2. The location, size, material of construction and degree of illumination of the sign shown on the endorsed plans must not be altered or modified without the written consent of the Responsible Authority.

3. The sign, including its structure and advertising material therein as shown on the endorsed plan, shall at all times be maintained in good order and condition to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

4. The sign hereby permitted must be internally lit to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority and not be animated or contain any flashing light.

5. The time for commencement of the erection of the advertising sign hereby authorised is, pursuant to Section 68(1) of the Planning and Environment Act 1987, specified as 2 years from the date of issue of this permit and the time for completion is specified as 2 years from the date of such commencement.

The time within which the erection of the sign is to be commenced or completed may on application made before or within 3 months after the expiry of the permit be extended by the Responsible Authority.

6. This permit expires 10 years from the date of issue, at which time the sign and all supporting structures must be removed and the site made good to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

M/s Juliet Forsyth of Counsel, by Direct Brief and called Mr Stuart McGurn of Fulcrum Town Planners as her witness

1. This application is brought under Section 77 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 to review a refusal of the Responsible Authority to grant a permit for an illuminated promotional sign.

"The subject site comprises an L-shaped lot with frontage of 29.5m to Queensbridge Street and a length of 49.6m along the south boundary. A 3.8m wide strip of land that provides vehicular access occupies the rear, eastern end of the site and extends south to Power Street.

The six-storey office building, which is built to the frontage and side boundaries, is of concrete construction with a flat roof behind a parapet wall. The lift overrun and plant are located centrally on the roof. The south elevation comprises a blank section extending approximately 6.0m in fro the frontage and horizontal groups of windows over levels 3 to 6 extending to the rear wall.

The site is in an area that has been undergoing massive transformation since the development of Southgate and the Southbank area generally. The development to be known as Freshwater Place, which includes most of the land north and east of the site, will also include the upgrading of the public space, Queensbridge Square, which lies between the site and the river."

3. The proposal also from M/s Lee's submission is:

"The proposal is to have promotional advertising signage aligned with the western edge of the south wall, adjacent to the Queens Bridge Street frontage, positioned in line with the roof parapet. The sign area is 60 sq m (6m wide x 10m high), located 21m above the ground. Although the sign is to be an internally - illuminated "light-box" construction, a metal skirt at the bottom of the sign will support three floodlights to light the sign from below."

4. The subject land and surrounding land is zoned Capital City Zone CCZi1 - outside the retail core and is affected by the following overlays -

DDO1 - Active Street Frontages (Area 2 - Major Pedestrian Areas)

The land also abuts a Category 1 Road Zone. A permit is required to construct and display a promotion sign and the overlay controls do not apply in this instance.

5. The grounds of refusal and reasons for this request are:

1. The proposed sign by virtue of its size, location and prominent position represents a significant visual intrusion and would be detrimental to the amenity of the surrounding area.

2. The sign would be detrimental to the amenity of residents and other occupiers of buildings in the area by virtue of light spillage and visual intrusion.

3. The proposed sign is contrary to the provisions of Local Policy 22.07 (Advertising Signs) of the Melbourne Planning Scheme.

1. The proposed development will sit comfortably within the streetscape and neighbourhood context and will add visual interest and vitality to the area.

2. The proposal accords with the spirit and intent of Council's Advertising Policy at Clause 22.07 of the Melbourne Planning Scheme.

3. The proposal is consistent with the provisions of Clause 52.05 of the Melbourne Planning Scheme.

4. The proposal will not detract from the visual amenity of the area.

5. The proposal is of an appropriate size for the location.

6. The proposed sign will not negatively impact of the surrounding area by way of light spillage or visual intrusion.

7. The proposed sign is consistent with the State and Local Planing Policy Frameworks of the Melbourne Planning Scheme.

8. Each and every ground for refusal is contested.

6. The Tribunal was shown excellent photographs at the hearing, but considered it necessary to inspect the area at night. This was carried out on the evening of Thursday 5 December 2002.

7. There was some doubt about the legality of Mr Birchall as a party and as there were no objections to him being formally joined, the Tribunal permitted Mr Birchall to be included under the provisions of the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 1998.

8. The proposal is for a large promotional back lit sign to be placed on the south side face of the host building to be seen by motorists travelling north east along Queensbridge Street towards the City.

9. The Tribunal was taken through all relevant policy and the content of the Planning Scheme controlling signs by the Responsible Authority. This location is within the Capital City Zone and as pointed out by M/s Forsyth, the MSS notes under 'residential amenity' -

"CBD residents make an important contribution to the 24 - hour vitality and liveability of the CBD. However, residential amenity in the CBD is not comparable to that of residential zones, and residential development must not compromise the CBD's other functions.

Planning scheme response: The Capital City Zone encourages residential uses but requires such buildings to be designed to minimise conflict between residents' reasonable amenity needs for solar access, quiet, access and outlook and the future development of the CBD."

10. Mr Birchall expressed concern at the location of the sign that would affect his view from his apartment at No 83 Queensbridge Street and the lighting of the sign would annoy every evening.

11. In considering the location of the sign and its effects under Clause 52.05-5, the decision guidelines refer to residential areas and under the zoning of this area the Tribunal sees the sign as complying with all policy and will not cause a loss of amenity.

12. The sign is at an acceptable scale off the street face of the building and so long as the first section of wall to the street side of the sign and at the top is showing, the building is framed and a condition will be added to slightly alter its location in relation to the position on the application plans.

13. Draft conditions were tabled and discussed at the conclusion of the hearing. The slight alteration to the location is seen by the Tribunal as necessary after inspecting the area.

14. The sign is compatible with the host building, complies with the objectives of the Capital City Zone and there will be no amenity loss due to its location. There are no reasons on planning grounds to disallow the sign and the Responsible Authority will be directed to issue a permit.