1. In Application P3000/2012 pursuant to section 127 of the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 1998, the notice of decision to grant a permit is amended by including in "What will the permit allow?" the following:

1. These applications are listed for hearing together in Ballarat on Monday 22 April 2013 for one day.
2. The applications shall be heard together and any evidence given in the proceedings is admissible in relation to each application, where relevant.
3. At the hearing, the applicants/objectors may only rely upon relevant planning matters and not those grounds ruled to be not relevant.

1. Each of these proceedings is an application under section 82 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 against a decision by the responsible authority to grant a permit for a Telecommunication Tower (NBN Wireless).[1] The towers will be part of the National Broadband Network (NBN), which is being implemented by the Federal Government.
2. The purposes of the Practice Day Hearing were :
   • To consider the future conduct of the proceeding. This may include a consideration of dates, duration; mediation and/or venue.
   • To consider the validity of certain statements of grounds.
3. A number of the statements of grounds of objectors seek to raise and rely upon the following issues:
   • Potential health risks from electro-magnetic radiation and the like;
   • Lack of consultation with the community;
   • Alternative locations for the towers;
   • Opposition to details of the NBN programme and a preference for alternative technologies;
   • Loss of property values.
4. These are not planning grounds that may be relied upon at the hearing. There have been a number of previous Tribunal decisions concerning telecommunications facilities, which have reached this conclusion with respect to similar statements of grounds.
5. The leading case is Hyett v Shire of Corangamite[2]. This case considered a mobile telephone base station and was determined by a Tribunal comprising the President, Justice Kellam and Member Marsden.

1. With respect to health hazards of electro-magnetic radiation from mobile phone tower installations, the Tribunal held that whilst the objectors beliefs were sincerely held, the Tribunal is obliged to apply the relevant regulatory standards as it finds them, not to pioneer standards of its own. The creation of new standards is a matter for other authorities.[3] This principle has been followed in numerous other decisions wherein the Tribunal has found that a telecommunications facility is obliged to meet the relevant standards that apply but it is not a basis to reject an application for reasons relating to potential health impacts if the relevant standards are met.[4]
2. In the present case, the towers will be required to meet relevant Australian Standards with respect to electro-magnetic radiation. I therefore rule that potential health risks are not relevant planning grounds that may be relied upon by objectors at the hearing.

1. Arguments about whether there is a preferable alternative site are not relevant to the matters that the Tribunal must decide. As the Tribunal said in Hyett:

The basic question which falls for decision is whether this particular site is suitable for the proposed facility. The Tribunal is not required to determine whether other sites may offer a preferable alternative. Indeed such an inquiry would call for a much greater level of additional information which is simply not before the Tribunal.[5]

1. I therefore rule that arguments about whether there are better alternative sites are not relevant.

1. Objectors' arguments that there has been inadequate consultation with communities about the proposed telecommunications towers are not relevant either. A hearing before the Tribunal is a hearing de novo. The Tribunal stands in the shoes of the responsible authority and the matter is decided afresh. How the responsible authority may have handled the processing of the permit applications and the communications by the permit applicant with the community will not be matters that the Tribunal will take into consideration.

Opposition to NBN and preference for alternative technologies

1. A number of objectors oppose aspects of the NBN and consider that existing or alternative technologies are preferable.
2. Implementation of the NBN is a decision of the Federal Government over which the Tribunal has no control. The Tribunal's sole consideration is whether it is appropriate, in planning terms, to locate the proposed telecommunications tower on the specific pieces of land to which those applications apply.

1. It has long been held that loss of property values is not a relevant planning consideration.

1. There are a range of other grounds that objectors have raised, which are relevant planning considerations. They include :
   • Visual impact
   • Noise
   • Amenity
   • Access
   • Compliance with State and Local planning policy
2. The objectors should focus on these type of issues at the hearing. At the practice day hearing I distributed to those parties present copies of three cases[6], which reflect my rulings about matters that are and are not relevant. They may be useful for parties to consider when preparing for the hearing. A copy will be sent to any parties who appeared by telephone, rather than in person.

1. The hearing will be at Ballarat when a number of similar cases concerning telecommunications towers associated with the NBN will be heard by the same Tribunal member. These two proceedings will be scheduled for hearing together on the same day. Subject to further direction by the Tribunal conducting the hearing, the permit applicant, NBN Co Ltd will commence the hearing by presenting any evidence common to both proceedings of a technical nature. Parties will then make their presentations in respect of each separate site in the order of responsible authority, objectors, and permit applicant, followed by a brief right-of-reply and without prejudice discussion of conditions.
2. The permit applicant requested mediation. I have considered this request but consider that the disparity of views and the likely length of the hearing do not support a direction for mediation. This does not prevent the permit applicant discussing issues with objectors informally prior to the hearing and potentially reaching a consent position.

[1] I note that in Application P3000/2012 the notice of decision to grant a permit does not include what the permit will allow. This appears to be an omission, which I have rectified pursuant to my powers under section 127 of the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 1998. If the description of Telecommunications Tower (NBN Wireless) is inaccurate, any modifications to what the permit allows can be made by the Tribunal, which will hear and determine these proceedings, if it determines to grant a permit.

[2] [1999] VCAT 794

[3] [1999] VCAT 794 at page 7

[4] For example, see Telstra Ltd v Mornington Peninsula Shire Council [2005] VCAT 863; Hutchison 3G Australia Pty Ltd v Hobsons Bay City Council [2005] VCAT 1470; Optus Mobile Ltd v Whittlesea City Council [2003] VCAT 968; Telstra Corporation Ltd v Casey City Council [2005] VCAT 2348.

[5] Hyett v Corangamite Shire Council [1999] VCAT 794 at page 5

[6] Hyett v Corangamite Shire Council [1999] VCAT 794; Telstra Corporation Ltd v Casey City Council [2005] VCAT 2348; and Hutchison 3G Australia Pty Ltd v Hobsons Bay City Council [2005] VCAT 1470.