120 Bulls Garden Road, Gateshead NSW 2290

Telecommunication Facility

External link Read more information

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

(Source: Lake Macquarie City Council, reference DA-329/2016)

19 Comments

Have your say by adding your own comment.

  1. Gwenda Smith commented

    I object to this proposal for the Optus tower at this location. It is in close proximity to the homes in the estate off Justine Ave, Whitebridge, as well as nearby to houses in parts of Gateshead and Charlestown. The distance to schools on the Pacific Highway at Gateshead is short, as the crow flies, and as the electromagnetic energy radiation will travel.

    I have a grandchild and family members who live approximately 300 m from the site, and as their land is higher, a particular concern is radiation of EME from the tower.The long term health effects are not fully known, and the precautionary principle should be followed. There is only very limited tree vegetation between the properties backing on to Bullsgarden Rd and the site, most of this area is only grassed.

    The tower and antennas will be over 36m in height, and this is a breach of the LMCC height limit for the area of 15m, as well as not complying with SEPP (Infrastructure) 2007 which outlines provisions regarding the height of towers in Industrial land when it is located near residential areas.

    Due to the height of the tower and its location right on Bullsgarden Rd, the visual impact will be unacceptable, especially for those living, working and driving in the area.

    The proponent incorrectly suggests that the tower will be well located as it is in an industrial area and generally removed from sensitive uses such as schools and residences. This is not true. It is on the edge of the industrial area, and is located in close proximity to houses, schools, and other facilities such as a gym and a play centre. Many people live, work and enjoy recreational facilities in the immediate area.

    The low land level of the site presumably means the tower needs to be relatively high. Surely another site could be found further away from houses etc. The proponent admits that the "level of coverage and service provisions to the Gateshead locality was the main determining factor in the site selection process". Pg 6, SoEE. The health of the local community should be paramount.

    Recent studies have determined that threatened squirrel gliders exist in the bushland to the east and west of Bullsgarden Rd, and the assertion that "there are no threatened species located within the subject land" is irrelevant. The site AND the surrounding areas need to be considered when considering the impact on fauna.

    LMCC should not allow the construction of this mobile phone base station on this site.

  2. Jennifer Phegan commented

    We have two young children, and live almost directly opposite the proposed site. I would gladly sacrifice my network signal in favour of protecting the future health and wellbeing of my family. The proposed tower would have a detrimental effect on the local community,.

  3. Mike Hackney commented

    I strongly object to this proposal.
    There have been no long term studies on the impact on human health from towers such as this, however anecdotal evidence has presented damning negative health impacts.
    This location is extremely close to residential areas.
    I have a wife and three young children, who make up a small portion of the large community who reside right next to the proposed site of this tower.
    I believe that this tower will place significant health risks to my family, our community, to wildlife and at the very least present itself as blight on the leafy, picturesque outlook of this area.
    Will residents be reimbursed for depreciation in land values due to this monstrosity?
    As for providing better reception to the local residents? I for one do not currently have any reception problems and never have in the nine years I have resided here. And furthermore if I did have reception issues I would happily forgo (as I'm sure most residents in the area would) any deemed improvement in reception, if it meant non construction of this ill conceived tower.
    At what point do we say enough is enough when it comes to so called " progress" and financial gain, when it comes at the detriment of citizens and the environment.

    It is imperative that this proposal be declined by LMCC and that common sense and decency should prevail.

  4. Kerry Anne Rounsley and Paul Gregory Rounsley commented

    We strongly object to the proposed Optus tower in Bullsgarden Road.

    We have lived close to where the proposed tower will be in Justine Avenue, Whitebridge for 13 years and have never had a problem with phone reception.

    The tower will be close to a residential area, places where many people work, where people visit businesses, attend school and carry out leisure activities. These include four gymnasiums, a sports stadium, play centre and a ballet school.

    We walk past this site several times a week when we attend the gym in Oakdale Road and when exercising our dog. We are concerned about the future negative health implications for people especially the young children living close by.

    The proposed tower will be a visual eyesore since it is immediately adjacent to Bullsgarden Road. It will be more than double the height the LMCC allows. It does not follow the SEPP (Infrastructure) 2007 rules regarding the height of towers in Industrial land when located near residential areas.

    The tower must be built away from this area where people work, live and play.

  5. Kristie Krainz commented

    I strongly object to this proposal. I live in the residential area near this proposed site. I would like to say I have not received any written notice from council about this proposal. Surely those that would be affected have a right to be notified. Not only does the proposal exceed councils height restriction of 15 metres it will also have long term health effects of people who live nearby. It will be a visual eyesore and will no doubt bring property and land values down in the residential estate it will be opposite. Will council and Optus be compensating land owners for this? Children will not be allowed to play outside or ride their bikes nearby, or walk our dog on Bulls Garden Road. This is too close to both the industrial area and the residential area. This is where we live, please don't put our health at risk for mobile phone coverage. There are so many other options to put this, which is away from people's houses and businesses, and which is on higher ground. I have lived in Justine avenue for over 9 years and have never had a problem with phone coverage.
    I emplore LMCC to use common sense when making their decision to oppose this application. I don't won't to have to move my family away from a suburb that I love and call home.

  6. Cody Kennedy commented

    Regarding Telecommunication Facility at 120 Bulls Garden Road, Gateshead NSW 2290:
    I strongly object to this facility being positioned in such close proximity to houses and residential areas. We do not yet know the safety of telecommunication towers and to build one so close to dwellings is unnecessary. The height of the tower also does not fall under the height restrictions (SEPP 2007) allowed so close to residential. I would like to point out that at no point have I as a person living so close to this proposed development been notified of it. I do not want to move away from this beautiful area but I will not put my family and their health at risk.

  7. Laraine Mitchell commented

    DA/329/2016 Mobile Phone Base Station - 120 Bullsgrden Road, Whitebridge 2290

    I strongly object to the proposed Optus Tower. It will be in very close proximity to our homes and residential areas.
    My concerns are -
    - Possible long term health effects.
    - Excessive height.
    - Visual impact.
    - Threatened sqwuirrel gliders in the surrounding bushland
    - Proposed tower will decrease our land value and potential re-selling.

  8. Fay Mitchell commented

    Re: 120 Bullsgarden Road, Whitebridge 2290

    I object to the proposal.

    The tower and antennas will be over 36m in height, and this is a breach of the LMCC height limit for the area.
    Due to the height of the tower and its location the visual impact will be horrific for those living, working and driving in the area.
    The proposed development is close to houses, schools, gyms, play centres, etc. Many people live, work and enjoy the immediate area.
    The health concerns of the community should be a priority.
    There are threatened species in the area.
    LMCC should definitely not allow the construction of this mobile phone base station.

  9. Jennifer Mills commented

    I object to the building of this tower as we have lived in this estate for 25 years we still have you children at home who constantly play outdoors in our cul de sac & in the local bush adjoining Bullsgarden Rd, I fear for their health, our health & the health of all those who work live & play in this area. We do not want to move from this quiet area & have been with Vodafone for many years & have never had a coverage problem. We strongly object to this proposed telecommunications tower.

  10. Lynette Brunton commented

    Lyn Brunton
    I strongly disagree with the positioning of the telecommunication tower at 120 Bullsgarden road Gateshead.
    I wish to make my opinion heard and offer support to my local community in preventing this construction so close to the residential area. There must surely be a more suited location for this type of development. Our health and safety must come first.
    I am a customer of Optus and up to this stage have been most satisfied with the service provided.
    I urge LMCC to understand the position in which we find ourselves and act on our behalf.

  11. Belinda Duff commented

    I object to the proposed telecommunication tower (DA 329/2016) proposed at 120 Bullsgarden Road Whitebridge 2290.

    The Statement of Environmental Effects notes in 2.3 "that it is generally removed from community sensitive uses such as schools and residential development" however the first home in our residential area will only be approximately 130m away from the tower.

    The visual impact to the environment will be significant, considering it will be one of the tallest structures in Lake Macquarie greatly exceeding its current height restrictions.

    I do not want to risk the future health of my children and family for a possible improvement to telecommunications services. When we don't have any current problems.

    There must be some other locations that would be more suitable.

  12. Michelle Burdekin commented

    To the General Manager LMCC,

    I hope LMCC officers will acknowledge and honour their own environmental policies and strategies in assessing this DA. There ARE endangered species in the wildlife corridor between Whitebridge, Jewells and beyond which need environmental protection to be genuine and robust. The squirrel glider is one species whose presence has been confirmed despite councils recent refusal to acknowledge such; there are powerful owls and microbats are also along the corridor. There may well be flora species on the list of local threatened species which may be affected if bees are affected by EMR as has been suggested in a number of scientific studies.

    While Commissioner Murrell may have said in a recent land and environment case in NSW that they had "already looked in to the perceived health risks from phone towers and ruled that there was no logical or reasonable basis to refuse a base station on health grounds because the Australia Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Authority’s (ARPANSA) standard was based on strong scientific evidence and embraced a precautionary approach" this relates to human health. Notably, the long term effects are less well supported and as we have seen in the past so often, new studies find new evidence.

    But, in relation to animals, significant deleterious effects have been noted regarding the effect of telecommunications towers. An article referenced on ARPANSA's website discusses this http://www.omicsonline.com/open-access/impacts-of-radiofrequency-electromagnetic-field-rfemf-from-cell-phone-towers-and-wireless-devices-on-biosystem-and-ecosystem-a-review-0974-8369-4-179.pdf?aid=12830.

    It has taken considerable effort from the community and wildlife experts to apprise LMCC of the need to genuinely and properly consider local wildlife in recent cases and I would hope, this time, all necessary protections will be afforded to the environment through the completion of an SIS by an independent expert and that we don't see the environment being 'defended' by a paid scriptwriter for the proponent and council blindly accepting this.

    Regards,
    Michelle Burdekin

  13. Rebecca MacDonald commented

    I strongly object to the proposed telecommunication tower (DA 329/2016) proposed at 120 Bullsgarden Road Whitebridge 2290.

    We moved to Newcastle 7 years ago and invested in a growing and popular area of Lake Macquarie where my husband and I live with our two young children. We are most deeply concerned for the unknown health risks for the community. We live approximately 100 metres from the proposed site. We appeal emphatically to LMCC to please act in the interest of safety and protect its constituents and their families from this tower and its proposed site as it borders our home, our community, our safe place to raise our children.

    We use Bulls Garden Road to access the Fernleigh track to take our children bike riding, walk our dog and enjoy our local area and this would mean we would walk directly under the proposed tower. This tower poses a threat to all people that enjoy this area, not just its residents but the people who work and play here and the animals that live here too.

    I could not continue to live in this estate knowing that the impact of that proposed tower once erected could threaten the health of my children.

  14. Amanda & Douglas Walton commented

    I wish to object to this development on the grounds of safety. We live approximately 500 metres up the road. When the height of this structure is considered, I expect that the top of this tower will be practically at the same level as our home. There is very little earth/tree coverage to limit the impact of radiation coming from this structure onto our home. I also would like to note that the intersection between Bulls Garden Road and Justine Avenue is the only way for residents of this estate to come and go. This means that all residents will be affected adversely, on a daily basis, by this structure.

  15. Paul Kennedy commented

    My 3 yr old son is too young to object to potential brain damage these towers may cause in twenty years time. So I'm doing it for him. Don't allow this tower.

  16. Andrew Mayzen commented

    I strongly object to the proposed telecommunication tower (DA 329/2016) proposed at 120 Bullsgarden Road Whitebridge 2290.

    The jury is not out on the effects of EMF radiation. I have two children including one newborn. Simply I do not want to chance it. I chose to reside here as we are close to nature and far from the impacts of hi-rise and other city type development.

    I am not against Optus putting up a tower for better coverage just not in my face in such a prominent spot. Keep it away from us and our Children. Surely they can put it in an area further away from residences.

    And for the record when a DA like this is put in, call it what it is, a Mobile Phone Tower NOT a "communication facility". If you want communication get the NBN here instead

  17. T Judd commented

    I strongly object to the proposed telecommunications tower on Bullsgarden road. The community of Whitebridge are already exposed to the effects of a telecommunications tower located on the border of Whitebridge and Dudley. To have two telecommunications towers in the one suburb is poor planning and a violation of the rights of the residents to have a safe and healthy place to live. When looking at the proposed towers location as the crow flies it is extremely close to thousands residents. It will not only be negatively affecting the residents in the housing estate off Bullsgarden road but those in the remainder of Whitebridge, Charlestown East and Gateshead. One telecommunication tower in a residential suburb is questionable as it is, but to place two in a suburb shows a complete lack of consideration for resident health and safety, the environment, the impact on property values and the aesthetics of an area.

  18. Christine Armstrong commented

    I strongly object to the proposed Optus tower at 120 Bullsgarden Road Whitebridge. The nearness to residential housing ,schools and facilities is frightening to me . ( gyms, dance schools , children's gymnastics, play centre and trampoline park) that are used by the community of young and old . Let's not forget the Fernleigh Track which is a huge environmental and tourist asset to this area. Many families would be affected by not only the size and look of the structure but the unknown health and safety risks . I hope the LMCC takes a good look at the planning of this tower and surely there would be a better location found with no threat to our beautiful environment, our families and our wildlife. Please reconsider this application and say NO to its presence in this area.

  19. Douglas Walton commented

    I note that I have missed the deadline for submissions to the council on the above matter. However, I feel that this comment is important enough to consider as part of the determination of the application from Visionstream.

    I've taken the time to read the proposal from Visionstream carefully and I believe there is a rather large omission from their Environmental Impact statement. According to Schedule 3A of the ISEPP, the proposal does not appear to be permissible as the lot they claim is a natural barrier (119 Bulls Garden Road - Lot 2052 DP 823719) to the residential zone to the north is actually zoned R2. Under the code it states "If the tower is located on land in Zone IN1, IN2 or IN3 or an equivalent land use zone, the tower must not:
    (a) be located within 100 metres of a Zone R1, R2, R3, R4, R5 or RU5 or equivalent land use zone boundary".

    I know of at least one occasion that this lot was attempted to be sold to developers since I've been a resident of this estate. Under these guidelines I believe the council has no other option but to reject this application outright.

  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