it is considered that the proposed site will not result in unacceptable loss of amenity;”.

    7. Table 2 on Page 20 states that as per (b), The visual impact of telecommunications facilities should be minimised, visual clutter is to be reduced particularly on tops of buildings, and their physical dimensions (including support mounts) should be sympathetic to the scale and height of the building to which it is to be attached, and sympathetic to adjacent buildings. Clearly the proposed development does not satisfy this requirement. The photo montages within the Statement of environmental effects are incorrect as the photographs were taken prior to the trees opposite the subject site being removed earlier this year, we urge the council and the appointed officer to visit the subject site to accurately assess the impact of the proposed.

    8. As per Table 2 on Page 21, (g) A telecommunications facility should be located so as to minimize, or avoid the obstruction of a significant view of a heritage item or place, a landmark, a streetscape, vista or a panorama, whether viewed from public or private land. The report states that the proposed development meets this requirement. We strongly suggest that the DA does not in fact meet this requirement.

    9. Table 3 p 28 It is stated: “To ensure that non-residential land uses do not adversely affect residential amenity or place demands on services beyond the level reasonably required for low density housing.” The visual impact assessment is not accurate, nor up-to-date with current vegetation or views from surrounding properties.

    10. LEP table 4 page 30 “safeguarding the character and scenic landscapes of Saratoga through sensitive design of the facility.” DCP for Saratoga 6: Open Woodland Hillsides - Desired Character is not achieved. These should remain low-density residential areas where the existing scenic quality and amenity of prominent hillsides are enhanced.

    11. Section 6.0, conclusion, on Page 47 states that;
    • The proposal will not result in any adverse visual impacts
    • The proposal is fittingly located within the urban context and is consistent with adjacent land uses.

    12. The EME (radiation report) attached as an appendix to the report shows a 23% increase in the radiation to nearby receivers, however this is incomplete as noted below. This is a significant increase. There is no indication of the maximum wattage capacity that the tower is allowed to transmit. The reading is at 1.5m above ground level, and does not take into account the second storey balconies, or the topography of the surrounding land.

    The report states:
    “Calculated EME levels at other areas of interest
    This table contains calculations of the maximum EME levels at selected areas of interest, identified through consultation requirements of the Communications Alliance Ltd Deployment Code C564:2018 or other means. Calculations are performed over the indicated height range and include all existing and any proposed radio systems for this site”

    The only place of interest shown is the Apostolic Church, which is downhill from the base of the tower and 1.5 blocks distance away. Within ARPANSA’s website it is noted that the topography should be considered. https://www.arpansa.gov.au/research/surveys/environmental-electromagnetic-energy-reports?fbclid=IwAR1TjYgR0EvMPwpla9SDo3GSZSZVZkZujP-tDxtPDpenqcdy_dBT6vORqQ4

    “Effect of Landscape (topography)
    The tables of calculated EME levels provide values at 1.5 m above a flat landscape. Commonly, wireless base stations are located on a high point and the assumption of flat ground provides a worst-case estimate for these situations. Sometimes, however, the ground may slope upwards away from the base station and this can cause concern that levels may be higher than calculated. In these cases the 'Calculated EME levels at other areas of interest' table should include the levels of EME at a selection of heights where maximum levels are expected.”

    This is also relevant as there are strict WHS guidelines about standing in front of antenna’s.

    The EME data shown in the report is incomplete. When I queried Telstra, and requested data on the EME levels at our location, they advised that they establish the elevated levels and places of interest based on Google Maps. The purpose of writing a Statement of Environmental Effects is to demonstrate due diligence from the applicant. I do not believe the exclusion of a comprehensive local analysis of effects displays this. They have supplied an expected EME reading for my address which is 61% higher than the place of interest shown in their report.

    An independent analysis would be needed in order to accurately assess the effects of the surrounding houses due to proximity and topography.

    From the above, it can clearly be seen that the proposal has not been given adequate planning, review, or analysis of more suitable solutions. It is totally out of place and scale, and incompatible with the surrounding residential neighbourhood.

    In addition, please consider the precedent decision on the Wyoming Optus 5G Tower.

    I urge Central Coast Council to review the above points, and take them, and their adverse effects on the families living in close proximity to this proposed tower into consideration in their decision. Please work with the applicant to find a more acceptable location on a hill top away from residences.

    I have not made a donation or gift to a Councillor or Council employee.

16. I strongly oppose the proposal of erecting a 5G Telstra tower in Saratoga. Living only metres away from the proposed sight it it goes ahead I will have an unsightly view when I look out the windows of my house.

    Our beautiful suburb of Saratoga will no longer be know as “Saradise” if this tower goes ahead.

    All the Trees have recently been removed from the proposed site along Davistown road. This tower will not blend in with the environment and by no means be discreet.
    Site is for R2 zoning and the tower will be 18.3 metres taller than allowed. Not keeping within the 8.5 m height limit in Saratoga, this infrastructure will obscure views of Brisbane Waters for many of the local residents.

    Not only will It with have a huge aesthetic impact to the area it will also have a negative impact to the value of our properties.

    There is lack of long term evidence to support 5G safety .Long term exposure to wireless radiation can cause chronic health problems including cancer, DNA damage, neurological and cognitive harm, infertility and miscarriage, migraines, anxiety, depression, Alzheimer's, behaviour problems among others.

    Children are especially vulnerable to wireless radiation exposure because of their developing brains and bodies.
    With Brisbania Public just you the road and a bus stop right outside the proposed sight, where is the evidence to show us 5G towers are safe and no harmful to human health?

    With reference to The Statement of Environmental Effects (SEE) document:

    1. Page 6 of the report acknowledges that the site is zoned R2 – Low Density Residential. This proposal is 18.3m higher than the allowed maximum height permitted for the area – No 4.6 Submission is included to address this.

    2. Page 8 of the report states that the intention is “to increase coverage in the area with minimal adverse impact on surrounding environments and the community”. Clearly a 27m tall tower in an R2 zoned area is not compatible with minimal adverse impact.

    3. Page 10 of the report states that “suitable candidate sites were examined” other than the proposed site. There is no evidence within this report of what other sites were considered.

    4. Page 11 of the report states that a thorough investigation of the Saratoga area and its surrounds was undertaken for a greenfield site, however there is still no evidence of this within the report.

    5. Under section 1.3 on Page 11, “the proposed land use is consistent with the setting and generally compatible with adjoining land uses”. Clearly, a 27m tall tower is not consistent with the adjoining land use, being low density residential.

    6. Page 11 of the report also states “Visual impact – As the proposal involves the upgrade of an existing facility, it is considered that the proposed site will not result in unacceptable loss of amenity;”.

    7. Table 2 on Page 20 states that as per (b), The visual impact of telecommunications facilities should be minimised, visual clutter is to be reduced particularly on tops of buildings, and their physical dimensions (including support mounts) should be sympathetic to the scale and height of the building to which it is to be attached, and sympathetic to adjacent buildings. Clearly the proposed development does not satisfy this requirement.

    8. As per Table 2 on Page 21, (g) A telecommunications facility should be located so as to minimize, or avoid the obstruction of a significant view of a heritage item or place, a landmark, a streetscape, vista or a panorama, whether viewed from public or private land. The report states that the proposed development meets this requirement. We strongly suggest that the DA does not in fact meet this requirement.

    9. Table 3 p 28 It is stated: “To ensure that non-residential land uses do not adversely affect residential amenity or place demands on services beyond the level reasonably required for low density housing.” The visual impact assessment is not accurate, nor up-to-date with current vegetation or views from surrounding properties.

    10. LEP table 4 page 30 “safeguarding the character and scenic landscapes of Saratoga through sensitive design of the facility.” DCP for Saratoga 6: Open Woodland Hillsides - Desired Character is not achieved. These should remain low-density residential areas where the existing scenic quality and amenity of prominent hillsides are enhanced.

    11. Section 6.0, conclusion, on Page 47 states that;
    • The proposal will not result in any adverse visual impacts
    • The proposal is fittingly located within the urban context and is consistent with adjacent land uses.

    12. The EME (radiation report) attached as an appendix to the report shows a 23% increase in the radiation to nearby receivers. This is a significant increase. There is no indication of the maximum wattage capacity that the tower is allowed to transmit. And the reading is at 1.5m above ground level. This does not take into account the second storey balconies, or the topography of the surrounding land. An independent analysis would be needed.

    Central Coast Council, I ask that you please review all the concerns and point stated. The beauty of Saratoga will be ruined if the 5G tower goes ahead and the health of all locals comprised.

17. I object to the proposal of the 5G tower at Saratoga. There is no clear reports on the radiation and the effects it has on us. With 3 young kids I am concerned about there health if the tower goes ahead. It is also not with in the guidelines of the zoning in Saratoga and the residential area.

18. I Strongly agree to the construction of the Telstra Tower, 99% of the people commenting on this and opposing it are the same people who will probably wear tin foil hats if google told them to, Let's finally get some good coverage wooohooooooooooo!

19. Pretty sure we are all now learning that things like money and good phone reception pale in comparison to our health.
    Until we know EXACTLY what these towers emit/do to us, we need to not install them.

Have your say on this application

Your comment and details will be sent to Central Coast Council (Gosford). They may consider your submission when they decide whether to approve this application. Your name and comment will be posted publicly above.

Create an account or sign in to make a comment