//
© 2026 Zoe. All rights reserved.
Zoe is a legal information platform. Always consult the Federal Register of Legislation for authoritative text.
[2009] VCAT 1670
respondent. The Council's decision was affirmed. Under section 85(1)(e) of the Planning and Environment Act 1987, Permit No P768/08 was directed to contain condition 1(a), requiring deletion of the shipping...
No linked legislation citations have been extracted yet.
The Tribunal decided that the signs could not use the shipping containers as their supports under this permit. It considered the containers unsuitable in the rural landscape, so the condition requiring poles remained. It also clarified that the permit notes were not part of the permit.
AI-generated legal information, not legal advice. Zoe can make mistakes. Check the cited source, and for advice about your situation consult a qualified Australian lawyer.
2,385 words · generated 01/10/2026
In Leighton Properties (Vic) Pty Ltd v Casey CC [2009] VCAT 1670, Leighton Properties asked the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal to review a condition attached to a planning permit. The permit concerned advertising signs on two rural properties in Cranbourne West: 690 Dandenong-Hastings Road and 635 Hall Road. The sites were in the same ownership and were then used for grazing.
The proposal comprised 126 square metres of banner-style signage in total. At 690 Dandenong-Hastings Road, the proposed sign was 3 metres high and 12 metres long, supported on two shipping containers. At 635 Hall Road, signs were proposed on four containers arranged in a double-stacked V configuration. The containers were 12.2 metres long, 2.4 metres wide and 2.6 metres high individually, with an overall double-stacked height of 5.2 metres. The signs had been attached to the containers, but were removed before the permit application was lodged.
Council had taken enforcement action concerning the containers. The permit application was lodged on 3 November 2008. Council granted a permit but included condition 1(a), requiring the shipping containers to be deleted as supporting structures and replaced with supporting poles. Leighton Properties sought review under section 80 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 (Vic), arguing that the requirement had no strategic or statutory justification and should be deleted.
The Tribunal affirmed Council’s decision. Its order directed, under section 85(1)(e) of the Act, that condition 1(a) remain in Permit No P768/08. It also stated that the notes were not part of the permit.
The judgment records that the land was in an Urban Growth Zone and that the proposed panel signs required a permit. The land was within an area identified as Category 3 under the advertising-sign controls. The reasons state that a panel sign was prohibited in that category, but clause 37.07-8 allowed a permit for a period of no more than five years for an advertising sign promoting the sale of land or dwellings where there was no Precinct Structure Plan. The permit-condition dispute addressed in this case was specifically about the signs’ supporting structures, not a general determination of every aspect of the signs’ permissibility.
The Tribunal’s central assessment was that the containers were unsuitable in the landscape at the time of the decision. After inspecting the sites, Senior Member Sharkey stated: “I consider that the containers are an undesirable inclusion at this time in this rural landscape” (Reasons, “Criteria for Decision”, item 7). He then concluded that the signs should not be placed on containers and that the permit should contain condition 1(a) (Reasons, item 8).
The reasons record competing considerations. Council submitted that the proposed structures formed part of the sign and should be assessed in the context of the site, surrounding area and relevant planning-scheme guidelines. It relied on clause 52.05-3, which, as quoted in the judgment, required consideration of area character. The considerations set out included the sensitivity of an area in terms of its natural environment, heritage values, waterways and open space, rural landscape or residential character, as well as cumulative visual disorder or sign clutter.
Council’s position was that the sites sat within a rural landscape and that the containers would be a dominant element. It also drew attention to their 5.2-metre overall height and their relatively close position to road frontages. Council said the containers did not integrate with the signs and that there had been no real attempt to integrate the signs with their supports.
Leighton Properties put forward a different visual and practical account. Its planner said the 3-metre-high signs would cover most of the container height, leaving 2.2 metres below the signs, and that fencing and grass along the verges were approximately 1.2 metres high. He argued that the visible difference between a sign on poles and one on containers would therefore be limited, particularly because road users would see the ends of the containers obliquely. The containers’ uncovered portions would be painted black, which the applicant said would minimise their impact and provide contrast with the landscape.
The applicant also relied on functional considerations. It submitted that containers were increasingly used to support signs because they could resist strong winds better than traditional signage, and that they could be relocated as an estate was developed. It referred to a sign at Werribee Zoo and said it had found no planning-scheme policy that preferred poles over containers in this situation.
The Tribunal acknowledged some of these points without treating them as decisive. It observed that pole signs would need to be designed with wind loading in mind, but regarded that as a matter of design. It also commented that shipping containers could be moved, but so could pole signs (Reasons, item 7). The decisive assessment expressed in the reasons remained the visual and landscape impact of the containers at the time. The Tribunal’s conclusion was specific to the sites and proposal before it; the reasons do not state a universal prohibition on using containers to support signs.
The statutory and planning-scheme context framed that assessment. The judgment notes that the proposal was referred to VicRoads because of its proximity to a Category 1 Road Zone. It records that VicRoads initially objected to the sign at 635 Hall Road due to its proximity to the intersection and sight-distance concerns, then withdrew its objection and confirmed that, subject to Council approval, it would permit use of the containers as sign supports at the two locations. The Tribunal nevertheless upheld Council’s condition. The reasons therefore show that VicRoads’ position did not determine the separate planning assessment made by the Tribunal.
The judgment does not describe a change in legislation or announce a new general rule. Before the decision, the permit condition required supporting poles rather than shipping containers. After the decision, that condition remained in the permit because the Tribunal affirmed Council’s decision and directed that condition 1(a) be included.
The judgment’s legal reasoning is narrow. It treats the supports as relevant to the planning assessment of the signs and considers their effect in the setting of these particular sites. It refers to clause 52.05-3 and its considerations about the character of the area, including rural landscape character and visual clutter. It then applies those considerations to the Tribunal’s inspection and its view of the containers’ effect.
The decision also states a procedural point about permit notes: “notes do not form part of a permit” (Reasons, item 9). The Tribunal considered note (i), which said that the containers must be removed, redundant if condition 1(a) remained. It said that if condition 1(a) were deleted, the note should be removed anyway. Note (ii), which invited contact with Council’s Investigations Officer to arrange an inspection, was described as an information item that could be addressed in a covering letter. The order expressly stated that the notes were not part of the permit.
The supplied judgment does not set out a broader account of how these statements interact with other statutory provisions or decisions. The case can therefore be read as a fact-specific permit review, with a clear outcome on the particular condition and notes, rather than as a comprehensive treatment of sign-support design or permit drafting.
The Tribunal’s main finding was: “the containers are an undesirable inclusion at this time in this rural landscape” (Reasons, “Criteria for Decision”, item 7). In plain English, the Tribunal considered the containers a poor fit for the surroundings as they existed when it decided the review. The words “at this time” matter: the reasons discuss the land’s eventual development, but the Tribunal assessed the existing rural landscape.
The Tribunal also said: “The signs should not be placed on containers as proposed” and the permit should contain condition 1(a) (Reasons, item 8). This is the direct link between the site assessment and the outcome. Condition 1(a) required deletion of the containers as supports and their replacement with poles.
On wind resistance, the Tribunal said that pole supports would need to be designed with respect to wind loading, “but this is a matter of design” (Reasons, item 7). The statement recognises the applicant’s engineering concern but does not decide what particular design would be required or whether any specific pole design would meet technical standards.
On the permit notes, the Tribunal stated that notes do not form part of a permit and should not be included as part of one (Reasons, item 9). In practical terms, it distinguished an operative permit condition from text that is merely presented as a note. Its application was specific: the removal requirement in note (i) duplicated the effect of condition 1(a), while the inspection-related note was informational.
The judgment also records the applicant’s submission that it had not found a planning-scheme policy preferring poles to containers. The Tribunal did not make an express finding that such a policy existed. Rather, its reasons focus on the suitability of the containers in the landscape and the planning assessment of the sign and its supports.
The source text repeats paragraph numbering in some parts of the reasons. The item references above identify the numbered passages under “Criteria for Decision” as they appear in the supplied judgment.
The case is most relevant to a planning-permit dispute where the permit condition concerns the structure supporting an advertising sign, rather than only the sign’s wording, size or location. It illustrates that the supporting structure may be considered as part of the sign and assessed against the site and surrounding area. Council’s submission on this point is recorded in the reasons, and the Tribunal proceeded to assess the containers’ suitability in the rural landscape.
The case may be useful where a proposed sign support is visually substantial or contrasts with the prevailing character of the area. Here, the containers were double stacked to 5.2 metres, located near road frontages, and proposed in a setting the Tribunal described as rural. The Tribunal’s finding about their undesirability was tied to that context. The decision does not establish that containers will be unsuitable in every location or that poles will always be preferable.
It may also be relevant where the permit authority has considered the visibility of the sign and the appearance of the supporting structure separately. The applicant argued that most of the container face would be covered and that the remaining exposed parts would be painted black. The Tribunal did not treat those submissions as sufficient to displace its own assessment after inspection. That illustrates the importance, in the reasoning of this case, of the actual visual setting and the authority’s assessment of area character.
The decision also addresses arguments about relocation and engineering. The applicant relied on the ability to move containers and their wind resistance. The Tribunal considered those points but observed that poles could also be moved and that wind loading was a design matter. A fact pattern involving a different structure, different visual setting or different evidence about design may raise issues not resolved here.
Finally, the case bears on permit drafting where notes appear alongside conditions. The Tribunal treated the condition as operative and the notes as non-operative, and found one note redundant in light of the condition. Its discussion may be relevant to understanding the distinction the Tribunal drew in this particular permit.
The supplied judgment does not identify any later court or tribunal decision that applied, followed, distinguished, criticised or overruled it. No later-treatment history can be established from the materials provided.
Within this decision, the Tribunal refers to its own general statement that it had “held on many occasions” that notes do not form part of a permit (Reasons, item 9). The judgment does not identify those earlier decisions by citation, so they cannot be listed or analysed here. It also refers to the Austroads Guide to Traffic Engineering Practice (Volume 6 - Roundabouts) in recounting VicRoads’ position on sight-distance matters. That is not a judicial precedent relationship.
The case’s reasoning should therefore be described from its own text: a site-specific assessment of the supports’ landscape impact, the retention of condition 1(a), and the treatment of permit notes. Any account of how later decisions have treated the case would require materials beyond the judgment supplied.
The judgment does not detail the physical design of replacement poles, their precise dimensions, their foundation requirements or the means by which the signs would meet wind-loading requirements. It expressly treats wind loading as a design issue but does not resolve that issue itself.
It also does not provide a detailed visual-impact assessment, such as photomontages, sightlines from particular road approaches or a quantified comparison between the container and pole alternatives. The reasons state the Tribunal’s inspection-based conclusion, but do not set out further technical analysis of the view from each road or the effect of the signs at different distances.
The decision records that the land was within the Urban Growth Zone and discusses the possibility of later development, including a maximum five-year permit period under the described planning-scheme provision. It does not decide how the sign supports should be assessed after a future change in surrounding land use or following approval of a Precinct Structure Plan. Its conclusion is expressly framed around the landscape “at this time”.
There is also an apparent date inconsistency in the supplied account of VicRoads’ correspondence: the reasons state that VicRoads withdrew its objection by letter dated 16 February 2005, although the permit application was lodged in November 2008. The judgment text as supplied does not explain that discrepancy, so no correction or inference can safely be made from it.
The judgment does not identify any later treatment of the decision or elaborate on the reach of its statement about permit notes beyond the immediate permit. Nor does it establish a general rule that a particular support structure must be used for signs in rural or growth-zone settings. Its stated result is tied to the proposal, the existing rural landscape and the condition under review.
This is general legal information, not legal advice. Zoe can make mistakes. Before acting on this, relying on it, or using any draft, have it checked by a qualified Australian lawyer.
It is clear that the Responsible Authority is able to consider the proposed supporting structures of a sign as well as the advertisement area itself as the definition of a sign under Planning Scheme provisions specifically includes any supporting structure as forming part of the sign. As part of any application for a sign therefore the Responsible Authority needs to also determine whether the supporting structures are appropriate within the context of the site, the surrounding area and the relevant Decision Guidelines outlined within the Planning Scheme.
More specifically at Clause 52.05-3 of the Casey Planning Scheme before deciding on an application to display a sign "in addition to Decision Guidelines at Clause 65, the Responsible Authority must consider as appropriate:
Leighton Properties (Vic) Pty Ltd
Casey CC [2009] VCAT 1670
The Council's decision was affirmed. Under section 85(1)(e) of the Planning and Environment Act 1987, Permit No P768/08 was directed to contain condition 1(a), requiring deletion of the shipping containers as supporting structures and their replacement with supporting poles. The order also stated that the notes were not part of the permit.