Telecommunications carriers have some powers to access and inspect land and property, to install certain types of telecommunications facilities and to maintain facilities with immunity from State and Territory laws. However carriers have certain obligations to land owners and occupiers, and individuals have some rights to object to carrier activities. You can read more information about this here

The approval of new telecommunications facilities is governed by local and state planning laws, the Victorian Planning Provisions and Planning and Environment Act 1987 (Vic) along with relevant local council planning schemes. Low-impact facilities are exempt from local and state planning laws by the Telecommunications Act 1997. These include small antennae and radio-communications dishes erected on existing towers or buildings designed to be visually unobtrusive.

The Telecommunications Act 1997, the Telecommunications Code of Practice 1997 and the Code of Practice for Telecommunications Facilities in Victoria also cover carries. You can view these documents here

If a carrier fails to meet the requirements of the Act or Code of Practice complainants may raise their issues with the Australian Communications and Media Authority(ACMA).

Under decision guidelines s65 of the Victorian Planning Provisions the responsible authority for granting approval must consider a number of factors:

• The effect on the amenity of the area.
• The degree of flood, erosion or fire hazard associated with the proposed use, development or management of the land.
• The extent and character of native vegetation and the likelihood of its destruction.
• Whether such native vegetation can be protected.

In granting an approval these considerations will be weighed against other policy provisions of the planning scheme as well as general community benefit to be derived from the development of a telecommunications network.

• Under Principle 1 of the Victorian Code of Practice the site of a telecommunications facility should be located so as to minimise any interruption to a significant view of a …landmark, streetscape, vista or panorama, whether viewed from public or private land.
• Under cl.52 a failure to comply with the Code will result in a planning permit being required but non-compliance will not in itself invalidate the proposal.

The meaning of visual impact was discussed in the context of an application for a permit to build a phone tower in a green wedge zone in Telstra Corporation Ltd v Yarra Ranges SC [2009] VCAT 2441 (16 November 2009).

• These include child care centres, schools, aged care centres and hospitals.
• Under the Industry Code, carriers are required to have regard to the objective of avoiding sites close to community sensitive locations.
• The Code does not specify a minimum distance from such locations.
• The Code requires carriers to consider a number of other factors in choosing a site, such as service objectives and cost factors.

No one factor is more important than any other.

A complaint can be made to the ACMA on the grounds that a carrier has not met its obligations under the Code. It is necessary to contact the carrier in writing first as a written response from the carrier must be provided to ACMA in making a complaint on this ground. ACMA may investigate non-compliance with the Code and issue a direction to the carrier. Failure to comply with a direction can result in a fine.

• The Australian Communications Authority maintains there is no credible evidence that living near a telecommunications tower causes adverse health effects.
• There is a wealth of conflicting information on the true health impacts of telecommunication tower radiation.
• A 2005 study by Dr Bruce Hocking of Monash University found that children living within 7 miles of TV and FM broadcast towers (very similar to telecommunication towers) had more than twice the rate of leukaemia as children living outside the area.
• There is some concern over the non-thermal effects of telecommunications towers. These are not covered by the Australian Radiation Protection Standard which protects against a limited range of short term and thermal effects of radiation.
• However, previous cases suggest that unless predicted emission levels are above the Australian maximum standard it is unlikely that courts will consider the health impacts of telecommunications towers. This was confirmed in Telstra Corporation v Pine Rivers Shire Council.