Discussions

Good morning,  
There is a proposal from Shared Tower to build a cellar tower at 34th st and Elviss Cres. This tower is within 100m of 12 houses, 10 of which are opposed to the proposal (the other 2 are indifferent).  
 
Other Canadian cities have implemented protocols which limit the distance from residential areas that these towers can be put up (see below for examples).  
 
If you believe our city should have a similar protocol, please sign the petition found here:  
https://www.change.org/p/implement-telecommunication-setbacks-in-brandon  
 
Although this tower might not affect you personally, it is affecting others in our community, and without a prescribed limit the next tower could be by your own home.  
 
Thank you for your consideration  
 
 
Examples of other city antenna protocols:  
Richmond guidelines, more than 150m from lands with residential  
Calgary guidelines, at least 100m from dwellings for towers 31-45m in height  
Edmonton guidelines, discouraged locations: a) residential areas (except when on roof of buildings a minimum of 23m)  
Regina guidelines, acceptable locations for new freestanding antenna systems - a) industrial, commercial or nonresidential areas  
Saskatoon guidelines, - a minimum 200m from any residential area  
Winnipeg guidelines, a minimum of the prescribed distance (3x height of tower) from residential areas  
Toronto guidelines, 120m from neighbourhoods  
Guelph guidelines, maximize distance from residential areas  
 
Note: I have all these protocols saved if you are interested in fact checking the above I can forward to your email.

This same 105 ft tower was proposed for the Durum Drive location in Feb. 2025 and was strongly rejected by that neighborhood.  
 
We are asking for your assistance on having this same 105 ft. tower location rejected at the 34th Street & Elviss Crescent location. (to be installed at the old MB Hydro grounds)  
 
Please send an email rejecting this location and reference site STCM156. Public comments MUST be received by July 27, 2025. Emails need to be sent to:  
 
Shared Tower Inc. - Planning Manager - municipalwest@sharedtower.ca  
 
City of Brandon – Planning & Buildings Department - circulations@brandon.ca  
 
ISED Canada – Manitoba District Office - spectrumwinnipeg-winnipegspectre@ised-isde.gc.ca  
 
Thanks for your help on this serious matter.

What is being cited as the primary reason for rejecting these constructions?

Hi,  
Each of the ten residents I spoke with would have their own reasoning for being against such a proposal. I heard mention of health concerns, aesthetic impacts, property value impact, no issue with current cell phone coverage, and one mentioned the tower being within falling distance of her property.  
 
I am not trying to argue with anybody, I want to bring awareness that without a distance protocol for cellular towers the next one could go anywhere depending on the next proposal attempt. This company has previously tried for Cherry Crescent and Durum Bay.  
 
https://www.brandon.ca/news/posts/communication-tower-353-durum-drive/  
 
Edited by ChrisBird14, 2025-07-14 16:26:30

I am also curious of the reasoning for this reaction. For one, there are carrier masts on the lion's manner, the princess towers, one building at BU and on top one of a building downtown. The downtown and BU installations have been there for years. Probably as long as cellular service has been a thing around here.  
 
I suppose I can understand the fall hazard reason. But only to a point. There exists many natural and man made structures that could theoretically be just as dangerous (like trees and powerlines).  
 
As for the "we have enough cell service already!" argument, I'm guessing that it is future proofing the various networks. Since most of the newer bands (5G and such) tend to travel shorter distances despite the speed increases. Not to mention the sheer number of new devices being added to these networks. Watches, cars, any manor of iOT gadatry used for personal or business.

In 2016 the SCC ruled that municipal and provincial bodies can't interfere with radio communication infrastructure. This is solely a federal matter.  
 
https://decisions.scc-csc.ca/scc-csc/scc-csc/en/item/16016/index.do  
 
 
There's no conclusive evidence of any health risks from non-ionizing RF waves.  
 
https://www.cancer.org/cancer/risk-prevention/radiation-exposure/cellular-phone-towers.html  
 
https://www.cancer.gov/about-cancer/causes-prevention/risk/radiation/cell-phones-fact-sheet

I live on the west side of the city and I personally do not think anything is wrong with the area of "concern". There are a lot of dead zones in the city for coverage.  
 
Unfortunately, west side of city always complains about progressive matters. Including what can and can't be built. Which i:ncludes the new developments of housing.  
The rest of the city doesn't ever complain or gets noticed. Its time to mute the poor west side.  
Sorry I am not trying to be mean at all, and again I live on the west side of the city.  
 
Edited by Iceman69, 2025-07-15 13:00:57

To GDE, thank you for a 2016 ruling. Here is one from 2025  
 
The Supreme Court confirms that the CRTCdoes not have the power to grant telecom carriers access to public places for their 5G small cell antennas.  
 
https://www.scc-csc.ca/judgments-jugements/cb/2025/40776/  
 
 
If you guys don’t agree with the petition then move on. I don’t want to argue with folks , I made my points in the original comment.

I don’t know how to edit my last comment. But in regards to westend being progressive and the rest of the city not having a say, the petition is for a standardized setback protocol in the city. There are many industrial or commercial zones in town and as more towers keep popping up, why not have standards in place that keep such antennas a reasonable distance from residences. Other cities have the protocols, I didn’t make those up.

5G has a very short range, similar to Wifi, so if your neighbourhood doesn't get a tower, you may be left in the dark, so to speak.