Telstra tower, Henley Beach 2016-17

This new plan was met with a wave of protest from nearby residents as well as the well-oiled machine of participants from the previous two years of the Henley campaigns –‘Resist’ , ACATT, Henley and Grange Council, Henley residents and the local MPs. In November the proposal was rejected by Hindmarsh Woodville Council but referred to the federal environment department for a final decision. By now phone tower protests were emerging across the state and as ACATT coordinator I worked with some of these, such as Croydon Park, Brighton, Mitcham and Naracoorte. Luckily by now I was only working part time.

With the project temporarily stalled, the phone companies even returned to Henley and Grange Council in 1996 in an attempt to revive the plan for the Henley Oval or Henley Square. The new proposal for the square was for the tower to be incorporated into a war memorial clock tower.

No more was heard of these plans and in May 1997 the token federal department process ignored all opposition and rubber-stamped the Vodaphone proposal. From then on the Fulham Gardens Action Group met for two years and kept up a tenacious battle, including a year-long picket of the site that gained headlines across Australia.

Vodaphone and its contractors were forced to ‘break into’ the site with a police escort to work on construction. I was on the picket line on the first occasion and later wrote this account:

I did not witness the later pre-dawn ‘break-in’ which had a larger police escort including police horses. Extraordinarily, residents kept up the picket even after the tower was completed and the battle lost.

By this time, the Adelaide ACATT network included 11 protest groups, many interstate groups, and a major protest group in my old hometown of Christchurch. I was invited and sponsored to speak at meetings in Victoria, NSW and Queensland, present submissions to two Senate enquiries in Canberra, and attend a hearing in Christchurch where international scientists presented research on radio frequency radiation safety standards.

In 2020, residents are still campaigning against telecommunications towers in their backyard.

Telstra tower, Henley Beach 2016-17

Heather Flanagan

In 2016, the local community fought against the planning proposal and construction of a Telstra tower in the heart of old Henley Beach. Having such a tall structure located in a Residential Character Zone within an Historic Conservation Zone conflicted with local council restrictions. Building height and fencing design was tightly restricted and controlled by heritage and the Charles Sturt Council Development Plan. There are restrictions on the type of house you can build in this area. A Residential Character Zone is made up of areas of character housing from the Victorian, pre-World War I and inter-war eras. To retain the character of these areas, there are specific controls on design applications. For example, you cannot build a two-storey dwelling or extension.

The Telstra tower was classified as a Category 3 development. A Category 3 must notify:

All owners/occupiers of and adjacent to where the development is proposed, in writing; all owners/occupiers of and which the State Commission Assessment Panel (SCAP) believes would be significantly affected by the application, in writing; the general public by newspaper advertisement.

Telstra owned the land on which this 37.5 metre structure was to be built. However, it seemed that there was one development rule for those Henley Beach residents living in this zone and another for corporate bodies such as Telstra. Some residents had been alerted by letter and quickly spread the word in the wider community. Neighbours talked with each other and decided to form a community group.

With help from WACRA, a campaign was organised to signal a community protest about the location of the proposed tower. We argued that this development was inappropriate and infringed current planning restrictions in this zone. The community group strongly wanted to protect the character of the zone and viewed a tower, the equivalent of a 10-storey residential building, as visual pollution in this Residential Character Zone.

In collaboration with WACRA, the media coverage raised ensured this issue was widely exposed. We set up our communication network effectively and considered setting an example that could assist other organisations in future campaigns. One of our objectives was to ensure that no other community would be put in the same position as our community.

We undertook to lodge an application to the Charles Sturt Council. Residents attended a council meeting where 48 residents had given written objections, 16 of whom spoke in front of the council’s Development Assessment Panel (DAP), now known as the Council Assessment Panel (CAP). They expressed their opinion about the Telstra tower being in conflict with the council’s development plan and had pertinent questions answered. Community presentations included a Photoshop visual that illustrated what this tower would look like in an area that was heritage listed. Much research had been undertaken by the residents and matched to relevant sections of the development plan. The results were incorporated into the presentations to council.

In December 2016, the council’s DAP refused Telstra’s development application. However, this decision was reversed. Telstra’s proposed development was a Category 3, which meant that Telstra had the right to appeal in the Environment, Resources and Development (ERD) Court. In February 2017, people who had lodged written objections were advised that Telstra had appealed and that they were invited to the court hearing. There was little time to respond.

Our group sought guidance to understand the legal process. This was an intense time. Pamphlets were distributed throughout the community and those who had lodged written objections were emailed, asking for donations to help pay legal representation to protect our heritage area from this visual pollution. Over $3,500 was raised in a couple of days. We hired an urban planner to assess the community’s case, but his report indicated our case was beyond his expertise and we needed to find a heritage architect.

WACRA kickstarted the campaign with $500 (making a total of $1,000 contributed by this community organisation) and a heritage architect was engaged. Unfortunately, council pulled out of the appeal, basing their decision on lack of alternative sites in the area and case law (other similar cases). We were astounded.

Next was a hearing in the Supreme Court. But legal services at this level are complex, expensive, and carry the risk of paying Telstra’s costs if we lose the case. We could not afford to engage an expert to provide additional advice. It is difficult for a community to have equal representation, in particular when it is up against a huge corporate body such as Telstra. Based on financial concerns, the group withdrew from the appeals process. At the end of the day it came down to who had the money to fight in court.

The community, who fought so hard, was gutted and wrecked emotionally from the experience. In particular, it is distressing to those residents who live nearby or have a direct view of this huge tower looming over them. There are still doubts in the minds of many people about the safety of radio frequency emitting towers in relation to human health.

In response to this bad news, a mock funeral procession was held in the local Henley streets and in proximity to the proposed site of this telecommunications tower. Dressed in black, our mourning community walked together through Henley’s much-loved heritage area. This is a good example of community engagement.

Today, in 2019, our skyline is dominated by this tower. On a positive note, the community group did persuade Telstra to paint its tower blue in an effort to blend it with the skyline. Kenzie van den Nieuwelaar’s account follows.

Protesters outside of houses at the site in Henley Beach (Heather Flanagan is third from right)