In the recent decision of Amplitel Pty Limited v The Hills Shire Council highlights significant considerations for assessing DAs involving telecommunications infrastructure.

Background

The case arose from a development application (DA) lodged by Amplitel Pty Limited for the installation of a telecommunications facility at 47A Blue Gum Road, Kenthurst. The proposed development included a 25.4m monopole with six panel antennas, nine remote radio units, and associated equipment. The aim was to enhance 4G and 5G mobile network coverage in the Kenthurst area.

The DA was initially lodged on 9 February 2023 and subsequently refused by The Hills Shire Council’s Local Planning Panel on 19 July 2023. In response, Amplitel submitted a review application under Section 8.2 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (EPA Act), reducing the monopole height from 30.4m to 25.4m. However, the review application was also refused on 27 March 2024.

Amplitel appealed this decision under Section 8.7(1) of the EPA Act. The primary issues in contention included the visual and amenity impacts of the development, its compatibility with the rural-residential character of the locality, and the suitability of the site. Additionally, the development exceeded the maximum building height of 10m prescribed in The Hills Local Environmental Plan 2019 (the LEP), requiring consideration of clause 4.6, which permits exceptions in certain circumstances.

Ultimately, the Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the visual impacts on adjacent properties were unacceptable and that the site was unsuitable for the proposed development. This decision serves as a reference point for the assessment of telecommunications facilities in sensitive locations.

Key Court Considerations

1. Visual and amenity impacts – the Court focused on the visual prominence of the proposed monopole and its effect on neighbouring properties. Despite proposed mitigation measures, the facility was deemed visually intrusive, particularly from the outdoor areas of two adjacent properties. The Court emphasised that the residual visual impacts were unacceptable, failing the requirements to minimise visual impact under the 2010 Telecommunications Guidelines.
2. Site suitability – the relatively small size (0.1ha) of the proposed site and its proximity to adjoining properties raised concerns about the compatibility of the development with the rural-residential character of the locality. The Court determined that the limitations of the site itself prevented adequate mitigation of visual impacts, rendering it unsuitable for a structure of this scale.
3. Public interest – while there was a demonstrated need for improved mobile phone coverage in the area, the Court balanced this against the adverse impacts on immediate neighbours. Public submissions were nearly evenly split, with local opposition focused on visual and amenity impacts and broader support highlighting the necessity for better telecommunications infrastructure.
4. Planning instruments and guidelines – the Court gave significant weight to the 2010 Telecommunications Guidelines, which require facilities to be “designed and sited to minimise visual impact.” While the 2022 updated guidelines were referenced, they were not formally applicable as they had not been gazetted.
5. Alternative locations – the Court clarified that its role was not to consider whether the development could be better located elsewhere, but to assess the acceptability of the proposed development in its current location based on the evidence provided.

Key Takeaways

1. Visual impact must be minimally intrusive. Designs that blend with the local landscape, particularly in rural-residential zones, must be prioritised. Minimisation measures like reduced height, slimline designs, and screening vegetation are essential but may not always be sufficient.
2. Site selection is crucial. The size and context of a site play a significant role in determining its suitability. Sites in close proximity to residential properties with limited setbacks may face significant hurdles, especially if mitigation measures cannot fully address visual impacts.
3. Public interest balancing must be taken into account. While infrastructure improvements are critical, they must not disproportionately impact specific stakeholders. Effective community engagement and addressing concerns early in the process can strengthen an application.
4. Compliance with applicable guidelines and planning instruments, such as the Telecommunications Guidelines and Local Environmental Plans, is essential. Consent authorities can closely scrutinise whether developments meet these criteria.
5. Approval is not guaranteed. As this case illustrates, even well-intentioned proposals with clear public benefits may be refused if they fail to adequately address visual impacts or site suitability concerns.

Conclusion

This decision highlights the importance of thoroughly assessing site suitability and addressing visual and amenity impacts when proposing telecommunications infrastructure. Careful consideration of planning guidelines and community expectations is essential to ensure that developments achieve a balance between delivering critical infrastructure and maintaining the character and amenity of local areas.

Further reading

You can access a full copy of the judgment below.