1. The decision of the responsible authority in relation to permit application no. GE/PP-24281/2011 is set aside.
2. A permit is granted in relation to land at 970 Dandenong Road, Carnegie. The permit will allow the display of two floodlit, major promotional, panel, sky signs generally in accordance with the endorsed plans.
3. The permit is subject to the conditions contained in Appendix A to these reasons.

Mr Tom Callander, Solicitor, Rigby Cooke Lawyers. He called the following expert witnesses:

• Mr Andrew Rodda, Town Planner Contour Consultants
• Mr John Ford, Lighting Specialist, Relume Consulting

Ms Madeleine Snell, Town Planner, Glen Eira City Council

Construction of two flood lit major promotional signs.

Application under Section 77 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987.

Industrial 1 Zone. Dandenong Road is included within a Road Zone Category 1.

Clause 52.05-1 - To display a flood lit major promotional sign.

The subject site is an irregular shaped parcel of land that consists of three separate allotments and used for light industrial purposes.

1. APN Outdoor (Trading) Pty Ltd wish to display a flood lit major promotional sign at 970 Dandenong Road Carnegie. The sign will consists of two 'V shaped' panels of 18.99 x 4.57 metres erected above a 9 metre pole, giving an overall height of the sign of 14.22 metres. The sign is to be flood light with 12 flood lights.
2. In May 2012, the Glen Eira City Council determined to refuse to grant a planning permit to display the signs. It is a decision that the permit applicant has requested be reviewed by the Tribunal.
3. Council is concerned that the proposed signage will be overly dominant when viewed from Dandenong Road, will have an unreasonable impact on the amenity of nearby residential areas and will result in unreasonable visual clutter.
4. Mr Conyers share's Council's views, and is particularly concerned about the impact of the sign on the amenity of the residential properties in Girdwood Avenue.
5. The key questions for determination in this matter are:
   • Will the signage be visually dominant when viewed from Dandenong Road?
   • Will the proposed signage create visual clutter?
   • Will the proposal signage have an unreasonable impact on nearby residential properties?
6. The Tribunal must decide whether a permit should be granted and, if so, what conditions should be applied. Having considered all submissions and evidence presented with regard to the applicable policies and provisions of the Glen Eira Planning Scheme, I have decided to grant a planning permit. My reasons follow.

Will the signage be visually dominant when viewed from Dandenong Road?

1. Dandenong Road, otherwise known as the Princes Highway, is one of Melbourne's main through fares linking the outer southeastern suburbs of Melbourne and beyond with the City.
2. This section of Dandenong Road comprises a mixture of commercial properties and higher density residential dwellings. The subject site itself is located within a small triangular pocket of Industrial 1 Zoned land, which has historically been used for light industrial purposes. The subject site is currently used as a sand and soil distribution business.
3. There is a number of existing major promotion signs along Dandenong Road. A flood lit sign located approximately 320 metres away above a commercial building at 1030 Dandenong Road and another similar sign located further to the east. Both of these signs differ from the application before me in that they are erected above buildings, whereas the one before me is proposed to be a stand-alone sky sign, mounted on a pole.
4. The Glen Eira Planning Scheme states that:

Major promotion signs are encouraged in commercial and industrial locations in a manner which complements or enhances the character of the area.[2]

1. Ms Snell submitted that due to the low scale form of the existing industrial buildings on the land, the sign will appear overly dominant when viewed from Dandenong Road. Because the sign will be erected on a pole, it would not have the benefit of an existing built form that would provide a 'back drop' to the sign, as is the case with the signage further to the east of the site.
2. Mr Rodda, who provided the Tribunal with town planning evidence, disagreed. It was his evidence that the site provided a reasonable opportunity for the installation and display of the proposed major promotion signs. Whilst he acknowledge that the sign will establish a high visual element in the streetscape, it will not distract from the current streetscape as the existing lower industrial buildings will provide a solid built form.
3. I accept Mr Rodda's evidence. The existing streetscape of Dandenong Road is one of increasingly robust built form elements, and whist the sign will be taller than the existing industrial buildings, I am satisfied that the sign will not appear overly dominant given the overall streetscape.
4. During the hearing, Mr Rodda advised that should the existing buildings be redeveloped in the future it was likely that the height of the built form would be in the order of 6-8 metres. I asked him whether it would be better for the signage to be on a pole of 8 metres, so that the signage would eventually be sited above the existing built form, such has occurred further to the east.
5. It was his response that this would not make a significance difference when viewed from the surrounding area, and after seeing the site I agree. I have therefore not required a reduction in the overall height of the sign.

1. There are a large number of business identification signs located on the existing industrial buildings. The plans submitted with the application have identified 10 existing business identification signs which face Dandenong Road. These signs are augmented with the painting of the existing buildings which include bicycles along the frontage of the buildings. The rear of the buildings have been covered with graffiti, in what Mr Conyer described as a mural.
2. Council submitted that the graphical quality of the existing signage was poor, and its placement haphazard. Ms Snell submitted that the proposed signs would compete for attention with each other and the existing signage of the area, further compounding the visual clutter of the existing signage.
3. I disagree. Whilst the proposed sign will add to the existing signage within the area, due to its overall height in relation to the existing built form, it will be read as an individual sign, rather than as a part of the existing built form. Whilst it will be highly visible, particularly from Dandenong Road, I am satisfied that this section of Dandenong Road can accommodate an additional major promotion sign, without resulting in an unreasonable amount of visual clutter.

Will the proposal signage have an unreasonable impact on nearby residential properties?

1. The proposed signage has the potential to adversely affect the amenity of existing nearby residential properties, particularly those in Girdwood Avenue.
2. Girdwood Avenue is separated from the subject site by the Cranbourne/Pakenham railway line and reserve and effectively forms part of the boundary between the industrial and more robust building forms along Dandenong Road and the residential hinterland to the south.
3. The existing taller commercial and residential built forms along Dandenong Road are visible from the street, but partially screened by the existing mature canopy trees located along the railway reserve.
4. The amenity of the properties within Girdwood Avenue have the potential to be adversely affected by the signs appearance and the impact created by the proposed floodlights.

1. With respect to the signs appearance, I am satisfied that the presence of a taller sign in this location will not have an unreasonable impact on the amenity of these properties. Whilst the sign will be visible, it will have a back drop to the more robust built forms to the north of the highway and will be partially screened by the existing infrastructure for the railway line and vegetation.
2. The proposed sign has been orientated towards Dandenong Road. Whilst sections of the actual sign may be visible on oblique angles from Girdwood Avenue, I do not consider that this will have an unreasonable impact on the amenity of the street. The most visible section of the sign from the street will be the rear 'V' of the sign.
3. During the hearing there was some discussion as to whether a screen should be added to this section of the sign, to improve the appearance of the rear section of the sign. Mr Rodda in his evidence recommended that the rear elevation of the sign panels be amended to show the back of the sign panels clad with charcoal mesh or similar to ensure a high-quality finish and materials. Mr Conveys requested that a screen with 'wings' be added to the rear of the sign, to further improve the appearance, however I accept the submissions by Mr Callander that this is not possible as the 'wings' would likely catch in the wind and create structural problems with the sign.
4. I am persuaded by Mr Rodda's evidence that it is appropriate for the rear of the sign to be treated to improve the rear appearance of the sign when viewed from Girdwood Avenue. I have therefore imposed a condition requiring the rear of the panels to be clad in charcoal mesh.

1. The proposed sign is to be lit with 12 external floodlights, which will operate throughout the night. Mr Conyer's was concerned that the proposed lighting would unreasonably affect the amenity of the Girdwood Avenue properties.
2. Floodlights also light the existing major promotional signs, and during my nighttime inspection, I observed the current impact of these signs on the Girdwood Avenue properties. Whilst these signs are visible at night from Girdwood Avenue, they do not appear to have any significant impact on the existing residential properties through reflective light or light spill. I appreciated that the impact of the signs may currently be limited by the muted colours used within the existing advertising, and may change overtime. However, my impression of Girdwood Avenue at night is of a relatively dark residential area.
3. Expert lighting evidence was provided to the Tribunal by Mr Ford, who had undertaken site measurements with Girdwood Avenue. The existing light readings within Girdwood Avenue ranged from 3.9 lux (at the corner of Grange Road) and 0.3 lux, which Mr Ford stated indicated that the street was currently lit to a low level.
4. It was Mr Ford's evidence that the impact of the lighting would vary overtime, and would depend on the colours used for the advertising panels. For this reason, he provided a pessimistic and optimistic calculation of the likely illuminances from the signage. Given that the nature of major promotion signage is that the content of such signs is constantly evolving, I have adopted his pessimistic figure that the signage will have a maximum illuminance of 3.4 lux.
5. Mr Ford gave evidence that once shading from the existing trees within Girdwood Avenue was taken into account, the illuminance would range from 1 to 2 lux. The reduced estimates based on the existing vegetation was severely criticised by both Council and Mr Conyers, and I share their concerns about the reliance on the existing vegetation. Whilst there is no doubt the existing vegetation will provide some shading to the lights, there is no guarantees that this vegetation will be retained overtime. For these reasons, I have taken a conservative approach, and used Mr Ford's maximum illuminance figure of 3.4 lux.
6. During his evidence, Mr Ford advised that the relevant Australian Standard[3] provided recommendations for maximum lux to be experienced by residential areas. If this figure was exceeded, the standard recommends that the lighting be limited between the standard's curfew hours of 11pm and 6am.
7. It was Mr Ford's evidence that Girdwood Avenue could either be described as being within a residential area or on the boundary of a residential and commercial area. The distinction is important, as a each area has a different maximum lux recommendation. The standard recommends a 4 Lux illuminance for boundary locations and 2 lux for residential areas. The lighting proposed for this application complies with the standard for boundary areas but fails to meet the standard for residential areas.
8. Whilst Girdwood Avenue is on the boundary between a commercial and residential area, due to the buffer created by the railway, I find that it has many characteristics common to a normal residential street. The current dark condition of the street reflects its residential characteristic.
9. Given the context of Girdwood Avenue, I find that it is appropriate to apply the higher standard to protect the amenity of the residential properties. For this reason, I have required the lights to be switched off during the curfew hours of 11pm and 6am.

1. I am less concerned about the impact of the proposed signage on the amenity of the existing residential properties within Dandenong Road.
2. Due to the existing robust forms and nature of this eight lane highway, I am satisfied that the residents within this area can expect, and do experience a lower level of amenity then those people who live within Girdwood Avenue.
3. As I have previously stated I am satisfied that due to the robust built form context of Dandenong Road I am satisfied that the road can accommodate an additional major promotion sign. I am also satisfied, based on the evidence of Mr Ford, that the additional lighting (calculated to be 2 lux) added to the existing lighting circumstances of Dandenong Road(1.9 lux to 17.9 lux) will have minimal impact and will not be perceived as a significant increase in light within Dandenong Road.

1. Draft conditions were discussed at the hearing and any changes to conditions reflect those discussions plus further consideration by the Tribunal.
2. In his evidence, Mr Rodda recommended that a permit condition be added to ensure that the cabling for the sign is directed through the pole and be fully concealed. There was no objection to the inclusion of this condition, and as such I have added it to the permit.
3. I have retained the condition requiring the external lighting to be designed, baffled and located to the satisfaction of the responsible authority, but I have deleted draft condition 7 as I find this condition is not relevant to this application. This should ensure that the external lighting is erected as proposed by the application.
4. Since the matter was heard, section 69 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 has been amended to alter the extension of time provisions. I have amended draft condition four to reflect these changes.

1. I find that the proposed signage is generally consistent with the requirements of the Glen Eira Planning Scheme and will not result in visual clutter and with the conditions I have imposed will not have an unreasonable impact on the amenity of the nearby residential properties.
2. The decision of the responsible authority will be set aside.

The permit will allow the display of two floodlit, major promotional, panel, sky signs generally in accordance with the endorsed plans.

1. Before the signs are displayed, amended plans to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority must be submitted to, and approved by, the Responsible Authority. The plans must be drawn to scale with dimensions and must accord with the plans submitted with the application (identified as Drawing No.4 and 5, dated 12/12/11 drawn by Outdoor Elements) but modified to show:
   • (a) The rear of the signs clad in charcoal mesh;

When approved, the plans will be endorsed and will then form part of this Permit.

1. The location of the signs (including the size, nature, panels, position and construction) shown on the endorsed plan must not be altered without the prior written consent of the Responsible Authority.
2. The location and details of the supporting structure shown on the endorsed plan must not be altered without the prior written consent of the Responsible Authority.
3. The signs must not be illuminated between the hours of 11pm and 6am.
   1. The cabling for the sign panels must be directed through the pole at the base of the signs and be fully concealed to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.
   2. The signs must not contain any flashing, intermittent or changing colour light.
   3. External sign lighting must be designed, baffled and located to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.
   4. The sign must not;
      • Dazzle or distract drivers due to its colouring.
      • Be able to be mistaken for a traffic signal because it has, for example, red circles, Octagons, crosses or triangles.
      • Be able to be mistaken as an instruction to drivers.
   5. The sign(s) must be constructed and maintained to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority;
   6. The signs must be located wholly within the boundary of the land
   7. This Permit will expire if the display of the advertising signs is not commenced within two (2) years from the date of this Permit.

In accordance with Section 69 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987, 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.

[1] I have considered all submissions presented by the parties although I do not recite all of the contents in these reasons.

[3] Australian Standard 4282-1997 Control of the Obtrusive Effects of Outdoor lighting