Report On the National Antenna Tower Policy Review (sf08369)


  1. 231 Most of the sample protocols used to create the spreadsheet were obtained from the FCM Web site. About ten local governments forwarded final or draft copies of their respective protocols as part of their submission to the National Antenna Tower Policy Review. A few of those protocols were used for the tables.
  2. 232 The protocols for North Saanich, Caledon and Strathcona require the carrier to provide proof that a notice was actually served upon members of the public.
  3. 233 The municipalities of Caledon and Markham require the posting of signs upon the parcel of land.
  4. 234 City of Calgary, Planning and Building Department Report to the SPC on Operations and Environment: Policy Guidelines for the Development of Amateur Radio Antenna Structures in Residential Areas (OE98-61: Attachment 1) dated 9 September 1998. Industry Canada participated in those discussions.
  5. 235 For example, representatives from the City of Calgary explained they have come to realize that an amateur's antenna installation is often a work-in-progress. Thus, an installation that was exempted (under the protocol) when installed can be subject to additions to its height and in the number of antennas arrays such that it becomes more intrusive over time. The radio station owners often claim that each change, in of itself, should be regarded as insignificant under Industry Canada's policies for the modification of Type 2 antenna installations. If regarded as an insignificant modification, each change would be exempt from local consultation requirements.
  6. 236 Radio Amateurs of Canada Formal Submission dated 10 October 2003.
  7. 237 Ibid. at p. 9. When first drafted, the "Calgary Guidelines" set the threshold height at 13 metres (42.64 feet) but this was increased to 18 metres at the strong urging of the amateur community.
  8. 238 The justifications for the increase in antenna height (threshold) relate to the exploitable characteristics of the radiofrequency spectrum and the frequencies assigned to radio amateurs. These matters were explained in many of the amateur radio submissions received. See, for example, the RAC submission at pp. 5, 9 and A-3, the Formal Written Submission of Timothy S. Ellam dated 16 October 2003 at p.2-3, the Formal Written Submission of Ralph Cameron dated 23 September 2003 at p. 3, the Formal Written Submission of the Radio Amateur du Québec Inc. dated 1 October 2003 at pp. 3-4, and the Formal Written Submission of Lloyd W. Hofmann dated July 3, 2003 at p. 2. An in-person meeting was held with representatives of the RAC on 18 December 2003 in Ottawa.
  9. 239 FCM Position Statement Regarding Telecommunications Towers and Antennas, Federation of Canadian Municipalities 2004 Annual Meeting, May 30, 2004, Edmonton Alberta.
  10. 240 CPC-2-0-03, Issue 3, 24 June 1995 at p.
  11. 241 UK, Planning Policy Guidance 8 (PPG 8): Telecommunications, effective date 22 August 2001. Available online at the URL:
  12. 242 Ibid. Planning Policy number 8
  13. 243 Ibid. Planning Policy number 9
  14. 244 Ibid. Appendix Supporting Guidance Statement number 37. Within its Appendix, the document warns planning authorities that they must keep in confidence the details of the network plans revealed to them by the telecommunications operators.
  15. 245 The Calgary Protocol: "Statement of Principles Agreed to by the Carriers" at p. 2.
  16. 246 Discussion Draft, City of Calgary, Telecommunications Antenna Structures Planning Criteria, Revision 7, dated 2 December 2003.
  17. 247 The wireless carriers readily agree to this requirement because most of their cell site are utilize space on land or buildings which they lease. Invariably, these lease agreements contain covenants that require non-operational equipment to be removed and the site restored.
  18. 248 The Calgary Protocol: "Statement of Principles Agreed to by the Carriers" at p. 1.
  19. 249 The General Development Guidelines from Guelph are available online at the FCM Web site at the URL: <;.
  20. 250 CPC-2-0-03 at p. 4.
  21. 251 Ibid., CPC at p. 5.
  22. 252 Ibid.
  23. 253 It should be noted that the Board of Directors of the Federation of Canadian Municipalities (FCM) recently adopted a telecommunications policy principle that states that unilateral decisions by Industry Canada to resolve antenna impasse situations are "unacceptable and in certain circumstances could be unconstitutional." See: Telecommunications Towers and Antennas, Principles adopted by the National Board of Directors in March of 2003.
  24. 254 It should be noted that within his report about the FM broadcast antenna towers on Triangle Mountain, Dr. Rod Dobell criticized Industry Canada for its passive role within the current antenna authorization process. See: Report on the Triangle Mountain Antenna Towers Review, Dr. A. R. Dobell, University of Victoria, December 31, 2002 at pp. 7 and 8. Many of the formal written submissions filed on behalf of the radiocommunication industry called for a more active role by Industry Canada during the negotiation stages..
  25. 255 CPC-2-0-03 at p. 9.
  26. 256 Ibid.
  27. 257 Much of the history related to railway proximity issues is available on the Web site operated on behalf of the Canadian Railway Association. See the various sub-topics listed under the title, "Railway/Municipality Proximity Issue Information Base" located at the URL: <>.
  28. 258 It is rumoured that Transport Canada informed our rail companies that a national response to proximity issues was needed and that federal government was prepared to legislate national proximity abatement rules if alternative approaches could not be found.
  29. 259 "Memorandum of Understanding" between The Federation of Canadian Municipalities and The Railway Association of Canada, signed into force in April of 2003.
  30. 260 Information regarding the status of the dispute resolution protocol from email communication from Michael Lowenger, RAC Vice President (Operations and Regulatory Affairs), dated 9 July 2004.
  31. 261 The following recommendations from the wireless industry are contained in a letter from Dave Yarmouth, Associated Director Network Operations, Bell Mobility (28 May 2004). This letter was submitted to the National Antenna Tower Policy Review upon request. It includes several enclosures and copies of municipal protocols, along with comment on the protocols. Included are letters and memos regarding protocols from the Region of York, City of London and Town of Oakville, sent by Stephen D'Agostino of Thomson Rogers, solicitors for Bell Mobility, Rogers Wireless Inc. and Telus Mobility. Protocols and policies from the Town of Markham, the Municipality of Chatham-Kent, the City of London, and the Town of Oakville are also included.
  32. 262 Bell, Rogers and Telus prefer to use public open houses to educate the public and solicit their views.
  33. 263 For more information on international approaches to antenna siting see the comparative policy material discussed under Policy Question 1: How can the local consultation improved ?
  34. 264 Australian Communications Authority, Frequently Asked Questions of Radiocommunications Infrastructure Industry Code, online: <>.
  35. 265 Telecommunications Code of Practice 1997 (Cth.) online: SCALEplus: Australian Attorney General's Department < at s. 2.37.
  36. 266 Letter from Deloitte & Touche to Mike Dolan, Director of the Mobile Operators Association (9 July 2003), Implementation Review of the Ten Commitments to Best Siting Practice for the UK Mobile Phone Industry online: Mobile Operators Association. <> at p. 10.
  37. 267 U.K., Office of Communication <>.
  38. 268 Client Procedures Circular, Environmental Process, Radiofrequency Fields and Land-use Consultation CPC-2-0-03, Issue 3, 24 June 1995.
  39. 269 Ibid. CPC-2-0-03 at p. 6.
  40. 270 Broadcasting Procedure Rules, Part 1: General Rules (BPR Part 1), Issue 3, July 2004.
  41. 271 CAB Formal Written Submission dated 17 October 2003 at p. 5. The Bell Wireless Alliance provided a similar list of the benefits of co-location within its Formal Written Submission dated 10 March 2004 at p. 13.
  42. 272 Within its written submission the Canadian Association of Broadcasters (CAB) stated that there may be circumstances in which certain commercial radio services should be required to justify why co-location was not feasible. See: CAB Submission at p. 6. Also, Microcell Communications made some policy suggestions to stimulate the co-location activities of the cellular and PCS providers. See: Microcell Communications Formal Written Submission dated 24 October 2003 at pp. 6-7. In November of 2003, a private member's bill was introduced into Parliament by MP Gary Lunn to amend sections of the Radiocommunication Act to simulate co-location activities for commercial radio services. See: Bill C-467, An Act to amend the Radiocommunication Act, 2nd Session, 37th Parliament, 5 November 2003. The bill did not proceed past its introduction.
  43. 273 The structural deficiencies may relate to the stability of the supporting structure in the wind. For example, it was learned during consultations with representatives with the Office of the Premier of Prince Edward Island that Rogers Communications has declined to locate its cellular antennas on most of the early cellular antenna towers sited on PEI because they will not be sufficiently stable. Typically, Rogers connects into the public switched telephone network (PSTN) via its own terrestrial microwave network and these microwave dishes will lose connectivity if the supporting structure twists in the wind. From: Meeting held on 13 January 2004 in Charlottetown.
  44. 274 Limits of Human Exposure to Radiofrequency Electromagnetic Fields in the Frequency Range from 3 kHz to 300 GHz, Safety Code 6, 1999.
  45. 275 During consultations with members of the Canadian Electricity Association it was learned that commercial radio antennas have been sited on high-tension electrical transmission line towers in British Columbia, Alberta, Manitoba and Ontario. CEA members stressed the safety, security and legal liability concerns related to this type of siting. From: CEA Formal Written Submission dated 16 October 2003 and CEA Teleconference dated 15 April 2004.
  46. 276 The author is unaware of any country that has implemented tower or site sharing in such as manner that it removes a lessor's right to set leasing terms and conditions which may control co-location approvals.
  47. 277 Generally, low profile, monopole supporting structures are not designed to support multiple antennas. Likewise, the options to use camouflaging or 'stealth' technologies (to blend antenna structures into their surroundings) often become quite limited when more than one antenna is to be accommodated on the supporting structure.
  48. 278 The height of a supporting structure may have to be increased in order to achieve the required interference separation between each of the antenna elements or so that the antennas of each service provider can be mounted above the surrounding terrain or urban infrastructure.
  49. 279 Radio amateur organizations often own a community antenna site which is shared by its members but this does not negate the need for a home-based antenna. Within his formal written submission, Lloyd W. Hoffman of Edmonton, Alberta stated that 98.7 percent of all fixed amateur radio installations were located at the residence of the operator. See Hoffman Formal Written Submission dated 3 July 2003 at p. 2.
  50. 280 This point was reinforced by DND representatives during the data-collection phase of this national policy review. From: DND Formal Written Submission, dated 26 September 2003 at p. 3 and meeting held on 29 January 2004 in Ottawa.
  51. 281 From: Consultation with CBC representatives 30 January 2004 in Ottawa. See also CBC Formal Written Submission dated 23 October 2003. The CBC operates nearly 1200 AM, FM and television transmitters in Canada from about 980 antenna sites (CBC submission at p. 1). See also, Formal Written Submission of Canadian Association of Broadcasters (CAB), dated 17 October 2003 at pp. 5-6.
  52. 282 Due to the electromagnetic characteristics of AM broadcasting antennas, the signal may suffer significant degradation if other radiofrequency emitters are located nearby. Also, the low terrain and rather isolated locations selected for AM facilities are not optimal for other radio services. Finally, AM antenna towers are single-purpose structures not designed for additional loading requirements. Ibid. Submission of CAB at p. 5.
  53. 283 Perhaps, the condition related to cooperative structure-sharing might be better described as a policy 'expectation' than a policy requirement.
  54. 284 Wireless policy requirements cited from Order in Council P.C. 1994-1689, dated 8 October 1994. These particular requirements are related to the system interconnection requirements set by the federal government so that new wireless service entrants not associated with a major telephone company could obtain access to the public switched telephone network (PSTN).
  55. 285 From: "Policy and Call for Applications: Wireless Personal Communications Services in the 2 GHz Range, Implementing PCS in Canada", Industry Canada, 15 June 1995 at p.13.
  56. 286 Due to these engineering concerns, any efforts to co-locate antennas in one area should be done in consultation with the operators of any existing antenna sites. Within their Formal Written Submissions, the Canadian Association of Broadcasters (CAB) and radio engineer, D.E.M. Allen, called for the creation of a notification process when (other) antennas were to be sited in the vicinity of a broadcasting installation. CAB and Allen submissions both dated 17 October 2003. Representatives from DND made a similar request for a notification process in order to protect sensitive Signal Intelligence Monitoring Stations and other DND receive-only installations. Obviously, DND does not want any radio transmitters located proximately to sensitive listening stations used for national security purposes. During a meeting held in Ottawa on 29 January 2004, representatives from DND provided a map of the grounds of a DND facility that noted that a cellular/PCS antenna tower had been established just beyond the fenced perimeter of a DND listening station. No advance notice had been provided. Industry Canada has a process to identify non-broadcast stations within 2 km of broadcasting stations.
  57. 287 Of course there are limits to these benefits. For example, the accumulated (negative) visual or environmental impact from locating multiple antennas at one terrestrial site could outweigh any advantages to the surrounding community.
  58. 288 Within the written submission filed on behalf of the Canadian Pacific Railway Company (CPR) the siting of antenna installations on railway lands (rail yards and rights-of-way) was strongly endorsed. See: CPR Formal Written Submission dated 22 October 2003 at p. 2.
  59. 289 In Canada some local planning authorities have worked with antenna proponents to designate antenna farms, where multiple types of antennas may be sited on a particular parcel of land. In the U.K. antenna proponents and planning authorities are encouraged by the radio regulator to designate an area for antennas and for the planning authority to pre-authorize the addition of more antennas at that location. By means of section 106 of the UK Town and Country Planning Act 1990, a local planning authority can make an enforceable commitment to permit more antennas to be added to the site. See: U.K.Planning Policy Guidance 8: Telecommunications, at para. 70.
  60. 290 Within the consultation process, representatives from a few broadcasting interests and from the Department of National Defence (DND) expressed concern about the encroachment of residential or urban development upon their established antenna sites. Broadcasters complained that the encroachment of residential housing often produced a number of negative consequences. The structures and the electromagnetic noise from various equipment disrupted their signals and, on occasion, such encroachment brought citizens within electric fields (produced by the broadcaster) of sufficient power density to disrupt the functioning of some electronic consumer goods. From: Consultation with CBC/Radio Canada, dated 30 January 2004 in Ottawa. See: DND Formal Written Submission, dated 26 September 2003 at p. 4.
  61. 291 It is interesting to note that the Province of Prince Edward Island refused to participate in antenna approval policies in 2002 in frustration over the planning and approval role given to provincial planning officials. Also, the mayor of a large municipality in British Columbia stated that his council merely says "no" to antenna proponents seeking approval due to the lack of a meaningful role in the authorization process. He asked, "Why should we put ourselves into the path of angry citizens who oppose the antenna installation when the current process does not give us any levers to secure siting accommodations from the companies who want these antennas? If the minister [of Industry] over-rules us, we have done nothing wrong." From: In-person interview dated 21 August 2003.
  62. 292 From: In-person interviews, 28 October 2003 in Montréal and 18 June 2004 in Ottawa.
  63. 293 Frequently, local land-use authorities are so supportive of rooftop antenna installations that they will fast-track their approval.
  64. 294 When consulted about this issue, many land-use authorities took the view that they wanted (at the least) to be notified about the erection of a commercial antenna installation upon a rooftop located within their jurisdiction.
  65. 295 Rooftop antenna farms operated by the owner or manager of the building are much more common in the U.S.A. than in Canada.
  66. 296 These third party antenna site operators began appearing in the late 1990s in the U.S.A. It was at this time that some of the large wireless service providers came to the conclusion that it was in their best (fiscal) interests to sell some of their antenna infrastructure to an independent third party and to lease space at their former site. Presently, there are five competitors in the U.S.A. operating multi-tenant antenna sites on a national basis.
  67. 297 Prudent radio engineering will ensure that no lessee suffers an unacceptable level of radio interference and that the emissions from all radio users cannot combine in such a manners so as to exceed the maximum permissible exposure limits for those living or working nearby.
  68. 298 In Atlantic Canada, for example, Aliant Mobility has spent about 300 million dollars over the past five years to implement a plan to extend its "1X" data wireless services to 90 percent of the resident population. From: "Aliant Completes Wireless 1X Data Network Expansion, Wireless Data Speed Doubles," Aliant Mobility press release dated 8 April 2004. Industry Canada has been investigating policy options that would stimulate the extension of advanced digital wireless services to un-served and under-served areas of rural Canada. See: Consultation on the Spectrum for Advanced Wireless Services and Review of Mobile Spectrum Cap Policy, Canada Gazette - Part 1, Notice DGTP-007-03, October 2003.
  69. 299 As the population density increases in many urban areas the (antenna) service cells are split and more, but lower, antennas are established.
  70. 300 Currently, there are two analogue and five digital networks operating in Canada.
  71. 301 In consultations with representatives from Bell Wireless Alliance it was explained that it was challenging for Bell's CDMA systems to be co-located with Microcell's GSM technology because the radio spectrum used by both systems is very proximate. Some of the technical solutions worked out by the two companies to facilitate co-location are now being used to co-locate similar systems in other countries. From: Teleconference call with Bell Wireless Alliance dated 21 April 2004..
  72. 302 When data was collected from local governments in 1986 (Townsend), 1997 (Townsend) and for this policy review, large municipalities reported that the wireless carriers tended to arrive at their development offices almost in tandem and in waves, as technological up-grading was undertaken.
  73. 303 Of course, vast expanses of the geographic areas described have no cellular or PCS services.
  74. 304 A stealth installation, as they are called, can produce a ten-fold increase in the cost of the antenna site. One of the most expensive stealth antenna types has its antenna hidden within a large, artificial pine tree.
  75. 305 Within its submission the Canadian Owners and Pilots Association (COPA) expressed strong support for policy initiatives that would result in more co-siting in non-urban areas so as to reduce the number of obstructions to aeronautical traffic. Multiple antenna towers located along highway corridors can pose a significant challenge to air traffic that uses those same corridors to mark visual flight paths. On a related matter, COPA also was concerned about the increasing number of towers being established in non-urban areas and near aerodromes not actively regulated by Transport Canada. See: COPA Formal Written Submission dated 15 October 2003 at pp. 3-4. (COPA represents the interests of pilots who use small aircraft for personal travel and recreation purposes..
  76. 306 Quoted from letter sent by Industry Canada to all PCS licensees, dated 15 April 1996. This letter was noted within the Formal Written Submission of Microcell Telecommunications Inc., dated 24 October 2003.
  77. 307 To be fair, it should be noted that just under 30 percent of antenna towers are being shared if one examines sharing activities with competitors and non-competitors. The problem with adding the co-siting activities with non-competitors into the total of shared towers is that many of the non-competitors are municipal, provincial and commercial radio users which otherwise may not have erected a dedicated tower for their services. Thus, the key question is whether this type of tower-sharing would lead to a net reduction in towers erected? In situations where a wireless carrier is hosting the antennas of a non-competitor, a net reduction in towers is not the most likely result.
  78. 308 Ibid. submission of Microcell at p 5.
  79. 309 In October of 2002, Telus Communications Inc. filed a "Radio Tower Access Service" Tariff with the CRTC. That tariff, which was given final approval in February of 2003 contains many of the clauses that appear within a typical site-sharing contact used by the wireless carriers. See: Telecom Order CRTC 2003-85 dated 20 February 2003 and Telus Communication's original filing with the CRTC, Carrier Access Tariff item 215, Radio Tower Access Service, 10 October 2002. The one-for-one site sharing or 'banking' provisions of a typical inter-carrier agreement were not filed.
  80. 310 If there is no exclusivity clause and the site is useful to competitors they will arrive without the first carrier acquiring an accommodation credit. One carrier stated during meetings that some of their competitors charge up to $5,000.00 to waive an exclusivity clause on a one-time basis. This carrier explained that this fee, which is not applied toward the costs associated with the technical accommodations necessary for the co-location, is meant to offset the cost of securing the clause with the landlord.
  81. 311 A broadcaster consulted under this project stated that when they encounter an exclusivity clause at a site where a wireless carrier is established they tend to look elsewhere unless the site is a critical location for them.
  82. 312 During consultations one wireless carrier admitted that they were in the process of constructing a tower in one region of the country because a co-location has been denied due to an imbalance of banking credits in another region.
  83. 313 Generally, it is the larger cities and larger suburban municipalities in Canada that have negotiated antenna siting protocols with the national wireless carriers. These protocols frequently contain undertakings by the signatory carrier to engage in co-location with other carriers when such is feasible. In times of rapid expansion within an urban or suburban area it would be a simple matter for the expanding carrier to develop an imbalance of co-locations in the siting bank with its competitors and, consequently, have to construct towers for its roll out in rural areas in circumstances where co-locations with those competitors were possible.
  84. 314 "Consultation on a New Fee and Licensing Regime for Cellular and Incumbent Personal Communications Services (PCS) Licensees" Canada Gazette - Part 1, Notice No. DGRB-004-02, dated 21 December 2002.
  85. 315 CRTC Order 97-1797.
  86. 316 PRESS RELEASE dated 17 October 2001, "TELUS Mobility enters roaming/resale agreements with other Canadian CDMA wireless carriers"
  87. 317 The Bell Wireless Alliance made this very point in its Formal Written Submission dated 10 March 2004 at p. 8.
  88. 318 Industry Canada will, of course, have to review the proposed network sharing arrangements that have been negotiated between the major wireless carriers to create common standards and protocols in order to establish and share 500 common WiFi hotspots. The industry agreement was announced in the media on 2 March 2004.
  89. 319 See generally the qualitative analysis of the comments offered during the Discussion Forum within Appendix A.
  90. 320 Red Deer Formal Written Submission, "Report to City Council in 1999".
  91. 321 Canadian Wireless telecommunications Commission Formal Written Submission dated 9 October 2003; Telus Communications Inc. Formal Written Submission dated 10 October 2003.
  92. 322 "The CAB believes that communications towers should not be singled out for examination on this point. Clearly, towers are not the only property uses that can have a theoretical impact on the market value of neighboring property. However, we do not find any federal government studies underway elsewhere that are investigating whether property values are adversely affected by neighbors who plant trees that block sunlight, erect ugly fences, refuse to mow their lawns, or paint their houses chartreuse." From: Canadian Association of Broadcasters Formal Written Submission dated 17 October 2003 at p. 13.
  93. 323 Rogers Communications, Inc. Formal Written Submission dated October 2003 at pp. 25-26.
  94. 324 Contest Club Canada Formal Written Submission; Nora Hague Formal Written Submission dated 17 October 2003; Leo Nikkinen Formal Written Submission dated 28 October 2003; Radio Amateurs of Canada (RAC) Formal Written Submission dated 10 October 2003.
  95. 325 For quotes, see the Appendix A summarizing user opinions from the online discussion forums. Radio amateurs generally support the position that local crime, unkept yards and houses, immobile cars and poor choices of paint colours affect property values more than the presence of amateur radio towers. They also cite the positive characteristics of amateur radio towers, such as the emergency services provided.
  96. 326 Page et. al v. Mangaroo (1987) S.C. 883/87 judgement 26 August 1987.
  97. 327 RAC Submission, Annex D at p. D-3 and p. D-8.
  98. 328 Real estate appraisers and land-use planners often categorize imposing urban infrastructure, such as antenna towers and electrical power transmission lines, as disamenities or LULUs (local undesirable land-use factors).
  99. 329 Robin Gregory, James Flynn & Paul Slovic, "Technological Stigma" in Risk, Media and Stigma: Understanding Public Challenges to Modern Science and Technology (London: Earthscan Publications Ltd., 2001) 3 at p. 3.
  100. 330 Thomas A. Jaconetty, "Stigma, Phobias, and Fear: Their Effect on Valuation" (1996) 3 Assessment J. 51.
  101. 331 See generally, Roger E. Kasperson, Nayna Jhaveri & Jeanne X. Kasperson, "Stigma and the Social Amplification of Risk: Toward a Framework of Analysis" in Risk, Media and Stigma: Understanding Public Challenges to Modern Science and Technology (London: Earthscan Publications Ltd., 2001) 9
  102. 332 Jeffrey T. Briggs, "Amateur Radio Antennas and Real Property Assessment Values: A Study on Dartantra Drive, East Fishkill, New York, 1977 - 1996." This study is located within the RAC as Appendix 2 to Annex D: Examples of Studies on the Effect of Antenna Support Structures on Property Value Assessments.
  103. 333 Stanley M. Makuch, Neil Craik & Signe B. Leisk, Canadian Municipal and Planning Law, 2nd ed. (Toronto: Carswell, 2004) at 63-66.
  104. 334 Ibid. at 66.
  105. 335 Canada, Public Works and Government Services Canada, Appraisers and Valuation Services - Environmental Impacts online: Public Works and Government Services Canada <;.
  106. 336 Memorandum from Paul Meyette, principal planner, Parkland Community Planning Services (July 21, 2003) Re: Telecommunications Facilities Guidelines - Planning Report at p. 5.
  107. 337 Facsimile from Dave Hitchcock, area assessor, BC Assessment (February 23, 2001) Re: Radio Transmissions and Towers, Triangle Mountain, Colwood, 2001 Assessment Reductions Due to Proximity to Transmission Towers. This document was provided by the Colwood Transmission Towers Citizens Committee at a meeting held on 21 August 2003 in Colwood, BC.
  108. 338 Sandy Bond and Karen Beamish, "Residents' Perceptions Towards Living Near Cell Phone Towers" presented to the Twentieth American Real Estate Society Conference, April 20-24, 2004, Captiva Island, Florida.
  109. 339 Sandy Bond and Ko-Kang Wang, "The Siting of Cell Phone Towers in Residential Neighbourhoods: Do Home-owners Care?" presented at the American Real Estate and Urban Economics Association (AREUEA), Thirteenth Annual International Real Estate Conference, Fredericton, New Brunswick, July 29-31, 2004.
  110. 340 For the study released in July of 2004 the actual prices from 4283 residential house sales were tracked. Approximately 1000 selling transactions occurred within each of the four suburbs examined. The study referred to the approach used as a hedonic house price approach. "Hedonic", as described by The Canadian Oxford Dictionary, Katherine Barber, ed. (New York: Oxford University Press, 1998) means the "psychology of pleasant or unpleasant sensations".
  111. 341 Another explanation may be that a stigmatic effect caused by the towers, if such existed, disappeared over time and house prices rebounded.
  112. 342 Supra Sandy Bond and Ko-Kang Wang (2004) at p. 21.
  113. 343 R.W. Hughes & Associates Inc. Empirical Study of the Potential for Loss in Value to Real Property due to the Proximity of a Communication Tower. London, ON. (May 31, 2004).
  114. 344 Ibid at p. 32.
  115. 345 Ibid at p. 33.
  116. 346 Wales, Planning Policy, Technical Advice Note No. 19 Telecommunications, Policy on Property Values, National Assembly for Wales, Cardiff, ISBN 0 7504 2900 3, 2002 at para. 48.