“No one was aware of this installation until building commenced several weeks ago, and it would appear that insufficient information was provided to the council by the consent holder and the council did not seek independent advice,” one resident, who did not wish to be named, said.
Independent assessments of health and environmental risks should have been sought by the council, they believed.
Work is underway on the station on the rooftop of the building on College Hill.
“The only confidence the council has regarding risk and impact on the community is based on information supplied by the applicant, despite the unprecedented nature of the installation.”
A second resident, who also did not want to be named, said it made no sense to install the earth station in central Auckland; there had been no independent report into any possible health effects, the beam from the station would be angled at 25 degrees and not vertically and the domes would only be partially screened.
A 2Degrees spokesman said residents could be confident the facility was safe and that it met well-established definitions for utilities under the Auckland Unitary Plan and the National Environmental Standards for Telecommunications Facilities.
“The station has been designed and approved in line with strict safety and technical regulations, has been granted all of the necessary consents, including resource consent, and followed all the relevant processes for notifying impacted parties,” the spokesman said.
Rooftop antenna installations within central-city and suburban areas were extremely common in Auckland and across New Zealand, he said.
A satellite earth station communicates with satellites by sending and receiving radio signals.
Installations that used radio-frequency technology to transmit were highly regulated and strictly standardised. The Ministry of Health regularly reviewed the suitability of these and the facility would comply with all applicable standards, the spokesman said.
He said the facility was mid-construction and the plans included screening around the facility to minimise the visual impact.
The council’s head of resource consents, James Hassall, defended the decision not to give locals a say over the proposal, saying officers determined that the statutory threshold for public or limited notification was not met.
Freemans Bay Residents Association co‑chair Trevor Lund said there had been an information vacuum, noting that while the association has been advised of the installation and was talking with concerned residents, it still had no concrete facts.
“It is a large installation in a residential area,” Lund said.
He said there were safety concerns related to the equipment, but at this stage, the discussion was emotive rather than fact‑based. “We’d like more information and are working to get it.”
The association was also awaiting advice from Health New Zealand Te Whatu Ora on whether the project raised any health risks.
Both residents’ associations were concerned with the installation being granted resource consent without anyone having a say.
A view from College Hill to the central city. Photo / Cameron Pitney
Lund said residents were looking at the proposed structure and asking, “What’s this?”, finding themselves on the back foot as they tried to gather information and understand the safety implications.
St Marys Bay member Sean Molloy said the installation should have been notified and not slipped through.
Molloy said the biggest concern for most people was the sheer bulk of the installation on the building’s roof, noting it was visible driving down College Hill and needed a better design to screen it.
Waitematā and Gulf councillor Mike Lee said the non-notified consent was a concern for nearby residents. He believed 2Degrees bosses and council officers should have consulted with neighbours.
“Sometimes, reverse sensitivity issues arise when apartments are built too close to existing industrial activity. This is not a reverse sensitivity case as these quality apartments were established many years before 2Degrees had the brainwave of building a satellite earth station in this intensified residential neighbourhood,” Lee said.
A non-notified consent was granted to 2Degrees on June 24 last year.
In a decision, resource consents team leader Patrick Moss said the proposal for the 30 dome-shaped antenna was an appropriate development under the Resource Management Act and any actual or potential effects would be avoided, remedied or mitigated.
Moss said the proposal met the New Zealand Radiofrequency Radiation Standard and the site would not pose a health hazard to people who live, work or pass by close to the antennas.
“The antennae will not generate any noise, vibration or odour effects and it will not be illuminated and, as such, not generate any shadow flicker effects,” he said.
Moss said the council’s landscape architect had reviewed the proposal and found only seven of the antennae would be visible from the street and a new aluminium screen along the building’s western and eastern facade would integrate with the building’s facade.
He noted the project would have positive effects. It would enhance the range of broadband speeds and deliver better services across the city for businesses and the community.
Hassall said the assessment relied on technical information provided by 2Degrees, which was standard practice for this type of application. Council officers reviewed that information against national standards. An independent assessment wasn’t commissioned because the proposal was assessed as complying with the applicable limits.
He said the council recognised that some residents remained concerned about both the process and the potential effects.
“We are meeting with them to work through those concerns and explain the basis for the decision in more detail.”
Sign up to The Daily H, a free newsletter curated by our editors and delivered straight to your inbox every weekday.