Statement of Evidence of Louise Miles on behalf of Spark ... Spark NZ and Chorus N… ·...

BEFORE PALMERSTON NORTH CITY COUNCIL

IN THE MATTER OF

AND

IN THE MATTER OF

the Resource Management Act 1991

the hearing for Palmerston North City

Proposed Plan Change 15G: Network

Utilities Review and Proposed Plan Change

150 Natural Hazards

Statement of Evidence of Louise Miles on behalf of

Spark New Zealand Trading Limited and Chorus New Zealand Limited

11 November 2015

Miles Planning

Resource & Environmental Management

Levell, 11 Tory Street

Wellington

Ph: (027) 2310244

Email: [email protected]

Professional Qualifications and Experience

1. My full name is Louise Miles. I am a sole provider, trading as MilesPlanning and practicing as a

resource management consultant, based in Wellington. I have a Bachelor of Regional Planning

degree (BRP) from Massey University, and have Independent Hearing Commissioner

Accreditation.

2. I have twenty eight years professional experience working as a planner for central government

and as a resource management consultant within New Zealand. Throughout my career I have

provided resource management advice to Spark New Zealand Trading Limited (Spark) and

Chorus New Zealand Trading Limited (Chorus), as well as their predecessor Telecom New

Zealand (Telecom) from which both of these companies derived. This advice was initially given

while employed by Works Consultancy Limited, and has continued while working for Opus

Consultants Limited and as the director of the Incite Wellington office (for a period of ten

years).

3. The resource management advice provided to Spark and Chorus (and Telecom prior to this),

has included preparing submissions and presenting evidence on district plan changes and

reviews; preparing notices of requirement for designations and outline plans; prOViding

resource management input into site selection studies; and preparing resource consent

applications for mobile and broadband network rollouts and exchange upgrades. In addition,

over the past two years I have prepared resource consent applications and certificates of

compliance for the Ultra-Fast Broadband (UFB) upgrade for Chorus, both in terms of the

cabinet and aerial rollouts.

4. Another key area of work is the analysis of District Plan provisions in the central and lower

North Island for both organisations. I prepared the Spark and Chorus submissions, and further

submissions, to Palmerston North City Proposed Plan Changes 15D Natural Hazards and 15G

Network Utilities. Recently I also prepared submissions and further submissions in relation to

the network utility prOVisions in the Porirua City Plan Change 16 Network Utilities; Upper Hutt

City Plan Change 38 and Hutt City Plan Change 34 (Network Utiiities and Renewable Energy);

the Proposed Horowhenua District Plan, the Hastings District Plan, Napier City Plan Change 10

(Network Utilities); and prepared comments on the draft Wanganui District Plan Infrastructure

provisions (which include network utilities), and the Manawatu District Plan Utilities section.

Chorus and Spark FurtherPalmerston North City Plan Changes 15D & 15G

Evidence of Louise Miles11 November 2015

3

5. Accordingly, I am familiar with telecommunication networks, and the practical implications and

constraints of District Plans in relation to telecommunication network installation and

operation.

6. I have been engaged by Spark and Chorus to provide a statement of planning evidence in

relation to their submissions and further submissions to Proposed Plan Change 15G Utilities. I

have also been engaged by Chorus and Spark in relation to their further submission in support

of a submission made by Powerco to Proposed Plan Change 15D Natural Hazards.

7. In preparation for this hearing I have read the Reporting Officers s42a report. As outlined

above, I am already familiar with the documents as notified, including the section 32 report,

having prepared the various submissions and further submissions for these clients.

8. I can confirm that I have read the Code of Conduct for Expert Witnesses (section 5 of the

Environment Court Consolidated Practice Note 2006). My evidence has been prepared by me

and in compliance with that Code. Unless I state otherwise, this evidence is within my area of

expertise and I have not omitted to consider any material facts known to me that might alter

or detract from the opinions I express.

Background to Spark and Chorus Operations

9. As highlighted in the opening statements of Mr McCarrison and Ms Barton, in recent years

there has been a rapid growth in the demand for telecommunication services and growth in

end user devices. This is particularly in relation to data and internet (including the uptake of

smartphones and the rapidly growing consumption of on-line video). This is driving an

increasing demand for greater connectivity, with customers also requiring that these services

are always available and reliable, regardless of whether they are at home, work or play. This

translates into a growing demand for telecommunication services, which can only be

accommodated by new and upgraded telecommunication infrastructure. Expectations are that

demand for services will continue to increase rapidly as devices, and their applications,

proliferate.

10. The purpose of the Resource Management Act 1991, as embodied in section 5, is the

promotion of the sustainable management of natural and physical resources.

Telecommunications and radio communications infrastructure is a significant physical resource

in terms of section 5 of the RMA. They are of critical importance, locally, regionally and

nationally to the social, cultural and economic wellbeing of people and communities, by

Chorus and SparkPalmerston North City Proposed Plan Changes 15D & 15G


4

enabling people and business to connect to each other. They also have a vital role is assisting

people and communities to provide for their health and safety. The ability to upgrade to

existing facilities is an efficient and effective use of an existing physical resource.

11. Central government has identified that "the expansion and development of broadband and

mobile coverage is a vital component of New Zealand's econamic growth, productivity

improvements and the governments wider strategy to increase New Zealand's global

competiveness, particularly compared to other GECD countries ,,1

12. As highlighted by Ms Barton and Mr McCarrison, a number of government initiatives are

underway to support the expansion and development of broadband, and mobile coverage and

capacity, to achieve the government's economic objectives. Those of particular interest in

relation to this hearing include:

»> The Ultra-Fast Broadband (UFB) and the Rural Broadband (RBI) rollouts, which are

underway. The importance of these rollouts is highlighted on the Ministry of Business,

Innovation and Employment (MBIE) website as follows:

Together these two programmes will bring benefits of improved internet connectivity to

97.8% of New Zealanders, opening up a huge range of business, educational, community

and other opportunitiel".

The UFB rollout is occurring within urban areas. It is delivered through fibre optic lines

(located either below or above ground) and supporting cabinet infrastructure. The

cabinet infrastructure was located above ground for the first two years of the rollout,

but now is also undergrounded. The RBI rollout is the rural broadband equivalent. It

requires the construction of a number of new mobile phone facilities in rural locations

to improve rural broadband by wireless, as well as the provision of overhead and

underground lines and cabinet infrastructure. The government has recently announced

its intention to extend these two broadband initiatives by expanding broadband

coverage further than initially planned.

»> A review of the National Environmental Standards for Telecommunication Facilities

(NESTF) is underway. It is iooking to substantially widen the existing scope of the NESTF

I http://www.mbie.govt.nz/info-services/sectors-industries/technology-communications/communlcations/broadbandmobile-Initiatives

2 http://www.mbie.govt.nz/inro-services/sectors-lndustries/technology-communications/fast-broadband

Chorus and SparkPalmerston North City Proposed Plan Changes 150 & 15G


5

(which currently primarily deals with replacement utility structures for mobile facilities

and telecommunication equipment cabinets in road reserve). Specifically the review is

looking at including provision for additional permitted facilities outside road reserve,

and to update some of the existing provisions for activities in road reserve. Proposals

for this second generation NESTF include permitted 25m high masts in Rural areas (to

assist with the RBI rollout); and specific permitted provisions for aerial fibre in urban

areas (to assist the UFB rollout). The proposals have been through a consultation and

submission process, and are in the process of being drafted into legislation (with the

amended NESTF expected to be place in early 2016).

» A fund to extend mobile coverage further into black spot areas of main highways and

key tourist areas has been signalled, and registrations of interest by parties to

participate in this project has recently closed.

13. The resilience of telecommunication networks is critical to people's health safety and wellbeing

during times of emergency, as highlighted in the 2010/2011 Canterbury earthquakes. In that

case, while fixed lines and some mobile phone sites were damaged, people were able to

continue to use the overall mobile network. As highlighted in the statement of Mr McCarrison,

resilience in relation to telecommunications is increased through multiple networks (i.e.

multiple providers), the availability of multiple technologies, and in the design of each network.

14. Telecommunications are a 'lifeline utility' under Part B of Schedule 1 of the Civil Defence

Emergency Management Act 2002. The Act places obligations on lifeline utility companies to

plan for and manage the impacts of emergency events on their networks.

15. Spark and Chorus are both major telecommunication providers within Palmerston North City.

Chorus owns and operates the local access telecommunications network including the fixed line

infrastructure (broadband), exchanges and microwave transmission sites. Chorus is in the

process of undertaking the UFB rollout in the urban areas of the City with over 70% of the

programme completed. In terms of the distribution of fibre, all the works to date have been

underground, other than where existing overhead fibre customer connections are replaced on

a 'like for like' basis.

16. Spark's network infrastructure is primarily associated with its mobile network. In conjunction

with Vodafone, Spark are involved in deployment of the RBI rollout. I understand from the

evidence of Graeme McCarrison that Spark has completed its rollout of the 4G network



6

upgrade in Palmerston North earlier this year. Currently their focus is on enhancing the capacity

of services in rural areas of Palmerston North and the Manawatu.

17. The networks of Chorus and Spark are subject to constant maintenance, modification,

upgrading; and the development of new infrastructure as the number of customers and

services increase and technology changes at a rapid place. To demonstrate just how quickly

this occurs, I note that there have been several changes in the requirements sought by Chorus

and Spark since the submissions to Proposed Plan Change lSG submissions were lodged. For

example, I have been advised by Mr McCarrison that the design of a standard panel antenna to

be deployed by Spark has recently increased to 1.5m' in area, which means that the 1.2m' area

limit in the plan change (which was not opposed by Chorus or Spark) will trigger resource

consents. Similarly, as detailed in Ms Barton's statement, Chorus has recently developed a

cable that can be surface mounted onto existing structures (such as fences) as a low impact

method connecting customers to fibre. As the ruies are currently drafted in the proposed plan

change this activity would require resource consent as an "above ground line".

18. There are technical and operational constraints associated with the delivery and operation of

telecommunications which mean that it is not always practicable to avoid, remedy of mitigate

all adverse effects. For example, the height, and the location of mobile phone facilities are

governed by the need to provide coverage to defined areas. With a need for greater capacity

to meet customer demands has translated into a requirement for more mobile phone facilities,

providing coverage to smaller areas that are closer to where people work, live and play. The

smaller coverage areas generally reduce the range of suitable alternative locations, and this is

even before other constraints such as constructability, cost and a willing landowner are taken

into account.

19. In summary, it is important to recognise that telecommunication networks:

~ Are a physical resource in terms of section 5 of the RMA;

~ Are essential to modern society, and demand for services is rapidly growing;

~ Have significant social and economic benefits, including in the health care, education

and the agricultural sectors. These benefits are recognised through a range of

government initiatives designed to SUbstantially improve the capacity of broadband

and mobile facilities and access by New Zealanders to it to meet economic and social

outcomes;

Chorus and Spark

Palmerston North City Proposed Plan Changes 15D & 15G

Evidence of Louise Miles

11 November 2015

7

~ Are an essential lifeline facility in terms of emergencies;

~ Are subject to constant maintenance, modification, upgrading; and the development of

new infrastructure as the number of customers and services increase and technology

changes at a rapid place.

~ Have technical and operational constraints, which mean that it is not always practicable

to avoid, remedy of mitigate all adverse effects.

20. In my opinion, these factors highlight the need to ensure that the provisions of district plans

adequately provide for these essential services, are flexible enough accommodate changing

needs and are certain as to the requirements that apply.

Scope of Evidence

Proposed Plan Change 150: Natural Hazards

21. Chorus (FS18/3) and Spark {FS22/3} lodged further submissions in support of Powerco's

submission (SOS9/13) seeking the inclusion of a 'Note to Plan Users' to make it clear that the

Natural Hazards chapter only applies to critical infrastructure. In a similar vein further

submissions were lodged in opposition to a submission from Palmerston North City Council

(S013/10) which requested a cross reference from the Section 23 Network Utilities to the

Natural Hazards provisions in Section 22.

22. I have reviewed a set of amended provisions for Section 23 Natural Hazards which now include

specific permitted activity rules for network utilities such as telecommunications and

radiocommunications.

23. I can confirm that these changes are acceptable to Chorus and Spark, and on this basis the

remainder of my evidence focuses on Proposed Plan Change 15G.

Proposed Plan Change 15G: Network Utilities

24. Spark and Chorus have similar interests in terms of the Network Utility plan provisions, and the

submissions made by them are the same, with the following few exceptions. These exceptions

are that the Chorus submission also sought changes to the provisions to allow for above ground

customer connections; while Spark also submitted on Policy 3.9 concerning community

engagement and provision for telephone kiosks as a permitted activity. In view of the common



8

interests and relief sought, one joint statement of evidence for both companies is provided,

with the areas of difference highlighted.

25. It is acknowledged that the Reporting Officer has been open to many of the requests made in

the submissions, or that the alternative relief recommended in the s42a report is acceptable. A

table summarising the Reporting Officer's recommendations that are accepted is provided in

Annexure A.

26. The table in Annexure B sets out the submissions which remain in contention following the

s42a report recommendations. The table provides a summary of the provision to which the

submission relates, the relief sought, the s42a recommendation, and the relief that Chorus and

Spark are seeking in response. These submissions are the focus of the evidence provided

below.

27. My evidence is organised to generally follow the sections provided in the s42a report. The relief

(and in some cases alternative amended relief) sought below is to the amended wording of the

plan change provisions as recommended by the Reporting Officer. The s42a report wording is

in italics. The changes I recommend are shown as bold and underline, and deleted text is

shown in stril~etAre~gA.

28. I note that the submissions from both Chorus and Spark included specific relief, or sought other

alternative relief to 'like effect'.

s42a Recommendations in Contention - Plan Change 15G: Network Utilities

C. Amendments to Section 4 - Definitions; 'Minor Upgrading'

Chorus 5041/28, Chorus 5041/29, Spark 5042/27, Spark 5042/28: paragraphs 6.24-6.32, pp 24

26 of the s42a report.

29. Chorus and Spark each submitted on the opening paragraph of 'Minor Upgrading' definition

(Chorus 5041/28 and Spark S042/27). The amendments sought to clarify that the definition

was not exclusive to electricity lines, or the items specifically listed within it. The Reporting

Officer has accepted these submission points, albeit with a slightly different wording which is

acceptable'.

3 See Annexure A attached, I.e. 542a recommendations accepted by Chorus and Spark

Chorus and Spark



11 November 2015

9

30. A second submission to the 'Minor Upgrading' definition (Chorus 5041/29 and Spark 5042/28)

requested the specific listing of two additional activities, both of these routinely undertaken

with less than minor adverse effects. The first of these activities is provision for replacement

poles in road reserve for the purposes of achieving road controlling authority clearance

requirements. The Reporting Officer recommends that the provision for replacement poles as

sought be accepted.

31. The other request from Chorus and Spark relates to a situation where there an antenna is to be

replaced with a new one on an existing mast. This may be to a mast which already exceeds the

permitted mast height limit, in which case resource consent would be required if the

replacement antenna is attached at a point on the mast that exceeds the district plan

permitted mast height.

32. The request was also seeking more flexible provisions generally for the replacement of

antennas to existing masts in terms of their size (provided the overall height of the mast is not

exceeded). Specifically this was to enable an antenna to be swapped out with another one

provided that they did not exceed more than 20% of the permitted maximum dimension or

area. However, in hindsight the wording of the relief sought did not make it entirely clear that

the 20% allowance was over and above the permitted size allowed in the Plan.

(x) The replacement af any antenna on an existing mast ar ather suppart structure with a new

one provided the new antenna daes not exceed the maximum dimension af the antenna, or the

diameter where it is a dish antenna, by mare than 20%, and the averall height of the facility to

which the antenna is attached daes not increase.

33. The Reporting Officer accepts the relief sought by Chorus and Spark, but recommends the

following addition (see blue highlighted text) below:

(x) The replacement of any antenna an an existing mast or ather support structure with a newone provided the new antenna daes not exceed the maximum dimension of the antenna, or thediameter where it is a dish antenna, by more than 20%, provided the permitted activityperformance standards in R23.7.1 far antennas are not exceeded and the overall height of thefacility ta which the antenna is attached does not increase.

34. I do not support the Reporting Officers amendment. As an unintended consequence the

wording proposed will mean that replacement antennas that are well below the permitted

antenna size could only be increased by 20% of the existing size (i.e. potentially fall short of the

permitted size allowed). In my view, there is no justification in terms of 'effects' in a greater

Chorus and Spark

Palmerston North City Proposed Plan Changes 150 & 15G


11 November 2015

10

restriction on the size of replacement antennas to existing masts compared with additional new

ones (either to a new mast, or additional ones on an existing mast).

35. I have prepared resource consent applications on a number of occasions for the replacement of

antennas to existing masts that exceed the permitted mast height, and for increases in the

replacement antenna size resulting in the permitted antenna size being exceeded. in my

opinion, resource consent applications for replacement antennas in these circumstances have

minimal visual adverse effects when viewed in the context of the existing structure. An

additional allowance for replacement antennas of 20% over and above the maximum permitted

antenna size in my view also allows greater flexibility to accommodate changing technologies,

and enables for the ongoing efficient use of an existing physical resource. All resource consent

applications that I have dealt with for replacement antennas have been non-notified, and

granted on the basis of less than minor adverse effects. For these reasons, I recommend that

the Panel adopt the relief requested by Chorus and Spark for the provision for replacement

antennas, with the folloWing additional amendments (or other relief to 'like effect').

36. A further minor correction is sought to correct the reference to the specific permitted activity

performance standard for 'Antennas'.

Amended relief requested by Chorus and Spark:

Amend item (xl' of the definition of 'Minor Upgrading' in Section 4 Definitions as follows:

The replacement of any antenna on an existing mast or other support structure with a new oneprovided the new antenna does not exceed the maximum dimension of the antenna, or thediameter where it is a dish antenna, b;' Ffl9Fe tl1lHl ta a maximum of20% over and abovefHe\~fiefi the permitted activity performance standards in R23.7d liflfor antennas....are nete;rceefiefi and the overall height of the facliity to which the antenna is attached does notincrease. '

G. Proposed Section 23: Network Utilities - Resource Management Issues (Issue 2)

Chorus 5041/2, Spark 5042/3, f/s support RNZ FS-17/7: paragraphs 6.57-6.60, page 32-33 of

s.42a report)

As recommended in s42a report

Section 23.2, Issue 2

<l Note that there is an issue with the numbering in the definition of 'Minor Upgrading' which needs to be rectified.

5 Note change, to the wording recommended in the ,42a report are in bold/underline: or 5Iril,el~re"g~.



11

The actual and potential adverse effects on the environment resulting from theestablishment, operation, maintenance and upgrode of network utilities and associatedinfrastructure.

37. In my opinion, a significant issue which District Plans need to acknowledge is that the effects of

network utilities (such as telecommunications and radiocommunications) need to be

'managed'. The Chorus and Spark submissions requested inclusion of this word into Issue 2

above.

38. I consider that specific reference to management of effects is appropriate in the context of the

technical and operational constraints (which mean that it is not always practicable to avoid,

remedy or mitigate all adverse effects), and considering the essential nature of these works and

the benefits that derive from them. This is recognised, at paragraph 12 of Section 23.1

Introduction of the proposed plan change, where is stated that:

"It is also important to recognise that due to technical or operotional constroints it is not always

possible to avoid, remedy or mitigate the adverse effects associated with the establishment,

operotion or maintenance of network utilities"....The Plan includes provisions to manage

adverse effects resulting from the establishment, operation, maintenance, and upgrade of

network utilities and associated infrastructure, as well as providing a means to recognise and

acknowledge the benefits that network utilities have". (my emphasis).

39. The management of effects is also acknowledged in the following extract from the first

paragraph in the Explanation to the Resource Management Issues in Section 23:

... It is therefore important that local, regional and national benefits of network utilities be

recognised, and adequate provision be made....However, it is also important that the Plan allow

for the effective management of potential adverse effects network utilities may generate on the

receiving environment.

40. From a review of the One Plan, Policy 3_3' also frames consideration of adverse effects of

infrastructure in terms of the effects being 'managed' as follows:

"In managing any adverse environmental effects arising from the establishment, operation,

maintenance and upgrading of infrastructure...The Reporting Officer rejects the Chorus and

Spark submissions on the basis that wording to Issue 2 "attempts to define the desired

6 One Plan, Chapter 3: Infrastructure, Energy, Waste, Hazardous Substances and Contaminated land, Policy 3-3, page 3-7.

Chorus and Spark



11 November 2015

12

solution". Similarly, the Reporting Officer considers that the proposed amendment to the

Explanation proposes whot the Plan will do with respect to resolving the resource monagement

issues, rather than add to the plan users' understanding of the Issue Itself. In the opinion of the

Reporting Officer this approach does not align with "best practice".

41. I generally disagree with the Reporting Officer's analysis. As highlighted above, I consider that

a key issue is the need to balance adverse effects against constraints and benefits and the

reference "manage" in my view signals this. Further, i consider that the proposed addition of

the sentence to the second paragraph of the Explanation is useful in explaining to Plan Users

why it is necessary to manage effects. It also balances out the discussion in this paragraph

which currently focuses on adverse effects generated by network utilities.

42. I do agree however, that is unnecessary to repeat the reference to technical and operational

constraints in the issue, and consider that this text is more appropriately part of the

explanatory statement. For these reasons, I recommend that the following amended relief be

accepted, or other relief to 'like effect'.

Amended relief requested by Chorus and Spark:

Amend Issue 2 as follows:The need to manage the actual and potential adverse effects on the environment resulting fromthe estoblishment, operation, maintenance and upgrade of netwark utilities and associatedInfrastructure.

Amend paragraph 2 of the Explanation following the 'Issues' as follows:Netwark utilities comprise a wide range of structures with varying degrees of Impact on theenvironment. As weif as impacting upon visual amenity, the estoblishment, operationmointenance and upgrade of network utilities can lead to other adverse effects .......on publichealth and safety. The Plan seeks to manage the adverse effects while recognising that insome cases some level of adverse effect will need to be accepted in recognition of thenecessity ofthe works and their technical and operational reguirements.

General Submission - Terminology (across Section 23)

Chorus S041/5, Spark S042/4: NZ FS-17/7: paragraphs 6.67-6.68, page 35 of the s42a report

43. The relief requested by Chorus and Spark is that consistent terminology be utilised throughout

Section 23.

44. The Reporting Officer comments that the commonly used phrase in the Network Utilities

section is "establishment, operation, maintenance and minor upgrading", and that this wording



13

is intended to align with the Regional Policy Statement. However, from a review of the

provisions in the proposed plan change, I consider that the terminology utilised is inconsistent

(as identified in the Chorus and Spark submissions). For example:

• The policy framework generally uses the terminology establishment, operation,

maintenance and upgrading

• Permitted Activities Rule 23.7.2 The establishment, operation, maintenance, minor

upgrade and removal of ...

• Performance Standard 23.7.2(d)(i) (b) where the maintenance, repair, replacement and

minor upgrading of ...

• Restricted Discretionary Activity Rule R23.9.1 (which applies to telecommunication

activities that cannot comply with specified permitted performance standards).

Construction, Alteration or Addition to a Network Utility BUilding or Structure Housing a

Netwark Utility which does not ...

• The Discretionary Activity default R23.10.1 refers to " .... the construction, operation,

alteration or addition to the following structures.....

(vi) Telecommunication lines, links, works and facilities not being ...

45. I am unaware of an absolute requirement that the terminology used in the Regional Policy

Statement must be carried over into District Plans (and in this case as highlighted above, it has

not been applied consistently in any case). Of particular concern is that the new terminology

adopted from the One Plan has only been inserted in relation to the permitted rules, with the

default rules retaining the terminology used in the Operative Plan {this being "construction,

alteration and addition}. In my view this creates uncertainty as to which default rules apply.

46. The Chorus and Spark submissions also expressed concern that the definition of 'Minor

Upgrading' (which is used in the permitted activity rules) is narrow, and that some routine

'upgrading' activities with minimal effects will not fall under this definition. For example, the

replacement of a network utility mast with another is not provided for under the definition of

"Minor Upgrading' and it is unclear if it would come under "establishment" as it would not be a

new mast. The outcome of this is that it could be interpreted in cases where 'upgrading' works

were outside the scope of the 'Minor Upgrading' definition, that they would automatically

default straight to Discretionary Activity under the 'catch all' rule for telecommunications

(R23.10.1(vi)) - even in circumstances when the permitted performance standards could be

met. I consider that application of Discretionary Activity status to upgrading activities that

Chorus and Spark



11 November 2015

14

could comply with the permitted performance standards otherwise is unwarranted in terms of

the limited adverse effects generated.

47. For these reasons I recommend that the wording requested in the Chorus and Spark

submissions (which covers all the terms used in Section 23 Network Utilities) be adopted, and

consistently applied (as relevant) in the policy framework and the permitted and default rules.

Relief requested by Chorus and Spark:

That the terminology "construction, operation, maintenance including repair and replacement

and upgrading" be applied consistently, as applicable, throughout Section 23.

H. Section 23: Network Utilities - Objectives, Policies and Explanations: Policies 2.1 and 2.2

Chorus S041/8, Chorus S041/9, Spark S042/7, S042/8, Transpower further submissions

opposition FS-ll/12 and FS-17/7: paragraphs 6.71-6.76, pp36-38 of the s42a report

48. Objective 2 and the associated Policies 2.1 to 2.3 (inclusive) deal with the provision of regionally

and nationally important network utilities. Telecommunications and radiocommunciaiotns are

expressly identified in this category under Policy 1.1 iv.

49. As proposed in the s42a report, Policies 2.1 and 2.2 would read as follows:

Policy 2.1To permit the operation, maintenance and upgrading of existing regionally or nationallyimportant network utilities where such works or activities can be carried out withoutsignificantly changing the character, intensity or scale of the adverse effects associated withthem.

Policy 2.2To enable the aperation, maintenance and upgrading of existing regionally or nationallyimportant network utilities and the establishment of new regionally or nationally importantnetwork utilities, pravided that the adverse effects are avoided, remedied or mitigated, havingregard to:

i the benefits of the worksIi any functional, technical and operational requirements and constraints; andIii the way adverse effects have been managed through the route and site selection process.

50. Chorus and Spark do not wish to pursue the relief sought in relation to Policy 2.1 (Chorus

S041/8 and Spark S042/7). It is noted that the Transpower further submissions in opposition

(FS-ll/12 and FS-17/7) were in relation to these submissions only.



15

51. Similarly, Chorus and Spark accept the Reporting Officer's recommendations in relation to the

changes requested to Policy 2.2 (S041/9 and 5042/8), with the exception that inclusion of the

proviso "to the extent practicable" be included as follows:

To enable the operation, maintenance and upgrading of existing regionally or nationally

important network utilities and the establishment of new regionally or nationally important

network utilities, provided that the adverse effects are avoided, remedied or mitigated to the

extent practicable, having regard to: ..

52. The Reporting Officer rejects the inclusion of this qualification, commenting that in her opinion

it does not add any clarity to the Policy'.

53. I disagree with the Reporting Officer. As highlighted in the discussion on Issue 2 earlier in this

evidence, the effects of network utilities need to be managed, recognising their constraints and

the benefits to society derived from the services provided. While Policy 2.2 acknowledges and

requires that regard be taken of the constraints and benefits, the addition of the words "to the

extent practicable" in my view clearly signals and clarifies to the Plan User that the ability to

avoid, remedy or mitigate all adverse effects associated with network utilities is not an

absolute. I consider that this approach is consistent with the recognition in Policy 3-3 of the

One Plan which is to allow minor adverse effects arising from the establishment of new

infrastructure of regional or national importance i.e. sending a message that not all adverse

effects are required to be avoided, remedied or mitigated.

Amended Relief requested by Chorus and Spark

That Policy 2.2 be amended as follows:To enable the operation, maintenance and upgrading of existing regionally or nationally

important network utilities and the establishment of new regionally or nationally important

network utilities, provided that the adverse effects are avoided, remedied or mitigated to the

extent practicable, having regard to: ..

7 Paragraph 6.75 of the s42A report

Chorus and Spark



11 November 2015

16

H. Section 23: Network Utilities - Objectives. Policies and Explanations; Policy 3.9

Spark (S042/12): paragraph 6.88, page 39 of the s42a report

54. Policy 3.9 as currently proposed is:

To encourage network uti/ity providers to engage with communities affected by the

establishment of new network uti/ities and by their subsequent operation, maintenance and

upgrade.

55. From my experience working on various resource management projects for Spark and Chorus,

community engagement is standard practice in relation to a number of business as usual

activities. For example, Chorus advises neighbours of the installation of small

telecommunication cabinets in road reserve (permitted under the NESTF), with an opportunity

for neighbours to comment. I am aware of a number of occasions where proposed cabinet

locations have been subsequently moved to accommodate neighbours. Similarly, Spark as

standard practice advises neighbours in advance of the establishment of proposed mobile

phone facilities even when they are not required to do so, such as in cases where the facilities

are permitted by the District Plan, or no written approvals area required under the RMA. I have

attached to my evidence a copy of the Telecommunications Carriers Forum Community

Engagement GUidelines for Wireless Telecommunication Facilities, which I understand is

utilised by both Spark and Chorus.

56. Notwithstanding that Chorus and Spark do engage with the community on various aspects of

their operations, I agree with Spark's submission that as currently proposed Policy 3.9 signals

an unrealistic and unreasonable expectation that utility operators will potentially engage on ;ill

aspects of work undertaken (including the operation, maintenance, and minor upgrading

works).

57. It is unclear why this policy has been applied specifically to network utilities - as the Explanation

to the policy simply reiterates the policy.

58. It is stated in the s42a report that the policy is not supported by any regulatory methods, such

as rules, so does not impose a regulatory burden in itself. In mind this calls into question the

value of the policy, particularly given the unrealistic expectations that it may signal to

community.



17

59. For these reasons I recommend that the policy be deleted as requested in Spark's original

submission. Alternatively (as less preferred relief), I have suggested some wording that would

tailor the policy application to new works or upgrading where there are likely to be significant

adverse effects (refer item (ii) of the amended relief below).

Relief reauested bv Snark:

Either:

(i) Delete Policy 3.9 as originally requested;

Or alternatively:

(ii) Amend Policy 3.9 as follows:

To encourage network utility providers to engage with communities that may be

significantly adversely affected by the establishment of new network utilities and by their

s!llaseEf!leRt eperatifJR, RlfJiRteRfmee GRrl upgrade.

I Permitted Activity Rules: Rule 23.7.1

Chorus 5041/14, Spark (5042/13) paragraphs 6.96 - 6.99, pp 41-42 of the s42a report

60. The submissions lodged by Chorus and Spark to permitted Rule R23.7.18 seek clear permitted

provision for telecommunication facilities. This has been accepted in the s42a report with a

specific exclusion in the generic permitted rule for telecommunications line, links, works and

facilities in R23.7.2 (iii) back to the specific activities provided in the permitted rule R23.7.2 (iv)

(this rule being specifically concerned with antennas, masts and poles). To achieve consistency

I have also identified that a similar exclusion to the telecommunication facilities listed in Rule

R23.7.2 (ix) I.e. telephone kiosks and telecommunication cabinets should be inserted into

R23.7.2 (iii).

61. Another concern raised in the Chorus and Spark submissions is that the performance standards

listed potentially apply to all activities, whether new facilities; or the upgrading, minor

upgrading, replacement, or maintenance of existing facilities. I consider this broad application

to be unreasonable in terms of the standards that could be potentially applied to maintenance,

replacement, repair and minor upgrading activities which by their very nature have little

adverse effect (in particular, it should be clear that standards such as those relating to height,

setbacks do not apply). The Reporting Officer accepts an amendment proposed in the Chorus

Sit is noted that Rule 23.7.1 referred to the submissions has been renumbered to Rule 23.7.21n the s42a report.



18

and Spark's submissions to require compliance with the 'relevant' performance standards. In

my view on its own this does not go meet the concerns raised, and it is inefficient - with the

Plan User required to work through the rules to establish if these minor activities are permitted

or not.

62. I recommend that the relief requested in the Chorus and Spark submissions be adopted with

some minor changes. The recommended changes to the original relief sought in the Chorus and

Spark submissions are to provide consistency with the terminology requested in other relief

sought in this evidence, and to indude reference to the permitted activity performance

standard for Noise.

Amended Relief requested by Chorus and Spark:

Amend R23.7.2 (iii) as follows:

Telecommunications and radiocommunication lines, links, works and facilities not otherwise

provided in item~ (Iv), (ix) and (xiii below.

Insert new permitted activity in Rule R23.7.2 (xii) as follows:Maintenance (including repair and replacement) and minor upgrading of

telecommunication and radiocommunication facilities, subject to compliance with

performance standards (b) W} (hi and (i) as applicable.

I Permitted Activity Rules: Rule 23.7.1. Performance Standard (a) Height (i) and Definition of

Utility Structure in Section 4 Definitions

Chorus 5041/15, Chorus 5041/16, Spark 5042/15, Spark 5042/16: paragraphs 6.102 - 6.103,

page 43 of the s42a report.

63. The Chorus and Spark submissions expressed concerns regarding the definition of 'Utility

Structure', and also how this definition relates to the performance standard 23.7.2 (a) (i))

regarding the height of utility structures. The replacement definition of 'Utility Structure' as

recommended in the s42a report generally resoives the issues highlighted with the definition

and relationship to the performance standard. The one exception is that the reference to

'telephone booth' in the new 'Utility Structure' definition needs to be amended to 'telephone

kiosk', to align it with the wording in permitted Rule R23.7.2(ix).

64. The submissions also sought an exemption from the height limit in performance standard Rule

23.7.2 (a) (i) for building mounted equipment cabinets. Building mounted antennas and

Chorus and Spark Evidence of Louise MilesPalmerston North City Proposed Plan Changes 15D & 15G 11 November 2015

19

equipment cabinets are routinely deployed on multi-story bUildings, particularly in business and

commercial areas, and on institutional bUildings such as hospitals and universities. In my

opinion, these are a great solution in these areas, generating minimal adverse effects.

Typically, the panels are mounted on top of the roof or to the side of the building and the

associated cabinets are generally either located within bUildings (if there is room and this

option is feasible), or more commonly located externally, most commonly on top of buildings.

Equipment cabinets are typically less than 2m in height and 2m' in area.

ltFT SHAFT

.W CADLE TRAY TO R\JtjO[UtAnl CAO"n:T AN)COUNECT IUTO EXlStitlO ROUTE

®SECTIONk:>le:llm

SPARK tEVi ZEAl..AlmonCCA61t«:T

tlEW WAll OAACKETSFIXEO IUTO LIFT 51","WAlL T06!J>PORTCAl!.Il'IET

UEW 'UO:a<EY TOE"WAU<V/AY

The cabinet is 1.6m (hi x 1.6m (wi x O.9m (d)

The building to the left is the lift shaft. The

cabinet Is to the right of this.

EMERSON STREET

L~l

0"321$$0

o

EXISnUG COVEREDTRAY CAOCE ROUTES

SPARK UEW lUlAtD OIAUW4GACCESS II1A STREET FROUT

SITE PLANScale:: 1:250

- - - - ,,--n=~====,.-.;f5I&r""i""'l~====7iTrI I~

II-

:fUE IilIII .• I I I "I

nOOFlOps(I(lOW -H"'----B1".'0

PARAP~TWAll -

IIIII

__ ..1- _

Chorus and SparkPalmerslon North Cily Proposed Plan Changes 15D & 15G


20

The location of the cabinet is shown In red hatch on the Site Plan of the building roof.

Example of a building mounted telecommunication cabinet mounted on a rooftop next to a

lift shaft at 100 Emerson Street Napier. Resource consent was granted September 2014.

6S. Over the years I have prepared a number of resource consents for the placement of cabinets on

the top of buildings that exceed the permitted zone height in district pians. This was

particularly prevalent in Wellington City until a recent Pian Change (PC 74) clarified that the

measurement of footprint and height was to be of the cabinet itself, rather than the height

above ground. Consents have also been required for this reason for building mounted

equipment cabinets in Napier City and Hasting City. In all cases that I have worked on the

adverse effects have been minimal, and for the majority the cabinets were not visible from

ground level, sitting behind a parapet, or back from the building edge.

66. In view of the small size of routine telecommunication equipment cabinets deployed, and the

low potential for any significant adverse effects to be generated (particularly in the context of

much larger host bUildings and other structures on roof tops such as lift shafts, air conditioning

units), in my opinion, there is no benefit in plan rules that would trigger consent for this type of

activity. This is demonstrated in the example of a recent cabinet installation in Napier City,

which required resource consent for this exact reason.

67. The Reporting Officer has not accepted this part of the submission, citing visual effects and the

possibility of compromising airport take off and approach paths in the reasons given. I note

that there is no specific rule for telecommunication cabinet's, which come under the general

zone provisions for height, and the general requirements for utility building size of up to 10m'

(refer Rule R23.7.2 (ell". Taking the Reporting Officers concerns into account, and noting the

Chorus and Spark



11 November 2015

21

building size allowed by the rules, I recommend amended relief which introduces a size and

height limit for telecommunication cabinets of up to 2m high and 2m' in area from compliance

with the height rule in R23.7.2 (a) (i) as follows:

Amended Relief reauested bv Chorus and 5llark:

Amend Rule 23.7.2, Performance Standard (a) (i) as follows:

All above ground utility structures, except lines, masts, antennas and their brackets or

attachments, and building mounted telecommunication cabinets that do not exceed 2m2 in

area or 2m high, must comply with the maximum height control and any height recession

planes for any zone In which they ore located. The height recession plane shall not apply to

the boundary of a road, road reserve, or service lane.

Chorus and Spark

Palmerston North City Proposed Pian Changes 150 & 15G


11 November 2015

22

I Permitted Activity Rules: Rule 23.7.1. Performance Standard (a) Height /iii}

Chorus 5041/17, Spark 5042/17: paragraph 6.104, pp43, 44 of the s42a report

68. Chorus and Spark generally agree with the proposed height provisions for masts. In particular

the increase in the permitted height in the Inner Business, Industrial and Airport Zones from

20m to 25m, with a further 3m allowance where two or more utility providers co-locate is

supported (R23.7.2 Performance Standard (a) (iii) and (iv)).

69. The Chorus and Spark submissions seek that the mast height in the Rural zone likewise be

increased from 20m as proposed to 25m. This is rejected by the Reporting Officer on the basis

that the permitted 20m mast is a generous allowance, and the Restricted Discretionary Activity

status where this cannot be complied with allows an appropriate level of scrutiny.

70. I agree with the submissions by Chorus and Spark on this matter. Like the Industrial and

Commercial zones (where masts up to 28m high would be permitted), I consider that the Rural

zone is a less sensitive zone where a higher mast height is acceptable (outside identified areas

of Outstanding Landscape or Natural Areas). From my observations, the Rural zone in the

Palmerston North area is generally a working farming area. Viewing distances tend to be large,

and in my opinion, a 5m height increase can be visually absorbed.

71. As previously alluded to, the RBI rollout is resulting in the installation of new mobile masts. The

Government's specifications for this rollout include that these masts be a minimum of 25m

high, and that they be "open access" I.e. designed with sufficient structural capacity and space

to support equipment for up to six operators on the one mast. The open access and co-location

of equipment on the RBi facilities will reduce the proliferation of masts that would otherwise

be built by various operators, with resulting visual benefit. Outside the RBI rollout, generally I

have observed that there is a much greater degree of co-location occurring on masts now than

was the case in the past.

72. The addition of 5m would increase the likelihood that co-location (which is encouraged through

proposed Policy 3.5) will occur, as it enables vertical separation between antennas - which is

necessary to prevent two operators networks from interfering with each other. This is both in

the development of new masts, and the ability to retrofit existing masts to support co-location

as shown in the figure below.

Chorus and Spark



11 November 2015

· .23

HOO'illl.,Ii----!U.>)t~Mi1

Diagram and photo of a rural/industrial monopole modified to support co-location". The example

Is of a 30m mast.

73. As discussed earlier, the second generation NESTF that is currently in development proposes

permitted 25m masts in Rural areas throughout the country, provided that the mast is not in

scheduled area or site subject to special rules e.g. outstanding landscapes or features. The

draft provision also includes a setback requirement that an antenna on a mast is not located

closer than 50m from the closest external wall of a dwelling, residential home, educational

facility, or church. This could be added to the setback performance standards in R23.7 .2 (j)

Setbacks to make sure that there is adequate separation from sensitive activities.

9Source, page 24, Proposed Amendments to the National Environmental Standards for Telecommunication Facilities.



24


Either:

(i) Amend Rule R23.7.2 Performance Standard (a) (iii) as follows:

Rural Zone ;W 25 metres;

Or alternatively (amended lesser relief):

(i) Amend Rule R23.7.2 Performance Standard (a) (iii) as follows;

Rural Zone ;W 25 metres; and

(ii) Amend Rule R23.7.2 Performance Standard (j ) to include a new setback provision

as follows:

In the case of a new mast between 20-25m in height In the Rural Zone, the antenna are

not located closer than 50m from the closest external wall of a dwelling, residential

home, educational facility, or church.

I Permitted Activity Rules: Rule 23.7.1. Performance Standard (fl Antennas

Chorus 5041/20, Spark 5042/19: paragraph 6.19, page 23 of the s42a report.

74. Performance standards R23.7.1 (f) i and ii respectively set out the maximum diameter and area

requirements for antennas. A 'Note to Plan Users' prOVides advice on how the measurement of

antennas is to be undertaken.

75. The definition of 'Antenna' recommended in the s.42a report antennas includes "the antenna

mounting and ancillary components such as radio frequency units, amplifiers, controller boxes

or similar devices..." I.e. it goes wider than just the antenna structure itself.

76. Chorus and Spark sought changes to the first sentence of the 'Note to Plan Users' to generally

align the wording (in terms of the ancillary components to be excluded from the measurement

of Antenna area), with that used in the 'Antenna' definition.

77. The Reporting Officer has rejected this request, and instead recommends that the whole of the

first sentence of the 'Note to Users' be deleted 'o.This is on the basis that the Officer considers

the combination of the definition of 'Antenna" and the Performance Standard R23.7.1 (f)

negates the need for the Note.

10 It is noted that the Officer's recommendation In AppendiX l/Summary of recommended decisions on submissions to ppe15G incorrectly refers to these submissions as being accepted.

Chorus and Spark



11 November 2015

25

78. I disagree with the Reporting Officer on this. By deleting this part of the 'Note' the effect is that

when measuring the diameter or area of antennas the ancillary components would need to be

included. I consider this to be unreasonable particulariy due to the small size of these

components, some of which are located behind other equipment. It is also inconsistent with

the approach adopted by a number of other Council's in recent plan changes i.e. Porirua City,

Hutt City and Upper Hutt City.

79. Two minor changes are also required to the introduction to the 'Note'. They include an

amendment to make it clear that the height of antennas is covered in both performance

standards (aHiI) and (aHili); as well as to remove reference to 'Aerials' (which as a result of the

Officer's recommendations would come under the umbrella of the 'Antenna' definition).

Relief reauested bv Chorus and Snark:

Amend the NOTE TO PLAN USERS as follows:This Rule is to be read in conjunction with Rule 23.7.1(a) (Ii) and (iii) which refers to theheight of flerifl!s flRd antennas.

in relation to Rule 23.7.1(0 the mountinqs of any antenna and any ancillary components,

!includinq radio frequency equipment or similar devices such as amplifiers and controller

boxes) shall not be included in the measurement of each antenna provided that the device

is smaller in area or diameter than the antenna Itself Any antenna only need meet the area

or diameter measurement, as appropriate to the type of antenna and the measure is of each

individual antenna and not a cumulative measurement.

Iii Restricted Discretionary Activity Rules - Rule 23.9.1 (iii)

Chorus 5041/23, Spark 5042/22: paragraph 6.164, page 58 of the s42a report

80. Rule R23.9.1 is the default Restricted Discretionary Activity rule for network utilities that cannot

comply with specified performance standards. This rule applies in situations where the

permitted diameter standard for dish antennas (R23.7.2 (f) i) is not complied with. Submissions

from Chorus and Spark requested that this default status also be applied in cases where the

permitted performance standard R23.7.2 (f) for antenna 'area' (which applies to panel

antennas) is not met. It is assumed in the s42a report that the changes made to the definition

of 'Antenna' address this matter (at paragraph 6.164 of the s42a report), however, I do not

agree with this assessment as 'Area' is not a matter specifically listed.

Chorus and Sparkpalmerston North City Proposed Plan Changes 15D & 15G


26

81. In my opinion, a default status of Restricted Discretionary Activity is appropriate in cases where

a panel antenna cannot met the permitted area performance standard. Further, I note that this

default activity status is commonly used in district plans for a non-compliance of this nature.


Amend Rule 23.9.1(lIi) as follows:

Diameter or Area Standards for Antennas;

Customer Connections (Chorus only)

Chorus 5041/12, Transpower F5-11/8 (support in part) - relates to Policy 3.4

Chorus 5041/19 - relates to Rule R23.7.1{d) (i) - (renumbered to R23.7.2(d) (i))

82. The Chorus submissions to Policy 3.4 and Rule R23.7.2(d) (i) sought amendments to provide for

aerial customer connections. A customer connection is the section of line that extends from

the distribution line (which is generally in road) across to the customers building.

83. As outlined in the evidence of Ms Barton, in Palmerston North City customer connections are

generally undertaken underground, or more recently by way of surface mounted cables (similar

to the provision of a number of other utility services to customers). The cables are small in size

and are affixed to existing structures as shown in the photographs provided by Ms Barton.

There are significant benefits of provisioning in this manner notably that it avoids the need to

undertake civil works such as digging up driveways and footpaths resulting in quicker and more

cost effective deployment. I consider that the adverse effects of customer connections in this

manner, which is similar to the way other utilities are commonly deployed, is minimal as

demonstrated in the material provided by Ms Barton.

84. The provision of customer connections by surface mounted cables as a permitted activity in the

operative plan has recently been questioned by a member of the public (as the cables are not

below the ground). The same issue applies to the proposed plan change provisions.

85. Overhead aerial customer connections in the manner requested are commonly a permitted

activity in District Plans throughout the country, and from my experience the adverse visual

effects are less than minor. However, in this case Chorus is happy to accept as an alternative

that the relief requested be substantially narrowed down to only provide for surface mounted

customer connections (rather than by overhead lines from existing support poles). I support

this approach as a pragmatic compromise. In my view this proposed amendment within the

Chorus and SparkPalmerston North City Proposed Plan Changes 15D & 158


27

scope of the original submission as it relates to the provision of customer connections, and is

lesser relief (With the scope of customer connections significantly reduced).

Relief requested by Chorus

Amend Policy 3.4 to add a new bullet point as follows:

To require the placement of network utilities underground unless:

• they are customer connections and they are attached to above ground structures

Amend Rule R23.7.2 (d) (i) to insert new item (d) as follows (or to like effect):

where lines are to provide customer connections and they are attached to above groundstructures.

louise Miles

11 November 2015

Chorus and Spark


Evidence of louise Miles

11 November 2015

ANNEXURE A: Chorus/Spark Submissions Accepted

Chorus/ Spark , Plan Provision s42a Recommendation Chorus/ Spark •.Submission Ref. Position / •..

Chorus 5041/24 Section 4- Accept AcceptSpark 5042/25 Definition of Aerial

Chorus 5041/25 Section 4- Accept AcceptSpark 5042/23 Definition of

Antenna

Chorus 5041/26 Section 4- Accept AcceptSpark 5042/24 Definition of

Antenna Dish

Chorus 5041/27 Section 4- Accept AcceptSpark 5042/26 Definition of Mast

Chorus 5041/27 Section 4- Reject in Appendix 1, but AcceptSpark 5042/28 Definition of Minor accepted in part in the s42a

Upgrading'- report

Chorus FS·18/6 Section 23- Accept Accept.Spark FS-22/6 Utilities, Explanation

to the Objectivesand Policies

Chorus FS-18/1 Cross referencing to Reject Accept. The changesSpark FS·22/1 Section 22: Natural to the Natural

Hazards Hazards sectionresolve the concernswith the applicationof the NaturalHazards rules.

Chorus 5041/1 23.1-lntroduction Accept AcceptSpark 5042/1

Chorus 5041/2 23.2 Resource Accept AcceptSpark 5042/2 Management Issue

1

Chorus FS·18/5 23.2 Resource Accept AcceptSpark FS-22/5 Management Issue

2

Chorus 5041/4 23.2 Resource Accept AcceptSpark 5042/4 Management Issue

3

Chorus 5041/6 23.3 Objective 1 Accept AcceptSpark 5042/6

Chorus 5041/7 23.3 Policy 1.1 Accept in part AcceptNo referenceprovided for theSpark submission onsame point

Chorus 5041/10 23.3. Policy 2.3 Accept in part AcceptSpark 5042/9

Chorus 5041/11 23.3 Policy 3.2 Accept AcceptSpark 5042/10

I Note that submissions Chorus 5041/29 and 5park 5042/28 are also concerned with the definition of 'MinorUpgrading'. The s42a recommendations on these submissions are not accepted.

ANNEXURE A: Chorus/Spark Submissions Accepted

Chorus/ Spark' ' . Plan Provision . s42a Recommendation Chorus/ Spark' :'Submission Ref. . .' .. • Position' .;

Chorus 5041/13 23.3. Policy 3.5 Accept AcceptSpark 5042/11Chorus FS-18/4 23.3. Policy 3.5 Accept AcceptSpark FS-22/4Chorus 5041/21 R23.7.1 (a) (iv) Accept in part AcceptChorus 5041/22 RadiofrequencySpark 5042/20Spark 5042/21

Chorus 5041/18 R23.7.1{a) (iv) Accept AcceptSpark 5042/18 Co-location

Spark 5042/14 R23.7.1(ix) Accept Accept

ANNEXURE B: Chorus/Spark Submissions Rejected

'SU.b.m:SsiO~; > \·;.,:·"C~oiLis/spark SUb~i,s~ion Wording. ".' f .. ~) ",' ,- "";"m .: ,.. ,. "Jr. : ~ Plan' PrclVisiori- 'rs42a '. . . Chorus/ Spark/Relief Sought (to PC lSG as amended by the s42a recommendations)Ref. . . •.•• c., . , . " .. . .....:.. . , .' .' IRecommendation . . ,Chorus 5041/29Spark 5042/28

Chorus 5041/3Spark 5042/3

Amend the definition of "Minor Upgrading" to inciude the followingadditional items:

the replacement of any antenna on an existing mast or other

support structure with a new one provided the new antenna

does not exceed the maximum dimension of the antenna, or the

diameter where it is a dish antenna, by more than 20%, and the

overall height of the facility to which the antenna is attached

does not increase.

an increase in the height of replacement poles in road reserve bya maximum of 1m for the purpose of achieving road controllingauthority clearance requirements provided that the permittedzone height is not exceeded; and/or the replacement of anexisting pole in road reserve within 2m horizontal distance of theexisting.

As currently drafted, Issue 2 and the associated Explanation do notadequately recognise that adverse effects may not always be able to beavoided, remedied or mitigated due to the technical and operationalconstraints of network utilities (as acknowledged in 23.1 Introduction(paragraph 3 on page 491). In this context the effects need to be'managed'.

Amend Issue 2 as follows:The actual and fietential need to manage the adverse effects on theenvironment resulting from the establishment, operation, maintenanceand upgrade of network utilities and associated infrastructure, whilerecognising that not all adverse effects may be able to be avoided,remedied or mitigated due to their technical and operationalconstraints.

Amend Paragraph 2 of the Explanation as follows:Network utilities comprise a wide range of structures with varyingdegrees of impact on the environment. As well as impacting upon visualamenity, the establishment, operation maintenance and upgrade ofnetwork utilities can lead to other adverse effects ....... on public healthand safety. The Plan seeks to manage the adverse effects whilerecognising that in some cases some level of adverse effect will needto be accepted in recognition of the necessity of the works and theirtechnical and operational requirements.

Section 4:Definition of'Minor Upgrading'

23.2 Issue 2 andassociatedExplanation

Accept

Reject

Amended relief sought:

Amend item (x) of the definition of 'Minor Upgrading' in Section 4 Definitions as follows:The replacement of any antenna on an existing mast or other support structure with a newone provided the new antenna does not exceed the maximum dimension of the antenna, orthe diameter where it is a dish antenna, /}y-rneH! tllaR to a maximum of20% over and above{>revided the permitted activity performance standards in R23.7;1; UJl.for antennasLere nete!f£eeded and the overoll height of the facility to which the antenna is attached does notincrease.


Amend Issue 2 as follows:The need to manage the actual and potential adverse effects on the environment resultingfrom the establishment, operation, maintenance and upgrade of network utilities andassociated infrastructure.

Amend paragraph 2 of the Explanation following the 'Issues' as follows:Network utilities comprise a wide range of structures with varying degrees of impact on theenvironment. As well as impacting upon visual amenity, the establishment, operationmaintenance and upgrade of network utilities can lead to ather adverse effects .......on publichealth and safety. The Plan seeks to manage the adverse effects while recognising that insome cases some level of adverse effect will need to be accepted in recognition of thenecessity of the works and their technical and operational requirements.

Chorus 5041/5,Spark 5042/4

The phrase "establishment, operation, maintenance and upgrading" is General- acrosscommonly used in section 23. It is considered that the phrase Section 23potentially creates uncertainty as to what is being enabled for anetwork utility. The definition of minor upgrade is essentially restrictedto electricity and makes little provision for upgrading equipment orrealignment of lines or other changes that will be required to ensurethat the network can be efficiently maintained and upgraded withoutundue or uncertainty to what is permitted.

Reject Original relief sought:

That the terminology "construction. operation, maintenance including repair andreplacement and upgrading" be applied consistently, as applicable, throughout Section 23.


That the phrase "establishment, operation, maintenance andupgrading" be replaced with Construction, operation, maintenanceincluding repair and replacement and upgrading,

Chorus 5041/8,5041/9Spark 5042/7,5042/8

Amend Policy 2.1 as follows:To permit the operation, maintenance and upgrading of existingregionally or nationally important network utilities that result in minoror less than minor adverse effects. V}Re,'e sueR VJe.<k5 eo' QGt'",,'ties GQnbe GQo'rled eut vJitReut slqn/f.lGQntJf/ GRQnqinq IRe GRQr£lGtelJ lntensity£If sGQle £If IRe Qdverse effeGt5 QsseGiQted \'liIR IRem,

Amend Policy 2.2 as follows:To enable tRe epe.'£Itien, mQintenQnGe Qnd upg.'£It#ng £If exist'ngreglenQUy eo' nQtienQ~'y impeo'wnt netVJel;~ uti#tles Qnd theestablishment of new regionally or nationally important networkutilities, pravided that the adverse effects are avoided, remedied ormitigated to the extent practicable. having regard to .....

Make changes to the Explanation for Policies 2.1 and 2.2 as necessary toreflect the amendments above, including making it clear that Policy 2.1applies to the operation, maintenance and upgrading of regionally ornationally important network utilities, while and Policy 2.2 provides fornew regionally or nationally important network utilities.

Section 23,Policies 2.1 and2.2

Reject Amended relief sought:

That Policy 2.2 be amended as follows:To enabie the operation, maintenance and upgrading of existing regionally or nationallyimportant network utilities and the establishment of new regionally or nationally importantnetwork utilities, provided that the adverse effects are avoided, remedied or mitigated to theextent practicable. having regard to: ..

The submissions regarding Policy 2.1 and the Explanations to Policies 2.1 and 2.2 are notpursued.

Spark S042/12 It is recognized that engagement with the community is important. Section 23, Policy RejectHowever, this policy imposes an unrealistic and unreasonable 3.9expectation of engagement on all aspects of the works being undertakenon the network. To encourage network utility providers to engage withcommunities affected by the establishment of new network utilities andby their subsequent operation, maintenance and upgrade.

Delete Policy 3.9

Either, (as original relief sought):

(i) Delete Policy 3.9;

Or alternative amended relief:

(ii) Amend Policy 3.9 as follows:

To encourage network utility prOViders to engage with communities that may be significantlyadversely affected by the establishment of new network utilities and by their suesefluentepemtlen, mflintenfinGe fine upgrade.

Chorus S041/14Spark S042/13

As drafted the performance standards relating to height and setbackspotentially apply to the minor upgrading or maintenance of existingtelecommunications and radiocommunications. A new rule is sought toseparately provide for these activities, and to make it clear whichpermitted activity performance standards are potentially applicable.

Other changes seek to make it clear that not all the performancestandards listed are relevant, and to make a distinction between thegeneric provision for telecommunications and radiocommunications inRule R23.7.1 (iii), and the more specific rule applying to aerial, antennaand dishes (which are also telecommunication and radiocommunicationfacilities).

Section 23, RuleR23.7.1(iii)(renumberedR23.7.2 (iii) in thes42a report)

Accept in partAmended relief sought:

Amend R23.7.2 (iii) as follows:

Telecommunicotions and radiocommunicotion lines, links, works and facilities not otherwise

provided in item~ (iv), (Ix) and (xi/) below.

Insert new permitted activity in Rule R23.7.2 (Xii) as follows:Maintenance (Including repair and replacement) and minor upgrading oftelecommunication and radiocommunication facilities, subject to compliance withperformance standards (b) (g) (h) and {/} as applicable.

Chorus S041/15Chorus S041/16Spark S042/15Spa rk S042/16

This performance standard requires that all above ground utility Section 23 Rulestructures, except lines, masts, aerials, antennas and their brackets or 23.7.1,attachments must comply with the relevant height control or recession Performanceplane for the relevant zone, except where it applies to the boundary of Standard (a) (i)a road or service lane. For the purposes of telecommunications, the (renumbered in

Accept in partAmended relief sought:

Replace the words 'telephone booth with "telephone kiosk" in the definition of 'Utility

Structure' in Section 4 Definitions.


definition of "Utility Structure" is defined in Section 4 Definitions as the s.42a report tobeing either an Original or Replacement Utility Structure - which draws Rule 23.7.2from the definition of "Replacement Utility Structure" in the National PerformanceEnvironmental Standards for Telecommunication Facilities (NES). The standard (a) (i));inclusion of a rule controlling height in relation to utility structures and Section 4provided for in the NES is inappropriate, noting also that the height definition of Utilityrules applicable in the District Plan are significantly different from the StructureNES.

The application of Rule R23.7.1 (a) (i) to telecommunications structuressuch as cabinets is considered acceptable, other than to a cabinetlocated on a building. Telecommunication cabinets associated withbuilding mounted antennas are commonly located on building roofs,with minimal adverse effect.

Either:(i) Delete the definition of "Utility Structure" in Section 4

Definitions; and(ii) Add the following to the end of Rule R23.7.1 performance

standard (a) (i):In the case of a telecommunication cabinet located on a building,the zone height or height recession plane does not applv.

Or. alternatively.(i) Delete the definition of "Utility Structure" in Section 4

Definitions; and(ii) Delete Rule R23.7.1 performance standard (a) (i) in its entirety.

Amend Rule 23.7.2, Performance Standard (a) (i) as follows:

All above ground utility structures, except lines, masts, antennas and their brackets arattachments, and building maunted telecammunication cabinets that do not exceed 2m2 inarea or 2m high, must comply with the maximum height control and any height recessionplanes for any zone in which they are located. The height recession plane shall not apply tothe boundary of a raod, road reserve, or service lane.



The provision for masts in the Rural Zone is considered too restrictive,particularly in view of the ability for masts to be visually absorbed in theRural environment.

Amend Rule R23.7.1 performance standard (a) (iii) to provide for Masts

up to 25m in the Rural Zone.

Amendments are sought to make it clear that commonly used ancillarycomponents to antennas will not be included in the measurement ofeach antenna (other than in the specified circumstances).

Amend the 'NOTE TO PLAN USERS' as follows:

Section 23, Rule23.7.1Performancestandard (a)Height (iii)

Section 23, Rule23.7.1.PerformanceStandard (f)Antennas

Reject

Accept in part

Either, (as original relief sought):

Amend Rule R23.7.2 Performance Standard (a) (iii) as follows:

Rural Zone ;W 25 metres;

Or alternative amended relief Or alternatively (amended lesser relief):

Amend Rule R23.7.2 Performance Standard (a) (iii) as follows;

(i) Rural Zone;W 25 metres; and

(ii) Amend Rule R23.7.2 Performance Standard (j ) to include a new setback prOVision

as follows:

In the case ofa new mast between 20-25m in height in the Rural Zone, theantenna are not located closer than 50m from the closest external wall of adwelling, residential home, educational facilitv. or church.


Amend the 'NOTE TO PLAN USERS' as follows:

This Rule is to be read in conjunction with Rule 23.7.1(a) (il) and (iii) which refers to the heightof flerifl!s flRG antennas.


In relation to Rule 23.7.1ffl =t:the mountings ofany antenna and anyancillary components, (including radio frequency equipment or similardevices such as amplifiers and controller boxes) shall not be included inthe measurement ofeach antenna provided that the I'fItl.'ej.<equeRGyUR!t UP shn11nl' device is smaller in area or diameter than the antenna itselfAllY alitelilia Dilly lIeed meet the area or diameter measuremellt, as appropriateto the type 'Ifalltenna-and the measure is 'Ifeach individual ilntenna and not ilcumulative measllrement.

In relation to Rule 23.7.2ffl the mountings otany antenna and any ancillary components,(including radio freguency equipment or similar devices such as omplifiers and controllerboxes) shall not be included in the measurement ot each antenna provided that the deviceis smaller in area or diameter than the antenna itself. Any antenna only need meet the areaor diameter measurement, as appropriate to the type of antenna and the measure is of eachindividuai antenna and not a cumulative measurement.


Chorus S041/12Chorus S041/9

As currentiy worded, there is no default of restricted discretionary activityfor a non-compliance with the antenna "area" performance standard.Restricted discretionary activity status in these circumstances isconsidered appropriate. A change is also included to provide consistencywith the proposed change to the definition of Antenna (see submissionbelow).

As currently drafted, the provision for additional overheadtelecommunication lines in road and utilising existing support poles areexcluded from the permitted 'Minor Upgrading' Rule 6.1.3 through item(iv) in the definition of "Minor upgrading', and 'telecommunicationlines' are expressly excluded from the permitted 'Upgrading' Rule 6.1.4.New or additional above ground lines that are situated in road andutilise existing support structures are specifically provided for asrestricted discretionary activity under Rule 6.1.24.

It is considered that this restrictive approach is unreasonable andunjustified on the basis that the provision of telecommunications isrecognised in the policy framework an essential service; additional lineson existing support structures are an efficient use of an existingresource; and they can be installed so that the visual effects are minimalin the context of the existing structures.

Provision is sought for additional overhead lines utilising existingsupport structures in road as a permitted activity, through amendmentsto the definition of 'Minor Upgrading" as set out under Amendment SAmendments to Part M Interpretation below (or such other relief to likeeffect). Rule 6.1.24 would remain as the default activity status wherethe permitted status could not be achieved.

Policy 3.4:Amendments are sought to Policy 3.4 to:

• provide for an overhead customer connection from an existing

overhead support structure as a permitted activity. Overhead

customer connections have minimal adverse effects and are

commonly provided as a permitted activity in District Plans; and

• clarify that the policy only applies to 'new' network utilities. It isnoted that this clarification has recently been accepted inrecent Wellington area utility plan changes which have includeda similar policy (Upper Hutt City, Hutt City and Porirua City).

Section 23,RestrictedDiscretionaryActivity RuleR23.9.1 (iii)(renumberedR23.9.2(iii)

Section 23, Policy3.4; and RuieR23.7.1 (d) (i)(renumberedR23.7.2 (d) (i)

Reject

Reject

Original relief sought:

Amend Rule 23.9.1(iii) as follows:

Diameter or Area Standard far Antennas;

Amended relief sought (Chorus only)

Amend Policy 3.4 to add a new bullet point as follows:

To require the placement of network utilities underground unless:

• they are customer connections and they are attached to above ground structures

Amend Rule R23.7.2 (d) (i) to insert new item (d) as follows:

where lines are to provide customer connections and they are attached to above groundstructures.


Amend Policy 3.4 as follows:To require the placement of new network utilities underground unless:

• there are natural or physical features or structures, or

technological and operational constraints that makes

underground placement impracticable or unreasonable;

• they are of a temporary nature and reqUired for emergency

purposes or critical events; they are of a nature that can only

operate above ground; and

• in the case of lines

(i) they are to provide a custamer cannection utilising an

existing support pole in any zone; and/or

(Ii) they traverse any Rural Zone or roads within the Rural

Zone.

Rule R23.7.1 performance standard (d) (i):An amendment is sought to Rule R23.7.1 performance standard (d) (i) toprOVide for overhead customer connections utilising an existing supportpole and to make it clear that the standard only applies to new facilities.These changes are ought in conjunction with the changes to Policy 3.4above, on the basis that any adverse effects are minimal (and less thanminor).

Amend Rule R23.7.1 performance standard (d) (i) as follows:

New lines shaJl not be located above ground except:(a) where Jines troverse any Rural Zone, or roads within this zone(b) where they involve the maintenance, repair, replacement and

upgrading of existing overhead Jines.(c) where Jines are to provide temparary Jinks, cannections or

services, they may be above ground far up to three consecutivemonths in any 12 manth period; and

(d) to provide a customer connection utilising an existing supportpole.

Guidelines forUndertaking Community Engagement forWireless Telecommunications Facilities

("Community Engagement Guidelines")

November 2009

© 2009 The Telecommunications Carriers' Forum Inc. All rights reserved, Copyright in thematerial contained in this document belongs to the Telecommunications Carriers' Forum Inc.No part of the material may be reproduced, distributed or published for any purpose and byany means, including electronic, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without theTelecommunications Carriers' Forum Inc written consent.

<02009 Telecommunications Carriers' Forum IncCommunity Engagement GUidelines Page 1 of 12

CONTENTS

A. PREAMBLE 3

B. PURPOSE ....•.•.•..•.•.•..•..•••••••••.•..•.•..•.•..•..•.•.........•..•••••••••••.••.•..••..•......•..•..•. 3

C. DEFINED TERMS 5

D. SCOPE 7

2. IN SCOPE 73. OUT OF SCOPE 7

E. PRINCiPLES 7

F. EVALUATION CRITERIA FOR THE PROPOSED LOCATION OF WIRELESSTELECOMMUNICATIONS FACILITIES 8

6.1. LAND USE. 86.2. THE NATURE OF THE WORKS BEING UNDERTAKEN 86.3. PROXIMITY OF PUBLIC FACILITIES 9

G. ENGAGEMENT STANDARDS 9

8. LEVEL ONE ENGAGEMENT .••.••.•.••.•..•.••••••••••••••••••••••••••.•..•.••.••.••••.•••••••••••••••••.•.••••• 99. LEVEL Two ENGAGEMENT •••••••••.•.••.•.••.•..••.•.•••••••••.••.••••.•••••••••••.•..•.•.•..•.•••••••.••••• 10

H. PUBLICLY AVAILABLE CONTACT DETAILS 12

I. EXPIRY, REVOCATION AND AMENDMENT 12

© 2009 Telecommunications Carriers' Forum IncCommunity Engagement Guidelines Page 2 of 12

A. PREAMBLE

Wireless services have become a vital part of Telecommunications networksworldwide. Wireless Networks enable the delivery of a wide range ofTelecommunications services, including voice, data and internet, to users of bothfixed and mobile services. Wireless services have improved the ability of people tocommunicate with each other, and are now considered necessary to assist theeffective functioning of modern society.

Wireless Network Operators require Wireless Telecommunications Facilities todeliver these Wireless services. Some of these Wireless TelecommunicationsFacilities need to be located within residential communities, so that an optimumservice can be provided to the users of these Wireless services. The absence of suchWireless Telecommunications Facilities within these communities would limit thefunctions and performance of these Wireless Networks, and therefore the quality ofthe Wireless services that are delivered to both the users within these communities,and all other users of that Wireless Network.

However, Wireless Network Operators are aware that some members of theseresidential communities are concerned about having such WirelessTelecommunications Facilities located within their communities. Wireless NetworkOperators therefore need to consider how they will engage with these communitieswhen building or Upgrading these Wireless Telecommunications Facilities. TheseGuidelines for Undertaking Community Engagement for WirelessTelecommunications Facilities have been enacted by the TelecommunicationsCarriers' Forum (TCF) to help Wireless Network Operators standardise theirapproach to engaging with these communities, and to assist with addressing theirconcerns through the timely provision of information regarding the location ofWireless Telecommunications Facilities.

The TCF has striven to ensure that the public desire for consistent and timelyengagement is appropriately balanced with the need for Wireless Network Operatorsto continually improve the coverage and quality of their Wireless services. TheseGuidelines are also designed to work alongside the provisions contained withinCouncil District Plans, the Resource Management Act, and the NationalEnvironmental Standards for Telecommunications Facilities.

B. PURPOSE

1. The purpose of these Guidelines for Undertaking Community Engagement for NewWireless Telecommunications Facilities (hereafter known as the GUidelines) are to:

1.1. Standardise and enhance the approach taken by Wireless Network Operatorswhen engaging with those members of the public that live in areas that arezoned and occupied for Primarily Residential Purposes, and managers ofPublic Facilities, that are adjacent or near the location of new or UpgradedWireless Telecommunications Facilities.

For the purposes of these Guidelines, the TCF suggests that operatorsconsider which definition of "adjacent to or near" may be appropriate on acase by case basis, depending on the particular environment in which thenew or Upgraded Wireless Telecommunications Facility is proposed to belocated, as well as the scale of the proposed works.

1.2. Ensure that the public are provided with accurate information regardingWireless Telecommunications Facilities.

1.3. Assist Wireless Network Operators to communicate effectively withinterested parties regarding the location of new or Upgraded Wireless


Telecommunications Facilities.


C. DEFINED TERMS

In these Guidelines, unless the context otherwise requires:

"Antenna" means a device that:

(a) receives and transmits radiocommunication or Telecommunicationsignals; and

(b) is operated by a Network Operator.

"Cabinet" means a casing around equipment that is necessary to operate aTelecommunication network.

"Co-Location" has the meaning ascribed to it in clause 6.2.2.

"Council" means the relevant territorial or unitary authority as defined in the LocalGovernment Act 2002.

"Guidelines" means these Guidelines for Undertaking Community Engagement for WirelessTelecommunications Facilities.

"National Environmental Standards" means the Resource Management (NationalEnvironmental Standards for Telecommunications Facilities) Regulations 2008.

"Network Operator" has the meaning given to it by section 5 of the TelecommunicationsAct 2001.

"New Structure" has the meaning ascribed to it in clause 6.2.3.

"Primarily Residential Purposes" means that a property or group of properties is zonedand occupied for residential use.

"Public Facility" means a physical premise which has a primary purpose of providing care,welfare or educational services to members of the community. Examples of such facilitiesare childcare centres, schools, aged care centres, hospitals and marae.

UTelecommunications Carriers Forum" or IITCF" means the Telecommunications Carriers'Forum Incorporated of New Zealand.

"Telecommunication(s)" is the conveyance by electromagnetic means from one device toanother of any encrypted or non-encrypted sign, signal, impulse, writing, image, sound,instruction, information, or intelligence of any nature, whether for the information of anyperson using the device or not; but excluding any conveyance that constitutes broadcasting.

"Upgrade, Upgraded and Upgrading" have the meanings ascribed to them in clause 6.2.1.

"Wireless Network" means any end-to-end Telecommunications network, constituted inpart by multiple Wireless Telecommunications Facilities.

"Wireless Network Operator" means the legal entity that owns controls and/or operates aWireless Network.

"Wireless" means any Telecommunications service that is delivered via cellular and otherwireless technologies such as, but not limited to, GSM, CDMA, W-CDMA, and WiMax.

"Wireless Telecommunications Facility" means


(a) an Antenna; and/or

(b) a Cabinet;

which provide Wireless services.

"Working Day" means any day except:

(a) a Saturday, a Sunday, Good Friday, Easter Monday, ANZAC Day, LabourDay, the Sovereign's birthday and Waitangi Day; and

(b) a day in the period beginning on 20 December in any year and endingwith 10 January in the following year.


D. SCOPE

2. In Scope

These Guidelines:

2.1. Provide a set of principles that Wireless Network Operators have committedto when initiating engagement with the public on the topic of WirelessTelecommunications Facilities.

2.2. Set minimum standards to which Wireless Network Operators will abidewhen engaging with those members of the public that live in areas that arezoned and occupied for Primarily Residential Purposes; and the managers ofPublic Facilities, that are adjacent to or near the location of new, Upgradedor co-located Wireless Telecommunications Facilities.

3. Out of Scope

These Guidelines do not:

3.1. Outline any additional and ongoing engagement activities that WirelessNetwork Operators may undertake that is appropriate to the circumstancesand level of interest, folloWing the initiation of engagement in accordancewith these Guidelines.

3.2. Replace or supersede any requirement for engagement that WirelessNetwork Operators may have as a result of the provisions of any CouncilDistrict Plan, the Resource Management Act, or the National EnvironmentalStandards. Wireless Network Operators are committed to meeting theirobligations under these provisions, as well as the additional commitmentsmade in these Guidelines.

3.3. Require any changes to, or cessation of, the construction of any WirelessTelecommunications Facility as a result of community engagement.However, a Wireless Network Operator remains free to amend their plansfor any Wireless Telecommunications Facility following any such communityengagement.

E. PRINCIPLES

4. The following principles are important to understanding and interpreting theseGuidelines, and form the basis of the processes outlined in these Guidelines.

4.1. These Guidelines are designed to work in conjunction with the variousplanning regulations enacted by Councils and the Government of New2ealand; and with the standards set in regulation for WirelessTelecommunications Facilities radio frequency fields. These Guidelines donot replace or supersede any of the obligations that these regulations placeon Wireless Network Operators.

4.2. These Guidelines are designed to allow Wireless Network Operators theflexibility to meet the specific needs of the different communities of NewZealand, recognising that each community is unique and that a distinctapproach may be required to best meet the needs of any particularcommunity or users of a Public Facility.

4.3. Wireless Network Operators are committed to acting in good faith and as


"good neighbours"; and to ensuring the health and safety of the public,their customers and their employees. Wireless Network Operators willmanage the construction of Wireless Telecommunications Facilities in amanner that is consistent with this commitment.

4.4. Wireless Network Operators recognise the World Health Organization'srecommendations for Wireless Network Operators to communicate openlywith Councils and the public during the planning stages of new WirelessTelecommunications Facilities, in order to help create public understandingand greater acceptance of the location and benefits of WirelessTelecommunications Facilities. These Guidelines help give effect to thisrecommendation.

4.5. Wireless Network Operators recognise that they have a responsibility toencourage those people and communities that have concerns about theimpacts upon health of Wireless Telecommunications Facilities to consultinformation that is recognised by national and international public healthauthorities; such as the Ministry of Health and the World HealthOrganization; and to facilitate access to such sources.

4.6. Wireless Network Operators recognise that members of the communityshould be able to engage with them regarding the location of WirelessTelecommunications Facilities, should they require more specificinformation.

5. The above principles and the purposes set out in these Guidelines are reflected inthe processes set out in these Guidelines as a whole. They are intended solely asaids to interpretation of these Guidelines and to assist Parties in theiradministration of those processes. They do not create separately enforceable rightsor obligations.

F. EVALUATION CRITERIA FOR THE PROPOSED LOCATION OF WIRELESSTELECOMMUNICATIONS FACILITIES

6. Wireless Network Operators should develop their community engagement approachby first evaluating the characteristics of the proposed location of any WirelessTelecommunications Facility, or any proposed Upgrade to an existing WirelessTelecommunications Facility, paying regard to:

6.1. Land Use

6.1.1 The obligations under these Guidelines apply to those proposedWireless Telecommunications Facilities, or Upgrades of existingWireless Telecommunications Facilities, that are adjacent to ornear an area that is zoned and occupied for Primarily ResidentialPurposes.

6.2. The Nature of the Works being Undertaken

6.2.1 If a Wireless Telecommunications Facility already exists, and therelevant Wireless Network Operator wishes to substantivelychange the nature of that Wireless Telecommunications Facilitythrough adding additional infrastructure such as new Antenna,masts and Cabinets, then for the purposes of these Guidelines thisis known as an Upgrade.

6.2.2 If a Wireless Telecommunications Facility already exists, and theWireless Network Operator that operates that WirelessTelecommunications Facility wishes to allow another Wireless


Network Operator to place additional infrastructure such as newAntenna, masts and Cabinets on that same WirelessTelecommunications Facility, then for the purposes of theseGuidelines this is known as a Co-Location.

For the avoidance of doubt, when the nature of the works beingundertaken is a Co-Location, these Guidelines apply to theWireless Network Operator that is placing the additionalinfrastructure on this site - not the Wireless Network Operatorwho maintains the original Wireless Telecommunications Facilityat that location.

6.2.3 If a Wireless Telecommunications Facility does not already exist atthe proposed location, then for the purposes of these Guidelinesthis is known as a New Structure.

For the avoidance of doubt, a New Structure includes both sitesthat are their own free-standing structures and those that arelocated upon other buildings, light poles or other similarstructures.

6.3. Proximity of Public Facilities

6.3.1 Wireless Network Operators recognise the need to evaluate thelocation of the Wireless Telecommunications Facility to determinewhether it is adjacent to or near a Public Facility.

G. ENGAGEMENT STANDARDS

7. As a result of the evaluation of the proposed location of a WirelessTelecommunications Facility, conducted in accordance with Section F of theseGuidelines, the Wireless Network Operator should determine which of the followinglevels of engagement listed in this section is appropriate.

8. Level One Engagement

8.1. This level of engagement is appropriate when the evaluation undertaken bythe Wireless Network Operator determines that:

8.1.1 The Wireless Telecommunications Facility is located adjacent to ornear an area that is zoned and occupied for Primarily ResidentialPurposes; or there is at least one Public Facility adjacent to ornear the proposed location of the Wireless TelecommunicationsFacility; and

8.1.2 The type of installation is either an Upgrade or Co-Location.

8.2. Where the criteria for level one engagement are met, the Wireless NetworkOperator should:

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

8.2.2 Ensure that the occupiers of those dwellings immediately adjacentto the proposed location, and the management of any PublicFacilities near the proposed location, are sent a letter by therelevant Wireless Network Operator at least 20 Working Days priorto any construction commencing on the proposed Wireless


Telecommunications Facility.

This letter should contain the following information:

a) An outline of the rationale as to why an Upgrade or CoLocation is required at this particular location.

b) Plans or other illustrations that show the location of theWireless Telecommunications Facility within the area thatsurrounds it, and the general nature of the works beingundertaken.

It is expected that the Wireless Network Operator will usethe same plans or illustrations for this purpose that mayhave been or will be submitted to the relevant Council,though this is at the discretion of the Wireless NetworkOperator concerned.

c) Contact details for the Wireless Network Operator, inaccordance with Section H.

This letter may also contain the following information:

d) General Information that is recognised by national andinternational public health authorities; such as the Ministryof Health and the World Health Organization.

8.2.3 Ensure that those staff or contractors that are responsible forworking upon the Wireless Telecommunications Facility are willingand able to respond to public queries regarding the WirelessNetwork Operator responsible for the works being undertaken, andable to refer interested members of the public to the relevantWireless Network Operator via the contact details referred to inSection H.

9. Level Two Engagement

9.1. This level of engagement is appropriate when the evaluation undertaken bythe Wireless Network Operator determines that:

9.1.1 The Wireless Telecommunications Facility is located adjacent to ornear an area that is zoned and occupied for Primarily ResidentialPurposes; or there is at least one Public Facility adjacent to ornear the proposed location; and

9.1.2 The type of installation is a New Structure.

9.2. Where the criteria for level two engagement are met, the Wireless NetworkOperator should:

9.2.1 Undertake any engagement or consultation reqUired by therelevant Council under the Council District Plan; or requiredpursuant to the conditions of any Resource Consent.

9.2.2 Ensure that the occupiers of those dwellings immediately adjacentto the proposed location, and the management of the PublicFacility near the proposed location, are sent a letter by therelevant Wireless Network Operator prior to the lodgement of anyResource Consent application or National Environmental Standard


application required by the relevant Council regarding theproposed Wireless Telecommunications Facility.


a) Detail on the type of consent, permission or application thatis being made to the Council.

b) An outline of the rationale as to why this particular locationwas chosen for the proposed Wireless TelecommunicationsFacility and the process undertaken to make this decision.

c) Plans or other illustrations that show the location of the sitewithin the area that surrounds it, and the general nature ofthe works being undertaken.

It is expected that the Wireless Network Operator will usethe same plans or illustrations for this purpose that mayhave been or will be submitted to the relevant Council,though this is at the discretion of the Wireless NetworkOperator concerned.

d) Contact details for the Wireless Network Operator, inaccordance with Section H.


e) General Information that is recognised by national andinternational public health authorities; such as the Ministryof Health and the World Health Organization.

9.2.3 Ensure that the occupiers of those dwellings immediately adjacentto the proposed location, and the management of the PublicFacility near the proposed location, are sent a letter by therelevant Wireless Network Operator at least 10 Working Days priorto any construction commencing on the proposed WirelessTelecommunications Facility.


a) Confirmation of the particular location that has been chosenfor the proposed Wireless Telecommunications Facility andthe process undertaken to make this decision.

b) Updated plans or other illustrations that show the locationof the site within the area that surrounds it, and the generalnature of the works being undertaken.

It is expected that the Wireless Network Operator will usethe same plans or illustrations for this purpose that mayhave been submitted to and approved by the relevantCouncil, though this is at the discretion of the WirelessNetwork Operator concerned.

c) Estimated timeframe for commencement and completion ofconstruction of the Wireless Telecommunications Facility.

d) Contact details for the Wireless Network Operator, inaccordance with Section H.



e) General Information that is recognised by national andinternational public health authorities; such as the Ministryof Health and the World Health Organization.

9.2.4 Ensure that those staff or contractors that are responsible forworking upon the Wireless Telecommunications Facility are willingand able to respond to public queries regarding the WirelessNetwork Operator responsible for the works being undertaken, andable to refer interested members of the public to the relevantWireless Network Operator via the contact details referred to inSection H.

H• PUBLICLY AVAILABLE CONTACT DElAILS

10. Wireless Network Operators will make publicly available the contact details fortheir organisations for the purposes of receiving and responding to questions andrequests for information regarding the location of Wireless TelecommunicationsFacilities.

11. Wireless Network Operators should ensure that any enqumes made via thesecontact details are directed to staff members who are suitably capable ofresponding to questions and comments made by members of the public regardingthe location of Wireless Telecommunications Facilities.

12. Wireless Network Operators should make the following contact details available forthe purposes of further engagement regarding the location of WirelessTelecommunications Facilities:

12.1. An email address.

13. Wireless Network Operators should also consider making the following additionalcontact details available for the purposes of further engagement regarding thelocation of Wireless Telecommunications Facilities:

13.1. A Toll·Free phone number.

13.2. Content relevant to the location and impact of WirelessTelecommunications Facilities and Wireless technologies upon the healthand wellbeing of the public, or links to relevant content, on a website.

I. EXPIRY, REVOCATION AND AMENDMENT

14. In accordance with the Telecommunications Carriers' Forum Operating ProceduresManual, any Forum Member may put a Project Proposal to the Forum Board (at anytime) for the amendment or revocation of these Guidelines.


Statement of Evidence of Louise Miles on behalf of Spark ... Spark NZ and Chorus N… ·...

Documents

Transcript of Statement of Evidence of Louise Miles on behalf of Spark ... Spark NZ and Chorus N… ·...