Page 640 - Shaping smarter and more sustainable cities - Striving for sustainable development goals

 Notification for the majority of sites may be limited to the landowner, the local authority,
affected public utilities and others as required by national regulations. It is helpful if the
notification can be standardized nationally both within and between network operators as
this is less confusing to potential landlords and local authorities. Notification by poster or
letter might be an appropriate means in some locations. Notification constitutes a form of
basic information provision, a one‐way communication approach.

 Consultation might be sensible for locations with the potential for public opposition, such
as community facilities, locations with high amenity value or for sites with potentially high
perceived impact. This could mean a longer period of notification, allowing time to resolve
any issues with landowners and neighbours through more careful design, location choice
and potential flexibility in the implementation. Consultation by letter, telephone or through
meetings could be appropriate in locations where some opposition is expected either
regarding planning and environmental issues or due to community concerns. Consultation
constitutes a two‐way information exchange between the operator and the key
stakeholders.

 Dialogue might be necessary for environmentally sensitive areas or locations with complex
concerns such as schools or hospitals or locations where protests have previously taken
place. Prior discussions can be undertaken with landowners, neighbours, local authorities
and other stakeholders in order to develop agreements in advance of full deployment. This
will require a longer lead time in order to reduce or remove potential delays to deployment.
Dialogue should be considered for sites where a high level of community concern is
anticipated or where they could potentially escalate. This is a planned communication
process aimed at building trust and avoiding large‐scale public events and media campaigns.
Dialogue constitutes a multiple exchange of information between governments, operators
and a broad set of interested stakeholders.

9.1.4 Modifications to existing sites

Planning regulations should encourage the use of existing base station facilities for network
upgrades, modifications and deployment of additional ICT systems where feasible by providing for
faster decision‐making and simplified procedures. Modifications to existing sites need to ensure that
the site remains compliant with EMF exposure limits.

Simplified procedures for physical modifications should also be considered. In the USA, section
6409(a) of the Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act of 2012 provides that the State or local
government “may not deny, and shall approve” any application for collocation, removal, or
modification of equipment on wireless tower or base station that does not substantially change the
physical dimensions of a tower or base station. The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) has
previously defined “substantial increase in size” in the Nationwide Collocation Agreement, 47 C.F.R.
Part 1, Appendix B, as follows:
 Increase in tower height by more than 10% or height of additional antenna array plus 20 feet
(approximately 6 m), whichever is greater;
 More than four new equipment cabinets or one new shelter;
 Protrusion of more than 20 feet (approximately 6 m) or width of tower, whichever is greater;

 Excavation outside existing leased or owned property and current easements.
As another example, New Zealand provides for simplified procedures where a replacement pole
does not have a diameter greater than 50% of the original structure and height increase the lesser
of three metres or 10% (Ministry of the Environment, 2009). Other jurisdictions have similar

630 ITU‐T's Technical Reports and Specifications