«

Hi,

Does anyone know how high I can make an antenna either on the roof or a
free-standing tower, before I need to obtain permission from the local
council? I expect there is probably some regional variation, but I'm
just looking for a rough guide.

My intent is to use this for wireless networking.

Thanks,

The Other Guy

The Other Guy wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Does anyone know how high I can make an antenna either on the roof or a
> free-standing tower, before I need to obtain permission from the local
> council? I expect there is probably some regional variation, but I'm
> just looking for a rough guide.
>
> My intent is to use this for wireless networking.

Auckland City Council's rules are <10.5m high, at least 1m off the
boundary, and the structure is to be <1.1m wide.

--
EMB

The Other Guy wrote:
> Does anyone know how high I can make an antenna either on the roof or a
> free-standing tower, before I need to obtain permission from the local
> council?
> My intent is to use this for wireless networking.

Here in dunedin it is somewhere near 16M(for freestanding)... as in one
six metres...

I'd imagine that like me, you're probably surprised.

EMB wrote:
> Auckland City Council's rules are <10.5m high, at least 1m off the
> boundary, and the structure is to be <1.1m wide.

Great. Any idea what the requirements might be in Manukau City?

I have e-mailed them on more than one occasion to ask about
requirements, but have yet to get a reply.

The Other Guy

"The Other Guy" <> wrote in message
news:...
>
> Great. Any idea what the requirements might be in Manukau City?
>
> I have e-mailed them on more than one occasion to ask about
> requirements, but have yet to get a reply.
>
> The Other Guy
>

This is hearsay (from an estate agent in Howick!) so I don't know if
it is right or if it applies right across Manakau City, but...

If you draw a line at 45 degrees from the front and rear boundaries,
starting 2m high, nothing should 'penetrate' that envelope.

Which, BTW, possibly explains the prevalence of cross-leases even for
new developments, since the two buildings can be put close together in
the middle of the single (legal) section.

Alan,

On Wed, 08 Dec 2004 12:47:22 +1300, The Other Guy <>
wrote:

>EMB wrote:
>> Auckland City Council's rules are <10.5m high, at least 1m off the
>> boundary, and the structure is to be <1.1m wide.
>
>Great. Any idea what the requirements might be in Manukau City?
>
>I have e-mailed them on more than one occasion to ask about
>requirements, but have yet to get a reply.
>
>The Other Guy


Just call them. I find none of the councils will respond to emails or
voice messages particularily quickly, but if you are put through to
the planning helpdesk they will tell you almost straight away. I
don't like talking to real people either though!

I would have thought there would be some height in relation to
boundary requirements as well, but what do I know.

On Wed, 8 Dec 2004 12:49:12 +1300, "Alan" <> wrote:

>"The Other Guy" <> wrote in message
>news:...
>>
>> Great. Any idea what the requirements might be in Manukau City?
>>
>> I have e-mailed them on more than one occasion to ask about
>> requirements, but have yet to get a reply.
>>
>> The Other Guy
>>
>
>This is hearsay (from an estate agent in Howick!) so I don't know if
>it is right or if it applies right across Manakau City, but...
>
>If you draw a line at 45 degrees from the front and rear boundaries,
>starting 2m high, nothing should 'penetrate' that envelope.
>

Most urban councils have height in relation to boundary rules.
Auckland City's (I haven't done much work in Manukau) specify
different angles for different boundaries, eg 45 degrees for southern
boundary, 35 for western etc. I can't quote the angles off by heart
though. ACC have it on their website somewhere.

>Which, BTW, possibly explains the prevalence of cross-leases even for
>new developments, since the two buildings can be put close together in
>the middle of the single (legal) section.

They used to be prevalent because they got around council planning
rules. Councils have now accepted crossleases and incorporated
controls for them.

I have no idea why someone would do a new cross-lease. I think ACC
did have a thing a while back where subdivision was 1 house per 400
and cross lease was 1 house per 350. Its not around any more as far
as I'm aware.

One guy I knew built three townhouses around 5 years ago, crossleased
them, sold the front two and lived in the back one. His reasoning was
so that he had enforceable controls (via the lease documents) over
what the people in the front two houses did with their properties.

The Other Guy wrote:
> EMB wrote:
>
>> Auckland City Council's rules are <10.5m high, at least 1m off the
>> boundary, and the structure is to be <1.1m wide.
>
>
> Great. Any idea what the requirements might be in Manukau City?
>
> I have e-mailed them on more than one occasion to ask about
> requirements, but have yet to get a reply.

IIRC most residential land in Manukau City has a max structure height of
8m, and an antenna is allowed to protrude by not more than 2m above the
max structure height. IME it's better to phone them than email them -
they don't normally hang up until they've solved your problem. It's
also easier to talk about a (potential) ham radio antenna than try and
explain wireless networks to tham.

--
EMB

Alan wrote:

> This is hearsay (from an estate agent in Howick!) so I don't know if
> it is right or if it applies right across Manakau City, but...
>
> If you draw a line at 45 degrees from the front and rear boundaries,
> starting 2m high, nothing should 'penetrate' that envelope.

Manukau is 2.5m at the boundary with varying angles IIRC, but AIUI
antennae are exempt (as they are in Auckland City)

>
> Which, BTW, possibly explains the prevalence of cross-leases even for
> new developments, since the two buildings can be put close together in
> the middle of the single (legal) section.

No they can't. The cross-lease boundary is treated the same way as any
other boundary. However if you build multiple dwellings before
cross-leasing or subdividing there is no "boundary" so the controls do
not apply - some fscker has just done this right next door and it's cost
me my view. If he'd subdivided first the house would only have been
able to be 25% of the size.



--
EMB

"The Other Guy" <> wrote in message
news:...
> EMB wrote:
>> Auckland City Council's rules are <10.5m high, at least 1m off the
>> boundary, and the structure is to be <1.1m wide.
>
> Great. Any idea what the requirements might be in Manukau City?
>
> I have e-mailed them on more than one occasion to ask about requirements,
> but have yet to get a reply.
>
> The Other Guy

Too bad your city council can't afford a basic Telecom phone account
otherwise you might actually be able to find out something any talk about
what you can and can't do.

Emails are a **** poor form of communication compared to a direct phone
call.

E. Scrooge