4. Submissions on Sections 3.3 to 3.6

4.1 Section 3.3: Radio-frequency field exposure standard

Key themes of submissions on the proposed permitted activity standard for exposure to radio-frequency fields are: specific concern with NZS 2772.1, measurement and compliance, support for NZS 2772.1, and regional council responsibilities.

• Nine submitters mention NZS 2772.1 specifically as a concern (seven individuals, one community group and one political party).

• Four submitters express concern about how compliance with the standard would be determined (one political party, one individual and two local authorities).

• Thirteen submitters express support for adopting NZS 2772.1 within the NES (eight local authorities, three businesses, one government agency and one individual).

• Three local authorities query whether regional councils have a function in relation to managing radio-frequency emissions.

Two individual submitters also suggest that the precautionary principle should be applied, and two local government agencies comment about the need to ensure that some radio-frequency transmissions are not captured, such as baby monitors and amateur radio transmissions. Note that there were also numerous submissions expressing general health concerns, but not specifically mentioning NZS 2772.1, as discussed in section 3 above.

4.2 Section 3.4: Cabinets within roads

Key themes on the proposed standard for cabinets in the road reserve relate to appropriate size limits, non-telecommunications industry equipment, colour and screening, siting and co-location, clustering, and the scope of exceptions.

4.2.1 Cabinet sizes

Nine submissions express concern about the potential cabinet size (seven local authorities and two individual submissions). Most local authority concern comes from councils with tighter size restrictions than proposed in the NES. Palmerston North City Council, however, opposes the sizes specified in the NES even though the NES will introduce more stringent standards for cabinets than its current district plan (it is concerned that unbundling could lead to proliferation and in that case it would want to revisit its current low level of regulation).

Following is a selection of specific comments.

• Christchurch City supports the 1.8 m height and 2.5 m3 volumes standard in all areas, suggesting that there should not be a more generous standard in rural areas.

• Waitakere City Council is concerned at the 1.8 m height and suggests that 1.5 m is a more human scale.

• North Shore City opposes the standard, and while it does not propose an alternative, points to its own more restrictive permitted activity thresholds in its district plan (1.8 m in rural and some business areas and 1 m everywhere else).

• Tasman District Council suggests that the cabinet height should be no higher than existing fences or walls (up to a maximum of 1.8 m). It also suggests that if there is no fence/wall, the maximum height should be (say) 1.2 m.

• Manukau City Council simply describes the cabinet dimension standard as too generous, pointing to a range of amenity and location issues that mean the appropriate scale should vary according to context. Similarly, Kapiti Coast District Council suggests that the dimensions are too large (although no alternative is specified). Auckland City Council expresses concern about cabinet dimensions, claiming “one size does not fit all”, and that appropriate dimensions should vary according to context. Environment Canterbury also considers the size limits are “too generous and may well cause adverse effects even outside of special character/amenity areas”.

Contrary to the general local government view, Marlborough District Council suggests that a 2.1 m height limit is more appropriate.

Comments from non-local government submitters included the following.

• Kordia Group argues that cabinets need to be large enough to enable co-location, otherwise Telecom as first deployer will have a competitive advantage.

• Internet NZ Ltd similarly comments that the cabinet standard would help to facility development of the industry.

• NZ Communications Ltd suggests more generous dimensions that promote co-location (they suggest that dimensions include a maximum height of 2.2 m in residential areas and 2.5 m in rural areas, with correspondingly greater volume limits).

• The Telecommunications Carriers Forum submission asserts that the limit on volume should be a limit on area (ie, a footprint limit).

4.2.2 Clustering

Thirteen submitters express concern about the potential for cabinets to be ‘clustered’ together (five local authorities, three individuals, two community groups and three business submitters).

Four local authorities make specific suggestions to help avoid clustering.

• Nelson City Council suggests that the NES should state that cabinets shall be located less than 50 mm or greater than 50 m from another network utility cabinet.

• Waikato District Council suggests a 50 m separation distance between cabinets.

• Grey District Council seeks a restriction of one cabinet per 100 m.

• Rodney District Council recommends that the rule governing clustering be based on distance (such as one cabinet per 20 m of road) rather than on a per property basis (as is proposed in the draft NES).
• Bay of Plenty Regional Council suggests that allowing for one cabinet per property “seems excessive”.

Although a number of non-local authority submitters express concern about potential clustering, few offer specific suggestions to address the issue. Jannie Cozens notes that there should never be more than one cabinet per property.

4.2.3 Siting and co-location

Twelve submissions specifically refer to the issue of cabinet siting, expressing concern about footpath obstruction and the need to maintain sight lines for road safety. Four submitters note that the term ‘road lay position’ is not widely understood.

Several local authorities offer some specific suggestions to resolve this concern.

• Tasman District Council suggests that the NES provide that the cabinets not reduce the with of footpaths to less than 1.4 m.

• Waitakere City Council proposes that the NES state that cabinets must be 2 m from the front of the curb.

• Waikato District Council requests that the NES require a 4 m setback from the edge of the carriageway and a 30 m setback from an intersection.

Environment Bay of Plenty (EBOP) suggests a process for achieving co-location. As noted in the general analysis, many further submissions seek greater emphasis on achieving or encouraging co-location (though only EBOP offers specific suggestions about how this could be achieved). Most of those making the co-location point tend to imply that co-location might be best achieved by local authorities retaining greater control.

4.2.4 Screening and colour

Seven submissions address the need to use screening, colour or other ways to minimise the effects on visual amenity (four local authorities, two community groups and one business submission).

• Kapiti Coast submits that the NES should include a restriction “requiring that cabinets be of neutral colour in natural shades”.

• Waikato District Council wants a requirement for cabinets to be “coloured in a recessive hue”.

• Auckland City argues that “any environmental standard should stipulate colour, screening or planting to mitigate adverse visual effects”.

• Nelson City states that “the standards should require the appropriate use of colours, screening and sensitive placement of telecommunications equipment to avoid potential adverse effects on visual amenity”.

4.2.5 Exceptions (where NES standards ought not to apply)

As noted in the general analysis, a significant theme of submissions (particularly among local authorities) is dissatisfaction with the circumstances in which a district plan will take precedence over the NES. In all, 12 submitters raise this specific concern with respect to cabinets (although others make the point more generally). Eight of these are local authorities, two are individuals, one is a Māori organisation and one a professional organisation.

The solutions offered by local authority submitters are described in general terms in section 3.13 of this summary. Specific concerns and comments are outlined below.

• Nelson City Council suggests that the approach (to exceptions) is too limited. Local authorities should be able to have more stringent standards when justified by robust section 32 analysis. Additional areas could include inner city parks and squares, or wāhi tapu areas.

• Waikato District Council suggests that a district plan should have precedence when a cabinet is located adjoining a wāhi tapu site, or a site containing a heritage item listed in a district plan, as well as in other specified instances.

• Environment Canterbury submits that the permitted activity exclusions should also include high amenity streetscape or special character areas, conservation areas and identified hazards.

• Auckland City suggests that context is critical, and that it is not possible to define an appropriate absolute standard for cabinet (and antenna) size or location. Manukau City appears to make a similar general point.

• Auckland Regional Council suggests that the exception be reworded to state “Where a cabinet is located in a road reserve contained within or directly adjacent to any heritage precinct or area of landscape or visual importance identified in a district or regional plan or policy statement”.

• Similarly, Waitakere City Council also submits that ‘exceptions’ should include areas identified as having landscape or heritage values in regional policy statements and regional plans.

• Kapiti District Council suggests that a district plan should have precedence when a cabinet is located in an “area of design or other visual significance”.

• Local Government NZ says it does not believe it is possible for an NES to introduce national standards creating a permitted activity status for cabinets while also ensuring that adverse effects are avoided and/or mitigated.

Several local authorities suggest that the proposed NES will conflict with their own organisation’s under-grounding policies.

Another point made by many submitters is the need to define what is meant by heritage precincts or areas of landscape importance, as these terms are not currently defined or universally used by local authorities in existing planning documents.

The most substantial non-local authority submission on this point is made by the Telecommunications Carriers Forum, which makes a suggestion for rewording the ‘exceptions clause’. This suggestion clarifies, and potentially broadens, the circumstances in which a district plan should have precedence to include areas “identified in a district plan as having special heritage, landscape, special character or feature value through specific provisions contained in that district plan, and there are associated rules that are more restrictive than the general district plan provisions relating to that zone or road.”

4.2.6 Non-telecommunications industry equipment

Six local authority submitters raise the question of whether other equipment would be captured by the proposed standard. For example, Kaipara District Council points out that other utility roadside structures sometimes use wireless telemetry that could be caught by the standard.

4.3 Section 3.5: Noise from telecommunications equipment

The majority of submitters on the noise standard are local authorities. Only one (Waikato District Council) local authority expresses full opposition to the proposed standard; others are supportive or conditionally supportive. Key themes of submissions on the proposed noise standard are (a) the limit itself and (b) the proposed system of noise measurement.

4.3.1 Noise limit

Thirteen submitters feel that the proposed noise limits are not appropriate in all contexts (ten local authorities, two individuals and one community group).

• Franklin District Council (FDC) wants the Ministry for the Environment to conduct further research into background noise in various residential environments and to refine the proposed noise standards so that they are more appropriate to the particular residential context. FDC further suggests that improved cabinet design could reduce noise levels.

• Manukau City Councils submits that the NES should provide encouragement for noise mitigation where practicable, and points out that no justification is provided for why it is proposed to set a different noise level for telecommunications cabinets from that required for other activities.

• Nelson City Council suggests that the standards be amended to reflect different daytime hours for weekends and public holidays; for example, daytime could be restricted to 9.00-22.00 on those days.

• Tasman District Council wants the standard to (a) include hospitals, rest homes and schools in the ‘residential’ category; and (b) require that noise originating from a cabinet in a business or industrial area comply with the residential standard on any adjoining boundary. (Far North District Council also notes this last point.)

• Marlborough District Council simply notes that the adoption of NZS 6802:1999 is supported.

• Christchurch City Council notes that the cumulative sound from a number of cabinets in the same area needs to be addressed. (Others, including Auckland City, make a similar point.)

• Waitakere City Council makes a number of detailed suggestions for change, including a 3 dBA reduction in the daytime and night-time levels in residential areas, and distinguishing between business and mixed-use versus industrial areas (with specific limits of 52 and 42 dBA for daytime and night-time, respectively, suggested for the mixed-use and business areas).

• Rodney District Council seeks the inclusion of a greater range of noise standards that reflect the quiet nature of some residential areas and the noisy nature of some business areas.

4.3.2 Noise measurement

Of the submissions addressing noise measurement, many suggest modifications to the 3 m measuring point. In total, 15 submitters make comments on the matter (13 local authorities and two businesses). It is worth noting that although the details of measurement are disputed, submitters are generally positive about the idea of a noise standard.

Following are some specific comments and suggestions.

• Manukau City Council considers that where buildings are located closer to the boundary than 3 m, it is more appropriate to measure noise from the nearest habitable room.

• Nelson City Council considers the measurement point of 3 m inside a property boundary to be inappropriate. It argues that this has the potential to cause confusion in noise measurement, because all other standards relate to property boundaries (or in some cases a notional boundary). Also, the 3 m figure would be unsuitable where a residential unit or outdoor living area is located within the 3 m point.

• Tasman District Council notes that on some developed properties the 3 m point may not be accessible, and that the point needs to be near the cabinet – not 3 m inside the boundary at the opposite end of the property road frontage (a point also made by Nelson City Council).

• Far North District Council suggests that the method and assessment point match those specified in NZS 6801:1999 and NZS 6802:1991.

• Waikato District Council opposes the noise standard, but, if the standard is retained, seeks that noise be measured at the boundary of any other site, levels be expressed in L10, and levels be as specified in the district plan.

• Auckland City Council wants (a) noise to be measured at any point 3 m from the cabinet and for the measurement point to be unobstructed by buildings; (b) the NES to address the issue of accessibility to private property to undertake measurements; (c) the reference to averaging during daytime to be removed; and (d) the review of averaging provisions or NZS 6802:1999 to be completed before adopting the noise standard.

• Waitakere City Council considers the 3 m measurement approach poses issues and suggests measurement at the property boundary is more appropriate. It also prefers that NZS 6801:1999 not be used (because it does not adequately protect the receiving environment).

• Waimakariri District Council argues for different standards for noise to be measured: 3 m from the cabinet in rural areas but at the boundary in residential areas.

• Consistent with other local authority submitters, Palmerston North City Council also seeks to retain the ability to measure noise levels at the boundary.

• Christchurch City Council notes that the proposed measurement approach does not comply with NZS 6802:1999 and is inconsistent with most district plans.

• Similarly, and in contrast to Auckland and Waitakere cities, Rodney District Council submits that the basis for assessment of noise should be NZS 6802:1999.

• The Local Government NZ submission notes that the key differences between the proposed standard and many district plan rules is the 3 m measurement point, the use of Leq (rather than L10), and the application of the same noise limit for Sundays. Its submission echoes the comments of other local authority submitters noted above.

4.4 Section 3.6: Masts and antennas

Thirty-nine submitters make some reference to the antenna and mast standard.

The main issues raised relate to size limits (including concerns about ‘height creep’), responsibility for removing disused antennas, the automatic right to erect (and the limited exceptions for local control), whether dish antennas should be allowed, general concerns about visual impacts, and uncertainty about the wording of the standard.

Size limits

Eight submitters (six local authorities and two individuals) express concern about the size of masts and/or antennas allowed by the proposed standard. Most of these seek a reduction in the size limit.

Many of the comments are in a similar vein to those relating to cabinet sizes. In short, local authorities tend to the view that the appropriate height and dimensions will be location- and context-specific. Some specific comments are as follows.

• Kapiti Coast District Council suggests that the standards are too large to be appropriate in all circumstances (particular concerns are expressed about panels). In addition, a 3 m extension to the height of a lamppost can be unsightly and highly visible from a wide area. The council strongly opposes the standard.

• Christchurch City Council says that “some justification should be provided for the 50% increase in the diameter and the 3 m extension above existing structure to which it is attached. Both, in normal circumstances, seem excessive.”

• Palmerston North City Council is also concerned about the 50% increase in size.

• Environment Canterbury “considers that the size limits are generous and have not been justified”.

Trevor Pollock, an individual submitter, seeks for there to be no additional structure for telecommunications purposes, and a replacement structure limited to 400 mm in width or depth and not exceeding the height of the structure it replaces. The same submitter requests that antenna assemblies not cause the maximum structure to exceed 400 mm nor extend more that 1 m above the structure. Jeannie Cozens, another individual submitter, regards the 3 m additional height standard and 2.3 m wide panel standard as “totally unacceptable”.

Three of the eight submitters referred to above also express concern about the potential for what several termed ‘height creep’. A further six submitters who did not express concern about the size limit itself also referred to concern about height creep. (In total nine submitters - eight local authorities and one professional association – raise this issue.) Height creep is the potential increase in height regarded as possible given the current wording of the standard. The nine submitters who identified this issue point to the absence of a maximum height limit, and suggest that, under the standard as written, telecommunications providers will be able to add 3 metres in height to existing structures on multiple occasions, enabling incremental ‘creep’ over time.

As might be expected, business submitters make rather different points. Kordia Group Ltd and CallPlus Ltd suggest that the standard should allow (a) side mounting of antenna panels and dishes to allow multiple operators to achieve coverage; and (b) for antennas of 0.3 m on end-user premises.

Arc Innovations Ltd believes there is a need to clarify (a) what is meant by ‘diameter of the structure’ (whether this includes cross-arms etc) and (b) the definition of ‘panel antenna’ (including a definition of the permitted size of diameter).

The Telecommunications Carriers Forum submission makes a number of detailed suggestions on the precise wording to be used in the standard. It also suggests a reformulation of the standard so that it differentiates between structures less than 10 m and those greater than 10 m high. For structures greater than 10 m, a 15 m maximum height (with added antenna) is proposed. (This would seem to aim at avoiding the height creep issue.)

Responsibility for removal of antennas

Four submitters (two individuals, one community group and one local authority) express concern about who should be responsible for the removal of antennas if they need to be removed (for example, if they become obsolete or present an obstruction).

• Kent Duston suggests that “inevitably, some of the new entrants (and perhaps some of the older ones as well) will fail commercially. The results of their bad investments – the masts and antennas – will litter the poles … there is no legal obligation to remove old, unwanted or obsolete equipment”.
• Alastair Fox similarly notes that there is “no requirement for utility providers to make good when services or equipment is no longer required”.
• The West Coast Beaches Protection Society also notes that there is no comment in the standard on how redundant structures are going to be handled. The community has a number of failed projects and redundant structures left from past ventures. “They linger on littering the landscape. These considerations should be provided for in the standard.”
• Grey District Council notes that “there are issues around maintenance or removal of the poles if an antenna has been installed or becomes an obstruction to maintenance. All costs must be a full cost on the telecommunications provider.”

Right to erect, and limited exceptions

As noted above, local authority submitters make comments in relation to masts and antennas similar to those made in respect of cabinets; namely, that a ‘one size fits’ all approach is not appropriate and that the standard should provide more scope for district plans to control the size and location of masts and antennas.

Although many local authority submitters express concern (and some outright opposition) about the limited opportunity for district plans to exercise control, few suggestions are made for refining the standard (and its relationship to district plans). One such suggestion is, however, made by Environment Bay of Plenty, which suggests that councils should have discretion where additional height represents a significant percentage increase in the overall height of the structure. A threshold of “3 m over the current structure or a 15% increase in height, whichever is the smaller” is suggested. The same submitter also suggests that flat-panel antennas be limited to location against large flat surfaces.

Several individual submitters oppose masts and antennas being permitted in residential areas, often for different reasons. Jenni Boulton, for example, opposes them out of concern about health effects. John Fox voices similar concern. Kent Duston’s opposition is based on concern for amenity, and he mentions less obtrusive alternative wireless technologies (requiring base stations in individual houses).

Peter Jackson, Frances Walsh and Beth Jones oppose the standard, but say if it is to be retained there should be a minimum 20 m between antennas and dwellings. Again this seems to be based on concern about the lack of knowledge about (health) effects.

The Telecommunications Carriers Forum submission also makes a suggestion about how the exceptions (ie, district plan precedence) should apply. This suggestion follows the same formula given in relation to cabinets.

Other matters

Submitters make a range of other points with respect to masts and antennas, including the following.

• Grey District Council feels there needs to be an assessment of the structural integrity of the structure.

• Local Government NZ expresses concern about the RMA/Telecommunications Act interface.

• Several local authorities see a need to promote co-location.

• Six submitters feel the standard should include dish antennas (and one submitter states that it should not). One local authority submitter suggests a size limit of 200-300 mm. The Telecommunications Carriers Forum submission suggests a 380 mm diameter limit.

• The standard should exempt regional councils who use antennas for collecting data.

A number of submitters also expressed general concern about visual effects.

Letters to the Minister

Seventeen letters were sent to the Minister for the Environment about the proposed NES. The correspondence was outside the period for making submissions, but the nature of the correspondence is summarised here for completeness.

All correspondents are individuals who express opposition to the proposed standard. In the majority of cases the primary point is a general concern about the potential health effects of wireless technology.

A breakdown of the issues raised is provided in the table below.

Table 4: Analysis of the points raised in correspondence to the Minister

The table above utilises the same categories as those established for the submissions in previous sections of this report, which enables the points raised in Ministerial correspondence to be compared directly to the submissions. The correspondence can thus be analysed together with the submissions when the proposed standards come to be evaluated in the light of submissions.