32 In particular para 98,
"It is not appropriate for a court to set aside or disregard such an authoritative and scientifically credible standard as the Australian Standard RPS3.
99, nor is it appropriate for a court to pioneer standards of its own. The creation of new standards is the responsibility of other authorities with special expertise such as ARPANSA.
101, the Australian Standard RPS3 embraces a precautionary approach. The exposure limits set are conservative relative to the scientific evidence on biological effects of exposure to RF fields. There are margins for safety in the basic restrictions and associated reference levels. The reference levels are based on worst case assumptions.
197, the concerns expressed by the residents in that particular case on RFEME emitted from the proposed base station do not relate to intangible matters. Rather, the concerns relate to matters which are capable of measurement and testing against established standards to see whether the concerns are justified. Testing against the relevant Australian Standard RPS3 proves that concerns are not justified.
198, in these circumstances little, if any, weight can be given to the residents' perceptions. This has been the consistent conclusion of other courts and tribunals which have determined other cases involving unsubstantiated community perceptions of adverse effects on amenity from exposure to RFEME from a proposed development.
199, there is a broader policy reason for the court making its determination on the basis of reason and substantiated evidence. As Galligan notes, "A basic aspect of rational action is that facts on which decisions are founded should be supported by good evidence. Unless there is a substratum of objective evidence for the reasons and policies acted on, discretionary decisions are liable to the charge of arbitrariness."
33 The Chief Judge refers to the fact that to make such an arbitrary decision could cause a greater disservice to the community than making a rational one, and it would raise unnecessarily the fears of communities. He quotes,
"Similarly, the World Health Organisation has urged that scientific assessments of risk and science-based exposure limits should not be undermined by the adoption of arbitrary cautionary approaches that would occur, for example, if limit values were lowered to levels that bear no relationship to the established hazards or have inappropriate arbitrary adjustment to the limit values to account for the extent of scientific uncertainty.
World Health Organisation, electromagnetic fields and public health cautionary policies. Community concerns are best corrected by proper application of the authoritative adopted standards including the Australian Standard RPS3."
34 With respect to the issue of perception, the Chief Judge refers to his Honour Justice Lloyd in the judgment of New Century Developments Pty Limited v Baulkham Hills Council 203 NSWLEC 154 at para 62.
"Rational or justified foundation is not a matter which by itself can be considered as an amenity or social impact pursuant to s 79C and where there is no evidence to support irrational fear it would be irrelevant that members of the community may have modified their behaviour arising from such an unjustified fear. In that regard, the court and I acknowledge that some people do have concerns and that is clearly established in many cases, but the role of the court is to assess the development application in terms of the factual evidence and in terms of the appropriate standards, and whilst some people may choose not to locate near such facilities, that is clearly a matter of choice, but at the end of the day the court must have regard to the established standards that have been established and not as indicated by the Chief Judge, there should not be an arbitrary approach to such matters and the court should not substitute its own values in that regard."