Development and use of a mobile telephone monopole, three antennae, microwave link, associated facilities and equipment shelter, in accordance with Drawing No. M0464-P03 Rev B and Drawing No. M064-P04 Rev A

Port Phillip Planning Scheme, Reserved Public Open Space, and in an Urban Conservation Area No.2.

1. The proposal would adversely affect the visual amenity of Albert Park Reserve and the outlook from adjacent residential properties.

2. The proposal does not adequately satisfy the relevant purpose of Clause 6-13 (now 7-8) of the planning scheme as the telecommunication facility would be inconsistent with the economic, environmental and social objectives of planning in Victoria as set out in Section 4 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987

3. The proposal does not adequately satisfy Section 4(c) of the Planning and Environment Act, to secure a pleasant, efficient and safe working, living and recreational environment for all Victorians and visitors to Victoria, as the applicant has not adequately demonstrated that the health risk associated with the electromagnetic field strength generated by the proposal will not detrimentally affect the health of people living, working and visiting in proximity to the facility.

1. The proposal would not adversely affect the visual amenity of Albert Park Reserve and the outlook from adjacent residential properties.

2. The proposal is consistent with the purposes of Clause 6-13 (now 7-8) of the Port Phillip Planning Scheme.

3. The proposal will not detrimentally affect the health of people living, working and visiting the proximity to the facility.

4. Electromagnetic energy is an irrelevant consideration.

Mr. J. Cicero, Solicitor of Best Hooper Solicitors, for the Responsible Authority.

Ms. A. Nordlinger, of Counsel directly briefed, and Mr. M. Townsend, of Counsel directly briefed and on Day 1 only, for Respondents/Objectors.

Mr. A. Atkins, Mr. K. West, Mr. M. Nankervis, Mr. G. Scott, Ms. J. Grier, Mr. H. Ward (for Save Albert Park), Ms. L. McArthur, Senator L. Allison, Ms. C. Hutchens and Mr. J. McCaughey, Respondents/Objectors, on their own behalf.

Dr. P. French, Principal Scientific Officer and Manager - Centre for Immunology, St Vincent's Hospital Sydney.

Mr. C. Canavan QC and Mr. C. Townshend of Counsel (on Days 1 to 3 and Day 5), instructed by Minter Ellison Solicitors, for the Applicant for Review/Permit Applicant.

Mr. W. Cornelius, Group Leader - Electro Magnetic Radiation and Optical Radiation Group, Non-ionising Radiation Section, Australian Radiation Laboratory,

Dr. D. Black, Specialist Physician in Occupational and Environmental Medicine and Senior Lecturer in Occupational Medicine, New Zealand Institute of Occupational and Environmental Medicine,

Mr. T. Biles, Consultant Planner of Contour Consultants Pty. Ltd.,

Mr. G. Lyons, a Communications Engineer and Mobile Network Development Manager, Southern Region, Optus Mobile Pty. Ltd.

1. Mr. H. Ward, for Save Albert Park, applied to be joined as a party to the Application for Review. Ms. Nordlinger tendered a submission from Ms. J. Touzeau, an Objector, and applied for Ms. Touzeau to be joined as a party to the Application for Review. There was no objection, and it was ordered that both persons be joined as parties, pursuant to Section 60 of the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 1998.

2. The description of the application was amended on Day 5 to read:

"Development and use of a mobile telephone monopole, three antennae, microwave link, associated facilities and equipment shelter, in accordance with Drawing No M0464-P03 Rev B and Drawing No M064-P04 Rev A."

This was an Application for Review of the refusal of the Responsible Authority to grant a permit for the above proposal in the vicinity of the Golf Driving Range, Aughtie Drive, Albert Park.

The proposal was described in the report by the Applicant for Review/Permit Applicant which accompanied the permit application as follows:

" * the replacement of an existing 15m light tower with a 19m slimline concrete monopole (the existing lights will be relocated to the new pole at the same height);

* the installation of three cross polarised antennas, measuring 2.4m long, 30cm Wide and 11cm deep and one 30cm diameter radio link antenna to the slimline concrete monopole;

* and placement of a 3.1m x 2.4m x 2.8m high prefabricated Colorbond "mist green" equipment shelter at the base of the monopole.

Drawing numbers M0464-P03 Rev B an M0464-P04 Rev A show the site layout, location and elevation plans."

Mr. Cicero, in his written submission for the Responsible Authority, described the site and locality as follows:

"The concrete monopole will replace one of the existing light towers located in the Golf Driving Range, which is situated on the eastern side of the park, adjacent to Canterbury Road. The existing light pole is located approximately 40 metres north-east of the Wright Street Light-Rail Station.

The Golf Driving Range comprises a large, open grassed area which has a driving length in excess of 250 square metres. There are three light towers situated on either side of the driving range and a two storey fly roof building incorporating, amongst other things, a cafe and golf shop is situated at the northern end of the driving range.

The Melbourne Sports and Aquatic Centre is located to the north of the driving range. These two sites are separated by a commuter cycle track which encircles the park and car-parking area.

The John Blackham Oval and Middle Park Bowls Club are situated south of the Golf Driving Range.

Aughtie Drive runs parallel with the Golf Driving Range to the east and further to the east and south are the facilities associated with the Grand Prix together with the lake environment and picnic areas.

Immediately west of the golf driving range is the commuter cycle track and further to the west is the St. Kilda light rail link.

Canterbury Road is located to the west of the rail fink and is a two lane divided carriageway. On the west side of Canterbury Road single double storey terrace houses, detached houses and multi-storey residential developments are present.

Albert Park comprises 225 hectares of open parkland with facilities for both structured and unstructured recreation."

"By order in Council dated 21 March 1876 certain land known as Albert Park ("Land") was permanently reserved under section 4(1)(w) of the Crown Land (Reserves) Act 1978 ("Act") for the purpose of 'public parks, gardens and ornamental plantations'. Parks Victoria was appointed as Committee of Management ("CoM") for the Land on 13 October 1994 under section 14 of the Act. The Albert Park Golf Driving Range forms part of the Land and currently is under lease (dated 20 November 1995) to Albert Park Golf Management Pty Ltd ("APGM") issued in accordance with section 17D of the Act."

To ensure that telecommunications infrastructure and services are provided in an efficient and cost effective manner to meet community needs.

To encourage an effective statewide telecommunications network in a manner consistent with the economic, environmental and social objectives of planning in Victoria as set out in Section 4 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987.

To ensure the application of consistent provisions for telecommunications facilities, subject to consideration of local amenity.

These provisions apply to the use and development of land for a telecommunications facility. They apply to the extent permitted under the Commonwealth Telecommunications Act 1997 and determinations made under that Act by the Commonwealth Minister for Communications and the Arts, including the Telecommunications (Low-impact Facilities) Determination 1997.

This clause prevails over any inconsistent provision in this scheme. If a telecommunications facility also fails within another definition in this scheme, it must be considered only as a telecommunications facility under this clause.

A permit is required to use or develop land for the following telecommunications facilities:

An application for a permit must be accompanied by the written consent of the public land manager where required by the planning scheme. If the scheme does not require written consent notification of an application must be given by the responsible authority to the public land manager under Section 52 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987.

Before deciding on an application the responsible authority must consider, as appropriate:

* The visual impact of the proposed facility and the need for landscaping or other screening treatment or landscape re-instatement.

At the time of the hearing Clause 7-8.6, Expiry, provided that Clause 7-8 did not apply after 30 September 1998, but this date was amended to 31 December 1998 by Amendment No. S77, which came into operation on 24 September 1998.

Mr. Biles, in his written report for the Applicant for Review/Permit Applicant, said:

"The term "low impact facility" is taken from the Commonwealth Telecommunications Act 1997 and the resultant Telecommunications (Low-impact Facilities) Determination 1997.

Page 2 of the Telecommunications (Low-impact Facilities) Determination 1997 advises that the following telecommunications facilities cannot be regarded as low-impact facilities:

* an extension to a tower, if the extension is more than 5 metres high"

A general exemption from the Planning Scheme Control applies pursuant to Clause 158, but Clause 7-8.1, as quoted above, provides that Clause 7.8 prevails over any inconsistent provision.

Mr. Cicero tendered a copy of the Albert Park Master Plan and took the Tribunal through it.

City of Port Phillip Telecommunications Facilities Planning Guidelines

The Policy on Siting of Cellular Mobile Phone Telephone Service (CMTS) Base Stations in the City of Port Phillip was formally adopted on 23 October 1996, and updated in January 1997.

Mr. Cicero provided a copy of a letter from Parks Victoria to the Responsible Authority dated 25 March 1998, which read in part:

"Parks Victoria has provided its 'in principle' approval to the location of an Optus Telecommunications Tower within the APGM tenancy. Moreover, the Department of Natural Resources and Environment ("DNRE"), as advisor to the Minister for Conservation and Land Management ("Minister') and administrator of the Act, has no objection 'in principle' to such facilities being located on the Crown land, subject to the following:

* that the Department has no objection to the location of the facility on the Land;

* the facility does not obstruct the normal use of the Land;

* the occupation is formalised under an appropriate tenure (sub-lease);

* the inclusion of a co-location clause within the sub-lease; and

* an appropriate level of public consultation is undertaken before the proposal is finalised.

Any exclusive use of the Land, or part thereof, requires the consent of both Parks Victoria and the Minister. Further, any use of the Land that is considered to be inconsistent with the purposes of the reservation is subject to Parliamentary scrutiny in accordance with the provisions of section 17DA of the Act. The placement of an Optus Telecommunications Tower is deemed not to be included within the purposes of the lease to APGM, nor is it consistent with the purposes of the reservation. Hence, a Deed of Variation of Head Lease to accommodate the use is required and such use will be subject to the necessary Parliamentary scrutiny.

To this extent, Parks Victoria as CoM will continue to fulfill its role as manager of the Land and facilitate appropriate tenancies of it via the aforementioned channels."

Mr. Canavan, for the Applicant for Review/Permit Applicant, tendered a copy of the Connell Wagner Pty Ltd Report which had supported the permit application. The Report set out the need for this facility as follows:

Optus regularly undertakes detailed assessments of the performance and coverage of its digital mobile telephone network to ensure the system is reliable and achieving the required objectives. Reference to customer demand also provides an indication of areas of poor performance or where coverage does not exist.

During these assessments, Optus has determined that coverage to the Albert Park area requires upgrading. The Base Transceiver Station will provide:

s substantial digital mobile telephone traffic relief for the Albert Park area, including Albert Road, Aughtie Drive, Canterbury Road, Park Street, Ferrars Street, Clarendon Street and Moray Street;

s enhanced coverage and capacity for the new Melbourne Sports and Aquatic Centre;

s enhanced in-building coverage to the Residential area of Albert Park.

The area to be covered includes a mix of commercial, residential and recreational land uses."

The Report provided a planning and environmental analysis, which included the following:

Connell Wagner does not consider the emission of electromagnetic fields germane to the assessment of the planning merits of a site where the facility operates within Australian Standards. However, the matter is addressed below because of the public profile of the issue.

A mobile telephone base station operates by transmitting radio signals to and from mobile phone handsets, much in the same manner that a taxi radio base transmits to and receives them from the taxi. Radio signals are also termed Radio Frequency or Electromagnetic fields (RF or EMF fields) and have been used in communications technology for around 100 years.

Radio signals, which include mobile phone signals, operate within a designated band of the electromagnetic spectrum. Mobile phone signals occupy a very narrow frequency band in the spectrum adjacent to television transmission signals (Optus facilities transmit in the range 898.6 to 906.6 and 943.6 to 951.6. MHZ while TV {UHF} broadcasts in the 526 to 820 MHZ range). These frequencies are allocated by the Spectrum Management Agency under the direction of the Federal Government.

In addition to frequency, radio signals in the spectrum differ according to the power at which they are transmitted. Although mobile base stations operate at similar frequencies to other radio communications systems [like TV and radio transmissions), mobile base stations operate at significantly lower power levels. Typically, the power output from a metropolitan Optus base station is between 50 and 500 watts. This contrasts with commercial FM radio and television broadcast transmitters which have energy outputs of up to 100,000 watts or higher.

The Standards Association of Australia (SAA) has developed strict standards for exposure of the general community to EMF fields (refer AS 2772.1 - 1990). The standard for the general public (termed "non-occupational") is based on a continuous exposure to these electromagnetic fields. The standard permits exposure to a maximum field strength of 200 microwatts per square centimetre. These standards incorporate substantial safety margins to address concerns for potentially sensitive groups in the community, such as children, pregnant women, the infirm and aged. On a world scale, the Australian standard is about five times more stringent than the USA, United Kingdom and most European standards, and more conservative than the standards set by the World Health Organisation.

3.5.2 Estimated Electromagnetic Levels for the Albert Park Lake Base Transceiver Station

The following are estimates of the maximum field strength that the Albert Park Lake Base Transceiver Station is expected to generate at a peak usage period during its operational life. Calculations are based on the highest likely peak usage expected for the operational life of the Base Transceiver Station and on the basis of 4 transmitters per sector. A detailed explanation of the methodology for estimation of field strengths is presented in Appendix B.

At a point 5 metres out from the base of the structure and at a height of 2 metres above ground (the likely maximum head height of adult person), the field strength has been calculated at 0.011 microwatts per square centimetre, and would be well within the Australian Standard of 200 microwatts per square centimetre.

The field strength at a height of two metres above ground will reach a peak of 0.833 microwatts per square centimetre at a distance of 132 metres from the site. This estimation has been included because the nature of the emission pattern of the antenna will focus the energy out to the horizon away from the base station.

All Optus Base Transceiver Station installations are designed and certified by qualified engineers. The design of the installation will be carried out in accordance with all relevant current Australian Standards. These measures would ensure that the proposed base station facility would not result in any increase in the level of risk to the public.

The Optus facility will be located within a chain wire mesh fenced compound that will only be accessible to Optus staff. Therefore, no public access to the facility is anticipated.

The Base Transceiver Station will operate at a unique frequency allocated by the Federal Government {band range 898.6 to 906.6 and 943.6 to 951.6 Mhz). In addition, the facility operates on a low power output. Consequently, its operation will have no effect on the operation of any other transmission frequencies including AM/FM radio, television, satellite, sky channel, CB, amateur or any emergency service frequency.

Optus has a policy of removal of facilities and rectification of sites when they become redundant. This will be carried out under Optus Corporate Environmental Plan to ensure that the site is left in a similar condition to that when the facility was installed."

The Report provided an assessment of alternative options as follows:

Radio frequency engineering investigations are vital to locate the most desirable site for a base station. In addition, Optus takes into account environmental as well as engineering considerations (eg. constructability) in its assessment of alternatives. The comments of local authorities and relevant telecommunications guidelines are also assessed. Finally, the ability of Optus to secure a commercial lease is also a factor in site selection.

Telstra operate a base transceiver station on the roof of 50 Canterbury Road. The option of co-locating with Telstra at this site was assessed to be unsuitable due to advice provided by Port Phillip City Council.

Apart from the above option, there were no other similar telecommunications facilities which offered co-location opportunities and which would achieve Optus' coverage objectives. Optus therefore assessed other siting options as reviewed below.

Melbourne Sports and Aquatic Centre, Albert Park Lake, Albert Park

The initial proposal at this site was to mount cross polarised antennas to one of the existing masts extending from the roof of the Centre. The Centre's architects advised that such development would compromise the overall design and appearance of the masts. Consequently this option was not pursued any further.

Bob Jane Stadium, South Melbourne Soccer Club, Albert Park Lake, Albert Park

Four galvanised steel light towers surround the soccer ground at Albert Park Lake. The option of mounting Optus' equipment to the light tower at the south west end of the stadium was investigated. Ample space exists at the base of the light tower for the associated equipment shelter, However this site was not pursued further due to leasing constraints.

Middle Park Hotel, corner of Canterbury Road and Armstrong Street, Middle Park

The Middle Park Hotel is a four storey structure with a B listing under the City of Port Phillip Conservation Strategy. The building roof was investigated as potential host structure for Optus' equipment. Inspection of the building found the roof to be unsuitable for such equipment given its age and structural capacity. This option was therefore not pursued further due to technical reasons.

Distance Education Centre, corner of Albert and Canterbury Roads, Albert Park

The Distance Education Centre is located on grounds formally occupied by Hobsons Bay Secondary College and South Melbourne Technical College. The red brick building is approximately 80 to 100 years old. The building roof was investigated as a potential host structure for Optus' equipment. However, a facility at this location would not meet the necessary radio frequency requirements due to the recently constructed Melbourne Sports and Aquatic Centre which would block the facility from Albert Park. This option was not pursued further due to its inability to provide coverage to Albert Park.

Various alternative options have been considered for the proposal within Albert Park including the utilisation of existing buildings as potential host structures. Following examination of the options and consultation with Council officers, Connell Wagner has identified the replacement of an existing light tower on the Golf Driving Range with a slimline concrete monopole to support Optus equipment to be the preferred solution to providing digital mobile telephone services in this area based on environmental, radio-frequency and engineering grounds."

Mr. Cicero, in his written submission for the Responsible Authority, said:

"10.1 There are three principal issues raised by the proposal:-

A. Whether the proposed structure and its use is consistent with the Master Plan;

B. The impact of the structure on visual amenity;

C. Will its use as a Mobile Transceiver Base Station affect the health of people living, working and visiting in proximity to the facility?

10.2 In its last ground of appeal the Applicant/Appellant contended that electro-magnetic energy is an irrelevant consideration. The basis of its irrelevancy is not stated. Indeed, if the issue is irrelevant, then why was it addressed in the report of Connell Wagner? It is conceded that Connell Wagner did preface their assessment by stating:

"Connell Wagner does not consider the emission of electro-magnetic energy germane to the assessment of the planning merits of a site where the facility operates within Australian Standards. . . "

10.3 It is unclear from this statement whether Connell Wagner is saying that because the facility operates within Australian Standards it should not be scrutinised as part of the assessment of the planning merits of the suitability of the site for the proposed facility or, whether irrespective of its compliance with Australian Standards or not, the planning process should not involve an assessment of whether or not electro-magnetic fields from the proposed facility will constitute a danger to health .

10.4 The Applicant/Appellant's position on this issue is further confused because in ground 3 it contends that the proposal will not detrimentally affect the health of people living, working and visiting in proximity to the facility. If, as this ground of appeal concedes, this issue of the health of people living, working and visiting in proximity to the facility is a relevant consideration, then if can be established that the health of such people would be put at risk by electro-magnetic energy emitted from the facility, then the issue of electro-magnetic energy is indeed a relevant consideration.

10.5 It is submitted that objective 4(1)(c) of the objectives of planning in Victoria as set out in the Planning Environment Act 1987 clearly enable this Tribunal to have regard to whether as a consequence of the issue of a Planning Permit for the proposed development and use that objective will be met. If the Tribunal is satisfied that such development and use will offend that objective then it is entitled to refuse the application for the Planning Permit on that basis.

10.6 Alternatively it is submitted that the Tribunal is empowered to have regard to the health risk caused by electro-magnetic radiation (EMR) pursuant to the provisions of section 60(1)(b)(i) of the Act. It is submitted that after hearing the evidence and submissions the Tribunal should conclude that the circumstances require it to consider the health effects of EMR as a significant social effect.

10.7 In line with the decision of the Court of Appeal in RSL v. Moreland City Council and the Carlton Cricket and Football Social Club 19 AATR 107, the Tribunal is bound to give those parties that wish to advance a case under section 60(1)(b) of the Act, the opportunity to do so.

13.5 No doubt the Applicant will argue that the preponderance of expert opinion is against my conclusion that exposure to electro-magnetic energy from mobile telecommunications technology poses a significant health risk. Equally it is submitted that the Tribunal is entitled to conclude that there is a substantial expert body of opinion from eminently qualified persons that challenge that position, and until such time as further research is done, the Tribunal should err on the side of caution and not allow this proposed facility because of its proximity to residential areas."

Mr. Cicero tendered a copy of the Interim Australian/New Zealand Standard, Radiofrequency fields Part 1: Maximum exposure levels - 3kHz to 300GHz. The Interim Standard was published on 5 March 1998, and expires on 5 March 1999. Mr. Cicero discussed the Interim Standard, the Wollongong City Council Policy for Siting and Telecommunications, which he understood had been adopted in June 1998, and tendered a copy of that policy and a copy of the Officer's report recommending the policy be adopted.

Mr. Canavan called Mr. W. Cornelius, Group Leader - Electromagnetic Radiation and Optical Radiation Group, Non-ionising Radiation Section, Australian Radiation Section, Australian Radiation Laboratory, as an expert witness. Mr. Cornelius said in his written report:

"Currently the mobile telephone network system is expanding rapidly throughout Australia and a large number of mobile phone base station communication towers fitted with multiple antennae are being erected in populated areas. Such towers have raised issues of possible health effects due to radiofrequency radiation (RFR) emissions.

At present, the Australian Radiation Laboratory has made detailed area measurements of RFR levels from approximately twenty GSM (digital phone) base stations around Australia. The antennae broadcast patterns are such that the highest exposure levels we have measured are attained at distances between one hundred to several hundred metres from the base station where the main beam becomes accessible at ground level. The maximum daily average level we have determined at a height 1.6 metres above ground from GSM base station signals is 0.06 microwatt per square centimetre. In all cases, the corresponding instantaneous peak signal level was less than four times the daily average value measured at any point. In general the maximum daily average level we measure within 500 metres of a typical GSM base station is less than 0.001 microwatt per square centimetre [ie. about one hundred thousandth of the AS/NZS 2772.1(Int):1998 public exposure limit of 200 microwatt per square centimetre at GSM frequencies]. Our preliminary results clearly indicate that in most urban and suburban areas of major cities in Australia the exposure levels from mobile phone base stations are quite low in relation to other sources of RFR such as AM radio, FM radio and television signals (ie. the measured mobile phone base station emissions are usually below two percent of the total RFR from all broadcast communications sources). In particular, it seems highly unlikely that the RFR levels produced by GSM mobile phone base stations could ever lead to adverse health effects."

Mr. Cornelius also provided a brief history of the development of Radiofrequency Exposure Standards and concluded:

"In the last two decades exposure limits have gradually evolved to the modern form which we have today and which place much more emphasis on the specific absorption rate (SAR) of RF energy deposition in tissue as a limiting biological endpoint. The maximum allowed field strengths and power flux densities that are frequently cited in literature are actually derived limits which are generally applicable to plane wave far field exposure conditions and are based on SAR limits. Current RF exposure Standards are derived from fairly conservative "worst case" exposure assumptions and they also include additional safety factors which are deliberately included. Specific limits are given for protection against the hazard of RF shock and burns which can only occur at very close proximity to a live radiator at relatively low RF frequencies (usually well below 10 MHz and only with extremely high electric field strengths).

Currently the interim Australian and New Zealand Standard AS/NZS 2772.1(Int):1998 is one of the most conservative Standards in the world especially for public exposure limits at the high frequency end of the RF spectrum (frequencies greater than 400 MHz) where the derived 200 uW.cm-2 far field public exposure limit is applied."

Mr. Canavan called Dr. D. Black, a Specialist Physician in Occupational and Environmental Medicine and Senior Lecturer in Occupational Medicine as an expert witness. Dr. Black spoke to a written report in which he provided an outline of his evidence, discussed the nature of mobile telephone (cellular telephone) technology, the setting of RF Standards, RF Exposure Measurement, and the Australian Standard. Dr. Black discussed the proposal in detail in the context of the information available, and provided a lengthy appendix in which he discussed relevant technical matters in more detail, and an appendix setting out Conclusions of the 1998 ICOH Waipuna II Meeting of the International Commission on Occupation and Health.

"65.6 The maximum possible levels of human absorption from the proposed Optus Albert Park cellsite are extremely small. The calculated maximum level 2 metres above the ground, with all transmitters on, is less than 1% of the environmental standard set by AS/NZS 2772.1(Int):1998 and in reality this level would never be reached. Most of the time, the level at this point will be less than one thousandth of the environmental standard and this level is far too low, by orders of magnitude, to cause any biological effects, let alone adverse health effects.

81. This application is for a very low power radio transmitter to provide an efficient mobile telephone service to Albert Park. The GSM technology used maximises efficient use of radiofrequency energy and achieves a high level of performance using low levels of radiofrequency signal.

82. The limiting reference levels set by ICNIRP and the Australian Standard, are conservative and protect against all known biological or adverse health effects of radiofrequency signals. The levels which will occur in the community immediately around this proposed cellsite are extremely low compared with these standards and it is inconceivable that there could be any biological effects or health effects from this proposed Optus base transmitter station.

83. There is a prudent avoidance approach built into the technology which is being applied, and thus no further restrictions are indicated in approving this installation as specified. The Australian Standard is conservative compared to the new and highly authoritative ICNIRP standard and this site is predicted to operate to two orders of magnitude below the reference limiting values in the Australian Standard.

84. It is therefore my opinion that there is no valid reason, based on any known biological or health effects why this application should not be approved as submitted and the base transmitter station built and operated by Optus. On the basis of all available scientific evidence and knowledge on the subject of biological effects of radiofrequency signals no actual or potential risk to the community of any magnitude can be identified which is another way of saying that on the basis of everything that we know this installation will be completely safe."

Ms. Nordlinger, for the Respondents/Objectors, called Dr. P. French, Principal Scientific Officer and Manager - Centre for Immunology, St Vincents Hospital Sydney, as an expert witness. Dr. French did not have a report as such on the proposal, but spoke to a paper entitled:

"Biological effects of electromagnetic fields generated by mobile phones and base stations - A summary of what we know and of what we need to know".

A note indicated that the paper was first written in June 1997, and was amended on 2 March 1998 and 7 July 1998. Dr. French provided copies of nineteen other papers by various authors, and provided a Reference list of twenty eight papers.

Dr. French, in the paper which was last amended on 7 July 1998, said:

An small body of scientific data provides evidence for biological effects of electromagnetic radiation in the radiofrequency and microwave (RF/MW) range of the electromagnetic spectrum at specific absorption rates (SARs) too low to produce a heating response. This is of potential significance for the community and for those working with and exposed to mobile telecommunications equipment, as effects on biological systems may have implications for human health. Table 1 shows the frequencies utilised ty various industries.

In thinking about mobile phone communication, there are two different sources of exposure which may lead to biological and health effects: handsets and base stations. The first results in intermittent exposure to relatively high fields. The second results in continuous exposure of the general community to very low radiation levels from mobile phone base stations or towers. This document discusses material of relevance to both situations, but focuses on the question:

Is exposure to electromagnetic radiation from mobile phone towers likely to pose a health risk?

Dr. French then discussed scientific studies reported in the papers that he had provided. Dr. French went on:

It is important to note that most of the above effects have been seen at power levels in the range experienced by users of mobile phone handsets. Residents near towers at distances greater than 50 metres are exposed to power levels tens to hundreds of times less than those reported to induce such effects. However, there are virtually no laboratory studies at these power levels. What is needed is a careful methodical approach to determine the threshold level below which such effects cut out. Until such studies are completed science is unable to provide assurances that long term exposure to low power electromagnetic fields from base stations will not have an adverse impact on the health of some people in the community.

"The Emissions from the Towers Are Within Those Allowed by the Australian Standards"

Currently the relevant standard is the Interim Australian/New Zealand Standard for Radiofrequency Fields, Part 1 (AS/NZS 2772.1(Int):1998). The limits within this standard are based solely on thermal effects of microwaves, despite the following acknowledgement of non-thermal effects contained in a previous (1990) version of the standard:

"The absorption (of energy) .... may result in modifications to atomic or molecular fields and to cells and these effects a re referred to as non-thermal or athermal effects...the possibility exists that these effects arise from such exposures and this cannot be ignored." (Section A1, p.12)

This has been amended in the Interim standard to read:

"Temperature-dependent effects are well substantiated, and can be used as a basis for exposure limits. The evidence for non-thermal mechanisms of biological effects has not been ignored, but no non-thermal effects reported so far have been shown to have any adverse health impact."

With recent scientific reports of headaches in users and elevated blood pressure in experimental human subjects using equipment which complies with current standards (and therefore by implication working at power levels below those which can cause significant heating), this statement is already wrong, and by inference casts doubt on the limits contained within.

Clearly the implication of this statement, with the phrase "so far" implies the need for revision if adverse health effects can be demonstrated.

This standard determines that the threshold value of an SAR of 4W/kg averaged over the whole body is appropriate, as this is the value below which radiofrequency radiation no longer induces a temperature rise of 1°C or greater in an experimental animal. To take into account a variety of other possibilities in relation to health effects, including:

"(a) Absorption of electromagnetic energy by humans of various sizes...

(b) the lack of knowledge of the relationship between peak SAR and biological effects

(d) Reflection, focusing and scattering of the incident fields..

(e) Possible altered responses of humans taking medicines

(f) Possible combined effects of RF electromagnetic energy with chemical or other physical agents in the environment (g) the possible effects of modulated microwave fields on the central nervous system and the possible existence of 'power' and 'frequency' windows for such effects

the Standard uses a "safety factor" of 10 for occupational users, and 5.0 for the general public. Given all of the uncertainties posed above, there can be no confidence in this arbitrary safety factor is appropriate to protect the community from long term exposure.

At this stage, although it seems improbable that exposure to low level radiation from phone towers represents a significant adverse health risk, until there is a scientifically sound basis for setting a threshold level for biological effects, it is essential that authorities who site towers n residential communities avoid locating them close to those members of the community, such as children, who may be most sensitive to any adverse effects.

Optus' recently announced policy of prudent avoidance in siting of towers is to be commended in this regard. In their policy (28) it recognises that "locating base stations near areas where children and other "sensitive" groups meet or live causes concern within the community" Therefore, they aim to "Locate new mobile phone base stations following the "prudent avoidance" principle, with the objective of minimising public exposure to radio frequencies from base stations".

Ms. Nordlinger, in her written submission for the Respondents/Objectors, said:

"The residents submit that the Tribunal ought to be affirmatively satisfied that the EMR effects of the proposed tower would not be harmful before it overturns the Council's refusal of the permit: Planning and Environment Act 1987, s. 4(1) (b), (c) and (g).

The appellant has conceded the issue of the safety of EMR is the subject of ongoing research: " There are unexplained research results, ill general unconfirmed, that's the way it is with science, there is more to blow, it's a subject of ongoing research." [Dr Black's evidence].

Dr Black did not say unequivocally that there was no possibility of adverse health effects from the estimated levels of EMR from the proposed tower, only that such effects were "most unlikely." It is submitted that the unlikelihood of adverse health effects is too low a confidence level to justify granting the permit. The responsible authority should be satisfied to a greater degree of certainty of the absence of adverse health effects, given that there is a total lack of knowledge as to what those health effects might be.

Dr French's evidence should be preferred to the evidence of Dr Black. He is genuinely independent and by his evidence was properly concerned to assist the Tribunal rather than justify a preconceived position from which he personally stands to gain.

Dr French's evidence demonstrated the potential adverse health effects of EMR, being:

* that human studies have "demonstrated small but significant elevated blood pressure ... when hand phones are in use";

* that there are biological data "which may in indicate that in individuals genetically disposed to certain forms of cancer, the long term intermittent exposure to RF such as that used in mobile phone technology may be an important stimulus in the induction of malignancy by an as yet unknown mechanism"

* "that microwaves have been demonstrated to alter both the immune response and EEG activity in rabbits";

* that the "effects of low level EMR include changes in membrane ion transport, membrane structure, cell growth rate, cell shape, gene expression and neoplastic transformation";

* that the "research results taken together suggest that EMR exposure may be activating a signal transduction pathway";

* that "until further studies are completed science is unable to provide assurances that long term exposure to low power electromagnetic fields from base stations will not have an adverse impact on the health of some people in the community" [Dr French's report Exhibit 1A]

Dr French conceded the improbability of immediate adverse health effects from the estimated EMR levels of the proposed tower. However, he concluded, on the basis of a balanced review of the relevant research, including his own research, that there was a sufficient risk of adverse health effects to require a prohibition on siting mobile phone towers in close proximity to residential areas.

It is submitted that the evidence of Dr French is clearly preferable to that of Dr Black.

The Council's refusal of the permit was in line with the policy of "prudent avoidance". The Australian Standard recommends adherence to this policy. The appellant professes adherence to this policy but has departed from it by its current application for a permit."

Mr. Canavan called Mr. T. Biles, a Consultant Planner, as an expert witness. Mr. Biles provided a visual assessment of the proposal and also assessed the proposal against the Economic, Environmental and Social Objectives of the Planning Scheme.

"My inspection of the site and locality reveal that the area around the proposed pole site is quite densely planted with vegetation on the northern and western boundaries. There is a carpark located to the south and behind the Melbourne Sports and Aquatic Centre. Beyond this carpark is the golf driving range and the edge of this range is heavily planted with mature vegetation. There is additional planting of new trees which will grow to a dense and very tall height.

In addition to this vegetation there are a number of existing lightpoles throughout the park area including the vertical framework of screen fencing to the golf driving range. Within the park itself, 1 consider that the ability to see this pole as an intrusive element is so minor as to be of no consequence. The pole is simply one element in a sea of vertical elements that include the tree trunks, poles and other structures that are all part and parcel of the active recreation facilities that underpin Albert Park.

When viewed from the west and the north, the pole could not be said to be intrusive. From the east and from the south, the pole is largely a distant object set within the planting that borders the edge of the driving range. From Aughtie Drive the pole is again set against the planting and the vertical elements of the golf driving range screens and the lighting and again could not be seen to be an intrusive visual element. The photographs submitted with my evidence illustrate these conclusions.

From Canterbury Road and the residences opposite Canterbury Road my inspection of the site revealed that there were a large number of quite tall vertical elements within Canterbury Drive itself including lightpoles and transmission poles. Again, vegetation between Canterbury Road and the light rail station performs a strong screening effect to the park as one moves along Canterbury Road. Glimpsed views are provided into the park and at times these glimpses give the ability to see the pole in the proposed location. However these views are limited and fleeting. For most people driving past the proposal will be of no consequence. Similarly, for those who are residents of the area 1 consider that the view to the pole will be quite limited and could not be said to be of an aberrant character in this neighbourhood. For these reasons 1 do not believe that the Council's Ground of Refusal relating to the visual impact of the proposal can be sustained.

1 should note that part of the proposal by Optus is to include a small facility shed at the base of the new tower. This shed is to be of colorbond material approximately 3.1 x 2.4m wide and will sit adjacent to the high fence presently screening the golf driving range. This is a small equipment shed and has a skillon type roof. I consider that this small shed would look more balanced if there was a pitch to the roof."

Mr. Biles argued that provisions of telecommunications is an important matter as is provision of mobile telephone access. Mr. Biles said in his assessment that mobile telephone would be used by users of Albert Park, occupants of vehicles using Canterbury Road and Aughtie Drive, and he earlier said that this facility would increase the coverage available to the general Albert Park commercial and residential areas.

We have carefully re-read and considered all the material that was put before us, and have inspected the subject site, Albert Park in the vicinity of the subject site, and the Canterbury Road area. We have quoted what seem to be very relevant parts of the material put before us. Having regard to the relevant statutory and planning considerations, what was put before us, and having being further informed by our inspection, we have come to the conclusion that a permit, subject to conditions, should be granted for reasons that we discuss below.

There was more argument with respect to this issue than other issues. It was a ground of the Application for Review that:

"Electromagnetic energy is an irrelevant consideration."

This is clearly not an irrelevant consideration, and is the subject of much community concern. There is an interim Australian/New Zealand Standard AS/NSZ 2772.1(Int):1998. We accept the evidence for the Applicant for Review/Permit Applicant that likely emission levels are well within those specified in the Interim Standard. The validity of the Standard was strongly challenged for the Respondents/Objectors, and whilst that challenge is surely based on strongly held concern, we must, on the evidence, accept the validity of the Interim Standard, noting again that in any event likely emissions are well below those specified in that Interim Standard.

We do not consider that it is for us to set aside or disregard such a Standard. Mr. Canavan tendered a copy of the decision of Mr. Barton and Mr. Hicks, who were a Deputy President and a Member respectively of the former Administrative Appeals Tribunal of Victoria, in Appeal No. 1993/0991 Transfield Amecon v City of Williamstown. This was an appeal against the refusal of the Responsible Authority to grant a permit for three radar antennae, three radio receiving antennae and a water cooling Unit at the Marine Engineering Training and Research Centre (METRC) which is located on the north-west corner of Cecil and Kanowa Streets, Williamstown. In the Reasons for Determination, Mr. Barton and Mr. Hicks said:

"The standard used in Australia is Standards Australia AS2772.1. This Standard was first produced in 1985 and revised in 1991. The Standard was produced by a committee whose members include industry, government and health representatives. The Standard has limits generally in line with recommendations of the International Non-ionizing Radiation Committee (INIRC) of the International Radiation Protection Association (IRPA) and is part of World Health Organisation. The limits are similar to those recommended by USA and UK authorities and generally represent the consensus of scientific opinion on safe exposure limits. However, in the band of frequencies used in most radars, the Australian Standard is more conservative . . .

A major concern of Objectors was that their health could be at risk at considerably lower values than these "safe exposure limits" when consideration was given to non-thermal biological effects (such as cancer) and the effect of pulsed fields.

The Tribunal does not consider that it is the appropriate body to assess whether the Australian Standards are adequate. Nor is the limited nature of a Hearing appropriate."

We feel compelled to follow Mr. Barton and Mr. Hicks with respect to the current Interim Standard.

Appeal No. 1992/25519 G Bourakis & Associates v City of Keilor was an appeal against the refusal of the Responsible Authority to grant a permit for two attached houses at Lot 1 Dodds Road, Keilor. The land was reserved under the Planning Scheme as an extension to the Maribyrnong Valley Metropolitan Park (Brimbank Park) and was in the vicinity of a 550kV transmission line and a 220kV transmission line. The appeal was disallowed for several reasons, and it was directed that a permit not be granted. In the Reasons for Determination, Ms. Moles said:

"Concerning electromagnetic fields and public health, from the submission made by the SECV, the Tribunal can only agree that the scientific knowledge on this issue is to date inconclusive. As well as considering the SECV submission, the Tribunal has perused the three source documents provided by the SECV.

The Tribunal feels it is appropriate here to record its reservation that the presentation of the argument on this issue was solely carried by an authority which has a clearly identifiable and significant interest in any finding on the matter: the SECV were at pains to point out the extensive network of major transmission lines crossing all manner of metropolitan residential areas. It would have been preferable, in the Tribunal's view, to receive evidence on this matter from a more disinterested party, or at least to have opposing views expressed. The Tribunal recognises that it may, itself, have sought to elicit such a view from another public agency, but having heard from the SECV, and having had regard to the issues in this appeal, was persuaded that there was little to be gained from this.

In conclusion on this issue, the Tribunal would say that having regard to the current state of scientific knowledge, it appears that refusals of planning permission on the basis of concerns about electro-magnetic field effects on public health will not normally be appropriate.

This is not to say that over time research may not establish a significant connection between the fields and health. Because of the complex nature of the other issues - social assessment of scientific proof, risk assessment difficulties and potentially enormous public consequences - it seems, however, that it will necessarily be most effectively addressed by the development of government policy, rather than being addressed by decisions on particular cases by Tribunals and Courts.

Unless and until such policy has been made, the Tribunal and other individual decision makers should be particularly mindful of this context of decision making."

Whilst electromagnetic radiation from electricity transmission lines, being 550kV and 220kV, is of a different order to that under consideration here, and the appeal in G Bourakis & Associates v City of Keilor was disallowed for a number of reasons, we consider that the policy considerations set out by Ms. Moles are relevant here.

Mr. Canavan tendered a copy of the Judgement of the Environment, Resources and Development Court of South Australia in Optus v CC Kensington and Norwood & Frost, which was an appeal against refusal to grant a permit for a mobile telecommunications base station at Norwood. The Judgement was that the appeal was upheld, and the decision to refuse to grant consent was overturned. The Court said in its Reasons:

"The health and safety of the residents of the Historic (Conservation) Zone - Residential and other persons in the locality was not raised, but Mr Frost did address the Court on the residents' perception of an unresolved scientific debate as to the effect upon the human body of exposure to radiofrequency radiation ("RFR") likely to be emitted from the proposed telecommunications base station. The Court heard evidence from Mr Wayne Cornelius, a self-described health physicist from the Australian Radiation Laboratory. Mr Cornelius has had a major involvement in the preparation of the Interim Australian/New Zealand Standard AS/NZS2772.1(Int):1998 Radiofrequency fields Part 1: Maximum exposure levels,-3 kHz to 300 GHz, published on 5 March 1998. The first and last paragraphs of the foreword to that document are set out hereunder.

"This Interim Standard provides guidance on human exposure to radiofrequency (RF) fields and sets limits intended to avoid any detrimental effects on health. It applies to the exposure of workers due to their employment and to the incidental exposure of the general public, but it does not apply to patients undergoing diagnosis or treatment . This Interim Standard does not address the issues of electromagnetic interference (EMI) with telecommunications, electromedical, and other electronic equipment.

Ongoing research is being carried out in many countries into possible effects on health arising from exposure to RF radiation and in recognition of this, the Committee will continue to monitor the results of this research and, where necessary, issue amendments to this document."

Mr Cornelius has recently been part of a team from the Australian Radiation Laboratory engaged in a detailed measurement programme Measuring the RFR emissions from, inter alia, digital phone base stations around Australia, and thus the actual RFR levels to which the public is exposed from digital phone base stations. He claimed that the maximum level recorded for any base station is 0.06 microwatt per square centimetre while in general the maximum level which the team has measured near a typical base station is less than 0.01 microwatt per square centimetre. This is apparently far lower than the RFR emission level of a television broadcast tower, and represents one hundred thousandth of the occupational exposure limit set for persons subject to RFR emissions in employment, within the frequency range 400 to 300,000MHz, by AS/NZS 2772.1(Int). Mobile phone base stations (including analogue and digital systems) operate at frequencies between 870NMz and 960NMz. Mr Cornelius advised that the Australian and New Zealand Standard referred to above is a conservative standard in world terms. He concluded that there was nothing in the proposal plans to lead him to conclude that public exposure to RFR emissions from the proposed development would be very different from that at other base stations he had measured. He further concluded that the risk to human health from RFR emissions likely to be emitted from the proposed development would be so close to zero as to constitute no risk. We accept his evidence and his conclusions on the basis of present knowledge. Mr Cornelius did also indicate that questions concerning the effects of RFR on the human body are still subject to debate. However, the Australian and New Zealand Standard referred to above has incorporated large safety factors, for example by setting the exposure limits for workers at one tenth of the threshold level or the level at which independent laboratory studies have confirmed is the lowest radiofrequency exposure level that has caused adverse biological effects (in experimental animals).

Mr Frost, who lives in Edmund Street gave evidence himself and called two other residents of Edmund Street. The thrust of the evidence of the residents was that the proposed development would detract from their visual amenity and be a reminder to them of the debate within the community about the effects on human health of RFR emissions from the base station. The concept of perceived amenity has been addressed by this Court and its predecessor, as well as the Full Court of the Supreme Court in Novak v Corporation of the City of Woodville (1990) 158 LSJS 473, in which Broad v Brisbane City Council (1986) 59 LGRA 296 and Venus Enterprises Pty Ltd v Parramatta City Council 43 LGRA 67, were cited. In each of these cases it was the knowledge by the residents of the use of the land proposed, in contrast to its appearance or other measurable impacts, in the context of the existing amenity of the locality, which gave rise to the controversial concept of development affecting one's perception of amenity. The question we are asked to decide is whether we should give weight to the residents' view that the amenity of the locality would be reduced in the residents' perception by the knowledge that the proposed development would involve a use of the subject land whereby RFR is emitted, albeit at levels presently thought to be significantly below those likely to affect the health of humans in the locality. We accept that the residents arc concerned by the debate over the effect of RFR emissions from mobile phone base stations, which has taken place in the community. However, the evidence of Mr Cornelius who has extensive knowledge and experience with respect to RFR emissions and their effects, and our understanding of the Australian and New Zealand Standard referred to above, has led us to agree with Mr Cornelius that this debate has been largely uninformed. We acknowledge the desirability of adopting a precautionary approach to the assessment of risk to humans of new land uses, but we are satisfied that the Australian and New Zealand Standard referred to above embraces the precautionary approach and that RFR levels likely to be emitted by the proposed telecommunications base station are well within that standard. Thus we do not accept that. it is reasonable for the residents to perceive that the amenity of the locality would be affected by the proposed development."

This extract from the Judgement strengthens us in our conclusion that we should accept the Interim Standard, and on that basis conclude that the likely emissions are not unacceptable. We consider that this conclusion is consistent with the following statement from the paper of Dr. French, the expert witness called for the Respondents/Objectors, which we quoted earlier:

At this stage, although it seems improbable that exposure to low level radiation from phone towers represents a significant adverse health risk, until there is a scientifically sound basis for setting a threshold level for biological effects, it is essential that authorities who site towers n residential communities avoid locating them close to those members of the community, such as children, who may be most sensitive to any adverse effects.

We accept the argument of Mr. Canavan, for the Applicant for Review/Permit Applicant, that "devils advocacy" by scientists is a legitimate means of prompting debate, and that regardless of the state of knowledge there should be a continued stimulus for debate. We also accept the argument of Mr. Canavan that:

"land use decisions must be made on the basis of current knowledge unless there is real evidence to the contrary."

We accept the arguments for the "Precautionary Principle" and Prudent Avoidance", but we do not accept that this proposal would be inconsistent with either of those principles.

Mr. Cicero tendered a copy of the "Policy on Siting of Cellular Mobile Telephone Service (CMTS) Base Stations" in the City of Port Phillip. The Policy was adopted on 23 October 1996 and updated in January 1997. We commend the effort to have such a policy, but would suggest that care need to be taken in prescribing buffer distances, which should be based on emission levels and substantiated health concerns. Mr. Cicero also tendered a copy of the City of Wollongong Policy, which seeks to combine distance and exposure levels.

We accept the need for the facility to cater for mobile phone traffic generated by users of Albert Park, occupants of vehicles travelling through the area and local residents. An issue that concerned the Responsible Authority and the Respondents/Objectors was "Why here?".

Mr. Canavan called Mr. G. Lyons, a Communications Engineer and Mobile Telephone Manager, Southern Region, Optus Mobile Pty Ltd, as a witness on Day 5, and Mr. Lyons was cross-examined. We accept the evidence of Mr. Lyons as to the location. Mr Lyons also explained technical reasons against the siting of the facility on the Bob Jane Stadium, in addition to the commercial reasons referred to earlier.

There was understandable opposition to siting the facility in Albert Park. Mr. Cicero provided a copy of a letter from parks Victoria, most of which has already been quoted. The letter advised that Parks Victoria had given its "in principle" approval to the location, and the Department of Natural Resources and Environment had no objection "in principle", subject to certain conditions, including not obstructing the normal use of the eland, and community consultation.

Subject to our consideration of other relevant issues, we do not consider that we should disallow the Application for Review simply based on the location being in Albert Park.

Mr. Canavan, for the Applicant for Review/Permit Applicant, called Mr. T. Biles, a Consultant Planner, as an expert witness and Mr. Biles was cross-examined. Mr. Biles considered that the visual impact was acceptable.

Our inspection confirmed the evidence of Mr. Biles. The proposed location is on the edge of Albert Park, and is but one of the number of constructed elements, including the Golf Driving Range and the Melbourne Sports and Aquatic Centre. There is also significant planting, and there would be further planting as part of the proposal. From Canterbury Road one sees a number of constructed elements, some quite tall. We do not consider that the proposed tower would adversely affect the visual amenity of the area.

We reserved our decision, and Mr. Cicero, for the Responsible Authority, tendered draft conditions to be considered if we decided that a permit should be granted. There was general agreement with these draft conditions. Draft Condition 4 read:

"No more than three antennas shall be constructed on the monopole without the further consent of the Responsible Authority."

The description of the proposal was amended to include these details, and Draft Condition 4 is therefore unnecessary.

It is ordered that the Application for Review is allowed and a permit is granted for the development and use of a mobile telephone monopole, three antennae, microwave link, associated facilities and equipment shelter, in accordance with Drawing No. M0464-P03 Rev B and Drawing No. M064-P04 Rev A subject to the following conditions:

1. Before the development starts, a schedule of external materials, finishes and paint colours to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority must be submitted to and approved by the Responsible Authority. When approved, the schedule will be endorsed and will then form part of the permit. Any plans forming part of the schedule must be drawn to scale with dimensions and three copies must be provided.

2. Before the development starts, a landscape plan to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority must be submitted to and approved by the Responsible Authority. When approved, the plan must be drawn to scale with dimensions and three copies must be provided. The plan must show:

a) existing vegetation, including vegetation which is to be retained, removed or lopped;

b) a permanent screen of trees and shrubs, or a suitable screen, to provide an effective visual screen of the equipment shelter.

3. All existing vegetation shown on the endorsed plans must be suitably marked before any development starts on the site and that vegetation must not be removed, destroyed or lopped without the written consent of the Responsible Authority.

4. Before the use starts, the permanent screen of trees and shrubs (or other type of screen as specified) must be planted in accordance with the endorsed plans to provide an effective visual screen, and must be completed to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority, and must then maintained to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

5. All radio frequency emissions from any antennas constructed on the monopole shall comply with the standards specified under AS/NZS2772(Int):1998 ("the standard"), or any amendment to the Standard, or any document which replaces the Standard.

6. This permit will expire if one of the following circumstances applies:

a) The development is not started within two years of the date of this permit.

b) The development is not completed within two years of its commencement.

The Responsible Authority is directed to issue a permit in accordance with this Order pursuant to Section 85(1)(b)(ii) of the Planning and Environment Act 1987.