A & A CENTOFANTI PTY LTD v CITY OF PORT ADELAIDE ENFIELD [2009] SAERDC 8 (18 February 2009)

Last Updated: 20 February 2009

ENVIRONMENT, RESOURCES AND DEVELOPMENT COURT OF SOUTH AUSTRALIA

DISCLAIMER - Every effort has been made to comply with suppression orders or statutory provisions prohibiting publication that may apply to this judgment. The onus remains on any person using material in the judgment to ensure that the intended use of that material does not breach any such order or provision. Further enquiries may be directed to the Registry of the Court in which it was generated.

A & A CENTOFANTI PTY LTD v CITY OF PORT ADELAIDE ENFIELD

[2009] SAERDC 8

Judgment of Commissioner Hamnett

18 February 2009

ENVIRONMENT AND PLANNING - ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING - DEVELOPMENT CONTROL

Application to construct two single-sided freestanding advertising structures - General Industry Zone - refused by Council - issues of visual appearance and impact on the character and amenity of the locality - whether 'third party' advertisements should be assessed differently from advertisements directly related to adjacent activities or buildings.

HELD: Appeal allowed. Development Plan Consent granted, subject to conditions.

Development Act 1993; Development Regulations 1993; Metropolitan Adelaide Road Widening Plan Act 1972, referred to.

Gerard Industries Pty Ltd v South Australian Planning Commission P.A.T. No. 797 of 1989; Keast v City of Salisbury [1999] SAERDC 55; Keast v City of Marion [1999] SAERDC 74, considered.

A & A CENTOFANTI PTY LTD v CITY OF PORT ADELAIDE ENFIELD
[2009] SAERDC 8

THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING JUDGMENT:

1. This appeal concerns a proposal by A & A Centofanti Pty Ltd (the “Appellants”) to erect two single-sided freestanding pylon advertising structures at 1 Churchill Road North within the area of the City of Port Adelaide Enfield (“the Council”). A Development Application was submitted by the Appellants on 20 March 2008 (Development Application No. 040/0777/08). They were notified on 4 August 2008 that the Development Application had been refused for reasons relating to the visual appearance and built form of the proposed structures and also because of concern that the advertising structures might constitute a potential hazard to traffic by distracting drivers. They were aggrieved by this decision and appealed to this Court.
2. Mr Fernando Centofanti gave evidence on behalf of the Appellants. The Court also heard evidence from Mr B Grimm, a qualified landscape architect, and from Mr S Trowse, a qualified town planner in the employ of the Council.
3. A statement of evidence (Exhibit A3) was received from Ms M Mellen, a qualified and experienced traffic engineer. Ms Mellen did not appear in Court. Her evidence, in essence, was that the proposed signs will not create a safety hazard for drivers and that they will comply with the provisions of the relevant Development Plan as these relate to traffic and safety. Ms Mellen’s statement of evidence was not challenged in the course of the hearing and is accepted by the Court.
4. At the hearing the Council was represented by Mr D Billington, of counsel. The Appellants were represented by Mr J Levinson, of counsel. The Court conducted a view of the subject land prior to the hearing.

The Subject Land

5. The subject land is formally described in Certificate of Title Register Book Volume 5484 Folio 288 as Allotment 1, Filed Plan 14470 in the area named Dry Creek, Hundred of Port Adelaide. It is of irregular shape and has an area of some 3,455 square metres. There is a frontage of about 35 metres to Churchill Road North on the northeast side of the land and of about 58 metres to Cavan Road on the southeast side. There is also a frontage of about 49 metres to an unpaved section of Churchill Road to the west. The land is fairly flat and contains a new warehouse which, at the time of the view, appeared to be in the final stages of construction.
6. In a letter to the Council dated 7 May 2008, the Commissioner of Highways indicated that a strip of land of up to 4.5 metres in width from the Cavan Road frontage of the subject land may be required for future road widening. The consent of the Commissioner is required under the Metropolitan Adelaide Road Widening Plan Act 1972 to all building works on or within 6.0 metres of this strip of land.

The Proposed Development

7. It is proposed to construct two single sided freestanding advertising structures, each supported by two pylons or columns. One will face northeast towards traffic proceeding southwest along Cavan Road. The other will face southeast and will be visible primarily to traffic travelling west along Grand Junction Road, north along Churchill Road and northeast along Cavan Road. The signs will each be 12.66 metres wide by 3.35 metres high. The bottom of each sign will be at 4.15 metres above ground level, giving a total height of 7.5 metres. It is proposed to undertake landscaping around the base of the signs which will conceal their supporting columns. A planting plan and schedule is shown on the proposal plans. The display area of each sign will be 42.41 square metres. The information to be displayed on the signs is not part of the application and has not been determined. Mr Centofanti indicated that the signs might be used to display both information relating to the warehouse activities on the subject land and also third party advertisements. The Court heard that signs of this size are referred to in the advertising industry as “Supersite” signs.
8. There is an existing Development Consent, issued by Order of this Court on 29 February 2008, for two smaller advertising signs on the subject land, each 2.2 metres high and 8.3 metres wide, with a display area of 18.26 square metres and an overall height of 6.35 metres. This smaller type of sign is apparently referred to as a “Super 8” sign.

The Locality

9. The subject land is located in the General Industry (1) Zone of the Port Adelaide Enfield (City) Development Plan as consolidated on 17 January 2008. Some 40 metres or so to the west of the land there is a power station operated by “International Power”. Adjacent to the subject land to the north there is a car dismantling establishment (“Holdspares”). About 60 metres to the southwest is the extensive intersection of Cavan Road, Grand Junction Road and Churchill Road. Immediately to the west of this intersection, Grand Junction Road rises to cross a bridge over major freight and passenger rail lines. Cavan, Grand Junction and Churchill Roads are all significant roads carrying high volumes of freight and other traffic. Cavan Road has an estimated traffic volume of approximately 28,000 vehicles per day adjacent to the subject land. The Court was also informed that Grand Junction Road carries in the order of 43,000 vehicles per day west of its intersection with Cavan Road and 30,000 vehicles a day east of that intersection. Churchill Road North has a lower volume of traffic but still carries approximately 6,700 vehicles per day north of the subject land. Properties adjacent to these roads are mainly given over to industrial, storage and distribution activities. There are several warehouses providing goods for sale, both wholesale and retail.
10. Mr Trowse identified a locality which comprised the subject land, directly adjoining allotments and allotments immediately opposite the subject land across Churchill Road, Churchill Road North and Cavan Road. He also extended his locality to include a number of properties extending to the northeast along both sides of Cavan Road, to the east along both sides of Grand Junction Road and to the west, along the southern side of Grand Junction Road. Lastly, he included properties along both sides of Rumble Road, extending west from the intersection of Churchill Road and Churchill Road North. In defining this locality Mr Trowse explained that he had included properties that would experience some visual impact from the proposed development. He noted the presence of the power station to the west of the subject land which, in his words, “...is considered predominant in the locality due to 2 large chimney stacks which towers (sic) above all other structures”. (In fact there are 3 such stacks). Mr Trowse also provided a systematic description and comparison of most of the existing signs in proximity to the subject land, as follows:

Freestanding Signs

Freestanding Sign	Business/Sign	Size	Hoarding Face (m2)
1	‘Ductair’	5.3 x 1.5	7.9
2	IJF (Freestanding)	7.2 x 2.4	17.28
3	Selec Trucks	2.5 x 2.5	6.25
4	‘U-Store It’	1.8 x 4.2	7.56

Signs Attached to a Wall or Building

Sign Attached to a Wall or Building	Business/Sign	Size	Hoarding Face (m2)
5	Power Station ‘International Power’	12 x 4	48
6	‘Ductair’	2 x 11	22
7	IJF (small)	2 x 11	22
8	IJF (large)	5.4 x 29.7	160.3
9	Solver Paints	1.2 x 12	14.4

11. Mr Grimm’s approach to identifying the relevant locality of the subject land was rather more complicated. It was also somewhat difficult to understand because of the use of a number of terms which were not clearly defined or differentiated in his statement of evidence – for example, “landscape context”, “landscape zone”, “landscape character zone”, “landscape region”, “visual character zone” and “development site visual locality”. My interpretation of Mr Grimm’s evidence is that, in essence, he was attempting to distinguish between a visual locality, somewhat similar in extent to that defined by Mr Trowse, and a more extensive landscape zone, extending along the arterial road corridors of Churchill, Grand Junction, Cavan and Port Wakefield Roads.
12. Within this visual locality and these arterial road corridors, Mr Grimm’s intent was essentially similar to that of Mr Trowse – i.e. to identify the present character and level of amenity, with some emphasis on the nature of existing signage. Mr Grimm’s approach also paid explicit attention to the character of the locality as viewed from a moving vehicle.
13. I found Mr Grimm’s extended landscape zone to be of limited assistance in understanding the character of the locality of the subject land, particularly at its outer ends which were as far away as Port Wakefield Road, a kilometre or more from the subject land and Regency Road, more than two kilometres away. Within his more spatially constrained visual locality, however, I found Mr Grimm’s description to be more detailed and richer than that provided by Mr Trowse. In particular, Mr Grimm drew attention to the character which this locality derives from its generously set back two to three storey industrial buildings and warehouses and its wide horizontal road reserves, giving broad fields of view. Mr Grimm also provided a more detailed description of the industrial infrastructure of the locality – lighting towers, large stobie poles, pylons and transmission lines, particularly in the vicinity of the power station. It was not initially obvious that the power station itself was included in either Mr Grimm’s visual locality or landscape zone, but it was made clear in his evidence that he saw its presence as of central importance to the assessment of this proposal. Mr Grimm agreed with Mr Trowse that the power station “dominates the character of the locality”. By his estimate the height of the power station chimney stacks was some 25-30 metres.
14. Mr Grimm drew attention to the large sign on the eastern façade of the power station which has an area of some 48 square metres. He also pointed to a number of buildings which had substantial wall areas given over to advertising signage. For example, the facades of the Solver Paints retail outlet on the southwest corner of Grand Junction Road and Churchill Road are painted bright yellow with the company name in black. Mr Grimm also referred to the western façade of the IJF furniture building at the southeast corner of the intersection of Grand Junction and Churchill Roads where a company name and advertisement of some 160.3 square metres are displayed; and to the Holdspares building, adjacent to the subject land, which has large, bold red and blue lettering covering two of its facades against a white background.
15. There is some established eucalypt planting along the median strip of Cavan Road which is likely to conceal the subject land, or offer only glimpsed views of it, from vehicles travelling towards the southwest until they are fairly close to the land. There is also an established copse of native trees (casuarinas, eucalypts and smaller shrubs) on the northern side of Grand Junction Road, to the east of the railway bridge, which masks views of the subject land to some extent from vehicles travelling from west to east.
16. Overall, the locality of the subject land is of very low amenity. I agree with Mr Trowse and Mr Grimm that the dominant visual element in the locality is the imposing mass of the power station to the west. Other industrial and storage buildings in the locality are functional in character and of limited architectural interest, although there is some coherence obtained from their typically generous setbacks. It is also an area which derives its character to a considerable extent from its large scale infrastructure, transmission lines, pylons, stobie poles and traffic intersections. The roads themselves are wide, busy and carry a significant amount of heavy freight on large trucks, semi-trailers and “B-doubles”, which generate a good deal of noise. This is not a place for pedestrians – none were observed during the view – and the locality is likely to be experienced primarily by vehicle drivers and their passengers as they move through it.

Development Plan Provisions

17. As noted earlier, the relevant Development Plan is that for Port Adelaide Enfield City, consolidated on 17 January 2008
18. The subject land is located in the General Industry (1) Zone, as shown on Map PAdE/24. The objectives for this zone indicate that it is a zone accommodating light and general industries, road transport terminals, warehousing and storage. Principle of Development Control 1 for the zone is expressed in similar terms, as follows:
    1. Development undertaken in the General Industry (1) Zone should be primarily light and general industries, road transport terminals, warehousing and storage.
19. The proposed development is neither complying nor non-complying in this zone and needs to be considered on its merits, therefore.
20. The following Council Wide Objectives and Principles of Development Control appear to me to be of most relevance to the matter:

COUNCIL WIDE OBJECTIVES
Objective 1: Orderly and economic development.
Objective 84: An urban environment and rural landscape not disfigured by advertisements.
Objective 85: Advertisements in retail, commercial and industrial urban areas, and centre zones, designed to enhance the appearance of those areas.
PRINCIPLES OF DEVELOPMENT CONTROL

157. The location, siting, size, shape and materials of construction, of advertisements should be:

(a) consistent with the desired character of areas or zones as described by their objectives;
(b) consistent with the predominant character of the urban or rural landscape; or
(c) in harmony with any building or site of historic significance or heritage value in the locality.

158. Advertisements should not detrimentally affect by way of their siting, size, shape, scale, glare, reflection or colour the amenity of areas, zones, or localities, in which they are situated.
159. Advertisements should not impair the amenity of areas, zones, or localities, in which they are situated by creating, or adding to, clutter, visual disorder and the untidiness of buildings and spaces.
161. The scale of advertisements should be compatible with the buildings on which they are situated and with nearby buildings and spaces.
165. Structural supports of any advertisement should be designed wherever possible to be concealed from public view.

The Evidence

21. In addition to the Development Plan provisions which I have identified above, Mr Trowse, in his written statement of evidence, also referred to Council Wide Principles of Development Control 170, 171 and 174 which relate to advertisements as hazards to road users. These principles were adduced in support of his initial opinion that the proposed development should be refused on traffic safety grounds. Traffic safety had also formed part of the Council’s reasons for refusing the application. However, having had the opportunity to consider the expert evidence of Ms Mellen, Mr Trowse withdrew this part of his argument. The differences between Mr Grimm’s evidence and that of Mr Trowse were thus focused principally on issues of the visual appearance of the proposed development and its likely impact on the character and amenity of the locality.
22. Mr Grimm emphasised in his evidence the proximity of the proposed sign to the power station to the west, the dominant visual element in the locality with its three tall chimney stacks and associated transmission lines and pylons. He also observed that the proposed advertising signs were no taller than the newly-constructed warehouse on the subject land and were, in their display areas, similar to, or smaller than, several other signs located on building facades within the locality. Mr Grimm also suggested that the proposed signs, while of similar height to the warehouse, would be less significant elements in the landscape given the much greater relative size and bulk of the warehouse. The proposed freestanding signs on the subject land would not be close to other freestanding signs, were simple in design and would not, therefore, add to “clutter” in his opinion. Their impact would be further reduced by their being set down a metre or so lower than the road reserve and by the proposed planting around their base.
23. In Appendix D to his statement of evidence Mr Grimm provided two computer-generated montages of the proposed signs as compared to the “Super 8” signs for this site which were approved in February 2008. These were based on an observation point in the vicinity of the southeast corner of the intersection of Grand Junction Road and Churchill Road. A number of concerns arose in the course of the hearing relating to the process whereby these montages had been created and to the potential distortions likely to have been introduced. It was also established that the orientation of the signs, as depicted in these montages, was incorrect. Mr Grimm further agreed when questioned that, as one moved closer to the proposed signs from the observation point, the perspective view would change and the proposed signs would “skyline” – that is, appear to protrude above the roofline of the warehouse, even though the warehouse and the signs would actually be of a similar height. This was contrary to the opinion expressed in Mr Grimm’s written statement of evidence.
24. I place little weight on those of Mr Grimm’s findings which are based on Appendix D of his statement. The principal helpful conclusion which can be drawn from these montages – and indeed, from the relevant plans and elevations received as Exhibits A1 and A4 - is that the proposed signs are wider and higher than the “Super 8” signs approved in February 2008. The proposed signs will be over 4 metres wider than the approved signs. The difference in total height will be less – 1.15 metres – and, in Mr Grimm’s opinion, height would be the more significant variable in relation to visual impact in this locality. He was not concerned by the increase in height of the proposed signs when compared to the approved “Super 8” signs, however, because it was his view that they would still be dwarfed in this location by the height and mass of the power station.
25. Mr Trowse’s evidence was based to a considerable extent on his detailed comparison of the proposed signs with existing signs in the locality, both freestanding and on building facades. His observations indicated that the proposed signs would be appreciably larger than other freestanding signs in the locality, with the next largest being the freestanding IJF sign with an area of 17.28 square metres. Mr Trowse acknowledged, however, that there were larger signs on buildings, including the fixed IJF sign on the building on the southeast corner of Grand Junction and Churchill Roads (160.3 square metres) and the International Power sign on the eastern façade of the power station (48 square metres). Mr Trowse justified his emphasis on a comparison with freestanding signs on the argument that such signs have “the potential to have a greater visual impact than a sign located on existing built form”. The latter, in his view, is likely to be further back from the road and less obtrusive, therefore. Freestanding signs of the scale proposed would, in the view of Mr Trowse, be inconsistent with the predominant character of the urban landscape (Council Wide Principle of Development Control 157b); would disfigure the urban environment (Council Wide Objective 84); would not be compatible with nearby buildings and spaces (Council Wide Principle of Development Control 161); and would detrimentally affect and impair the amenity of the locality (Council Wide Principles of Development Control 158 and 159). Mr Trowse further suggested that the proposed signs would not be orderly economic development (Council Wide Objective 1) as they represented, in his view, an excessive emphasis on economic return at the expense of the character of the area. In Mr Trowse’s view a smaller sign attached to a building would be visible to most viewers and compatible with existing urban form.
26. Overall I prefer Mr Grimm’s evidence to that of Mr Trowse. The latter’s evidence is, I think, unduly focused on his comparison of the proposed signs with existing signs in the locality, both freestanding and fixed to buildings. While this is certainly a relevant matter to consider, it is only one element contributing to the character and amenity of this locality.
27. I am not persuaded that freestanding signs, by their nature, will invariably have a greater visual impact on their surroundings than signs attached to buildings or painted on building facades. As Mr Trowse’s own assessment made clear, there are some substantial signs attached to buildings in the immediate locality which are larger than the proposed signs and very conspicuous by virtue of their size and their bold colours. The relative impact of freestanding or fixed signs is likely to be a matter of judgment according to the circumstances of a particular proposal and its context.
28. In my view Mr Grimm was correct to place considerable emphasis on the other elements of built form of the locality, dominated as it is by the power station, and also on the character which this area derives from its major infrastructural elements – the transmission lines, stobie poles and other components of the “wirescape” referred to earlier, as well as the large intersection of Grand Junction Road, Cavan Road and Churchill Road and the heavy vehicles which use these roads. Given the scale and nature of these elements which contribute materially to the character and low amenity of the locality, it was Mr Grimm’s conclusion that signs of the size proposed could be accommodated without infringing any relevant provisions of the Development Plan. I agree with this conclusion and elaborate on my reasons below.

Assessment

29. Council Wide Principle of Development Control 157(a) requires that:
    157. The location, siting, size, shape and materials of construction, of advertisements should be:

(a) consistent with the desired character of areas or zones as described by their objectives;
...

30. The General Industry (1) Zone makes no reference to advertising in its provisions. In this respect it differs from some other zones in the Development Plan. For example, the Industry/Business (Gepps Cross Gateway) Zone contains detailed provisions relating to the siting and design of advertising signs and lists “third party” advertisements as non-complying development. There is no statement of desired character for the General Industry (1) Zone but its objectives make it clear that it is primarily a zone for light industry, general industry, road transport terminals, warehousing and storage.
31. The primary use of the subject land is for warehousing. A large new warehouse on the land is nearing completion and I am not of the view that the placement of advertising signs of the size and design proposed in one corner of the land will affect this primary use or frustrate in any way the purposes of the zone. As indicated earlier, freestanding advertising structures have previously been found to be appropriate on the subject land and there is an existing approval for two smaller “Super 8” signs. Mr Trowse, in his evidence, took no issue with the proposed use of part of the subject land for advertising.
32. Council Wide Objective 84 requires that the urban environment should not be “disfigured by advertisements”. Council Wide Principle of Development Control 157(b) states that the location, siting, size, shape and materials of construction, of advertisements should be:

...
(b) consistent with the predominant character of the urban or rural landscape;
...

33. Council Wide Principles of Development Control 158 and 159 require that:
    158. Advertisements should not detrimentally affect by way of their siting, size, shape, scale, glare, reflection or colour the amenity of areas, zones, or localities, in which they are situated.
    159. Advertisements should not impair the amenity of areas, zones, or localities, in which they are situated by creating, or adding to, clutter, visual disorder and the untidiness of buildings and spaces.
34. Council Wide Principle 161 requires that the scale of advertisements should be compatible with the buildings on which they are situated and with nearby buildings and spaces.
35. As I have indicated above, I agree with Mr Grimm that the predominant character of the urban landscape is derived primarily from the scale of its existing buildings, its infrastructure elements and the large areas given over to roads and intersections – its “spaces” - as well as its existing signs, freestanding and fixed. I find the proposed signs to be consistent with this character.
36. I do not believe that the proposed signs will detrimentally affect the amenity of the locality by virtue of their siting, size or colour. They are to be sited some way from other signs in the locality, will be viewed separately from such signs and will not, therefore, create or add to clutter or visual disorder. Given the scale, bulk and mass of existing built form in the locality, including the power station in particular and also the adjacent warehouse on the subject land, they will be compatible with nearby buildings. They will also be compatible with the extensive spaces in the locality – the busy wide roads and the major intersection, especially.
37. Council Wide Objective 85 requires advertisements in industrial urban areas, to be “designed to enhance the appearance of those areas”. Mr Levinson drew attention to the judgment of the Planning Appeal Tribunal in the matter of Gerard Industries Pty Ltd v South Australian Planning Commission P.A.T. No. 797 of 1989, at p 8 of which it was stated that

It is difficult (but not impossible) to come to a conclusion that any sign will enhance an area.

38. Likewise, in Keast v City of Salisbury [1999] SAERDC 55, to which the Court was also referred, Commissioner Wallman had the following to say at para 43:

It is difficult to envisage how advertising could enhance or improve the character and amenity of an area of the Industry Zone. Adverse visual impacts do not of course, necessarily follow from the display of advertising, but premises, such as those on which businesses are established, need to be identifiable and identification advertising, - indeed any advertising - needs to be clearly seen by those to whom it is directed and may not visually enhance or improve an area...

39. I agree with the general opinion expressed in the above passage, although I also acknowledge that the landscaping, which is intended to conceal the base of the proposed signs and which will also reduce the visibility from the road of the warehousing activities on the subject land, will make some modest contribution to enhancing the appearance and amenity of the area.
40. The case of Keast v City of Salisbury, referred to above, also concerned a freestanding sign on an arterial road in an industry zone. Mr Billington observed that the sign proposed in Keast v City of Salisbury, like the proposed signs in the present matter, was intended to display “third party” advertisements. In the judgment in that matter Commissioner Wallman discussed the evidence of Mr Travaglione, an expert planning witness who supported the decision of the relevant Council to refuse consent for the proposed sign. In the words of that judgment, at para 22:

... he distinguished the proposed advertising from advertising which exists in the locality; that other advertising being ancillary to existing uses of land, variously of an industrial, commercial or community kind. Mr Travaglione was, in my opinion, correct in distinguishing the proposed advertisement from those which exist. All of the existing advertisements, including the Council’s directory board and the flags, are associated with existing or proposed uses of land and they exist only because of those uses. The proposed advertisements, being advertisements not associated with such uses, are not wholly comparable with the existing advertisements in terms of their purpose...

41. However, in Keast v City of Marion [1999] SAERDC 74, a further judgment to which the Court was referred, Commissioner Hutchings also addressed the question of third party advertisements at paras 5 and 6:

... A close reading of the Development Plans for metropolitan Adelaide and for the metropolitan councils reveals that guidance of outdoor advertisements away from some areas and towards others is the applicable planning precept. In doing so, there is a recognition that, in general, the message is not the issue. A message advertising a product or service available on the land on which a hoarding may be erected can be just as offensive in terms of its visual impact as one advertising a generic product or service. What is at issue is the size, height, shape etc of the hoarding.
With this in mind, the Plan seeks to guide advertisements away from those parts of urban areas - such as residential areas, parks and recreation areas and precincts of particular visual qualities - to those parts where trade and commerce take place; ie, where goods and services are promoted and sold. In these latter, however, the Plan does not see "open slather" as appropriate; rather it seeks to ensure that the size, height, shape etc of advertising hoardings are in scale with the characters desired for the particular business localities...

42. I accept the view expressed by Commissioner Hutchings in Keast v City of Marion that “in general the message is not the issue”. It is true that signs that relate to the building to which they are attached or adjacent may make more contribution to the meaning or legibility of a locality than third party signs of a generic nature, unrelated to that building or locality, and might therefore be said to make more contribution to enhancing the amenity and appearance of an area. However, third party advertisements clearly have a place in the urban environment and one looks to Development Plans to provide guidance on where that place might be.
43. The General Industry (1) Zone provisions have nothing to say about third party signs or about advertising in general. As noted earlier, this is in contrast to other zones in the relevant Development Plan which contain both detailed provisions relating to the siting and design of advertisements and prohibitions of third party advertising. There appears to be nothing in the Development Plan, therefore, which speaks against a third party advertisement on the subject land. The proposed signs are large ones but they are not out of scale with their locality. They will be highly visible to passing vehicles but this, after all, is the intent of advertising signs and, on the evidence provided, they will pose no safety hazard to drivers. Large advertisements of this sort have an economic and commercial purpose which accords with Council Wide Objective 1, requiring “orderly and economic development”. I regard the subject land, adjacent as it is to a busy major road in a General Industry zone and in a locality of very low amenity, as appropriate for advertising signs of this size and form. In my view signs of the sort proposed represent orderly and economic development in this location. For the reasons that I have outlined above, it is my planning judgment that these signs on this land also comply with the relevant provisions of the Development Plan relating to the character and amenity of the locality and the zone, the avoidance of clutter and the desire for compatibility with nearby buildings and spaces.
44. I have considered all of the evidence that was put to me, the submissions of counsel and everything I saw on the view. For the reasons outlined above I have concluded that the appeal should be upheld and that Development Plan Consent should be granted.
45. I informed the parties of this conclusion by memorandum and invited them to consider appropriate conditions of consent. Three conditions were suggested in response and I have incorporated these into my decision set out below.
46. The Appeal is upheld. Development Plan Consent is granted to Development Application No. 040/0777/08 for the construction of two single-sided freestanding advertising structures, each 12.66 metres wide by 3.35 metres high, as shown in the set of two plans prepared by Bryant Concepts dated 4 June 2007 and marked Job No. 04-357 (Exhibit A1), subject to the following conditions:
    1. Except where minor amendments may be required by other relevant Acts, or by conditions imposed herein, the development must be established in strict accordance with the approved details and plans and all works must be completed prior to the use of the development.
       
    2. All external illumination must be positioned (or shielded) so that there is no overspill nuisance to adjacent occupiers, and no distraction to drivers on the adjacent roads.
       
    3. All advertisements and supporting structures must be prepared and erected in a professional and workmanlike manner and maintained in good repair at all times.
       
47. There will be an order accordingly.