For the reasons set out above, I do not consider this sign to have an adverse impact on the landscape and design of Eastlink. This is a part of the tollway where landscape plays a very minor role, and where views to the surrounding industrial estate and buildings are clearly evident. As such, there will not be an adverse visual impact on the landscape. Further, this sign will complement the design of the corridor, matching as it does the other one sided sign to the north of the review site.
For these reasons I find that there are no other relevant matters that would mitigate against the grant of a permit foreshadowed by Council.
[2]
Mr Jewell in his submission has described this proposed sign as, "a foreign element ... introduced into what is a cohesive mosaic." I do not accept the basic proposition put forward that just because the location of proposed signage was pre-planned as part of the overall urban design of Eastlink, that any additional signage will be a foreign element and therefore inappropriate. In this part of Eastlink, one of the factors that would have affected the location of major promotional signs would have been the width of the road reservation, which in front of the review site is too narrow for the proposed sign. Should that, along with the co-ordinated urban design response, mean that any private land along Eastlink is an inappropriate location for new major promotion signs?
In my view, while the effort to pre-plan the location of major promotional signs along Eastlink is a commendable one, it does not then follow that any alternative proposal that is put forward from time to time will be unreasonable. In this case there are a number of elements to this proposed sign, which I have set out above, that assists it to complement and sit well within the landscape that is created along Eastlink. It will fulfil an opportunity to advertise to north-bound traffic in this locale, when the other existing sign in this part of the tollway only advertises to south-bound traffic. It avoids a proliferation of signage, and presents a quality of urban design outcome that is consistent with other signage along this stretch of the tollway.
For the forgoing reasons the decision of the Responsible Authority will be varied. I will amend Condition 8 to make it clear that the 15 year expiry date of this permit can be amended, without the need for the grant of an entirely new permit.
[3]
The erection and display of a major promotional floodlit sign in accordance with the endorsed plans.
[4]
The location, size and details of the sign and supporting structure, shown on the endorsed plans, must not be altered without the prior written consent of the Responsible Authority.
The approved sign must be located wholly within the boundary of the land.
The approved sign must be constructed and maintained to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.
The approved sign must not contain any flashing or intermittent light.
The sign hereby permitted shall be externally illuminated only.
The intensity of light associated with the approved sign must not cause glare or distraction to motorists or other persons, or a loss of amenity to the surrounding areas, to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.
Unless with the prior written consent of the Responsible Authority, the sign approved under this permit must be erected and displayed within one year of the date of issue of this permit. Despite Condition 8, this permit will expire if the sign is not erected and displayed in accordance with this condition.
Without the further written consent of the Responsible Authority, this permit expires 15 years from the date of this permit. Before this permit expires, the sign and any supporting structure must be removed and the land and/or building surface made good to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.
[5]
[1] I have considered all submissions presented by the parties although I do not recite all of the contents in these reasons.
[6]
[3] in a manner which complements or enhances the character of the area
Parties
Applicant/Plaintiff:
Connect East
Respondent/Defendant:
Maroondah CC [2014] VCAT 423
Cases Cited (3)
Connect East v Maroondah CC [2014] VCAT 423 (11 April 2014)
Mr Jewell also raised a concern regarding the location of this sign so close to a Vehicle Messaging Service (VMS), being a electronic sign that displays dynamic messages to drivers. Mr Jewell stated that this VMS was important as it was the last opportunity for the authorities to communicate messages to drivers about any emergency closure of the Melba Tunnel, and can be used also to communicate other safety messages.
Mr O'Farrell submitted that this concern was raised at the previous Tribunal decision, at which expert traffic evidence was called which in part dealt with this particular issue. He submitted that the fact that the Adspace decision identifies that there is only one reason to not support the proposed sign, means that the traffic safety issue raised by Connect East did not concern the Tribunal previously. Mr O'Farrell submitted that as nothing has changed in relation to this issue, that I should give significant weight to the previous finding of the Tribunal.
In this case, I have not been presented with traffic evidence from any party, and Mr O'Farrell was not prepared with a detailed submission on this matter as, after reviewing the Applicant's statement of grounds, he was caught off guard by the raising of traffic safety concerns by Mr Jewell. I was however presented with a copy of the traffic evidence relied upon in the previous hearing. Having regard to this material, and the findings of the previous Tribunal, I have not been persuaded that this proposed sign should be refused on traffic safety grounds. On my own observations I note that both the proposed sign and the VMS will be legible for a fair distance. There is therefore sufficient travelling time for drivers to read both signs, and for a driver to realise the importance of any safety message on the VMS. I therefore agree with the previous Tribunal decision that there is no reason to deny the proposed sign on traffic safety grounds.
Mr Jewell also presented to me a whole host of previous Tribunal decisions, many of which deal with other proposals for major promotional signs along Eastlink. I agree with some elements of these decisions. For example I agree with the finding in Captions Pty Ltd v Greater Dandenong CC[2010] VCAT 1255 that Eastlink is the relevant streetscape for my consideration. I also agree with the decision of iOM Pty Ltd v Cardinia SC[2013] VCAT 1721 that just because a sign like this is permissible, and indeed encouraged, in an Industrial area, does not mean that it will be appropriate on a visual impact assessment.
However that is what I consider to be the extent of relevance of the decisions that were handed to me. That is because none of the previous decisions relied upon by Mr Jewell are on all fours with the physical and planning context that I am faced with. That is not surprising, given the way that context regularly changes throughout metropolitan Melbourne. Of the decisions that were referred to me, one is located in very close proximity to the review site, being the decision of While therefore the physical context is very similar, the proposal is not, as what was proposed in the decision was a double sided 'V shaped' sign, much higher and larger than the sign that is before me. It relevance to my assessment is therefore limited.
Finally, Mr Jewell also referred to Amendment C92 to the Maroondah Planning Scheme. That amendment seeks to introduce a new local policy which provides guidance regarding the consideration of signage applications on land abutting Eastlink. I was informed that the wording of the proposed local policy was arrived at cooperatively between Council and Connect East. This Amendment is currently on exhibition, and therefore is not something that I can consider to be a seriously entertained planning proposal. That limits the weight I can attribute to it. However I find that if the local policy were implemented in a manner consistent with the exhibited version, there is nothing within it that would persuade me to refuse the proposed sign.
The proposed policy statements out of Amendment C92 encourage signage where it: