Co-locate telecommunications facilities wherever practical.

Planning should have regard to national implications of a telecommunications network and the need for consistency in infrastructure design and placement.

1. Shell Company of Australia Ltd and Others v City of Frankston and Another [P82/1527 8APA 126] sets out a long standing principle about need in a town planning sense:

When the word "need" is used in a town planning sense, it must mean community need. It is not necessary to show an element of urgent community necessity for a facility. Rather need connotes the idea that the well being of a community or some part of it can be better and more conveniently served by the provision of a particular facility. ......

1. It is clear that there is no requirement to demonstrate community need or explain the practicality of co-location as part of a permit application. Nevertheless, Indara chose to provide some information in its permit application as well as additional information in its submission about the community need for this facility. Indara called Mr Wanninayake to explain this information. Mr Wanninayake was also able to respond to the practicalities of co-location given council's advice in the hearing that it has granted a permit for another telecommunications facility further to the southeast along Phillip Island Road.

Planning application information about the community need

1. The Town Planning Report prepared by Indara Digital Infrastructure in July 2024 and lodged with the permit application includes the following information:
   1. Indara owns and manages over 4,300 mobile telecommunications facilities across Australia as 'a neutral host' whereby Australia's mobile carriers, government agencies and other wireless services providers can co-locate.
   2. Indara has partnered with Optus Mobile Pty Ltd (Optus) to expand the Optus mobile network across Australia. This facility is being proposed to improve Optus mobile services in the Sunderland Bay area.
   3. The proposed facility is comprised of a new monopole and associated passive infrastructure, which will be owned and managed by Indara, and active infrastructure (antennas and telecommunications equipment) which will be owned and managed by Optus.
   4. There are no existing mobile base stations servicing Sunderland Bay.
   5. This project seeks to provide Optus 4G and 5G services to Sunderland Bay and Sunset Strip, including residential development, businesses and tourist accommodation in this area. The facility will also service local beaches and major roads in the area, including Phillip Island Road and Back Beach Road.
2. Council questions the need for this facility. It displayed the Optus website during the hearing and provided a screenshot of its mapped coverage across Phillip Island. This illustrates that Sunderland Bay has Optus 4G mobile coverage (as extracted below).

Council's screenshot of Optus website showing 4G mobile coverage on Phillip Island

Indara submission and evidence to VCAT about the community need

1. Indara's submission for this hearing includes an Annexure A it prepared. This is a Radiofrequency Coverage Assessment Analysis for this facility dated 15 September 2025. It includes different existing 4G network coverage in Sunderland Bay to that shown above. The lack of green shown in the extract on the following page illustrates where there is a current lack of 4G network coverage for Optus.

1. I observed during the hearing that the website map tabled by council is perhaps akin to more of a marketing tool. Indara's Radiofrequency Coverage Assessment Analysis map above indicates there is almost no 4G/5G coverage in Sunderland Bay and Sunset Strip and limited coverage in Surf Beach and Smiths Beach. Mr Wanninayake points out coverage maps on telecommunication company websites can be indicative only, and potential coverage does not mean guaranteed coverage. Also, coverage of an outdoor area versus an indoor area 'can be quite different'.
2. Council initially objected to the Annexure A material in Indara's submission. Council's objection is based on the material being an area involving subject matter expertise. Council says the Annexure A material should have been provided in the form of expert evidence as it cannot be explained or cross-examined.

1. When council objected at the start of the hearing, I pointed out to the parties that this type of material is often provided in proceedings regarding a telecommunications facility. In other words, there is nothing unusual about such information being provided. It can be provided either:
   1. in the form of material accompanying a permit application; or
   2. as part of a submission to a VCAT hearing, or
   3. in the form of expert evidence to be presented at a VCAT hearing.
2. Which way this material is presented is a matter for the permit applicant to decide.
3. At the start of the hearing, Indara offered to call one of its employees to explain the material. This was not opposed by council, so long as it had sufficient time to consider the material. Hence, Indara decided to call its employee, Mr Wanninayake, as a lay witness providing evidence-in-chief on day 1 of this hearing. The parties agreed council would then cross-examine Mr Wanninayake at the start of day 2. This is what occurred.
4. Mr Wanninayake explains the closest Optus facilities are currently about 4 to 5 kilometres from Sunderland Bay. There are various factors that can influence the mobile coverage including how close a facility is (the closer the better), that coverage drops in peak times, and that trees block coverage.

Information provided about one frequency - 1800mHz is acceptable

1. Council cross-examined Mr Wanninayake about why 1800mHz was the frequency used in the analysis contained in Annexure A. Mr Wanninayake explained Optus uses a range of frequencies and high frequencies carry more data, but you have to be closer to the tower to gain the benefit of this. He acknowledges that lower frequencies go further but less data is achievable. Mr Wanninayake also explains that coverage drops in peak periods of use by visitors such as during the motorcycle and car racing events at the Phillip Island Circuit. Calls can drop out at present in peak times, so there is not a reliable coverage. Mr Wanninayake considers 1800mHz is a 'good network service' baseline for customers.
2. At the end of the hearing, Indara referred to Crafter v Cardinia SC [2023] VCAT 1163 (Crafter) where 'Optus technical specialist' expert evidence was accepted at paragraphs 31 to 34, including modelling at 1800 and 700mHz. These frequencies are not specified in this decision, which I made. Indara's engaged law firm in this case was involved in the Crafter VCAT proceeding. I agree Indara is correct that two frequencies were referred to in that evidence. As it was my decision, I pointed out to the parties in this hearing that the customer service sought to be upgraded in that case was both the reliability of service to the local community but also the ability to provide for emergency phone calls given the bushfire risk. Phone calls can utilise a lower frequency that has a wider coverage than the higher frequencies that provide more customer services. That is my recollection as to why two different frequencies were referred to.
3. Council continued to object to this material at the end of the hearing saying the detail as to what underpins Indara's analysis of Optus' requirements is unclear. I agree with council that I have not been presented with any information to suggest that there is a need to cater for emergency phone calls specifically. I accept there is a lack of 4G/5G coverage for Optus in this area and that the proposed monopole will increase and improve access for all sectors of the community (as is sought in the clause 19.03-4S strategies). However, I reiterate my earlier findings, that in this case there does not need to be a demonstrated community need, including an emergency need.

1. During the hearing, council advised it had approved a 25 metre high monopole telecommunications facility at 1700 Phillip Island Road, Rhyll on 22 September 2025. It questions why Optus could not be co-located on this facility.
2. Co-location has historically been a relevant consideration about the acceptability of proposals for telecommunications facilities. For example, the Code of Practice for Telecommunications Facilities in Victoria 2004 (code of practice) contained four principles that required consideration in deciding whether to grant a permit. The second principle involved the co-location of telecommunications facilities wherever practical. An example of this consideration that has some similarities to the circumstances of this proceeding is explained in Optus Mobile Pty Ltd v Ballarat CC [2010] VCAT 661:

1. ... The idea here is to avoid multiplicity of sites. Co-siting would put more than one facility on the one site and co-location might involve facilities of more than one service provided on the one pole or other device.

3. As to co-location, this can be regarded as a sound principle. It is preferable to an unnecessary proliferation of telecommunication facilities. It is economical and efficient and reduces visual impact. It is an advantage from the point of view of host facilities that might accept new facilities on their site or pole and a saving for the guest incoming facilities, as well as being an advantage to the community as a whole.
4. However, co-location is to apply where it is practical. Where it is not practical it cannot apply. I am satisfied on the evidence produced by the company that co-location is impractical in this case. There are other facilities and other poles in the broader general area, but I accept that none of them adequately provide for the need sought to be met with this facility which is to cover the service "hole" or gap in the area. I find this deficiency to exist, notwithstanding that mobile telephones can frequently be used from most locations. According to the evidence produced, the best opportunity presently existing would be a collocation on a pole of Telstra but the height of the accommodation that Telstra can make available would be insufficient for the purpose. I am prepared to suppose that the company would adopt that cheaper and more convenient option if it would really meet the need.
5. When Amendment VC226 came into operation, it removed the code of practice and incorporated relevant provisions into clause 52.19. The Planning Advisory Note 80 explains the second principle about co-location has become a new state-wide strategy in clause 19.03-4S. In Telstra Corporation Limited v Warrnambool CC [2023] VCAT 894, the Tribunal considered this new strategy together with clause 19.03-4L that contains a strategy to encourage high speed communications infrastructure for new housing. The Tribunal found:
   1. A relevant strategy at clause 19.03-4S seeks to is to co-locate telecommunications facilities where practical and clause 19.03-4L encourages co-location of telecommunications infrastructure. Co-location is not mandated. It is an outcome which should be achieved, where practical, but the failure or inability to do so does not mean that a permit cannot, or should not, be granted for the proposed facility.
6. Co-location where practical is a policy strategy. This means it is a guideline that can be considered when exercising the discretion as to whether to grant a permit. As a policy, it is not a rule but a guideline.
7. Mr Wanninayake points out the newly approved monopole at 1700 Phillip Island Road is at a lower ground level and is a lower height tower than this proposal. This means co-locating on it will result in a lower coverage for Optus. This would also mean Optus will need a second site later on to serve Sunset Strip and Smiths Beach. This evidence persuades me that co-location is not practical in this case, particularly as it would still necessitate another facility to serve Sunset Strip and Smiths Beach.

1. The draft conditions were discussed with the parties at the end of the hearing and many suggestions were made about how these conditions could be improved or better clarified. I do not intend to go through these in these reasons. Rather, the changes that are appropriate are evident in the conditions contained in Appendix A to these reasons.
2. For the reasons already explained, I have not included any conditions requiring additional landscaping along the subject land's frontage.

1. For the reasons given above, the decision of the responsible authority is set aside. A permit is granted subject to conditions.

The construction of a 37.5 metre high monopole telecommunications facility with new access to Back Beach Road and associated equipment cabinet, fencing and landscaping.

Construct a building within 5 metres of a property boundary in Farming Zone Schedule 1

Construct or carry out works for a telecommunications facility

Create or alter access to a road in a Transport Zone 2

1. Before the development commences, amended plans drawn to scale with dimensions must be submitted to and approved by the responsible authority. The plans must be generally in accordance with the development plans prepared by Indara Digital Infrastructure dated 4 September 2024 (M3952 - L1, P1, P2 and P3, Rev 01) as submitted with the application, but modified to show:

(a) The access on the site dimensioned and connecting with the crossover requirements of the Head, Transport for Victoria as set out in the conditions of this permit.

(b) A landscape plan in accordance with Condition 3 of this permit.

(c) Dimensions of the equipment cabinet (2.772m by 0.85m in area and height above ground to be nominated) and the monopole (base diameter of 1.185m and top diameter of 0.66m) and a notation that the 0.6m microwave at EL15.0m is on a mounting pipe extending 0.4m from the monopole.

All to the satisfaction of the responsible authority. When approved, the plans will be endorsed and will then form part of this Permit.

1. The layout of the site and size, design and location of buildings and works as shown on the endorsed plans must not be altered without the prior written consent of the responsible authority.

1. Concurrent with the submission of plans required by Condition 1 and before the commencement of buildings and works, a detailed Landscape Plan to the satisfaction of the responsible authority must be submitted to and approved by the responsible authority. When the Landscape Plan is approved, it will become an endorsed plan forming part of this permit. The Landscape Plan must be generally in accordance with Peter Haack Consulting Landscape Amelioration Plan and Planting Palette Drawing Numbers 1 and 2 dated 12/08/25 but modified to include:

(a) A planting schedule of all proposed trees, shrubs and ground covers, including botanical names, common names, pot sizes, sizes at maturity, and quantities of each plant;

(b) Revised accessway location that accords with the crossing and accessway location required by the conditions of Head, Transport for Victoria;

(c) Any further fencing required to protect the landscaping from the continued grazing on the balance of the land;

(d) A mixture of lower, middle and upper storey vegetation to provide an effective visual screen within the planting area.

1. Within 3 months of the completion of the development or as otherwise approved by the responsible authority, the landscaping works shown on the endorsed plans must be carried out and completed to the satisfaction of the responsible authority.
2. The landscaping must thereafter be maintained to the satisfaction of the responsible authority, including that any dead, diseased or damaged plants are to be replaced.

1. Before the development is completed, the existing gate in the fence adjacent to the traffic island on Back Beach Road is to be removed and the fence reinstated.
2. A new access from Back Beach Road must be constructed in the Northwest corner of the lot generally in accordance with Standard Drawing GD4010 suitable for an 8.8m Service Vehicle with a minimum 9 metre sealed or concrete paved area.
3. Any security boom, barrier, gate or similar device controlling vehicular access to the premises must be setback a minimum of 9m inside the property boundary to allow vehicles to store clear of the Back Beach Road pavement and footpath.
4. Prior to construction of the crossover a dimensional plan of the access generally in accordance with standard drawing GD4010, must be submitted and approved by the Head, Transport for Victoria and include:

(a) Intersection Sight Distance achievable

(b) Length and width of shoulder seal

(c) Location of drainage pipe with driveable end walls (if applicable)

(d) Location of any gates controlling access to property

1. Prior to construction works of the telecommunications tower commencing on site, the crossover and driveway are to be constructed to the satisfaction of and at no cost to the Head, Transport for Victoria.
2. Driveways must be maintained in a fit and proper state so as not to compromise the ability of vehicles to enter and exit the site in a safe manner or compromise operational efficiency of the road or public safety (e.g., by spilling gravel onto the roadway).

1. If the telecommunications facility is decommissioned or no longer required, all buildings and works must be removed from the land and the land reinstated to the satisfaction of the responsible authority no later than three months after being decommissioned or no longer required.

(a) The development does not start within 2 years from the date of this Permit; or

(b) The development is not completed within 4 years of the date of this Permit.

In accordance with Section 69 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 (Vic), an application may be submitted to the responsible authority for an extension of the periods referred to in this condition

[1] https://planning-schemes.app.planning.vic.gov.au/Bass%20Coast/maps

[2] Page 3 of Planning and Environment Act 1987 (Vic).

[4] The submissions and evidence of the parties, the supporting exhibits given at the hearing and the material on the Tribunal's electronic file have all been considered in the determination of the proceeding. In accordance with the practice of the Tribunal, not all of this material will be cited or referred to in these reasons.

[5] Clause 19.03-4L of the planning scheme.

[6] Telstra Corporation Limited v Knox CC [2024] VCAT 74 at [111].