MCU13/0051 - Submission - Jason Makeig

Noosa Shire Council
ATT - Mr Peter Franks                                                 ;:;t
CEO Noosa Shire Council                                               ~
PO Box 141                                                           ec
TEWANTIN QLD 4565
                                                                     ~
                                                                    n-,
Dear Mr Franks,
                                                              ~~~
                     RE: REOUEST FOR COUNCIL TO REJECT     ECON'S PROPOSAL
                    TO CONSTRUCT NBN INFRASTRUCTURE    ON COLES CREEK ROAD
                        AND HAVE THEM CO-LOCATE IT AT AN ALTERNATE SITE

Please accept this submission as a formal request for the Council to reject Aurecon's proposal (MCU13j0051) to
construct NBN infrastructure at the semi-rural residential location of (lot 5 - RP176168) 321 Coles Creek Road
Cooran. This submission proposes instead that Aurecon relocate the tower to a viable alternate site that will not
negatively affect residents.

The proposed visual amenity is unacceptable. Every resident involved in these submissions agree that the
semi/rural residential area of Coles Creek Road is not the location for the NBN infrastructure and should it go
rorward the infrastructure will negativeiy affect residents in the following ways:

    1. Emotional investment: It is not acceptable to residents that a 35m Wi-Fi tower will take the focus from
       their otherwise flawless bush and mountain panorama, this would contradict the semi-rural lifestyle they
       chose. It is unlikely that Aurecon's solution of tree screening will be effective considering the length of
       time it would take trees to grow to maximum height, which still won't adequately screen the 35m tower
       from view.
    2. Financial investment: It is unacceptable for the twenty plus residents in view of the tower to experience a
       drop in property value, while the resident who has their land financially contracted makes money. Note
       that the resident of the contracted property is not one of the three dwellings within 500m of the tower.
       The devaluation of these properties will in turn decrease the value of properties in the surrounding
       suburbs.
    3. Peace of mind: People make their own choices as to what they are willing to be exposed to.
       Radiofrequency is still an unknown quantity deemed by the International Agency for Research on Cancer
       as possibly carcinogenic to humans. Whether an additional 0.001 - 0.01 wattjm2 is or isn't cumulatively
       harmful, land owners have not agreed for this infrastructure to be constructed and are having the choice
       made for them. Aurecon's agenda is to build structures as cheaply as possible, which means building them
       in small towns close to residents. Our agenda is to defauit to a precautionary principle and continue our
       picturesque lifestyle.
    4. Co-location: Aurecon have only advised the public of the single monopole plus three panels to be
       constructed and not of the multiplied visual impact that is inevitable since Aurecon are contractually
       obliged to facilitate other telecommunications structures on their site in future.

Residents are not against progress; NBN will benefit some residents, but the tower should not be approved at the
expense of property owners. Aurecon have stated that they have moved proposed tower locations in the past
through community intervention when there was a second viable option.

Viable alternate locations include co-locating the infrastructure on top of existing communications towers as
they've done in Gympie. Aurecon's objection of "reduced range" if co-location were to occur is null and void as
they plan to allow co-location at the proposed site in the future. Co-location should be the first choice, before
robbing and inconveniencing residents. Aurecon representatives, who have Urban and Regional Planning
qualifications and detailed aerial maps, are more than capable of sourcing an alternate site that suits community
opinion and lifestyle choice. The few alternative locations Aurecon have provided Council are counter-intuitive, and
further sites can be sourced.

We urge you to reject the proposed location based on community intervention and the points outlined in this
submission: relocate the infrastructure in an alternate capacity such as co-location.

Thank you for your assistance on this matter.

Yours Sincerely,

Print Full Name:

Property Address:
                       i~T~:!J.d'"~_t_~_.
                              Pl~
                                      _'
                                       _
                                (CrJ.,.G2\..l ~l DCJZ                     A a..~1J ord)               .

                                                                  ,.30°2              13 ;~.