PlanningAlerts

2 Comments

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

1. It is very disappointing that Telstra have decided to proceed with this application even though the residents passionately opposed it at the public meeting held on Thursday 21st August 2014.
   Telstra chose to focus on the visual impact issue, whilst the residents were more concerned with the health aspect. This structure will only be approx. 42m to the nearest home; 44m to an aged care facility and 150m to a preschool. In some overseas countries, these structures are not permitted within 300m of any preschool/school. Experts have not been able to agree on the health risks associated with towers and EME, so surely Telstra should err on the side of caution to protect our community. We are told that the effects are less than using a mobile phone. However, using a mobile phone is firstly a conscious decision on the part of the user and secondly, it is not in use 24/7. The differences being, the residents did not request this structure be built in their backyards and they have no escape from the constant emissions. We are aware that Optus have already requested to use the structure which surely will increase such emissions. Telstra's response at the meeting was that ARPANSA was the communities' watchdog as to emission levels. In 2011 Senator Bob Brown submitted a report to Parliament highlighting that of 18000 telecommunication facilities, ARPANSA had checked only 21. Also, ACMA had audited the records of only 474 of the 18000 facilities for compliance with EMR standards. If this structure is erected, who will regulate the emissions and protect the residents? Certainly not the above bodies! Will these towers be the asbestos and tobacco of the future?
   In an area that has so much open land, which is unsuitable for residential development, why has Telstra decided on a location so close to homes and schools? Could the answer be based purely on economic reasons? This location is accessible and already cleared which would save Telstra time and expense. Does this corporation put it's bottom line before the welfare of the community?
   To add to the resident's grievances, the Telstra panel at the August meeting agreed that the proposed tower was not situated in a position to efficiently provide coverage to the entire desired area. Surely get it right the first time!
   We sincerely hope that the planning authority will listen to their community's concerns and reject Telstra's application.

2. I am a resident of Caves Beach and I am writing this open letter to you in the vain hope that I might appeal to your sense of fair play and justice. I am against the decision for Council to approve the Telstra Telecommunications Tower at 5 Scenic Drive Caves Beach and whilst I would have always been disappointed that Council approved the Tower, I could have accepted the decision if I believed the Community was given an equal and fair hearing. What I have seen transpire has left me completely disillusioned with the political process and the way that Lake Macquarie Councillors deal with important and sensitive issues that affect its constituents.

   I understand council staff, councillors and yourself will believe you provided the community with a balanced and objective view and followed your documented policies. However, the majority of people who attended the Council meetings were completely disenchanted and offended with Council’s behaviour and political manoeuvring. It was very clear Councillors in favour were not interested in the community objections and in political terms spitefully manipulated the other councillors and community to ensure information and public access was limited. It really was a masterstroke! However, the feeling must be a bit hollow outmanoeuvring ratepayers who are not au fait with Council’s process and
   political machinations. A bit akin to beating the elderly in a running race.

   To out vote Councillors Griggs and Gilberts’ motion that Wakefield Development be able to speak at the 18 Dec meeting, especially given the information was pertinent to your decision making ie. Hunter Water had previously planned that the proposed site be used for an upgraded pump station to provide water to some 750 development lots, it was very clear you did not want this information tabled so you did not have to consider this in the decision making process or to confer and resolve the matter with Hunter Water prior to the vote.
   Or was it that the 8 mins to listen to the community’s view was not worth your time? It might not have changed the decision but at least the Community would have felt they were given an honest and open hearing.

   So I ask you Mayor, as a very successful senior executive, who has worked around the globe I cannot for the life of me put myself in your shoes or those of the Councillors and be comfortable in making the decision based on the inadequate and misinformation before you.
   
   I understand that you have to rely on the information provided but there was some considerable doubt over the information and as it was solely relied upon and not independently verified by Council how in good conscience can Council say they have performed appropriate due diligence? I would also expect any Executive to bench test the information. It’s the old saying “Trust but Verify”. Can’t seem to be much bench testing going on when 7 out of the 13 Councillors did not attend the site meeting.

   Furthermore on the information and process on which you based your decision. There is clear false and misleading information, as for your process you have failed on numerous accounts. A simple example is Wakefield Developments –
   A second notification was distributed on 4 April 2017 (which most people did
   not receive and when I and a number of others mentioned this to Council was advised must be an Australia Post issue and no further effort made to notify). Wakefield Developments was not on this notification even though they were owners of the property for some time. Nor is the effect on this property which
   shares side and rear boundaries mentioned anywhere in the Council Assessment report. As for statements in the reports that are completely subjective and not supportable by an average person, Minor Visual impact
   for a 36m tower that will be seen for miles around and the first thing seen as
   people visit 2 of the Top 5 sites listed https://www.visitlakemac.com.au/top-20-sights is not reasonable information to base a decision. Furthermore, LMCC had
   previously approved a 500m exclusion zone in DCP 1, this was subsequently
   removed in the latest DCP 2014. I doubt the community understood the implications of its removal when considering the new DCP. It also does not mean Council ignore and nit consider these previously held practices rather than lower
   standards to the lowest common denominator.

   Public Access – Was declined public access for both meetings in direct contravention to what your actual Public Access policy states. I know Council have a different interpretation but this is not what the policy states and actually not what you personally mentioned at the site meeting.
   Overall you allowed max 8 mins for the community to speak against the
   DA. I would argue that this is not an open and fair representation for such a major issue. You and the Council have failed in delivering natural justice which is the fundamental principle of good governance. Natural justice requires that all sides of an argument should be given a fair opportunity to be heard before a decision is made. This was not the case. Furthermore the decision makers, the Councillors’ must not have predetermined the matter or be perceived as having predetermined the matter.

   I was left with the distinct impression that there was an underlying agenda or agreement in the background. From the access the Telstra representative had with Council Staff, Councillors and the Mayor to the subjective and selective information provided for decision making and finally the level of contempt shown in the interactions. It was very clear the community was considered a nuisance and how dare they challenge the information and decision making process. The
   community was very clear in its view that we support the new infrastructure but
   from day one could not understand why the proposed site was chosen, especially where other sites were clearly more suitable and had less impact on the community. Telstra has outlined numerous other sites but in fact have never seriously investigated and their justification for why these are not suitable has changed during the assessment process to suit their needs. This is not my view but fact based on the submitted documentation. These sites might not be
   suitable but making a decision without independently verifying these claims is
   bordering on negligence.

   As an individual who has been through the DA process there definitively seems to be a different set of rules applied. What we witnessed was Telstra’s
   representative given basically unfetted access to Council Staff and Councillors, right of reply abused in any discussions whereby residents were shut down as soon as possible, there was no dialogue or debate and the premise of community consultation was limited to one public meeting in 2014. I challenge
   council to start recording appropriate statistics and information on any
   exceptions to the LEP/DCP as I believe it will shed some very interesting
   information. An individual cannot get a 500mm side setback that follows the existing line of their house but you will allow 400% breach in height and setbacks, etc and all for the purported greater good that no one, I mean no one, has quantified. All you have is some circles on a page.

   I don’t know about anybody else but I believe it is the community’s responsibility to challenge and hold our representatives accountable. If we don’t, we get the
   level of apathy that seems to be prevalent within our society until it reaches
   a point where the apathy and disillusionment reaches boiling point. Ignoring this is at everyone’s peril. The school kids who attended the Council meeting must have walked away with a sordid impression of our political system and representatives at work.

   You made a comment to me at the site meeting about this being the “normal not in my backyard stuff”. I would purport that this is a natural human reaction when our lives are directly impacted. I assume councillors would argue they are above this base emotion which is why for the greater good I publish the following and ask how Councillors feel about a Telecommunication Tower in the near vicinity to these addresses:

   Mayor Fraser - 26 Valentine Crescent, Valentine
   Councillor Shultz -126 Dikera Avenue, Valentine
   Councillor Jones - 1/33 Nesca Parade, The Hill
   Councillors Luke Cubis - 6 Hibiscus Close, Spears Point
   Councillor Adamthwaite - 6 Fifth Street, Seahampton
   Councillor Belcher - 108 Dandaraga Road, Brightwaters
   Councillor Buckley - 14 Maria Street, Floraville
   Councillor Baker - 22 Portland Drive, Cameron Park
   Councillor Harrison - 338 The Esplanade, Speers Point
   Councillor Pauling - 25 Dangerfield Drive, Elmore Vale

   In Summary,
   I challenge you and the Council to ask the Minster to have the Planning
   Commission to independently review the DA process and merits. Even if Council has purportedly acted in the best interests of the community the mere impression of impropriety and unfairness in the decision should be dealt with to ensure citizens remain active and involved in the political process.

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