Response from other parties to application for costs

1. No later than 4.00pm on 23 January 2026, the responsible authority must give to the Tribunal and the parties:

(a) a submission which explains its position in respect of the costs application, including any basis on which it opposes the application; and

(b) a copy of any documents relied on in its submissions.

1. Unless varied by further order of the Tribunal, the hearing of any application for costs will be conducted entirely on the basis of documents, without the appearance of the parties or their representatives (i.e. 'on the papers') at 10:00am on 2 February 2026. No attendance is required.
2. If you are the applicant in this proceeding, you may be required to pay a daily hearing fee before the hearing commences.

1. If a party objects to the application for costs being determined entirely on the basis of documents, without the appearance of the parties or their representatives (i.e. 'on the papers'), they must advise the Tribunal and the parties of this by 4:00pm on 27 January 2026 and give reasons for their objection.

To construct and put up for display a sign that is an 'electronic sign', 'promotion sign', 'sky sign'. The sign will display static electronic images that will change at 30 second intervals.

The sign display area is 3 metres high and 5 metres wide (15 square metres in area). The sign display sits on a 600 millimetre high supporting structure. The overall height of the sign is 3.6 metres.

The sign is to be mounted on the roof of the existing single storey building on the land. It is to be angled at 45 degrees to face towards the south-western corner of the building and the intersection of High Street and Robbs Parade / Elm Street. The sign is to be set back 1.95 metres from High Street and 1.5 metres from Robbs Parade.

Application under section 79 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 (Vic) - to review the failure to grant a permit within the prescribed time.[1]

Commercial 1 Zone ('C1Z'); Development Contributions Plan Overlay - Schedule 1 ('DCPO1'); Design and Development Overlay - Schedule 14 ('DDO14')

Clause 34.01-4: To construct or carry out works in the C1Z.

Clause 43.02-2: To construct or carry out works in the DDO14.

Clause 52.05-11: To construct and put up for display a sign that is an 'electronic sign', 'promotion sign', 'sky sign'.

Clauses 02.03, 15.01, 34.01, 43.02, 52.05, 65.01, and 71.

The site is located on the east side of High Street, at the corner of Robbs Parade and High Street.

The site is rectangular. Its High Street frontage is 6.05 metres wide, and its Robbs Parade side frontage is 19.36 metres long.

A single storey building occupies the site. A verandah extends across the High Street frontage and wraps around part of the Robbs Parade frontage. The building is about 5.5 metres high to the top of the parapet that sits behind the verandah.

The surrounding area is characterised by mostly small retail businesses, with an emerging character of mixed-use developments, including multi-storey apartment buildings.

The site forms part of the Northcote Major Activity Centre in the area north of Separation Street and Arthurton Road. The Northcote Plaza Shopping Centre is about 100 metres to the east, at the end of Robbs Parade.

High Street is a Transport 3 Zone, which is a 'significant municipal road'. Robbs Parade is a local street

An unaccompanied inspection of the site was undertaken before the hearing.

1. This case is about whether a permit should be granted for a sign to be displayed on top of the existing single storey building on the land at 394 High Street, Northcote ('site').
2. The sign fits the definitions of the following sign terms under the Darebin Planning Scheme ('Scheme'):
   • Electronic sign;
   • Promotion sign;
   • Sky sign.[3]
3. The permit applicant has sought this review of the Council's failure to decide on the application.
4. The Council says that a permit should not be granted for the sign. The Council argues that:

The electronic promotion sky sign is considered unacceptable due to scale, visual dominance, illumination, location, and inconsistency with local character. It would adversely affect residential amenity, streetscape quality, pedestrian experience, and the established commercial character. The proposal is contrary to key provisions of the Darebin Planning Scheme and is therefore not supported.[4]

1. The applicant submits that the sign is appropriate for the site and consistent with the orderly planning of the Northcote Major Activity Centre ('Activity Centre') in which the site is located.
2. The Council received five objections to the permit application. VCAT has received a Statement of Grounds ('SOG') from one of the original objectors opposing the application. While they are not a party to this proceeding, I have had regard to their grounds. Their grounds relate to, in summary:
   • light pollution and sleep disruption;
   • negative impacts on mental & physical wellbeing beyond sleep, such as stress, anxiety, and psychological distress;
   • traffic and pedestrian safety;
   • misrepresentation of the area as low amenity;
   • decline in residential property values;
   • unverified economic benefits used as justification; and
   • aesthetic and community disruption.
3. VCAT must decide whether a permit should be granted and, if so, what conditions should apply.

1. The key issues to be decided relate to:
   • the visual impact of the sign on the streetscape character and setting;
   • the scale and design of the sign relative to that of the host building;
   • the impact of the illumination on the amenity of nearby dwellings;
   • impacts on road safety.
2. I find that the sign provides an acceptable outcome in relation to the relevant provisions and policies of the Scheme regarding the issues. I have therefore decided that a permit should be granted subject to permit conditions. My reasons follow.

The visual impact of the sign on the streetscape character and setting is acceptable

1. The Council takes issue with the impact of the proposal on the streetscape and urban design of the surrounding area. Among other things and in summary, the Council submits that:
   • The sign's elevated and illuminated form will create a visually intrusive element.
   • The sign will project prominently above the established commercial frontage, which will interrupt the consistent low-scale parapet line and horizontal rhythm of the surrounding shopfronts.
   • The sign disrupts the visual continuity that defines the character of this section of the Activity Centre.
   • The illumination and 30 second transitions will create a feature that will draw visual attention, detracting from the character of High Street.
   • The sign's brightness and height will appear disproportionate, creating a visually dominant element that disrupts the low-scale character of the area and current and emerging mixed land use context.
   • This part of High Street is a lower intensity retail strip rather than a major intersection or activity hub.
   • The scale, illumination, and elevated placement of the sign do not support a high-quality urban environment and instead will detract from the pedestrian-oriented character of this section of High Street.
   • The elevated siting of the sign shifts visual focus upward rather than maintaining an intimate, street-level environment.
   • The sign creates visual clutter and introduces an overly commercialised feature that diminishes local amenity.
   • The sign is excessive in scale, poorly located and introduces visual clutter into the streetscape.
2. The Council variously refers to the Commercial 1 Zone ('C1Z') provisions at clause 34.01, the signs provisions at clause 52.05, the Urban Design policy at clause 15.01-1S, and the local Signs policy at clause 15.01-1L-03.
3. The objector's SOG also raises concerns about aesthetic impacts and the area's amenity.
4. I am not persuaded by these submissions.
5. I am not persuaded that this section of High Street is of a 'low-scale character' or 'lower intensity retail strip'. Nor am I persuaded that there is a visual continuity that defines the character of this section of High Street. The site is in the C1Z within the Northcote Major Activity Centre, to which the Design and Development Overlay - Schedule 14 ('DDO14') applies. The DDO14 identifies where change will occur. So, while the remaining older/original buildings in the surrounding area may be one or two storeys, this area is expected to undergo, and is experiencing, change to the height and scale of buildings. The emerging character is of taller, multi-storey buildings, which are prominent within their streetscape settings. The six-storey building on the opposite corner of High Street and Robb Street is an example of the emerging character of this area. This is not a 'sensitive', low scale area.
6. The fact that the sign may draw attention does not mean that the sign is incompatible with the streetscape character and setting. By their very nature, promotion signs are expected to be visible and draw some attention. The more relevant considerations relate to the impact of the sign on the streetscape character and setting.
7. I am satisfied that the sign is compatible with the emerging character of the streetscape and setting. While the sign is elevated on top of the existing single storey building, it will not project prominently above the surrounding built form. The sign will sit within a context of taller buildings. This includes the six-storey building on the opposite corner and the two-storey building on the adjoining property to the north ('adjoining building'). The sign will not be higher than the two-storey height of the adjoining building.
8. Even though electronic and sky signs are not common among the signage within this area, this does not make the sign unacceptable. As I have already mentioned, this is a C1Z area and is not a sensitive area. While High Street is not the highest level of road category, it is a significant municipal road with a tram route. Even Robb Street is not a quiet suburban street, it is an access street to the Northcote Shopping Plaza. This is an active commercial area with a variety of commercial uses, particularly at street level, with a variety of signage. Under the C1Z, the application is subject to the 'Category 1' sign provisions at clause 52.05-11. This is the 'minimum limitation' category that has the purpose 'To provide for identification and promotion signs and signs that add vitality and colour to commercial areas'. This is the type of location where electronic, promotion, and sky signs, might reasonably be expected to be seen. Rather than detracting from the character of the street, I am satisfied that the sign will contribute to the vitality and colour of this commercial area, as sought by the sign provisions at clause 52.05-11.
9. I am also satisfied that the sign will not create visual clutter. The sign will be the only sign on top of the building on the site. I acknowledge that there is a sign on the wall of the adjoining building that is visible in views in which the proposed sign will be visible in. However, I am satisfied that the proposed sign will conceal that sign in views from High Street. In effect, the proposed sign will replace a view of an existing sign.
10. I am not persuaded that the proposal is inconsistent with the Urban design policy at clause 15.01-1S. The Urban design policy objective seeks 'To create urban environments that are safe, healthy, functional and enjoyable and that contribute to a sense of place and cultural identity'. Having regard to the associated strategies, the relevant strategies are:

Require development to respond to its context in terms of character, cultural identity and heritage, natural features, surrounding landscape and climate. ...

Ensure that development, including signs, minimises detrimental impacts on amenity, on the natural and built environment and on the safety and efficiency of roads.

Promote good urban design along and abutting transport corridors.

1. I am satisfied that the sign responds to its context in terms of character, for the reasons I have already outlined above. I am also satisfied that the sign minimises detrimental impacts on amenity and the built environment for those same reasons.
2. While the Council says that the sign is contrary to the Urban design policy for a range of other reasons, I find that the Council has misinterpreted or misapplied the policy. For example, while the Council says this policy 'prioritises development that supports a comfortable pedestrian experience', the policy does not include a strategy to this effect. The strategy that the Council relies on seeks to 'Ensure development supports public realm amenity and safe access to walking and cycling environments and public transport'. The sign's location will not impact safe access for pedestrians. Another example is the Council's submission that the sign does not accord with the policy 'expectations for development to minimise visual clutter'. The policy at clause 15.01-1S does not refer to visual clutter.
3. I am also not persuaded that the proposal is inconsistent with the local Signs policy at clause 15.01-1L-03, as relevant to this issue. The Signs policy objective is 'To ensure signs are integrated into development and streetscapes'. The strategies include 'Discourage visual clutter and prevent the proliferation of signs along major gateways, road reservations, commercial/retail areas and industrial estates'. As I have already outlined, I am satisfied that the sign will not create visual clutter. I am also satisfied that the sign will not result in a proliferation of signs within this commercial/retail area. The proposal is for one sign, which will in effect replace a view of an existing sign on the adjoining building.
4. For these reasons, I find that the visual impact of the sign on the streetscape character and setting is acceptable.

The scale and design of the sign relative to that of the host building is acceptable

1. The Council takes issue with the scale of the sign relative to the host building. Among other things, and in summary, the Council submits:
   • The sign significantly exceeds the visual proportions of the single-storey host building and adjacent shopfronts.
   • The sign's height, width and total advertising area result in a visually dominant feature that overwhelms the existing built form.
   • The supporting structure and overall form of the sign do not relate to the architectural language of the existing building.
   • The sign will appear as an added element rather than an integrated feature, introducing bulk and visual clutter above the building.
   • The sign's size dominates the rooftop and low scale built form of the host building, creating a visual imbalance that is out of proportion with the surrounding shops and streetscape.
2. The local signs policy at clause 15.01-1L-03 includes, among others, strategies to:

Design signs to be integrated and visually cohesive elements of the building design.

Ensure signs are designed and located to respect the architectural design of the building on which they are displayed.

1. It is true that the sign is large relative to the High Street frontage of the host building. However, I am not persuaded that the sign significantly exceeds the visual proportions of the host building or creates a visual imbalance. The sign sits within the footprint of the host building and extends to a height of about one storey. I am satisfied that the sign's height, width and total advertising area will not be a visually dominant feature that overwhelms the host building. I am satisfied the sign will be viewed in the context of the adjoining building, which is two-storeys. This will temper the visual impact of the sign. In this regard, I note that even though the sign is a 'sky sign', in most views it will not be viewed as protruding into the skyline. The splay of the sign will result in the sign being viewed with the gabled ended wall of the adjoining building forming a backdrop to the sign.
2. I am not persuaded by the Council that the supporting structure and overall form of the sign does not relate to the architectural language of the existing building. It is true that the sign is not integrated into the built form of the host building. However, in the context that this is a commercial area that is undergoing change, and the fact that the sign will be viewed with the adjoining building as a backdrop, I am satisfied that the sign will not result in unacceptable bulk or visual clutter above the host building. The sign will be visually cohesive within its broader context.
3. For these reasons, I find that the scale and design of the sign relative to that of the host building is acceptable.

The impact of the illumination on the amenity of nearby dwellings will be acceptable

1. The Council takes issue with the compatibility of the sign with the surrounding commercial and residential context. It submits, among other things and in summary, that:
   • The sign will result in unreasonable off-site amenity impacts for nearby sensitive uses.
   • The height, scale and internal illumination of the sign will generate visual intrusion and light spill into nearby residential properties, particularly during evening and night-time hours.
   • The sign's brightness and visibility, particularly after dark, would draw attention to an area where a quieter, more subdued residential environment is expected.
   • This intrusion would diminish the sense of residential comfort and privacy for nearby occupants and fail to provide an appropriate transition between the commercial frontage and adjoining dwellings.
2. The Council's concerns relate to the impact on the apartments on the southern side of Robbs Parade and apartments on the western side of High Street, one property to the south of the intersection of Robbs Parade / Elm Street.
3. The objector's SOG also raises concerns about light pollution and sleep disruption.
4. In support of its submissions, the Council relies on the strategic directions for Environmental risks and amenity at clause 02.03-3 that seeks to 'Manage interfaces and potential conflicts between commercial and industrial land uses and residential land uses'.
5. As relevant, the decision guidelines at clause 52.05 require consideration of:

• The impact of glare and illumination on the safety of pedestrians and vehicles.
• The impact of illumination on the amenity of nearby residents and the amenity of the area.
• The potential to control illumination temporally or in terms of intensity.

1. The fact that the illumination of the electronic sign will draw attention to the sign and that it may be seen from apartments within the Activity Centre, does not necessarily warrant refusal of a permit. What is relevant is the impact of that on the amenity of nearby residents.
2. Regarding the impact on the amenity of nearby residents, I give little weight to the Council's submissions that this is an area where a quieter, more subdued residential environment is expected. Even though residential uses are provided in this area, it is not a residential zone. The site and nearby residential apartments are in the C1Z and a Major Activity Centre that is undergoing change; this is not a quiet residential area. The amenity expectations must therefore be tempered compared to that of a residential area. The amenity expectations of nearby residents must be considered in this context.
3. Regarding the building on the southern side of Robbs Parade, I am satisfied that the angle of the sign will limit the extent to which the sign face will be visible from the apartments in that building. Based on the information available on the layout of that apartment building, I am satisfied it is the apartments at the north-western corner at first and second floor levels (second and third storeys) of that building that may have some view to the face of the sign. There is one apartment in the north-western corners of each of these floor levels. Each of those apartments has a sitting room, two bedrooms, and a balcony that face towards Robbs Parade and the site. With the sign to be located at the equivalent of the first floor level, it is obvious that these two apartments may be impacted by the illumination of the sign.
4. There is no Lighting Impact Assessment for the sign that assesses which of the windows will be impacted by the sign's illumination and to what extent. Based on the plans and the proposed location of the sign, I am satisfied that it is the sitting room windows and balconies of these apartments that will be most affected. The bedroom windows will be near to or beyond the eastern edge of the sign. Those windows may be beyond the 'viewing cone' within which the illumination of the sign panel will be visible.
5. I am persuaded by the applicant's oral submissions that a baffle can be fitted to the south-eastern edge of the sign to reduce or eliminate the visibility of the illuminated sign panel from these apartments. I am satisfied that if such a baffle were fitted to the sign, the amenity impacts on those dwelling will be acceptable.
6. I am satisfied that the apartments that face Robbs Parade to the east of the corner apartments will be beyond the line of the sign and therefore beyond the 'viewing cone' within which the illumination of the sign panel will be visible. I am also persuaded by the applicant that the apartments on the third floor level (and above) will be above the line of the sign and residents would have to look downwards to see the sign. In this context, I am satisfied that any amenity impacts to those apartments will be minimised.
7. I am not as concerned about the visual impact of the illumination on the apartments on the western side of High Street. Those apartments are at least about 30 metres away from the site, and face outwards to High Street. The apartments at first and second storey level have balconies across their front, with their windows set back from the street boundary. So, while angled views to the sign would be available from their balconies, the windows of their habitable rooms are recessed, which will reduce the visibility of the sign. The apartments at the third and fourth storeys similarly face out to High Street, and those levels are above the level of the sign. As such, I am satisfied that the sign will only be visible in angled views downward. This will also make the sign less visible.
8. I am persuaded by the applicant's submissions that the sign must meet the relevant requirements of the Australian Standard AS4282:2023 (Control of the Obtrusive Effect of Outdoor Lighting) ('AS4282:2023') in relation to these nearby residential properties. I am satisfied that this will ensure that the impacts of the illumination of the sign on the nearby dwellings will be appropriately managed. There is no Lighting Impact Assessment for the sign to satisfy me that the illumination of the sign does meet the relevant requirements of the AS4282:2023. However, I am satisfied that a Lighting Impact Assessment to demonstrate this can be required by a permit condition.
9. I am also satisfied that permit conditions can require any changes to the plans for the sign to ensure compliance with the outcomes and recommendations of the Lighting Impact Assessment.
10. The Council has proposed that if a permit is granted that the hours during which the sign is illuminated be limited to 6:00am to 10:00pm. In the context that this is an area that is undergoing change and there is the potential for more apartments to be developed on nearby properties on the opposite side of High Street, I am satisfied limiting the hours is appropriate. However, I will extend the time to 12:00 midnight as well as providing for the Council to consent to varying this requirement.
11. For these reasons, I find that the impact of the illumination on the amenity of nearby dwellings will be acceptable.

Any impacts on road safety will be acceptable

1. The Council takes issue with the impact of the sign on road safety. In summary and among other things it submits that:
   • The brightness and animation of the digital sign have the potential to distract drivers, particularly in a high-volume pedestrian area, posing a risk to road safety and public comfort.
   • Animated and illuminated content can attract driver attention away from the road, increasing the risk of accidents in an area with significant pedestrian activity.
2. The objector's SOG also raises concerns regarding traffic and pedestrian safety.
3. The purpose of the Signs provisions at clause 52.05 includes that signs do not adversely affect the efficiency of a road. The associated decision guidelines at clause 52.05-8 requires consideration of the impact on road safety.
4. I am satisfied that the sign will not have an unacceptable impact on road safety. There is no evidence to support the Council's submissions regarding road safety impacts. On the contrary, the Council's Delegate Report on the permit application shows that the Council's Sustainable Transport Unit has assessed the application against the clause 52.05-8 decision guidelines regarding road safety. The Sustainable Transport Unit comments indicate that, subject to permit conditions, the sign will not, among other things:
   • obstruct a driver's line of sight at an intersection, curve or point of egress from an adjacent property;
   • obstruct a driver's view of a traffic control device, or is likely to create a confusing or dominating background that may reduce the clarity or effectiveness of a traffic control device;
   • dazzle or distract drivers due to its size, design or colouring, or it being illuminated, reflective, animated or flashing; or
   • be likely to be mistaken for a traffic control device, because it contains red, green or yellow lighting, or has red circles, octagons, crosses, triangles or arrow.
5. The Council has proposed that, if a permit is granted, permit conditions be included regarding these matters. I am satisfied that such conditions are reasonable and necessary to ensure that any road safety impacts will be acceptable.
6. For these reasons, I find that any impacts on road safety will be acceptable.

Other issues raised do not warrant refusal of the application

1. I note that I have not responded to all matters raised by the Council and those in the objector's SOG. These include the objector's SOG regarding decline in residential property values and unverified economic benefits used as justification for the sign. I consider those issues to be so peripheral as to carry no weight in my exercise of discretion, are not relevant to my considerations, or are able to be addressed through permit conditions. I do not discuss these further in these reasons.

1. For the reasons given above, the decision of the responsible authority is set aside. A permit is granted subject to conditions.
2. The conditions contained in this Order reflect those proposed by the Council, the submissions of the parties, and my further consideration of the issues and my findings.

1. At the hearing the applicant made an application for costs in the form of the reimbursement of the application fee for this proceeding.
2. This order set out the process for the parties to provide submissions regarding the costs application.
3. The costs application will be heard on 2 February 2026. The hearing will be 'on the papers', with no appearance by the parties. This order provides for a party to object to the application being heard without the appearance of the parties. If an objection is received VCAT will consider whether to convert the hearing to in person or online.

To construct or carry out works, in the Commercial 1 Zone.

To construct or carry out works in the Design and Development Overlay - Schedule 14.

To construct and put up for display a sign that is an 'electronic sign', 'promotion sign', and 'sky sign'.

1. Before the buildings and works and the construction of the sign starts, plans must be approved and endorsed by the responsible authority. When endorsed, the plans will form part of the permit. The plans must:

(a) be prepared to the satisfaction of the responsible authority;

(b) be drawn to scale with dimensions;

(c) submitted in electronic form;

(d) be generally in accordance with the plans forming part of the application and identified as prepared by Maple Media, Drawings TP02, TP03, TP04, Issue No. 02, dated 12/12/2024, but amended to show the following details:

1. a baffle fitted to the south-eastern edge of the sign to reduce or eliminate the visibility of the illuminated sign panel from the apartments at the north-western corner at first and second floor levels (second and third storeys) of the building on the southern corner of High Street and Robbs Parade;
2. a notation confirming that the signs must not give a veiling luminance to a driver of a vehicle on the adjacent roads of greater than 0.25c/m2, throughout the driver's approach to the sign;
3. a notation confirming variable messages on the sign must remain static and unchanged for a minimum period of 30 seconds; and
4. any modifications/annotations required by the Lighting Impact Assessment required under condition 3 below.

1. The location and details of the sign (including the size, nature, panels, position and construction), and any supporting structure, as shown on the endorsed plans, must not be altered without the written consent of the Responsible Authority.

1. Before the plans are endorsed under condition 1 of this permit, a Lighting Impact Assessment must be approved by the responsible authority. The Lighting Impact Assessment must:

(a) be prepared to the satisfaction of the responsible authority;

(b) be prepared by a suitably qualified person;

(c) be submitted to the responsible authority in electronic form;

(d) demonstrate compliance with the Australian Standard AS4282.2023 (Control of the Obtrusive Effect of Outdoor Lighting), including in relation to the residential apartments on the southern corner of High Street and Robbs Parade, and the residential apartments at 405 High Street (on the western side of High Street).

The responsible authority may consent in writing to vary any of these requirements.

1. At all times, the sign and any advertisement displayed, must be displayed in accordance with the endorsed Lighting Impact Assessment.

Compliance with documents approved under this permit

1. At all times what the permit allows must be carried out in accordance with the requirements of any document endorsed under this permit to the satisfaction of the responsible authority.

1. The sign display must not be reflective, dynamic, animated, contain flashing or intermittent light, or change colour.
2. Any change to brightness levels of the sign display must only be applied during an image transition, not while an advertisement image is being displayed.
3. The sign and any advertisement displayed must not:

(a) dazzle or distract drivers due to its colouring;

(b) be able to be mistaken for a traffic signal because it has, for example, red circles, octagons, crosses or triangles;

(c) be able to be mistaken as an instruction to drivers.

1. The sign lighting must be designed, baffled and located to the satisfaction of the responsible authority to prevent any adverse effect on adjoining and nearby land, in accordance with the Lighting Impact Assessment endorsed in accordance with condition 3.
2. The sign must only be illuminated during the following hours:

(a) between the hours of 6:00am and 12:00 midnight.

The responsible authority may consent in writing to vary these requirements

1. The sign(s), including the structure and content, must be constructed and maintained to the satisfaction of the responsible authority.

1. This permit as it relates to development (construction of buildings and works) and putting the sign up for display will expire if:

(a) The development is not completed, and the sign is not put up for display, within three (3) years of the issued date of this permit.

In accordance with Section 69 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 (Vic), an application may be submitted to the responsible authority for an extension of the periods referred to in this condition.

1. This permit expires 15 years from the date of issue of the Permit. On expiry of this permit, the sign and all structures built specifically to support and illuminate the sign must be removed.

[1] Section 4(2)(d) of the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 1998 (Vic) states a failure to make a decision is deemed to be a decision to refuse to make the decision.

[2] The submissions of the parties, any supporting exhibits given at the hearing and the statements of grounds filed have all been considered in the determination of the proceeding. In accordance with the practice of the Tribunal, not all this material will be cited or referred to in these reasons.

[3] These sign categories were confirmed with the parties at the commencement of the hearing.

[4] Council's written submission, [91].