Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal|2025-10-07

The applicant provided planning evidence from Mr Song who supports the imposition of the electronic promotion sign on the roof top of the single storey shops. He supports the proposal and argues the proposed sign adds to the vibrancy of the neighbourhood activity centre and is supported by the purpose of the zone. He states that the sign will be readily observable to pedestrians and motorists whilst appearing dominant in the relatively low scale retail shopping strip.
I am not persuaded that the proposed sign adds vibrancy to the shopping precinct and supported by the purpose of the zone. If I was to have regard to the purpose of the zone, vibrancy in the purpose of the zone relates to the creation of vibrant uses and has no regard to the display of signs.[10] But I agree with Mr Song, that the proposed sign is in context with the purpose of the zone at clause 52.05-11 (Category 1 - Commercial areas) where the purpose is to provide for identification and promotion signs and signs that add vitality and colour to commercial areas.
The illumination of shopfronts, streetlights, traffic signals and railway lights are not comparable to a large electronic promotional sign that changes its display throughout the day/evening. Those existing nighttime elements are static, incidental and integrated into the commercial buildings and functioning of a local shopping strip. By contrast, the proposed sign would introduce a dynamic, visually dominant element that is out of context with the heritage streetscape. I am not persuaded by the vibrancy argument, rather, I find that the proposal would disrupt, rather than contribute to, the established character. The concern as I have outlined above, relates to the impact on the heritage precinct.

Figure 1 - visual amenity existing condition.[11]

Figure 3 - visual amenity proposed conditions (outline in red border).

For the reasons given above, the decision of the responsible authority is affirmed. No permit is granted.

[1] The submissions and evidence 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 of this material will be cited or referred to in these reasons.

[2] Nearmap August 2025 with the review site shown with red arrow.

[3] View of the review site (outlined in red) as viewed from High Street, facing west. Figure 7 of statement of heritage evidence, Ms White, Llovell Chen, page 9 (July 2025).

[4] Confirmed by Mr Song evidence page 4.

[5] VicPlan Map - boundary of Heritage Overlay HO352 - Glen Iris Shopping Centre Precinct. It includes 1511-1545 (odd numbers) and 1600-1628 (even numbers respectively) High Street, Glen Iris. Map taken from Ms White's evidence page 7.

[6] City of Stonnington Heritage Design Guidelines July 2017.

[7] Page 13 of the Glen Iris Village Shopping Precinct Proposed Conservation Area, prepared by Bryce Rayworth Pty Ltd dated March 1998.

[8] As defined in City of Stonnington Heritage Design Guidelines July 2017

[9] Figure 14, page 15 of Ms White's evidence.

[10] Clause 34.01-4 states that a permit is required to construct a building or to construct or carry out works, it does not state that this includes the construction and putting up for a display of a sign. By operation of clause 62.02-2, a permit for the sign is not required pursuant to the provisions of the C1Z at clause 34.01. A permit is required by way of clause 52.05 and therefore the purpose of the zone is irrelevant.

[11] Eagle Vision, supplementary information provided 6 August 2025.

Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 1998

Environment Act 1987

Adspace Outdoor Pty Ltd v Stonnington CC [2025] VCAT 874 (7 October 2025)

Adspace Outdoor Pty Ltd v Stonnington CC [2025] VCAT 874

At a glance

Court

Decision date

Source

Judgment (17 paragraphs)

Parties

Legislation Cited (3)

Cases Cited (1)

Adspace Outdoor Pty Ltd v Stonnington CC [2025] VCAT 874 (7 October 2025)