Norman Road telecommunications tower back to the drawing board after Rockhampton Regional Council meeting

A telecommunications tower has been proposed to be built 100 metres from houses in North Rockhampton and not everyone is happy about it.

A telecommunications tower company will need to go back to the drawing board after their application to build a 4G/5G tower wasn’t approved at a council meeting this week.

The applicant, Australian company Stilmark, had proposed plans to build a 30 metre monopole design pole on the land next to Rockhampton Baptist Church on Norman Road.

Plans for the facility were tabled at a Rockhampton Regional Council meeting this week.

The proposed tower would have been about 200 metres from Norman Road and 100 metres from the nearest dwelling.

The vacant land is owned by the Rockhampton Baptist Tabernacle.

The facility would be for 4G and 5G services with allocation for up to three carriers to use it.

The proposed facility was part of a wider program across Queensland for future infrastructure, based on carriers existing coverage and future needs.

The location was selected as it is an area of Rockhampton not well serviced by wireless telecommunications and distant from the existing facilities in the area.

There has been a growing demand and need for telecommunications facilities as mobile usage trends upward nationally and COVID-19 has meant a lot of people are working from home, putting pressure on the data usage for telecommunications providers.

A site plan of where the telecommunications pole was proposed to be located on the land.

Councillor Shane Latcham was the first councillor to ask questions to the planning officer on the development application, mentioning he had spoken with many residents who had concerns.

The nearest dwelling to the proposed facility was 100 metres to the north, fronting Parkside Place, and 135 metres to the southeast, fronting Lancewood Close.

According to a council report, the proposed facility would not adversely impact the health and safety of nearby residents.

Councillor Donna Kirkland and other councillors asked the planning officers about the electromagnetic energy (EME) from the proposed facility.

It was replied that EME is not a guideline of council’s planning scheme and not an issue planning officers are required to look at.

As part of the development application, the applicant submitted and Environmental EME Report, which provided a summary of levels of radiofrequency (RF) EME and the proposed facility was deemed to have a reading of 1.70 per cent out of 100 per cent of the public exposure limit that is deemed safe.

Proposed technical plan for the telecommunications pole.

The application did not meet the planning scheme, however the planners had recommended it for approval as some of the factors outweighed the conflicts.

“The established dense tree cover surrounding the proposed tower, which is of a similar height to the monopole structure assists in screening the development and softening the built form,” the planner wrote in relation to the proposed facility exceeding the height limit.

The tower must be built out of non-reflective dark green or grey in order to reduce any glare to surrounding land use.

It was noted in the report, once established, telecommunications facilities are a “relatively passive land use”.

The facility was not anticipated to generate any more noise than a domestic air conditioning unit and would not emit dust, heat, smoke, gaseous plumes or particulates.

The land which the tower is proposed to be built on is owned by the Rockhampton Baptist Church, which was said to be involved in the process at the beginning more than 12 months ago.

“To minimise its visual impact on the surrounding area the facility has been sited quite centrally on a large lot, about 10 hectares in size,” the planning report said.

The land is on the busy Norman Road.

Councillors had concerns about the future land use of the vacant land, as the tower was proposed to be built in the centre of the vacant land and future potential lots would have to be built around it.

“It’s smack bang in the middle of a beautiful block of land,” Councillor Cherie Rutherford said.

The council planning officer said the tower would not affect future residential use on the land.

Councillor Drew Wickerson suggested working with the applicant on moving the facility to a different part of the Norman Road site.

Councillor Grant Mathers and Mayor Tony Williams voted to approve the facility but the motion was not supported by any other councillors and was lost.

It was moved to let the matter lay on the table and speak with the applicant.

All councillors voted for this motion, except Councillor Shane Latcham who believed they should be looking at other alternatives away from residences.

A render of the pole in the vacant land towards the back.

SUBMITTERS CONCERNS DURING THE PUBLIC NOTIFICATION PERIOD

Health concerns

Submissions raised concerns of potential health impacts on nearby residents, aged care residents and church patrons, due to the “electromagnetic radiation” also referred to as “electromagnetic energy (EME)”.

Council planning response:

The applicant submitted an Environmental EME Report which stated the maximum level of EME for the proposed development is 1.7 per cent out of 100 per cent of the public exposure limit that is deemed safe.

Electromagnetic EME emissions generated are regulated by the Australian Communications and Media Authority.

It was noted, as with all mobile telecommunications facilities in Australia, the proposed development will need to comply with the relevant Radiation Protection Standard and would be certified for compliance.

The planner states “there ARE no known adverse health concerns that would result from the development.”

Devaluing of property

Submitters had concerns the development would devalue their properties.

Council planning response:

Property value is not a council matter under the Planning Act 2016.

It was further noted there is no evidence the installation of these facilities has had any adverse and direct impact on property value.

Access to essential telecommunications services are “increasingly seen as not only beneficial but necessary”.

Poor public consultation/ notification

Submitters stated there should have been more residents in the surrounding area consulted.

It was also noted one of the public notification signs fell down during the notification period.

Council planning response:

The applicant undertook public notification in accordance with the requirements of the Planning Act 2016.

This included notifying adjoining landowners by post, a notice in the local newspaper and two signs on Norman Road for 15 business days.

It was noted council received information the sign had fallen over on the 13th day of notification but as only one sign is legally required and one was still up, this did not breach the Act and did not adversely restrict the public’s awareness.

Visual impacts

Concerns on the visual impacts to the subject site and surrounding area.

Council planning response:

The proposed facility has significant setbacks and screening from the existing tree cover.

It is unlikely any nearby properties will have a clear view of the proposed facility.

It also part of the conditions, if the proposal was to be approved, it would be painted and finished in a “non-competing colour”.

Wildlife

Submitters raised concerns on the potential impacts on the surrounding habitat of the existing wildlife.

Council planning response:

The subject site is not mapped as state or local environmental significance and no vegetation would be removed as part of the proposed development.

There are exposure limits set within the EME Standards that are adequate in protecting the environment.

Alternate locations

Comments about relocating the proposed telecommunications tower to other sites.

Council planning response:

The proposed telecommunication facility site was chosen because of an increased demand on the network in the Norman Gardens area, particularly east of Yaamba Road.

The applicant undertook a site selection, looking at the existing facilities, proximity to residential areas, impacts on visual amenity and benefit to the network.

The proposed site was found to be the most viable and suitable option.