Residents’ opposition grows to phone tower planned for middle of Woombye

The Woombye Community and Business Association will lead community opposition to a 40 metre telecommunications tower proposed near the middle of town.

WCBA Vice President Grant Palethorpe, who has a town planning background, said objections to the tower’s location  included the proximity to adjacent dwellings, sensitive nearby land uses such as the day care centre and heritage and scenic values of Woombye.

Mr Palethorpe said the proposed site was on the fringe of the rural zone, adjacent to residential dwellings to the north and east and businesses to the south. He said community sports facilities were also in close proximity.  

“There are some 80 dwellings on Cary, Hill and Campbell Street alone, all within close proximity. There are numerous home-based businesses, including a child day care business that have expressed concern. Blackall Street is within a Heritage character area and also on a Scenic amenity route.”

WCBA President Debbie Kimber agreed.

“This would be a prominent, conspicuous visual contradiction to the heritage ‘look and feel’ of Woombye,” Ms Kimber said. “The proposed location is completely inappropriate. It is in town surrounded by homes! Many people are very upset and rightly so. No respect shown for their homes or the heritage identity of Woombye.”

Awaiting response

Mr Palethorpe said at this stage the community was unaware of the applicant’s response to  questions put to them by Council’s development assessment process. “Further, the Woombye Community & Business Association (WCBA) is unaware of any effort by the applicant, Stillmark Holding Pty Ltd, to be proactive and reach out to the community to address their concerns,” he said. 

Stillmark’s response to Council’s request for additional information (SVGazette September 1, 2021, page 12) is not yet on Council’s website. 

The WCBA will write a submission which will be available for local residents and business owners to lodge. 

Mr Palethorpe said the submission would take into account Stillmark Holdings’ response to Council and also address any concerns the public have raised. It can be adapted according to individual concerns.

It was important any submission was in the correct format and that it was ‘properly made’. 

“We expect that the public notification period is imminent,” he said. “Public Notification is required for a minimum of 15 business days and commences when the applicant places a sign on the property boundary, places a Public Notice in a local newspaper and writes to each adjoining landowner.” 

Mr Palethorpe said the WCBA submission would focus on the Planning Scheme, and especially the Telecommunication Facilities code. 

This code in part reads as follows:

Council requires telecommunication facilities are developed in a manner which protects public health, the environment and the amenity of surrounding premises, and requires that a telecommunications facility:

• does not unreasonably affect the amenity of surrounding premises;

• the siting and design of the proposed facility is integrated with the township’s setting, is away from the main street, township gateways and is not located on a scenic route;

• will operate well within all applicable standards and will pose no threat to community wellbeing; and

• the proposed facility is located within a rural zone, rather than an urban zone.

Contradictory 

Mr Palethorpe argues that the development application is contradictory in that the planning report states: “As such, there will be no impact – visual or otherwise – from the structure until there is a need for it to be constructed. To that end, Council and the community do not need to be concerned that unnecessary structures will be constructed, regardless of whether there is an approval in place”.

“This itself acknowledges that there will be visual impact,” said Mr Palethorpe. “Offering the community cold comfort that we don’t need to be concerned until it is constructed!”

Further into the report the applicant states: “In this instance a tall monopole of 40 metres is required to account for the extensive tree cover and steep topography in the surrounding area, as the panel antennas must be able to ‘see’ as much of the target area as possible and not be unduly obstructed by trees. A 25 or 30 metre tall monopole would not provide the same level of improvements, nor to as wide an area”. 

“Again we question, why select this location given the site constraints,” said Mr Palethorpe. “Wouldn’t a more rural location at a higher elevation achieve the same performance, potentially enabling a shorter tower to be used.” 

To find out more email the WCBA at woombyecommunity@gmail.com or Facebook at Woombye WCBA & Friends