3. General Submission Summary

3.1 Health effects

In terms of the sheer number of submissions, the most dominant theme is a general concern about the potential health effects associated with radio-frequency fields, which is mentioned by 22 submitters. It is a general concern in the sense that it is not limited to the specific radio-frequency field exposure standard; it is expressed as a reason why no provision should be made for telecommunications facilities by way of an NES that permits such facilities.

All 22 submitters who raise this general concern oppose the proposed NES in its entirety. It is also worth noting that of these 22 submitters, only three make specific reference to the proposed exposure standard for radio-frequency fields (all three express concern with the standard). There was no indication that the other 19 submitters were necessarily aware of the exposure standard or had a particular position on it. Their responses appeared largely instinctive, as opposed to being based on a lack of confidence in the proposed exposure standard.

That said, it is important to record that several of these submitters provide documentation and/or references/web addresses relating to information sources they suggest support claims about the unsafe nature of radio-frequency fields. Various references are made to radio-frequency fields being genotoxic, neurotoxic and carcinogenic, as well as having other physical and mental health dangers. Several submitters relate personal stories of health issues they attribute to radio-frequency (or electromagnetic) fields.¹ A not infrequent claim is that “the only safe exposure level is zero”.

It is important to note that even among these 22 submitters there is considerable variation, from outright opposition (based on a belief that the science on health effects is ‘proven’) to those suggesting that the science is not proven but that knowledge is incomplete and that there is too much uncertainty. This latter group promote application of the precautionary principle.

Special mention ought to be made of the submission of the Green Party, which perhaps best represents concern about health effects.

Most of the submissions that relate to general health effects have been categorised as ‘standard’ submissions because almost all only address this single issue.

3.2 Other (non-health) effects

Effects on amenity

Nine submitters express general concern about the potential effects on amenity, including four individual, three local government and two community group submitters. Six of these nine submitters oppose the NES outright, two express conditional support and one supports it in part.

These general submissions are in addition to the many submissions received on specific proposals relating to cabinets, masts and antennas that may also be motivated by concern about effects on amenity. For example, a further five submissions express concern with the visual impact of masts and antennas and 13 express concern about the potential effects of the clustering of cabinets (these issues are dealt with again in section 4). Concern about visual impacts also appears to underpin the positions taken on many other issues.

The tenor of the general submissions is that telecommunications facilities constitute ‘visual pollution’. In this context, several local authority submitters note that the discussion document does not acknowledge the New Zealand Urban Design Protocol, of which many local authorities are signatories.

A large number of (mostly local authority) submitters express concern that the NES does not take account of cumulative effects. In addition, four submissions refer merely to ‘adverse effects’ without being specific about the nature of their concern; all four oppose the NES.

3.3 Facilities ‘as of right’

Fourteen submitters express opposition to the notion that telecommunications facilities should be allowed ‘as of right’. Several of the 14 submitters perceive the NES to be giving the telecommunications industry a ‘free rein’.

These submissions typically ask that telecommunications facilities not be permitted activities (or should not be permitted in the road reserve, or in residential areas). Others express a similar point by stating that resource consents should be required, or that every case should be treated on its merits. At least one submitter expresses the view that the NES circumvented the democratic process and that the telecommunications industry should have to “play by the rules that others are expected to play by”.

Others go even further by suggesting that there should be public consultation on all telecommunications facilities, with a right of appeal against the local authorities’ decision.

All 14 submitters on this point oppose the NES. There is a close correlation between those who object to the permitted activity status accorded by the proposed NES and those who express general concern about health affects.

3.4 Lack of ability to exercise local control

Another major theme is that the NES does not offer a level of control that is sympathetic and responsive to local issues (several were concerned with various aspects of amenity). The majority (14) of those making this general claim suggest that the NES should allow for control of telecommunications facilities through district plans for reasons beyond those articulated in the proposed NES (heritage, landscape and tree protection).

Eight of these submitters are local authorities, with many repeating the phrase that a ‘one size fits all’ approach is not appropriate. (In addition, a few submissions make the same point in the context of the specific standard for cabinets and/or the standard in relation to masts and antennas).

Two important sub-themes are also apparent:

• cabinets, masts and antennas should be excluded from the NES and dealt with exclusively through local plans

• the NES itself should accommodate provisions that are capable of taking better account of a broader range of amenity considerations.

3.5 Support for the general intent of the proposal

Thirty-three of the 82 submissions either support the NES in whole or part, or support the NES conditionally. This support does not, however, translate to explicit support for the general intent of the proposal. Relatively few (14) submissions explicitly support the objective of the NES as articulated in the discussion document.

Furthermore, explicit support for the objective does not necessarily translate into support for the NES proposal. At least one submission (that of Local Government NZ) explicitly supports the objective but asserts that it is not clear that the NES is the right tool and that, on the basis of the information provided, it is hard to see that the NES is justified.

The discussion document did not ask whether submitters agreed with the general objective and it is likely that most submitters simply omitted to comment on the objective/general intent, focusing instead on their particular point of concern. The higher levels of general support for the NES suggest that the relatively low level of specific support for the objective may be misleading.

It is important to record that only one submitter explicitly states opposition to the underlying objective of the proposal, although a number of other individual submitters do appear to take exception to what they characterise as an effort to give preferential rights to the telecommunications sector. Some local authority submissions also question why the telecommunications sector is being ‘singled out’.

On the other hand, at least three local authority submitters (as well as most business submissions) do make explicit reference to their acceptance of the importance and value of a viable, competitive and comprehensive telecommunications system. Some local authority submitters (including Waitakere City Council, and Bay of Plenty and Auckland Regional Councils) all provide information explaining their own goals and associated local initiatives (including an ‘information access strategy’, an initiative to develop a community-owned, open-access, regional wholesale duct network, and a regional broadband project) to improve telecommunications within their jurisdictions. Several other submitters (such as Waikato and Marlborough District Councils) acknowledge support for the Government’s Digital Strategy.

3.6 Scope of the NES

Many comments were received on the scope of the proposed NES. These comments fall into three groups.

One group of submissions seek a broader scope. For example, Waikato District Council wants the NES to apply to facilities located on private property as well as those on public roads. Arc Innovations Ltd asks that advanced electrical metering be included within the NES to ensure an efficient roll-out of that technology.

A second group express concern that the NES might be too broad. This group includes submitters concerned about the breadth of the term ‘road’, and in particular the applicability of the NES to unformed roads. This group also includes the regional council submitters (such as West Coast and Northland Region Councils) and some district councils (for example, Far North District), which express concern about the potential of the NES to capture the regional council-operated telecommunications equipment that serves hydrological monitoring stations, and request that such equipment be explicitly excluded. (Environment Canterbury notes that it does not believe this equipment would be caught by the NES). Similarly, at least one submitter (Marlborough District Council) believes roadside control cabinets associated with ‘primary public utilities’, such as water, sanitation and electricity, will be caught by the NES and that there is a need to distinguish between primary public utilities (which should be excluded from the NES) and secondary utility services such as broadband (which should be addressed by the NES).

The third group believes that there are a variety of matters of scope that need to be clarified. The Resource Management Law Association, for example, submits that the scope of the NES should be stated more clearly (with exclusions made explicit).² This submission (along with the submission of North Shore City) also states that there is a need to clarify whether the radio-frequency exposure standard applies generally or just within road reserves (at present these submitters assert that it appears to apply generally, but appear to assume it is intended to apply only within the road reserve).

Some submitters seek clarification that other statutory requirements will remain unaffected by the proposed NES. The Ministry of Transport, for example, wants it to be clarified that current road safety approval processes will remain in place.

3.7 Effects of the NES

Many submitters commented on what they perceive to be the uncertain and perhaps unanticipated effects of the NES. These comments centre around three main themes.

First, a number of submitters (mostly local authorities) commented on the potential impact the NES might have on the so-called ‘permitted baseline’ as it applies under the RMA. This concern is based on uncertainty about whether RMA decision-making on other structures and noise-generating activities within the road corridor will be affected by the fact that the NES mandates a certain level of permitted effect.

The second theme is the relationship between the NES and local authorities’ responsibilities under other legislation affecting utilities in the road reserve. This includes both the Telecommunications Act and the Local Government Act. In short, there is concern among at least some local authorities that the NES could somehow restrict the ability of local authorities to address amenity issues when imposing conditions (so called ‘reasonable conditions’) under the road-opening process.

The Local Government NZ submission provides perhaps the most comprehensive summary of these arguments (although several other local authority submissions make the same points).

A final theme, expressed by several submitters, is that the NES will provide an incentive for locating telecommunications equipment on the road reserve rather than on private land. This point appears closely related to a general concern that telecommunications companies will obtain a benefit from the NES at the disadvantage of communities, and that local authorities should receive compensation for occupation of the road reserve (an argument raised, for example, in the submission from Hugh Grierson).

3.8 Telecommunications sector change and unbundling

A general point raised by submitters across all categories relates to a fear that unbundling of the local loop could lead to a proliferation of telecommunications equipment, and a consequent increase in cumulative environmental impacts. Individual-level concern about proliferation is most comprehensively set out by Kent Duston, but similar concerns about proliferation (and the inability of the NES to address this potential) are raised by other individual submitters, most forthrightly by Peter Jackson and Frances Walsh and, in a similar submission, by Beth Jones.

The point about the potential for proliferation and the need for co-location is also made by some business sector submissions (such as those from Call Plus Ltd and NZ Communications Ltd). Some make the wider point that the NES should be co-ordinated with regulatory developments in the telecommunications sector.

A number of local authorities make similar points.

3.9 Roles and responsibilities

Most regional council submitters note that they are responsible for the beds of lakes and rivers and for the coastal marine area (CMA), and that the NES omits to acknowledge that the control of telecommunications facilities on roads within the beds of lakes and rivers or CMA would be a regional council responsibility. They argue that the NES should make appropriate reference to the provisions of regional plans.

Similarly, Transpower NZ Ltd notes that the NES should clarify that although an activity might be permitted by the NES it could still require consent under a regional plan. Several regional council submitters also question whether the emission of radio-frequency radiation is a regional council function (with Environment Waikato asserting that it is and Environment Canterbury that it is not).

3.10 Alternatives

Although the discussion document did not specifically ask about alternatives, as discussed above many submissions do (either explicitly or implicitly) suggest alternatives. These can be summarised as:

• retention of the status quo

• an NES on noise and radio-frequency fields only

• an NES with more restrictive provisions that recognise and provide for a wider range of amenity values

• greater provision for district plans to be able to override the NES when circumstances justify it

• guidelines.

3.11 Specific questions

Few submitters followed the format of questions set out in section 6.2 of the discussion document. Many of the questions are, however, directly or indirectly answered by the responses recorded in this submission summary. The responses received to specific questions focus on two questions in particular, which are addressed below.

3.11.1 Consent categories

Fifteen responses were received on the question of what consent categories should apply to telecommunications facilities that do not comply with the NES.

Ten responses are from local authorities, with two suggesting restricted discretionary, two “as specified in the relevant district plan”, two non-complying (assuming the NES stays as proposed), two non-complying for radio-frequency only, one “controlled or restricted discretionary”, and the final submitter suggesting restricted discretionary for amenity issues and non-complying for radio-frequency and noise.

Three of the responses are from business submitters, with two suggesting controlled and one either controlled or limited discretionary.

The final two submissions on consent categories are from individuals, both of whom proposed the non-complying category.

3.11.2 Analysis of costs and benefits

A wide variety of comments were received on the merits of the cost-benefit analysis. The pattern of responses is largely predictable given other responses.

Business submitters such as Powerco Ltd agree that the NES will have benefits. However, the Radio Network Ltd submission goes further by suggesting that the analysis does not take into account higher compliance costs resulting from the NES having more onerous standards than 82% of plans.

Individual submitters such as Jenni Boulton, on the other hand, suggest that the NES does not take into account relevant costs (such as potential loss of life and property devaluation). Similarly, submitter Beth Jones stresses that there is not enough information and that telecommunications services are treated as being paramount.

In contrast, local authorities are more circumspect about the value of the cost-benefit analysis. Several, such as Palmerston North City Council, express disappointment that the full section 32 analysis has not been completed prior to the submission and claim that there is insufficient detail to draw conclusions. Kapiti Coast District Council also claims that the cost-benefit analysis is of limited benefit, while Waikato District Council describes the lack of analysis as a flaw in the process. Others, such as Manukau and Christchurch City Councils, suggest that it is difficult to gauge regulatory impacts because the analysis is not complete and it does not provide justification for singling out telecommunications above other utilities. Grey District Council claims that legal access to the road has been undervalued, and Auckland City Council suggests there has been insufficient analysis of streetscape and amenity values.

3.12 Process

There was some level of dissatisfaction with the process used for the NES development and consultation. Eight submitters (two local government and six individual) state that they feel there has been insufficient consultation.

Comments include:

• disappointment that there was no community involvement (Kent Duston)

• insufficient consultation with local authorities (Far North District Council)

• it is critical that further consultation with local government occur (Local Government NZ)

• concern at the rather narrow group that has been used to develop the NES, and apparent lack of consultation (Northland Regional Council)

• anger at the lack of publicity and public consultation (Patricia St John)

• material put out for public submission had an unreasonably short timeframe (Patricia Christianson)

• the proposal should not proceed without wider consultation (Mary Redmayne).

Others refrained from criticising the process but signalled a desire for, and expectation of, further consultation (Kaipara District and Manukau City Councils)

3.13 Overview of submitter comments by submitter type

In general, the comments of submitters align closely to particular submitter types. The following is aimed at giving an overall impression of submitters’ views.

1. Individual and community group/NGO submitters tend to oppose the proposed NES on the grounds of perceived health risks and/or concern about potential ‘visual clutter’ or other infringements of community rights/values.

2. Local authority submitters form two sub-groups. Most territorial and unitary authorities express concern about the inability of the proposed NES to recognise and protect the full range of amenity values that could be compromised by telecommunications facilities. These submitters seek (i) retention of the ability for district plans to control telecommunications facilities when such control could be justified locally; or (ii) a narrower NES that does not address cabinets and masts/antennas; or (iii) a more detailed and more restrictive set of provisions in the NES. Regional councils form the other sub-group. These submitters tend to be less concerned about local amenity and more concerned with ensuring their own communication devices are not encumbered by the NES. Consequently, local authority submitters tend to support the NES, in part or with conditions.

3. Business submitters also tend to fall into two sub-groups. The first sub-group tends to broadly support the proposed NES, although suggestions for improvement are made (inevitably involving less restrictive standards). The second business sub-group also broadly supports the proposed NES, but expresses more interest in ensuring the standard does not act as a barrier to competition between telecommunications providers.

4. Neither of the two professional association submitters express a position on the NES, but they do point out alleged deficiencies and make a range of (largely technical) suggestions for how the proposal can be improved.
5. Central government agencies tend not to offer either general support or opposition to the proposed NES, but restrict their comments to their particular area of responsibility.