1. This is an application under Section 77 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 ("the Act") brought by the Permit Applicant for review of a decision of the Greater Dandenong City Council ("the Responsible Authority") to refuse to grant a permit.

1. The proposal is for a floodlit, panel, major promotion, sky sign. The sign would be on the north-west side of the building towards the rear. It would face Eastlink which is presently being developed, the Princes Highway south-east bound traffic, and the Heatherton Road connection across the Princes Highway and Eastlink which is proposed.

1. The subject land is on the east side of the Princes Highway. The entrance is via a service road. The building is one of three buildings on separate titles surrounded by areas of common property. The subject building is a single storey commercial building currently occupied by a motor mechanics business. Mobility Aids Australian Pty Ltd occupies the other two single storey buildings.
2. There are a number of business identification signs on the site with signage to the front and north-western side of the building and along the front facade of the abutting building.
3. Because of the slope of the land traffic travelling south-west along the Princes Highway towards Dandenong would see little of the building, which is barely visible above the paling fence.
4. Similar industrial/retail uses are on the south of the site and on the opposite side of the Princes Highway. These premises have similar business identification signs on the buildings and towards the front of the site, some supported by poles.
5. The closest major promotion sign on the Princes Highway is approximately 300 metres south-east at 232 Princes Highway.
6. There are residential properties on the north side of Heatherton Road.
7. The sign is proposed to have a length of 18 metres and a height of 3 metres with an overall area of 54 square metres. It would sit above the wall of the building with a 1 metre clearance above the roof. It would be supported by columns extending through the roof of the building. There will be six floodlights projecting out from the sign and be directed upwards directly at the sign. It is proposed that the existing business identification sign on the site orientated in the direction of the proposed sign would be removed.

1. The subject land is covered by the Greater Dandenong Planning Scheme and is in a Business 4 Zone as is land immediately abutting the site. The Princes Highway is within a Road Zone Category 1.
2. Pursuant to Clause 34.04-6, Advertising Sign Requirements, are at Clause 52.05, Category 1. There is a Public Infrastructure Overlay for the Eastlink project and connecting roads over the land on the north-west side of the site.
3. Reference was made to the planning policies including:
   • Clause 19.03 Design and Built Form
   • Clause 21.04-6 Urban Design
   • Clause 21.04-8 Traffic and Transport
   • Clause 22.03 Urban Design and Commercial and Industrial Areas

1. The Grounds of Refusal were:
   1. The location and size of the sign will be dominant to the building/site in which it is located failing to meet the objectives of Clause 21.04-6 of the Greater Dandenong Planning Scheme.
   2. The size of the sign will be dominant to the skyline of the area.
   3. The proposed sign may compromise or detract from future works arising from the Central Dandenong Gateways Strategy (2006) at the intersection of Princes Highway, Heatherton Road and Eastlink a 'future gateway', failing to satisfy objectives of Clauses 21.04-6 and 22.03 of the Greater Dandenong Planning Scheme.
   4. The location of the signage is contrary to the Council's "Code of Practice - Advertising Signs" Reference Document.
   5. The proposed sign detracts from the identification of the business on the land.

1. The Grounds of Application for Review were:
   1. The proposed sign is considered to be appropriate for the subject site and not considered to unreasonably dominate the site or skyline.
   2. The proposed sign is considered to be in line with all with the relevant provisions of the Greater Dandenong Planning Scheme.

1. I have conducted an inspection to help me come to my decision in this matter.
2. The City of Greater Dandenong Code of Practice - Advertising Signs, December 1996, is a reference document within the Planning Scheme. The objectives set out in the document are:
   • To provide limited opportunity for promotion advertising in areas of high business activity, consistent with other amenity, character and safety criteria.
   • To respect the architecture and scale of the building or the landscape character of the land in which the sign is located.
   • To minimise distraction to road users and prevent a reduction in traffic safety on roads.
   • To protect the visual amenity of the surrounding locality.
   • To reduce advertising clutter.
   • To ensure signs are structurally safe and not a hazard to pedestrians or motorists.
3. The document sets out a number of performance criteria including:
   • Large promotion signs are generally confined to focal points in high activity business centre.
   • Signs are designed to compliment the architecture and scale of the building.
   • Large supporting frameworks for signs are not used.
   • The sign does not dominate the building or the entrance to a shopping centre.
   • Signs are not located in residential streets and are not placed on walls directly facing residential uses or the entrance to residential streets.
   • Signs do not project above parapet, wall or roof lines or hang over the boundary of the site (unless it can be demonstrated that the sign is architecturally integrated with the host building or the adjoining buildings and other criteria are met).
4. The proposed sign on the north-west facade of the building would be viewed by traffic travelling south-east on the Princes Highway, traffic travelling along Eastlink and traffic travelling east along the deviated Heatherton Road which would cross Eastlink and the Princes Highway. There is also a Public Acquisition Overlay for the purpose of the Eastlink project on the land to the north-west of the building immediately abutting the building, and I was told in the Council submission that this is for the purpose of the Eastlink project and connecting roads. It will obviously be a very prominent sign in this location where major roads will intersect.
5. The sign would be 18 metres long, 3 metres high, and be 1 metre above the wall of the building which itself would be 3.61 metres above ground level. The height of the sign, 3 metres, is almost equal to the height of the building wall, which is 3.61 metres. Because of the slope of the land the building is almost completely hidden towards the rear and this would mean that only the sign would be visible above the fence line.
6. I was told that the Council is in the early stages of implementing the "Central Dandenong Gateways Strategy" which it is said would respond to the Objectives and Strategies of Clause 21.04-6 of the Planning Scheme and within that Strategy the Princes Highway/Heatherton Road/Eastlink intersection is defined as a "future gateway". It was submitted that introducing a large sign next to the new bridges was not supported for what was said to be its undesirable competing gateway expression. The Council submission said that the Strategy did not advise how the "future gateway' would treated whilst other gateways identified were provided with prescriptive approaches. It was said that any design of the gateway would need to consider the final construction detail of the surrounding road network and overpasses which at this stage is unknown and in treating the gateway the Strategy would act as an advisory document to ensure appropriate outcomes are achieved. This proposed strategy is certainly not a seriously entertained planning proposal at this stage, and is not relevant to my decision.
7. It was submitted that at this stage in implementing the strategy and prior to finalising of the construction of Eastlink, approval of any additional large structures such as this sign could detract from any future works to improve the area or could be at odds with plans proposed for Eastlink and this major intersection and the proposal was therefore considered to be premature and not respectful of State Planning Policy strategies as outlined in Clause 18.01-2, which provides in part:

...The design of transport routes and nearby areas should be planned and regulated to achieve visual standards appropriate to the importance of the route with particular reference to landscaping, the control of outdoor advertising and, where appropriate, the provision of buffer zones and resting places...

1. It was submitted that the Council Code of Practice - Advertising Signs, which is reference document referred to in Clause 21.04-6, aims to ensure that promotion signs are integrated into surroundings in which they are located and are not unreasonably dominant to their surrounds.
2. Mr Gray, for the Applicant for Review/Permit Applicant, submitted that the sign would make a positive contribution to the overall appearance of the location. He said that the sign height of 3 metres was not excessive given the nature of the commercial building on which it is proposed to be located and would not dominate the skyline given that the land continues to rise to the rear and there is a large brick industrial building that would form a backdrop to the sign. He submitted that the horizontal emphasis of the sign running along the building was also an appropriate design response to the building on which it was proposed to be located.
3. Mr Gray submitted:

An assessment of the proposed major promotion sign against the specific provisions at Clause 52.05-5 indicates that the sign is appropriate as:

• The proposed major promotion sign is located in an industrial area in a manner which complements the character of the area and as such is encouraged in this location in accordance with these provisions.
• The proposed sign is not located along a forest or tourist road, a scenic route or landscaped section of a freeway
• The proposed sign is not located within or adjacent to an open space reserve or corridor or around waterways.
• The proposed sign will not form a dominant visual element when viewed from nearby residential areas (see further assessment below) nor is it within or adjacent to a heritage place and
• The proposed sign will not obstruct any significant viewlines.
• The area in which the proposed major promotion sign would be located is not one with a strong built form character and the proposed sign would not be a dominant element in the streetscape.

1. Mr Gray acknowledged that the proposal to erect the sign on the roof of the building was generally not encouraged by Clause 52.05 but there were mitigating circumstances that would allow the objective of that provision to be met. He said that such circumstances include the low profile of the building on which the sign was to be located and it would appear just above the fence line of the property and would not be a dominant element in the skyline. He also submitted that trees behind the site would be a significant backdrop as the sign would not block their view as was suggested by the Council. Mr Gray submitted that the surrounds of the signage did not contain any other significant signage elements and with the removal of the existing business identification signage the proposed sign would be the only signage orientated to the north-west on the property. He submitted that it was therefore clear that the proposed signage would not result in any clutter or visual intrusion caused by the incidence of competing signage orientated in this direction.
2. Mr Gray submitted that the proposed sign could be dropped to the top of the building, ie. eliminating the 1 metre clearance between the building and the bottom of the sign.
3. This is an important location with the intersection of these major roads. A large sign is proposed which would be a dominant element in the area. With the development of these major roads not yet completed I do not consider that the real impact of the sign can be assessed at this stage. I am therefore of the view that the proposal is premature as suggested by the Council.
4. My present conclusion is that the sign would not respect the location when the development of these major road initiatives in the area is complete. The sign would clearly dominate its host building, visibility of which is restricted, and would project above the building and I think it would be difficult to demonstrate that it would be architecturally integrated with the host building.
5. I do not believe that the proposed sign takes account of the high visual standards that one might expect would prevail with the completion of Eastlink and the associated road projects. It is essential that if it is to be erected it is complementary to those developments, and it could have a very detrimental impact on the high standard of visual amenity which one would expect when Eastlink and the associated road works are completed.
6. I have given no weight to the proposed "Central Dandenong Gateways Strategy". It is obviously at a very early stage of development and I have no knowledge of what it might contain and it would certainly be premature to have any regard to it. It may be however that if and when it is completed and is a reference document in the planning scheme it may be supportive of a proposal such as this. Only time will tell.
7. I consider however that the sign would be quite dominant and could have a detrimental impact on the high standard visual amenity of the area when Eastlink and the associated road works are completed. I do not consider in those circumstances that a permit should be granted.

1. For the above reasons this application for review is disallowed. It is appropriate that a permit not be granted, and I will so order.