Appealing to higher authority

Resident David Ritz has passed on two letters he's written to the Hobart City Council and to Lara Giddings, State Minister for Health together with this photo illustrating the folly of siting a transmission tower in the midst of a popular children's recreation area. The picture was taken from the roof above Gymbaroo child care centre at 4pm on Saturday afternoon. There was soccer training most of the afternoon as well as soccer games on the lower ground. At least 60 children and 30 adults were present on the top ground. The base of the tower is on the right of the picture.


Email to Hobart City Council

Note sent Sat. May 26th

Dear Mayor and Aldermen,

I was present at the meeting on Monday 21/5/07 when the motion about the mobile phone tower in Sandown Park was discussed. The motion was not supported on the grounds that due process was followed in advertising the proposal as located at 17 Beach Road (Sandown Park).

I have been to the Titles Office to get clarification of the exact whereabouts of 17 Beach Rd. The records show 14 titles, all of which are within the area bounded by Sandown Park i.e. between Beach Rd and Sandown Avenue, a total of about 4 hectares. Your acceptance of Telstra's proposal thus gave them the right to erect the tower anywhere in the Park they chose. The fact that they chose a site alongside Sandown Ave makes it hardly surprising that the original newspaper advertisement did not result in any objections from Sandown Ave residents. So, to reject the motion passed at the public meeting because no-one objected to the original advertisement, is a highly specious and unfounded argument.

All of the 14 titles have a reference number and Telstra could have identified precisely where the tower site was planned to be. In fact, their proposal to Council stated that the tower would be about 40 metres from Sandown Avenue. It was misleading and deceitful to advertise the site as being located on Beach Road. In fact the site is 31 metres from Sandown Avenue and only 12 metres from the door of a toddler playgroup.

Sincerely, David Ritz


Email to Lara Giddings

Dear Minister,

I would like to bring the case below to your attention. For the last 3-4 weeks, concerned residents of Sandy Bay have been mounting an opposition to the erection of a mobile phone base station tower in Sandown Park.

We have voiced our concerns to the Hobart City Council but they seem unwilling or unable to reverse their acceptance of Telstra's proposal for the tower to be built. The case described below was in NSW in 2004 but there have been many scientific studies since that have confirmed the health risks of radiation of the type emitted by mobile phone base stations.

The NSW government has ruled that mobile phone base stations cannot be built within 300 metres of primary schools or kindergartens. The tower in Sandown Park is 12 metres from the door of a toddler playgroup facility and close to playing fields regularly used by children (see picture attached).

We believe this is a health issue that requires State and Federal Government intervention.

Sincerely, David Ritz


Optus forced to take down tower, built less than 300 metres from a child care centre, in Major's Bay Rd, Concord.

NSW Court of Appeal judge, Justice Giles rules in favour of Canada Bay Council, finding the community's concerns about the facility and its proximity to Concord Kindergarten were an important consideration.

"As I have said, the opponent's evidence included evidence of concern at the effect of electromagnetic emissions; in particular of the perceived effect on the conduct of kindergartens in the vicinity. It may well be that the concerns have no scientific support, and that if in the consideration of a development application they are sought to be brought into account they cannot have significance on the principle that unfounded fears are of no weight in the administration of the planning laws. On the other hand, it may be that the concerns can appropriately be taken into account as something which a body in the position of the opponent can include in relevant considerations upon a development application. For present purposes it seems to me that the opponent is entitled to say that the concerns exist and have an impact on its conduct and on the lives of its ratepayers, and that if as a collateral result of the decision of Lloyd J it is able to ameliorate the concerns because this facility cannot operate without the consideration which a development application would allow that is something which can be taken into account in deciding whether or not there should be a stay."

http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/disp.pl/au/cases/nsw/NSWCA/2004/446.html
(paragraph 17)