Some very unhappy Deakin residents are concerned about the size of  communications tower that has been constructed on the Deakin Oval. This eyesore can be readily seen from many parts of Deakin and  is unacceptable visual pollution and further erosion of our objective of enhancing the residential, suburban, social and environmental qualities of Deakin, consistent with garden city planning principles.

Why TPG needs a separate tower when there are already towers in Deakin, presumably owned by competing companies, at both bottom and the top of Gowrie Drive. We understand that ACT Government is not responsible for competition in the communication industry but we regard such triplication as just another example of appalling national policies on Communication (and Energy). We have competing poles and wire and now we have competing towers!

DRA understands that the development proposal for the communication tower involved a pre-consultation process and a formal consultation process from 2 August 2018 to 3 September 2018. However, the Deakin Residents Association was not informed by the developer, not invited to the pre-consultation process and not advised by the ACT Government of any subsequent consultations. After hearing through informal channels of a discussion of some form of development for the Deakin Oval, and unaware of what that might be, on 3 December 2018, the Deakin Residents’ Association wrote to EPSDD to seek information.

We have now seen correspondence from the tower provider, Catalyst One Pty Ltd, to EPSDD dated 1 August 2018 advising that the planned tower was to be a ‘new 20 metre monopole to replace an existing 20 metre light pole to establish a telecommunications facility located in Deakin’. However this advice is misleading as the documentation (attached) shows the top of the huge communications panels at 22.85 metres and the top of the tower itself beyond that, so the height in total is far above 20 metres. The girth of the tower is also massively larger than that of other light poles on the Deakin Oval. We are continually confronted by developments that ‘slightly’ exceed what is legal and or that have been approved in this case  22.85 m is not 20 m let alone the facility on top.

Comments from residents are welcome and will be passed to the Minister to whom we have written and who will be at our AGM on 20 Nov.