Sue Kedgley ask the Minister for the Environment questions in relation to the location of cell towers today which I was particularly interested in.
A few months back when Labour had a full caucus visit to New Plymouth the issue of cell phone tower locations came up when we visited Manukorihi Intermediate (one of my old schools in Waitara).
The problem there has been that the cell phone tower was on there grounds but was removed because of the National guidelines that outline that cellphone towers cannot be located school grounds. While it was on their grounds, the school received a sum of money from the owners of the tower. The school had no problem with the fact that the tower needed to be removed due to that National guidelines (guidelines which reflect the research on associated health risks) BUT then the tower was moved only to the other side of the fence!
So the tower is no longer on the school grounds but is virtually in the exact same vicinity. Now the school gets no money from the company and is just as exposed to the radiation as it was before! This can hardly be deemed fair.
I’ve asked a number of written questions on this issue and will continue to look in to this.
I guess if they fry their brains now they won’t need to teach them science later on. I hope the company is made to find another location for it. I saw Breakfast today and some poor man and his neighbours are parking their vehicles around a power pole 24/7 to keep a tower from being placed outside their homes.
Before you get too hot under the collar, Carmel, it would be worthwhile recalling that Labour ministers signed off the National Environmental Standard for Telecommunications that have led to this state of affairs – including the cell site on the power pole 12m from a bedroom window in Auckland. Here’s part of the oral question asked by Sue Kedgley in 2007:
******
Sue Kedgley: Can he confirm that under the new standards there will be no restrictions on how many antennas and other equipment can be added to telephone poles on road reserves all around New Zealand; no requirement to consult, or even inform people, when new equipment is installed outside their homes and schools; no restrictions on the uses that telecommunications companies could make of these new technologies; and no requirement to take into account the health effects of the new technologies; and why would his Government support these unreasonable requirements?
Hon DAVID PARKER: No, I cannot confirm all of those matters. I can confirm that one of the concerns that have been raised in submissions is that without restriction there could be a proliferation of these things, so that some telephone poles start looking like hedgehogs. I agree that is an appropriate concern, and I am sure that will be one of the matters that are taken into account in the drafting of the final standards.
*******
It’s a pity that none of the issues raised by Kedgley were taken into account in the regulations, thus causing most of the problems you’re lamenting in your post. So there’s more than just a faint whiff of Labour hypocrisy in attempting to rabble-rouse about cellphone towers now.
If you have a mobile phone and you use it in suburban areas you are a (word deleted personal abuse and very bad spelling Trevor) Cell phone towers must go somewhere, and in suburban areas there is likely to be little choice but to place it outside a house (unfortunately)
Would hav ebeen better to leave teh dissicion in this case to the principal/board members than a central power
Clarke – My concern is that this ridiculous situation has arisen and therefore, something should be done about it. Occassionally some aspect or scenario is overlooked when policy is drawn up and this is a clear case of that – lets just get it sorted out.
Carmel, this situation hasn’t “arisen”; it’s the direct and predictable consequence of regulations passed by the last Labour government. And it’s a situation that the responsible ministers were warned about during the consultation process, but chose to ignore.
So if we set aside the faux outrage for a second, just what are you proposing gets done to sort out the problem? Repeal the regulations that Labour passed?
Clarke – seeing that you seem to know so much about the issue at hand, then perhaps you could recommend what actions need to be taken to sort out the problem. This would be a lot more constructive than just bagging the former Labour Government.
I think it’s pretty obvious from the regulations that there is no solution – the NES specifically excludes local input into these sorts of decisions in favour of a national approach under the RMA.
From your description the location of the tower outside the school boundary would appear to comply with the NES, and the radiation levels are obviously within New Zealand’s very high limits – which allow radiation some 100x higher than in the European Union. So your choices seem to be:
- Persuade the mobile phone company to move the tower out of the goodness of their heart, or
- Lobby the National government to review the NES standard, draft a new one via MfE, go through a consultation round, and get the current Minister to issue the regulations via order in council, out of the goodness of their heart, or
- Explain to your old school that there’s no easy way to move the tower thanks to the regulations passed by your colleagues, whilst handing them David Parker’s business card.
Your call.
And btw, this is not about bagging the last Labour government – whom I largely admire and who achieved a lot for New Zealand – but it is about highlighting one area where they made an exceptionally bad call. In my view, poor decisions should always come back to haunt their makers because it teaches them to make better ones in the future.
yeah, towers have to go somewhere but “not on school grounds” should not mean “one inch outside school grounds”. The company is taking the proverbial – they could just as easily move it well away from the school. The regs tend to assume people behave reasonably but here the company are just doing it “because they can”.
Carmel, it is worth looking up an environment court decision to do with a school in St Albans in Chch that had exactly the same situation. I think the decision from that hearing in the late 1990s has had some impact on decisions. The tower was placed just over the fence from the school. There is a disatnce that is recognised as comparatively safe. It is a difficult issue that people do get very anxious about. And there is disagreement among the scientists. But the case is worth looking up.
Thanks Marian – that is very helpful. I’ll follow up on that.
Clarke – thanks for you constructive advice.
There are no health risks associated with cellphone towers.
You cannot get cancer or any other disease from a cellphone tower for the same reason that you cannot get sunburn from sitting in front of a wood fire.
Checkout the photoelectric effect for a more complete understanding of this.