On remittal, the Court held that a digital advertising sign fixed to a chamfered corner of a shopping centre was a 'wall advertisement' under the Industry SEPP, not a 'roof or sky advertisement', because the parapet is properly identified as that portion of the perimeter wall above the intersection of the roofline with the outer wall — and the sign sat below the parapet. The Court upheld four cl 4.6 variation requests to development standards under s 3.20 of the Industry SEPP (number of wall advertisements per elevation, sign size as proportion of elevation, protrusion beyond 300mm, and co-existence with building identification signs), finding that where s 3.20 contains no express objectives, the aims and objectives at s 3.1(1)(a) of the Industry SEPP serve as the relevant underlying objectives. The Court also accepted that a local council's history of granting consents departing from a state-wide development standard can establish virtual abandonment of that standard for the purposes of the fourth Wehbe way, without implications for the standard's application state-wide.
The full text is available to signed-in members.