PlanningAlerts

9 Comments

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

1. 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. 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.
   The facility would also put the lives of local wildlife at risk and this needs to be considered.

2. I respectively disagree with Visionstream’s assessment of the land immediately adjacent to the North side of the site location that they wish to develop. They appear to have misrepresented the zoning in figure 6 in their ESS. They have made an error in their report in regards the land that they have zoned B1. This is also categorised as available to be developed as light density residential (according to Lake Macquarie’s property enquiry tool) – just like the other areas in this figure that were coloured red. If we take the standard approach that has been used for all other areas where there is a road in a zoned area, the area coloured red should extend all the way to the boundary of this development.

   I can only assume that Visionstream is proposing to council that the land that they zoned as B1 (actually also R2) will remain buffer land in perpetuity. I don’t think this can be assumed.

   On page 20 of their SEE, they discuss the code and how to be considered “best practice”, the development must be “moderately” separated from residential usage. Given the residential zoning is directly across the road (some 40 metres from the proposed site), there would have to be some serious questions over whether this is indeed best practice.

   This position continues to be held at page 22 of the SEE where Visionstream would have you believe that the visual impact of the development is in line with the area i.e an Industrial zone and that there is a natural buffer from residential land. I again contest this proposition as they have chosen a site on the northern boundary and at the extreme edge of a boundary between light residential and light industrial zoning. This land that they consider vegetation (Zoned B1 on their SEE but is actually also Zoned R2) can also be developed for residential use – and there is history in this being attempted. The only barrier between this development (the highest visual impact in the area and potentially the most harmful to those potentially near it), is a road clear of vegetation.

   To take another perspective, if I were standing at the border of New South Wales and Queensland and looked north to Queensland, am I looking at Queensland or New South Wales? The fact they have chosen a site on the boundary between light industrial and light residential and will be pointing some of their equipment directly at the residential zoning should mean that the development should be assessed as being within and directly affecting a residential zone.

   Given I have established that the site in which this DA wants council to approve is clearly going to impact the residents of the Whitebridge estate immediately to the North, should it also not be considered that children live in these homes too? Why should the Telecommunications Code of Practice not extend to protect these people too? A quick calculation of the hours spent at home compared to childcare or school would suggest to me that the time spent at home is greater and hence should be a key criterion to this development proposal. I encourage the council to consider the number of objections that have being raised from concerned parents (I as one of them), in this DA and the one that was only just withdrawn, of the potential harm that may be caused to the developing brain that none other than the Telecommunications Code of Practice attempts to remedy by not allowing for this kind of development near clusters of children.

   I don’t believe the residents of this area deserve the council approving this project based on the developer giving up on a better site devoid of sensitive land uses surrounding it. I encourage the council to look at the facts - this development affects the residential zoning more than it affects the light industrial zone.

3. I would like to object to the proposal on the grounds that there has been no clear, non bias, long term fact based studies done on the human impact of these projects when built in close proximity to residential dwellings.

   Until it can be proven that these towers are safe, I feel we make foolish decisions when deciding on where they are situated.

   I understand communications are a vital part of todays society however I feel we just need to be a little more cautionary when making decisions for our children sake.

4. I once again strongly disagree with the re-proposed telecommunications tower on Bullsgarden Road, on various grounds.

   As I and others have previously stated. There have not been sufficient long term, independent studies to ascertain the detrimental effects of such towers.
   This is not an acceptable risk, as it will be positioned in very close proximity to a large number of, residential dwellings, schools, child care centres and businesses.

   The tower is 22.25 metres taller than the maximum height restriction for the area. Vision stream will argue that for such a tower to be high enough to work efficiently, that it should be exempt from such restrictions. This poses obvious flaws in their proposal.
   Put aside the inappropriate positioning in regard to human proximity, it is also a low lying area, which makes for a baffling positioning of such a tower in the first place. Furthermore the eventuation of " add ons" to this tower because of the unsuitable geography, is almost guaranteed if it is approved.

   As for the " cosmetic" landscaping plan to " obscure " the base of the tower. I personally find that to be almost insulting.

   LMCC rejected the first proposal with very legitimate reasons.
   I can only hope that common sense will once again prevail and that this Ill conceived project will be scuppered, once and for all.

5. I object to the proposal at 120 Bulls Garden Road Gateshead DA1109/2016.

   The location of the telecommunication tower is proposed in close proximity to a residential area. The towers height will make it visible from the majority of this area. The minimal landscaping proposed will not reduce any of the impact of the tower , as the majority of the impact is the height.

   There must a more suitable location away from homes, gyms and small businesses.

   Lake Macquarie Council please consider not approving this development.

6. I strongly object to the DA 1109/2016 120 Bulls Garden Rd, Gateshead proposed by Visionstream.
   The close proximity to residential areas as well as businesses where people spend up to 8+ hours a day will expose parents, children, employees and animals that live, work and utilise the area for its services to EME radiation.
   Is council going to assume liability for the consequences if the tower goes ahead? When the affects of such a development are not yet proven how can council agree to jeopardize the health of a community?
   The tower proposal breaches height limits for the zone and will create a unacceptable visual impact given the low land of the site.
   I implore LMCC to heed the objections written and stop this atrocity permanently.

7. I oppose the proposed Optus/Vodafone tower on bulls garden road, Whitebridge. It is far too close to residential houses and businesses. It is in excess of the height restriction for the zoning. It will be a visual eyesore for the area. The possible long term health effects are still unknown and is not worth the risk to our health and the health of our children. There is also threatened squirrel gliders in the area which could be threatened by this. Our land values will decrease having this tower close to our homes. Is council going to compensate the land owners in the Whitebridge estate for the decrease in their land value? I live in the estate nearby and do not want this monstrosity in the vicinity of our homes. I love this area and don't want to have to move because of the Unknown health risks to my children. I also have never had any mobile phone coverage issues, so am not sure why it is even needed in this area.

8. I strongly object to the proposed Optus/Vodafone tower at 120 Bullsgarden Road Gateshead. The initial DA was withdrawn and the amendments in the new DA such as the planting of vegetation does nothing to address the ongoing concerns myself and others have about the location of the tower. I myself do not live in the housing estate off Bullsgarden road, but I do live in the suburb of Whitebridge. I actually live closer to the tower in Dudley that was in recent years extended, which is proof that these towers once in place can be added to with no need for further approval. I accept the tower in Dudley as I moved into the area after it was constructed however I think it is outrageous that a new tower can be placed so close to an existing residential area with little regard to the health, quality of life and concerns of the existing residents. I believe Lilli Pilli trees, whilst lovely, have no chance of hiding a 37.25 metre tower and so aesthetically the area is also going to be affected. Surely there are other, more suitable areas that the tower can be placed?

9. We strongly object to the proposed DA 1109/2016 at 120 Bullsgarden Road, Whitebridge. We live in Justine Avenue in the housing estate off Bullsgarden Road. We are concerned that this proposed tower is to be built close to existing homes, schools and places of employment.The health and concerns of people who live and work close by are not being considered. The original DA has been withdrawn. The proposed amendments such as the plantings will not disguise the visual impact that this high tower will still make. There must be other sites that can be used that are distant from residences and workplaces. We ask that other sites be considered.

Have your say on this application

Your comment and details will be sent to Lake Macquarie City Council. 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