Telstra Corporation Limited v Bathurst Regional Council [2011] NSWLEC 1379

Telstra Corporation Limited v Bathurst Regional Council [2011] NSWLEC 1379

The appeal was upheld because the Court was satisfied that the site was suitable, alternative locations had been considered, the proposed tower's visual impact would be minimised and not warrant refusal, the predicted RF EME emissions were well within ARPANSA limits, resident health concerns did not justify departure from accepted standards, and property value concerns were not relevant to the planning assessment. On that basis there was no reason not to make the consent orders approving the development application subject to conditions.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
19 December 2011
Procedural Posture
Development Application Appeal / Consent Orders Hearing
Outcome
Appeal upheld; development application approved and development consent granted subject to conditions; exhibits returned.
Legal Topics
['development Consent' 'telecommunications Facility' 'visual Impact' 'radiofrequency Electromagnetic Energy Emissions' 'resident Objections' 'consent Orders']
['planning and Environment Law'] ['development Consent' 'telecommunications Facility' 'visual Impact' 'radiofrequency Electromagnetic Energy Emissions' 'resident Objections' 'consent Orders']

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Development Application Appeal / Consent Orders Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether Development Application DA 2010/0629 for a telecommunications base station facility at 9 Ilumba Way Kelso should be approved by consent orders.' 'Whether the proposed monopole telecommunications tower would have an unacceptable visual impact in a residential area.' 'Whether resident concerns about health impacts from electromagnetic emissions justified refusal of the development application.' 'Whether alternative locations had been adequately considered.' 'Whether concerns about property values were relevant to the assessment under s 79C of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979.']

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal was upheld because the Court was satisfied that the site was suitable, alternative locations had been considered, the proposed tower's visual impact would be minimised and not warrant refusal, the predicted RF EME emissions were well within ARPANSA limits, resident health concerns did not justify departure from accepted standards, and property value concerns were not relevant to the planning assessment. On that basis there was no reason not to make the consent orders approving the development application subject to conditions.

Court Disposition

Appeal upheld; development application approved and development consent granted subject to conditions; exhibits returned.

Orders

  • ['The appeal is upheld.' 'Development Application DA 2010/0629 for the erection of a telecommunications base station facility (mobile phone tower) and associated infrastructure at 9 Ilumba Way Kelso (Lot 1 DP 620110) is approved and development consent is granted, subject to the conditions in Annexure A.' 'The...