VICTORIAN CIVIL AND ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
planning and environment LIST	vcat reference No. P796/2023
Permit Application no. PA2022/8177/1 	
CATCHWORDS	
Melton Planning Scheme; Application pursuant to section 77 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 (Vic); Urban Growth Zone Schedule 9; Telecommunication facility; Monopole; Urban Design Framework; Visual impact; Weight to be given to evidence; Practice Note PNVCAT2 – Expert Evidence. 	

Applicant	Waveconn Operations Pty Ltd	

Responsible Authority	Melton City Council	

SUBJECT LAND	Lot X on PS824075X	

HEARING TYPE	Hearing	

DATE OF HEARING	21 & 28 February 2024	

DATE OF ORDER	18 June 2024	

CITATION	Waveconn Operations Pty Ltd v Melton CC [2024] VCAT 567	

Order
Permit granted
1	In application P796/2023 the decision of the responsible authority is set aside.
2	In planning permit application PA2022/8177/1 a permit is granted and directed to be issued for the land at Lot X on PS824075X in accordance with the endorsed plans and the conditions set out in Appendix A.  The permit allows:
Melton Planning Scheme clause number:	Description of what is allowed:	
Clause 34.02-4	Construction of a building or construction or carrying out of works.	
Clause 52.19-1	Construction of a building or construction or carrying out works for a telecommunications facility.	

Seuna Byrne
Member			

Appearances
For applicant	Mark Baade, town planner, SAQ Consulting. Evidence was called from:
•	Jane Maze-Riley, Landscape Architect and Urban Planner, Urbis. 	
For responsible authority	Mimi Marcus, lawyer, Marcus Lane Group.	

Information
Description of proposal	Construction of a 30 metre high slimline monopole telecommunications tower and associated equipment compound with an area of approximately 57 square metres. A triangular headframe mounted at the top of the monopole will accommodate up to nine panel antennas.	
Nature of proceeding	Application under section 77 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 (Vic) – to review the refusal to grant a permit. 	
Planning scheme	Melton Planning Scheme (‘Scheme’)	
Zone and overlays	Urban Growth Zone Schedule 9 – Mt Atkinson & Tarneit Plains Precinct Structure Plan (‘UGZ9’). The applied zone for the subject land is the Commercial 2 Zone (‘C2Z’)
Infrastructure Contributions Overlay Schedule 3 (‘ICO3’)	
Permit requirements	Clause 34.02-4 – To construct a building or construct or carry out works.
Clause 52.19-1 – To construct a building or construct or carry out works for a telecommunications facility.	
Relevant scheme policies and provisions	Clauses 02.01, 02.03, 02.04, 11, 13.07, 15.01, 19.03, 34.02-7, 37.07-14, 52.19, 65, 71.02.    	
Land description	As shown in Figure 1, below, the subject land is located on the southern side of Grand Boulevard and the northern side of Kirkpatrick Boulevard, in Truganina, and is comprised of three parts that are not contiguous, with a total site area of approximately 8.2 hectares. The eastern-most part of the subject land forms the subject of the permit application. It is approximately 4.58ha and contains proposed Lot 4 on PS826725X, approximately 3.034ha benefitting from planning permit no. PA2019/68761/2. The land is currently vacant. 
The subject land and surrounds are located within the Mt Atkinson development area.	
Tribunal inspection	An unaccompanied site inspection was undertaken prior to the hearing, on 3 February 2024, as parties were advised at the start of the hearing.   	

Figure 1: 23 December 2023 aerial photo of the subject land and surrounds, extracted from the Council’s submissions, with the Tribunal’s yellow annotation marking the approximate location of the proposed telecommunications facility.

Figure 2: Site Plan and Longitudinal Section extracted from the plans endorsed by the Council on 20 January 2022 under Planning Permit No. PA2019/6871/2 with the Tribunal’s red circle and yellow highlight annotating the approximate location of the proposed telecommunications facility.

Reasons
What is this proceeding about?
1	Melton City Council (‘Council’) has refused to grant a permit for the development of a telecommunications facility and associated fencing at Lot X on PS824075X (‘subject land’). The Council’s grounds of refusal are as follows:
1.	The proposal is deemed to be inconsistent with the Telecommunications Policy at Clause 19.03-4 of the Melton Planning Scheme. In particular, the need for proposals to "seek a balance between the provision of important telecommunications services and the need to protect the environment from adverse impacts arising from telecommunications infrastructure."
4.	The proposal is inconsistent with Clause 52.19 (Telecommunications Facility), Planning Policy Framework and Local Planning Policy Framework within the Melton Planning Scheme, the adopted Hopkins Road Business Precinct Urban Design Framework (October 2022) and the Mt Atkinson and Tarneit Precinct Structure Plan that relate to urban design principles, siting and amenity as the proposal will not achieve architectural and urban design outcomes that contribute positively to local urban character and enhance the public realm while minimising detrimental impact on neighbouring properties.
2	This is an application to the Tribunal for a review of the Council’s decision. The applicant disagrees with the Council and submits the proposal is strongly supported by clauses 19.03-4S and 52.19 in the Scheme and will address ‘the already poor existing levels of service and the current and anticipated demand created by the development of the land’. The applicant further submits the proposal is sufficiently separated from the nearby residential area.
3	At its inception, the proposed monopole was a speculative proposal. The applicant now advises all three mobile carriers have subsequently expressed interest in making a co-location application. However, the proposal includes only a single array of panel antennas.
4	The applicant submits the new facility is required to enable the rollout and improved coverage of 5G technology. The applicant has investigated another location in the vicinity, which is located further away from residential properties, but was advised by the landowner that it was unavailable.
5	As depicted in Figure 3, below, the application proposes a fenced compound containing equipment cabinets and a 30 metre high slimline monopole.

Figure 3: The Revision F West Elevation, extracted from the application plans.
6	The compound and monopole are positioned approximately 90 metres east of the front yards of residential properties located on the western side of McKinley Drive. 
7	At ground level, a proposed security fence encloses the monopole, equipment cabinets and other equipment within a 6 metre by 8.6 metre compound. Details of the height and materials of the security fence are not shown.
8	The applicant relies on landscaping proposed to be delivered by Planning Permit No. PA2019/6871/2 (‘Mt Atkinson hotel permit’) to soften the appearance of the facility.
What are the key issues?
9	Based on the submissions and evidence presented and assisted by my site inspection, I find there are two key issues for determination:
•	Is the development an acceptable response to policy?
•	Will the development cause detriment to residential properties and proposed public open space through unacceptable visual impact?
10	I must decide if a permit should be granted and if so, what conditions should apply.
11	Having considered the submissions and evidence, with regard to the relevant policies and provisions of the Scheme, and assisted by my site inspection, I have determined to set aside the Council’s decision and grant a permit subject to conditions. My reasons follow.
Is the development an acceptable response to policy?
12	The subject land is included in the UGZ9. The Mt Atkinson and Tarneit Plans Precinct Structure Plan (‘PSP’) has been incorporated into the Scheme. The future urban structure for the PSP is shown, below, in Figure 4.

Figure 4: Plan 3 Future Urban Structure Plan in the PSP, with the Council’s annotation of the location of the subject land, extracted from the Council’s submissions.
13	The PSP area includes land identified for employment, residential, community, recreation and conservation purposes.
14	The PSP indicates the subject land and land to the immediate south is to be comprised of ‘business’ uses. Land to the immediate east is to be comprised of ‘business/large format retail’ uses. The applied zone for these areas is the C2Z. Land to the immediate west is to be comprised of ‘residential’ uses. The applied zone for the residential area is the General Residential Zone (‘GRZ’).
15	Development of the residential area to the west, on the opposite side of McKinley Drive, has commenced and is predominantly comprised of detached one and two-storey dwellings. There are some vacant lots. Dwellings along McKinley Drive generally have an outlook towards the subject land across their front yards.
16	To the west and south, the land in the C2Z is vacant.
17	The vision for the PSP anticipates:
The Mt Atkinson Precinct will contribute to an employment hub for the west… Higher order services, research and development, and local service businesses will thrive in this well connected network, and will offer specialised services to industry located in Mt Atkinson and Tarneit Plains as well as to other parts of the state significant Western Industrial Node to the south east of the PSP area.
18	The subject land also forms part of a wider ‘business and large format retail’ precinct known as the Hopkins Road Business Precinct. The vision for the precinct is described in the PSP as follows:
The Hopkins Road Business Precinct is strategically located to contribute to the achievement of a greater diversity of employment opportunities in the West Growth Corridor. The Mt Atkinson Major Town Centre will play a key role in ensuring the success of this higher order employment location. 
Jobs will be located close to where the new communities in Melton live, and an attractive interface between residential and employment areas will be provided. Tree-lined streets, fine-grained mixed use areas, well designed office buildings with an address to residential areas, and landscaped easements will enable a positive interaction between employment and residential uses.
19	A series of objectives, requirements and guidelines are detailed in the PSP. Relevantly, they seek to: deliver high quality interfaces between residential, employment land and utilities; minimise negative impacts on the amenity of adjacent residential areas; and provide a high level of visual amenity at the interface between employment and residential land.
20	Requirement R35 of the PSP requires the approval of an Urban Design Framework by the responsible authority. The Hopkins Road Business Precinct Urban Design Framework, October 2022, (‘UDF’) was adopted by Council on 12 December 2022 and incorporates the subject land, as well as land to the south and east.
21	Amongst other things, the UDF provides for public open space. Relevantly, the UDF relocates a proposed local park identified as ‘OS19’ in the PSP from the western side of Strathbogie Drive, to diagonally opposite the proposed development. This is shown in Figure 5, below.

Figure 5: Extract of Figure 12 in the UDF showing the location of OS19 as depicted in the PSP (green) and as relocated in the UDF (yellow) with the Tribunal’s red mark-up of the approximate location of the proposed telecommunications facility.

22	In relation to the status of the UDF, the Council submits: 
The clear direction found in the PSP is supplemented and reinforced by the UDF, prepared specifically for the Hopkins Road Business Precinct.  Council acknowledges the UDF bears the status of an adopted document and does not form part of the Scheme. 
While Council accepts it is appropriate to accord the document less weight than relevant provisions of the Scheme itself and the PSP (an incorporated document), the UDF nonetheless provides tailored and useful guidance about the anticipated surrounding built form and public realm outcomes. 
23	The applicant submits the background documents to the UDF ‘confirm the extensive growth in residential population and employment in the area covered by the PSP’, yet the UDF does not address requirements for telecommunications infrastructure, so provides no guidance in terms of location or design outcomes. The applicant further submits the relevant background document to the UDF (the Hopkins Road Business Precinct, Infrastructure Report, October 2020, amended July 2021, prepared by Dalton Consulting Engineers) does not mention wireless telecommunication (as would be provided by the monopole) at all, despite it being ‘necessary essential infrastructure… [for] this employment and retail area’.
24	Amendment VC226, approved in November 2022, made significant changes to the planning provisions for telecommunication facilities. In essence, the controls were changed to enable timely deployment of telecommunications facilities, and to strike an appropriate balance between amenity impacts and provision of infrastructure. A permit is no longer required to use land for a telecommunication facility, third party review rights are confined to specific circumstances and all references to ‘A Code for Telecommunications Facilities in Victoria’ (Department of Sustainability and Environment, 2004) have been removed.
25	Strategies at clause 19.03-4S include emphasising the need to facilitate the upgrading and maintenance of telecommunications facilities and ensuring that telecommunication facilities are widely available. However, strategies also seek to ensure a balance between providing such facilities and protecting the environment from adverse impacts arising from infrastructure and further, that facilities should be co-located wherever practical. 
26	Clause 52.19 (Telecommunications facility) has the following purposes:
To ensure that telecommunications infrastructure is provided in an efficient and cost-effective manner to meet community needs.
To facilitate an effective state-wide telecommunications network consistent with proper and orderly planning.
To support the provision of telecommunications facilities with minimal impact on the amenity of the area.
27	Clause 52.19-5 contains the following decision guidelines to be considered as appropriate:
•	The design, siting, construction and operation of the telecommunications facility.
•	The effect of the telecommunications facility on adjacent land.
28	The Council submits it has not been adequately demonstrated the proposal is required to meet community needs and facilitate an effective state-wide telecommunications network.
29	The Council acknowledges that policy at clause 19.03-4S (Telecommunications) is ‘to facilitate the orderly development, extension and maintenance of telecommunication infrastructure’ and to ‘encourage the continued deployment of telecommunications facilities that are easily accessible’. 
30	The Council also acknowledges that the Scheme includes the following local strategies for telecommunications at clause 19.03-4L:
Avoid communications infrastructure that adversely impacts on sensitive uses and landscape features.
Support the early provision of communications infrastructure in precinct structure plans and new development.
31	I agree with the Council’s submissions that, by virtue of its height relative to its existing surrounds, and its siting in an open area on a slight rise, the monopole will be highly visible. However, as a growth area, the Mt Atkinson precinct and Hopkins Road precinct will be subject to significant change in the coming years and decades. 
32	In time, the area will transition from its former rural character to an urban character in accordance with the PSP. This transition has begun. 
33	The Scheme seeks to facilitate significant innovation and research-based employment growth in the area. This is supported in the PSP, which identifies the Hopkins Road Business Precinct as being ‘strategically located to contribute to the achievement of a greater diversity of employment opportunities in the West Growth Corridor’. I agree with the applicant’s submissions that, as a consequence of the Scheme’s aspirations for employment opportunities in this location, additional telecommunications infrastructure will be needed to ensure there are reliable levels of network coverage and capacity. 
34	I find that meeting a community’s needs, as specified in the first purpose under clause 52.19, can include meeting their future needs. The proposed monopole is part of the infrastructure necessary to support the telecommunications needs of existing households in the residential area to the west and the future needs of businesses in the business and employment hub within which the subject land is located. The early delivery of infrastructure before the need for it is at a critical level is consistent with proper and orderly planning, as sought by clauses 52.19 and 19.03-4L, and will provide a level of service and certainty necessary to entice investment by the higher order services, research and development and local businesses sought by the PSP and UDF. The applicant’s service coverage maps indicate existing 4G LTE ‘in-building’ coverage does not extend to the existing residential area to the west of the subject land. The applicant’s coverage maps show the proposal would provide improved coverage for up to 2043 dwellings. 
35	I accept the applicant’s submissions that, at 30 metres in height, the monopole is of sufficient height to support co-location of telecommunications facilities, as sought by clause 19.03-4S.
36	For these reasons, I find the proposal is consistent with the relevant policy.
Will the development cause detriment to residential properties and proposed public open space through UNACCEPTABLE visual impact? 
37	Whilst the Council submits that it supports the delivery of greater network connectivity, it considers the Scheme includes an aspiration to strike a balance between the provision of telecommunications facilities and protecting the amenity from such visually intrusive structures. The Council submits that an acceptable balance has not been achieved due to the inappropriate location and visually intrusive appearance in proximity to dwellings in the GRZ and OS19.
38	Views to the subject land are currently widely available due to limited development to the north, south and east, the site being relatively open and flat, and featuring no existing buildings or significant stands of vegetation.
39	The Council submits that by virtue of its discordant height, the eye will cast immediately to the monopole.
40	In considering the likely visual impact of the proposal, I have placed no weight on the photomontages and material prepared by Ms Maze-Riley. This is addressed later in these reasons.
Impact on the residential area
41	The applicant submits the proposed facility is responsive to the residential area as it is not located at the edge of the UDF area, being set back from McKinley Drive by approximately 70 metres. McKinley Drive has a road reserve width in the order of approximately 20 metres, providing a combined setback of approximately 90 metres between the western edge of the proposed compound and the front (eastern) title boundaries of the dwellings in McKinley Drive. 
42	Further, if the Mt Atkinson hotel permit is acted upon, the applicant submits the hotel car park will provide a broad, landscaped interface between the residential properties and the monopole and its service compound. 
43	The hotel itself, with an approved maximum height of 23.8 metres (to the top of the roof), is 6.2 metres lower than the proposed facility. However, it has a significantly more substantial mass in comparison with the slimline monopole. 
44	The purpose of clause 52.19 is not that there be no impact on the amenity of the area, rather, that it be ‘minimal’. The concept of what is ‘minimal’ is relative to its context. It is relevant that the subject land is within the C2Z. I agree with the applicant’s submissions that residents abutting non-residential land cannot expect the same level of amenity as may be expected in the residential hinterland. The subject land has a direct interface with residentially zoned land, albeit, separated by a 20 metre wide road reserve. However, the proposal is confined to a portion of the subject land that is relatively remote from the residential interface. I find the proposed 90 metre separation distance to be a sufficient buffer even acknowledging that it would take many years for the trees proposed within the hotel car park to reach maturity and acknowledging that once they have done so, the trees would not likely block or filter views of the top of the monopole. 
45	I agree with the applicant that the monopole is a visually benign structure. Whilst the eye might be drawn to it by virtue of its height, one’s gaze would not likely linger. It is not designed to draw attention to itself – it contains no moving parts or lights and will be finished in a subdued colour. As such, it is a feature that would readily be absorbed as part of the commercial setting in which it is to be located.
46	However, as the development allowed by the permit has not commenced, only limited weight can be afforded to the landscaping and built form context it would provide. 
47	Even if the Mt Atkinson hotel permit is not acted upon, I find the siting and scale of the proposed monopole to be acceptable, based on the 90 metre separation distance from the residential area, away from the direct interface between the GRZ and C2Z. In the medium to long-term, the bulky-good retailing area to the east of the proposal will form the immediate backdrop to the monopole when viewed from the residential area. By their nature, bulky-goods retail premises tend to occupy large footprints and have voluminous forms. When this area is developed, it will – in time – provide a robust backdrop to the monopole.
48	Noting that development in the business and bulky goods areas of the PSP and UDF may not occur for some years, the monopole is likely to be a prominent element in views from the residential area in the meantime. However, by virtue of the separation distance and its slimline form, I find the monopole will not ‘loom’ over the dwellings and will not occupy a significant or dominant proportion of the residents’ easterly outlook.
49	For these reasons I find the proposal will have minimal impact on the amenity of the residential area.
Impact on OS19
50	Based on the UDF, OS19 would be located to the south-east of the subject land, separated by a proposed future local street. However, based on the incorporated PSP, OS19 would be remote from the subject land, on the eastern side of Strathbogie Drive. 
51	The Council estimates the separation distance between the proposed development and the location of OS19, as shown in the UDF, to be approximately 120 metres, however it would appear to me to be significantly less than this – in the order of approximately 40 metres.

Figure 6: Extract of Figure 14 in the UDF showing the location of OS19 with the Council’s annotation of the approximate location of the proposed telecommunications facility, extracted from the Council’s submissions.

52	The Council submits that views of the monopole will not be absorbed by the approved hotel, except in selected views from the north. In all other views, including from OS19, the Council submits the visual bulk of the monopole will be overbearing. However, the Council was unable to provide any details of the proposed layout of the open space, such as landscaping, that may have a bearing on views towards the monopole.
53	The applicant submits the Council has placed too much emphasis on the UDF, as it has not progressed beyond being a Council-adopted document. Further, the applicant submits that because the PSP is silent about wireless telecommunications, dealing only with design requirements for more conventional building forms, the provisions of clauses 19.03 and 52.19 are left to do all of the work to guide decision-making.
54	The applicant accepts that the UDF is representative of the Council’s current thinking in relation to the location of OS19, but notes there is no timeframe for its delivery.
55	The applicant submits that if OS19 is to be located per the UDF, the park will have a direct interface with the business/bulky goods precinct to its north, with the proposed development offset to its north-west. The applicant submits the impact on the public realm of a slimline monopole is minimal and significantly less than that of the approved hotel and its car park, or the buildings that may be expected in a bulky goods precinct.
56	The proposed location of OS19 has not been confirmed. The Council in its own submissions accepts that the PSP, being an incorporated document, should be given greater weight than the UDF. 
57	The Council does not presently own the land identified in the UDF and has not commenced any process to acquire the land. The Council submits it anticipates the land will ultimately be vested in Council by the developer when the land is subdivided, forming part of a public open space contribution via a planning permit condition. Consequently, the Council acknowledges that its delivery is likely to be in some years’ time – in the order of five to 10 years – as outcomes of the PSP begin to be realised. 
58	However, even if I am to proceed on the basis that OS19 will be provided in the location shown in the UDF, I am not persuaded by the Council that its interface with the proposal is unacceptable.
59	In the absence of any details about the proposed form or layout of OS19, together with the uncertainty surrounding its proposed location and delivery timeframe, there is insufficient basis to conclude the visual impact of the monopole on the future open space would be unacceptable.
Are there any other issues?
Weight to be given to Ms Maze-Riley’s evidence
60	Ms Maze-Riley was called to give visual amenity evidence by the applicant.
61	Order 4 in the Tribunal’s order dated 19 January 2024 required:
All expert evidence must be filed and served in accordance with the Tribunal’s Practice Note PNVCAT2 Expert Evidence.
62	The Council submits Ms Maze-Riley’s evidence should be given little to no weight as it has not been prepared in accordance with the following requirements in section 11 of the Tribunal’s Practice Note – PNVCAT2 Expert Evidence:
(d)	No declaration has been made concerning any private or business relationship between the expert and the party for whom the report is prepared.
(e)	No details of the instructions defining the scope of the report were included.
(f)	No statement of the facts matters and assumptions upon which the report was prepared were included.
(h)	The identity of all persons who assisted [Ms Maze-Riley] in the preparation of the evidence were not disclosed.
(i)	A statement summarising the opinion of the expert, identifying any provisional opinions, setting out any questions falling outside the expert’s expertise, and indicating whether the report is incomplete or inaccurate in any respect.
(j)	Does not include the necessary signed declaration by the expert.
63	Relevant to part (f), the Council submits it is a failure of the expert’s duty to the Tribunal that the evidence does not disclose that Ms Maze-Riley had not undertaken a site inspection at the time her written evidence was prepared and circulated.
64	Further, the Council submits ‘the visual impact assessment appended to Ms Maze-Riley’s expert evidence statement is deficient and lacks a proper and robust assessment.’ A significant part of the Council’s basis for this submission is that the photomontages provided in the evidence statement depict a 25 metre high monopole, rather than the proposed 30 metre high monopole.
65	The applicant submits the correct height of the monopole is clearly depicted in the photomontages by reference to a red dot placed some 5 metres in the air, above the top of the monopole and that any necessary interpretation or extrapolation of the image is readily discernible to an expert Tribunal.
66	I agree with the Council that photomontages presented at a tribunal hearing are expected to have a high degree of accuracy. The evidence has not been prepared in accordance with the Tribunal’s practice note and does not accurately depict the proposal as it has not been prepared based on the correct plans. 
67	For these reasons I have decided to give the visual amenity evidence no weight in my considerations.
What conditions are appropriate?
68	A number of matters about permit conditions were raised by the parties. In the main, there was agreement between the parties about the final form of permit conditions, with some minor matters of final drafting and editing to be determined by the Tribunal. 
69	The application was prepared presuming the Mt Atkinson hotel permit will be acted on. The applicant indicates a survey plan it has undertaken shows the natural ground level at the location of the proposal is in the order of 107.27 metres to Australian Height Datum (‘AHD’), whereas the hotel car park endorsed plans indicate an approved finished surface level of 106.37 metres to AHD at the site of the proposal – a 90cm difference. 
70	As the development allowed by the hotel permit has not commenced, it is prudent for the plans to demonstrate how any level differences will be managed in the intervening period. The key change to the conditions drafted by the parties is to require amended plans to show a finished surface level consistent with the Mt Atkinson hotel permit and details of how any level differences are to be treated (short term and long term), including the location, height and materials of any necessary batters or retaining walls.
Conclusion
71	For the reasons given above, the decision of the responsible authority is set aside. A permit is granted subject to conditions.

Seuna Byrne
Member			

Appendix A – Permit Conditions

Permit Application No	PA2022/8177/1	
Land	Lot X on PS824075X
TRUGANINA VIC 3029	

What the permit allowS	
In accordance with the endorsed plans:	
Melton Planning Scheme clause number:	Description of what is allowed:	
Clause 34.02-4	Construction of a building or construction or carrying out of works.	
Clause 52.19-1	Construction of a building or construction or carrying out works for a telecommunications facility.	

Conditions
Amended Plans
1.	Before the development starts, 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 the permit. The plans must be drawn to scale with dimension. The plans must be generally in accordance with the plans prepared by EW, drawing nos. AV3029-007-P1-1, AV3029-007-P1-2, AV3029-007-P1-3, AV3029-007-P2 and AV3029-007-P3, all Revision E-1, Drawing Package Version 5, dated 08/11/2022 but modified to show:
a.	The area within the compound to have a maximum finished surface level of 106.37 metres to Australian Height Datum. 
b.	Details of how any level differences between the finished surface level within the compound and the adjacent natural ground level is to be treated (short term and long term), including the location, height and materials of any necessary batters or retaining walls.
c.	The maximum height of the cabinet(s)/structures.
d.	The monopole and all cabinet(s)/structures finished in a muted colour with a non-reflective finish.
e.	The maximum height of the perimeter fence.
f.	The perimeter fence to consist of chain wire mesh with black powder coat finish.
Development must not be altered
2.	The development as shown on the endorsed plans must not be altered without the prior written consent of the Responsible Authority. 
General 
3.	Any development or construction activities must be managed so that the amenity of the area is not detrimentally affected, including by:
a.	The transport of materials, goods or commodities to or from the land.
b.	The inappropriate storage of any works or construction materials.
c.	The hours of construction activity.
d.	The emission of noise, artificial light, vibration, smell, fumes, smoke, vapour, steam, soot, ash, dust, waste and storm water runoff, waste products, grit or oil.
e.	The presence of vermin.
To the satisfaction of the responsible authority.
4.	Once the development has started it must be continued and completed to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.
5.	The development must be maintained in good order and appearance to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.
Expiry
6.	This permit 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 (Vic), an application may be submitted to the responsible authority for an extension of the periods referred to in this condition. 

– End of conditions –