The Tribunal varied the responsible authority's decision by deleting condition 1(a) from planning permit PP24/0200, which had required the applicant to raise a major promotion sign so as not to obstruct seven openings in the western boundary wall of the adjoining property. The Tribunal found the openings were not 'windows' within the ordinary meaning, were not architectural features warranting protection, and that no planning reason under clause 52.05 or applicable heritage policy (clause 15.03-1L) supported the condition. The decision confirms that clause 52.05 decision guidelines address amenity and visual appearance of an area rather than private amenity of neighbouring commercial service areas, and that clause 65.01 cannot be used to broaden the discretionary considerations beyond what the relevant permit trigger provisions contemplate, following Brunswick Investment Project Pty Ltd v Moreland CC [2021] VCAT 1191 and Viva Energy Australia Pty Ltd v City of Greater Geelong [2023] VSC 586.
The full text is available to signed-in members.