Killcare Heights mobile tower approved by local planning panel

A decision has been made on the controversial plans for a mobile tower at Killcare Heights.

The proposed mobile tower at Killcare Heights, which has divided the community, has been approved.

The Central Coast Local Planning Panel has handed down its unanimous decision to approve the 33m tower at 37 Wards Hill Rd.

The plans for the tower have caused uproar in the community with people concerned about the visual impacts and cultural significance of the area and others desperate for improved mobile service for everyday living and emergencies.

In its determination, the panel stated that it accepts the height variation, outside the 8.5m limit for the area, due to the nature of the development.

Aerial view of the approved tower’s location.

“It is in the public interest to grant consent because of the service the telecommunications tower will provide to the community on a daily basis and in times of emergency,” the panel’s decision states.

“Any environmental impact of the proposal is not unreasonable and is mitigated by choice and colour of materials, vegetation and design.”

The panel also accepted that the Darkinjung Local Aboriginal Land Council (DLALC) did not have issues with the plans.

At the extraordinary panel meeting in Monday local developer Tony Denny, who opposes the tower due to cultural impacts, stated openly that any approved plans at this site would end up in the Land and Environment Court.

Earlier – November 16 2021

There are two clear arguments over controversial plans for a 33m mobile tower in Killcare Heights.

On one side, locals say improved mobile service is vital for every day life and will save lives in emergencies.

Others say there must be a better location as the proposed site at 37 Wards Hill Rd will impact views and is seen as culturally significant.

The plans for the tower came back to an extraordinary meeting of the Central Coast Local Planning Panel on Monday with a recommendation from Central Coast Council for approval.

The issue was deferred in August to seek further clarification on the height variation, outside the 8.5m standard for the area, and advice from the Darkinjung Local Aboriginal Land Council (DLALC) on whether the site is sacred.

Artist’s impression of the proposed tower on Wards Hill Rd.

At the meeting, there were six speakers in support of the plans for the Optus tower and three against.

Millionaire developer Tony Denny, who lives on Wards Hill Rd, spoke against the plans reiterating the impact on indigenous heritage.

He has called for a full Aboriginal heritage report, saying that while DLALC has verbally indicated they did not have an issue with the plans, the council had failed to consult with “true descendants of the original inhabitants of this immediate area – The Guringai”.

He said 31 Wards Hill Rd was in the process of being turned into an Aboriginal Heritage place which would have legal ramifications if a 5G tower is approved and appealed in the Land and Environment Court.

The site of the proposed tower which already has a council water reservoir.

“If this does go to appeal, Central Coast Council you don’t have the $150,000 to $200,000 to support this case so you should really think about that,” he said,

Mr Denny reminded the council that it already spent $200,000 in court after refusing his Colorbond fence back in 2019.

“The Guringai have unlimited funds to protect their area, you should think about that too,” he said.

“There are so many other places where you can put this tower.”

He said the tower should be put somewhere it doesn’t “insult” local indigenous people, indicating that Guringai leader Tracie Howie has revealed the site’s cultural significance.

Mr Denny described the issue as a “Rio Tinto Juukan Gorge moment that you (Optus) should be ashamed of”.

Proposed view of the tower from Killcare.

Wagstaff to Killcare Community Association president Mike Allsop reiterated the community’s support for the tower to improve mobile coverage.

“The community has been crying out for this development,” he said. “There are hundreds of properties in this area with no coverage at all.”

He said the plans were appropriate for the area with little visual impact expected.

Local resident Mike Allen said “this development has been long overdue”.

“It’s a matter of luck that we haven’t had a death or serious injury or property damage with a failure to be able to contact emergency services through failure of internet services,” he said.

Tony Wright described how he gets an internet signal for banking transactions by climbing on an outside chair, then a table and holding onto a gutter while waving his arms around.

“This is essential infrastructure, just like water sewer and electricity,” he told the panel.

Michael Corbett outlined the dangers during bushfire season and said locals heavily relied on the Rural Fire Service (RFS) app to know when a fire is approaching.

Millionaire developer Tony Denny told council get cannot afford to end up in the Land and Environment Court. Picture: Troy Snook

“In emergencies, reliable access to the RFS app is a critical information resource,” he said. “It could save lives. But what if you cant access it?

“Some simple SMS messages take 48 to 72 hours to be received. Will it take a fire, medical emergency, possible loss of life before construction of the tower is approved?”

Josephine Howie spoke against the tower and said the majority of submissions to the plans opposed the tower.

Ms Howie said there must be a better location and that the current plans offend aspects of the council’s own character statements “that this is a unique area that shouldn’t be damaged by ugly erections”. She said approval would also set a precedent in the area.

Joanna Ward, spoke on behalf of the applicant Lendlease/Optus, indicating that the pole would be non reflective and a light grey colour to blend in with the sky.

Many members of the community support the tower due to the lack of mobile service in the area.

Ms Ward said the plans were referred to the DLALC who had no objections and said the height variation request concluded that “it is unreasonable for the proposal to comply with the 8.5m height standard and that there are sufficient environmental planing grounds to justify contravening the development standard”.

“This proposal has different circumstances whereby location and nature of the development is unique,” she said.

“It is for essential services, highly technical in nature and in the public interest. There is significant community support for this proposal due to the desperate need for coverage in this area. The location of the facility adjacent to a council water reservoir on already disturbed land is the most appropriate location or the facility.”