a.

998 EDLR 565

OPTUS V CC KENSINGTON AND NORWOOD & FROST

Environment Resources and Development Court
Judgment No. OE480

Judge Trenorden, Commissioner Hutchings and Currie

Delivered 29'' May , 998

tLocal government - Town planning - Appeal against refusal of consent - Business

zone - Telecommunications base station - Height limit - Amenity - Health and safety -
Perceived amenity - Precautionary approach - Appeal up held. l

Optus appealed a deci. SLon of the Council. Co refuse consent Co a

mobi. Le teLecommuni. cations base statton.The proposa, . coinpi:'ised, . a
concrete monopoLe and antennae of around 20 metres in height
connected to a sinaL} equipment shelter Located on a PI. actorm.
Deci. ded :

I. . The proposaL was an appropri. ate use in the busi. ness zone for the
Counci. I. area .

2. A reducCLon i. n the perceived ameni. by Levels of residents due to

the debate about he aL Ch ef fecl:s of mobi. ,. e teLecommuni. cations
antennae was not reasonabLe gi. ven the exi. SLence of me asurabLe
standards wi. th which the proposaL coinpLi. ed.

The Court acknowLedged the precauti. onary approach to the

assessment of the risk to human he aLth posed by new Land uses.
However the Court was sati. sfi. ed that coinpLi. ance w, .th the
IceLevant AUStraLi. an standard i. n this case was consi. stent with
Chat approach.

THE COURT DELTVERED THE FOLLOWTNG JUDGMENT:

This appeal_ concerns a proposaL for a mobile teLecommuni. cations

base stabi_on at Norwood. Optus Coinmuni. cati. ons PLY Ltd ( " the
appel. Jant" ) , by appLi. cati. on dated 9 JULY 1,997, appLi. ed to the then
Ci. by of Kensi. rigCon and Norwood, for consent under the DeveJ. opment Act
1,993 to esCabLi. sh the base stabi. on, descr, .bed as a " fac, .Li. ty for the
reCept ton and transmi. SSLon of CeI. ecommuni. cattons " on Land at the
tritersecti. on of Magi. LL and FULLarton Roads, Norwood, the subject Land
betng coinpri. sed and described i. n Certi. fi. cabe of Ti. tJ. e Regtster Book
VOJ. ume 5221. FOLi. o L90, and presentLy occupLed by Hard Mart Pty Ltd.
We understand that the base station wouLd i. ncrease the LeveL of
servi. ce avai. LabLe for mobi:Ie phone users in the area who are cLi. ents
of the appel. Tant. The appLi. cation was Created by the Counci. I. as a
Category 3 deveLopment of whi. ch pubLi. c noti. EtcaCi. on was duLy gi. ven.
A number of representati_ons were made to the Counci. L i_n respect of
the proposed deveLopment. By pLanni. rig deci. si. on rioti. Etcati. on dated 1.5
October 1,997, the Counci. L advised that it had the proposed
deveLopment. By rioti. ce of appeal. fi. Led in this Court on J. ,. November
,. 997, the appeLLant appealed agai. nsC the deci. SLon of the Counci. L.
Subsequent, .y, Mr andrew Frost, who had Lodged a representati. on to the
Counci. L, was joi. ned as a party to the appeaL.
 ,.. 998 EDLR 566

OPTUS V CG KENSTNGTON AND NORWOOD & FROST

(2 )

The proposed deveLopment wi. }L be Located adjacent to the eastern

waLL of the exist trig Hard Mart butLd, .rig on the subject Land. A
wrtCten descri. PCi. on of the proposal. i, s provi_ded at pages 5-6 of the
statement of evi. dence of Jetfrey Raymond Sini. th, as toLLows :

us The proposal. ,. ncLudes :

A concrete monopo, .e topped wi. th three 2,300 ini. I. Li. metre

Long (cross poLar) antenna. The antenna are to be
housed Ln a cy, .i. ridri. caL POLYcarbonate sheath . The

_combi. ned height~ of the concrete monopoLe and antenna

sheath i, s Co be 20 metres. The concrete monopoLe i, s
to have a naturaL concrete COTour fi. ni. sh;

Two drum shaped (in, .crowave) antenna, each of 600

ini. LLi. metre di. ameter, attached to the monopoLe up to
L. 6 metres be}ow the top of the poLe;
A sandwi_ch paneL equipment sheLteJc 2.6 metres wi. de by
2.9 metres Located on a pLat f orm. The equ, .pinent
sheL ber wi. Ll. hous e e} ectroni. c equi. pinent as SOCi. ated
wi. th the operati. on of the base stabi. on factL, .ty. The

equipment sheI. tel:' wi. 1.1. have an overaLJ. height of 2.7

metres . COOLi. rig of equi. pinent wi. thi. n the sheLCer LS
achieved usLng domes ti. c type ai. I:' - cond, .ti. oning
equi. pinent ;
A steel. framed platform 3.6 metres wide and 4.6 metres
long set above the carparki. rig area to mai. ntai. n a
cLearance height of at Least 2 .I. metres . The pLatform
and supporti. rig steeL structure are to be pai. rited grey;
A fi. xed access scatrway to provi. de access to pLatform
LeveL;

A chain wire mesh securLty fence topped wi. Ch 3 barbed

strands to overaLL height of 2.7 metres above
(. an

pLatform LeveL; and

CabJ. e trays and cabLes connect, .rig between the
equi. pinent sheLter and the concrete monopol. e. "

Tn add:. ti. on, the pLans show that the POLYcarbonate sheath, wi. th
a di. ameter of 0.55m wi. LL SLt on the top 2.65m of the 20 metre
monopoLe, whi. ch has a di. ameter of 0.6m at Lbs base, taper trig to O. Sin
at the roof line of the Hard Mart butLdi. rig. The top of the antenna
i's apparentLy about 29 metres above the ground I. eveL of the bui. Ldi. rig,
as measured from the ground adjacent the canopy on the eastern side
of the butLdi. rig. Trees growi. rig at the north and north-eastern
boundary of the carpark on the subject Land (adjacent Magi. LL Road and
the corner of Magi. LL and FULLarCon Roads) vary i-n height between I_O
and 1.5 metres approxi. mateLy.

The subject Land i, s SLtuatedLn a Bustness Zone, whi. ch aLso

includes the aLLotment immediateLy to the east of the subject Land
 L998 EDLR 567

OPTUS V CG KENS TNGTON AND NORWOOD & FROST

(3 )

and Land due south and west and south-west of the subject Land. To
the south-east of the subject Land i, s the reLati. veL sinaLL Hist
(Conservation) Zone
Residenti_aL Land consi. sti. rig prtmari. Ly of
aLl. otments wi. th frontages Co Edmund Street. East of the Bustn
Zone and His Cord. c (Conservati. on) Zone Residenti. aL i, s a Mixed Use A
Zone .
Across Magi. }L Road to the north of the subject Land i, s th
Matd and Magp, .e HoteL, whi_ch i, s Located wi. Chi. n a Local. Coinme L
Zone .
That zone aLso i. ncLudes, to the north and east, aLLotment
havi. rig frontages Co the western edges of both North Terrace and
Payrieham Road.

The Locality was di. fferentLy i. denti. fi. ed by each ex ex't Jan
wi. triess .
However, the 1.0caLi. ty i. denti. fi. ed by Mr Smith, nameL a, .I.
that Land within a radius of L50 metres from the proposed Location of
the monopol. e most nearly represents a common LocaLi. t Mr ALLma
extended the Local. i. by further south, to incl. ude the whoLe of th
Hi. s ton. c ( Conservation ) Zone Residenti. al. and FULJarton Road beyond
the junction wi. th RundLe Street and south west to incLude North
Terrace as far as the junctton with Trinity Street. The butLd'
wi. Chi. n the Larger LocaLi. by appear to be either singLe SCOr , or t
a bed. ght of 1.0 metres . There are f ew trees , even i. n the extended
LocaLi. by . Nei. ther North Terrace nor FULLartori Road in the Larger
Local. i. ty are tree - Lined . The onLy trees of note i. n the sinal. Ler
LocaLi. by are those on the subject Land, referred to above, a t LL
tree on the north SLde of the Mai. d and Magpi. e HoteL , one or two tre
i. n Magi. I. L Road, to the east of the HoceL SLte, and the tree ad'ac t
the sewer vent at the junctLon of BaLi. oL Street and Pa eham R d.

ALthough a number of provLSLons of the DeveLopment PLan were

ci_ted to us as betng reLevant, the i, ssues were Li. mited. None of the
expert w, .triesses disputed that the deveLopment was in a ro ri. ate i_n
the zone .
The objecti. ve for the Bust. ness Zone and the generaL
narrative i. n rel. atton thereto are set out be Low:

" Objecti. ve I_ : DeveLopment provi. di. rig of Etces, consul. ti. n rooms ,
zetai. L showrooms and ocher bustness and reLated
acti. vi. ties.

Objecti_ve 2 : DeveLopment provi. di. rig warehouses , Li. ght and

servLce i. ridustry and servLce trade premLses Ln

LOGati. ons speci. f Led hereunder .

Obj ecti. ve 3 : DeveLopmenC for touri. sin re}ated factLLti. es in

parts of the Kent Town POLLCy Area specie Led
hereunder.

The Bustness Zone accommodates a range of exist trig bustness

acti. vi. ties in premi. ses of vari. abLe nature and quaLi. by, wi. th
opportunity for the deyeLopment and consoLi. dati. on of offi. c s d
consuLti. rig zooms wi. th some zetai. L showrooms as weL, . as f th
LIPgradi. rig, expansi. on and consoLi. dabi. on of bustness acti. ' t '
Progressive tinprovements shoul. d be made to the envi. roninentaL and
,. 998 EDLR 568

OPTUS V CC KENS TNGTON AND NORWOOD & FROST

(4 )

sex:'vi. ci. rig aspects of bustness, and deveLopment Ln the zone

shouLd progressi. veLy upgrade exi. s ting bustness areas and in a J. n

road frontages . "

The fi. rsC Prtnc, .pLe of DeveLopment ControL for the Business Zone
set out beLow:

I. . DeveLopment i. n the Business Zone shouLd primari. I. y be for

offi. ces , consuLti. rig rooms and Cri. aL showrooms of a Low

- brat tic generating nature except n the Ki. rig Wi. I. L, .am Street
POLLcy Area where light and servi. ce i. ridustry and serv, .ce
trade premi. ses shouLd predomi. nate . "

The proposed development i, s riot a kind of deveLopmenC which is

speci. f i. ed J. n the Council. DeveLopmenC PLan as non-coinpLyi. rig i. n the
BusLness Zone. We agree with the expert pLanni. rig witnesses that the
proposed use i, s an appropri. ace use i. n the Bustness Zone. Moreover,
the proposed deveLopment wtLL riot generate an J. ncrease of any
signi. fi. cance i_n pedestri. an or vehi. cuLar Crafti. c, nor wi. LL ,. t coneLi. ct
wi. th the access , carparki. rig or desi. gn prtnci. p}es set out ,. n the

DeveLopment PLan.

The prtnci. pLe i'ssues are the betght, the vLsuaL amenity and the
perceived amenity i. n reLaCi. on to the proposed deveLopment.

Tt was argued that the concrete monopoLe would doini. nabe the
surrounding spaces , contrary to PI:'i. nctpLe of DeveLopment Control. 26 ,
and detract from the Ameni. by, parti. cuLarLy for the restdents of the
Hi. s tortc ( Conservati. on ) Zone Restdenti. aL centered on Edmund Street
and for road users, both vehi_CUTar and pedestri. an, Ln the vi. ci. ni. by.
The subject Land i_s Located within the West Norwood POLLcy Area for
the purposes of the reLevant deveLopment pLan. The spec, .fi. c
objectives for that policy area, as opposed to the generaL objecti. ves
for the Business Zone are as foLLows :

" West Norwood POLLcy Area

The West Norwood POLLcy Area reLated to the arteri. aL Load

frontages of The Parade and FULLarton Road in West Norwood. Tt

shouLd be consoJ. i. dated as an area for hi. gh quaLi. ty offi. ces and
consuLti. rig rooms .

DeveLopment shouLd be of medi. urn-scaLe and shouLd achieve a high

standard of Landscapi. rig featuri_rig pLanti. rig of Large trees which
wi. LL Lei. nforce the Leafy, avenue character of FULLarton Road and
The Parade.

SLtes fronting Kensi. rigton Road and The Parade. east of CharLes
Street shouLd generaLI. y be Less tritensi. veI. y devel_oped,
recogni. zi. rig the Lower - s caLe of deveL opment OPPosi. be .
II
 L998 EDLR 569

OPTUS V CC KENSTITGTOIT AND NORWOOD & FROST

(5)

Vehicular movement is doini. nated by FULLarton Road, The Parade,

Magi. LL Road and Kensi. rigton Road, which shouLd provi. de the
prtmary points of access f or del. ,.. very, sex'vi. ce and vi. SL Cors '
vehi. cLes, i. n preference to access via the adjo, .rid. rig residenti. aL
area ."

The Deve}opment PLan does riot refer specLfi. caLLy to, or descri. be
qual. it at, .ve or q\lanti. tati. ve standards for deve, .opment coinpri. sing or
even s, .ini. Lar to, a tel. ecommuni. cati. ons base scatton as proposed. The
most relevant Pi:'i. nci. pies of DeveLopment ConCroL address the vi. suaL
butLd, archi. bectural. scaLe and betgltt of. . proposed deveJ. opment
genera, .Ly. Prtnci. PI. e of DeveLopment ControL 7 for the Business Zone
di. scourages non- restdenti. aL deveJ. opment exceed trig two - s tortes Ln

height above mean naturaL ground I. eveL . However, the generaL

Prtnc, .PI. es of DeveLopment Control. ( Prtnci. pLes of DeveLopment Cont, coL
26, 27) suggest that butLd, .rigs and structures shoul. d conform to the
poLi. cy expressed Bus, .ness Zone Prtnci. PI. e 7 and shoul. d be consistent
wi. th or coinpLement exi. SLi. rig deveLopment i. n terms of vi. suaL butLd,
betght and archi. tectural. scale .

Objecti. ve 4 L of the reLevant MetropoLi_tan AdeLai. de Prtnci. pLes

prov, .des that the ameni. by of a Locality shouLd riot be i. inpai. red by the
appearance of butI. dings wh, .Le Prtnci. PI. e of Deve, .opmenC ControL 24 of
the generaL Counci. I. prtnc, .PI. es advi. ses that deveJ. opment wi. thin a
Bustness Zone shouLd coinpl. y wi. th the objecti. ves for the zone and not
cause nutsance from vi. suaL ,. ntrusi. on. Medium soaLe deveLopment LS
encouraged by obj ecti. ves .

The proposed deveLopment does exceed the suggested betght Li. ini. t
of two stories. However, our readi. rig of the DeveLopment PI. an Leads
us
to concLtide that the author had a. n inLnd structures havi. rig a
greater mass than the proposed deveLopment, parti. cuLarl. y butLdi_rigs
havzng un fLoors" or " SCOri. es" We have come to that concLusi. on by
reading the parti. cuLar provi. SLon in fuLL and in the context of other
provi. s, .ons of the DeveLopmenC PLan whi. ch refer Co the betght, mas s

and scaLe of bui. Ldi. rigs . Tn addi. ti. on, the betght Li. ini. t. LS not
absoLute, there z. s an excepti. on speci. fi. ed for certai. n ki. rids of
but L di. rigs , nameLy residenti. aL , and a non- residenti_aL but Ldi. rig
exceeding two SLOTi. es i. n height i, s not expressed to be a non-
coinpLyi. rig ki. rid of deveLopment i. n the Bustness Zone. We accept ,
nonetheLess, that the proposed deveLopmenC does exceed the suggested
betght Li. ini. t.

We accept that the deveLopment i, s not consi_stent wi_th, nor can

It be sai_d to coinpLement, exi. SLi. rig deveLopment. Tt WILL have a
character vas t Ly di. f f erent f Loin exi. s t, .rig deveLopmenC . On the other
hand, the structure i, s riot, i. n terms of its vi. sua, . buLk, such that i. t
w, -Ll. riot amount Co orderLy deveLopment .

We accept that the structure w, .I. L be parti. cu, .ar, .y vi. SLbLe on the
skyLi. ne to persons Located at a number of postti_ons wi. thin a radi. us
of J. 50 metres from it. We accept that Chi. s wi. IT detract from the
(.
 a. 998 EDLR 570

OPTUS V CC KENS LNGTON AND NORWOOD & FROST

(6 )

vi. suaL ameni. ty of the LocaLi. ty to some degree, for those persons who
occupy the resi. dences tn the Hi. SCOrt c ( Consei, vat, .on ) Zone

Restdenti_aL and PICObabl. y aL so f or pedestri. ans vi. SLt, .rig the LocaL t by,
and that to some extent it wi. LL constitute a vi. suaL ,. ntrus, .on for the
rest. dents. A1. though we accept that thi. s detici. merit w, .LL toLLow, we

are riot to be taken as suggestion that the v, .suaL ameni. ty of the

Locality presentLy is of a high standard. We acknowLedge Chat the
restdents of the His boric (Cons ex'vati. on) Zone Resi. denti. aL centered

on Edmund Street have in recent years made a major effort to tinprove

the amen, .by of the zone and the restdents are to be coinmended for
the tic achi. evements. However, havi. rig regard o the fact that there
are a number of exi. sti. rig verti. caL eLements J. n the streetscape,
i. ncl. udi. rig SCObi. e poLes, sewer vents and the guyed mast on the Hard
Mart butI, dtrig, and to the sinal. L mass of the proposed structure, we
ave concLuded that i. ts effect on the vi. suaL amend. ty of the local. i. ty
ofi. Ll. riot result i. n the deveLopment bei. rig seriousLy at vari. ance wi. th
the DeveLopment PLan.

PrLnci. pLe of DeveLopment ControL 37 advises that deveLopment a. n

I:he Bustness Zone shou, .d not prejudice the attainment of the

obj ecCi. ves Lei. actng to the adjacent H, . s Cori. c ( Conservati. on) Zone
Residenti. aL. We have exami. ned the generaL objecti. ves for that zone
and the spectfi. c objective for the Norwood 2 Poitcy Area whi. ch a. S

coinci. dentaL wi. th the area of that zone and are sabi. SEi. ed that there
wtLJ. be no confLi. ct with Prtnci. pLe of DeveLopment ControL 37, gi. ven
existing deveLopment ,. n the Busi. ness Zone.

The he aLth and safety of the residents of the Hi. SCOri-c

(Conservati. on) Zone - Restdenti. al. and other persons i-n the LocaLi. ty
was riot ratsed, but Mr Frost di. d address the Court on the restdenCs
percepCLon of an unresoLved sci. enti. tic debate as to the effect upon
the human body of exposure to radiofrequency radi. atton ( " RFR" )
Li. keLy to be emitted from the proposed teLecommuni. cations base
:ati. on. The Court heard evi. dence from Mr Wayne CorrieJ. i. us, a seLf-
des cri. bed he aL th physi. ci. s t f Torn the AUStraLi. an Radi. at, .on Laboratory .
Mr ConreLi. us has a major invoLvement J. n the preparation of the
Trite rini. in AUStraL, .an/New ZeaLand Standard As/NZS2772. L (Tnt) ^1998
Radi. of requency f i. eLds Part I. : Maximum exposure Level. s 3kHz to 300

GHz, pubLi. shed on 5 March L998. The first and Last paragraphs of the
foreword to that document are set out hereunde, c :

" This Trite rini. in Standard provi. des gutdance on human exposure to
radiofrequency (RF) fi. eLds and its Li. inits i. ritend to avoi. d any
detri. merita, . effects on he aLth. Tt appLi. es to the exposure of
workers due co thei. r empLoyment and to the incidental. exposure
of the generaL pubLi. c, buC i. t does not appl. y to pactents
undergoi. rig di. agrios, .s or treatment . Thi. s Trite rim Standard does
not address the Lssues of eLecC Loinagnet, .c i. riterf erence ( EMT )
wi. th beL ecommuntcati_ons , eLecticomedi. caL , and other eLectroni. c
equi. pinent .
 3,998 1:10LR 571.

OPTUS V CG KENSTLTGTON AND NORWOOD & FROST

(7)

Origoi. rig research i's bet. rig carri. ed out i. n many countries ,. ribo
possi. bLe effects on heal. th ar, .sing from exposure to RF radi. atton
and i_n recogn, .ti. on of this , the Comintttee w, .LL conti. nue to
monitor the resuLts of thi. s research and, where necessary, Lsstie
amendments to Chi_s document . "

Mr Corrie, .i. us has recentLy been part of a team from the

AUS braLi. an Radi. atton Laboratory engaged J_n a detai. Led measurement
programmed me asuri. rig the RFR emi. SSLons from, i. riter aLi. a, di. g, .taL
phone base stations around AUStraLi. a, and thus the actuaL RFR I. eveLs
Co whi. ch the pubLi. c i. s exposed from digi. baa. -phone, .. bas. i. s-stactons . He

claimed that the maxi. mum LeveL recorded for any base stabi. on i's 0 .06
microwatt per square centi. meter whi. Le in generaL the maxi. mum I. eveL
wh, .ch the team has measured near a typ, .caL base station i, s less than
O. 01. ini. crowaCC per square centi. meter. This i's apparentLy far Lower
than the RFR emi. ssi. on Level. of a be Levi. SLon broadcast tower, and
represents one hundred thousandth of the occupational. exposure Li. ini. t
set for persons subject to RFR emi. ssi. ons i. n emp1. o17ment, withi. n the
frequency range 400 to 300,000 MHz, by As/NZS2772. L (Tnt). Mobi_ L e
phones base s Cations (i. ncl. udi. rig anal. o9 and digitaL sys terns ) operate
at frequencies between 870Ml{z and 960MHz. Mr CorrieLi. us advised Chat
the AUStraLi. an and New ZeaLand Standard referred to above i, s a
conservaC, .ve standard i. n worLd terms . He concLuded that there was
riothi. rig i. n the proposaL PLans Co Lead him co concLude that pubL, .c
exposure to RFR emi. ssi. ons from the proposed development wouJ. d be very
di. feerent from Chat at other base scati. ons he had measured. He

further concLuded that the risk to human health from RFR emissions
Li. ke3. y Co be emitted from the proposed deveLopment wouLd be so cLose
to zero as Co constitute no risk. We accept hi. s evi. dence and his
conc, .us ions on the basis of present knowLedge. Mr CorrieLi. us did aJ. so
indi. cate that quest tons concerning the effects of RFR on the human
body are SL, .LL subject Co debate. However, the AUSti=al. tan and New
ZeaLand Standard referred to above had i. ncorporated large safety
factors, for exampLe by secti. rig the exposure LLmLts for workers at
one tenth of the threshoLd Level. or the LeveL at wh, .ch independent
Laboratory s cudi. e s have conf i. rined ,. s
the Lowest radiofreqLiency
exposure LeveL that has caused adverse bi. oLogtcaL effects (i. n
experiment aL antmaLs) .

Mr Frost, who L, .ves i. n Edmund Street gave evi. dence hi. mseLf and
caLJ. ed two ocher restdents of Edmund Street. The thrust of the
evi. dence of the rest. dents was that the proposed deveLopment would
detract from thei. r vi. suaL ameni. ty and be a reini. rider to them of the
debate wi. Chi. n the community about the ef fects on human heal. th RFR
emz. SSLons from the base scati. on. The concept of percei. ved amenity
had been addressed by chi. s Court and Lbs predecessor, as weLL as the
FULL Court of the Supreme Court i. n Novak v Cor orati. on of the Ci. t of
Woodvi. I. Le (L990) ,. 58 LSJS 473, ,. n whi. ch Broad v Br, .sbane Ci. t Counci. L
(,. 986) 59 LGRA 296 and Venus Enter rises PC Ltd v Parramatta Ci. t
Counci. L (1.98L) 43 LGRA 67, were ci. bed. Tn each of these cases i. t was
the knowLedge by the residents of the use of the Land pro OSed, Ln

contrast to i. CS appearance or
other me asurabLe tinpacts , a. n the
 I. 998 EDLR 572

OPTUS V CG KENSTNGTON AND NORWOOD & FROST

(8 )

context of the exi. SLi. rig ameni. ty of the Local. i. by, whi. ch gave ri. se to
the controversi. a, . concept of deveLopment at f ecti. rig one ' s percept, .on
of amenity. The quest ton we are asked to deci. de i's whether we shouJ_d
gi. ve wetght to the restdents ' view that the ameni. by of the 1.0caLi. ty
wouLd be reduced I. n the resi. dents ' percepti. on by the knowl. edge that
the proposed deveLopment wouLd ,. nvoJ. ve a use of the subject Land
whereby RFR i, s em, .tted, al. bett at LeveLs presentl. y thought to be
signLfi. cantLy be Low those LikeLy to atfect the he aLth of humans in
the 1.0caLi. ty. We accept that the res:. dents are concerned by the
debate ,_oveJ=_ the ef fect _of RFR emJ_ s s zoris from mobi. ,. e phone base
scati. ons, whtch has taken pLace J. n the coinmuni. ty. However, the
evi. dence of Mr CorrieLi. us who has extensi. ve knowLedge and experience
w, .th respect to RFR emzssLons and the, .r effects, and our

understandi. rig of the AUStraLi. an and New ZeaLand Standard referred to

<1bove, has Led us to agree wi. th Mr CorrieLi. us that Chi. s debate has
been LargeLy uni. neormed . We acknowLedge the desi. rabi. I, d. by of adopting
a precautionary approach to the assessment of risk to humans of new
Land uses, but we are sati. sfi. ed that the AUStraLi. an and New ZeaLand
Standard ref erred to above embraces the precauti. onary approach and
the RFR LeveLs likel. y to be emi. tted by the proposed
teLecommun, _cations base station are we},. wi_Chin that sLandard. Thus
we do not accept that i. t i, s reasonab3. e for the residents to perceive
that the ameni. ty of the LocaLi. by wouLd be at rected by the proposed
deveLopment.

Tn Novak, Broad and Venus Enterprtses (above) , i. t was accepted

that amenity may be subjecti. ve. Those cases each i. nvoLved a use, the
knowLedge of whi. ch wo\ILd gi. ve offence Co the restdent, accord, .rig to
thei. r evi. dence, i. n a way that coul. d not be measured objecti. veLy, but
which wouLd Lower the ameni. ty of the LocaLi. ty in the perceptions of
the resi. dents. Here, the proposed use i, s of a di. feerent nature and
the basts of the resi. dents' concern i. s measurab, .e and abLe to be
.ssessed against standards. We are not prepared to 95. ve wetghC to
hei. r percepti. ons i_n these ci. rcumstances .

Havi. rig as ses sed the proposed deveLopment against the provi. SLons
of the reLevant deveLopment PI. an, we are sabi. sri. ed Chat prov, .SLonaL
deveLopmenC PLan consent shouLd be granted. Whi. Le the proposaL is at
varJ. ance wi. th some provLSLons of the DeveJ. opment P}an, for the
reasons we have expressed, we are sabi. sf, .ed that i. tLS not

suffi. ci. entLy at vari. ance wi. th the DeveLopment PLan provi. SLons, to
warrant the deci. SLon of the Counci. L bei. rig conf, .rined.

Tn the course of the heartng, the appeLLant Company offered Co

reduce the betght of the concrete monopoLe to L8.3 metres i. nstead of
2 0 metres , shouLd the Court Chi. nk appropri. ate . We have consJ. dered
that offer, whi. ch we note dtd riot consCi. Cute an amendment to the
proposaL, but do not consi. der i. t necessary to accept the offer.
GeneraLLy speaki. rig, both the expert pLanni_rig wi. triesses and the
residents were of the view that reducing the height of the concrete
monopoJ. e by I. . 7 metres would riot make any materi. aL di. f ference .
 L998 EDLR 573

OPTUS V CC KENS TNGTOtl AND NORWOOD & FROST

(9)

We provided our
i_nti. mat, _on to the parttes . SubsequentLy, we

heard submi. SSLons from the parties with respect to an amended

proposal. plan and conditions to be attached to provi. si. on a, _
deveJ. opment pLan consent. The amended proposal. PI. an, exhi. bi. t AJ. 0,
prov, .des that the existing guyed mast and antenna attached to the
roof of the Hard Mart bud. }di. rig, be removed by the appeLLant. Tn
other respects , the proposal. pLans have been amended to show an upp e r
and lower Jimi. t of the second and thi. rd drum antennae to be attached
to the monopoLe i. n the future . ATChough the pLans Leave for future
deterini. natton the beari. rigs of the second and thi. I:'d drum antennae,
they do i. denti. f. y the nature and dimensions of the second and Chi_rd
drum antennae; these hav, _rig been drawn on a pLan wi. th a scaLe I. : LOO.

We have determined that the exi. sting guyed mast and antenna on
the roof of the Hard Mart butLdi. rig should be coinpJ. eteL removed
before the monopol. e and attached antenna become operative . A
condi. ti. on Co that ef fecc wi. Ll. be attached to the provi. SLona}
deveLopment pLan consent.

There was some di_scussi. on as to whether a condJ. titon I. tint bi. rig the
number of antennae to be attached to the monopoLe would be
appropri. ate or LawfuL . We understand that presentLy, CommonweaLth
Legi. s Labi. on enabl. es a carrJ. er co i. nstaLI_ an antenna wi. thout
provi. si. onal. deveLopment pLan consent ; ,. t betng a '* Low tin act
factLLCy" That may riot aLways be the case, but i. t wouLd not be
approprtate for the Court to impose a condi_ti. on Jimi. ting the
appeLLant ' s ri. ghts under CommonweaLth Legi. SLat, .on. my antennae
additionaL Co those shown on the pLans now to be approved, ini. ht ,. n
the future consCi. tuCe deveLopment not exempted from the provisions of
the DeveLopment Act or any successor, and approvaL wou}d have to be
obtained from the reLevant authori. by. Tf the future attachment of
any antennae addi. LLCnaL to those shown i. n the pLans , i's exem ted from
the provi. SIons of the DeveLopment Act or i. CS successor, by
CommonweaL Ch Legi. s Labi. on, then consent f J:Qin the reL evant authori. t at
the ti. me, woul. d riot be requi. red. Thus , there wouLd be Do work for a
condition of the nature sought to be imposed by the CouncLL, and we
decline to attach such a condition to the provi_SIonaL deveLOpment
PI-an consent .

Our judgment i, s that the appeaL i. s upheLd, and the decision of

the Counci. L made On I. 3 October, ,. 997 to refuse provi. SLonaL
deveLopment pLan consent co the proposed deve}opment by the a eLLant
be
overturned and provisionaL deveLopment pLan consent be and a. S

granted, subject Co the toLLowi. rig condi. ttons :

The deveLopment be carri. ed out J. n accordance wi. th the

proposaL PLans dated May, J. 998 and numbered 6680/DPI. ,
6680/DP2 and 6680/DP3 COLLecti. veLy marked exhi. bi_t ATO.

The exi. sting guyed mast and antenna standi. rig on the roof of
the existing Hard Mart building be removed prz. or to
commencement of the use of the monopoLe and antenna .
 L998 EDLR 574

OPTUS V CC KENS LNGTON AND NORWOOD & FROST

(1.0 )

The monopol. e and antennae have a naturaL concrete GOLour

f tni. sh.

The deveLopment be maintai. ned to the reasonabLe

sati. SEacti. on of the Counci. L at aJ. L ti. mes .

There wi. ,. L be an order accordi. rigl. y.

Counsel. for the appel. }ant P M Ross

SOL, .ci. Cor for the appeLl. ant Mincer BILLSon

CounseL for CG of Kensi. rigton & Norwood J R Hi. Ldi. tch

C SOLi. ci. Cor for the CG of Kens, .rigton & Norwood Ward & Partners

The respondent A Frost Tn person

^;I