not think that is necessary. Indeed, as a general rule, I think council

planners are unduly cautious in the information they require and, in most

cases, they usually can make an effective decision without needing every

possible plan that could be prepared. But, to my way of thinking, as a

general rule, it is desirable for survey plans to be required before a

permit for development is to be granted. Typically the survey information

provides an essential basis for subsequent decisions and I think that one

of the problems that has arisen here is the lack of such a plan.

24. Second, I note that this permit was originally granted without elevations,

based on schematic type drawings from a well known Melbourne firm of

architects. Again I do not want to be understood as laying down any

general rule, because there will be cases where it is appropriate to grant

a permit, essentially in principle, with the detail to be picked up later.

But if elevations had been provided, and if the plans had been more

precise, then I suspect that some of the concerns in this matter would

25. During the hearing I was handed a copy of a letter dated 12 June 2003

from the City of Greater Geelong to (what would appear to be) the

architects of the permitholder. That letter expressed the council's

satisfaction that condition 5 of the permit had been met. Condition 5

deals with the tonings of the external fabric of the building. The

attachment to the letter not only contains the colours of the tonings, but

also contains some very large signs that are proposed to be erected or

painted on to the side of the building, particularly the north elevation.

Although I have not been asked to deal with this matter, it would seem

to me that that letter does not authorise any signage as such. Rather

condition 12, which deals with signage, effectively requires the signage

to be restricted as detailed on the endorsed plan. The plan of September

2002, which is now the endorsed plan, does not have any signage on it.

That means, I would have thought, that signage would need to be the

26. Further, as a result of the September 2002 plan now being the endorsed

plan, it does seem to me that it will be necessary for a new landscape

plan to be approved that reflects the layout of the September 2002 site

27. The fact that further permission will be needed for signage and a further

approval will be needed for a landscape plan does provide an

opportunity to ensure that some of the less satisfactory matters in this

case are addressed to the extent that they can be addressed. Although Mr

Gant has failed to get the relief he seeks today, he nonetheless has some

grounds for feeling aggrieved. To the extent that that feeling can be

ameliorated by landscaping or by signage design, then the exercise of

subsequent discretions by the council and, if it comes to appeal by this

tribunal, ought be cognisant of that fact. It will be necessary for there to

be substantial signage to make this development and use work and I

think it would be foolish to think otherwise. Planning law should allow

the development to work, having approved it. Hence proper prominent

signage should be allowed, but the opportunity that is before the

responsible authority will mean that it can also be tasteful, as well as

being prominent, and thus achieve both the aims that the occupier will

have in relation to that signage but, at the same time, be satisfactory from

the point of view of the community and neighbouring occupiers.

28. As to the landscaping, it does seem to me that opportunities may exist

for thicker landscaping on the Grubb Road boundary and if that

landscaping is to occur on the road reserve then, subject to the

agreement of the council, that could further enhance the quality and

29. Further, as far as the southern boundary is concerned, the requirement

to have a further landscape plan approved will give the council an

opportunity to consider whether some adjustments need to be made at

the southern boundary to further strengthen the landscape impact of that

boundary. In this context I think, (although of course I can make no

order about this), it would be shortsighted of the occupier to remove the

existing trees on the southern boundary, because their retention, at least

in the medium term, does provide an opportunity to ensure that that

30. It will take a lot of persuasion for me to make any order as to costs.

Unless I am persuaded against my thinking on that matter, I will not be

31. Obviously I have covered some other matters in addition to the one

strictly necessary to make the decision. I do not want it to be thought

that I can lay down the law on those, because I cannot. But, by the same

token, the parties might want to consider what I have said.

1. The application for a declaration, that the council's decision is invalid, is