Norman Road telecommunications tower approved for land next to Baptist Church

There has been exponential pressure on phone towers since COVID-19 as people continue to work from home and as more people move to the region. Here’s how a new tower could alleviate some black spots in North Rockhampton.

A heavily debated telecommunications tower has been approved to be built in a black spot in Norman Gardens.

After months of back and forth, Rockhampton Regional Council and developer Stilmark were able to come to an amenable agreement on an alternate location of the 4G/5G tower.

Australian independent telecommunication tower company Stilmark applied to Rockhampton Regional Council to build a telecommunications tower at 652 – 664 Norman Road, Norman Gardens, on the vacant land next to and owned by the Rockhampton Baptist Tabernacle.

The tower would consist of a 30 metre monopole, headframe with antennas, equipment cabin and fencing and would offer 4G and 5G and allow for up to three carriers to use it.

The application was first lodged in March 2022 and the tower was first proposed to be built in the middle of the vacant land, in an effort to be central so it wasn’t too close to houses.

At a council meeting in July, councillors had concerns about the future planning use if the tower was to be built in the middle of the land, the main conflict being that houses would need to be built all around it.

After much debate, it was decided at the council meeting in July for the council planning officers to go back to the developers and look at some other alternate locations on the site.

This particular site next to the church had been chosen following site methodology and looking at black spots of service for users in the area, and moving to another site altogether that might necessarily be a lot further from residential houses would not alleviate the problem and make it an unviable option.

Telecommunications providers have reported exponential growth in data usage as mobile usage has grown nationally and Covid-19 has meant more people now work from home.

The application noted, unless more towers were built, users might experience more difficulty in connecting to the network and more dropouts.

The development application came back to the council table on August 23, with a new proposed location, 55m southwest of the original site.

The revised location is closer to the church buildings but is still well screened among tall trees and would only be slightly visible from the church or any houses.

The nearest dwellings to the revised location are about 140 metres to the north, fronting Parkside Place and it would be about 145 metres from Norman Road.

A new Environmental Electromagnetic Energy (EME) report was triggered for the revised location and came back with a slightly lowered maximum EME level, from 1.70 per cent down to 1.67 per cent out of 100 per cent of the public exposure limit that is deemed safe.

Mark Baade from SAQ Consulting gave a presentation at the August council meeting, and answered a number of questions from councillors and addressed various concerns.

He noted the revised location was on slightly higher land which would in turn allow for better coverage.

Speaking to the EME levels, the 1.70 per cent out of 100 per cent would only occur when the tower is operating at full capacity, when there is a maximum number of calls and data sessions from a maximum number of customers.

His presentation noted a breakdown of the EME levels for the locations nearby, with the closest dwelling being 5 Parkside Place which had a 0.12 per cent EME level of public exposure limit, 12 Brigalow Avenue 0.13 per cent and 6 Lancewood Close 0.05 per cent.

The church would have a public exposure limit of 0.37 per cent, the nearby child care centre 0.30 per cent and the nursing home 0.18 per cent.

Some neighbours raised health concerns when the telecommunications tower was proposed and it was noted the towers were quite safe, particularly in reference to the EME levels, and are subject to quite strict guidelines.

According to the World Health Organisation, “studies to date provide no indication that environment exposure to radio frequency fields, such as from base station, increases the risk of cancer of any other diseases”.

In regards to 5G in particular, the latest advice from the World Health Organisation is “as the frequency increases there is less penetration into the body tissues and absorption of the energy becomes more confined to the surface of the body (skin and eye). Provided that the overall exposure remains below international guidelines, no consequences for public health are associated”.

It was also noted in the discussion that the church indicated it had no plans for any development on the site in the foreseeable future.

Any development on the land would also be quite constrained due to the creek alignment and the area is flood prone in parts, meaning it would be unlikely to yield a number of allotments should a development ever occur.

Under the planning guidelines, there are also no legislated physical separate requirements from a telecommunications facility to any land use, including residential development.