Mr Chris Wren of Counsel, instructed by Blake Dawson Waldron

1. Application P3620/2004 is made pursuant to section 82 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 in respect of a decision by the responsible authority to grant a permit for a telecommunications facility on the subject land in Governor Road, Braeside. The sole ground relied upon in the application for review is that:

1. By letter dated 7 February 2005 the applicant filed a further ground of review, namely:

"The tower will cause radiation and it is a health hazard."

1. The purpose of the directions hearing is to consider whether to allow the further ground of review filed by the applicant on 7 February 2005; and to consider the permit applicant's request to have the application for review struck out on the basis that it is misconceived and lacking in substance. There was no appearance by the applicant for review at the directions hearing.
2. I consider that neither of the grounds of review put forward by the applicant is a relevant planning matter. Accordingly the application should be summarily dismissed pursuant to section 75 of the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 1998 because in my opinion the proceeding is lacking in substance.
3. Loss of land value has long been held by the Tribunal and its predecessors not to be a relevant planning consideration. This is therefore not a ground of review that the Tribunal would consider as justifying setting aside the decision of the responsible authority to grant a permit.
4. With respect to the concern about electromagnetic radiation being a health hazard, again the Tribunal has rejected this ground in a number of cases - for example see Connell Wagner Pty Ltd v Port Phillip City Council [1998] VCAT 606 and Lucent Technologies v Maribyrnong City Council [2001] VCAT 1955. Any telecommunications facility of the type proposed will be required to meet relevant standards and the responsible authority has ensured this by the inclusion of condition 4 which requires:

The telecommunications facility hereby permitted must be designed and installed so that the maximum human exposure levels to radio frequency emissions comply with Australian Standard AS/NZS 2772.1:1999.

1. It is not appropriate for the Tribunal to question such standards. In making decisions and imposing conditions the Tribunal should accept standards that are set by relevant Government agencies responsible for controlling the matters addressed by the standards and should not look behind them. For these reasons, even if the further ground of review was to be considered, it would be rejected by the Tribunal in accordance with a long line of cases where the Tribunal has taken a similar view.
2. As neither of the grounds of review put forward by the applicant can be supported I am of the opinion that the application for review is lacking in substance and should be dismissed.