I am the person on the Target show that says 'Its sick that they can put up a cell tower 10 metres from someones bedroom' In Pt Chev that is about to occur - after opposing a Telecom tower for 3 months we were told one day after school broke up (a week before Xmas) that they would start work mid Jan. It will be 120 m from Pt Chev Primary, 30 m from my 3 girls bedrooms & 10m from a 6 year old's second story bedroom. I have the luxury of being able to move house but the 6 year old & her Mum live in a Housing NZ home and has no choice but to subject her child to this piece of industrial equipment. It will be be the equivalent of 24 microwave ovens without the security door. No parent would deliberately subject their child to this - yet Telecom believe it is their absolute right to subject this amount of radiation on this family. The only remedy is to shame Telecom & their sharehoders by pronouncing Telecom shares as being unethical and to rally parents to shift their custom away from Telecom & reduce the the emissions by having less traffic going through the tower. This is a complex issue & the Target show may have appeared biased because the government & councils run for cover behind the NES legislation. It is the NES that needs to be changed. Everyone who feels put out by this legislation needs to complain to their local MP. Unfortunately Sue Kedgley is the only politician willing to do anything about this. Also the WHO reports that the Telcos continually refer to are nearly 4 years old and therefore out of date - much more recent reports from the US FDA suggest that the long term effects of this type of irradiation are still unknown & research should be ongoing - on this basis we should not be subjected to the Telcos huge social experiment - it is our health & not theirs.

As a Windsor business owner i fully support the residents in their opposition of the cell phone tower especially those who will have to look at this eyesore every day. As a property owner myself I would hate to have it devalued due to no fault of my own as will happen to the residents surrounding it,if in fact they could even sell! Many of us would not even consider purchasing a property with a monstrosity like this over the fence! Maybe Roy Barnsdale should have suggested it be built in his own back yard right outside his home!

Windsor Business Owner

Way to go 'Windsor Resident for it'! Put your hand up - if you want it, and would be happy for it to be outside your home then let Telecom know. One has to ask... are you own your residence? Would you be happy for your property to be devalued by around 15% through no fault of your own whilst some money hungry video store reaps the benefits of a big pay packet. If so - go ahead! Doesnt make sense to me. Also, you obviously did not read the earlier responses with respect to available commercial zoning... As 'not one of the ignorant' states : "I have been made aware that there were a number of other proposed sites provided to telecom that would have provided exactly this. One very promising option with commercial dwellings on three of the corners and a school playing field was immediately disregarded specifically because of its proximity to a school. I ask you this, if there are no hazards associated to cell phone towers then why would Telecom point blank refuse to even investigate this option further…"

The issue is they didnt even TRY to find a "mutually agreeable solution"

Looks like Telecom's ethics have flatlined over this one.

Honestly I do feel for the older residents who live in the area as they have most likely been there most of their lives and most of them don't even use cell phones, but I do think that being so close to a shopping centre opens up options for people to redevelop the area and hence what is happening here.The reality is people need and use cell phones

Oh, and if you'd read some of the other responses then you would have been aware that there were other options - as 'not one of the ignorant' suggested: "One very promising option with commercial dwellings on three of the corners and a school playing field was immediately disregarded specifically because of its proximity to a school. I ask you this, if there are no hazards associated to cell phone towers then why would Telecom point blank refuse to even investigate this option further… "

Its quite clear that morally Telecom have flatlined.

Windsor Resident for it - awesome! If you're for it and would happily have it outside your property - put your hand up! Talk to your neighbours - are they happy for it too? Make yourself known and telecom could throw one outside your house instead. Do you own your property? Would you be happy for it to be devalued by around 15%? The mind boggles.

Go for it! Telecom say they TRY to put them in commercial areas, well with Windsor being so tightly packed to the extent the ICC had to put a toilet and public playground on land owned by the Church, because THEY couldn't get any other land for years. Where do you suggest the tower goes that will fit the coverage need? Cell use jumps up every day. We need the tower and I would happily have it living next to me.

Random it is time to sever communications with you. Reason being you are extremely one eyed and, unfortunately, don't keep an open mind to both sides of the coin. Health is only one of the problems associated with the placement of these towers! I wonder if you are employed by Telecom or like? Perhaps a shareholder!

Random - yes I did read your report from WHO dated back in 2006. It is far from up-to-date and WHO are currently reviewing their report and conducting further research. Probably once again they will not be able to conclude one way or another... Until such time as there is conclusive evidence then I wouldnt like to be part of the experiment - would you? How would you like a cellphone tower parked outside your front door? I think it is the right of residents not to have to put up with this corporate bullying. There are so many other potentially appropriate sites - many of which were alerted to Telecom not only by residents but also reiterated by local government - but telecom decided to flag their mandate to seek a mutually agreeable solution, stuff the community, and do it anyway. There do seem to be a lot of people contributing to this discussion that appear to be totally accepting of having a cellphone tower parked just 4 meters from their home - put your hand up - telecom will surely take advantage!

I tend to the opinion that cell towers have little in the way of health effects.Having said that I have to concede that there is an element of doubt and will not write off every contrary opinion as biased in the way that Random #33 has done. There is no doubt that there are perceived health effects which along with visual effects can result in reduced property values in residential areas. Nobody as far as I know is suggesting that cell sites should not be erected but that the motto should be NOT IN ANYONES BACK YARD. I would suggest that they not be erected within say 30 metres of a residential boundary An interesting para on the website quoted by Random#33 states "experience shows that education programmesas well as effective communications and involvement at appropriate stages of the decision process before installing RF sources can enhance public confidence and acceptability" The above is in line with Telecoms own policy. The trouble is they have chosen to abandon this polioy in favour of bullying and totally ignoring community concerns