1. In application P1616/2017 the decision of the Responsible Authority is affirmed.
2. In planning permit application TP-2016-934 no permit is granted.

Mr Adrian Finanzio Senior Counsel with Nicola Collingwood instructed by Mills Oakley Lawyers. Mr Finanzio called the following witness:

• Mr David Song, a town planner from SongBowden Planning.

Mr Matthew Townsend of counsel by direct brief. Mr Townsend called the following witness:

• Alistair Campbell, an urban designer from Hansen Partnership.

Two signs are proposed to be placed on the existing 72 level building. An internally illuminated horizontal sign of 8m (length) by 2.1m (height) is proposed to be located on the top of the podium level, facing north along Elizabeth Street. The second sign would be an internally illuminated vertical sign of 3m (width) by 27.5m (height) facing south.

Both signs would have blue internally illuminated letters spelling out the name 'Brady' with a red trim to the upper left corner. Lettering under the word 'Brady' would spell out 'Vision', the name of the apartment building.

Application under section 77 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 - to review the refusal to grant a permit.

Design and Development Overlay - Clause 43.02 and Schedules 1 (Area 2) and 10.

Erect an advertising sign in a Capital City Zone (Clause 37.04-5 and Schedule 1).

Clauses 9, 10, 15 and 17 of the State Planning Policy Framework. Clauses 21.01 to 21.03, 21.06, 21.08, 21.12, 21.11 and 22.07 of the Local Planning Policy Framework.

The subject land is located on the south-east corner of Therry and Elizabeth Streets. The 'Vision Apartments' building that is located on this site is 72 levels high with an 11 level podium containing ground level retail and upper levels for car parking.

Following the hearing I completed views of the host building from various aspects along Elizabeth Street, the Queen Victorian Market and wider street network.

1. Brady Vision Pty Ltd (Brady Vision) sought planning permission from the Melbourne City Council (the Council) to erect two major promotional signs on a 72 level apartment building, known as 'Vision Apartments'. This host building is located on the south-east corner of Therry Street and Elizabeth Street in Melbourne.
2. The Council has refused to grant a planning permit for these signs.
3. Brady Vision seeks a review of this decision.

1. The location and details of the two signs are shown in Figures 1 to 3 below.

Figure 3: Sign B (the southern sign) Details and Location

1. The dimensions of the sign were described in the delegate officer's report as follows:

Sign A: An internally illuminated horizontal major promotion sign (8 metres (width) x 2.7 metres (height)) mounted above the podium art gesture facing north along Elizabeth Street (commencing approximately 38 metres above ground level).

Sign B: An internally illuminated major promotion sign comprising multiple letters arranged in a vertical orientation (3.08 metres (width) by 27.45 metres (height)), mounted to a section of the building's south elevation between levels 35 and 46 (commencing approximately 116 metres above ground level).

1. The content of the signs, namely that the word 'Brady' is larger than the word 'Vision' and that the former is illuminated while the other is not are facts that have drawn some commentary between the two parties and between the evidence of Mr Song and Mr Campbell. For present purposes I note that the word 'Brady' would certainly be larger and more prominent than the word 'Vision'. Further, the word 'Brady' and the red accent features would be illuminated giving them more prominence at night even at the low level of 'no more than 50 lux' (when measured at three metres) as indicated in the plans.

THE PLANNING PROVISIONS AND POLICIES THAT APPLY TO THIS APPLICATION

1. Planning permission for the signs is required under the Capital City Zone (the CCZ).[2] The purposes of this zone include amongst others, the creation of an 'attractive', 'pleasurable' and 'stimulating' environment through good urban design.
2. Clause 37.04-5 of this zone sets out the following requirements in relation to advertising signs:

Advertising sign requirements are at Clause 52.05. This zone is not in a category at Clauses 52.05-7 to 52.05-10.

A permit is required to construct and display a sign unless the schedule to this zone specifies otherwise.

Any requirement in the schedule to this zone must be met.

1. Schedule 1 of the CCZ applies (CCZ1). The purpose of this schedule is to provide for a range of uses that complement the capital city function outside of the retail core of Melbourne. The specified uses include financial, legal, administrative, cultural, recreational, tourist and entertainment.
2. This schedule sets out a number of permit exemptions (and associated requirements) to signs that do not apply to this application. There are no other requirements under this schedule that would apply in contemplation of granting a planning permit for these signs.

Clause 52.05 Signs and the characterisation of the signs under clause 73

1. The requirements of clause 52.05-1 apply. Amongst other requirements of this clause are the following:

Clauses 52.05-7 to 52.05-10 specify categories of advertising control. The zone provisions specify which category of advertising control applies to the zone.

If a sign can be interpreted in more than one way, the most restrictive requirement must be met.

1. Because of these requirements it is relevant and of some importance to properly categorise the signs.
2. While the CCZ exempts clauses 52.05-7 through to 52.05-10, where some categories of signs must meet certain requirements, it does not exempt the requirements for a major promotional sign.
3. Clause 73 of the Melbourne Planning Scheme (the scheme) sets out the outdoor advertising sign terms that could apply. The following are relevant to this application:

A sign that provides business identification information about a business or industry on the land where it is displayed. The information may include the name of the business or building, the street number of the business premises, the nature of the business, a business logo or other business identification information.

A sign on the wall of a building so that part of it is more than 10 metres above the ground.

A sign illuminated by internal lighting or which contains lights or illuminated tubes arranged as an advertisement.

A sign which is 18 square metres or greater that promotes goods, services, an event or any other matter, whether or not provided, undertaken or sold or for hire on the land or in the building on which the sign is sited.

1. Three of the four terms above describe the signs. The signs would be located more than 10m above the ground and would be internally illuminated. The signs would also fall within the classification of a major promotion signs, as they are more than 18m2 in area and promote the developer of the building, "Brady" and the name of the tower apartment complex "Vision". These fall squarely within the range of 'any other matter' and also promotes the business of "Brady" even though its business is not provided in or from the building. The latter point is of some contention.
2. The Council assessment included the issues of whether the signs are 'business identification signs' where, by definition, the business being advertised needs to be located within the host building. Brady maintains that it has a subsidiary business located in the building, being the provider of the owners' corporation service and building manager. However in this proceeding it does not press this point as a determinative fact, agreeing that it is not a major tenant of the building. Council questions the relationship between these business arms and the actual intent of the definition.
3. I have considered the nature of the signs message, i.e. a matter of their purpose. The message is of two parts. The company name 'Brady' and the apartment name 'Vision'. One presents the company name in a general manner - not specific to any one Brady business including building management or the like. The word 'Vision' is the name of the building associated with the apartment complex, but is not of itself a business or industry. The word is in my view to indicate a branding of the residential component of the building.
4. Given these points, I consider that the signs fall within the terms of 'high wall', 'internally illuminated' and 'major promotional' signs. The word Brady is about a business but only as a general sense of promoting the name or brand, not a business within the building. Thus the signs are not business identification signs within the definition at clause 73.
5. I have proceeded on this basis, noting that the most restrictive, and in fact the only requirements to be met under clause 52.05 apply to a major promotion sign. For the purposes of clause 52.05 therefore, both signs are to be categorised as major promotion signs, high wall, internally illuminated signs.
6. The purposes of the 52.05 provisions applying to a major promotion sign are to:

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

...ensure that the signs are not detrimental to the appearance of their surroundings ....through the application of consistent planning controls.

1. Relevant decision guidelines call for a range of matters to be considered. The following are relevant in this application:

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.

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 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. These matters frame the assessment of the application in respect to clause 52.05.

1. The Council's grounds for refusal refer to clause 22.07 of the Local Planning Policy Framework (the LPPF). The objectives of this policy are:

To allow for the reasonable identification and marketing of institutions, businesses and buildings and communication of messages.

To protect the characteristics of significant buildings and streetscapes.

To protect important vistas from obtrusive and insensitive advertising.

To ensure that signs in residential areas and other high amenity areas do not detract from the appearance or character of the area.

To encourage where appropriate, signs that contribute to the lively and attractive character of an area.

To encourage signs that improve the quality of the area.

1. The 'policy basis' statement highlights the impact that a proliferation of signs may have on the character and amenity of a place and the potential to create 'visual clutter'.
2. A range of assessment criteria that address this policy background and objectives include the following relevant matters under the heading of general issues:
   • Signs should respect the building style and scale and the character of the street.
   • Signs should fit within architectural forms and be integrated with the design of the building.
   • Signs should not obscure architectural features of buildings, including windows.
   • Wall or fascia signs should be applied directly to the building or on a flush mounted panel with minimum projection.
   • Signs should not cause visual clutter. Existing signs on a building or site will be taken into account when assessing new proposals.

• Signs should not interrupt important views and vistas along roads leading to and out of the Central City.

• Promotion, panel and sky signs are discouraged.

• The design and location of new signs should respect the cultural heritage significance, character and appearance of the heritage place.

1. This policy includes a series of requirements or guidelines for signs in the CCZ. The requirements or guidelines are applied on the basis of a matrix of the signs height above ground level, type, dimensions and location on the host building or structure. Requirements that apply include maximum overall dimensions, number and 'special comments'.
2. Unfortunately, the types of signs described in this part of the policy do not follow those found in clause 73 of the scheme. Apart from the type descriptor for 'sky sign', the other sign types are described by way of form, fixing and the level above ground or site location.
3. There is a small point of departure between the two parties about the nature of the northern sign under this policy and the application of the table of requirements. This sign extends from some 38.5 metres above ground level to over 40m. Mr Song's evidence and the position of Brady is that as the sign extends 40m above ground level, it falls within the type described as a 'high wall' sign rather than a 'wall' sign. The Council and Mr Campbell's evidence is based on the sign having a multiplicity of definitions that apply.
4. There is no dispute that when this part of the clause applies, Sign B, the southern facing sign, would fall within the requirements for a high wall sign above 40m.
5. The starting point for the application of this policy for these signs however, is the fact that under the general policy guidance, promotion signs are discouraged. While there is discretion to depart from such guidance, such an exercise will beg the question as to why this might be so. Part of the answer to that question will involve balancing other policy considerations and relevant facts and circumstances.
6. In applying the special considerations that may apply to a high wall sign under clause 22.07, the types of signs that are supported by the policy are those that would fall within the classification of clause 73 as business identification signs or, outside of this system, the name of the building.
7. I will deal shortly with how these matters relate to these signs.

1. The submissions for Brady touch on the need for a dispassionate consideration of all relevant matters and to not be distracted by irrelevant matters and 'personnel/philosophical predilections' they say infect the Council's decision. Brady says that it seeks a fair and consistent application of the planning framework.[3]
2. It is trite law but nevertheless useful to re-state that planning decision making is a matter of synthesising a range of policy objectives and planning purposes to arrive at an integrated, final decision that delivers an acceptable planning outcome with net community benefit. What Brady has to say about considering relevant matters and not being distracted by irrelevancies is true. It is also true that it is the words and intent of the provisions that guide the decision making and not personnel positions.
3. While clause 22.07 deals directly with signs, the evidence of Mr Song and submissions of the parties have also relied on a wider policy context. In supporting the approach espoused by Brady, I accept it is fair and appropriate to consider the wider policy context of this location and the proposal for the signs in the overall mix of considerations.
4. In doing so, I observe that some aspects of signs that have been referred to, such as 'way finding', are not terms or concepts contained in the scheme. While such a concept might be one of many values or outcomes of a sign, it is not a purpose that is relevant to the decision to be made. Indeed some might think such a concept somewhat outdated in the modern age of personnel electronic (GPS) assisted 'way finding'.
5. The signs purposes are as established by the scheme. A high wall promotional sign. Its purpose is to promote something. It is a form of brand awareness raising. In this case it promotes the name of the developer and the building's name. I think that this is fair to say otherwise why else would the name 'Brady' be included in the sign. As such the context of the sign is to be taken as proposed and to my mind is consistent with the purpose of the sign relied on by Brady as being a promotional sign.
6. I also agree with the submissions by Brady that a fair reading of the scheme is to permit signs. However as is stated at clause 65, because a permit can be granted does not imply that a permit should or will be granted. A range of matters are to be considered as set out under that clause (the general decision guidelines) as well as the particular provisions of the scheme that apply.
7. One of the general matters is the planning policy framework that underpin the range of issues that are articulated in clause 22.07 and are required to be considered under clause 52.02. What follows is an overview of this wider policy framework.
8. Clause 9 of the State Planning Policy Framework (the SPPF) directs attention to Plan Melbourne. As a higher level strategy document, Plan Melbourne sets the broad canvas, rather than deal with the microcosm of signs. Nevertheless, at the strategic level, Plan Melbourne seeks to build on Melbourne's reputation as a distinctive and liveable city with quality design and amenity. This is to be achieved in part by ensuring ongoing design excellence that engages the community in a positive way.[4]
9. Mr Song's summary of the SPPF sets out how State level policy carries this higher level strategic message forward.[5] Urban design excellence in the built environment that creates enjoyable, engaging and functional places are all objectives of the SPPF that are relevant in this application. 'Liveable', 'attractive environments' are promoted, as is the creation of 'a sense of place', 'positive' local urban character and 'enhancement' of the public realm.[6]
10. Broadly, the objectives and strategies of economic development found at clause 17 of the SPPF, which Mr Song referred to in his evidence, also has relevance in setting an urban design context. Under this clause, commercial business activity is encouraged. However it is not unfettered encouragement. Business activity should meet community needs and provide net community benefit. Advertising signs, including promotional signs, are a part of commercial activity and so the purpose and context of the sign may well have relevance.
11. In urban design terms, a corollary of these policy outcomes is a question about the wider policy context of the host building's location and what commercial activity or role might these signs support. These may not be determinative matters but nonetheless make up part of the policy mix to be considered.
12. Turning to the LPPF, clause 21.06 sets out the strategic direction to guide decision making for Melbourne's built environment and its heritage values. Amongst other outcomes, development should make positive additions to the public realm. The following strategies are relevant:
    • Maintaining the sense of place and identity in different areas of Melbourne (Strategy 1.1).
    • Ensuring a strong distinction between built form scale in the Central City and surrounding areas (Strategy 1.2).
    • Protecting iconic views in the city (objective 3).
    • Ensuring the scale, bulk and quality of new development supports a high quality public realm (Strategy 5.2).
    • Ensuring advertising signs avoid visual pollution and intrusive light spill and respect the architecture of the host buildings, the surrounding streetscape character and skyline (Strategy 5.7).
    • Protect and enhance a range of identified heritage values and enhance the visual place that landmark buildings and precincts have in Melbourne.
13. The following figure from this policy clause puts assists in understanding the built form context of the site.

Figure 4: Built Environment Context [from Clause 21.06]

1. At clause 21.08 (Economic Development) the host building is identified as being on the western edge of the 'Knowledge Precinct' of the central city business area. While various business commercial activity is supported within the central city, this precinct is anticipated to have a particular focus on knowledge transfer and integration with educational, research and technology transfer activities. While such policy outcomes are sought, the evidence of Messrs Campbell and Song and the site inspection confirm however that within the immediate locality of the host building, development is providing for a mix of commercial service and businesses at the street level with residential apartments above.
2. Clause 21.12 Hoddle Grid provides the following guidance:

• Ensure a strong contrast in scale of development along Elizabeth Street from the lower scale areas to the north of Victoria Street and the higher scale of the Capital City Zone.
• Ensure that development form and scale in the area south of the Queen Victoria Market Precinct achieves built form, urban design, and public realm amenity outcomes consistent with those sought for the Hoddle Grid.

• Ensure that new tall buildings add architectural interest to the city's sky line.

1. The following figure sets the scene in terms of key views and precinct locations that are referred to in this policy.

Figure 5: Hoddle Grid Context [from Clause 21.12]

1. Clause 22.01 provides policy direction about urban design in Melbourne. The policy basis describes a range of urban design attributes that contribute to the amenity, liveability and economic prosperity of the Central City. These attributes include 'design excellence' and 'public realm amenity'. The objectives of this policy seek that each development responds to the underlying framework and fundamental characteristics of the CCZ while establishing its own identity; enhancing the physical quality and character of the CCZ form through sensitive and innovative design; and ensuring buildings meet high quality design standards. Relevantly this policy summarises much of what is in the strategic elements of the MSS into the following attribute for signs:[7]

Signs should be integrated with the architecture of the building.

1. The Council refused to grant a planning permit for the following reasons:
   • The signs would be visually obtrusive and dominating in the public realm.
   • The signs would detract from the neighbouring character of the historic buildings and heritage precincts, street trees and existing business identification signs in the surrounds.
   • The signs would be incompatible with the existing and desired character for advertising signs on Elizabeth Street.
   • The signs would be inappropriately located on and interrupt the architectural form of the host building because:
     • The north facing sign would not integrate with and complement the podium's significant art gesture and obstruct the use of part of the level 10 terrace.
     • The south facing sign does not integrate with and complement the curvilinear detail of this façade.
   • The signs would contribute to visual clutter and disorder of advertising signs in the immediate surrounds and broader Hoddle Grid.
   • Brady Vision is not a major tenant of the building and because the building identification information included in the signs is physically and visually subordinate to the developer's name, the purpose of the sign is promotional. Local policy seeks to generally discourage promotional signs.
2. Accordingly the Council says that the signs would be contrary to local planning policy that deals with advertising signs (Clause 22.07) and the purposes and decision guidelines for advertising signs found at clause 52.05. If approved the Council says that it will be an undesirable precedent on the city skyline and the architectural integrity of tower 'crowns'.
3. I observe that the last of these grounds in part is a response that suggests the sign may have been put forward as a business identification sign. I have set out earlier my reasons and conclusions about the characterisation of the signs.

1. Brady says that when the relevant provisions of the scheme are construed and applied properly to this application the proposed signs can be supported. The following summaries Brady's responses to relevant provisions and the grounds of refusal.

1. Brady says that in response to the decision guidelines of clause 52.05-3 the signs:
   • are compatible with the existing and future character of the area;
   • will not obscure or comprise important views from the public realm or dominate the skyline;
   • are of a proportion, scale and form that is appropriate to the host building and surrounds;
   • rely on integrated support structures that are appropriately obscured from public and private views and do not materially impact on important or significant features of the building;
   • will be illuminated to only a low level (50 lux at three metres) and therefore will not unreasonably impact on residents of the host building or nearby tower developments; and
   • will not impact on the safety of pedestrians or vehicles or adversely impact on the amenity of the area, streetscape or local roads.

1. Brady says that its signs respond acceptably to locational principles found in the decision guideline for Major Promotion Signs. It says the dimensions, height and simple expression of the signs and the commercial location will complement the existing and future character of the area. It says they are similar to other building identification or promotion signs in the CBD.

1. Brady says that there is considerable overlay between Melbourne's local policy about signs (Clause 22.07) and the decision guidelines of clause 52.05. It says in respect to additional guidance arising from the policy, the proposed signs will:
   • be applied directly to the building (in respect to sign B) and flush mounted on a panel (in the case of sign A); and
   • fit with and are integrated into the architectural form and design of the building and do not obscure architectural features of the building, including windows.
2. Accordingly it is asserted that the signs acceptably address the general policy criteria.
3. Clause 22.07 also contains specific requirements for signs in the CCZ. Brady says that its signs meet these requirements along with two of the three special, additional requirements applicable to wall signs.

1. Brady maintains that there will not be adverse effects on heritage values, and in fact disputes that there are any relevant heritage values that apply to the site.

1. In his oral evidence Mr Song refers to Melbourne maintaining a 'vibrancy', drawing on references in policy to support this view of the city's role. I understand that this term is used by Mr Song to encapsulate the thematic objectives of the CCZ, particularly for an attractive and stimulating environment as well as those found in clause 22.07 to contribute to a 'lively and attractive character'. It is put that signs, including building and business identification signs, can contribute to and be a part of this 'vibrancy'.
2. It appears from the material tabled in this hearing and from the evidence of the witnesses, that the 'labelling' of residential towers by developers that includes the name of the tower and / or the developer is an emerging trend. In Mr Song's professional opinion such signs add to the 'vibrancy' of the city if it delivers an appropriate urban design outcome.
3. I consider the use of the term 'vibrancy' should be approached with caution. While the objectives of the zone seek a stimulating environment that might be said to be synonymous with a vibrant environment, it also seeks an environment that is attractive and pleasurable. Policy encourage signs that add to the lively and attractive character of an area where appropriate.[8]
4. Further, it can be seen from my earlier setting out of policy that positive and contributory urban design outcomes are what are sought. In relation to signs, planning policies seek designs that integrate with their host buildings, integrate and respond to the streetscape, avoid visual clutter and address a range of other urban design considerations.[9]
5. Thus there is not a 'one size fits all' approach in the CCZ and being located in the broad area of the CCZ does not of itself support these promotion signs.
6. Like Mr Song, my assessment of this site's policy and locational context within the Hoddle Grid, as set out earlier, leads to a conclusion that further tower developments can be expected in this locality. However I do not accept Mr Song's evidence or Brady's contentions that as consequence of such development a 'mosaic' of corporate logos or building names will follow.[10] A range of urban design factors will need to be taken into account as to what form of signs each such tower might contain. It is not axiomatic that being in the Hoddle Grid means major promotional or business identification signs will follow as a matter of course. Indeed, as a matter of local planning policy, promotion signs are one of three forms of advertising sign that are discouraged.[11]

The host building's context and the design response

1. Contextually, the host building marks the edge of the Hoddle Grid and the edge of the high rise form between the Hoddle Grid and the present and future lower form development that is to occur along the northern corridor of Elizabeth Street. This includes Elizabeth Street up to and including the Haymarket roundabout or as noted in Figure 2 of clause 21.06 the 'Haymarket' precinct.
2. Mr Campbell maintains that the views along the Elizabeth Street corridor, particularly from the Haymarket precinct, represent a gateway into the city and so forms an iconic view. However it is not a view identified in Clause 21.06 or elsewhere in the scheme. I therefore accept what Brady has put that this view line is not one that the scheme seeks to define as having 'iconic value'. I do not agree with Brady however that the host building's location is not to be distinguished from other commercial precincts.
3. As I have noted earlier clause 21.08 indicates the building sits at the edge of the 'knowledge precinct'. It is not part of the retail core nor other commercial precincts of the Hoddle Grid or CCZ. It is therefore not in the same context of other buildings bearing corporate promotional signs that Brady and Mr Song have referred to. That said I do not think that this ultimately has as much influence on my decision as does the existing and emerging streetscape character that forms the context around the host building. As I have noted earlier, this context comprises of a mix of service businesses at ground level offices and residential apartments. Signs associated with these activities are for the most part limited to street level. There is, as noted by the Council, an absence of signs on the higher levels of buildings within the immediate vicinity and those principle view sheds containing the host building.
4. These principle view sheds are along Elizabeth Street: from the north; and from the south. While Mr Campbell has presented evidence about other locations where the signs might be visible, I have found that these are largely glimpses or oblique views within the vicinity of the site. Where more encompassing views are seen of the building these are from a distance. My consideration of these views leads me to conclude that they are of secondary consideration to the impact that will occur on the primary views along Elizabeth Street.

1. From the north, this building stands proud as noted by Mr Campbell. While not a designated gateway entrance within the policy framework, I take this presence and it's marking of the edge to the Hoddle Grid to be the concept Mr Campbell's has sought to convey in his evidence. The applicable built form policy context and the present day building controls that apply to precincts north of the host building mean that this tower will maintain its strong physical presence for some time to come.
2. As such, the building occupies a somewhat unique location, presenting an unobstructed strong vertical form to the northern aspects of Elizabeth Street. The clear views of this form from the north means it has a prominent position in, and makes a strong contribution to fabric of the northern edge of the Hoddle Grid. This is an outcome that is consistent with the policy context of this location.
3. In response to this location I find that the presentation of the northern façade has delivered on policy aims for an 'engaging and pleasing' façade through the architectural detailing of this façade in combination with the building form. This engaging form includes the clear lines between the decorated façade of the podium and the curvilinear detailing that emphasises the vertical tower. In my view the design presents, a clear and distinct break between the materiality and geometry of the podium and the form and architectural detailing of the tower.
4. The introduction of the northern sign is an anathema to this clean form and architectural detailing. It is intrusive to and incompatible with the curvy-linear rhythm of the detailing on the tower and breaks the clean lines between the tower and the podium levels. Further it does so by introducing a pronounced horizontal rectangular element when the design emphasises vertical rectangular forms. In Mr Campbell's evidence he suggests it would look like a tag sticking up from a collar. I agree.
5. In addition to these outcomes, Mr Song's evidence is that Sign A makes use of a utilitarian balcony space and wall that has no architectural merit and limited amenity. As can be seen from the plan presented earlier, the sign would be located across a narrow portion of a balcony juxtaposed across the north wall of a common room available for use by apartment residents. The plans shows that north wall is largely masonry but should contain corner glazing elements. Mr Song's photos however indicate that the corner glazing elements were in fact not included in this room. The main glazed elements and balcony areas provide views to the west. Mr Song's evidence is that the sign will therefore have limited internal amenity impacts given this siting context.
6. While I accept that the signs location will have no impact on the internal rooms amenity, I do not agree that the north facing balcony space is necessarily so devoid of amenity value that Sign A's impingement into this space is acceptable.
7. His photographs show that while the balcony space is narrow and is not the central recreational space for this level, it nevertheless affords a range of views from the north-west to north that encompass long distance views over the Queen Victorian market and north toward the boulevard-like character of Elizabeth Street beyond the Hoddle Grid. Further the edges of the sign protrude into the open space of the west facing balcony area, impinging on its amenity. The positioning of Sign A will therefore diminish the internal amenity of this space, further signifying that the sign has not been well integrated into the building.
8. Overall therefore I conclude that the form and location of Sign A fails to acceptably ingrate with the design of the host building for a range of reasons.

1. From the south, views of the upper levels that would host Sign B are limited. This is due in no small part to the fact that high rise towers of a similar scale built to the edge of their property lines are situated to the south of the host building. Collectively, when viewed from the south, these buildings along with the host building present sharp, vertical edges and uncluttered facades to the street. In material form, the glass facades of the southern buildings adds to the sense of clean lines and form of the towers.
2. The southern façade of the host building is less detailed than the northern façade, leading to a more pronounced rectangular form and presence. Curvilinear detailing is less prominent than that of the northern façade.
3. I find that Sign B adopts an appropriate vertical form in response to its location on the southern façade of the tower. However it would interrupt the curvilinear flow of the architectural detail to this side, even though this is more subtle than the north façade. If this were the only aspect of the urban design response, Sign B would on balance, be acceptable.
4. However I find that even with though this vertical form has some positive aspects with the host building, it would impinge on the presentation of clean lines and facades seen from this aspect of Elizabeth Street. As has been noted by both witnesses, there is a lack of high wall signs along this streetscape. This absence contributes to the clean lines and facades of the towers and upper levels of the built form. In this elevated view shed (the high-rise skyline) the elevated location and extended vertical form would add to the prominence of Sign B, emphasising its discordant character within this streetscape.
5. I do note that that there are promotion or business identification signs on other tower buildings gained from views east and west of Elizabeth Street and some distance to the south of the host building and the line of towers within its immediate vicinity. However these signs are located on building parapets, and do not intrude into the view of the group of uncluttered series of tower facades formed by the host building and the towers to its immediate south. As such these other signs have limited, if any influence on the context of the host building and proposed signs.

Analysis against the planning scheme provisions

1. When the above design outcomes are assessed against the relevant policy and provision objectives and decision guidelines contained in the scheme, I find the proposed signs to be unacceptable. My reasons that follow set out this assessment.

1. As set out earlier, Clause 52.05 poses a series of general decision guidelines as well as those specific to major promotional signs. Having considered these matters along with the design outcomes I have set out above, I have made the following findings about:
   • The character of the area, specifically the streetscape ;
   • The relationship to the streetscape, site and building;
   • The impact of illumination;
   • The effect on significant streetscapes and buildings; and
   • The locational principles for major promotional signs about complementing and enhancing the commercial character of the area and the response in areas with a strong built form character.
2. There are a range of other matters under these decision guidelines. These are of lessor or no relevance because of the site's context and the nature of the signs themselves.
3. Apart from the matter of illumination, the above matters can be aggregated under the canopy of the urban design response. I will therefore address these aspects of clause 52.05 in two parts.

1. The decision guidelines at clause 52.05-3 and 52.05-6 call for a consideration of what effect the signs will have against a range of matters that relate to the site's context and the host building's design. I have already set out that I agree with the submissions of Brady and the evidence of Mr Song that the scheme does not assign the host building or its location any particular elevated status as a land mark or gateway location. And while in the vicinity of the Queen Victoria Market, the views of this building from this heritage precinct are not one that would affect the heritage values of this place. Such views of the signs would be seen in an appropriate context, i.e. of signs attached to a modern building tower.
2. As I have set out already, a distillation of the range of decision guidelines leads to a consideration of the effect on significant streetscapes and / or buildings. This question of effect under the general guidelines is not posed in terms of those streetscapes or buildings that are identified within the scheme as significant. The context of these effects is broader.
3. Having regard to the locational context I have set out above, I consider that the this building is one that has a prominent built form within Elizabeth Street, most particularly when viewed from the north. It thus makes a significant contribution to the city's wider skyline and the local streetscape. Policy at clause 21.06 identifies that future development should have regard to the Elizabeth Street streetscape.
4. The locational principles similarly call for a consideration of whether the signs will dominate the streetscape and whether they complement and enhance the character of the area.
5. I agree with Brady that the scale of the signs and their respective locations on the host building would not have a dominant presence in the ground level streetscape. However, it follows from my consideration of the design response as set out above, that I do not agree that they would complement or enhance the higher skyline and wider character of the area. I consider that as a discordant element on the northern façade of the host building, Sign A would detract from the character of the area.
6. Sign B similarly is discordant to the built form and urban fabric observed from the south, even though this façade has less prominence.
7. The discordant nature of the signs will be more emphatic given the absence of promotional signs within these northerly and southerly view sheds.
8. Thus in terms relevant to the character of the area, including the future character, the position of the signs on the building and in the streetscape, their location, proportion and scale in respect to the host building, I conclude the signs would not enhance or complement the character of the area and would have an adverse effect on the areas built environment. These are outcomes that fail the objectives of clause 52.05.

1. The illumination of Sign A is not troubling given the lack of a sensitive interface to the north, in terms relevant to amenity impacts from the low intensity of illumination being proposed.
2. The illumination of Sign B is more troubling. Even though the intensity of 50 lux at three metres is low, the likely future development of the adjoining land with an apartment building,[12] leaves open the potential for adverse amenity effects to future residents. Brady did not advance any expert evidence to support its claim of acceptable levels of illumination. Equally, the Council did not support its assertions about adverse effects with expert evidence.
3. Given my substantive reasons for refusing planning permissions, it is perhaps unnecessary to be conclusive on this point. However I record here that the examples of softly illuminated business identification signs and apartment building promotion signs presented in evidence seem to present different contextual situations. The examples of signs tendered in the course of the hearing without exception did not show signs that would have a direct interface with an apartment building of the form and nature indicated for the southern interface.
4. Given the wider context I described earlier for this site, which is one where there is a predominance of apartment living at high rise levels, a more considerate approach to illumination of signs is warranted, notwithstanding the commercial nature of the area.

1. The Council submits that the starting point in this application is that through clause 22.07, promotion signs are discouraged in the City of Melbourne. Mr Song's evidence is that this policy applies across all zones of the city but considers that the CCZ allows for greater flexibility. Such a statement requires further consideration.
2. As I have set out earlier, the CCZ of itself does not establish any such notion. Rather it directs attention to urban design outcomes. As far as I can ascertain the very limited basis within the scheme that may lend some support to Mr Song's evidence is to be found in the table to the clause 22.07, which applies for signs in the CCZ. This table provides guidance about the provision of signs that might equally said to be business identification signs as well as promotion signs. It also provides for sky signs. As I have noted earlier however this policy does not follow the sign naming conventions of clause 73. Rather promotion or business identification signs and the like seem to fall within the wider category of 'wall sign'. In all cases of wall or sky signs, the approval of such signs is qualified by the use of terms such as "in individual circumstances' or 'in exceptional circumstances'. Specific to walls signs that are located 40m above ground level, policy states that such signs are supported where they are:

Logos of corporate bodies with naming rights, or major tenants, or [the] name of [the] building.

1. Further the signs should:
   • Preferably be painted onto the wall, not internally illuminated, mounted signs; and
   • Because of their high visibility it is important that the signs be compatible with the architecture and the effect on the city's skyline be given due consideration.
2. In my view it is clear that there is an intention to discourage promotion signs across the City of Melbourne except in the very limited cases specified in this policy and only then where urban design outcomes align with zone and policy objectives. Thus the policy discouragement for promotion signs does not prohibit such signs. Nor could it, given the discretionary nature of policy within the scheme and the integration exercise of what can often be competing policy situations in a planning matters. However, as a policy position it cannot be said that this statement supports promotional signs except in the limited circumstances and form that are set out in this policy.
3. In respect to those circumstances, the proposed signs are not painted on walls. Indeed they internally illuminated, mounted signs which is directly contrary to the policy preference.
4. For the reasons I have set out earlier, I have also concluded that neither sign is compatible with the architecture of the building, the more so for Sign A.
5. The final remaining element of the policy circumstances is a question of whether the signs are logos of a corporate body with naming rights or major tenant, or a building name.
6. Brady argues that it can acquire naming rights from the owner's corporation. It points to a number of other Brady towers or developments with signs that include the terms 'Brady' and the building name notwithstanding it is not a tenant. It also asserts that the two words 'Brady Vision' are said to be the apartment name or branding of the tower with the order and prominence of the words being the same as these other Brady building signs. It therefore says its signs are consistent with the policy circumstances that would support these signs.
7. The claim that the wording of each sign is the name or brand of the apartment building is at odds with the fact that the ground level sign at the building says 'Vision' in a stylised form[13] and the marketing information included in the Council's materials that refers to the building as 'Vision Apartments'. It also seems at odds with the fact that the word 'Brady' has more prominence than the actual apartment name of 'Vision' because of the size difference and the lack of illumination for the word 'Vision'. Further the form of the word 'Vision' does not follow the stylised form in the ground level sign or marketing material.
8. I conclude that the signs are predominantly a branding exercise for the company Brady with the actual naming of the building being a secondary or subservient feature. While such a branding exercise falls within the parameters of a major promotion sign it does not reflect the policy preference for a building name.
9. In respect to naming rights it would appear that the intent of the policy wording is for a corporate entity or major tenant within the building to be the body seeking to display the naming rights. However the policy wording is ambiguous on this point. Arguably as a corporate entity Brady may be in position to acquire such rights.
10. So, while Brady may well acquire a naming right, which is one of the possible circumstances when the wall signs may be supported, the application nevertheless fails to satisfy or fully satisfy the other requirements of this clause.
11. For these reasons I conclude that the signs do not satisfy the requirement of clause 22.07 and so fail to gain policy support that is directly designed to address signage applications.

1. It follows from the above assessment that Signs A and B have not satisfactorily responded to the requirements of clause 52.05 or the planning policy setting. Primarily the signs fail to integrate with the architecture of the host building and therefore will not make positive contributions to the character associated with its setting. Such an outcome is inconsistent with a number of policies about signs and urban design that apply to this application and the setting of the host building. It follows that the objectives of the CCZ would also not be satisfactorily addressed.
2. I therefore conclude that the planning outcome would not be acceptable. Accordingly, I will direct that the decision of the Responsible Authority be affirmed and no permit will be 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.

[3] At paragraph 4 of the written submissions.

[4] Principle 1, Outcome 4, Direction 4.3 and policy 4.3.1.

[5] Section 6.2 of his evidence statement dated 8/1/18.

[9] These are set out under the general policy criteria of clause 22.07.

[10] Page 9 of Mr Song's witness statement.

[12] As highlighted by the Council in submissions and Mr Campbell's evidence.

[13] As shown in the Council's written submissions at page 14 and observed during the course of the site inspection.