M.P. 117 REPORT of a meeting of the HEARINGS PANEL held in the Council Chambers Level 2, Civic Administration Building, 838-842 Fergusson Drive, Upper Hutt, on TUESDAY 26 AUGUST 2014 commencing at 9.03am PRESENT: IN ATTENDANCE: CRS J C GWILLIAM (CHAIR), G T MCARTHUR AND D V WHEELER RESOURCE CONSENTS AND COMPLIANCE MANAGER, SENIOR PLANNER (CONSENTS), CONSENTS PLANNER, PLANNING TECHNICIAN AND EXECUTIVE ASSISTANT DEMOCRATIC SERVICES A PUBLIC BUSINESS: 1. REPORT ON AN APPLICATION FOR LAND USE - DISCRETIONARY RESOURCE CONSENT TO CONSTRUCT, OPERATE AND MAINTAIN A TELECOMMUNICATIONS FACILITY AT 121B JOHNSONS ROAD, UPPER HUTT (354/62-511) Report from the Consents Planner dated 18 August 2014 (agenda pages A1-1 to A1-19). Appendices separately circulated. The Hearings Panel s report, including the decision with conditions, is attached. The meeting concluded at 1.27pm. Cr J C Gwilliam CHAIR
M.P. 118 REPORT OF THE HEARING BY A PANEL Held in the Council Chambers Level 2, Civic Administration Building 838-842 Fergusson Drive, Upper Hutt, On Tuesday 26 August 2014 commencing at 9.03am File: 354/62-511 Ref: NCS 1410073 16 September 2014 Membership of the Panel: Cr J C Gwilliam (Chair) Cr G T McArthur Cr D V Wheeler APPLICANT Vodafone New Zealand Limited LOCATION 121B Johnsons Road, Upper Hutt LEGAL DESCRIPTION Lot 2 DP 331943 DISTRICT PLAN ZONE Rural Valley Floor / Rural Hill ACTIVITY STATUS Land Use: Discretionary
M.P. 119 THE DECISION The Panel, acting under delegated authority from the Council and pursuant to Sections 104, 104(B) and 108 of the Resource Management Act 1991, GRANT consent for the construction, operation and maintenance of a telecommunications facility with a mast which exceeds the permitted height and diameter on Lot 2 DP 331943 at 121B Johnsons Road, Upper Hutt. Moved Cr McArthur / Cr Wheeler CARRIED
M.P. 120 1.0 The Proposal 1.1 The applicant seeks resource consent to construct, operate and maintain a telecommunications facility at 121B Johnsons Road. The proposal is part of the Government s national Rural Broadband Initiative (RBI) which seeks to increase connectivity within New Zealand s rural areas. 1.2 The proposal involves the construction of a 25m monopole mast with a 2m lightning rod attached at the top. The tower will be a non-reflective recessive grey colour. The tower will have a diameter of 1.45m at its base, tapering to 0.75m at its narrowest point at the top. A circular working platform will be located 23m above ground level which has the capacity to support 12 antennas, of which each separate antenna will measure 3m (h) x 0.5m (w) x 0.2m (d). The antennas will be situated with the top of the antennas level with the top of the monopole mast. A 1.2m diameter microwave dish antenna will be attached to the monopole mast 18m above ground level. Two equipment cabinets will be erected at the base of the monopole, each measuring approximately 2.8m x 1.6m (4.5m²). The cabinets contain the necessary radio equipment, control computers, emergency batteries and air conditioning unit. 1.3 Earthworks will also be required to create a building platform for the facility, which will consist of a cut and associated retaining wall. The volume of cut will be a maximum of 65m³, and the fill volume less than 10m³, which will be contained by a 1.2m high timber retaining wall. These works do not require the need for resource consent as they comply with the permitted activity standards for earthworks in the District Plan. 1.4 The construction and earthworks will be contained within the 100m² lease area. The lease area will be enclosed by a timber stock fence. 1.5 Trenching will be undertaken to provide an underground power supply and telecommunications for the facility. The applicant proposes two potential routes from Johnsons Road to the facility. The first option requires trenching along the right of way shared by the neighbouring properties, while the second option involves the trenching along the paper road off Johnsons Road. 2.0 The Site and Locality 2.1 The subject site at 121B Johnsons Road is legally described as Lot 2 DP 331943 and includes a total land area of 42.75ha. The site is situated at the southern end of Whitemans Valley, south of the Upper Hutt city centre. 2.2 The site features two distinct topographical characteristics, being relatively flat in the
M.P. 121 north and rising gently at first and then to steep hills to the south of the site. A ridgeline runs east to west along the rear of the site. 2.3 A single storey dwelling and several accessory buildings are located in the northern portion of the site. Approximately 150 metres to the south of the dwelling is another small cluster of accessory buildings 1 and stockyards. These buildings are used to support the horticultural operation undertaken on the flat northern portions of the subject site and the farm operation running across the majority of the remaining land holdings. To the south a shelter belt of mature exotic trees runs perpendicular to the western boundary into the subject site for approximately 80 metres, screening the dwelling from the rest of the property. The remaining northern portion of the site is comprised of a mixture of grassed paddocks and horticultural fields. 2.4 A 2m wide grassed vehicle track runs up the open grassed hillside paddocks towards the southern boundary where the paddocks interface with a forestry block contained within the subject site. The forestry block varies between 120-200m deep and is approximately 11-12ha in area. The highest point on the subject site is within the forestry block, some 180m above the level of the subject sites dwelling. 2.5 The subject site is located near the head of the Whitemans Valley close to its southernmost point. The area surrounding the subject site is comprised of a number of smaller rural valley floor land holdings, most of which have been the subject of residential development, despite development; the area has maintained the open character and nature of the Rural zone. 3.0 Notification and Submissions 3.1 The application was limited notified on 16 June 2014. Notice was served to 22 owners and/or occupiers of properties surrounding the application site on Kakariki Way and Johnsons Road. 3.2 Six submissions were received by the close of submissions on 14 July 2014. One was neutral and five were in opposition. 3.3 The following issues were raised in the submissions: Visual and landscape effects on rural qualities Health effects 1 It is noted that these buildings have been labelled incorrectly on the application site plan as the existing dwelling.
M.P. 122 Financial impact on neighbouring properties Construction impact Incorrect labelling of submitted site plans Impacts of potential route of trenching to get services to facility 4.0 Activity Status 4.1 The application site features split zoning under the Upper Hutt City District Plan 2004, consisting of Rural Valley Floor within the northern or upper half of the site and Rural Hill zoned land in the southern portion. 4.2 The site is not subject to any designations, hazards or other notations of significance under the District Plan. 5.0 Operative District Plan 2004 5.1 Proposed Telecommunication Tower 5.1.1 The subject site features split zoning of Rural Hill and Rural Valley Floor. The proposed location of the facility will be situated on land zoned Rural Hill. 5.1.2 The height standard of Rule 30.2 is not met. The standard states that utilities shall not exceed the maximum height for the zone in which they are located. The permitted height within the Rural zone in 15m. The proposed mast exceeds this standard by 12m. 5.1.3 The mast diameter standard of Rule 30.2A is not met. The standard states that the diameter of any mast shall not exceed 0.5m when measured at a height of 3 metres or more above ground level, and shall not exceed 1m in diameter from ground level up to 3m. The diameter of the proposed mast has a maximum of 1.45m at the base and tapers to 0.75m at the apex. 5.1.4 As per Rule 30.4, any structure associated with utilities shall be screened from an arterial road, an adjoining residential site or an Open Space zone. The screening shall be in the form of trees and/or shrubs which will effectively screen the structure. Originally, the applicant proposed a post and rail fence as screening for the cabinets, however the District Plan requires screening in the form of trees and/or shrubs which effectively screen the cabinets. Prior to the hearing, the applicant has agreed to undertake planting within the fenced area of the subject site, as per the Ms Rimmer s recommendations. As such the proposal will now comply with Rule 30.4.
M.P. 123 5.2 Status of application 5.2.1 The application is a Discretionary Activity in accordance with Rule 30.1 of the District Plan due to not complying with the permitted activity standards as specified above. 5.3 Resource Management Act 1991 5.3.1 An assessment of a resource consent application for a Discretionary Activity is to be considered in accordance with Sections 104 and 104B of the Resource Management Act 1991 ( the Act ) 5.4 Section 104B 5.4.1 Section 104B outlines criteria for the determination of an application for a discretionary or non-complying activity. After considering an application for a resource consent for a discretionary activity or non-complying activity, a consent authority a. may grant or refuse the application; and b. if it grants the application, may impose conditions under section 108. 5.5 Section 104 5.5.1 In considering the application the proposal shall be considered on its merits, having regard to the matters referred to in Section 104 and any determination must be made subject to Part 2. This section identifies the matters that must be considered when forming an opinion as to how to determine a resource consent application. Section 104 states: - 5.6 Consideration of applications 5.6.1 When considering an application for a resource consent and any submissions received, the consent authority must, subject to Part 2, have regard to (a) any actual and potential effects on the environment of allowing the activity; and (b) any relevant provisions of (i) a national policy statement (ii) a New Zealand coastal policy statement (iii) a regional policy statement or proposed regional policy statement a plan or proposed plan
M.P. 124 (iv)a plan or proposed plan; and (c) any other matter the consent authority considers relevant and reasonably necessary to determine the application. 5.6.2 When forming an opinion for the purposes of subsection (1)(a), a consent authority may disregard an adverse effect of the activity on the environment if the plan permits an activity with that effect. 5.6.3 Section 104(1) is Subject to Part II. Part II comprises Sections 5, 6, 7 and 8, which contain the purpose and principles of the Act. Section 5 contains the purpose of the Act, which is, to promote the sustainable management of natural and physical resources. Section 6 identifies matters of national importance that shall be recognized and provided for by all persons exercising functions and powers under the Act. Section 7 lists other matters that all persons exercising functions and powers under the Act shall have particular regard to. Section 8 requires the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi be taken into account. 5.6.4 In setting out the purpose of the Act, Section 5(2)(c) states: - 5(2) In this Act, sustainable management means managing the use, development, and protection of natural and physical resource in a way, or at a rate, which enable people and communities to provide for their social, economic, and cultural wellbeing and for their health and safety while...(c) Avoiding, remedying, or mitigating any adverse effects of activities on the environment. 5.6.5 In exercising discretion under the Act, Council must exercise an overall broad judgment in reaching a decision. Whilst all relevant matters must be considered in reaching a decision any decision must ultimately serve the purpose of the Act. 5.6.6 Section 7 requires that in relation to managing the use, development, and protection of natural and physical resource, particular regard shall be given to (inter alia): -
M.P. 125 7(b) 7(c) 7(f) The efficient use and development of natural and physical resources The maintenance and enhancement of amenity values; Maintenance and enhancement of the quality of the environment. 5.6.7 The Act defines Amenity Values and Environment as:- Amenity Values means those natural or physical qualities and characteristics of an area that contribute to people s appreciation of its pleasantness, aesthetic coherence, and cultural and recreational attributes. Environment a. Eco systems and their constituent parts, including people and communities; and b. All natural and physical resources; and c. Amenity values; and d. The social, economic, aesthetic, and cultural conditions which affect the matter stated in paragraphs (a) to (c) of this definition or which are affected by those matters. 6.0 Summary of Evidence Heard 6.1 In arriving at its decision, the Panel considered the following: The application; The planning report by the Consents Planner, Mr Sam Gifford; The evidence presented by the agents acting for the applicant, namely, Ms Jessica Lethaby, Ms Olatz Ibanez, Ms Lisa Rimmer and Ms Louise Strogen; The written submissions received in respect of the application; The evidence given at the hearing by Mrs Chanon Carroll in support of her written submission. The panel also drew on its visit to the application site and surrounds. 6.2 The Reporting Planner s Case 6.2.1 Mr Sam Gifford, Consents Planner for the Upper Hutt City Council, spoke to his
M.P. 126 planning report, which had been pre-circulated. His report described the proposal, the site, the relevant statutory criteria, including the objectives and policies of the District Plan, and the submissions received. 6.3 Applicant s Case 6.3.1 The applicant s agents presented in support of the resource consent application, speaking to particular points including: The Government Rural Broadband Initiative Site selection process and consideration of alternative sites New Zealand Standard for radiofrequency exposure and perceived health effects Visual and landscape assessment The planning assessment and recommended conditions contained in the Planner s report Responses to issues raised in submissions 6.4 Submitters 6.4.1 Mrs C Carroll spoke in support of her submission. In particular, Mrs Carroll raised concern with; The effects of radiofrequency exposure on organic meat for human consumption and the potential effects on her organic meat business The health effects of radiofrequency exposure on humans The future of the telecommunications tower once the lease expired Visual impacts of the tower and the lack of screening by the proposed plantings of the entire tower The financial implications arising from the proposal, namely the predicted decrease in value of her property after the tower was built. Trenching work that was required to be undertaken for the installation of services to the facility The impact of the tower on any future dwellings that could be built if subdivision standards in the District Plan were changed to allow for smaller lot sizes
M.P. 127 6.5 The Officer s Reply 6.5.1 In the officers reply, clarification was primarily given around issues of health effects, the inability to use property values as part of the assessment in the RMA 1991, and the purpose of undertaking planting. 6.5.2 Mr Gifford confirmed he was satisfied that after hearing Ms Ibanez s evidence the proposal met the requirements of the NES, and therefore the compliance conditions recommended within the Planner s report were not required. As such, Mr Gifford recommended that if the Panel were to grant the consent, Conditions 1.3 and 1.4 be omitted. 6.5.3 Mr Gifford noted the purpose of the proposed planting is to screen the cabinets, however the mast was exempt from this screening requirement under the District Plan. He recommended that if the Panel were to grant the consent, Ms Rimmer s recommendations for screening planting as per Section 95 of her evidence be incorporated into the screen planting condition (Condition1.2) in the planner s report. 6.5.4 Mr Gifford addressed the submitters concerns relating to the perceived effect on property values as a result of the proposal. He explained that case law has established that property values cannot be considered as an effect under the RMA 1991. Amenity and health effects are able to be considered as effects and are likely to contribute to property values, therefore to ensure the effect is not double counted, property values cannot be considered as an RMA effect. Mr Gifford stated that the health and amenity effects related to the proposal were previously addressed and he considered them to be no more than minor. 6.5.5 Mr Gifford concluded that he considered the proposal to have effects which were no more than minor and maintained his recommendation that the application be approved, subject to conditions. 6.6 The Applicant s Reply 6.6.1 Ms Strogen replied to the concerns raised by Mrs Carroll regarding the impact of radiofrequency on livestock and humans. She was unaware of any testing that has been undertaken on livestock and could not comment on the impacts, however reiterated that the maximum level of radio frequency exposure would be no more than 5%, of which the acceptable NES standard is set at 25%. 6.6.2 Ms Lethaby confirmed that the route for which trenching would be undertaken to install services would be via the paper road (Option 2).
M.P. 128 6.6.3 Ms Lethaby replied to Cr Wheeler regarding concerns of the tower weathering or change colour over time. She assured that the consent holder would need to maintain the colour of the mast over time to ensure compliance with the resource consent. 6.6.4 Ms Lethaby stated that once the lease expired in 25 years time Vodafone would approach the landowner to renegotiate the lease but if they were unable to extend the lease the applicant would be required to remove the tower and restore the land to its original condition. 6.6.5 Ms Strogen reiterated her view that overall the proposal had effects which were no more than minor. 7.0 Consideration of the Application 7.1 Site visit 7.1.1 The Panel undertook one site visit prior to the hearing, on Friday 22 August 2014. 7.2 Summary of issues 7.2.1 The Panel considered that there were three potential adverse effects that required consideration before a decision was made. These were: Health effects Visual amenity Construction effects Each of these is now considered in turn. 8.0 Main findings and reasons for decision 8.1 Health effects 8.1.1 The Panel made reference to Ms Ibanez s evidence, in particular the statement of compliance attached as an appendix in her evidence to inform their assessment of the health effects from radiofrequency exposure on both humans and livestock. 8.1.2 In assessing the health effects as a result of the telecommunications tower, the Panel agreed that the National Environmental Standard for Telecommunications Facilities Regulations 2008 was the best available information to use in setting the standards for acceptable levels of radiofrequency exposure for humans. Ms Ibanez s evidence established that the facility would be well below the maximum acceptable level of
M.P. 129 25%, being 5%. The Panel identified that as the Standard was used nationally and was rigorously tested, the exposure limits could be relied upon. The Panel were therefore satisfied that the facility would not result in any adverse health effects on humans. 8.1.3 The Panel considered the concerns expressed by Mrs Carrol, regarding the impact of radiofrequency exposure on livestock, and selling this produce as organic meat. They noted that there were a large number of telecommunication towers across the country in rural areas where organic produce is likely to be farmed and were not aware of any instances where radiofrequency levels had affected organic livestock. Additionally the Panel identified there was no other research or information to suggest that livestock would be affected differently by radiofrequency exposure compared to humans. As such, they inferred that as the exposure limit was considered safe for humans, it was also considered safe for livestock and other animals. The Panel were therefore satisfied that the facility would not result in any adverse health effects on livestock or compromise its organic grade. 8.1.4 The Panel considered the cumulative health effects with regard to additional providers co-locating onto the facility. As a requirement of Clause 4 of the NES, any future providers that establish equipment additional to that detailed in the Statement of Compliance would need to provide Council with a report specifying compliance with NZS 2772.1.1999, and take into account any exposures arising from other telecommunications facilities in the surrounding area. As such, the Panel were therefore satisfied that the cumulative health effects associated with the proposal would be less than minor. 8.2 Visual amenity 8.2.1 The Panel made reference to the photo montages supplied by Lisa Rimmer as part of her evidence and her assessment of the visual and landscape effects of the proposal to inform their assessment as to the impact of the proposal on the rural character and amenity of the surrounding area. 8.2.2 The panel discussed the importance of the telecommunication tower s colour and subsequent maintenance of this colour. They considered that the recessive grey colour was best used to blend the mast within the surrounding environment. The Panel highlighted that to ensure the appearance and condition of the mast, upkeep would be needed throughout its lifetime. The Panel requested a condition referring to this requirement to be imposed. 8.2.3 The Panel concurred with Ms Rimmer that the proposed planting should be located
M.P. 130 inside the fenced area to protect it from possible stock damage. The Panel noted the applicant would need to maintain the plantings, and accepted Ms Rimmer s recommendation for planting to be incorporated into the current planting condition. 8.2.4 Based on the assessment of landscape and visual effects provided by Ms Rimmer, the Panel considered the effect of a telecommunications tower on the subject site would have a minor visual effect and minor effect on the natural landscape values of the surrounding area. The Panel considered that although the mast could be viewed from the neighbouring properties, the facility would not look obscure or out of place within the surrounding environment. In addition, they agreed that with the imposition of planting to screen the cabinets, painting the mast recessive grey and constructing a post and wire fence around the lease area, the visual effects were not deemed significant. 8.3 Construction effects 8.3.1 The Panel discussed the adverse effects which may exist during the construction phase of the facility. As per Ms Lethaby s evidence, the Panel were satisfied that the earthworks could be undertaken in a short period of time and that the inconvenience would be negligible. 8.3.2 The Panel concurs with Ms Lethaby s decision to undertake trenching in accordance with Option Two route to supply services to the facility. They discussed the two trenching options proposed in the application, and decided that Option 2 would have the least impact on residents who use the private road. The Panel asked for an advisory note to be applied to the decision, stating that trenching be undertaken in accordance with Option 2 of the application. 9.0 Objectives and Policies 9.1 In terms of relevant objectives and policies of the District Plan, the Panel considered the following Utilities Chapter objectives and policies to be relevant to the proposal. 9.1.1 Rural zone Objective 5.3.1 The maintenance and enhancement of the open space, natural features and ecological systems which compromise the rural character and amenity. Objective 5.3.3 To maintain and enhance the amenity values of the rural area.
M.P. 131 Policy 5.4.1 To manage the adverse environmental effects arising from the scale, density, number and location of earthworks, new building developments and activities so that they do not significantly compromise rural character and landscape values. Policy 5.4.2 To ensure that subdivision, development and land use within the Valley Floor and Hill Sub-zones minimise adverse effects on rural character, area of significant indigenous flora or fauna, and amenity values. Policy 5.4.4 To ensure that subdivision, development and land use within the Rural Hill Sub-zone minimise adverse effects on significant natural, ecological, scenic, visual, landscape, recreational and cultural values. Policy 5.4.6: To ensure that essential services are able to be operated safely and efficiently. 9.1.1.1 It was the Panel s view that the facility was not an uncomfortable fit for the surrounding rural environment, particularly given the separation distance from surrounding properties, unobtrusive colour of the mast and proposed planting around the cabinets. While recognising there will be a changed environment, the Panel considered that the proposed conditions would ensure the amenity and character of the rural environment would be retained. 9.1.1.2 The Panel therefore considers that the proposal is consistent with the objectives and policies of the Rural zone in the Upper Hutt District Plan. 9.1.2 Utilities Objective 16.3.1 The sustainable management of physical infrastructure so that it can meet both the needs of today s community and the reasonably foreseeable needs of future generations. Policy 16.4.1 To ensure the establishment, operation, maintenance and upgrading of essential utilities in the City avoids, remedies or
M.P. 132 mitigates any adverse environmental effects. Policy 16.4.3 To promote the efficient and effective use of existing utilities and to encourage the co-siting of compatible facilities. 9.1.2.1 The Panel considered that the facility would provide for essential services within the Whitemans Valley and Blue Mountains area through increased broadband and cellphone coverage. As the areas currently display limited coverage, the provision of these services would contribute to the social, economic and cultural well-being of the community. The Panel therefore considered that the proposal would have a positive effect on the community and the Upper Hutt District and would work to meet the needs of the community and future generations. 9.1.2.2 The Panel also considered that the facility allows for multiple providers to co-locate their services using the proposed telecommunications tower. They considered the ability to co-locate to be an efficient and effective use of an existing facility, which will reduce the need for the construction of additional towers within the District. 9.1.2.3 The Panel also recognised that the applicant had extensively assessed alternative sites to locate the facility within the subject area. The assessment clearly showed that the chosen location for the tower enabled for extensive coverage of the target site, while having minimal visual impact on the surrounding environment. 9.2 Relevant NES, Regulations, Policy Statements 9.2.1 Section 104(1)(b) provides that when considering an application for a resource consent and any submissions received, the consent authority must, subject to Part 2, have regard to any relevant provisions of (i) a national environmental standard; (ii) other regulations; (iii) a national policy statement; (iv) a New Zealand coastal policy statement; (v) a regional policy statement or proposed regional policy statement; (vi) a plan or proposed plan.
M.P. 133 Of these documents, only the national environmental standard is relevant to this application. 9.3 National Environmental Standard 9.3.1 The operative NES for Telecommunication Facilities Regulations 2008 contains the standards regulating the construction and use of telecommunication towers in New Zealand. The NES regulates radiofrequency emission from facilities using the New Zealand Standard 2772.1. The applicant has shown the proposal is in accordance with NZS 2772.1.1999 and is therefore considered a permitted activity under the NES. 9.4 S104 Assessment Other Matters 9.4.1 Section 104(1)(c) provides that when considering an application for a resource consent and any submissions received, the consent authority must, subject to Part 2, have regard to any other matter the consent authority considers relevant and reasonably necessary to determine the application. 10.0 Part 2 RMA Matters 10.1 Any consideration under Section 104(1) is subject to Part 2 of the Act. Part 2 sets out the purpose and principles of the Act. In addition, Part 2 requires the Council to recognise and provide for matters of national importance (Section 6); have particular regard to other matters (Section 7); and to take into account the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi (Section 8). 10.2 Section 5 - Purpose 10.2.1 Section 5(1) states that the purpose of the Act is to promote the sustainable management of natural and physical resource. The proposal is considered consistent with the purpose of the Act in so far as it promotes sustainable management through the efficient use of land to provide essential services for the community, while maintaining the wider landscape and amenity values of the rural environment. 10.3 Section 6 Matters of National Importance
M.P. 134 10.3.1 Section 6 establishes seven matters which must be recognised and provided for by all persons exercising functions and powers under the Act. None of the matters outlined in Section 6 are considered to be relevant to the application. 10.4 Section 7 Other Matters 10.4.1 Section 7 includes matters that the consent authority shall have particular regard to. The proposal is considered to be in line with section 7(b), 7(c) and (f) due to aforementioned reasoning within sections 8 and 9 of this report. the 10.5 Section 8 Treaty of Waitangi 10.5.1 Section 8 is not relevant to this specific application. 11.0 Summary 11.1 The Panel considered that the determination of application turned on three principal matters: Health effects Visual amenity Construction effects 11.2 The Panel was of the view that the site of the proposed telecommunications tower was the most suitable location in reducing the visual effects of the environment. They considered that rural amenity and character of the surrounding rural properties would be maintained, through the recessive colour, separation distance and proposed screen planting. 11.3 In terms of the submitters concerns relating to the health effects of the proposal, the Panel was of the view that the NES was the most appropriate standard to assess the level of radiofrequency exposure from the facility. The certificate of compliance supplied as an appendix of the application demonstrated the facility was in accordance with the NES, namely NZS 2772.1.1999. As such the Panel were satisfied that the health effects relating to operation of the facility were less than minor. 11.4 With regard to the objectives and policies relevant to the proposal, the Panel
M.P. 135 confirmed the proposal was able to meet the intent of the policies relating to amenity and character of the rural environment and the effective provision of services which provide for co-location. 12.0 Land use consent application 12.1 For the reasons set out above, and having regard to all the information contained in the application, the evidence and submission heard, the relevant statutory provisions and the matters to be considered under Section 104, 104B, and 108 of the RMA, the Panel concluded that consent for the application for a telecommunications facility should be GRANTED, subject to the conditions specified below. 12.2 Reasons: 1. The existing rural amenity and character of the surrounding environment will not be adversely affected. 2. The proposal will provide the Whitemans Valley and Blue Mountains area with increased broadband and cellphone coverage, which currently is limited. The facility also provides for co-location for other providers, limiting the need for further towers to be constructed in the area. 3. The proposal is consistent with the relevant rural, utilities and landscape objectives and policies of the District Plan. 4. The proposal is considered to meet Part 2 of the Resource Management Act 1991. Decision That pursuant to Sections 104, 104B and 108 of the Resource Management Act 1991, GRANT consent for the construction, operation and maintenance of a telecommunications facility with a mast which exceeds the permitted height and diameter on Lot 2 DP 331943 at 121B Johnsons Road, Upper Hutt. 1.0 General 1.1 The proposal shall proceed in accordance with the plans and details submitted and tabled including the following: Aurecon application for Resource Consent dated 29/04/2014; Aurecon Plans: SP-01 Revision 5, SP-02 Revision 5 and SP-03 Revision 7 dated
M.P. 136 16/12/2013; and Notice and Report Statement of Compliance dated 17/04/2014. Note: Where any conditions of consent as set out below are inconsistent with the plans and/or information approved in condition 1.1, the conditions of consent which follow will prevail. 1.2 The consent holder shall undertake screening planting at their own expense, inside of the fenced compound (but within the lease area) for the length of the northern and western perimeter of the facility. The planting shall be undertaken in accordance with the recommendations of Ms Rimmer s evidence as per paragraph 59. The consent holder shall ensure that if any of the plantings fail to become established or die that they are replaced. The replacement plantings shall be undertaken by the consent holder. 1.3 The mast will be of a matte grey colour as indicated in the consent application. The consent holder shall ensure that the colour of the mast is maintained for the duration of the operation of the telecommunications facility at 121B Johnsons Road. Advice note 1.0 Trenching to provide for the underground power supply and other services to the facility shall be undertaken in accordance with the route detailed as Option 2 in the consent application. Dated this 16 th day of September 2014. Cr J C Gwilliam (Chair)