Objective 4: Contribute to a reduced workload for councils in processing and determining consent applications

4.4 Objective 4: Contribute to a reduced workload for councils in processing and determining consent applications

There is a lot of variation across councils in terms of the volume of telecommunications infrastructure-related activities they handle. The greatest volume is found in the largest cities and provincial centres where roll-outs have occurred, while the smaller rural councils (which account for the majority of territorial authorities in the country) – deal with only a few.

The workload is generally, but not always, less for a permitted activity compared with one that requires resource consent. Councils may still have to process certificates of compliance, administer radio-frequency reports and handle any correspondence arising from an installation.

Total workload is perhaps a more relevant measure for councils, and the introduction of the NESTF has not changed total workload in a predictable way. There are many factors that influence total workload, such as the ‘lumpiness’ of the work, the type of infrastructure being installed, where it is being installed, and the reaction of the community to the installation.

Further details of the council survey and responses made can be found in appendices 2 and 3.

4.5 Objective 5: Set an appropriate balance between local participation in community planning and cost-effective national infrastructure investment

Of the 25 councils that responded, a majority (56 per cent) consider that an appropriate balance has been struck. About a third of respondents were uncertain, and three councils thought that a balance had not been stuck. Of those three, two were concerned about the impact of the NESTF on infrastructure siting.

One council stated that infrastructure was sometimes not installed in the most appropriate place because the council did not have an effective say in this. Another council in the process of the UFB roll-out reported an increase in street clutter, which they ascribed to a lack of effective engagement of industry with the council’s corridor managers:

“Telcos, in particular the UFB project, designed their new facilities with the size and activity planned to avoid any effective participation when planning with the corridor manager. There is currently a proliferation of new telco facilities occupying pavement space that is reducing the pedestrian usage they were designed for.”

The other council thought there was no balance because councils, and the public they represent, were effectively excluded from decision-making:

“The restrictions on what we can consider (when considering telecommunications consents) are very narrow when we have a chance. In almost all cases the residents have no input and will vent frustrations with us. We will explain the rules and what they can expect. This does not serve to allay all of the concerns we get to hear about.”

In contrast, councils that did think a balance had been struck were more accepting of the provisions of the NESTF. What is allowed as a permitted activity in an NES is out of council hands.

Not all of the opposition has been resolved, rather they now know under the NES it is permitted and outside the control of the council.

People have had to accept permitted activity standards regarding radio-frequency.

Councils do not have to get embroiled in disputes, because such disputes are seen as a matter for central government, as the regulation maker. This appeared to be a benefit for some councils.

To gauge the level of community opposition to telecommunications facilities, councils were asked for the total number of new installations since 2008 that had attracted complaints. Table 2 indicates that no more than 10 installations have received complaints since 2008 within any of the councils that responded to the question. About one-third of the district councils had not received any complaints, and some of these councils included towns of considerable size.

Table 2: Number of new installations (cabinets and mobile infrastructure) attracting complaints since 2008

Complaints arise from neighbouring land owners and are based on concerns about the health effects of radio-frequency fields, impacts on property values, aesthetics, footpath clutter, traffic safety, and interference with personal radio equipment.

In 2009, the Telecommunications Forum developed a set of Community Engagement Guidelines for Wireless Telecommunications Facilities to help wireless network operators standardise their approach to community consultation. Vodafone and Telecom reported in a recent review of these guidelines that there was a decrease in escalation of public issues and the guidelines were working well. Much of their upgrade work involves existing infrastructure. 2degrees has been gradually developing its own network while it continues to use the Vodafone network on a roaming basis for areas outside of its network, so it has encountered more community opposition. However, in a recent Taranaki roll-out, only two of 15 sites received opposition. Some councils commented favourably on this company’s approach to working with communities.

Currently, if a new facility is being installed adjacent to or near a residential area, or where there is at least one public facility¹² adjacent or nearby, the guidelines state that the operator should:

9.2.1 Undertake any engagement or consultation required by the relevant Council under the Council District Plan; or required pursuant to the conditions of any Resource Consent.

9.2.2 Ensure that the occupiers of those dwellings immediately adjacent to the proposed location, and the management of the Public Facility near the proposed location, are sent a letter by the relevant Wireless Network Operator prior to the lodgement of any Resource Consent application or National Environmental Standard application required by the relevant Council regarding the proposed Wireless Telecommunications Facility.

One council suggested that operators should follow a process whereby residents are notified before they approach the council so issues can get sorted out before RMA processes are embarked on. This suggestion is almost identical to the one given in the guidelines, which suggests that the guidelines may need more promotion so that councils are more aware of them.

The Ministry for the Environment and the Ministry of Health track the number of letters sent to their Ministers from members of the public on the topic of telecommunications facilities. This provides an indication of how much community concern is being escalated to the central government level. Prior to the NESTF, the Ministry for the Environment received, on average, just over one ministerial letter per year, and the Ministry of Health less than one. Since 2008 the number of letters received each year has varied considerably, from 1 to 45 (the latter number reflects the level of community concern over the erection of a cellphone tower in Nelson during 2009/10). The majority of the Ministry for the Environment ministerial letters are about the health effects of radio-frequency fields.