VICTORIAN CIVIL AND ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
administrative DIVISION
planning and environment LIST	vcat reference Nos P397/2007, P722/2007 & P1171/2007
Permit Applications nos. P314/06 & P54//07	
CATCHWORDS	
Applications under sections 77, 79 and 149 Planning and Environment Act 1987 against refusal of a permit, failure to grant permit and failure to amend development plan, advertising blade sign, development plan providing for integrated signage	

APPLICANT	McDonald’s Australia Pty Ltd	
responsible authority	Casey City Council	
RESPONDENT	VicRoads	
SUBJECT LAND	205 Michelle Drive, Berwick, VIC., 3806 	
WHERE HELD	Melbourne	
BEFORE	Richard Horsfall, Senior Member	
HEARING TYPE	Hearing	
DATE OF HEARING	24 May and 7 June 2007	
DATE OF ORDER	31 July 2007	
CITATION	McDonald's Australia Pty Ltd v Casey CC [2007] VCAT 1364	
Order
1	In application P722/2007 the Tribunal pursuant to Clause 43.04-3 of the Casey Planning Scheme amends Clause 4.1 of the Development Plan entitled “Cell T Development Plan” adopted by the responsible authority on 19 April 2005 under the heading:
“Land generally north of the existing service station, between the service station and Homestead Road”
as follows:
(a)	In the sentence:
“Development of the site must be generally in accordance with Plan No. 2 Conceptual Guidelines and must address the following design requirements”.
by substituting the word “guidelines” for the word “requirements”, and
(b)	Substituting for the paragraph headed ‘Single Integrated Sign’ the following:
“Single integrated sign.  Provision of a single, large integrated sign for all new development to be located within the Clyde Road landscape setback (minimum setback of 6 metres from the Clyde Road frontage of the site).  Each development should utilise the integrated sign in preference to individual pole signs unless the individual site context and need for adequate business and identification signage justifies, for the particular site, a separate pole sign or other signage as an acceptable outcome.  Standard corporate identification signs, preferably attached and integrated within the building are supported.  Other business and directional signage should be to the satisfaction of the responsible authority.”
2	In application P1171/2007 the decision of the responsible authority in relation to planning permit applications no P54/07 is set aside.  Pursuant to section 85(1) Planning and Environment Act 1987 the Tribunal grants the permit, directs the responsible authority to issue the permits for the land at corner of Clyde Road and Homestead Road (205 Michelle Drive Berwick) allowing the construction and display of a sign in accordance with the endorsed plans; and directs that the permit contain the following conditions
1.	Before the commencement of the development amended plans to the satisfaction of the responsible authority must be submitted to and approved by the responsible authority.  The plans must be drawn to scale with dimensions and must be generally in accordance with the permit application plans.
2.	The location and details of the sign as shown on the endorsed plans must not be altered without the written consent of the responsible authority.
3.	The sign/s must not contain any flashing light.
4.	The sign/s must not be illuminated by external or internal light except with the written consent of the responsible authority.
5.	The sign lighting must be designed, baffled and located to the satisfaction of the responsible authority to prevent any adverse effect on adjoining land.
6.	This permit expires 15 years from the date of this permit.
3	Application P379/2007 is dismissed.

Richard Horsfall, Senior Member		

APPEARANCES:		
For Applicant	Mr T Callander of Rigby Cooke, Lawyers	
For Responsible Authority	Mr D Scully of Best Hooper, Lawyers	
For Respondents	No appearance	

Reasons
Introduction and Background
1	McDonald’s has made three applications seeking:
•	a review of Casey City Council’s (council) failure to grant a permit for a sign on the land at the south west corner of the intersection of Clyde Road and Homestead Road, Berwick South;
•	a review of council’s failure to decide an application by McDonald’s under clause 43.04-3 of the Casey Planning Scheme to amend the Cell T Development Plan adopted by council on 19 April 2005 as an approved development plan for the relevant area for the purposes of the development plan overlay Schedule 1(DPO1); and 
•	a review of council’s refusal to grant a permit for a sign on the land.
2	The permit applications were lodged with council on 22 May 2007 (P314/06) and on 12 February 2007 (P54/07).  No notice of the applications was given and no objections were received.  They were referred to VicRoads under section 55(1) PE Act which has not objected.
3	On 10 April 2007 council, consistent with its planning officer’s recommendation, determined to refuse to grant  permit application P54/07 on the following grounds:
1.	The proposal was not in accordance with the Cell T Development Plan.
2.	The proposal does not comply with clause 43.04 of the Casey Planning Scheme.
4	The applications for review were lodged with the Tribunal on 16 February 2007 (P397/2007), 26 March 2007 (P722/207 and 11 May 2007 (P1171/2007).
The Hearing
5	The plans for permit application P314/06 were by consent amended to accord with the refusal appeal so that in both applications the Tribunal is dealing with the same proposal.
6	Council and McDonald’s representatives tabled and spoke to written submissions.  These, together with the plans, photographs and other material tabled in the course of the hearing, are attached to the Tribunal’s file.  
7	The following persons gave expert evidence for McDonald’s:
•	Mr Stuart McGurn of Fulcrum Town Planners as to planning; and
•	Mr Ernest Mensforth of Cardo Grogan Richards, as to traffic.
8	The hearing of the 3 applications (heard together by agreement) occupied one-and-a-half days.  After the hearing was not completed on the first half day on 24 May 2007 the applications were adjourned to 7 June 2007 for a full day when the hearing was completed.  Between the 2 dates I inspected the land and the neighbourhood at large. 
The Land and its Context
9	The land is located on the south west corner of the intersection of Clyde Road and Homestead Road, Berwick South which has recently been developed with a McDonald’s Restaurant under planning permit no. P232/06.  Mr McGurn’s report described the site and the surrounding area as follows:
9.	The subject site is located at the southwest corner of Clyde Road and Homestead Road, Berwick.  The site has recently been developed with a McDonalds Restaurant, pursuant to Planning Permit No. P232/06. 
10.	The McDonalds site forms part of a larger parcel of land which is irregularly shaped and extends along Clyde Road and along part of Greaves Road to the south.  This larger parcel currently contains, and is being further developed, with a range of commercial uses. 
11.	The McDonalds site abuts Clyde Road to the east for approximately 63 metres and Homestead Road to the north for approximately 54 metres.  The McDonalds restaurant building is set back approximately 27 metres from the Clyde Road boundary and 10 metres from Homestead Road.  Car parking spaces are located in the Clyde Road setback and a vehicle access way runs to the north of the building, both of which are separated from the road by generous landscaping strips.  A drive-through facility is located along the western boundary, accessed through the car park from the south with egress to the north 
12.	The restaurant building has adopted a simple contemporary style with flat roof forms with dark brown walls finishes and metal and timber framing elements.  Existing business identification signage is displayed on the eastern and northern elevations of the buildings and is modest and low key in nature. 
13.	Land in the surrounding area includes the following: 
•	To the north on the opposite side of Homestead Road is the ‘Olivers on Clyde’ restaurant and reception centre, set within landscaped grounds, north of which, land is in residential use. 
•	To the south of the site is the remainder of a developing “restaurant precinct”, which includes three other tenancies which are either recently developed or nearing completion.  A shared car park/service road arrangement serves all four tenancies with a main vehicle access point towards inline with two southernmost tenancies.  South of this developing precinct is a BP service station and Hungry Jack restaurant which front Clyde Road.  To the west of these is a row of small shops, primarily serving convenience type needs, while further north is the large ‘Costellos Berwick Springs Hotel’ complex.
•	To the east of the site is Clyde Road, which is a major road providing three lanes of traffic in both directions, and connecting the old centre of Berwick with the recent residential and commercial developments south of O’Shea and Greaves Roads.  Land to the east of Clyde Road is in residential use and partially screened from the road by an embankment and a range of vegetation. 
•	To the west, land abutting the McDonalds site is currently being developed with a child care facility, which is nearing completion and which shares an access with the subject land onto Homestead Road via its car park.  Further west, land along Homestead Road is developed with substantial detached dwellings of either one or two storeys. 
14.	The site’s context is as part of a strip of commercial uses fronting Clyde Road, which together form a consolidated commercial precinct on the approach to the recently developed ‘Eden Rise’ shopping centre south-east of Clyde and O’Shea Roads. 
15.	Existing signage within the precinct comprises business identification signs attached to buildings, the service station canopy and price display panel, an individual pole sign for the Hungry Jacks Restaurant to the north of the service station and a consolidated sign with four individual panels for the identification of the four businesses occupying (or proposed to occupy) the emerging restaurant precinct.  In addition, I note that there is an individual pole sign identifying the ‘Olivers on Clyde’ premises located on its Clyde Road frontage to the north of Homestead Road.  The ‘Berwick Springs’ hotel complex also has a large panel sign on its Clyde Road frontage.  In the wider context large signs associated with the shopping centre and service station at Eden Rise further south are also visible from within this precinct.
Proposal
10	Mr McGurn’s report also conveniently summarised the proposal (and some of its history as follows:
16.	This appeal relates to two proposals for business identification signs for the McDonalds restaurant, which were applied for under two separate applications.  I am instructed that these two signs were intended as alternatives to one another in order to meet McDonalds’ requirements for business identification on Clyde Road. 
17.	The sign proposed under permit application No. P314/06 was originally proposed to be a “pole sign” located at the corner of Homestead and Clyde Roads within the landscape buffer, while the sign proposed under permit application No. P54/07 was for a “blade” sign located towards the southern end of the McDonalds Clyde Road frontage within the car park.  I am instructed that this is the basis on which the signs were considered by Council.  However, amended plans have subsequently been circulated (on 27 February 2007) for application No. P314/06 which show the sign relocated to the same position as in application No. P54/07 and its design amended to match this sign.  I am therefore instructed that both proposals now relate to the same “blade” sign and as such my evidence is based “consolidated” single signage proposal. 
18.	The key features of the consolidated signage proposal for the site now are: 
•	The sign is located at the northern end of the McDonalds car park on the McDonalds land, adjacent to the pedestrian crossing over the internal access road. 
•	The sign comprises an internally illuminated “blade” arrangement measuring 6.9 metres in height and 2 metres in width arranged to face north south. 
•	A 1.35 metre wide and 1.15 metre tall internally illuminated “golden arches” logo with 0.16 metre high McDonalds lettering below is proposed at the top of the blade on both faces. 
•	A 1.2 metre wide ‘McCafe’ logo is proposed below the main McDonalds logos with halo illuminated lettering 0.55 metres high. 
•	The “blade” itself is proposed to be clad in black, with colour provided by the logos themselves. 
19.	In addition, an application to amend the Cell T Development Plan which applies to the site was lodged with Council pursuant to Clause 43.04-3, to amend the wording of the Development Plan to allow for the provision of individual business identification signs within this precinct, rather than just the single integrated sign currently provided for.  I am instructed that Council has yet to resolve its position in relation to this request.
ZONING AND PLANNING CONTROLS
11	The land is zoned Residential 1 under the Casey Planning Scheme.  Clause 32.01-6 states that advertising signs are at clause 52.05, and that this zone is in Category 3.
12	Clyde Road is in a Road Zone Category 1 pursuant to clause 36.04.
13	Clause 52.05-7 identifies Category 3 as high amenity areas – medium limitation.  Its purpose is to ensure that signs are orderly, of good design and do not detract from the appearance of the building on which a sign is displayed or the surrounding area.  A permit is required for the proposed sign under Section 2 as an internally illuminated sign, a business identification sign and a panel sign.  The sign is not a pole sign which would also need a permit.
14	The land is also covered by a Development Plan Overlay – Schedule 1 (Residential Areas) (DPO1).  Under clause 43.04 its purposes in addition to implementing state and local planning policy includes:
To identify areas which require the form and conditions of future use and development to be shown on a development plan before a permit can be granted to use or develop the land.
	Clause 43.04-1 requires that a permit must not be granted to use or subdivide land, construct a building or construct or carry out works until a development plan has been prepared to the satisfaction of the responsible authority.  Schedule 1 clause 2 states the development plan should show:
•	The existing and proposed road network; 
•	The location of existing and proposed open space including open space linkages; and 
•	The location of any existing or proposed community facilities including school sites.
15	Clause 43.04-3 provides that a development plan may be amended to the satisfaction of the responsible authority.
16	Council adopted the Cell T Development Plan in September 1999 under DPO1 of an area of about 349ha and it relates mainly to residential development.   Land on the north east corner of Greaves Road and Clyde Road contained a number of approved commercial developments:  a tavern, petrol station and convenience store, mechanical car wash, and medical centre.  
17	The plan has been amended on 19 April 2005 to provide for commercial development generally north of the existing service station, between it and Homestead Road, for 4 restaurants (including 3 fast food with drive-throughs) and a childcare centre.  It provides that:
Development of this site must be generally in accordance with Plan No 2 and must address the following design requirements:
18	Then follows a list of 12 headings with detailed provisions for matters such as Clyde Road Landscaping, Residential Interface Landscaping, Shared Path to Perimeter, Access to VicRoads Requirements, including the provision which the applicant seeks to amend as follows:
Single Integrated Sign.  Provision of a single, large integrated sign for all new development to be located within the Clyde Road landscape setback (minimum setback of 6 metres from the Clyde Road frontage of the site).  No additional pole sign will be approved for the individual tenancies.  Only standard corporate identification signs attached and integrated with the building are supported.
19	The applicant has requested this provision be amended (amendments sought in bold) to read:
Single Integrated Sign.  Provision of a single, large integrated sign for all new development to be located within the Clyde Road landscape setback (minimum setback of 6 metres from the Clyde Road frontage of the site).   Each development should utilise the integrated sign in preference to individual pole signs unless the individual site context and need for business and identification signage justifies, for the particular site, a separate pole sign or other signage as an acceptable outcome.  Only standard corporate identification signs attached and integrated with the building are supported.
20	The land is also subject to a Special Building Overlay and an Inundation Overlay not relevant to these proceedings.
21	The parties referred to other provisions of the planning scheme and documents including:
•	State Planning Policy Framework (SPPF) - clauses 11, 12, 12.05, 12.12, 14.01, 17.01, 17.01-2, 17.02, 18.02, and 19.03;
•	Local Planning Policy Framework (LPPF) and the Municipal Strategic Statement (MSS) clauses 21.01, 21.02, 21.03, 21.05, 21.09, 21.11, 21.12, 22.05, 22.05-3, 22.05-4, 22.07, 22.08 and 22.16;
•	Clauses 52.05, 62, 64, 65 and 73;
•	City of Casey Advertising Signs Policy and the VPP Practice Note – Applying the Incorporated Plan and Development Plan Overlays.
tribunal Consideration 
22	I have considered the submissions of the parties, the provisions of the planning scheme, the material produced at the hearing and on VCAT’s file, the evidence of the expert witnesses and my inspection.
APPLICATION OF POLICY APART FROM DEVELOPMENT PLAN
23	The initial question to be determined is whether the proposed sign should be approved, leaving to one side the application of the development Plan.
24	Mr Callander submitted were that this case involves the juxtaposition of a number of factors:
•	The new twenty first century design of the McDonald’s restaurant,
•	The 27 m setback of the restaurant building from Clyde Road,
•	The fall of the site from Clydes Road to the restaurant building, so the building is about 2m below the road’
•	The 7m height limit on signage in the residential zone, both on buildings and elsewhere’
•	Sight line constraints from Clyde Road, 
•	The  restaurant is 100-130m distant (south) from the integrated sign,
•	The inadequate size and location of the McDonald’s logo on the integrated sign.  
25.	Mr Callander submitted the individual McDonald’s sign panel on the integrated sign was inadequate.  It was 1150mm by 1150mm is size and the second lowest of 4 panels, about 2.8-4.4m above its base.  The integrated sign could not exceed 7m in height and contained 4 signs.
26.	The McDonald’s convenience restaurant was described as its new 21st century design.  It is a low flat roofed building of muted colour.  The familiar McDonald’s name and Golden Arches logo are much smaller than found on other McDonalds outlets and located on the side and front faces of the building, but below the roofline, and the front signs are partially obscured by the pergola structure intended to link the restaurant with adjacent outlets.  It also bears small McCafe signs.  
27.	The architectural style of the building, both externally and internally, is far superior and of much less impact than the designs of many older McDonald’s restaurants, for example, to the north in Clyde Road, closer to Berwick, where there are very large and dominant pole signs and signage on the roof.  
28.	Mr Mensforth’s traffic evidence was uncontested by the council.  He drew attention to other relevant design requirement in the Development Plan, namely the 12m landscape setback for inclusion of a staggered double row of forest red gum trees at 12m centres (in fact only a single row is present at this time), provision of at least one large broad canopy tree for every 4 to 5 car spaces in the parking area, the shared access adjacent to the integrated sign 130+m from the restaurant and a secondary access from Homestead Road shared with the childcare centre west of the restaurant.
29.	The image of the integrated sign attached to his report showed the McDonalds’ logo as one of 4 and 3rd from the top (below the signs for Red Rooster and Sofia’s Restaurant) of 1150mm by 1150mm and about 2.8m to 4.2m above the sign’s base.
30.	He confirmed Clyde Road is a primary arterial road with 3 through-traffic lanes both northbound and southbound, and auxiliary lanes for left and right turns at intersections and key access points, one opposite the access point adjacent to the integrated sign and another access through the median strip at Homestead Road.  It carries 25,000 vehicles per day.
31.	He referred to VicRoad’s Traffic Engineering Manual Volume 2, Traffic Management, which had guidelines that on an urban road with a speed limit of 80kph, a sign that might require a simple driving decision should be legible for 120–180m in advance of where the decision should be made.  His opinion was that the integrated sign is ineffective in advising motorists of either the presence of or the specific location of McDonald’s.  He said from a point in the southbound carriageway of Clyde Road 180m north of Homestead Road it is barely visible.  He considered that the identification and signage on the restaurant building is even less informative unless looking directly across Clyde Road at the building and is thus of no benefit to passing motorists until they are opposite or close by.
32.	To northbound motorists he considered the integrated sign was more visible but it did not provide details of the location.
33.	He concluded the integrated sign was insufficient to provide motorists unfamiliar with the area of timely advice of the restaurant’s presence or location with the potential to result in sudden lane changing and unnecessary abrupt deceleration to turn to the most convenient access point.
34.	He considered the proposed sign would provide southbound motorists on Clyde Road with earlier advice and allow more orderly access and more clearly identify the restaurant’s location within the mixed use precinct and allow northbound motorists who have failed to observe the integrated sign to identify and access the restaurant via Homestead Road.
35.	Mr McGurn’s evidence gave a detailed analysis of the planning policies affecting the sign discussed above and, leaving to one side the Development Plan, was of the opinion that:
•	The proposed signage is of an appropriate design and scale in this location and would not detract from the visual amenity or character of the area.
•	It will be removed from any direct residential interface and will not have any unreasonable effects on residential amenity in the area.
•	It will provide for the effective and timely identification of the business from Clyde Road.
•	It will have no adverse effect on the environment.
•	It is consistent with the relevant policies and provisions of the Advertising Signs Policy in clause 22.16 and 52.05.
36.	He also referred to the specific guidelines in City of Casey Advertising Signs Policy (which is a reference document to the planning scheme) for non residential uses (including restaurants) in residential areas which include:
•	For large freestanding non-residential developments with good exposure to busy roads (such as restaurant/take-away food outlets), the followings signs are encouraged:
	Fascià/Parapet/Wall Signs 
•	One (1) sign per elevation, visible from the road.
•	Should identify company name/logo only.
•		Should be compatible with the site and design of the building. 
	Pole Sign 
•	One (1) sign per site (including corner sites).
	LowProfile Sign
•	Often more appropriate than a Pole Sign (ie due to existence of vegetation/buildings) or at a rear/side access, a low profile identification sign may be appropriate, set in the landscaped area. 
	Ancillary Information Signs 
•	Low level ancillary signs to direct traffic and identify other features (ie “Drive-Thru” service) are considered appropriate as part of the total package.  They should be designed to facilitate traffic movements within the site.
37.	I agree with Mr McGurn that this policy envisages a package of signs for convenience restaurants which can include one pole sign per site, and also find that this proposal meets those guidelines.
38.	I do not agree with Mr Scully’s submissions that allowing this sign will necessarily cause visual clutter or proliferation.  It is well designed in a manner consistent with the integrated sign and the landscaping.  It is a far superior outcome than that permitted further south.  It is not a pole sign which would be more intrusive.  Whether a sign would be allowed for any of the other outlets should depend on a consideration of the particular facts of that case, and in my view one more sign of similar design would not cause visual clutter of an adverse amenity impact.  I also consider that the traffic safety issue raised by Mr Mensforth is  significant, given the information supplied by the applicant of the high percentage of sales to these outlets being impulse sales..
39.	I agree with Mr McGurn’s opinion and accept Mr Mensforth’s evidence and find that, leaving aside the operation of the development plan, the proposed sign should be approved as being consistent with state and local policy, and in particular clauses 22.16 and 52.05 of the planning scheme.
40.	The sign remedies the deficiency of the integrated sign in meeting the policy objectives of clause 22.16-2 mirrored in clause 52.06 of giving the restaurant an adequate opportunity to identify its location, name and nature of business.  I find it does not detract from the visual amenity of the area and has no impact on the residential areas nearby.  Its form as a blade sign maintains a degree of orderliness and uniformity and approval of the sign gives the applicant equity in the advertising permitted.  It is in keeping with the scale and character of the area as a commercial frontage on a busy major road, as well as improving the safety deficiencies identified by Mr Mensforth. 
APPLICATION OF DEVELOPMENT PLAN
41.	How then does the Development Plan apply in this case?
42.	Whilst the Development Plan is not a trigger for the permit, the requirement of DPO1 is that the permit granted be generally in accordance with the Development Plan.
43.	The text of the particular decision requirement does not operate in a mandatory way to prohibit the sign.  The only prohibition is of pole signs.  The relevant operative text is that Only standard corporation identification signs attached and integrated with the building are supported.
44.	The principles for the application of development plans are well established and a number of authorities were referred to.  Mr Scully submitted that the proposed development is not generally in accordance with the Development Plan and relied on the decision in Dalton v Casey CC for the following propositions:
•	“General accordance” is a question of fact to be judged on the facts and circumstance of the case, and the less detail and precision there is in the primary documents, the more flexibility is given by the phrase;
•	Overlays are used to, amongst other things, require a plan to be prepared to co-ordinate proposed use or development before a permit under the zoning can be granted, and will guide the content and ensure that permits generally conform to the plan, 
•	Once the plan is approved, overlays require all planning permits were granted by the responsible authority to be generally in accordance with the plan.  To do this, the responsible authority must test each proposal against the use and development requirements of the plan.  If it takes the view that a substantial provision of the plan is not met, a planning permit cannot be granted.
45.	I agree with Mr Scully’s conclusion that the proposed sign is not generally in accordance with the Development Plan.  The requirement proposes a single large integrated sign.  The only additional signs that it contemplates are standard corporate identification signs attached and integrated with the building, and the proposed sign is not of this nature.  
46.	However, the question arises whether the tribunal should grant the applicant’s application under section 149 and Clause 43 to amend the plan, having regard to the decision guidelines at Clause 52.05, Clause 22.16 and the Advertising Signs Policy.  
47.	Mr Scully submitted that this should only be done if the tribunal finds that the provision of the plan under review does not accord with the strategic intentions of the planning scheme and he relied on the decisions in Rasco Pty Ltd v Casey CC, and Jocelyn Meadows Pty Ltd v Casey CC.
48.	I agree with his submission that an application to amend a development plan requires consideration of the potential strategic outcomes of the decision and its impact on the planning authority’s strategic objectives for the area as a whole, and that the Tribunal should be cautious in its approach.
49.	The history and context of the provision which the applicant wishes to amend is relevant.  The plan as a whole was adopted to regulate the development of about 347ha for residential purposes, which is substantially underway.  The areas on Clyde Road subject to the integrated sign requirement is a small part of the original area.  
50.	The strategic purposes of DPO1 include implementing State and Local policy as well as the purpose referred to in [14] above of 
To identify areas which require the form and  conditions of future use and development to be shown before a permit can be granted
but the only matters that Clause 43.04-1 required to be specified in the plan were the existing and proposed road network, the location of existing and proposed open space and the location of any existing or proposed community facilities, including school sites.  
51.	However, as the land has been progressively developed, the plan has been amended, particularly to tighten and particularise with great specificity the requirements for the development of the commercial areas in a way similar to prescriptive permit conditions.  
52.	I consider the single integrated sign requirement is not clear in its operation.  Its application does not require the council to consider the effectiveness of the integrated sign and the necessity for and impact of any individual sign under the policy and strategic objectives of clauses 22.16 and 52.05.  It has the effect that all the commercial premises in this section of land should be signed only with a single large integrated sign and standard corporate identification signs attached to and integrated with the building, but does not mention the ancillary directional and other signs not attached which have been approved.  While pole signs are effectively prohibited, the provision could allow a more dominant and obtrusive sign than is proposed here provided it was attached to and integrated with the building.  See the McDonalds outlet to the north for an example. 
53.	I find the requirement does not meet the strategic intentions of clauses 22.16 and 52.05 of the planning scheme and the Council’s Advertising Sign Policy.  It does so by precluding any consideration of the strategic considerations of whether the signage is adequate and effective, orderly, causes any loss of amenity, adversely affects the natural or built environment, is in scale to the built form of the area or the safety, appearance or efficiency of the road.  The decision guidelines and policies of those provisions are irrelevant in the application of the design requirement, and thus the requirement operates in a way inconsistent with the comprehensive strategic statement in these provisions of the strategic basis for the provision of signage in Casey under the planning scheme 
54.	The requirement would result in a refusal of a permit for a sign, notwithstanding findings of fact that the integrated sign does not allow an adequate opportunity for the business to identify its location, name or business, that public safety may be prejudiced by not providing the proposed sign, that the proposed sign does not detract from the visual and residential amenity, is uniform, orderly, provides equity and is keeping with the scale and character of the building.  
55.	Accordingly, I determine it is appropriate to amend the plan to reframe all the requirements as guidelines and to allow consideration of the relevant policies for signs. 
CONCLUDING MATTERS
56.	I consider the application for review P397/2007 in respect of the earlier permit application should be dismissed, as I have directed that a permit issue for an identical sign in application for review P1171/2007.
57.	I do not determine the question of law raised by Mr Callander that the plan is not applicable because the requirement only applies to buildings and works in contrast to permits under clause 62.05 to display signs, but, after a full debate in the hearing on the question of law, I have framed my order to be for the construction and display of the sign, to avoid further complication.

Richard Horsfall, Senior Member			

RH:AM/HG