Land abutting the site's west contains the EastLink toll road, situated on land zoned Industrial 1 with a Public Acquisition Overlay PAO1 defining the toll road's reservation.

Clause 52.05-8. Industrial 1 zone, which is Category 2 with respect to Clause 52.05-8: a permit is required to display a major promotion sign, a floodlit sign and a sky sign.

Clauses 15.01-1, 18.01, 21.07-3, 22.09-2, 52.05-3 and -8.

The site is situated on the eastern side of EastLink and on the southern side of Palmerston Road. It contains a number of modern, single-storey industrial tenancies.

EastLink is a divided toll road with, adjoining the subject site, four lanes in either direction and separated by a grassed median strip.

I inspected the site of the proposed sign and its wider context on 26th November by driving its length in both directions and viewing both the site's context and the signage within and close to the EastLink reservation. I inspected the site and its locality a second time, from the adjoining bike path, on Friday 30th October.

1. Adspace Outdoor Pty Ltd has sought a review of Council's decision to refuse to grant a permit to construct a floodlight major promotion sign (also defined as a pole sign and a sky sign) above an existing industrial building on a site adjoining EastLink. The sign is formed by two panels, joined at their edges adjoining EastLink to form a V. The area of each panel is of about 174 square metres area.
2. All parties accepted that the sign's purpose is solely to provide for advertising that will be seen by travellers on EastLink and that the acceptability of the sign should be judged in relation to its visual effect on either or both the broader length or more local section the toll road.
3. The principal issues in this case are whether the proposed sign would comply with existing policy and more specifically, whether because of its large size and position close to the EastLink, it would be a dominant structure that would adversely affect the visual amenity of, and aesthetic experience provided by, EastLink.
4. EastLink, a toll road of about 39 Km length, contains within its reservation a limited number existing Major promotion signs built to a number of standard sizes[1] and of either a single or V-panel form (i.e. viewable from only one, or from both, directions; the latter requiring observers to view the sign across the central median strip[2]). There appear to be at least two approved-but-not-yet-built floodlit signs.
5. The context for the sign includes an understanding of both a view of the EastLink toll road and of its immediate section. Taking the wider view first, the visual context of EastLink includes all of the following:
   • The highway pavement itself, and the traffic on it
   • The regular and dominating overhead gantries, some being in pairs and carrying the toll cameras, others carrying large lane-advisory signs
   • Various pedestrian or traffic overpasses, the latter again being highly dominant structures, the former being brightly coloured and highly sculptural
   • The many small traffic advisory signs or other information signs set on the road's verge
   • Occasional large sculpture installations
   • A number (9) of approved Major promotion signs already constructed and two approved but as yet not-constructed signs, these signs generally stand in areas having a strong or distinct character and rise well above their surroundings; they generally have a dominating character, are set in areas with a strong character and stand against the skyline
   • EastLink's wider setting, which varies from views across open country or urban areas, both residential or industrial, or cuttings or embankments where the road cuts through higher ground or overpasses occur.
   • Areas of substantial landscaping along the highway's verges, in particular where the land rises in cuttings or embankments, as well as areas of sound walls built reasonably close to the highway
   • In some industrial areas, the end walls of large industrial or warehouse-type buildings carry large, simple Business-identification signs, though usually set some distance back from the toll road.
6. There are large sections of EastLink currently with no signs: apart from the no-go areas in ConnectEast's own signs' policy (see later comment) there are no signs between Canterbury Road and Burwood Road and none between Ferntree Gully and Cheltenham Roads
7. With one exception, signs controlled by ConnectEast are spaced at least 600-800 metres apart while some are isolated. The one exception is a pair of signs north of Ferntree Gully Road, where the signs are about 300 metres apart along the highway but on its opposite sides, with one of these being single-sided, the other a V-panel. None of the EastLink signs appears to be visible from others; in fact, my conclusion is that there is a significant gap in time before the occupants of a vehicle would, after passing one sign, be able to view the next one.
8. Taking a more local view, the sign's site is half way between Whitehorse and Canterbury Roads. There is an existing Major promotion sign (the TAC sign) about 200 metres to the north of the subject site and within the road reserve and there is an overhead toll-gantry between this sign and the site of the proposed sign. The immediate backdrop to the sign, as seen from either direction, is a complexity of small and large commercial and industrial buildings. There is no landscaping to the nearby verges of EastLink or to its median strip.

1. Ms. Kechich and Mr. Jewel argued that the proposed sign does not comply with relevant policy, while Mr. Gobbo argued to the contrary. I have concluded that the test of whether the proposed sign complies with policy must be found in the answer to the question of whether it enhances the visual environment (the amenity and urban character) of EastLink.
2. There was no dispute that the planning scheme provides the responsible authority (and this Tribunal) with the discretion to grant a permit for the proposed sign.
3. Within the Industrial 1 zone, signs are 'Category 2 - Office and industrial' provisions pursuant to Clause 52.05-8 and have a 'low limitation' designation. The purpose of signage in this category is

to provide for adequate identification signs and signs that are appropriate to office and industrial areas.

1. While the Maroondah Planning Scheme has a number of relevant policies, these tend to be of a general nature and the most relevant are the general purpose and decision guidelines of Clause 52.05 and the purposes and guidelines specific to Major promotion signs (Clause 52.05-5). Council has prepared amendments C61 and C106 to its planning scheme, but these are at early stages in their development and must carry less weight than the approved scheme (see later discussion).
2. ConnectEast, which manages the EastLink toll road, also has its own signs policy, though this does not include any helpful details relating to the siting, spacing or number of Major promotion signs. The only clear requirement is that there should be no signs around certain major intersections or in the sections of road between Police Road and Princes Highway or between Mitcham Road and Maroondah Highway, including the Ringwood Bypass. This policy, of course, has no statutory status.
3. There was no argument put that the proposed sign was not appropriate to its industrial setting; the important question was whether it was appropriate in relation to its visibility from EastLink. This in turn depends on whether the proposal complies with relevant policy and whether its size and location is appropriate in relation to the desired amenity of EastLink.
4. Clauses 15.01-2 Urban Design and 18.01-2 Transport System include consistent principles or strategies, expressed in various ways, that are designed to "enhance the public realm" and "where possible enhance the ... amenity desirable for that transport route in the short and long terms". These expressions are so general that they rely, for useful interpretation, on local policies.
5. Clause 21.07 Image and Urban Design includes objectives to achieve attractive, high quality urban places and includes strategies requiring (my emphasis) that:

... advertising signage located in and visible from public areas present a coordinated and high quality image

prevent the proliferation of large advertising panel and "supersite" signs, particularly ... along major transport routes through the municipality.

1. While Clauses 22.09-4 industrial Urban Design and Development Policy and 33.01 Industrial 1 zone (IN1Z) contain performance standards for advertising signs, these are not directed to Major promotion signs and are of little relevance here.
2. Clause 52.05 Advertising Signs contains general purposes and decision guidelines, some of which have relevance. Clause 52.05-6 also contains further provisions specific to Major promotion signs. This sub-section's purposes are, in brief, to achieve high quality visual standards and to avoid causing detriment to the sign's surroundings. Major promotion signs are "encouraged in commercial and industrial locations in a manner which complements or enhances the character of the area". For example, they are discouraged along
   • ... scenic routes, landscaped sections of freeways

• 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 are discouraged from being erected on the roof of a building.

1. Maroondah City Council has prepared amendments C61 and C106. Amendment C61 would provide stronger control over development, including advertising signs, which could affect the visual amenity of transport corridors. Council has exhibited this amendment but although a panel is required it has not yet been appointed. Amendment C106, which is still in a relatively embryonic stage (Council has not received conditional authorisation to proceed to exhibition with this amendment), would introduce a specific EastLink Signage Policy.
2. I conclude that I cannot give any weight to Amendment C61, as the unknown outcome of the panel hearing, and of Council's consideration of the Panel's recommendations, introduce considerable uncertainty into the final form that amendment might take. The same applies, only more so, to Amendment C106. Suffice to say, it is clear that Council intends to adopt a more stringent approach to managing signage along EastLink but the final form such policy will take remains unclear.
3. All the relevant policies seek to protect the amenity and urban character of highways such as EastLink. I must therefore answer the question of whether the proposal complies with policy by considering whether the proposal would in fact provide or support an appropriate urban quality and amenity to EastLink.

Would the proposed Major promotion sign provide an appropriate amenity for EastLink?

1. The submissions and evidence were either in support of or opposing the proposition that the proposed sign would provide an acceptable visual addition to EastLink.
2. The general purposes of Clause 52.05 include such relevant matters as:

• To provide for signs that are compatible with the amenity and visual appearance of an area, including the existing or desired future character.
  • To ensure signs do not contribute to excessive visual clutter or visual disorder.
  • To ensure that signs do not cause loss of amenity or adversely affect ... the ... appearance ... of a road.

3. While its general-purpose decision guidelines include such matters as:
   • ...
   • The compatibility of the proposed sign with the existing or desired future character of the area in which it is proposed to be located.
   • The potential to dominate the skyline.
   • The proportion, scale and form of the proposed sign relative to the streetscape, setting or landscape.
   • The position of the sign, including the extent to which it protrudes above existing buildings or landscape and natural elements.
   • The scale and form of the sign relative to the scale, proportion and any other significant characteristics of the host site and host building.
4. I accept that, in terms of the common meaning, the sign would not cause excessive visual clutter. I have already noted that there is no statement of "desired future character" for the toll road. I consider later the questions of whether it is "compatible with the amenity and visual appearance of an area" or whether it would cause "loss of amenity ... or adversely affect ... the ... appearance ... of (the) road. The sign would fall foul of all the last four dot-points above but so do most of EastLink's Major promotion signs and, in this respect, it would also be consistent with them.
5. The first purpose of Clause 52.05-6 Major promotion signs[3] includes:

To achieve high quality visual standards for the siting of major promotion signs.

1. Relevant decision guidelines for Major promotion signs include (my emphasis):

The effect of the proposed major promotion sign on:

• 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.

When determining the effect of a proposed major promotion sign, the following locational principles must be taken into account:

• Major promotion signs are encouraged in commercial and industrial locations in a manner which complements or enhances the character of the area.
• Major promotion signs are discouraged along forest and tourist roads, scenic routes or landscaped sections of freeways.
• Major promotion signs are discouraged within open space reserves or corridors and around waterways.
• 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.
• 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.

1. Firstly, the objective "achieve high quality visual standards for the site of ..." requires much interpretation to be of any help. In practice, what are "high quality visual standards for the siting of ..." when applied to Major promotion signs?
2. Secondly, the proposed sign is not in an identified significant streetscape and does not affect a significant skyline or other significant location identified in the planning scheme; it does not affect any residential area, heritage place, open space or waterway. It is in an industrial area, not on a forest or tourist road, scenic route or landscaped section of highway. It is not in a location where such signs are specifically discouraged. I accept the evidence that the area which forms a background to the proposed sign, viewed from either direction, does not have a "strong built form character".
3. In effect, the proposed sign's site does not conflict with any of those locations where a Major promotion signs is discourage by the specific Decision Guidelines of Clause 52.05-6.
4. The purposes and decision guidelines of Clause 52.05-6 are supported by the (admittedly generalised) objectives of Clause 21.07 Image and Urban Design, which require:

... advertising signage located in and visible from public areas present a coordinated and high quality image

prevent the proliferation of large advertising panel and "supersite" signs, particularly ... along major transport routes through the municipality.

1. Mr. Jewell submitted that the whole of EastLink reflected a coordinated approach to the urban design aspects of highway design, including its landscaping and various items of infrastructure (advisory and tolling equipment), sculptures and advertising signage. While it is clear that, due to the scale of the road, there must have been a coordinated approach, the only way that this can be perceived, in relation to advertising signs, is in their use of a common typology and detailing, their absence along some sections of road and their spacing. In other respects, ConnectEast's advertising sign strategy is completely opaque.
2. The sign is unquestionably large size and will stand above its background buildings. It will clearly be visually dominant. It is only about 200 metres, from an existing sign to the north. The fact of its position being above an industrial building adjoining, rather than on a freestanding pylon within the highway reserve, would create an incongruity, even if small, with the prevailing pattern of highway signs.
3. On the other hand, the sign fits within the typology of Major promotion signs along EastLink, including its size and dominant character (they are all dominant signs, as such signs are intended to be), together with its imitation of the details of the other EastLink signs. It also does not appear to conflict with most significant, specific decision guidelines in the Planning Scheme that set out where Major promotion signs should be avoided.
4. Unfortunately, we have no social or psychological research that tells us anything about how people (drivers and passengers) experience the visual experience of travelling on such a highway. Consequently, we must have recourse to anecdote and personal views.
5. Mr. Gobbo proposed that I should consider the sign in the wider context of all the elements that constitute the highway scene: pavements, gantry, verges, background scenery and so on. He also submitted that I should consider the whole gamut of the visual experience of the traveller. However, while I accept that the visual experience of the traveller is complex, I conclude that it has a different and greater complexity than suggested by Mr. Gobbo. In my view, one's highway experience is of various elements that fall within various recognisable types: pavements, gantries and overhead signs, advisory signs, the occasional sculptures, the background scene (urban or rural) and, of course, advertising signs. I further believe that people have different levels of awareness of objects making up these different types, depending how relevant each type is to their current situation[4]. It is in this context that we must decide if another example of a particular type of object is detrimental to the highway's overall character and amenity.
6. Mr. Gobbo submitted that I should not consider the closeness of the existing TAC sign to the north and the proposed sign (being about 200 metres) because of the double camera gantry between, which he argued would create a sense of visual separation. I do not agree.
7. The significant feature of the existing highway advertising signs is their considerable spacing in distance and, for the traveller, in the time gaps between. Even the two existing signs that are only 300 metres apart are a single exception, are on opposite sides of the highway and only travellers driving north can read both. In effect, the general character of these large, Major promotion signs on EastLink is that they are very well spaced and each stands remote. Whilst their very scarcity may enhance their impact, that in my mind is an essential part of their character and the particular aspect of amenity that they contribute to the highway.
8. In this respect, I find that the proposed sign does not reflect the observable coordinated image of Major promotion signs on EastLink (although, as it matches the design of the other Major promotion signs, I accept that it would be deemed to be of "high quality"). Further, I find that its presence would, in the context of the sparsity of Major promotion signs along EastLink, constitute a proliferation of such signs. The policy's intention to avoid such proliferation "along major transport routes through the municipality" gives further emphasis to such application of the term "proliferation".
9. While there are many aspects of this proposal that I find acceptable, I have concluded that the sign is nevertheless inappropriate for this particular location, primarily because of its closeness to an existing Major promotion sign a short distance to the north and within the EastLink reservation. On this basis, the only reason that I have concluded that this proposal is unacceptable is its closeness to the sign to the north. The amenity of the highway, in terms of advertising signs, is of such signs being both dominant in scale but also well spaced and this proposal would contravene this aspect of the highway's character.

[1] The mapping provided by Mr. Gobbo indicated the EastLink signs as "portrait" (being higher than wide) or as "spectacular", "supersite" or "landmark" (all these latter being wider than high). Portrait signs are single sided, the others may be either single sided or V-signs (i.e. with two faces).

[2] In which case, it appears that ConnectEast ensures that there is no, or only low, landscaping to the central median)

[3] The second purpose relates to consistency of the planning controls

[4] As just one example, one would expect drivers to have a much greater awareness of overhead lane signs, tolling points and their gantries than would passengers, and comparatively less awareness of other objects, and vice versa and so on.