respondent. The Tribunal affirmed the Responsible Authority's decision and ordered that no permit shall issue in respect of Permit Application 452/2008. The permit application was amended by substituting...
Key principles
The Tribunal concluded that the proposed major promotion sky sign was 'simply too big for the host building, too dominant and imposing in the site context and does not justify...
A sign that 'breaks the skyline' and becomes the dominant element in the streetscape, particularly where there is no backdrop of taller buildings, is contrary to local policy and...
Even where a site sits in a Business 1 zone and satisfies statutory starting points for major promotion signs, the responsible authority and Tribunal must consider dominance,...
Issues before the court
Whether the proposed major promotion sky sign complies with the Port Phillip Planning Scheme policies and decision guidelines (Clause 22.08, Clause...
How to weigh statutory 'starting point' factors (Business 1 zone, no overlays, limited residential interface) against qualitative planning policy...
Plain English Summary
Adspace Group sought approval for a large continuous illuminated roof-top advertisement (123 m2) on the two-storey Greyhound Hotel in St Kilda. The Council refused, and VCAT reviewed the decision. Although the site is in a commercial zone and has features that might normally allow a major promotion sign, the Tribunal inspected the site and concluded the sign would be too large and too visually dominant — breaking the skyline, lacking a tall-building backdrop, and becoming the overriding visual element in the intersection — which is contrary to local outdoor advertising policy and Clause 52.05 decision guidelines. VCAT therefore affirmed the Council's refusal and directed that no permit be issued.
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.
Deep Dive
1,718 words · generated 27/08/2026
What happened
Adspace Group applied for a planning permit to erect a continuous, internally illuminated major promotion sky sign on the roof of the two‑storey Greyhound Hotel at 1 Brighton Road, St Kilda. The proposed sign had a face height of 3 metres, an overall maximum height of 13.5 metres above ground level, lengths of 18 metres (Brighton Road frontage) and 15 metres (Blessington Street frontage) with curved corner elements, a total advertising area of 123 square metres, an 800 mm setback from the parapet and a black metal base reaching 1.6 metres above the parapet. The Port Phillip City Council refused the application citing inconsistency with the Council’s Outdoor Advertising Policy (Clause 22.08), Clause 52.05 of the Scheme (major promotion sign controls), and adverse effects on the host building and the character of the area (Summary [2]; Information).
Cited legislation
1 cited instrument linked from this judgment.
Adspace sought review at VCAT under s77 of the Planning and Environment Act. The Tribunal conducted a hearing (evidence from town planners and an urban designer), inspected the site in day and night conditions, allowed amended plans to be substituted under s64 of Schedule 1 of the VCAT Act, and ultimately affirmed the Council’s refusal; no permit was to issue (Order; Procedural matters [1]; Site inspection).
Why the court decided this way
The Tribunal’s decision turned on an evaluative application of local policy and Clause 52.05 decision guidelines to the factual context of the site and the physical attributes of the proposed sign.
Core legal framework:
Clause 22.08 (Outdoor Advertising Policy) sets objectives including that signage should not dominate the building to which it is fixed, should not project above the skyline or profile of a building, should not obscure architectural features and should avoid visual disorder and clutter. The policy also sets location and illumination requirements and particular guidance on sky signs and signs visible from major roads (Planning Scheme provisions and policy).
Clause 52.05 (advertising signs) and the decision guidelines for major promotion signs (Clause 52.05-3) require considering the effect of a major sign on significant streetscapes, skylines, host buildings, heritage places, and discourages signs that will be dominant or project above rooflines where there is a strong built-form character (Clause 52.05-3).
The Tribunal accepted that the site had some favourable statutory starting points: Business 1 zoning, no overlays, limited residential interfaces and high vehicle traffic (Basis of Decision [1]; Context [5]). However, it found the sign’s physical characteristics, especially its continuous form, advertising area of 123 m2, its height and its protrusion above the roofline with no tall-building backdrop, would render it visually dominant from multiple vantage points and particularly at night because it was internally illuminated (Context [6]-[9]). The Tribunal emphasised that local policy discourages sky signs that 'break the skyline' or become the dominant element in the streetscape; on that criterion the sign failed (Context [7], [8]; Host building [5]).
On host‑building relationship, although the sign incorporated a setback and black cladding to separate it visually from the hotel, the Tribunal found the scale of the sign relative to the two‑storey art‑deco hotel (the cladding and sign together would be more than half the existing building height) caused the sign to dominate and detract from the building’s architectural integrity (Host building [1]-[6]). The lack of a backdrop of taller buildings meant the sign would be read 'entirely against the sky', accentuating prominence (Context [10]).
Weighing competing policy objectives, permissive commercial zoning versus local policy aim to avoid dominance, the Tribunal concluded the policy reasons for refusal prevailed and directed that no permit be granted (Conclusion [1]-[2]).
Before and after state of the law
Before: The Planning Scheme contained a balanced set of rules that on their face accommodate major promotion signs in commercial/industrial locations, but simultaneously set strong qualitative controls (local policy Clause 22.08 and Clause 52.05 decision guidelines) to guard against skyline intrusion, host‑building domination and visual clutter. The Scheme therefore requires case-by-case contextual assessment.
After: The Tribunal’s decision reinforces the interpretive approach that permissive zone settings do not automatically compel approval of major signs. Even where the technical statutory 'boxes' are ticked (Business 1 zone, no overlays, limited residential exposure), the Tribunal will apply local policy and Clause 52.05 locational and decision guidelines, with particular attention to dominance, skyline impact, backdrop and host‑building integrity. The decision therefore underscores that qualitative urban-design factors may outweigh zoning permissibility in sign cases.
Key passages with plain-English translation
"I have found that the sign is simply too big for the host building, too dominant and imposing in the site context and does not justify approval." (Summary [4]).
Plain English: The Tribunal’s main factual finding was that in size and visual impact the sign overwhelms the hotel and the intersection setting, so it should not be approved.
"Put succinctly I think the sign is too dominant in its context and too big for the host building." (Basis of Decision [1]).
Plain English: The Tribunal concluded dominance relative to context and host building was decisive.
"I think the length, height and advertising area of 123 square metres will result in the sign being a visually dominant feature ... from a number of approaches and vantage points." (Context [7]).
Plain English: Because of its dimensions, the sign would be the most noticeable element from many directions.
"The protrusion of the sign above the hotel building with no backdrop of buildings beyond ... will contribute to the dominance of the sign on its environment." (Context [8]).
Plain English: The sign sticks up above the roofline and there are no taller buildings behind it; this makes it stand out more.
"For the reasons I have outlined above I conclude that no permit should be granted." (Conclusion [2]).
Plain English: The Tribunal refused the application.
Each of these passages ties factual detail (size, height, illumination, backdrop) to the Scheme’s qualitative policy tests (avoid dominance, avoid breaking skyline, protect architectural qualities).
What fact patterns trigger this precedent
This decision is directly relevant where:
A proposed major promotion sign is rooftop-mounted on a relatively low-rise host building (two storeys here), and the sign projects above the parapet or skyline.
The site is at an intersection or gateway where visibility from multiple approaches is high and there is a potential for the sign to become the dominant visual element.
The immediate surround lacks a tall-building backdrop, so the sign will be read against the sky rather than being absorbed into a taller urban fabric.
The sign is of substantial advertising area (here 123 m2), continuous in form and internally illuminated, with potential for extended night-time dominance.
The host building has architectural character that might be overshadowed by a large roof-top sign even if the sign does not physically obscure architectural features.
The decision signals caution where any combination of large area, rooftop projection, illumination and lack of backdrop suggests dominance.
How later courts have treated it
The judgment itself refers to a Tribunal decision, Octopus Media Pty Ltd v Port Phillip CC [2008] VCAT 779, but distinguishes it on facts: that sign was wall-mounted, much smaller (19.7 m2), animated, and the site had a Heritage Overlay and closer proximity to the Town Hall (Context [12]). The present decision therefore treats Octopus Media as a non‑binding, fact‑specific point of comparison and distinguishes it rather than applying it as a controlling precedent (precedentRelationships).
Practitioners should regard this VCAT decision as a contextually driven application of Scheme policy: subsequent decision-makers will compare the factual matrix, sign size, attachment type (roof v wall), illumination, backdrop and host‑building proportions, and may follow or distinguish Adspace depending on those facts. The Tribunal’s emphasis on backdrop and dominance provides a clear lens that later cases are likely to use when assessing whether a sign 'breaks the skyline' or 'dominates' a host building.
Still-open questions
Quantitative thresholds: The decision rests on evaluative judgment rather than a bright‑line numeric threshold. What specific combinations of sign area, height and setback will be deemed acceptable in other contexts remains fact-sensitive and unresolved. The Tribunal did not create a numerical rule that a 123 m2 sign is per se unacceptable; rather context determined the outcome.
Night-time illumination controls: The Tribunal emphasised night-time dominance due to internal illumination, yet the Scheme also contemplates illuminated signs with controls (lighting design, time switches). How effective mitigation measures (e.g. reduced luminance, time limits, translucent materials) would affect the outcome in similar fact patterns remains a question for future applicants and decision‑makers.
Impact of future development: The Tribunal noted that future taller development to the south might change backdrop conditions but was not persuaded this would ameliorate dominance. At what stage of speculative or approved-but-not-built development would a Tribunal be prepared to defer to future context is unresolved.
Role of integrated design features: The Tribunal acknowledged design measures (setback, black cladding, curved form) but still found dominance. How much weight design integration should carry when set against sheer area and projection remains a discretionary judgment.
Interaction with heritage vistas: The Tribunal found the sign would not 'interrupt' views to the Town Hall given the wide intersection separation, yet still would become the most visually compelling element. The boundary between 'not interrupting' and 'overshadowing' heritage significance could be tested in future cases where heritage proximity is closer.
Precedential weight: As a VCAT member decision, Adspace is persuasive within Victoria; its application in other Planning Panels or Courts will depend on factual similarity. How appellate courts might treat the evaluative emphasis on 'backdrop' and 'dominance' remains to be seen.
For practitioners, the decision highlights that design and zoning permissibility alone may be insufficient where local policy expressly guards against skyline intrusion and dominance. Factual demonstration that a sign will not be the dominant visual element in multiple viewlines, or that mitigation measures will sufficiently reduce perceived dominance, will be central to future permit success.
Disclaimer: This is a structured, source‑grounded summary and analysis of Adspace Group v Port Phillip CC [2009] VCAT 1636 based only on the judgment text provided. It is legal information, not legal advice. I can make mistakes and may have missed nuances in the judgment. Before you rely on this for decision-making, get a qualified Australian lawyer to check it.
Judgment (68 paragraphs)
[1]
Adspace Group v Port Phillip CC [2009] VCAT 1636 (31 July 2009)
[2]
Application under Section 77 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 against refusal to grant a permit. Port Phillip Planning Scheme. Business 1 Zone. Major promotion sign. Context. Host building.
Pursuant to clause 64 in schedule 1 of the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act1998, the permit application is amended by substituting amended plans identified as drawing numbers S1 and S2 dated 15 May 2009 and Marked VCAT Issue.
The decision of the Responsible Authority is affirmed. No permit shall issue in respect of Permit Application 452/2008.
[5]
Mr Stuart McGurn, Town Planner of Fulcrum Town Planners Pty Ltd
[6]
Mr Tim Biles, Town Planner of Message Consultants Australia Pty Ltd.
[7]
Mr David Islip, Urban Designer and Heritage Advisor
[8]
The proposal is to erect an internally illuminated major promotion sky sign on the roof of the two storey Greyhound hotel building. The sign comprises the following:
[9]
A face height of 3 metres and an overall maximum height of 13.5 metres above ground level.
A length of 18 metres to the Brighton Road frontage, 15 metres to the Blessington Street frontage together with a curved corner element of 4 metres on both sides.
The sign is continuous in length and will have a total advertising area of 123 square metres.
The sign is setback 800mm from both street frontages and will sit above a black clad metal base that reaches a height of 1.6 metres above the parapet of the building.
Pursuant to Clause 34.01-6 advertising requirements are at Clause 52.05. Signage in the Business 1 zone is subject to the Category 1 - Business areas provisions at Clause 52.05-7. The sign proposed falls within Section 2 - Permit required due to its size, height, lighting and location.
[12]
Relevant Policies and Provisions of the Port Phillip Planning Scheme
[13]
Clauses 11, 12, 14 and 19.03 of the State Planning Policy Framework.
[14]
Clauses 21 Municipal Strategic Statement and 22.08 Outdoor Advertising Policy.
[15]
The review site is located on the south west corner of Brighton Road and Blessington Street, opposite the St Kilda town hall. A two storey hotel, the Greyhound, exists on the site and is currently undergoing renovation.
[16]
Abutting to the south is a commercial two storey building used for auto repairs although a permit has been granted to construct a four storey apartment complex on this site. [1] To the west is a laneway with dwellings further west facing either Blessington Street or Irymple Avenue.
[17]
To the north west is a recently completed car wash and kebab shop on the angled corner of Blessington and Carlisle Streets.
[18]
To the east is the St Kilda town hall and to the north east are commercial buildings separated from the review site by the wide intersection of Brighton Road and Carlisle Street. Both these roads are busy streets carrying significant amounts of traffic and containing tram routes.
[19]
The Tribunal inspected the review site and surrounds during the day and at night on 24 June 2009.
[20]
This case concerns a proposal for a large promotional sky sign on top of an existing two storey building at the intersection of Brighton Road and Blessington Street in St Kilda.
Port Phillip City Council refused the application on the following grounds:
The proposal is contrary to the provisions of the City of Port Phillip's Outdoor Advertising Policy at Clause 22.08 of the Port Phillip Planning Scheme.
The proposal is contrary to the provisions of Clause 52.05 of the Port Phillip Planning Scheme.
The proposal is contrary to the character of the host building, the character of the wider area including surrounding heritage buildings.
The applicant submitted that the proposed sign should be supported given that it would add vitality and colour to the intersection, it would not add to advertising clutter, would have no impact on heritage values or residential amenity, raises no traffic safety issues and is of an acceptable size for the host building and the broad scale context of the site.
Having inspected the review site and surrounds, considered the submissions, evidence and the planning controls and policies contained in the Port Phillip Planning Scheme (the 'Scheme'), I have found that the sign is simply too big for the host building, too dominant and imposing in the site context and does not justify approval. My reasons follow.
There are various provisions and policies in the Scheme that relate to advertising signs that I have referred to above. Of particular relevance is the local policy at Clause 22.08 Outdoor Advertising that contains the following objectives:
[23]
To ensure that commercial businesses are able to display sufficient signage to adequately identify their premises and promote the business, the goods they sell or the services they offer.
[24]
To ensure that signs achieve maximum effectiveness without being excessive in their size, number or appearance.
[25]
To ensure that the architectural qualities and features of buildings are not obscured by signage.
[26]
To ensure that the size, position and amount of signage adds to the vitality and interest of the urban environment.
[27]
To protect the visual amenity of the locality by avoiding visual disorder and clutter.
[28]
To ensure that outdoor advertising does not cause loss of amenity or have a detrimental effect on the natural or built environment or the safety, appearance or efficiency of any public place.
[29]
This policy requires a number of matters to be taken into account when considering an application for a sign including the following (selected as relevant to this application):
[30]
Signage should not dominate the building to which it is fixed or the property on which it is sited.
[31]
Signage should not project above the skyline or profile of a building....
[32]
Signage should not obscure architectural features and detailing, windows and door openings or verandahs, particularly on buildings of identified heritage significance or in Heritage Overlay areas.
[33]
Signage should not interfere with the function of traffic signals and necessary control and directional signage.
[34]
Except in Heritage Overlay areas, signage may be erected in the locations shown on Diagram 1 provided that no more than two above verandah signs are erected.
[35]
Signage should not be erected in the locations shown in Diagram 2.[2]
[36]
Below verandah signage in Heritage Overlay areas, and all signage in other areas may be internally illuminated where the following requirements are met:
[37]
The light source should be designed to illuminate the sign and minimise light spillage onto other surfaces
Automatic time switches are provided to turn off the illumination during early morning hours.
[38]
Signage should not be animated and should not include flashing or running lights.
[39]
Sky signs mounted on buildings or other structures which have exposure to or are directed toward the Westgate Freeway or other main roads will only be permitted where the following requirements are met to the satisfaction of the responsible authority:
[40]
They do not break the skyline or otherwise dominate the 'host buildings' to which they are attached.
They do not detract from the architectural integrity of the 'host building'.
They do not become the dominant element in the streetscape and do not detract from the overall character of the area.
Support structures are designed so that they are not unattractive, do not contribute to visual clutter, and do not become as dominant as the signage itself.
[41]
Clause 52.05 of the Scheme relates to advertising signs and has the following purpose:
[42]
To regulate the display of signs and associated structures.
[43]
To provide for signs that are compatible with the amenity and visual appearance of an area, including the existing or desired future character.
[44]
To ensure signs do not contribute to excessive visual clutter or visual disorder.
[45]
To ensure that signs do not cause loss of amenity or adversely affect the natural or built environment or the safety, appearance or efficiency of a road.
[46]
Clause 52.05-3 of the Scheme relates specifically to major promotion signs and has the following purpose:
[47]
To achieve high quality visual standards for the siting of major promotion signs.
[48]
To ensure that the signs are not detrimental to the appearance of their surroundings or the safe and efficient operation of the route through the application of consistent planning controls.
[49]
Decision guidelines that apply to all applications for signs are provided at Clause 52.05-3 and specific decision guidelines that apply to major promotion signs include the following:
[50]
Before deciding on an application, in addition to the decision guidelines in Clause 52.05-2[3] and Clause 65, the responsible authority must consider, as appropriate:
[51]
The effect of the proposed major promotion sign on:
[52]
Significant streetscapes, buildings and skylines.
The visual appearance of a significant view corridor, viewline, gateway location or landmark site identified in a framework plan or local policy.
Residential areas and heritage places.
Open space and waterways.
[53]
When determining the effect of a proposed major promotion sign, the following locational principles must be taken into account:
[54]
Major promotion signs are encouraged in commercial and industrial locations in amanner which complements or enhances the character of the area.
[55]
Major promotion signs are discouraged along forest and tourist roads, scenic routes or landscaped sections of freeways.
[56]
Major promotion signs are discouraged within open space reserves or corridors and around waterways.
[57]
Major promotion signs are discouraged where they will form a dominant visual element from residential areas, within a heritage place or where they will obstruct significant viewlines.
[58]
In areas with a strong built form character, major promotion signs are encouraged only where they are not a dominant element in the streetscape and except for transparent feature signs (such as neon signs), are discouraged from being erected on the roof of a building.
[59]
I acknowledge that this type and size of sign have a legitimate place in the city and are specifically accommodated in the Scheme. I agree with Mr McGurn that the review site provides a good statutory starting point from which to contemplate such a sign. It is within a Business 1 zone where there are minimal limitations on advertising, no overlays apply to the land, there are limited interfaces with residential properties, the location is at a broad intersection, there are no traffic safety concerns and no objections were lodged to the application. While the site 'ticks these statutory boxes' I am not persuaded that the proposed sign is acceptable. Put succinctly I think the sign is too dominant in its context and too big for the host building. I address these two issues in turn.
[60]
Although Mr Biles and Mr McGurn agreed that the projection of the sign above the roofline was contrary to local policy they both found it acceptable in the broad, vehicle dominated context and having regard to the 'floating' appearance created by the 800mm setback from the parapet and the 1.6 metre height separation from the roof.
Mr Biles gave evidence that the sign would mark the intersection in a potentially more interesting manner than the current condition, is far enough away from the Town Hall to avoid detracting from that building, will create a simple and elegant form, will reinforce the 'edge' of the intersection and provide visual interest and an improved sense of vitality. It was Mr Biles' evidence that at night the sign would be a 'coloured slide' in the sky and become part of the illumination of the area that includes high street lighting, extensive traffic lights, the illuminated town hall and the softer illumination from signage on the hotel.
It was Mr McGurn's evidence that the sign, while prominent, will not be a dominating or intrusive element in the streetscape and will visually enhance the character of the area. He said that while the sign 'breaks the skyline', its overall size, location on the building and its siting at a major intersection enables to context to appropriately absorb and 'hold' a sign of this size. Mr McGurn gave evidence that although the sign may be more prominent at night, the effect would not be unreasonable given the context of a highly lit and highly urbanised environment.
Ms Cincotta submitted that the sign is specifically designed in terms of height, size, location and illumination to achieve visual domination and this is not appropriate in an area that contains civic, commercial and residential uses including the iconic town hall and that is characterised by lack of this sort of sign. She relied on the evidence of Mr Islip that the sign will be dominant at the intersection and that the sign is inconsistent with the advertising policies of the Scheme. Ms Cincotta referred to a decision of the Tribunal in Octopus Media Pty Ltd v Port Phillip CC[4] for a major promotion sign at 114 Carlisle Street, which is diagonally opposite the review site, and submitted that the findings in that decision, at least in part, support a decision to reject the current proposal.
[61]
Mr McGurn's evidence was that the sign has been carefully designed to complement the host structure having regard to the following:
The sign is stepped back from the respective facades of the host building and effectively separated from the building by the insertion of black cladding to the underside of the sign.
The overall size of the sign will not dominate the building and the proportions of the sign are less than the host structure.
The visual separation from the host building will mean that the sign will not compete with the hotel.
Mr Biles' evidence was that the sign and the host building work to visually complement one another having regard to :
The sign is visually separated from the host building and setback so it does not diminish the form of this structure.
The sign is designed to float above the parapet of the hotel in a manner that will not erode the quality of that building.
The architectural features of the host building are not obscured.
The structures associated with the signage area designed to ensure that the sign works with the host building in form and shape so that there is an 'integrated' design solution
The logo box will be integrated into the signage.
Ms Cincotta submitted that the host building is a good example of a substantial two storey art deco structure and the signage proposed would adversely affect the architectural integrity of that place due to size, relative proportions, illumination and location above the building. She relied on the evidence of Mr Islip that the proposed sign would detract from the architectural character and proportions of the Greyhound Hotel and dominate that building.
I agree that the sign will not obscure architectural features of the modified art deco hotel on the review site and meets local policy in that regard. However, I find that the size and location of the sign will dominate and detract from the building.
I accept that the black cladding between the roof and the sign will provide demarcation between the elements but I think that the sheer scale of the sign and the protrusion above the roof line will result in the sign being the dominant and overpowering component of the building. This is contrary to local policy that seeks to avoid sky signs that break the skyline or dominate the 'host buildings' to which they are attached.
[62]
I acknowledge the 'catch 22' situation that can exist in relation to major signs, referred to by Mr Gobbo, whereby policy seeks to maintain the character of areas without existing major signs and concurrently avoid additional signs in areas where there are existing signs to minimise visual clutter. However, as with most planning decisions, a balance between competing policy objectives must be reached. In this review I am not satisfied that a sign of the large size and significant height proposed can be complementary to the location or host building.
For the reasons I have outlined above I conclude that no permit should be granted. I will direct the decision of the decision of the Responsible Authority be affirmed.
[63]
[1] I was advised at the hearing that there was an application for permit lodged with Council for a 5 storey mixed use development on this site.
[64]
[2] Diagram 2 shows unacceptable locations for signs and includes signs projecting above the roofline of a building in this category.
[65]
[3] The Scheme incorrectly refers to Clause 52.05-2 as containing the decision guidelines. This clause contains application requirements and the decision guidelines are at Clause 52.05-3.
[5] An exception to this is an animated business sign displayed at the kebab shop on the angled corner of Carlisle and Blessington Streets that Council advised was erected without a permit and is the subject of enforcement action.
[68]
[6] The St Kilda Town Hall is included in Heritage Overlay HO 63 of the Scheme.
Parties
Applicant/Plaintiff:
Adspace Group
Respondent/Defendant:
Port Phillip CC [2009] VCAT 1636
Legislation Cited (1)
Environment Act 1987
AI Analysis
Outcomerespondent
Disposition:
The Tribunal affirmed the Responsible Authority's decision and ordered that no permit shall issue in respect of Permit Application 452/2008. The permit application was amended by substituting amended plans dated 15 May 2009 (VCAT Issue) but the substantive decision to refuse remains. (Order [1]-[2]; Conclusion [2]).
The sign is proposed at the south western corner of Brighton Road and Blessington Street with Carlisle Street intersecting to the north. My inspection of the site and surrounds leads me to make the following observations regarding the site and surrounds:
The intersection is wide and carries significant amounts of traffic.
There is limited built form defining the edges of the intersection with the Greyhound Hotel being the only significant hard edge.
Advertising signs in and around the intersection are business signs and low key.[5]
There is low built form perhaps surprising for such a large intersection on two main roads.
The iconic St Kilda Town Hall is located in a recessed garden setting but highly visible to the intersection when approaching from the west and north.
The intersection performs a pedestrian function but is not particularly pedestrian friendly due to the expanse of road.
There is limited landscaping around the review site in contrast to the town hall and the median strip trees to the north in St Kilda Road and to the south in Brighton Road.
At night the intersection is well lit by high street lighting and the illuminated town hall is a focus.
What is before me is a very large promotional sign that Mr Gobbo referred to as perhaps the biggest such sign in Melbourne. He referred to other signs that may be of similar size but in a segmented, panel format unlike the single sign structure proposed here. I agree that the continuous form of the sign, described by Mr Biles as sinuous, results in a softer impact than two or three large panels but I am not persuaded that the sign is acceptable in the context I have described nor that it is in accordance with relevant policy and decision guidelines.
I think the length, height and advertising area of 123 square metres will result in the sign being a visually dominant feature in this setting from a number of approaches and vantage points in and around the review site. The illumination of the sign will mean that this dominance will extend into the night time in a setting where there is a low level of illuminated signage. Such dominance is contrary to the decision guideline for major promotion signs that seeks to encourage signs in areas with strong built character only when they are not a dominant element in the streetscape. There is no question, in my opinion, that this sign would be the dominant element in the streetscape and intersection generally.
In my view, the protrusion of the sign above the hotel building with no backdrop of buildings beyond, combined with the size of the sign, will contribute to the dominance of the sign on its environment. It will be read as the overriding feature at the intersection despite its expanse and heavily trafficked nature and this is not an outcome sought in local policy that specifically seeks signage that does not project above the skyline or profile of a building.
I note that future development proposed on the land to the south of the review site may change the backdrop in some views but I am not persuaded that this will avoid the sign being intrusive in the setting.
Mr McGurn referred to examples of major signs that were intrusive and inappropriate in their setting and others that he found successful. An example of a major sign that he found appropriate is the one above Young and Jackson's Hotel on the corner of Flinders and Swanston Street. That sign includes a setback from the parapet, a black mesh separation between the building and the sign and incorporates a single structure that curves around the corner, all elements that are similar to the sign before me. The key difference that distinguishes that sign from the proposal before me is the backdrop of tall buildings and the presence of at least one other major sign that, in my opinion, reduces the prominence of the sign. The sign on the Greyhound hotel is seen entirely against the sky as a backdrop which I consider accentuates its prominence to an unacceptable degree.
I have found the sign is not acceptable in the setting for reasons of dominance but make the following comments in relation to concerns raised by Council. I accept that the sign would be visible in the same viewline as St Kilda Town Hall from some vantage points but I do not share Ms Cincotta's concern that the sign would interrupt these views. Furthermore, I consider the separation of the review site by the wide intersection will avoid the sign detracting from the heritage values of the town hall,[6] although I agree that the substantial nature of the sign would result in it becoming the most visually compelling feature in the intersection rather than the town hall.
I have read the Octopus Media decision and although the site referred to is at the same intersection as the site before me I find there are significant distinguishing features that limit comparison including:
The sign proposed in Octopus Media had an advertising area of 19.7 square metres, was animated and located on a wall. These are significantly different features to the proposal before me.
The site in Octopus Media is affected by a Heritage Overlay and is in a location closer to the Town Hall than the review site. These factors affect the matters to be taken into account in assessing an application for a sign.
The proportion of the sign in relation to the hotel is such that the cladding and sign will be more than half the height of the existing building. I agree with Mr Islip that this proportion of sign to building without a backdrop of other high buildings results in the sign dominating the host building.