Skip to the record
The gold standard in government transparency.

Original source · versioned page text

2020-02-11 Planning & Environment Committee Agenda

of 111

Page text shows just the words. Original shows the document exactly as it was published.

Page text read automatically using OCR, there may be inaccuracies

Text sections have not been matched to the original PDF pages. Use the original document to check page numbers.

PLANNING & ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA                                         11 FEBRUARY 2020


 Summary of Matters Raised                                  Comments

    Consider 5G antennas – people not wanting to          The proposal does not indicate that 5G will operate
      come within close proximity or live near them.        from this site. If approved, the infrastructure could
                                                            be upgraded to include any new technology in the
                                                            future.
    Property values will be affected due to the visual    It is acknowledged that this is an issue for residents.
      impact. Further, a tower in close proximity to        The Planning Act 2016 states that a planning
      dwellings will cause devaluation with no right to     scheme is not to include matters concerning a
      compensation.                                         person’s financial circumstances in the assessment
                                                            benchmark. Further, impact assessment may be
                                                            carried out against, or have regard to, any other
                                                            relevant matter, other than a person’s personal
                                                            circumstances, financial or otherwise.             The
                                                            submitters concerns are nevertheless noted
    Concerns that the applicant’s consultant has          The applicant’s consultant had a public meeting for
      been evasive eg. advertising in Gympie Times,         public consultation in Pomona, rather than in the
      public meeting in Pomona, when development is         Cooran township. Some Cooran residents believe
      in Cooran.                                            that this was to avoid feedback. The applicant’s
    The consultation process was flawed due to the        consultant provided reasoning that there was not a
      lack of proper notice given to those directly         suitable site available in Cooran at the time of the
      affected by the proposal. Advertising was             public meeting, resulting in the meeting being held
      limited to a Gympie newspaper and not the             in Pomona.
      Noosa News, which is circulated in the Cooran         Under the Planning Act 2016, public notice
      locality.                                             requirements include the publishing of a notice ‘in a
                                                            newspaper circulating generally in the locality of the
    There has been no contact by them to
                                                            premises the subject of the application’. The
      understand impacts, even when asked for a call
                                                            applicant’s consultant provided Council with
      back. Some owners tried to contact the applicant
                                                            evidence that the circulation of the Gympie Times
      to discuss visual impacts, but messages left for
                                                            includes the town of Cooran. Refer Figure 20–
      the applicant’s consultant were unanswered.
                                                            Newspaper Circulation Area below
    Letters sent to people within the catchment from
                                                            It is noted that some residents may have mistaken
      applicant’s consultant that looked like junk mail
                                                            communication from the applicant’s consultant as
      – addressed to ‘The Occupier’.
                                                            junk mail.
    If it has to be placed in the Cooran region,          The applicant maintains that the existing tower on
      position it alongside the existing tower or replace   Tablelands Rd cannot be upgraded to obtain the
      this (across the road from proposed tower), or        coverage NBN are seeking and would need to be
      position it where the visual impact is not so         replaced with a stronger, lattice style structure up to
      great. The existing tower does not protrude the       50m in height. At this height the structure would
      trees and is discrete.                                protrude above the tree line and be almost twice the
                                                            height of the existing Telstra tower.
                                                            The applicant maintains that this is cost prohibitive
                                                            and the phone network would need to be disabled
                                                            while construction was occurring.
                                                            The applicant also maintains that even if the existing
                                                            Telstra tower at its current height was certified to be
                                                            able to carry the extra weight of equipment, the
                                                            available height for the NBN equipment would be
                                                            20m above ground which the applicant maintains is
                                                            too low to be able to get the coverage needed for the
                                                            area required to be serviced.
    Any tower approved will be able to be upgraded        The proposed tower is considered a ‘high impact
      which will add to the approved (by Council)           facility’     under    the    provisions    of    the
      height.                                               Telecommunications Act, which requires Council
                                                            approval. Upgrades can be made to an approved
                                                            facility if they are enabled under the guidelines the
                                                            ‘Determination (low impact facility)’ which includes,


                                                                                              Page 30 of 119
Log in to download the original file

2020-02-11 Planning & Environment Committee Agenda(PDF, 6MB).pdf · 6.3 MB (large file)

Large file: the download may take up to a minute.

Searchable page text hides email addresses. Original files are unchanged and may show email addresses.

The supporting record

Open full page ↗

Source document

Analyse documents ↗Open full page ↗

My Comparisons

Choose two to four records of the same kind. Drag using a handle or use the “Compare” buttons.

Your selected records are saved in this browser for your account. Results use the filters on the page where you choose “Compare selected”.