Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
SE
PA
RA
TE A
TTAC
HM
EN
T
SEPARATE ATTACHMENT
145/119/2015 Telstra Corporation Limited
Item 3.2 Attachment 1.2.1
Plans and supporting documents
Please note that attachments on our website are separate to each report. If these documents are reproduced in any way, including saving and printing, it is an infringement of copyright under the Copyright Act 1968(Cth) (the Act). By downloading this information, you acknowledge and agree that you will be bound by the provisions of the Act and will not reproduce these documents without the express written permission of the copyright owner.
61
Our Ref: Woodcroft North
20 January 2015
Steven TilbrookTeam Leader-PlanningCityofOnkaparingaP 0 Box 1NOARLUNGA CENTRE SA 5168
S K Planning Pty LtdABN75 108 325 435
PO Box 138
CrafersSA 5152
m. 0417 088000f. 08 8339 1526e. [email protected]
Dear Steven
RE: Proposed telecommunications facilityLot 253 Rothschild Street, WoodcroftCT 5116/876
I advise S K Planning acts on behalf of Telstra Corporation Ltd ('Telstra') in respect of thisapplication. The proposal by Telstra is to establish a telecommunications facility, in the form of a mobiletelephone base station on part of the land at the Sherebrooke Shopping Centre - specifically Lot 253Rothschild Street, Woodcroft.
The site is located within the Local Centre Zone pursuant to the City of Onkaparinga Development Plan(consolidated 14 August 2014). The proposal is an 'on merit' kind of development and is category 2 forthe purposes of public notification pursuant to Schedule 9 of the Development Regulations 2008.
Attached are the Development Application Form, proposal drawings (1 set at A4 size) and a copy of theCertificate of Title. Once I have been advised of the necessary fees, I will also forward a detailedplanning statement to assist in the determination of the application, as well as a 'standard form' EMEreport (which provides an estimate of the maximum electro-magnetic energy to be emitted from theproposed facility) and an A3 copy of the proposal drawings.
Should you have any immediate questions, please do not hesitate to contact me.
Yours sincerely
MARK BAADEB.PIanning (Hons)M: 041 7 088 000
Attached:Completed DA FormCopy of the Certificate of TitleProposal drawings (A4)
62
Title Register SearchLANDS TITLES OFFICE, ADELAIDE
For a Certificate of Title issued pursuant to the Real Property Act 1886
REGISTER SEARCH OF CERTIFICATE OF TITLE * VOLUME 5116 FOLIO 876 *
COST : $25.00 (GST exempt ) PARENO? TITLE : CT 4265/135REGION : EMAIL AUTHORITY : CONVERTED TITLEAGENT : HUM8P BOX NO : 000 DATE OF ISSUE : 13/04/1993SEARCHED ON : 06/06/2013 AT : 14:32:52 EDITION : 12CLIENT REF WOODCROFT
REGISTERED PROPRIETOR IN FEE SIMPLE
ANNE LOUISE WARMER OF 376 GLYNBURN ROAD KENSINGTON GARDENS SA 5068
DESCRIPTION OF LAND
ALLOTMENT 253 DEPOSITED PLAN 17285IN THE AREA NAMED WOODCROFTHUNDRED OF NOAKLUNGA
EAS13MENTS
NIL
SCHEDULE OF ENDORSEMENTS
NIL
NOTATIONS
DOCUMENTS AFFECTING THIS TITLE
NIL
REGISTRAR-GENERAL'S NOTES
PLAN FOR LEASE PURPOSES GP 276/88
END OF TEXT.
Page 1 of 2
The Registrar-General certifies that this Title Register Search displays the records Reaisirar-oenerai iti^maintained in the Register Book and other notations at the time of searching, ^a—v— ^^
63
LANDS TITLES OFFICE ADELAIDE SOUTH AUSTRALIA
DIAGRAM FOR CERTIFICATE OF TITLE VOLUME 5116 FOLIO 876
SEARCH DATE: 06/06/2013 TIME: 14:32:52
N
^^^<^̂ y^ STREET
0 7'5 15 22'5 30 MetresI I I I 1
Page 2 of 2
64
/—/—
/—/
D172
B5 A
252
SITE
^LAY
OU
TSC
ALE
1:35
0
3i5
mi,
,,,P
3'5
m 7
m 1
0.5
m 1
,4m
1 7
.5m
SCAL
E 1:
350
COM
PLIA
NCE
BOX
^C
OM
PLE
TED
AS
PER
DE
SIG
N Q
ALTE
RATI
ONS
IN R
EDNA
ME
(PRI
NT)
^S
IGN
AT
UR
E D
AT
E
kord
iap
eop
te&
tech
not
ogy
as o
ne
ORDE
R
^L
Am
^m
pos
Esl
'RE
LIM
INA
RY
- 723
0929
6W00
02U
RB
~EX
AM SHAP
PD SHDA
TE30
.03.
15<
e/s
frcr
MO
BILE
NET
WO
RK S
ITE
2919
65"
WOO
DCRO
FT N
ORTH
SPEC
IAL
PAN
NIN
G|L
OT 25
3 ROT
HSCH
ILD
ST, W
OODC
ROFT
NOR
TH, S
A 51
62
65
TNI
PROP
OSED
RET
AINI
NGW
ALL
TO B
E RE
MO
VED
^"S
TRU
CTU
RE
ORIE
NTAT
ION
91° T
N
PRO
POSE
D T
ELST
RALE
ASE
AREA
,A
PP
RO
X. 4
0.8m
2
PROP
OSED
TEL
STRA
SH
ELTE
R
EXIS
TING
RET
AINI
NG W
ALL
PRO
POSE
D 6
No.
BO
LLAR
DS
PROP
OSED
TRE
E TO
BE
REM
OVED
PROP
OSED
COM
POUN
DGR
OUND
LEV
EL T
O M
ATCH
CARP
ARK
ASPH
ALT
PROP
OSED
TEL
STRA
30m
MO
NO
POLE
PRO
POSE
D 6
No.
TEL
STRA
RRUS
TO
BE IN
STAL
LED
ONPR
OPO
SED
STE
ELW
ORK
PRO
POSE
D 6
No,
RVV
PX31
0B2
TELS
TRA
PANE
L AN
TENN
AS T
O BE
INST
ALLE
D ON
A M
ERCE
DES
HEA
DFR
AME
/N
OT
ES
: /
1. A
LL F
EEDE
R AC
CESS
POI
NTS
ON
TH
E ST
RUCT
URE
MU
ST B
E BI
RD P
ROOF
EDAS
PER
EXT
ERNA
L PL
ANT
POLI
CY 0
0361
5.2,
FOR
SIT
E SP
ECIF
IC N
OTES
REF
ER T
O SH
EET
SO.
3. F
OR E
ME
SIGN
S N
OTED
AS
jfXJ^
EFER
TO
0054
86 D
OCU
MEN
TS F
OR D
ETAI
LS.
4. A
LL D
IME
NSI
ON
S A
RE
IN M
ILLI
ME
TRE
S U
NLE
SS O
THE
RW
ISE
STA
TED
.5.
Q P
ROPO
SED
TEL
STRA
LEA
SE A
REA
EXIS
TING
U/G
SER
VICE
PIP
ETO
BE
REDI
RECT
ED
-I— P
ROPO
SED
TEL
STRA
PIT
PROP
OSED
TEL
STRA
U/G
FIB
RE
EXIS
TIN
G G
AS M
ETER
TO B
E RE
LOCA
TED
PRO
POSE
D M
OD
IFIC
ATIO
NOF
RET
AINI
NG W
ALL
(APP
ROX.
7.8
m L
ON
G)
•PRO
POSE
D TI
MBE
R FE
NCE
LIN
ETO
BE
INST
ALLE
D BE
HIND
PROP
OSED
RET
AINI
NG W
ALL
•EXI
STIN
G T
REE
(CAN
OPY
NOT
SHOW
N FO
R CL
ARIF
C)
c -
—-<
.
SITE
LAY
OUT
SCAL
E 1:
100
1m
0 1
m 2
m 3
m 4
m5m
- PRO
POSE
D T
ELST
RAPO
WER
FRO
M S
APN
PIT
(APP
ROX,
17m
)
SCAL
E 1:
100
RFN
SA S
ITE
No.
516
2010
-^
Cop
yngh
t ©
Whe
reis
® R
egis
tere
d T
rade
mar
k of
LOCA
LITY
PLA
NNO
T TO
SCA
LE
PRO
POSE
D T
ELST
RA S
ITE.
^
^^
^/"
Cy M
^SI
TE A
CCES
SNO
T TO
SCA
LE
PROP
OSED
SAP
NPO
INT
OF
SUPP
LY
PROP
ERTY
DES
CRIP
TION
ALLO
TMEN
T 25
3, RO
THSC
HILD
ST
WO
OD
CR
OFT
, S.A
. 516
2DE
POST
ED P
LAN
1728
5IN
THE
ARE
A NA
MED
WOO
DCRO
FTHU
NRED
OF
NOAR
LUNG
A
SITE S
TRUC
TURE
CO-O
RDIN
ATES
(GDA
94)
GPS
READ
ING
ACCU
RACY
: ±1
OmCE
NTR
E OF
POL
E
LATI
TUDE
LONG
ITUD
E
-35.
0951
9° (G
DA
94)
138.
5526
5° (G
DA
94)
|SNIH7
18.01|
IsNo
mil
peop
le &
tedm
ofag
y as
one
ORDE
RDR
AWN
CHKD
PREL
IMIN
ARY
- 707
4819
2W00
4URB
IPRE
LIM
INAR
Y - 7
0748
192W
004U
RB
_Ay_
ENDM
EIff
EXAM
APPD
DATC
01.0
8.14
04.0
9.14
© T
elst
ra C
orp
orat
ion
Um
ited
AB
N 3
3 05
1 77
5 55
6 A
ll n
ghts
res
erve
d.
MOB
ILE
NETW
ORK
SITE
2780
47W
OODC
ROFT
NOR
THSI
TE L
AYOU
T AN
D AC
CESS
LOT
253 R
OTHS
CHIL
D ST
REET
, WOO
DCRO
FT, S
A 51
62
RWG
NO:
S106
218
SH
T 3
1N
O. |
ND
E>
3:JL
\z.
J-
_5_
The c
opyr
ight
and
owno
ishlp
of th
is dr
awin
g Is
ass
igne
d lo
Tol
stra
and
mus
t nol
be c
opla
d or
save
d el
stiw
horo
wllh
oijt
wrllt
on p
arm
laal
on tr
om T
elst
ra,
66
67
77V
MB
D
PROPOSED 5No. BOLLARDS
EXISTING FENCING TO BEEXTENDED OVER PROPOSEDRETAINING WALL MODIFICATIONTO MATCH EXISTING
WEST ELEVATIONSCALE 1:1501.5m 0 1.5m 3m 4.Sm 6m 7.5m
PROPOSED TREETO BE REMOVED
PROPOSED 6No. RWPX310B2 TELSTRAPANEL ANTENNAS TO BE INSTALLEDON A MERCEDES HEADFRAME
V E.L. 30.0m
TOP OF POLEV E.L. 28.68m
C/L PROPOSED TELSTRA PANEL ANTENNA
V E,L. 27.00mC/L PROPOSED TELSTRA RRU'S
•PROPOSED 6No. TELSTRA RRUS TO BEINSTALLED ON PROPOSED STEELWORK
PROPOSED TELSTRA30m MONOPOLE
PROPOSED TELSTRA FEEDERSTO BE RUN INTERNALLY
•PROPOSED TELSTRA SHELTER
PROPOSED TIMBER FENCELINETO BE INSTALLED BEHINDPROPOSED RETAINING WALL
PROPOSED MODIFICATIONOF RETAINING WALL
NM
V E.L. 00.0m
GROUND LI
PROPOSED TELSTPCONCEPT FOOTING'
L_J
I DO NOTSCA1E
tlMENSION^ffl
NOTES:1. ALL FEEDER ACCESS POINTS ON THE STRUCTURE MUST BE BIRD PROOFED
AS PER EXTERNAL PIANT POLICY 003615.2. FOR SITE SPECIFIC NOTES REFER TO SHEET SO.3. FOR EME SIGNS NOTED AS ®EFER TO 005486 DOCUMENTS FOR DETAILS.4. ALL DIMENSIONS ARE IN MILLIMETRES UNLESS OTHERWISE STATED.5. BUILDING TO THE SOUTH HAS NOT BEEN SHOWN FOR CLARITT.
^1/-•
PRELIMINARL
?™1Ismmil
peopie & tachnokigy as ens
DRAWN CHKDiPRELIMINARY - 70748192W004URB
^PRELIMINARY - 70748192W004URB
AMENDMENT EXAM APPD DATE01.08.14
04.09.14
© Telstra Corporation limited ABN .33 051 775 556 All rights reserved.
I ^ ^ 4 —E
'^elstraMOBILE NETWORK SITE 278047
WOODCROFT NORTHWEST ELEVATION
LOT 253 ROTHSCHILD STREET, WOODCROFT, SA 5162
DWGNO." S106218 SHT
NO:S3-1
INDEX33v
68
D
TELSTRA ANTENNA CONFIGURATION TABLEANTENNA
No
A1
A2
A3
A4
A5
A6
ANTENNA TTPE&SIZEHxWxD
ARGUS RWPX310B2 PANEL2533x353x209
ARGUS RWPX310B2 PANEL2533x353x209
ARGUS RWPX310B2 PANEL2533x353x209
ARGUS RWPX310B2 PANEL2533x353x209
ARGUS RVVPX310B2 PANEL2533x353x209
ARGUS RWPX310B2 PANEL2533x353x209
ANTENN/STATUS
PROPOSE
TOPOSEI
'ROPOSEI
'ROPOSEC
ROPOSEO
ROPOSED
ANTENNiHEIGHT
QLA.G.L
28.68m
28.68m
28.68m
28.68m
28.68m
28.68m
tNTENK3EARIN'
(x'T)
80°
200°
305°
80°
200°
305°
SECTOR NO.& SYSTEM
S1: WCDMA850
S1:WCDMA850
S1:SPARE
31: SPARE
S1: SPARE
S1: SPARES2: WCDMA850
S2:WCDMA850S2: SPARE
S2: SPARES2: SPARE
32: SPARE
33: WCDMA850
33: WCDMA850
33: SPARE
33: SPARE
a: SPARE
i3: SPARE
31:SPARE
31:SPARE
i1:SPARE
i1:SPARE
i1: SPAREi1:SPARE
i2: SPARE
i2: SPARE
i2: SPARE
i2: SPARE
i2: SPARE
12: SPARE
;3: SPARE
i3: SPARE
S3: SPARE
13: SPARE
!3: SPARE
3: SPARE
DO NOT_SCAl£
plMENSIONlIN
^
IsnmoilIsnwmoil
P^klrlfe,^XLi^^BIpaoy^ &. tedmoiogy ss one
ORDER DRAWN CHKD[PRELIMINARY - 70748192WOIHURBIPRELIMINARY - 707'18192W004URB
AMENDMENT BAM WPD DATE01.08.14
04.09.14
© Telstra Corporation Limited ABN 33 051 775 556 All nghts reserved.
PRELIMINARY
^elstroMOBILE NETWORK SITE 278047
WOODCROFT NORTHANTENNA CONFIGURATION TABLE
LOT 253 ROTHSCHILD STREET, WOODCROFT, SA 5162
oweNO: S106218 SHT S3-2
NO. INDEX69
M
PROP
OSED
TEL
STRA
LEAS
E AR
EA.
APPR
OX,
31m
2
/
SITE
LAN
DSCA
PING
SCAL
E 1:
100
1m
0 1
m 2
m 3
m 4
m 5
mSC
ALE
1:10
0
PRO
POSE
D 7
No.
SEM
I MAT
URE
SHRU
BS T
O B
E PL
ANTE
D F
OR
GRO
UN
D S
CREE
NIN
G.
ARBO
RIST
TO
SPE
CIFY
PROP
OSED
TRE
E TO
BE
REM
OVED
,'s
,
NO
TES:
1. E
XIST
ING
U/G
SERV
ICES
& S
TRUC
TURE
S TO
BE
INVE
STIG
ATED
,PR
IOR
TO C
OMM
ENCE
MEN
T OF
ANY
CON
STRU
CTIO
N W
ORK.
2. F
OR S
ITE
SPEC
IFIC
NOT
ES R
EFER
TO
SHEE
T SO
.
PREL
IMIN
ARY
iSNo
mi]
|SN047
18.01i
no^
peop
te &
tech
nolo
gy a
s on
e
ORDE
RDR
AWN
CHKD
PREL
IMIN
ARY
- 707
4819
2W00
4URB
[PRE
LIM
INAR
Y - 7
0748
192W
004U
RB
AMEN
DMEN
TEX
AMAP
PDDA
TE01
.08.
14
04.0
9.14
© T
elst
ra C
orp
orat
ion
Lim
ited
AB
N 3
3 05
1 77
5 55
6 A
ll r
igh
ts r
esen
/ed
.
^els
tra
MO
BILE
NET
WO
RK S
ITE
2780
47W
OO
DCR
OFT
NO
RTH
SITE
LAN
DSCA
PING
PLA
NLO
T 25
3 ROT
HSCH
ILD
STRE
ET, W
OODC
ROFT
, SA
5162
DWG
NO;
8106
218
SH
T G
8N
O. I
ND
B
3:Th
e cop
yrig
hl a
nd B
wner
ahlp
rfth
la d
rawi
ng !a
aas
lgne
d to
Tsls
lra a
nd m
u3t n
ot b
o cop
ied
orsa
ved
Blse
whar
owllt
ioul
wrlH
on p
srm
laslo
n (ro
m T
olslr
a.
70
SE
PA
RA
TE A
TTAC
HM
EN
T
SEPARATE ATTACHMENT
145/119/2015 Telstra Corporation Limited
Item 3.2 Attachment 1.2.2
Representations received
Please note that attachments on our website are separate to each report. If these documents are reproduced in any way, including saving and printing, it is an infringement of copyright under the Copyright Act 1968(Cth) (the Act). By downloading this information, you acknowledge and agree that you will be bound by the provisions of the Act and will not reproduce these documents without the express written permission of the copyright owner.
71
^K "°""; ^Development Act
^ ihtgffiiSht^F representationPursua^ySect[(^38of^ff@yelopment Act
G?ryoF v-^-s-r' n " "WARiNGA
Submission options:• [email protected]
• Via Council's website: ' r='J ^ ? APR ^^ tL=• Category 3 development applications (not Category 2 applications^in be found at: "' ^
www.onkaparingacity.com Living here>planning and developmenf^^lications for public (^>t¥iment• Fax: (08) 8382 8744 \^A ^ - '"• City of Onkaparinga/ PO Box I/ NOARLUNGA CENTRE SA 5168 ~ ^ ,, ^^-^^€^^ 'Details of development application _^^^ifs^'^-''Development Number;
Applicant:
Location of Development:
Nature of Development:
Zone:
Assessing planning officer:
145/119/2015 ——
Telstra Corporation Limited .-••
Portion of carpark at 1-3 (Allot 253 in DP 17285) Rothschild Street,WOODCROFT SA 5162Telecommunications facility including a 30 metre monopole & antennas,equipment shelter with the dimensions (3.2 (L) x 2,2m (W) x 2.7m (walheight) and associated landscapingLocal Centre
Alex Wilkinson
In order for this representation* to be considered valid ALL of the followinq fsections 1-4) mustbe completed.
1. The representation must be received by Council no later than 11.59pm on 11.59pm on Monday 11 May2015
2.
Name of representor(s): s>i•G-^~'^ "DC-^-^L. (^n&^X^ rw.VYs"Nominated representor if morethan two people;Address of representor(s): n- Q.&^s-cj^.^ (=>^. L-o^cOc^-^?^
Contact phone number: to^.'z-n-^ OU3>3> Wl ^i fcE-mail address; S^\^.^c-0^,\|s fi\^\ f..ri.t. C\ .^ Q^^c,,1- Cc fv-\
3. Reasons for the representation/ including whether in favour or against.
,.,.L.%<Y.v..A,^^/n.^.....A^,vw....^.c.^h'.fX.....,e^..^
,.....^.e.^lR...ft...*^^.<,l^a<^.....i^.....S.O^M.p^(^VS.....^..,...i^^
...^^.?r>.>.^c:^.l^...fo.C..... t^AcA.^.i.&..^.^
.:^..^,^,.f.,..,,.Q^w^,.......(•^^K^t7.f\^.....s»^^^^,..,,.,^.,,..,,,^^^
representation: Co-v '*Jdu^v s^<.<^ o^-ttQ '£3^-«-t->.A- . -^-
D I do not wish to be heard
I wish to b&Jreard in person, or represented by.T&A.
(please specify name)
SIGNED^^,,-^...,,...,...,.,...,...,.......,...............,.,,,....., DATE: ...^J.J..^.^.0^.^^
*AII representations will become public documents and will be forwarded to the applicant for response pursuant to the provisions ofthe Development Act 1993.
Please note your representation may be reproduced, in full, on the council's website as an attachment to a DevelopmentAssessment Panel report. Please contact council's Development Services section if you wish to request that any personaldetails be masked.
#If submitting this form electronically a name rather than signature is acceptable,
72
<"^,j4M ;">^4^-'^>\
I "I.YA
/?/~^<i^•,
" :̂"'"rf h .
\^\^
Development ActStatement of Representation
Pursuant to Section 38 of the Development ActSubmission options;
[email protected] .aov^Via Council's website: '-——-
Category 3 development applications (not Category 2 applications) can be found at:www.onkaparingadty.com Living heroplannlng and devetopment>applications for public commentFax; (08) 8382 8744City of Onkaparinga, PO Box 1, NOARLUNGA CENTRE SA 5168
Details of development appltcaUor^Development Number;
Applicant:
Location of Development;
Nature of Deveiopment:
Zone;
Assessing planning officer;
145/119/2015Telstra Corporation LimitedPortion of carpark at 1-3 (Allot 253 in DP 17285) Rothschild Street,WOODCROFT SA 5162 'Telecommunications facility including a 30 metre monopoie & antennas/equipment shelter with the dimensions (3.2 (L) x 2.2m (W) x 2,7mheight) and associated landscapingLocal Centre
AIex Wilkinson
In order for this representation* to be considered valid ALL of the foHowina fsections 1-4) mustbe completed.
1. The representation must be received by Council no later than 11,59pm on 11.59pm on Monday 11 May2015
2,
Name of representor(s):Nominated representor if morethan two people:Address of representor(s):Contact phone number;
E-maii address;
~'CMmD^^~~7^?^ Y\QKOML
ZTEE^ve/feM^ ^KZSS^^^r^j2^^2-3j£S————^--^—'r^7^'~~cXl mo rw^yfPw^Tcofn
3, Reasons for the representation, fndudmg whether in favouj or against,
..........X..^.^Lj.a^wc.M^.-.^^0fc:..,.,,:ffi...,...aite®^,,,^^z7^..j..i..^./^^
.....,..,.^.
aI do not wish to be heard
4. Please indicate whether you wish to be heard by Council's Development Assessment Panel in respect of yourrepresegtation:
C. J. MORGANP ?-r'onc?h'3mr'
I wish to be jrcard in person, or represented by...,.....,.,....,.;.,..,.,........,,,..;..... ^ ^.^^^w.'^IJ.a!'l':a.'"/ •-1—-"-" "''••''•••'''••'•''(please^pe^jfy^m^y^OODCROFT S.A. 5162
SIGNED#:..,,.,.,.,.^/^^I,,,,..,,,,..,,,.,...,..,,.,,,,DATE:....3.€?^
*AII representations will b^come{p{jblic documents and will be forwarded to the applicant for response pursuant to the provisions ofthe Development Aqt 19,83.Please note your representation may be reproduced, in full, on the council's website as gn attachment to a DevelopmentAssessment Panel report. Please contact council's Development Services section if you wish to request that any personal
details be masked,
#V submitting this form electronlcalty a name rather than signature is acceptable.
73
Development ActStatement of Representation(Pursuant to Section 38 of the Development Act)
Development Number: 145/11 9/2015Nature of Development: Telecommunications facilityZone: Local Centre
Section 3 (Referred from that Section on the Official Form)Reasons for the Representation:
I am a Telstra Customer using a 30 Mobile Phone Service and a Next GenerationWireless Broadband Service; living opposite the proposed Development.
I object to the Development on the following grounds.
1) Siting of the Pole immediately adjacent to a Residential area. In my case thedistance from the base of the Pole to my bed inside the house is Just on 3 !metres. The height of the pole matches the distance of the pole from theinterior of my residence!
2) Aesthetically the device wiil not add amenity to the surrounds; by scale orpositioning,
3) I question the Technical need for the Development at this location. Wirelessservices as stated above, used by me work from this address with 5 bars signalstrength "excellent"; dropping to 3 bars "good" on occasion. 1 have not
experienced any known loss or degradation of service.
Today I have walked footpaths on a 200 metre radius circuit around theproposed development, verifying reception values. (Viz, Reynell Rd, VictoriaAve, Sherbrooke Blvd, St Helens Ct, Queens Wy, Rothschild St to ReynellRd.)My Mobile Phone showed 3G reception minimum 3 bars "Good" in streetssouth by the creek (Sherbrook Blvd) where there may be a need for extrasignal. (This area will remain behind the hiii from the proposed Developmentand may not be helped by a Tower at the Proposed Location.) Eisewhere allreadings were 4-5 bars "Very good - Excellent", Telstra"'s Propagation Charts;
as shown on their website show good strengths for 3G signal overall.The 4G (basic) was shown restricted adjacent to creek beds in Reynefia Eastand SE Woodcroft only. This proposed Tower is not near an affected creekbed!
Christopher James Morgan
^ ^/^OlS.C. J. MORGAN2 Frenshams D,-
WOODCROFTSA5162'
74
Planning Applications
From: Chris Morgan <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, 30 April 2015 2:56 PMTo: Planning ApplicationsSubject: Development # 145/119/2015 Statement of RepresentationAttachments: 145-119-2015_0002.jpg; 145-119-2015_0003.jpg
The Council - City of Onkaparinga
I am responding to your letter from Development Services re the proposed development at 1-3 Rothschild St,Woodcroft, 5162.
Attached is the official completed Representation Form and my typed and signed Representation.
! await the results to be advised to me.Regards
syw
Mr Chris Morgan
2 Frenshams DrWoodcroftSouth Australia, 5162
® 0883872310 [home]
(3) 0429698358 [mobile]
75
FROM
w'../'..^
•^^•'^•'^IS,
May. 11 2015 09:07PM Pl
Development ActStatement of Representation
Pursuant to Section 38 of the Development ActSubmission options:
SP_oli£§BQDSOonl<aDarjnaa.sa.aov,auVia Council's webslte;Category 3 development applications (not Category 2 applications) can be found at;www.onkaparingacity.com Living heropfanning and development applications for public commentFax; (08) 8382 8744City ofOnkaparinga, PO Box 1, NOARLUNGA CENTRE SA 5168
Details of development applicationDevelopment Number;Applicant:
LocatfoiT'of -OeydopmerTt;
Nature of Development:
Zone:
Assessing planning officer:
145/119/2015Telstra Corporatkm UmftedPortion of carpark at 1-3 (Allot 253 in DP 17285) Rothschjld Stre.et, .. ..... _.. _WOODCROFT SA 5162 ' ' -- - . -.-.^
Telecommunications facility including a 30 metre monopole & antennas,equipment shelter with the dimensions (3.2 (L) x 2.2m '(W) x 2.7mheight) and associated landscapinqLocal CentreAlex Wilkinson
In order for this representation* to be considered valid ALL of the following f sections 1-4) mustfae-eojm.ntoted.
1. The representation must be received by Council no iater than 11.59pm on 11.59pm on Monday 11 May2015
2.
Name of representor(s):Nominated rspresentor if morethan two people;
Mr pe; (-^ a- r/?rs \\l^ Lw
Address of representor(s):
Contact phone number;^ ^i^Ue- /^ . ^ M^J>la.^(SAJ&-..,^,Bov-oi ^&9 oa.? A ^-u'.^ &/<s
E-mail address: e-^f^^d d) W-m:^ . ^o"^
3. Reasons for the representation, including whether in favour oi(against.J
..Me, w^.L.^..&ye.^...^^..^..A-A^^ \ .„.„„.„„„..„.,..
t^^..^..yj(s^...^f^...^.ik,,^^.^.^..^
..^^.,...,^...^^^..^.ta^..^^"^...,WlJ..X^.^^^^^
..^.^..,,,^,,,^.,?>^T^.,^^fr...^...^^..-..7^m^..A"6fe-n
.,.^.^.A^..,..^^...^..^CTp.^^fr.,,,^.,,^,J.<'.^.J.6W^
4. Please indicate whether you wish to be heard by Council's Development Assessment Panel in respect of yourrepresentation;
I do not wish to be heard
I wish to bejisard in person, or represented by.(please specify name)
H /QS ,^'-91*AII representations-will becoms public document and will be forwarded to the applicant for response pursuant to the provisions of
the Development Act 1993,
pleg$e note your representation may be reproduced, in full, on the cayndl's websrte gs an gttachment to a PevelopmentAssessment Panel report. Please contact council's Deveiopmeni: Services section if you wish to request that any personaldetails be masked.
#lf submitting this form etectronically a name rgther than signature is acceptable.
76
Development ActStatement of
Pursuant to Section 38 ofSubmission options;• [email protected]• Via Council's website:
• Category 3 development applications (not Category 2 applications) can be found at:www.onkaparingacity.com Living heroplanning and development>applications for pul^lfc comment
• Fax: (08) 8382 8744• City of Onkaparinga, PO Box 1, NOARLUNGA CENTRE SA 5168 '^•^]^^yDetails of development applicationDevelopment Number;
Applicant:
Location of Development:
Nature of Development:
Zone:
Assessing planning officer:
145/119/2015Telstra Corporation LimitedPortion of carpark afl-3 (Allot 253TrTDP 17285) Rothschild Street,WOODCROFT SA_5162Telecommunications facility including a 30 metre monopole & antennas/equipment shelter with the dimensions (3.2 (L) x 2.2m '(W) x 2.7mheight) and associated landscapingLocal Centre
Alex Wilkinson
In order for this representation* to be considered valid ALL of the followimg (sections 1-4) mustbe completed.
1. The representation must be received by Council no later than 11,59pm on 11.59pm on Monday 11 May2015
2.
Name of representor(s); MAft^ ^ T^^vPs BU^-^SNominated representor if morethan two people: MA-dlG RU.t2-'^^Address of representor(s): .Z CofLt^ W^LL. rffu^r ^QVDcSjp^ s.-h ^-2Contact phone number: n^\v^^ sofE-mail address: mbu3€2^f^) ' b^a ponc(. ^^-» £bL\
-^Ti-
3. Reasons for the representation/ including whether in favour oiCagamst
r.e.'fg^.....t^..,,...^^±^..^d........^.b€^±,
4. Please indicate whether you wish to be heard by Council's Development Assessment Panel in respect of yourrepresentation:
I do not wish to be heard
I wish to be heard in person, or represented by.D(please specify name)
SIGNED#:..^>^^fe^^^,,.,........,.,,............DATE:...^
*AII representations will become public documents and will be forwarded to the applicant for response pursuant to the provisions ofthe Development Act 1993.
Please note your representation may be reproduced, in full, on the council's website as an attachment to a DevelopmentAssessment Panel report. Please contact council's Development Services section if you wish to request that any personaldetails be masked.
#If submitting this form electronically a name rather than signature is acceptable.
77
Re: Development Application #145/119/2015
Thank you for providing us with the opportunity to make a representation on the proposed development application.
As one of the 9 Households provided with this opportunity we wish to lodge the following concerns that we haveagainst this proposal:
There has been insufficient consultation with the surrounding community. The 9 Households invited to make
a representation does not constitute a true reflection from the surrounding community such a development
would affect. It appears that the less households that know about this, the faster the proposed development
can be finalised with the least amount of public response from all that may be affected.
We are concerned that there is insufficient substantiation provided for the need and for the location of this
facility. What sense does it make to place a tall (30 metre) pole on the side of a road in a small communityshopping centre that is surrounded by densely populated low rise residential buildings? Surely there arealternative sites that would be more beneficial to the company building this telecommunications facility whichare not as heavily populated (residentially) or with the heavy traffic flow (both pedestrian and car). There areparks nearby and a number of electricity poles that could be utilised to add an antenna or two (or however
many that are going to be included seeing as the number of 'antennas' is not stated in the nature of the
development).
The proposed site is on a T-road section. Rothschild Street is a patched up road as it is and frequentlyexperiences difficulties with broken water pipes at this section. What impact will this proposal have on the
two roads and the underground utilities at this T-Section?
Safety is a major concern - the fact that drivers (both young and old) are often seen to 'cut the corner' when
turning into Frenshams Drive off Rothschild Street could quite easily result in an 'accident waiting to happen'
with a wall 3.2 (L) x 2.2 (W) x 2.7m (H) and a 30 metre pole for them to hit. The plans provided show thatthe development may impact even further on the vision of drivers coming out of the shopping centre carpark.
It is already an area that needs to be cleared of trees and shrubs, to improve driver's vision of the
surrounding area before turning onto Rothschild Street and for drivers coming out of the shopping centre.
The Shopping Centre already has limited parking facilities for the tenants and their customers. Why reducethis even further? More cars will be parked on the streets blocking driveways and the streets themselves.
We have concerns with health issues due to the proximity of this development proposal in such a densely
populated residential area. What is the Council and Telstra planning to do to minimise EMR. exposure to
those living and working close to the proposed telecommunications centre and also to those that will be
exposed in the surrounding area?
This proposed development will impact on the value of residential homes in the vicinity closest to the
proposed telecommunications centre. Will Council and Telstra make restitution to those affected? How will
Council and Telstra ensure that current house valuations will not be affected? A 30 foot pole and equipment
shelter in front of any home is not a positive inducement for any prospective purchaser.
We look forward to receiving your considered responses to our objections to this development proposal.
We also wish to place on record our disappointment in Council for not including more than the 9 households
adjacent to the proposed development with the opportunity to make public comment. Maybe Council needs to visit
the proposed site to view in more depth the number of households that will truly be affected by this development
proposal.
Yours sincerely
Mark and Tanya Burns
2 Cornwall CourtWOODCROFTSA5162
7/5/2015
78
5 0 f'PP ^'I
f
.-,/
Development ActStatement of Representation
Pursuant to Section 38 of the Development ActSubmission options: \;-
• aDDlications@onkaDarinaa ,sa .adv;ao.,• Via Council's website: X;,^/^'y
• Category 3 development applications (notCStegory 2 applications) can be found at:www.onkaparingacity.com Living here>planning and development>applications for public comment
• Fax: (08) 8382 8744• City of Onkaparinga, PO Box 1, NOARLUNGA CENTRE SA 5168Details of development applicationDevelopment Number:
Applicant:
Location of Development:
Nature of Development:
Zone:
Assessing planning officer:
145/119/2015Telstra Corporation LimitedPortion of carpark at 1-3 (Allot 253 in DP 17285) Rothschild Street,WOODCROFT SA S162Telecommunications facility including a 30 metre monopole & antennas,equipment shelter with the dimensions (3,2 (L) x 2.2m (W) x 2.7m (walheight) and associated landscapingLocal Centre
Alex Wilkinson
In order for this representation* to be considered valid ALL of the following fsections 1-4) mustbe completed.
1. The representation must be received by Council no later than 11.59pm on 11.59pm on Monday 11 May2015
2.
(A-S - ^ f-'i^e./i.Name of representor(s):Nominated representor if morethan two people: l^ft^K ^ILL,^
4 fiSe^s'HA/y^ D^. 1(V3<-s>c^op.cAddress of representor(s):
Contact phone number: 0^-1 <Ur,^u 04^ ^'^UtHl^r-.^ p^qK^.Cb'w. uE-mail address:
3, Reasons for the representation, including whether in favour or against.
Crfti^r'r ^ ^ ffrrfirti.np,
4. Please indicate whether you wish to be heard by Council's Development Assessment Panel in respect of yourrepresentation:
I do not wish to be heard
D . I wish to be heard in persor)/ gr represented by.
'M.(please specify yname)
SIGNED^:................. ^%/^/^,^......,.,...,...... DATE;
*AII representations will b^qh/e/p/b/c dociAn^nts and will be forwarded to the ap^icant/for response pursuant to the provisions ofthe Development Act 1993.
Please note your representation may be reproduced, in full, on the council's website as an attachment to a DevelopmentAssessment Panel report. Please contact council's Development Services section if you wish to request that any personaldetails be masked.
#lf submitting this form electronically a name rather than signature is acceptable,
79
28/04/15
City of Onkaparmga
KB; Development No. 145/119/2015: Telecommunications facility, Rothschild St. Woodcroft.
Dear Sir/Madam,
I wish to voice my opposition in the strongest possible terms, to the proposed installation of this
telecommunications tower. The area in which the tower is to be constructed is a residential area, and
this facility is clearly an industrial building, of significant size. This type of facility is ugly, and
totally out of context with the existing streetscape. Buildings of this nature typically invite graffiti
and vandalism, which would further detract from the residential atmosphere of the area.
There is a nearby industrial area only .5 of a kilometre from this proposed site, on Panalatinga
Rd. which would be a far more appropriate location for this facility.
I ask that you seriously consider my objections to this development.
Yours sincerely
^i
.^
Mark & Julie-Anne Hillier
80
SE
PA
RA
TE A
TTAC
HM
EN
T
SEPARATE ATTACHMENT
145/119/2015 Telstra Corporation Limited
Item 3.2 Attachment 1.2.3
Applicant’s response to representations
Please note that attachments on our website are separate to each report. If these documents are reproduced in any way, including saving and printing, it is an infringement of copyright under the Copyright Act 1968(Cth) (the Act). By downloading this information, you acknowledge and agree that you will be bound by the provisions of the Act and will not reproduce these documents without the express written permission of the copyright owner.
81
Our Ref: Woodcroft North
25 May 2015
Alex WilkinsonSenior Development Officer - PlanningCityofOnkaparingaP 0 Box 1NOARLUNGA CENTRE SA 5168
5 K Planning Pty LtdABN 76 103 325 435
PO Box 138
Crafers SA5-152
m. 041 '7 088 000f. 08 8339 1526e. [email protected]
DearAlex
RE: Proposed telecommunications facilityLot 253 Rothschild Street, Woodcroft (CT 5116/876)DA 145/119/2015
As you are aware, S K Planning acts on behalf of Telstra Corporation Limited ('Telstra') in respect ofthis application.
The proposal by Telstra is to establish a telecommunications facility, in the form of a mobile telephonebase station on part of the land at the Sherebrooke Shopping Centre - specifically Lot 253 RothschildStreet, Woodcroft.
The site is located within the Local Centre Zone pursuant to the City of Onkaparinga DevelopmentPlan (consolidated 14 August 2014). The proposal is an 'on merit' kind of development and is category2 for the purposes of public notification pursuant to Schedule 9 of the Development Regulations 2008.
A brief cover letter was provided at the time of lodgement. This letter constitutes a detailed planningstatement as to the merits of the proposal to assist you in determining the application.
The application has also been recently subject to category 2 public notification and I have a copy of thefive valid representations which were received by Council. My response to those representations is alsocontained within this letter.
The necessary fees have been paid.
As per Council's letter of 30 January 2015,1 also attach a completed Electricity Declaration Form and anadditional plan showing a full site plan,
The Subject LandThe subject land is located on the corner of Rothschild Street and Frenshams Drive at Woodcroft. Theland is part of a group of four allotments which form part of a small shopping centre known as theSherebrooke Shopping Centre. Although part of the shopping centre, the subject land (known as lot ,.253) is the only allotment on which the proposal is located and relies on for access (ie. it is wholjy< .^contained within that allotment). 4V
The allotment is roughly rectangular in shape and approximately 600 sqm in size. Access yWlfi ' •allotment is from Rothschild Street, with only pedestrian access from Frenshams Drive, -o; . .,
82
Approximately half of lot 253 consists of car parking and circulation space, whilst the other half isoccupied by the northern-most extent of the L-shaped shopping centre building.
Frenshams Drive is higher in elevation than the car park, resulting in an embankment between the carpark and road boundary, which contains some shrubs and small trees.
The location of the subject land is clearly shown on the plans submitted with the application and theparcel has Certificate of Title details Volunpe 5116 Folio 876.
The subject land is located within the Local Centre Zone pursuant to the City of OnkaparingaDevelopment Plan.
The LocalityThe remainder of the shopping centre consists of a second access from Sherebrooke Boulevard, an L-shaped building containing a number of small convenience outlets. The delivery/rubbish collection areais at the rear of the building and accessed from Frenshams Drive.
The surrounding locality is almost entirely residential dwellings, most ofsingle-storey and low density,Reynell Road is the main east-west thoroughfare to the north and Sherebrooke Boulevard, whichpasses the shopping centre in question, is the key north-south collector road through this part ofWoodcroft. There are a several open space reserves to the south-east and south-west, which also
includes a watercourse/drainage line.
The land in this area is undulating (generally sloping to the south away from the shopping centre) and isreasonably well treed in places,
The ProposalThe proposal consists of the following elements:
> a 30-metre tail monopole;
> six (6) panel antennas (each 2.53m in length) mounted on a compact headframe at the topof the proposed monopole - three of the antennas are for '3G' services and three for future
'4G' services;
> six (6) remote radio units (each 518mm x 470mm) mounted below the proposedheadframe
> a pre-fabricated equipment shelter (dimensions 2.28m x 3,28m x 3,0m) to house thenecessary base-station equipment; and
> An overhead cable tray connecting the equipment shelter to the monopole; and
> bollards surrounding the monopole and equipment shelter to provide protection from--...
vehicle impact; and/
> electricity and optical fibre connections,
The monopole can be painted if desired, as can the mounts and antennas.
2 of 1083
Modifications to the existing retaining wall will be required to accommodate the structure, which willresult in the loss of an existing tree. A new timber fence will be constructed behind the new retainingwall to assist in screening the base of the facility from Frenshams Drive,
Importantly, no car parking spaces are lost as a result of the installation of the facility.
Whilst not a relevant planning issue, it is worthy of note that the maximum levels of electromagneticenergy from the proposed facility will be approximately 0.093% of the exposure limits set down byARPANSA, A copy of the 'standard form' EME report is attached for Council's information.
Need for the FacilityThe need for the facility has come about simply due to the growth in demand for services, particularlydata such as mobile internet and the dramatic increase in devices which use significantly more data,such as smartphones, tablets and internet dangles.
The result of this increase in data demand is the requirement to add additional capacity into the network(partly through the augmentation of existing sites and partly through construction of new facilities) anddecrease the size of the area being serviced by each facility (and therefore the distance between thefacility and the user). The current network cannot adequately provide for that demand without additionalinfrastructure.
Assessment against the Development PlanAs noted above, the subject land and proposal is located in the Local Centre Zone of the City ofOnkaparinga Development Plan.
In the Local Centre Zone, a telecommunications facility is neither complying nor non-complying andpursuant to Schedule 9 of the Development Regulations 2008 is a category 2 type of development as itdoes not exceed 30 metres in height.
Zone ProvisionsThe provisions of the Local Centre Zone provide for small-scale convenience shopping and other landuses and facilities which serve the local community.
Although not a land use specifically identified in the zone provisions, the proposed facility's purpose is toserve the local and surrounding community.
The position of the proposed facility does not interfere with existing car-parking, pedestrian access ordelivery arrangements, nor does it interfere with the access to the shops and other facilities which existat the centre. It is also positioned away from the main frontages of the shopping centre and away fromthe main thoroughfare of Sherebrooke Boulevard.
As such, the location selected within the Local Centre Zone is probably the most appropriate availableand does not undermine the on-going operation of the centre zone. On that basis, the establishment ofthe proposed facility in this zone is appropriate.
General Section Provisions . -,:" 'The General Section of the Development Plan contains a Telecommunications Facilities module; 'Withrespect to the Telecommunications Facilities module, the subject proposal meets the following-requirements: ;'.'.
3 of 1084
• The facility has been placed within the existing network to provide network coverage andcapacity for the surrounding area, thereby delivering high quality communication services tothe community (including provision for future '4G' services);
• The facility has been designed and sited to minimise the visual impact on the locality havingregard for the lack of alternative locations and the function and requirements of the shoppingcentre;
• The facility has been located in a coordinated manner having regard for the surroundingnetwork and the local technical objectives for the facility;
• The facility will use materials and finishes to minimise visual impact;• The antennas have been mounted on a headframe at the top of the monopole in a typical
configuration to allow both 3G and future 4G services to be provided;• The facility is located in a centre zone, which is a 'nreferred' zone;
• There are no existing structures in the wider area on which the facility could be collocated andthe network objectives for the site met;
• Given the lack of space it is unlikely any substantial landscaping (in the form of planting) couldbe planted but a new timber fence is to be constructed along part of the Frenshams Drivefrontage to assist in screening the equipment shelter and base of the monopole from theadjacent residential dwellings;
• The facility is not located in a prominent location or within a significant vista;• It is unlikely the use of an 'innovative design technique' will result in a reduced visual impact in
this particular location and given its location in a car park with very limited space such a designwould be unlikely to 'positively contribute to the character of the area' and be excessively bulky;and
• There are no heritage items or areas affected by the proposal.
As noted earlier, the structure of the Telecommunications Facilities module in the General section of theDevelopment Plan specifically anticipates that there will be detriment caused by such facilities - that is,they are unlikely to improve the appearance of an area. Therefore, the key is to minimise the impact asmuch as practical whilst still ensuring technical requirements are met. This approach has beenendorsed separately by the ERD and Supreme Courts (see Development Assessment Commission v3G/S Pty Ltd & Anor[2007] SASC 216 para. 72) and is the accepted approach for the assessment ofsuch facilities.
Alternative SitesAs always, Telstra has considered a number of other locations at which to site the proposed facility,including a number of Council reserves throughout the area. This has occurred over a number of yearsin the lead-up to the lodgement of the current application and has included a number of discussions withCouncil.
Telstra's initial focus was on the Neighbourhood Centre Zone on Pimpala Road (corner Odessa Drive),which is the location of a Woolworths shopping centre. At the time of discussions with the owner, theundeveloped balance of that land (ie. the land to the east) was being considered for development. Aftermany months of discussions with the landowner he eventually advised there was no ground spaceavailable for the Telstra facility and as such the land was no longer available for consideration. This,. ';applied to ah of the land within the Neighbourhood Centre Zone. ,<
Telstra also considered the church property at 255 Pimpala Road, Woodcroft. After some initial'ppsitivediscussions, the church decided it did not wish to accommodate the Telstra facility on its land and, |advised Telstra of such. \- '.
Five Council reserves were also considered, which were: . .
4 of 1085
• Lot 118 Queens Way, Woodcroft• Lot 334 Pinto Court, Woodcroft• Lot 359 Shetland Street, Woodcroft• Dressage Avenue (corner Pimpala Road), Woodcroft• Lot 314 Pimpala Road, Woodcroft
All of the reserves are located within a residential zone - some are fairly small with houses backing on tothem whilst others are larger with other facilities on them, such as playing courts. Of the reservesconsidered, Dressage Avenue seemed to have the most potential as it was well screened by trees andcould be sited away from most of the main activities on the reserve. However, after achieving someinitial success with the City of Onkaparinga, a sub-committee of Council determined the proposal wasnot suitable for the reserve and it was rejected.
None of the remaining reserves were considered superior options to either Dressage Avenue or theSherebrooke Boulevard shopping centre and on that basis were not pursued further.
In my view, Telsfra has been sufficiently diligent in selecting and designing a proposed facility thatmeets the on-going technical requirements and can minimise its visual impact on the local environment,as required by the Development Plan. It is also located within a 'preferred' zone, as discussed furtherbelow.
Response to RepresentationsThe five representations received by Council raised the following key issues (in no particular order):
• health impacts• property devaluation• visual impact• technical need , :
• lack of consultation .: ~
• alternative locations /~:
• sight lines in car park• car parking spaces '.-. _ ..
My response to the concerns raised by the representors is as follows.
Health ImpactsA key concern raised by the representors opposing the proposal was that of the EME generated by theproposed facility and in particular concern over whether adverse health impacts would result. Concernsover the potential for health impacts from telecommunication facilities are commonly raised duringpublic consultation processes, with the concerns usually focussing on the effect of exposure of humansto electromagnetic energy, or EME.
Telstra acknowledges some people are genuinely concerned about possible health effects from theEME generated by radio frequency technology and are committed to addressing these concernsresponsibly.
All radio communications facilities, including the one proposed, emit EME in order to operate. Suchfacilities include AM and FM radio, television, paging services, emergency services systems such as theGovernment Radio Network and CB Radio, many of which have been in use for decades.Telecommunications facilities emit and receive EME to transmit and receive the necessary information
5 of 1086
associated with mobile handsets operating within that part of the network, but at power levels much lessthan any of the systems mentioned above.
This particular base-station is designed to accommodate Telstra's Next G® network. As with all cellularnetworks of this type, it utilises sophisticated power management techniques that constantly monitorpower levels required to ensure only the minimum amount of power required is used by both the base-station and the handset. This is critical to the network, as it assists in minimising interference fromsurrounding base-stations.
The EME levels emitted are very low and in the case of the subject proposal, are estimated to be, as amaximum, 0.093% of the exposure limits mandated by the Australian Communications & MediaAuthority (ACMA). It is important to note that in terms of the standard, the proximity of the proposedfauiiiiy iy a compieteiy irrelevant consideration, as it is only the level of exposure at a particular locationthat is of interest - which in this case is easily below the standard by many hundreds of times.
A copy of the EME prediction for the proposal has been provided to Council as part of the originallodgement documentation. The prediction is in a standard format set down by the ACMA and used by allcarriers. I would particularly direct attention to the footnotes, which assist in explaining the predictiontechniques being used.
At the levels mandated by the ACMA, which have also been adopted in about 25 countries around theworld including the European Union, there is no scientifically substantiated evidence to suggest thatEME cause adverse health effects. It should be noted that the standard incorporates a significantmargin (about 50 times) to ensure potentially sensitive groups in the community, such as children,pregnant women and people who may be suffering health problems, are adequately protected.
It is also important to note that Telstra is not involved in the methodology of determining the appropriateexposure limits, but can assure Council that this proposal and all existing Next G® facilities adhere to theapplicable limits - usually by a factor of many hundreds or even thousands of times.
In relation to electromagnetic fields and public health, the conclusion from the World HealthOrganisation is:
"A large number of studies have been performed over the last two decadesto assess whether mobile phones pose a potential health risk. To date, no
adverse health effects have been established as being caused by mobile phone use."
WHO Fact sheet 193, June 2011
Organisations such as the WHO routinely review the medical research and science relevant to the - -Electromagnetic Energy (EME) generated by radio communications services. The consensus is-thatthere is no substantiated scientific evidence of health effects from the EME generated by radio.communications services that comply with national and international safety guidelines, .. , /•• •
There are many other useful sources of information available, including on the WHO website.(www.who.orQ) and the ACMA and ARPANSA websites. A very detailed website at v- ~^ ,;
WWW.emfexplained.info is an excellent centralised location of information, including deta^andlinks to studies, myths and various other fact sheets and independent information. '<<° ?7~
There has also been, most recently, a declaration by the WHO'S International Agency for Research onCancer (IARC) that radiofrequency electromagnetic fields associated with wireless phone use arepossibly carcinogenic to humans based on an increased risk to glioma (a malignant form of braincancer). To this end, a 'Group 2B' classification was given meaning "there could be some risk and
therefore a close watch for a link between cell phones and cancer risk." (WHO Press Release No. 208).
6 of 1087
Although the IARC classification does include both mobile phones and base-stations (because the studydid not separate out different radio-frequency emitting devices), in the subsequent press conference thefollowing qualifications were made with respect to base-stations:
1. The IARC RF classification included towers and base stations, however, the data inrelation to towers and base stations was "unin formative".
2. Typical exposures from roof top or tower mounted mobile phone base stations are lowerby more than 5 orders of magnitude compared to mobile phone handsets. This meansthat the personal exposure levels from base stations are more than 100,000 times lowerthan from mobile phones.
With respect to the planning application, in Council's determination of the planning application before it,it is worthy of note the Environment, Resources and Development Court (ERDC) has examined theissue of telecommunication facility EME in detail, most notably in the matter of Optus v City ofKensington and Norwood and Frost (ERDC 344/97).
In its judgment, the Court stated:
"We acknowledge the desirability of adopting a precautionary approach to the assessment ofrisk to humans of new land uses, but we are satisfied that the Australian and New Zealandstandard referred to above embraces the precautionary approach and that RFR levels are wellwithin the standard."
The Court went on to address the issue of perceived amenity, both in relation to the visual impact of thetower and the health implications, and stated:
"thus we do not accept that it is reasonable for the residents to perceive that the amenity of thelocality would be affected by the proposed development."
In more recent times, the ERD Court has again had cause to consider the perception of health impactsfrom mobile phone towers. In Foresto & 0/-s vDAC & Ors1, the Court stated:
"It is not sufficient to simply raise personal concerns or to rely on general material published ini/ar/bus media. This issue and concern has previously been dealt with by this Court and othersin Australia, it is regulated by the Commonwealth Government and there has been no findingthat I am aware of to reject a telecommunications facility of this kind on the basis of potential
' health effects on the community. At this time the Court must accept that position." (para. 31)
The issue has also been considered by other courts across Australia and New Zealand and haveresulted in similar outcomes and are further supported by on-going studies into the potential healtheffects of mobile phones.
Planning SA also stated in the Fact Sheet accompanying the Telecommunications Facilities StatewidePolicy Framework PAR: , •
"it is not considered appropriate for Development Plan policies to require planning authoritiesto assess potential public health impacts." '';| ^^\\'.!....
'. -- \
Accordingly, the issue of health impacts, perceived or otherwise, are not a relevant planniflg.,issue in thedetermination of this matter. -..
' [2005] SAERDC 45
7 of 1088
Devaluation olPropertiesThere are almost 20,000 mobile telecommunications facilities installed across Australia. Telstra and S KPlanning are not aware of any credible evidence that the installation of these facilities has had anyadverse impact upon property values.
Of course, property values are influenced by many factors, but Development Plans - or indeed theSouth Australian planning system - do not specifically reference land or property values and certainlynot with respect to specific types of development, As such, the proposal must be assessed against therelevant provisions of the Development Plan.
This approach was reaffirmed recently by the hRLJ Court in Foresto & Ors v DAC & Ors, when the Courtoffered comment on the relevance of property values in respect to a proper assessment of mobilephone towers, stating:
"A fourth issue raised by the appellants in documentation (but not the hearing) is the possibleaffect of the proposal on land values of properties surrounding the recreation area. There is norelevant basis in the Development Plan provisions for an assessment of this issue and it Isgenerally accepted that it is not a relevant factor to be taken into account in planningassessment and decision-making." (paragraph 32)
As such, the impact on residential (or other) property values is not relevant to the proper assessment ofthis proposal against the Development Plan and cannot be taken into account by Council.
VisuaHmpactThe most obvious impact of the proposed facility is that of visual impact, which is, on most occasions,an unavoidable outcome. The subject proposal obviously has visual impact on its locality, includingnearby residences and in and around the shopping centre. However, simply having visual impact is nota basis on which telecommunications facilities can or should be refused.
The concept of visual impact and in particular the way in which the Development Plan deals with visualimpact from such facilities is important to properly understand and apply. The Courts have, over anumber of years, provided further guidance on how visual impact and visual amenity provisions shouldbe interpreted with respect to such facilities,
The visual impact from the subject proposal (which being a structure of around 30 metres in height willalways have some impact) has been minimised to the extent it can be through the use of the absoluteminimum number of antennas and use of a 'slimline' monopole. There is nothing further that can bedone to the structure to further minimise its impact, as its height is a relatively fixed component.
This is an approach endorsed by the Court in Telstra v Holdfast Bay2, which involved the construction ofa similarly tall monopole near the corner of Jetty and Brighton Roads at Glenelg. The Court noted atparagraph 66 that whilst acknowledging that the facility would be prominent in parts of the locality:
"However, not a lot more is possible, whilst fulfilling the technical needs of the appellant. Forexample a lower pole would not meet the technical requirements of the appellant and. unless, itwas significantly lower, any further minimisation of visual impact would be margin^" :
In its concluding comments, the Court also noted at paragraph 76: /.- :
; [2008] SAERDC 47
8 of 1089
".. .that visual amenity impacts on the locality and parts of it will be significant, but they areminimised to an appropriate and acceptable extent and are otherwise difficult to avoid,"
This comment is highly relevant to the subject proposal, as there is little more that can be done in theexisting landscape to reduce the impact of the monopole, particularly when technical requirementsdictate the height of the facility.
As such, in the context of the locality and the fact that no alternative sites exist, the visual impact isconsidered acceptable in this instance. It should be noted that a site is only an alternative site if it can(a) meet the technical objectives of the required facility and (b) is reasonably available to Telstra. ToTelstra's knowledge, there is no other location where these criteria are satisfied.
Technical RequirementTelstra has determined there is a need to improve network coverage and capacity in this part ofWoodcroft.
Observing how many 'bars' a phone displays (which in any event is not linked to any standard) does notspeak to the depth of coverage or particularly the capacity of the existing service in the local area.
Given the large increases in demand for data services over recent years and constant monitoring ofsuch usage, Telstra has identified a need for a new facility in the Woodcroft area, as the existingnetwork cannot cater for the present and future demand in the long term - even with numerousupgrades and expansions to existing facilities.
Lack of ConsultationThe proposed facility is not classified as a 'low-impact' facility and as such a development applicationwas required, In the Local Centre Zone, the facility is classified as a category 2 development, which setsdown the way in which Council must undertake public notification,
It seems to me this notification was undertaken correctly but if there are concerns about this they areultimately questions for Council.
Alternative LocationsAt least seven other locations were considered before settling on the subject land, including a number ofCouncil reserves. Despite these investigations, none of these alternative locations were.made availableto Telstra (ie, the landowner refused Telstra's request to enter into a lease),
As such, based on Telstra's investigations there are no alternative locations which are available toTelstra and can meet the necessary technical objectives.
SiQhtLines in Car parkThe proposed facility is at the furthest point away from the car park entry from Rothschild Street-and as -such poses no threat to sightlines for traffic either entering or exiting the car park, or making the-turrTfrom Rothschild Street to Frenshams Drive.
Loss of Car parkingThe proposed facility occupies what is currently a raised garden bed. The facility has been carefullydesigned to ensure there is no loss of car parking as a result of its installation.
9 of 1090
ConclusionThe proposal is to establish a monopole facility at Lot 253 Rothschild Street, Woodcroft toaccommodate Telstra's requirements for its Next G® mobile network which is currently operating acrossAdelaide and South Australia. The facility is typical of the design utilised and height required throughoutthe metropolitan area. A requirement for a facility in this area has been identified by Telstra and willassist in providing greater depth of coverage and capacity to the surrounding area. The new facility willbe able to accommodate '4G' technology when the need arises.
The facility is designed and sited to minimise visual impact as much as reasonably possible whilst stillsatisfactorily meeting its network objectives, although of course it is acknowledged that some localisedimpact wilt occur.
Having regard to the requirements of the existing network and the provisions of the Development Plan,the proposal's location and profile in the context of its location minimises the visual impact to anacceptable extent and it is difficult to see how any other location in the area would produce an obviouslybetter visual outcome (if such a location was in fact available).
Importantly, its location and design will not have any material impact on the continuing use andenjoyment of the shopping area or other parts of the zone and no car-parking spaces are lost as a resultof the proposal. The proposal represents an orderly placement and development of what is now anessential piece of modem infrastructure,
Accordingly, I consider the subject proposal warrants Development Plan consent, Should Councilrequire any additional information prior to making its determination, please do not hesitate to contact theundersigned.
Yours sincerely
MARK BAADEB. Plan (Hons) ,<M: 0417 088 000 / ~~markbQi.skDtanning.com.au Ar.
Attached: ' -
Standard form EME report \Electricity Declaration Form \Full Site Plan
10 of 1091
Environmental EME Report
Lot 253 Rothschild Street, WOODCROFT SA 5162
This report provides a summary of Calculated RF EME Levels around the wireless base station
Date 20/1/2015 RFNSA Site No. 5162010
IntroductionThe purpose of this report is to provide calculations of EME levels from the existing facilities at the site and any proposedadditional facilities.
This report provides a summary of levels of radiofrequency (RF) electromagnetic energy (EME) around the wireless basestation at Lot 253 Rothschild Street WOODCROFT SA 5162 . These levels have been calculated by Telstra using methodologydeveloped by the Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Agency (ARPANSA).
The maximum EME level calculated for the proposed systems at this site is 0.093% of the public exposure limit.
The ARPANSA StandardARPANSA, an Australian Government agency in the Health and Ageing portfolio, has established a Radiation ProtectionStandard specifying limits for general public exposure to RF transmissions at frequencies used by wireless base stations. TheAustralian Communications and Media Authority (ACMA) mandates the exposure limits of the ARPANSA Standard,
How the EME is calculated in this reportThe procedure used for these calculations is documented in the ARPANSA Technical Report "Radio Frequency EME ExposureLevels - Prediction Methodologies" which is available at httD://www.arDansa.aov.au.
RF EME values are calculated at 1.5m above ground at various distances from the base station, assuming level ground.
The estimate is based on worst-case scenario, including:• wireless base station transmitters for mobile and broadband data operating at maximum power• simultaneous telephone calls and data transmission• an unobstructed line of sight view to the antennas.
In practice, exposures are usually lower because:
• the presence of buildings, trees and other features of the environment reduces signal strength• the base station automatically adjusts transmit power to the minimum required. ,.< .,
Maximum EME levels are estimated in 360° circular bands out to 500m from the base station. .'-
These levels are cumulative and take into account emissions from all mobile phone antennas at this site.The EME levels are presented in three different units: . • ..' l
• volts per metre (V/m) - the electric field component of the RF wave ^ -
• milliwatts per square metre (mW/m2) - the power density (or rate of flow of RF energy per unit area)
• percentage (%) of the ARPANSA Standard public exposure limit (the public exposure limit = 100%).- -__ _,.-.
Results
The maximum EME level calculated for the proposed systems at this site is 1.26 V/m; equivalent to 4,19 mW/m2 or 0.093% ofthe public exposure limit.
Environmental EME report (v11.3, Feb 2014) Produced with RF-Map2.0 (Build 1.18) NAD (v1.0.51531.25342)92
Radio Systems at the SiteThere are currently no existing radio systems for this site.
It is proposed that this base station will have equipment for transmitting the following services:
Carrier
Telstra
Radio Systems
WCDMA850 (proposed)
Calculated EME LevelsThis table provides calculations of RF EME at different distances from the base station for emissions from existing equipmentalone and for emissions from existing equipment and proposed equipment combined.
Distance from the antennasat I nt 253 Rothschild Strppf
in 360° circular bands
Om to 50m50m to 100m100m to 200m200m to 300m300m to 400m400m to 500m
Maximum EME level
Maximum Cumulative EME
Existing Equipment
Electric FieldV/m
Power DensitymW/m2
%ARPANSAexposure limits
evel-All carriers at this site
Proposed Equipment
Electric FieldV/m
0,33
0.381,26
1.230.87
0.66
1.26
Power DensitymW/m2
0.29
0.394.19
3.992.0191.15
4.19
%ARPANSAexposure limits
0.0064%0.0086%0,093%0.089%0.045%0.026%
0.093
177.63 m from the antennas at Lot 253Rothschild Street
Calculated EME levels at other areas of interestThis table contains calculations of the maximum EME levels at selected areas of interest that have been identified through theconsultation requirements of the Communications Alliance Ltd Deployment Code 0564:2011 or via any other means. Thecalculations are performed over the indicated height range and include all existing and any proposed radio systems for this site.
Additional Locations
Shopping Centre carparkNearby residencePark (Marley Court)Park (Julia Crescent)Reynella East College
Height / Scanrelative to location
ground level
Om to 3mOm to 3mOm to 3mOm to 3mOm to 5m
Maximum Cumulative EME LevelAll Carriers at this site
Existing and Proposed Equipment
Electric FieldV/m
0.17
0.270,78
0.560.33
Power DensitymW/m2
0.0760.19
1.630,830,3
%ofARPANSAexposure limits
0,0017%0.0043%0.036%0.018%
0.0066%
I .^.
Environmental EME report (v11.3, Feb 2014) Produced with RF-Map2.0 (Build 1.18) NAD (v1.0.51531.25342)93
RF EME Exposure StandardThe calculated EME levels in this report have been expressed as percentages of the ARPANSA RF Standard and this tableshows the actual RF EME limits used for the frequency bands available. At frequencies below 2000 MHz the limits vary acrossthe band and the limit has been determined at the Assessment Frequency indicated. The four exposure limit figures quotedare equivalent values expressed in different units - volts per metre (V/m), watts per square metre (W/m2), microwatts persquare centimetre (|JW/cm2) and milliwatts per square metre (mW/m2). Note: 1 W/m2 = 100 |jW/cm2 = 1000 mW/m2.
Radio Systems
LTE 700
WCDMA850
3SM900, LTE900, WCDMA90
GSM1800, LTE 1800
LTE2100, WCDMA2100
LTE2300
LTE2600
LTE3500
Frequency Bani
758-803MHz
870 - 890 MHz
935-960MHz
1805-1880MHz
2110-2170MHz
2302-2400MHz
2620-2690MHz
3425-3575MHz
Assessmen
Frequency
750 MHz
900 MHz
900 MHz
1800MHz
2100MHz
2300 MHz
2600 MHz
3500 MHz
ARPANSA Exposure Limit (100% of Standard)
37.6 V/m =
41.1V/m =
41.1V/m =
58.1 V/m =
61.4 V/m =
61.4V/m =
61.4V/m =
61.4V/m =
3.75 W/mz
4.50 W/m2
4.50 W/m2
9.00 W/m2
W.OOW/m2
10.00 W/m2
10.00 W/m2
10.00W/m2
= 375|jW/cm2
= 450pW/cm2
= 450|jW/cm2
= 900(JW/cm2
= 1000|jW/cm2
= 1000 pW/cm2
= 1000 MW/cm2
= 1000 tjW/cm2
3750 mW/m2
4500 mW/m2
4500 mW/m2
= 9000 mW/m2
= 10000 mW/m2
= lOOOOmW/m2
10000mW/m2
10000mW/m2
Further InformationThe Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Agency (ARPANSA) is a Federal Government agency incorporatedunder the Health and Ageing portfolio, ARPANSA is charged with responsibility for protecting the health and safety of people,and the environment, from the harmful effects of radiation (ionising and non-ionising).
Information about RF EME can be accessed at the ARPANSA website, httD://www.arpansa.c]ov.au, including:• Further explanation of this report in the document "Understanding the ARPANSA Environmental EME Report"• The procedure used for the calculations in this report is documented in the ARPANSA Technical Report; "Radio Frequency EME
Exposure Levels - Prediction Methodologies"• the current RF EME exposure standard
Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Agency (ARPANSA), 2002, 'Radiation Protection Standard: MaximumExposure Levels to Radiofrequency Fields — 3 kHz to 300 GHz', Radiation Protection Series Publication No. 3, ARPANSA,Yallambie Australia.[Printed version: ISBN 0-642-79400-6 ISSN 1445-9760] [Web version: ISBN 0-642-79402-2 ISSN 1445-9760]
The Australian Communications and Media Authority (ACMA) is responsible for the regulation of broadcasting, radiocommunications,telecommunications and online content. Information on EME is available at httD://emr.acma.qov.au
The Communications Alliance Ltd Industry Code 0564:2011 'Mobile Phone Base Station Deployment' is available from the CommunicationsAlliance Ltd website, http://commsalliance.com.au .
Contact details for the Carriers (mobile phone companies) present at this site and the most recent version of this document are availableonline at the Radio Frequency National Site Archive, http://www.rfnsa.com.au.
Environmental EME report (v11.3, Feb 2014) Produced with RF-Map 2.0 (Build 1.18) NAD (v1.0.51531.25342)94
