Maximum antenna height

Discussion in 'NZ Computing' started by The Other Guy, Dec 7, 2004.

  1. 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, Dec 7, 2004
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. The Other Guy

    EMB Guest

    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
     
    EMB, Dec 7, 2004
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. 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.
     
    Dave - Dave.net.nz, Dec 7, 2004
    #3
  4. 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, Dec 7, 2004
    #4
  5. The Other Guy

    Alan Guest

    "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,
     
    Alan, Dec 7, 2004
    #5
  6. The Other Guy

    Mr Bond Guest

    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.
     
    Mr Bond, Dec 7, 2004
    #6
  7. The Other Guy

    Mr Bond Guest

    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.
     
    Mr Bond, Dec 7, 2004
    #7
  8. The Other Guy

    EMB Guest

    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
     
    EMB, Dec 8, 2004
    #8
  9. The Other Guy

    EMB Guest

    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
     
    EMB, Dec 8, 2004
    #9
  10. The Other Guy

    E. Scrooge Guest

    "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 piss poor form of communication compared to a direct phone
    call.

    E. Scrooge
     
    E. Scrooge, Dec 8, 2004
    #10
  11. The Other Guy

    Richard Guest

    Mr Bond wrote:

    > 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!


    You havent dealt with the North Shore council via email then - Very responsive IME

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


    From what I have being told, antennas are allowed to penetrate the height to
    boundary without needing resource concent. I have 6m of pole on the roof and
    noone has complained. If they do I will just take it down since its not actually
    doing anything at the moment.
     
    Richard, Dec 8, 2004
    #11
  12. The Other Guy

    colinco Guest

    In article Dave - Dave.net.nz says...
    > 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.
    >

    So will Santa when he runs into one :) I seem to remember Wgtn having a
    limit around the airport.
     
    colinco, Dec 8, 2004
    #12
  13. E. Scrooge wrote:
    > Emails are a piss poor form of communication compared to a direct phone
    > call.


    and here I was thinking that I've been using email for the last 4 years
    withough calling a call centre unless I absolutly needed to(they didn't
    have email).
     
    Dave - Dave.net.nz, Dec 8, 2004
    #13
  14. The Other Guy

    John Fulton Guest

    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.
    >
    > Thanks,
    >
    > The Other Guy

    You might run foul of the NZRFS before you run foul of the local
    council. I am not sure what you need as a private citizen when it comes
    to radio data transmission covering a substantial area. I am sure there
    will be limitations upon the range of an 802.11x network! and I suspect
    that you will run foul of that before you exceed a height restriction!

    Regards

    John Fulton
     
    John Fulton, Dec 8, 2004
    #14
  15. John Fulton wrote:

    > 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.
    >>
    >> Thanks,
    >>
    >> The Other Guy

    >
    > You might run foul of the NZRFS before you run foul of the local
    > council. I am not sure what you need as a private citizen when it comes
    > to radio data transmission covering a substantial area. I am sure there
    > will be limitations upon the range of an 802.11x network! and I suspect
    > that you will run foul of that before you exceed a height restriction!


    The legal broadcast strength of "personal devices" got rased recently
    didn't it?
    I know it changed her in Dunedin, so maybe it was just a local council
    limitation.

    either way, 802.11b/g can be made to go long(over 27kms) distance
    legally... and given the 500mw amp available from DSE, you could
    probably go even further.
     
    Dave - Dave.net.nz, Dec 8, 2004
    #15
  16. The Other Guy

    Richard Guest

    John Fulton wrote:

    > You might run foul of the NZRFS before you run foul of the local
    > council. I am not sure what you need as a private citizen when it comes
    > to radio data transmission covering a substantial area. I am sure there
    > will be limitations upon the range of an 802.11x network! and I suspect
    > that you will run foul of that before you exceed a height restriction!


    Your allowed up to 4 watts EIRP on the 2.4Ghz band which is the one most people
    go for as the gear is cheap. You are allowed more on 5.8GHz - but the kit costs
    a pretty penny so not many bother, 5.1GHz your not _supposed_ to use outside,
    and 5.3GHz has a 250mw limit on it. There are other bands that are used in
    europe and japan that have no GURL here at the moment, so your not supposed to
    use them at all.
     
    Richard, Dec 8, 2004
    #16
  17. The Other Guy

    E. Scrooge Guest

    "Dave - Dave.net.nz" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > E. Scrooge wrote:
    >> Emails are a piss poor form of communication compared to a direct phone
    >> call.

    >
    > and here I was thinking that I've been using email for the last 4 years
    > withough calling a call centre unless I absolutly needed to(they didn't
    > have email).


    When you were on the Helpdesk for Xtra the little phone in front of you was
    the main part of the job. If managed to reply to a few emails out of the
    hundreds of emails as well that Telecom get each day then well and good.
    :)

    If I want action and answers then nothing beats the phone... apart from
    face to face of course. If the person on the phone at the other end has any
    questions or needs any info, it's taken care of right there and then.

    People that email ihug seem to think they're the only customer that ihug
    has, and haven't got a clue how many others are also trying to get there
    emails answered.

    If the 0800 number means a long wait, that's when I use the 0900 to then
    bypass all the other idiots.

    When it comes to businesses snail mail probably has a better chance of
    getting through compared to hundreds of emails each day.

    E. Scrooge
     
    E. Scrooge, Dec 8, 2004
    #17
  18. The Other Guy

    Gordon Guest

    On Wed, 08 Dec 2004 13:48:15 +1300, E. Scrooge wrote:

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


    Well, it depends. Nevertheless Scrooges idea that you have other weapons
    in your amoury, go and get one as it might get the break thru you are
    seeking.
     
    Gordon, Dec 8, 2004
    #18
  19. E. Scrooge wrote:
    >>>Emails are a piss poor form of communication compared to a direct phone
    >>>call.


    >>and here I was thinking that I've been using email for the last 4 years
    >>withough calling a call centre unless I absolutly needed to(they didn't
    >>have email).


    > When you were on the Helpdesk for Xtra the little phone in front of you was
    > the main part of the job. If managed to reply to a few emails out of the
    > hundreds of emails as well that Telecom get each day then well and good.
    > :)


    I mostly did email support. :p
     
    Dave - Dave.net.nz, Dec 8, 2004
    #19
  20. The Other Guy

    E. Scrooge Guest

    "Dave - Dave.net.nz" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > E. Scrooge wrote:
    > >>>Emails are a piss poor form of communication compared to a direct phone
    > >>>call.

    >
    > >>and here I was thinking that I've been using email for the last 4 years
    > >>withough calling a call centre unless I absolutly needed to(they didn't
    > >>have email).

    >
    > > When you were on the Helpdesk for Xtra the little phone in front of you

    was
    > > the main part of the job. If managed to reply to a few emails out of

    the
    > > hundreds of emails as well that Telecom get each day then well and good.
    > > :)

    >
    > I mostly did email support. :p


    Sure you did...
    In between a lot of newsgroup activity. ;-)

    E. Scrooge
     
    E. Scrooge, Dec 8, 2004
    #20
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. area51
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    590
    area51
    Jan 12, 2004
  2. everyman

    Which antenna best for panel antenna

    everyman, Jan 4, 2006, in forum: Wireless Networking
    Replies:
    7
    Views:
    1,568
    Jack \(MVP-Networking\).
    Jan 5, 2006
  3. Henrik2000
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    590
  4. tvs

    For Your Height Only DVD

    tvs, Nov 18, 2004, in forum: DVD Video
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    498
  5. rossco
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    917
    rossco
    Nov 24, 2005
Loading...

Share This Page