Towers and Trees
Sue Brooks August 12th, 2009
I am pleased and disappointed in unequal measures after yesterdays Council Meeting. On the pleased side was a unanimous decision to refuse an application for a very tall telecommunications tower next to the water tank on the top of Ghost Hill where other towers already protrude. Council decided to ask for a report on how other Councils are managing the towers and poles so that we can better manage the rapidly growing number of requests to erect these towers. Apparently the Gold Coast has 300m buffer requirement etc so FCRC needs to ensure that we act responsibly in relation to these towers. Many people are worried about the health impacts of the towers as well as the visual impacts.
My great sadness from yesterday was the decision to allow the development of a 13 hectare heavily vegetated site off Hughes Rd, Urangan. The site is surrounded by large acreage blocks where kangaroos graze but the block will be fully developed with a mix of blocks ranging from 8000sqm down to just over 1000sqm. There is no public open space dedication. I was disappointed to be the only Councillor voting against this application. I don’t believe that the application meets the requirements of protecting vegetation located within a “Natural Area’ overlay and I side with the assessment of the Council Land Protection Officer who also believed the application did not meet the requirements needed to protect vegetation. Hervey Bay already has several ‘Conservation Parks’ within our urban area and this site would have been ideal for another one. Personally I believe that with fewer trees we receive less rainfall so turning our landscape into a metal and concrete covered one does not improve our climate.
I did support an application for a 6 storey building at the corner of Hillyard and Main St as the building won’t encroach on any residential amenity. If there is a place for taller buildings within Hervey Bay I believe Main St is one of the places to put them.
Lastly Council launched its new PC Online application. This software enables anyone to search and locate details about their property online via the Council web site. It has some teething problems right now but once ticking over properly will be a great asset to the community. Please visit the Council web site for a look at it.
http://www.frasercoast.qld.gov.au/
- Council related issues
- Comments(10)
Hi Sue,
I read in the local and it has now been confirmed by your post, that the telecomunications tower planned for ghost hill,
has been rejected!! Why? There is already a water tower and communication towers in the imediate area.
As to electromagnetic fields EMF’s, the people who complain sleep on electric blankets, sit in front of TV’s and have cables
running through the walls and ceilings of their dwellings. We are being bombarded by EMF’s every minute of every day of our lives.
I bet these same people whinge about black spots in their mobile’s coverage.
Wasn’t Einstein who said for every action, there is a reaction? Technology has a price and it worries me when people want to take, but won’t give any thing in return. Why do the NIMBY’s rule our lives?
Sadman
Sadman, as much as I agree technology is part of our lives, I also feel council has finally done the right thing and listened to its constituents on this matter.
The people didn’t want yet another tower and said so and council listened. Who said people power can not make a difference to the way our leaders run our region?
Telco towers are ugly pieces of infrastructure and it is a shame no one has come up with a way of integrating them into the skyline more aesthetically.
Until such time as this does happen and more studies are done into possible harm from radiation, the less towers that are installed in residential areas the better.
Ben,
There is logic in your point of view. I don’t think yopu read my post at all?
The skyline is already corrupted. You do watch TV, use a microwave, have
a wired house etc, don’t you? I bet you have even whinged about poor
mobile reception?
As to “people power”!!!! Just look around and tell me what you see; there is
no real “people power”, just whingers who only whinge when it effects them
personally.
Sadman
Ben,
I missed out the word NO in my first sentence of previous
post. It should read; There is no logic oin your point of view.
Sadman
Yes the hill already has towers on it but do we want more there? Council has asked that staff prepare a report which will better inform us about what infrastructure is needed to provide mobile coverage etc throughout the region and how we can best accomodate this infrastructure without compromising our collective visual amenity. Health issues aren’t readily covered within Planning Scheme requirements either and this is a concern of mine. I lived near high power voltage lines in Darwin and they would hum loudly and it wasn’t a pleasant experience walking under them. Other Councils apparently have put in strict buffering rules and the telecommunications coverage is then provided with smaller less intrusive and less powerful poles. Maybe this is a better solution?
I would also like to see a look out on the top of a hill somewhere ‘up there’ one day so I’m not keen on placing more towers on the hill till we explore our options.
Sue,
I am going to have to try to explain myself better. Niether you our Ben
seem to understand where I’m coming from.
If there is a bad EMF effect, we are ALL suffering, based on my past life
and all I’ve read and heard, there is nothing to worry about.
Visual impact; this varies from person to person, however, there is already
a water tower and communication towers in the area. Sue, in one of your
earlier posts you talked of a 300 metre buffer zone. Without knowing all
the details, why can’t such a buffer zone encompass ALL the towers?
There area is, in the view of some, already stuffed, so why spread it around?
Sadman
Sadman
I understand perfectly where you are coming from. Its the kind of mentality that says while we know cigarettes are bad for us, we’ve been smoking them for years so why stop now? Simply doesn’t make sense.
For the record, I have never whinged about poor reception – merely the fact that I have to stick with one particular telco as the others simply can not provide a competitive coverage due to the first’s dominance and monopoly they held for far too long.
I do not feel this is a case of a ‘bunch of whingers’ but rather some concerned residents who have got their heads together to stop what they feel is a new intrusion that will further impact on their environment.
Just because there is existing man-made obstructions already on the hill does not automatically justify adding more.
Ben,
Again your argument has no logic. If we already have visual
pollution in one area? Why spread it around? Is it not better
to keep it all in one location?
As to your sticking to one telco, they have dominance
because they have more towers. You would now deny
other telcos the same opportunity!
As to your analogy re cigarettes, come on Ben, surely you
don’t want to go down that path? If you do, I’ll have a field
day.
Sadman
I’m not suggesting by any means we spread it around, rather, telcos and others need to find new technologies / antenas that are less obtrusive.
While we are at it, why don’t we put pressure on governments, businesses and others to remove unused infrastructure around the place to improve the skyline?
Why do people say that antenna’s are ugly? They are beautiful in MY opinion. If I suggested that trees were ugly, would I be justified in chopping them all down? Of course not. Nearly every single house has a tv antenna, yet we don’t complain about them.