1Under Principle 5 of the NSW Telecommunications Facilities Guideline, the obligation is to undertake a good faith assessment of alternative sites that meet coverage objectives and are confirmed as available; it does not require the applicant to demonstrate that the proposed location is the best possible site, nor does s 4.15(1) of the EPA Act extend to whether a development would be better located elsewhere (applying Amplitel Pty Limited v The Hills Shire Council [2024] NSWLEC 1787).
2A telecommunications tower that protrudes above the tree canopy in an area with special aesthetic values recognised by C4 zone objectives does not necessarily have an 'adverse impact' on those values where the design has been minimised in bulk and colour, sited on disturbed land with existing infrastructure, and visual impacts from local and district viewpoints are barely perceptible or intermittent.
3Procedural fairness concerns arising from late tender of a Biodiversity Development Assessment Report during a hearing do not warrant refusal of a development application where the affected party's own expert had given evidence that the report was unnecessary, no adjournment was sought, and no objection to tender was ultimately pressed.
