SKM_C364e15062121340

correspondence about this tower because they do not live adjacent to it, or b) do not drive
past 249 Schreibers Road and therefore, have not seen a public notification sign, or c) are
absentee owners and therefore have not seen a sign, would be unaware of the this proposal
for the Schreibers Road valley, and therefore not have the opportunity to make submission.

It seems to be that this proposal has ended up in my backyard because a bigger group of
people has said “not in my backyard.” The issues that are of the same concem to them —
health, visual amenity, financial consequences — are no less for me.

Other grounds
I bought 211 Schreibers Rd to get away from civilisation as much as I could afford to.

In the 10 years that I have owned it, I have had to fight off a ridiculous State Government
plan to run the Bruce Highway through my back paddock (three of five options for the
realigned highway ran through my property).

T have had to rebuild after a fire destroyed the existing house.

I’ve narrowly escaped the Traveston Dam travesty (homes on nearby Coles Creek Rd were
resumed).

I have had Powerlink/Energex wanting to propose putting an extra high voltage powerline
pylon on my property when the line is duplicated because it would be cheaper for them than
putting one in alignment with the existing pylon.

And now someone wants to plonk a phone tower up the back?

L love my property but I am sick of having to fight for it, particularly fighting off those who
want to use it as a “dumping ground” for infrastructure. It’s better than that.

Some years ago, it was proposed that a phone tower be built over the hill next to Federal
State School. I believe that was avoided when a nearby landowner volunteered or agreed to
have a tower on their property.

Perhaps, instead of scattering towers over every hill in the Noosa hinterland, all of these
mobile phone and internet providers should buy a block of land — just like the rest of us — and
group all of their towers there give residents some peace of mind and security, knowing that
there is not going to be one plonked next to them, and so that the council does not have to go
through this process every six months. There should not be a problem grouping them if they
are as safe as their purveyors say they are.

Sincerely
1 / /
Mell
Z

J. L. Hill