On March 20, 2019 Aurecon lodged an application on behalf of Spark to swap out an existing streetlight pole and establish, operate and maintain a telecommunication facility in road reserve on Te Mata Rd, adjacent to 1 Durham Drive.
This cellphone tower would be 13.5m high and the pole within 1m of the resident's fence on the berm between their fence and the footpath. It is a shocker.
On April 20, Hastings District Council issued an authority that permitted this to occur.
In making this comment I must be extremely fair to council because the application was for a permitted activity under the Resource Management (National Environment Standards for Telecommunication Facilities) Regulations 2016. This act over-rides all councils' district plans and bylaws so councils have no option but to grant the application. It is not councils' responsibility to communicate or consult - that is the role of Spark.
However, in saying all of this I believe that council has a duty of care and was irresponsible in not informing affected parties that consent had been granted for this type of activity.
There is a kindergarten within 100m and we are all aware of the possible impact of radio waves etc on young developing brains. The kindergarten knew nothing.
If the planning and regulatory division of council knew back in March, who else in council was aware and why wasn't anything said? Even a local councillor who lives within 500m of the proposed tower wasn't notified and passes by that site on a daily basis.
Like other residents when works started approximately three weeks ago we all assumed it was part of the water upgrade.
Under the consenting conditions Spark needs to carry out the following:
"Under the Telecommunications Carriers Forum guidelines they need to notify residents near a planned residential site by way of letter, meeting or direct visitation dependent on circumstances."
Spark failed miserably as it only sent out five letters and only one of them went to an address that was going to be immediately affected.
The others went to addresses approx 100m back down the road towards Havelock North. None went to residents directly over the road from the tower site or to the resident whose fence line the tower is on. Once again I need to stress the kindergarten was not informed.
Spark never held any meetings or carried out any direct visitations.
Where to from here?
Because it has not met its obligations in regards to communication then all work must cease. It is my understanding that council has the authority to enforce this as Spark is in breech of the conditions under which the authority was granted.
Spark must hold a public meeting to inform, answer questions and concerns from all affected parties.
It also needs to explain if this goes ahead how will and by how much will the property owners who live in the immediate vicinity of the cell tower be compensated because the value of their properties will have reduced drastically virtually overnight and that is unfair.
I would also like to know if the Ministry of Health and District Health Boards approve this type of installation within 5m of a bedroom or living room and if so why?
This week in the Coromandel (Tairua), Spark was forced to stop the construction of its proposed tower because it had not met the conditions and it had chosen an unsuitable site. Spark must be made accountable for all of its actions and this is a great place to start. If we don't take a stand now where you live could be next.
*Natalie Rogers is a Havelock North business owner.
