'Disappointing': Lone vote against controversial tower as saga ends

On Monday night, councillors voted to approve the construction of a 30-metre-high $385,000 Optus tower at 13 Sycamore Road in Lake Albert, despite strong community opposition.

Richard Foley, who was the only councillor to vote against the proposed development at the meeting, said it was a disappointing result.

"The outcome is disappointing," Cr Foley said.

"However, technically the applicant has ticked the boxes but [there are] some grey areas."

Ventia planning manager Caitlin Spencer spoke via video link at the meeting, outlining why the council should approve the project, but Cr Foley wasn't impressed.

"When asked directly about certain matters, they were rather convoluted and evasive," he said.

"My view is that there needs to be a comprehensive policy as to how telecommunications towers should be situated from now on in this LGA.

"We need to come up with a policy that will work so that developments, future [residents and] planners can see what is going to be zoned ... so we don't have these issues."

Last year, Ventia lodged a development application on behalf of Indara (DA) to construct a tower just metres from residents on Sycamore Road only to later withdraw it after community opposition.

A new application was recently lodged with multiple adjustments, including moving the proposed tower about 100 metres further away from the road.

At the previous council meeting, the vote was postponed after councillors Mick Henderson and Jenny McKinnon were forced to pull out due to a conflict of interest.

That conflict came about after the pair attended a gathering of members of the community at the location of the proposed site.

However, due to the fact no council staff were present, the pair disqualified themselves under the council code of conduct from voting on approval of the project.

Speaking at the council meeting on Monday night, Glen Gaudron, whose property is directly adjacent to the tower location, said nearby residents were never approached for consideration about hosting the tower on other possible sites.

Mr Gaudron, who is a beekeeper, also raised concerns about the impact on bees and said a hive will die "within 10 days" if placed under a tower.

He also asked why the tower could not be co-located with an existing Telstra tower at the nearby sewage works on Vincent Road.

Mr Gaudron, who is an Optus customer himself, has also previously threatened to cut ties with the telco over the fiasco and said he already has good reception on his property.

He has also previously raised concerns that if approved, the tower could have adverse impacts on property values in the area, and suggested the area could be subdivided in the future.

John Wilcox also spoke against the proposal, saying that an "overwhelming majority" of residents in the area objected to the project.

Mr Wilcox said it was a "poor" decision to build a tower in the middle of a residential street.

While not opposed to new phone towers, he said a better system was needed to determine where and where not to locate future structures.

"Can I even suggest council conduct consultation and maybe set aside areas for future [towers to be built]," Mr Wilcox said.

Arguing why the council should approve the project, Ms Spencer said comprehensive planning had already gone into the project.

She noted the previous withdrawal of a development application for the tower and also acknowledged the impact the project will have on the visual aesthetics of the neighbourhood.

But Ms Spencer argued that the positives would outweigh the negatives.

"The provision of a structure with 4G and 5G technology will ... outweigh the visual impact," she said.

Responding to calls to co-locate the tower with an existing structure nearby, she said this was not possible due to a "number of technical difficulties".

One of these was the "inability to achieve line of sight needed for [the tower's] functioning".

Addressing concerns the tower would impact land values, Ms Spencer discounted the argument entirely.

"Indara and Optus have no credible evidence this will ... increase or decrease property values," she said.

She also poured doubt on Mr Gaudron's concerns about the impact to his bees.

Councillor Foley then pressed Ms Spencer on whether any other landowners were consulted for alternative sites after the first DA was withdrawn.

She said while other locations were considered, no other landowners were actually contacted.

Ms Spencer said various constraints led them to conclude it would be best to keep the tower in the same general location.

"We would simply be displacing the impact from one location of Lake Albert to another location in the same suburb," she said.

Weighing up the pros and cons, councillors ultimately agreed despite the negative visual amenity, that the project should go ahead and voted in favour of the tower.

Speaking after the vote, Cr Foley reflected on whether there was any remaining recourse for concerned residents now the project has been approved.

"I would urge [people] to seek legal advice if they believe they have a potential case in the Land and Environment Court," he said.

"But these things are always very difficult to unwind."

Crs Rod Kendall, Georgie Davies, Amelia Parkins and Dallas Tout voted for the DA while Cr Foley was the lone vote against the development.

Crs McKinnon and Henderson vacated the council chamber for the vote due to their conflict of interest, while Cr Tim Koschel was away on a leave of absence.