This matter has a slightly complicated history extending back to November 1995 when a permit was issued for a major promotion sign on the site. At that time a mandatory planning scheme provision required a condition to be included on the permit to the effect that the permit expire four years after the date the permit issued. The permit expiry condition was imposed pending a review of all planning scheme provisions for advertising signs.
A series of subsequent planning scheme amendments had the effect of extending the expiry date of the permit to 31 December, 2008 or until such time as a permit application lodged before that date is finally determined.
The applicant lodged a permit application before the expiry date and a notice of decision to grant a permit was issued on 15 December, 2008. There were no appeals and the permit issued on 9 January, 2009.
The permit contains a condition that the permit expires 10 years from the date of issue
The applicant has applied to the Tribunal for a review of the condition. The applicant seeks a 25 year expiry date.
It was the Council's submission that the imposition of a condition requiring the permit to expire in ten years is warranted because the site is located close to central Melbourne and has many locational advantages. It is an area which the Council considers has the potential to undergo development and redevelopment over the next decade. Ms Hall referred to a number of planning reviews currently being undertaken which in her submission, might facilitate the transition of this area from a predominantly industrial precinct to some other, as yet unspecified land use.
The studies Ms Hall referred to do not however, support the submission that this area is being targeted by the Council for accelerated change in land use function.
In particular, as part of the Melbourne Planning Scheme Review the Council engaged consultants to assess industrial land supply in the municipality. The study identifies Kensington/North Melbourne as a precinct catering for small business requiring an inner city location, with a mix of activities including wholesaling, technical services, printing and small scale manufacturing. The study recommends that industrial zoned land be retained to cater for contemporary and emerging industries and to protect the municipality's employment base. The study divides the industrial areas into a series of precincts. The review site is located within a "revitalisation area" in which a strategic review of long term land use options is recommended.
The study has no formal status and has not been adopted by the Council. It is not therefore a document which can carry any significant weight in my consideration of this application. I make the observation however that in the event that the study was to be ultimately adopted, the recommendations for the review site lack the substance necessary to support a submission that this is a locality in which the planning scheme is seeking to facilitate a change in land use and built form character.
I have not found the Council's local policy at Clause 22.07 to be of any particular assistance in considering this application. It contains no provisions concerning expiry dates and in any event, it is a policy which is predicated on a preference for there to be no promotion signs in the municipality.
Having regard to the above, there is in my view no basis to impose a condition which is less than the default 15 year expiry date.
The primary issue in this matter therefore is whether the default 15 year expiry date ought to be imposed or whether the applicant's requested 25 year expiry date should be applied.
Mr Clarke submitted that a 25 year expiry date is warranted because the existing provisions of the planning scheme are, contrary to the Council's submission, focussed on retaining the status quo with the precinct to the west of Boundary Road being maintained as an industrial precinct. Only modest redevelopment is envisaged for the residential area east of Boundary Road[1].
Mr Clarke also submitted that the existing sign has been successfully integrated into the architecture of the building.
When considering the imposition of an expiry date on a permit for a major promotion sign, Clause 52.05-6 requires consideration to be given to the following:
The purpose of the sign.
The existing or desired character of the area.
The State Planning Policy Framework and the Local Planning Policy Framework, including the Municipal Strategic Statement and local planning policies in terms of the extent to which the proposed sign is consistent with any relevant policy direction and the extent to which the area may be expected to change over time.
The extent to which the signage is physically and visually integrated into the architecture of the building.
With respect to these matters, I have found previously that the existing character of the area is primarily industrial/commercial and the policy framework of the planning scheme does not contemplate any significant change to the built form or land use character of the area.
The existing sign is reasonably integrated into the building at least to the extent that support structures are not prominent.
I think that it also relevant to have regard to the general decision guidelines for major promotion signs because these provide principles with respect to assessing the impact of such signs and also locational preferences for them. In broad terms these signs are encouraged in commercial and industrial locations and they discouraged along forest and tourist roads, scenic routes or landscaped sections of freeways. Major promotion signs are also discouraged within open space reserves or corridors and around waterways. The decision guidelines also require proposals to be assessed in terms of their impact 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. The impact on residential areas and heritage places, open space and waterways is also required to be assessed.
In my view the existing sign is located in accordance with the locational principles of the planning scheme and it is a sign which has very limited if any visual impact on residential areas, heritage places and land mark sites.
The existing sign is located where the planning scheme contemplates such signs to be located.
I am satisfied therefore that a 25 year expiry date is appropriate.
[2]
It follows from the above reasons that it is my conclusion that the decision of the responsible authority should be varied.
Parties
Applicant/Plaintiff:
Caption Pty Ltd
Respondent/Defendant:
Melbourne CC [2009] VCAT 1967
Legislation Cited (1)
Environment Act 1987
Cases Cited (1)
Caption Pty Ltd v Melbourne CC [2009] VCAT 1967 (23 September 2009)