VICTORIAN CIVIL AND ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
planning and environment LIST	vcat reference No. P1614/2022
Permit Application no.P/2022/6218 	
CATCHWORDS	
Application under section 77 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987; Review the refusal to grant a permit; Telecommunications Facility; Knox Planning Scheme; Low Density Residential Zone; Character; Visual impact; Net community benefit.	

Applicant	Optus Mobile Pty Ltd	

Responsible Authority	Knox City Council	

SUBJECT LAND	G02/1101 Wellington Road
ROWVILLE VIC 3178	

HEARING TYPE	Hearing	

DATE OF HEARING	3 July 2023	

DATE OF ORDER	18 July 2023	

CITATION	Optus Mobile Pty Ltd v Knox CC [2023] VCAT 796	

Order
Permit granted
1	In application P1614/2022 the decision of the responsible authority is set aside.
2	In planning permit application P/2022/6218 a permit is granted and directed to be issued for the land at G02/1101 Wellington Road, Rowville VIC 3178, in accordance with the endorsed plans and the conditions set out in Appendix A.  The permit allows:
•	Construction of a building and construction of and carrying out works for a telecommunications facility under clause 52.19 ‘Telecommunications facility’, of the Knox Planning Scheme.

Sarah McDonald
Member			

Appearances
For applicant	Matt Evans, planning consultant,
Evans Planning Pty Ltd.	
For responsible authority	John Klarica, town planner, Calibre Planning.	

Information
Description of proposal	It is proposed to develop a ‘telecommunications facility’ comprising a monopole, antennas, remote radio units, equipment cabinet, temporary generator, and fenced compound.	
Nature of proceeding	Application under section 77 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 (PE Act) – to review the refusal to grant a permit.	
Planning scheme	Knox Planning Scheme.	
Zone and overlays	Low Density Residential Zone (LDRZ).	
Permit requirements	Clause 52.19-1: To construct a building or construct or carry out works for a telecommunications facility.	
Land description	The subject land is a leased area of land within the property at 1101 Wellington Road, Rowville.  That property is on the northern side of Wellington Road, between Silkwood Way to the east and Le John Street to the west.  That property is developed with a medical centre (on the western half of the land) and associated car park (on the eastern half of the land).  The rear quarter of that property is a grassed area that is fenced off from the medical centre and car park.  
The rear quarter of the property contains an existing telecommunications facility, comprising a 16 metre high monopole (with three antennas and 21 remote radio units), and equipment cabinet within a fenced compound.
The subject land is a rectangular area in the north-eastern corner of the property, to the north-east of the existing telecommunications facility.  It extends 10 metres along the northern boundary and 8 metres along the western boundary.
The larger property slopes upwards from the road frontage to the rear where the proposed telecommunications facility is to be located.	
Land description (continued)	The surrounding area comprises a mix of uses.  Properties to the east are large residential properties that front Silkwood Street, and are occupied by large dwellings, some with tennis courts and swimming pools.  The land to the west is a church, with a large car park adjoining the subject land.  The adjoining property to the north is occupied by a residential aged care facility.  Land to the north of the aged care centre is large LDRZ residential properties developed with large houses.  Land on the opposite side of Wellington Road to the south includes the rear of residential properties, as well as the Wellington Village shopping centre.  (See Figure 1).	
Tribunal inspection	An unaccompanied inspection of the subject land and the surrounding area was undertaken before the hearing.	
Figure 1:  Subject land and surrounding context

  Reasons
What is this proceeding about?
1	Optus Mobile Pty Ltd (applicant) is seeking a planning permit for a telecommunications facility (proposal) on the land at G02/1101 Wellington Road, Rowville (subject land).
2	The Knox City Council (Council), as the responsible authority under the PE Act, refused to grant a permit for the proposal.  Its grounds for refusal relate to, in summary, inconsistency with planning policies, the LDRZ, and the ‘Telecommunications Facilities’ provisions at clause 52.19, regarding the response to landscape, amenity impacts, protections of view lines, visual impact, and community benefit.
3	The applicant has sought this review of the Council’s decision.  The applicant submits that the Council’s decision should be set aside, and a permit issued based on, in summary:
i	The increasingly strong policy support in the Scheme for provision of improved mobile telecommunications infrastructure.
ii	This proposal is an excellent example of the efficient sharing of infrastructure via co-location of Optus and Vodafone antennas, which negates the need for two separate telecommunications facilities –consistent with state-wide strategy.
iii	The proposal reflects an appropriate balance between minimising visual impact, as required by the Scheme, and providing effective mobile coverage and an increasingly essential service.
iv	The proposal is in accordance with the planning policy framework and LDRZ provisions of the Scheme and considering the provisions at clause 52.19 and the decision guidelines at clause 65, there will be a net community benefit as per clause 71.02-3 ‘Integrated decision making’.
4	The Council submits the proposal is inappropriate and should not be approved.  Its submissions include, in summary:
i	It is recognised there are benefits from construction of a telecommunications tower.  Despite these, the proposal is not consistent with the LDRZ and the relevant policies and particular provisions of the Scheme.  This development is not suited to this site as it does not integrate appropriately into the character of the area.
ii	It is not a robust built environment and in this area Council’s policies encourage a ‘Bush Boulevard’ character of canopy trees extending along the sides of the road (on public and private land) to complement the views to the Dandenong Ranges and provide a gateway to/from Knox.  The proposal will tower over this existing and preferred landscaped environment due to the height and dominance.
iii	Whether the proposal is appropriate must be considered in terms of the character and amenity of the area.  This involves understanding the existing and preferred character.  The site is in a LDRZ, which is arguably the lowest on the spectrum of residential zones in regard to changing character and encouragement of development.  The character of low scale buildings and large open areas, with canopy trees and a high level of amenity, is to be retained, particularly further away from the main road frontage.
iv	The abuttal of the site to an aged care facility, as well as the adjacent Neighbourhood Residential Zone (NRZ) to the east, with a facility that towers well over the adjacent canopy is inappropriate regarding visual amenity.
v	The development does not achieve an appropriate level of compliance with relevant planning objectives.  Therefore, the purpose of providing telecommunications infrastructure does not outweigh the other purpose of facilitating the provision of telecommunications facilities consistent with proper and orderly planning with minimal impact on the amenity of the area.  The proposal is unable to demonstrate appropriate design and siting.
5	The Tribunal must decide whether a permit should be granted and if so, what conditions should be applied.  In doing so I must consider whether the proposal will produce ‘acceptable outcomes’, in relation to the relevant provisions and policies of the Scheme.
What are the key issues?
6	Based on the submissions and relevant policies and provisions of the Scheme, I consider the key issues to be determined are:
•	Will any visual impact on the landscape character of the area be acceptable?
•	Will any visual impact on the amenity of surrounding residential properties be acceptable?
•	Does the proposal provide a net community benefit?
7	Having considered the submissions, statements of grounds, and relevant provisions and policies of the Scheme, and having viewed the subject land and surrounding area, I have decided to set aside the Council’s decision and direct that a planning permit be issued subject to conditions.  My reasons follow.
What are the relevant facts and circumstances?
8	The proposal comprises a ‘monopole’ with a triangular frame with antennas attached, and an equipment cabinet.  The monopole is proposed to be 25 metres high.  12 antennas, with lengths less than 2.8 metres, are to be mounted to the triangular frame at heights of between 24.89 – 26.97 metres.  The antennas extend above the mounting, to a maximum height of approximately 27.5 metres.   24 remote radio units are also to be attached to the triangular frame.
9	The monopole and equipment cabinet are to be within a chain link wire fenced compound measuring 10 metres by 8 metres.  A temporary generator is to be located within the compound (the generator is to be removed once permanent power supply is connected to the facility).
10	The applicant explained that:
i	The proposed facility is seeking to cover an area previously covered by a facility that has been decommissioned.
ii	The proposed facility will initially incorporate 3G, 4G & 5G services (before 3G is switched off) for both Optus and Vodafone, two of three mobile network operators within Australia.
iii	The temporary facility on the land, which just caters for Optus 3G and 4G services, is designed as a ‘stop-gap’ and is not meeting the current and emerging demand for service in this area.
iv	The existing temporary facility, established under Federal Government exemptions, will be removed once the proposed facility is established and operational.
11	The proposal does not require a permit, either for the use or buildings and works, under the provisions of the LDRZ.  The proposal only requires a permit under the clause 52.19 ‘Telecommunications facilities’ provisions.  
12	Under clause 52.19, before deciding on an application, in addition to the decision guidelines of clause 65 the responsible authority must consider, as appropriate:
•	The design, siting, construction and operation of the telecommunications facility.
•	The effect of the telecommunications facility on adjacent land.
13	The decision guidelines under clause 65 to be considered, as appropriate, include (among others):
•	Any significant effects the environment, including the contamination of land, may have on the use or development. 
•	The Municipal Planning Strategy and the Planning Policy Framework.
•	The purpose of the zone, overlay or other provision.
•	Any matter required to be considered in the zone, overlay or other provision.
•	The orderly planning of the area.
•	The effect on the environment, human health and amenity of the area.
14	Although the decision guidelines at clause 65.01 require consideration of the purpose of the zone and any matter required to be considered in the zone, as the proposal does not require a permit under the LDRZ, I do not consider these to be relevant in the circumstances.  However, I do consider that the purpose of the LDRZ informs the character and amenity expectations for the surrounding LDRZ land and is relevant to this extent.
15	The parties have referred to various State and regional planning policies.  These include:
i	Clause 13.07-1S ‘Land use compatibility’, which seeks:
To protect community amenity, human health and safety while facilitating appropriate commercial, industrial, infrastructure or other uses with potential adverse off-site impacts.
Supporting strategies include:
•	Ensure that use or development of land is compatible with adjoining and nearby land uses
ii	Clause 15 ‘Built environment and heritage’, which includes clauses 15.01-1S ‘Urban design’, 15.01-2S ‘Building design’, and clause 15.01-5S ‘Neighbourhood character’.  Objectives and supporting strategies include, among others:
Require development to respond to its context in terms of character, cultural identity, natural features, surrounding landscape and climate.
To achieve building design and siting outcomes that contribute positively to the local context, enhance the public realm and support environmentally sustainable development.
Ensure development responds and contributes to the strategic and cultural context of its location.
Support development that respects the existing neighbourhood character or contributes to a preferred neighbourhood character.
iii	Clause 17.01-2S ‘Innovation and research’, which includes the following strategy (in addition to others):
•	Encourage the expansion and development of logistics and communications infrastructure.
iv	Clause 19.03-4S ‘Telecommunications’, which seeks:
To facilitate the orderly development, extension and maintenance of telecommunications infrastructure.
The supporting strategies are:
Facilitate the upgrading and maintenance of telecommunications facilities.
Ensure that modern telecommunications facilities are widely accessible and that the telecommunications needs of business, domestic, entertainment and community services are met.
Encourage the continued deployment of telecommunications facilities that are easily accessible by:
•	Increasing and improving access for all sectors of the community to the telecommunications network.
•	Supporting access to transport and other public corridors for the deployment of telecommunications networks in order to encourage infrastructure investment and reduce investor risk.
Ensure a balance between the provision of telecommunications facilities and the need to protect the environment from adverse impacts arising from telecommunications infrastructure.
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.
v	Clause 19.03-4R ‘Telecommunications – Metropolitan Melbourne’, with the strategy to:
Support the provision of high-quality telecommunications infrastructure in Melbourne’s employment, urban renewal and growth areas through early planning for fibre-ready facilities and wireless infrastructure.
16	The parties have also variously referred to the local Municipal Strategic Statement at clause 21 and local planning policies at clause 22.  These include:
i	The Vision for Knox set out at clause 21.02, which includes, among other things, the following goal and associated strategies:
We value our natural and built environment:
•	Protect and enhance our natural environment.
•	Create a greener city with more large trees, indigenous flora and fauna.
•	Ensure the Knox local character is protected and enhanced through the design and location of urban development and infrastructure.
ii	The Strategic Framework Plan at clause 21.02-1, under which the subject land is in an area identified as ‘Bush suburban (Residential)’.
iii	The strategic statement for ‘Environmental and Landscape Values’ at clause 21.03, which includes that:
The natural environment provides many and varied values and benefits for the local community, including: …
•	Providing landscape character and a green skyline, particularly along ridgelines and creek valleys, along major views and vistas and as a backdrop to urban and rural areas.
iv	The strategic statement for ‘Built Environment and Heritage’ at clause 21.05, which includes the following ‘Urban Design’ objective and strategies:
Objective 2
To create high quality, well-designed places that respect and strengthen the local context and landscape qualities of Knox’.
Strategies
2.1	Require development to be high quality and to respect and positively respond to the site and local context. …
2.3	Require development to include landscape as an integral part of the overall design. …
2.5	Require development to minimise the visual impact of service areas, access and parking. 
v	Clause 21.05-3, which sets out the strategic expectations for ‘Bush Boulevards and gateways’.  It includes:
The views presented to visitors and residents at the City's entry points and passing along main roads help to define its image and character. These gateways and road corridors accentuate the green and leafy landscape character of Knox with attractive tree-lined avenues and bush landscapes.
Knox has a series of significant road corridors that are identified as ‘Bush Boulevards’ and 'Paths into the Hills' (shown on Figure 1 to this clause). ‘Bush Boulevards’ are arterial roads with wide reservations running east-west through Knox (except Stud Road, which runs north-south) that are planted with informal avenues of native trees. As ‘Bush Boulevards’ extend eastwards into the Foothills they become 'Paths into the Hills' that have roadside verges containing significant understorey and canopy vegetation. Buildings along these roads generally contribute to this character with setbacks from the street and canopy tree planting. These attractive road corridors link the suburbs of Knox to the landscape character of the Dandenong Foothills. …
vi	Under clause 21.05 Wellington Road is designated as a Bush Boulevard.  The objective and strategies relevant to these areas are:
Objective 5
To enhance the landscape character of the City's ‘Bush Boulevards’, 'Paths into the Hills' and ‘Gateways’ and link them to the significant landscapes of the Dandenong Foothills, the Lysterfield Hills and Valley and the Dandenong Creek Valley.
Strategies
5.1	Along ‘Bush Boulevards’:
•	Protect and enhance existing native vegetation within road reservations and minimise crossovers and impacts to street trees.
•	Protect and emphasise views to the Dandenong Ranges.
•	Outside of activity centres, require development to integrate with the surrounding landscape with substantial setbacks from the road planted with a natural arrangement of native canopy trees.
•	Within activity centres, maintain a continuous setback that is planted with a native tree canopy and formal landscaping to reflect the role and context of the activity centre and to support active and pedestrian-friendly street frontages and public spaces.
vii	The Non-Residential Uses in Residential Areas policy at clause 22.03, which applies to all applications for the use and development of non-residential uses in residential zones.  The objectives of this policy, as relevant to development, are:
•	To support the establishment of appropriately located, attractive and well-designed developments which can fulfil local community needs.
•	To protect the character and amenity of residential areas.
Policies include:
•	The design, scale and appearance of non-residential premises reflects the residential character and streetscape of the area. …
•	Development is similar in character, scale, setback and height to development in the surrounding neighbourhood.
•	Development responds appropriately to the character of the local neighbourhood through its use of materials, colours and landscaping. …
•	Development is designed to minimise intrusion on residential amenity, specifically overlooking, overshadowing and excessive noise.
viii	The Development in Residential Areas and Neighbourhood Character’ policy at clause 22.08, which applies to development on residentially zoned land, includes the subject land.  The policy objectives include:
To facilitate development that is responsive to the unifying ‘green and leafy’ character of Knox.
To facilitate development that is responsive to the desired future character of the area. …
To facilitate the design and scale of new development makes a positive contribution to the area’s built form.
The policy that applies to Bush Suburban areas includes:
Bush Suburban areas have distinctive and significant environmental and biological values.
Preferred Future Character
Bush Suburban areas will:
•	Contribute to the protection and enhancement of Knox’s distinctive environmental and biological values.
•	Continue to be low-scale neighbourhoods where significant indigenous and native vegetation is retained and complemented.
•	Require built form that is subservient to the area’s landscape dominant character.
17	The Council also refers to clause 21.06 ‘Housing’ statement.  While it acknowledges that this policy does not directly apply to the proposal, it says it provides direction regarding the form of development and future character around the site.  This statement identifies that Council supports a scaled approach to residential development, comprised of four distinct residential areas.  The ‘Bush Suburban’ area applies to the area in which the subject land is located, the category in the scale where the lowest level of change is expected.  The desired future character for Bush Suburban areas is:
Bush Suburban Areas include two distinct areas: the Dandenong Foothills and the Sites of Biological Significance. These areas have distinctive and significant biological values. Limited and low scale residential development is anticipated in these areas in order to protect the environmental and biological qualities that make these areas distinct.
18	In accordance with the clause 71.02-3 ‘Integrated decision making’ provisions, I must endeavour to integrate the range of policies relevant to the issues to be determined and balance conflicting objectives in favour of net community benefit and sustainable development for the benefit of present and future generations.
19	The parties have referred to various Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal decisions in support of their submissions.  While I do not refer to these decisions in my reasons, I have had regard to the principles and findings in those decisions as relevant to the facts and circumstances of this proceeding.
20	The Council received six objections to the permit application from surrounding properties.  Four of the objectors to the proceeding filed Statements of Grounds with the Tribunal opposing the application for review.  Their grounds relate to, in summary, visual impact, inconsistency with the Scheme, safety and health impacts of radio emissions, devaluation of property, and the telecommunications cabling running through the adjoining church property.  Although they are not parties to the proceeding, I have had regard to these statements in reaching my decision.
What are the Tribunal’s findings?
Will any visual impact on the landscape character of the area be acceptable?
21	The Council submits that the subject land is in a residential zone with compatible non-residential uses, low-scale buildings in a spacious setting, and large setbacks and canopy trees.  It also submits that it is an area of landscape quality regarding the canopy trees, as well as the large setbacks that provide an open setting.  The Council says that the proposal well exceeds the height of nearby buildings and canopy trees and will be dominant from close by and at a distance.
22	Based on the submissions and my observations, while much of the telecommunications facility will not be visible beyond the property, it is obvious that the monopole and attached antennas will be visible to varying degrees from surrounding properties and within the landscape more broadly.  This is due to the monopole being higher than the prevailing height of existing buildings and landscaping, particularly canopy trees, in the surrounding area.  However, the mere visibility of the facility is not the relevant test.  Rather, what is relevant is its visual impact on the landscape character of the area.
23	Key to this consideration are the local strategic statement and policies relating to, in summary:
•	providing landscape character and a green skyline;
•	enhancing the landscape character of the City’s ‘Bush Boulevards’;
•	the limited and low scale residential development in Bush Suburban areas; and
•	development that is responsive to the unifying ‘green and leafy’ character of Knox.
24	I am not persuaded by the Council that the proposal will be ‘dominant from close by and at a distance’ or that ‘the proposal will tower over this existing and preferred landscaped environment due to the height and dominance’.  While the monopole and antennas will be quite visible within the immediate context, more broadly views of the monopole and antennas will vary depending on the vantage point.  Due to the various buildings, structures and vegetation in the surrounding area, the view lines to the subject land vary.  In the same way that one currently obtains and loses clear views and glimpses of the existing temporary telecommunications facility adjacent to the subject land from various points, so too will views and glimpses of the proposed monopole and antennas vary.
25	In relation to the LDRZ and Bush Suburban character, I find that the subject land, and surrounding properties to the north, south and west are not typical of the character of the LDRZ and Bush Suburban properties to the north of the aged care facility.  The LDRZ and Bush Suburban properties with frontage to the northern side of Wellington Road include a strip of non-residential uses, with associated substantial commercial building, and large car parks.  The residential properties to the east, along Silkwood Way are in a different zone (NRZ) and housing category (Knox Neighbourhood).  In this context, I am satisfied there is scope for development that is different and a more substantial scale than that sought by the general policy objectives and guidelines for the Bush Suburban areas.  I also note that the proposal will not be the first and only pole or tower in this LDRZ and Bush Suburban area.  The fire station on the western corner of Wellington Road and Le John Street, includes a tower structure adjacent to the Le John Street frontage, approximately 50 metres back from Wellington Road.  I am satisfied that the various views and glimpses of the monopole and antennas will not be unacceptable in this context.  
26	In relation to the Bush Boulevard character along Wellington Road, I am satisfied that the siting of the proposed monopole almost 100 metres back from the road and set behind the large two-storey medical centre will minimise the extent to which it will be viewed within the boulevard context.  I acknowledge that the monopole and antennas will be visible to varying degrees from the Wellington Road environs.  However, I consider it will be viewed as being at the periphery of the Wellington Road Bush Boulevard, rather than the immediate context.
27	For these reasons, I am satisfied that the proposed monopole and antennas will not be a jarring or unacceptably dominant form in this section of Wellington Road.  I am satisfied that as vehicles and pedestrians move along Wellington Road, the buildings and canopy trees along the road, the existing buildings and vegetation will variously filter and temper views to the monopole and antennas.  I am satisfied that the canopy trees and other vegetation along the sides of the road will remain the primary, unifying and prevailing character element along the road.
28	For these reasons, I find that any visual impact on the landscape character of the area will be acceptable.
Will any visual impact on the amenity of surrounding residential properties be acceptable?
29	The Council submits that the proposed height and appearance of the monopole is likely to be dominant from the neighbouring properties and the residential area, is visually intrusive, and is incompatible with the surrounding residential properties.
30	The surrounding residential properties include the nearby properties along the western side of Silkwood Way and the aged care facility.
31	In relation to the residential properties along the western side of Silkwood Way, the properties in closest proximity to the subject land are those at 1-3, 5, 7, 9, 13 and 15, which extend between the corner of Wellington Road and the northern end of the aged care facility.  Having regard to the siting and layout of the dwellings on these properties relative to the subject land and proposal, I make the following observations:
i	Only the properties at numbers 7 and 9 have a boundary to the rear grassed portion of the property in which the subject land is located, and directly align with the subject land and the proposal.  The other properties share boundaries to the car park of the medical centre (numbers 1-3 and 5) or the aged care facility (number 15).
ii	The dwellings at numbers 1-3 and 5 are set well back from the subject land, by approximately 90 to 100 metres.  Views to the proposal from the dwellings and rear yards of these properties will be filtered by the existing canopy trees along the boundary of the medical centre car park.
iii	The dwelling at number 7 is currently under construction.  From the aerial photographs it appears that the rear of that dwelling is set approximately 75 metres from the subject land.  From the aerial photographs, it appears that views to the monopole and antennas from parts of the dwelling and rear yard will be filtered by a canopy tree in the north-east corner of the medical centre car park.
iv	The dwelling at number 9 is approximately 90 metres back from the subject land.  From the aerial photographs, it appears that views to the monopole and antennas from parts of the dwelling and rear yard will be obstructed by the aged care facility building.
v	The dwellings at numbers 13 and 15 are approximately 80 to 95 metres from the subject land.  I am satisfied that views to the monopole and antennas from the dwellings and rear yards of these properties will be substantially obstructed by the aged care building.
32	Even though the monopole and antennas may be visible from these properties to varying extents, I am satisfied that the substantial setbacks between the subject land and the rear of the dwellings along Silkwood Way, combined with the vegetation and buildings, will limit the visual impact of the proposed monopole and antennas when viewed from these properties.
33	I acknowledge that the properties at numbers 7 and 9 do not benefit to the same extent as the other properties from existing canopy trees or the aged care building filtering or obstructing views of the monopole and antennas.  However, I am not persuaded by the Council that the visual impact on these properties will be unacceptable.  These properties already have views to the existing telecommunications facility on the land.  Although the proposed monopole and antennas will be higher than the existing facility, the proposed monopole will be set further back from the boundaries with these properties, approximately equivalent to the additional height of the monopole and antennas.
34	In relation to the impact on the aged care facility, I am satisfied that the outlook from that facility to the subject land are limited.  There are no resident bedrooms with windows that face the subject land.  The only ‘habitable’ spaces within the aged care building with windows facing the subject land are a small sitting area along the side of a hallway at each of the lower and upper levels.  These sitting areas are approximately 20 metres further to the west of the edge of the proposed subject land.  While there is a courtyard within the setback area between the southern side of the aged care facility and the boundary with the subject land, that courtyard is at the lower ground level, set 2.7 metres below the natural ground level.  I am satisfied that this will limit the extent to which the monopole and antennas will be visible from that vantage point.
35	Landscaping on the aged care facility property along the boundary with the subject land includes three Blackwood trees and one Lightwood tree, and further tree planting along the remainder of the southern boundary.  The trees along the boundary with the subject land have expected mature heights of 12 metres and 8 metres respectively.  Even if the monopole and antennas will be visible above the tree canopy when viewed from the courtyard or sitting areas, I am satisfied these will be incidental views from these spaces.  I also consider that, due to the nature of these spaces, they are likely to be occupied by residents, visitors, or staff of the aged care facility for relatively short periods of time.
36	For these reasons I find that any visual impact on the amenity of surrounding residential properties will be acceptable.
Does the proposal provide a net community benefit?
37	While the Council acknowledges that a telecommunications facility will provide some benefit to the area, it submits there is clearly some emphasis on development to respect the surrounding landscape and neighbourhood character in the policies, and it is in the balancing of these policies that the proposal falls short.  It says that any community benefit is outweighed by the policy impetus to protect and enhance the landscape character, amenity, and environment from adverse impacts.
38	In having found that any visual impacts of the proposal on the landscape character of the area and the amenity of surrounding residential properties will be acceptable, I am satisfied that the proposal does not give rise to a conflict in the planning policy objectives that variously seek to protect the landscape character and amenity of the area and surrounding properties, and those that seek to facilitate telecommunications infrastructure.
Are there any other issues?
39	Some of the statements of grounds opposing the proposal relate to the visual impacts of the proposal, which I have addressed above.  In relation to other issues raised in these statements I note the following:
i	Safety and health impacts of radio emissions from telecommunications facilities are regulated through other standards (outside the Scheme) and is not a basis to reject an application.
ii	It is a long established principle that the potential for devaluation of property values is not a valid reason to refuse a planning permit.
iii	The applicant has advised that it now proposes that the telecommunications cabling is to be run underground through the medical centre car park, rather than the adjoining church land.
What conditions are appropriate?
40	The conditions contained in this Order reflect those proposed by the responsible authority, the submissions of the parties, and the further consideration of the Tribunal.
41	I acknowledge that the proposal does not include any landscaping that will contribute to further filtering views of the proposal from surrounding properties or the broader landscape.  The potential for requiring landscaping, including canopy trees, to be provided was discussed at the hearing.  The draft permit conditions discussed at the hearing include conditions requiring a landscape plan and carrying out and maintenance of that landscaping.  After further consideration, while I acknowledge that planting of canopy trees and other vegetation around the perimeter of the subject land or elsewhere on the grassed portion of land of the medical centre property would be desirable, I find that:
i	it is not necessary in the circumstance that I have found the visual impacts on the landscape and the amenity of surrounding residential properties to be acceptable; and 
ii	it is not possible for a permit condition to require landscaping on land that is not part of the subject land.
For these reasons I will not include permit conditions requiring a landscape plan or landscaping.
42	The possibility of including a permit condition to require the existing temporary telecommunications facility on the adjacent land to be removed when the proposal is developed was also discussed at the hearing.  Upon reflection I find that it is not possible for such a permit condition to be included in the permit for this proposal because the existing temporary facility is not on the subject land and as such cannot be controlled by the permit for the subject land.
Conclusion
43	For the reasons given above, the decision of the responsible authority is set aside.  A permit is granted subject to conditions 

Sarah McDonald
Member			

Appendix A – Permit Conditions

Permit Application No	P/2022/6218	
Land	G02/1101 Wellington Road
ROWVILLE VIC 3178	

What the permit allowS	
In accordance with the endorsed plans:
•	Construction of a building and construction of and carrying out works for a telecommunications facility under clause 52.19 ‘Telecommunications facility’, of the Knox Planning Scheme.	

Conditions
1	Before the development starts, three copies of amended plans to the satisfaction of the responsible authority must be submitted to, and be approved by, the responsible authority. When approved, the plans will be endorsed and will then form part of this permit. The plans must be generally in accordance with the plans identified as Drawing No. M2998-P1 Revision 2, M2998-P2 Revision 1 and M2998-P3 Revision 2 , P2 and P3 but modified to show:
(a)	The diagrammatic representation and notations relating to the future VHA AAU2 antennas deleted.
(b)	Deletion of the notation on drawing number M2998-P1 Revision 2 ‘Existing trees (2 off) to be removed to make site access route’ (relating to the trees along the northern edge of the medical centre car park) and inclusion of a notation that the existing trees along the northern boundary of the medical centre car park are to be retained.
(c)	The materials and colours of all buildings works, including fencing, sheds and any other structures, which must be muted and non-reflective.
2	The development as shown on the endorsed plans must not be altered or modified unless with the prior written consent of the responsible authority.
3	Before the use of the site commences, the access to the telecommunications facility must be constructed, formed, drained and surfaced in accordance with the endorsed plans to the satisfaction of the responsible authority.
4	Once buildings and works have commenced, they must be completed to the satisfaction of the responsible authority.
5	All buildings and works must be maintained in good order and appearance to the satisfaction of the responsible authority.
6	The development must be managed to the satisfaction of the responsible authority so that the amenity of the area is not detrimentally affected through the:
(a)	transport of materials, goods or commodities to or from the land; and
(b)	appearance of the building, works or materials.
7	Stormwater runoff from all buildings and paved areas must be dissipated as normal un-concentrated overland flow clear of all buildings and property boundaries.
8	If, and when, the telecommunications facility hereby approved becomes redundant, all infrastructure associated with the telecommunication facility must be removed and the area reinstated to the satisfaction of the responsible authority. All works to comply with this condition must be completed within three (3) months of the facility ceasing to operate and must be at the expense of the permit holder.
9	Within three (3) months of the telecommunications facility hereby approved commencing full operation, the temporary generator (as shown on the endorsed plans) must be decommissioned and removed.
Expiry of permit for development
10	This permit as it relates to development (buildings and works) will expire if one of the following circumstances applies:
(a)	The development is not started within two (2) years of the issue date of this permit.
(b)	The development is not completed within four (4) years of the issue date of this permit.
In accordance with section 69 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987, an application may be submitted to the responsible authority for an extension of the periods referred to in this condition.

– End of conditions –