Killcare Heights mobile tower: Tony Denny accuses council of incompetence

The controversy over a proposed mobile tower in Killcare Heights has deepened, with millionaire developer Tony Denny accusing the council of incompetence and hinting at a second trip to court.

Millionaire developer Tony Denny has accused Central Coast Council of incompetence for recommending a mobile tower be approved in a potential area of indigenous significance.

Mr Denny said he was willing to take the council to Land and Environment Court for a second time – at a cost to ratepayers – due to the council’s “incompetence” in failing to carry out a proper indigenous study of the Killcare Heights site.

The local developer has investigated the issue and, in doing so, has also been advised that his infamous Colorbond fence – which he fought council to keep in the Land and Environment Court – will also have to come down.

Artists impression of the proposed tower from Wards Hill Rd.

The 33m Optus tower, proposed for 37 Wards Hill Rd, was recently been deferred by the Central Coast Local Planning Panel for more information along with an indigenous assessment of the site.

The DA has divided the community with many saying mobile coverage is at a point where emergency services often can’t be contacted, while others believe the location is unsuitable with Wards Hill Rd being the gateway to Bouddi National Park.

The council recommended the tower DA, lodged by Lendlease on behalf of Optus, be approved on the council-owned land due to the lack of mobile coverage in the area. The council has indicated that the indigenous heritage of the site was adequately addressed earlier in the DA process and revealed no issues.

Mr Denny, who lives on Wards Hill Rd, said his sister Sue Kemsley and her late husband Brett Kemsley lived at 32 Wards Hill Rd for seven years and were informed it was an area of indigenous significance.

Millionaire developer Tony Denny said the issue would end up in the Land and Environment Court. Picture: Troy Snook

“It was bought to the attention of my brother in law and his two sons by local indigenous elders that there is an area of indigenous significance along the ridge at the back of their place, particularly at the rear of 37 Wards Hill Rd,” he said.

“This area contains artefacts, shells and indigenous art. This area is registered as an indigenous significant area, and this information is readily available by performing a desktop audit.

“Late in the DA process for this 5G tower the elder’s relatives contacted my sister dismayed that this area of indigenous significance is to be spoiled by the erection of a 5G tower.”

Mr Denny has since commissioned a thorough indigenous study of the immediate vicinity of 37 Wards Hill Rd and across the road where the tower is proposed.

Mr Denny said the area where the tower is proposed has indigenous significance.

Throughout these discussions, Mr Denny was also made aware that a DA he has lodged for a two bedroom cottage on his property was unacceptable to the indigenous community along with his infamous Colorbond fence.

Mr Denny’s Colorbond fence hit headlines back in 2019 when it was rejected by councillors. Mr Denny took council to the Land Environment Court and won the right to keep his fence.

“In respect for the original owners of this land I have agreed to cancel the DA and change the fence to a material that is acceptable to the local indigenous community.” Mr Denny said.

Mr Denny said he had spoken with council staff regarding the proposed tower.

“When I asked about whether they knew about the indigenous significance of this area they indicated that they had performed a desktop audit and there were no results,” he said.

The issue will result in Mr Denny tearing down his infamous Colorbond fence.

“This of course is a lie or they are incompetent, however if they had disclosed the findings of a positive desktop audit this would have triggered a more comprehensive report, which they obviously didn’t want.

“I then indicated to all on the call that this will end up in the Land and Environment Court, as did my Colorbond, at the cost of over $200k to council, which is money they do not have. So yet again the ratepayers will have to pay these costs.”

He said he was told there were six sites floated for the proposed mobile tower with one preferred site 223 The Scenic Drive where there is an existing tower.

“There is no doubt the area needs a 5G tower however the current choice is a very poor choice with many issues, and the installation of this tower will be delayed for many years by legal challenges,” he said.

Artists impression of the mobile tower from Killcare.

“The obvious choice is to restart the DA process with one of the other two acceptable sites, and fast track this process.”

An Optus spokeswoman told the Express the council had confirmed that their DA for the tower had been referred to the Darkinjung Local Aboriginal Land Council

“There is currently no existing coverage in the area,” she said.

“An extensive search was conducted to select this site based on the population requiring coverage and the selection of land with existing utility infrastructure.”

The site, which was selected by Optus, is owned by the council and has an above ground reservoir tank.

Council stated that the applicant had addressed all the necessary issues relating to indigenous heritage.

A spokeswoman from council said the site was “significantly disturbed” and had a water reservoir with a diameter of approximately 25 metres and height of approximately 11 metres, along with outbuildings, access roads and hard-stand parking for service vehicles. She said portions of the site had been extensively excavated for the installation of underground services.

“The application (for the tower) was accompanied by a detailed Statement of Environmental Effects, incorporating consideration of indigenous heritage, which included:

“A due diligence assessment undertaken in accordance with the Due Diligence Code of Practice for the Protection of Aboriginal Objects in NSW;

“A search of the NSW Office of Environment & Heritage Aboriginal Heritage Information Management System (AHIMS) which revealed no known aboriginal sites or places are known either in or near the site; and

“A search of the State Heritage Inventory under the NSW Heritage Act 1977 (a list of heritage items in NSW including Aboriginal Places) revealed that there were no State Heritage Items on the site or within close proximity.”