AGENDA - Sunshine Coast Council

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Strategy and Planning Committee Agenda 16 February 2011 Their comments are provided below. Operational Works Assessment Branch Comments The Branch has no objection to the proposal, provided that appropriate access and engineering conditions are applied to any approval. Economic Development Branch The Economic Development Branch indicates that it supports the approval of this application, as it will significantly address the mobile telephony and mobile broadband shortfall in this area. The construction of this tower is part of the Connecting the Coast project and will assist in achieving part 6.3.1 of the Corporate Plan (Facilitate access to affordable, high speed communication networks for all residents and businesses) and 6.3.2 (Advocate for better telecommunications in rural areas). Economic Development recommends that any approval include a condition to the effect that the new tower incorporate a preferred wireless tower location layer with corresponding radio mapping to support locations and adequacy of coverage from development through to full capacity. Telstra and Optus both support this approach. External Referrals REFERRAL AGENCIES No Referral Agencies are applicable to this application. SUBMISSIONS The application was publicly notified in accordance with requirements of the Sustainable Planning Act 2009. 21 properly made submissions and 24 not properly made submissions were received. Of the 45 total submissions, there were 30 supportive and 15 opposing the proposal. GROUNDS OF SUBMISSIONS The following table provides a summary of the grounds for submissions received. Issues Inconsistent Use in the Rural Settlement Zone • The proposal is not compatible with other consistent uses in the zone; • Contrary to the Desired Environmental Outcomes; and • not made a consistent use by the policy pertaining to Telecommunication Towers (PSP23) Comments The response from two-thirds of the submitters are supportive of the proposed tower. This indicates that there is a need for the use within the area. However, it is also recognised that the proposal is an inconsistent use within every zone within the Cooroibah Locality, and the site selection process requires careful consideration of neighbouring uses. Although the applicant has considered 8 other sites, before determining to locate the facility at the subject site, no consideration was given to any other site outside of the Rural Residential Zone. Considering the concerns of adjoining residents and the expectations of future uses within the zone set out in the Desired Environmental Outcomes (and Overall Outcomes of the Locality Code), the proposed tower is too close to Page 144
Strategy and Planning Committee Agenda 16 February 2011 Issues Visual Amenity • Obtrusive to the nearby properties and streets; and • Will extend beyond the existing vegetation canopy. Height • No height requirement for the zone in the Infrastructure Uses Code, indicating that the tower is inappropriate in the zone; and • Three times the maximum height allowed of 8m within the Locality Code. Health & Safety • Inconclusive science on the issue; and • Precautionary standard of not constructed within a 300m radius should apply. Community Need • Insufficient demand in the locality to warrant the need; and conversely • Supportive of improved services to assist small business and emergency services. Alternative Sites • This proposal is too close to homes • Other suitable sites include: o Council/State Land o Existing Quarry Site • More evidence required for indentifying opportunities for co-location. Reduction in House Prices Comments neighbouring premises and is an incompatible use. Agreed. Notwithstanding that a telecommunications tower needs to be above the canopy height to achieve reception, there is limited vegetation between the proposed tower and nearby premises. No conditions can be applied to assist in screening the development from this neighbour, and the proposal will adversely affect the visual amenity of this Rural Settlement zoned allotment. Agreed. No height limit is specified for the Rural Residential Zone, as the Infrastructure Uses Code does not envisage the use within that zone. The associated code outcome requires towers to be visually integrated with their setting and not visually dominant or obtrusive. The proposed tower does not allow for adequate screening between it and the adjoining premises. Therefore, the proposal does not meet the requirements of the Code in relation to height. The cumulative radiofrequency and electromagnetic energy summary for the tower, indicates the proposed tower will emit a maximum electromagnetic energy level which is 0.45% of the Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Agency’s regulated acceptable maximum radiation levels. The proposal, therefore, does not raise any significant concerns in relation to the health effects of radiofrequency and electromagnetic energy emissions. There is a recognised need for this type of infrastructure within the area. The application material and the positive response for the tower during the notification period indicate the need for the improved network reception within the locality. Council’s Economic Development Branch also indicates that this area has been identified within the Connecting the Coast Project as requiring further telecommunications infrastructure. As part of the application, Telstra included their site selection decision making. This included 9 sites surrounding the subject site, with none of the sites investigated outside the Rural Settlement Zone (See Attachment 3). Most of the alternative sites were rejected by the applicant because a lease could not be negotiated with the owner or the site had poor coverage performance. It is agreed that further alternate sites should be investigated by the applicant. No details were provided to substantiate that the tower will devalue property values in the general area, though it is agreed that the tower’s impacts on nearby premises are significant and could potentially affect those property values. Page 145
Page 1 and 2:
AGENDA STRATEGY AND PLANNING COMMIT
Page 3 and 4:
Strategy and Planning Committee Age
Page 5 and 6:
Page 7 and 8:
Page 9 and 10:
Page 11 and 12:
Page 13 and 14:
Page 15 and 16:
Page 17 and 18:
Page 19 and 20:
Page 21 and 22:
Page 23 and 24:
Page 25 and 26:
Page 27 and 28:
Page 29 and 30:
Page 31 and 32:
Page 33 and 34:
Page 35 and 36:
Page 37 and 38:
Page 39 and 40:
Page 41 and 42:
Page 43 and 44:
Page 45 and 46:
Page 47 and 48:
Page 49 and 50:
Page 51 and 52:
Page 53 and 54:
Page 55 and 56:
Page 57 and 58:
Page 59 and 60:
Page 61 and 62:
Page 63 and 64:
Page 65 and 66:
Page 67 and 68:
Page 69 and 70:
Page 71 and 72:
Page 73 and 74:
Page 75 and 76:
Page 77 and 78:
Page 79 and 80:
Page 81 and 82:
Page 83 and 84:
Page 85 and 86:
Page 87 and 88:
Page 89 and 90:
Page 91 and 92:
Page 93 and 94:
Page 95 and 96: Strategy and Planning Committee Age
Page 145: Strategy and Planning Committee Age
Page 151: Strategy and Planning Committee Age
show all

AGENDA - Sunshine Coast Council

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?