A failure to provide the requested ecological assessment for the site of a potential telecommunications pole at Pottsville, following the refusal of the development application (DA) on 1 June 2023, has not proved a hindrance to the majority of Tweed Shire councillors subsequently approving the proposal at an extraordinary meeting on November 30.
Following a petition, owned by Labor Councillor Reeece Byrnes, in support of the proposal containing 1,615 signatures, with 1,383 valid signatories was received by Tweed Shire Council (TSC) on 5 October 2023 TSC Mayor, Chris Cherry (Independent), had reminded councillors that, ‘providing telecommunications was not the responsibility of the council but the responsibility of “telcos” and that it was their responsibility “to provide proper service to Pottsville and the surrounding area”.’
The proposed telecommunications facility (DA22/0088) on privately owned land at No. 1126 Pottsville Road, Pottsville had previously been refused due to the site containing coastal wetlands, well-established mature native trees located across the site and in proximity to the proposed development area according to the staff report.
‘There are well-established mature native trees located across the site and in proximity to the proposed development area. The applicant was advised to relocate the telecommunications facility to ensure a 50m ecological buffer to the Coastal Wetland Area could be maintained,’ stated the staff report.
‘Alternatively, a baseline ecological assessment was requested to inform ecological impact assessment of the proposed facility in the chosen location on site. As the proposal did not provide adequate evidence that it would not significantly impact environmental values of the site and nearby wetlands, the application was refused.’
A motion to refuse the DA again, as recommended by staff, was put forward by Cr Nola Firth (Greens) and Deputy Mayor Cr Meredith Dennis (Independent).
The staff report questioned if there had been effective analysis of other potential sites in Pottsville by applicant Service Stream Limited on behalf of Indara Corporation Pty Ltd (Indara) since the June refusal.
All councillors and staff recognised ‘that there is a need for better coverage within the Pottsville locality’.
In recommending refusal for the DA the staff report stated:
‘It is acknowledged that a clear need for better network coverage within the Pottsville locality exists.
‘However, this cannot be a sole consideration in determination of the proposed facility, it must be balanced by acceptable environmental outcomes. The importance of safeguarding important ecological environments and sensitive locations including fauna, flora, waterways, vegetation, and systems is paramount and statutorily required when considering the Review of Determination application against applicable legislation and planning policies. The applicant has failed to provide additional information to satisfactorily address the reasons for refusal. Accordingly, this Review of Determination confirms the refusal of the proposed development and that the reasons for refusal associated with the original assessment are appropriate.’
Approval
Councillors Byrnes and James Owen (Liberal) moved an amendment to the original motion to refuse the DA to approve stating that they had assessed the criteria and that ‘Council is therefore satisfied that the development is not likely to significantly affect threatened species’.
Cr Byrnes told the meeting that ‘We have a duty as elected representatives of these people to do what is right and ensure our community has basic access to infrastructure.
‘This will not fix the problem entirely but it is a good first step. This land has already been cleared for a few years. We are not looking at people being in this area. There will not even be a toilet at this site.
‘I am asking you to put human beings and lives first so that people in Pottsville have basic access to their needs.’
Responding, Cr Firth said ‘The Pottsville community needs a tower. What I would like to see this application resubmitted with the required five part test of the Biodiversity Act intact.
‘It is not about whether this land is cleared, it is about the buffer from the wetlands. We have rules which are there to protect our precious environment. We have responsibility to look after our environments. We are a world heritage area. We have one of the most threatened species on Australia. We are in the middle of an extinction crisis. So to ask something which is undermining the basic protections of our environment like this, when it can simply be resubmitted having done the due diligence that we normally require does not seem an unreasonable request.’
While Cr Cherry, Cr Dennis, and Cr Nola Firth voted against making the amendment the motion once the motion was to approve only Cr Firth voted against.
