It is proposed to erect and display a floodlit major promotion sign. The sign is to be located in the north west corner of the site. The proposed support pole is setback 6.2 metres from the Bald Hill Road frontage and 4.8 metres from the eastern property boundary.

The proposed sign is to be mounted on a 4.4 metre high pole with an overall height of 7 metres.

The sign incorporates two faces with each face providing a minimum length of 8.2 metres and a height of 2.2 metres providing a total advertisement are of 18.04 square metres to each side and an overall total of 36.08 square metres.

The sign includes a 0.4 metre white colourbond cladding skirt at the base of the site.

Each of the sign faces includes two floodlights at the bottom which are positioned on either side of the skirt cladding to illuminate the sign above.

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

Having regard to clause 33.01-5 and 52.05, the specified advertising sign category is identified as Category 2 Office and Industrial.

Clauses 10.04, 11.01, 11.02, 15.01, 18.02-4, 21.04, 21.06 and 65.

The subject site is located on the south side of Bald Hill Road, Pakenham. The subject site is approximately 1 kilometre from the Main Street of Pakenham.

The site is generally rectangular in shape with an approximate frontage of 20 metres, a depth of 89 metres and an overall area of 1802 square metres.

There is a road reserve of approximately 8 metres between the site and the kerb of Bald Hill Road. The land is generally flat.

The site is located in an area that can be described as a well established industrial area, comprising mainly medium scale commercial and industrial properties.

I inspected the site and surrounds on 6 October 2013.

Adam Whitford iOM v Whittlesea CC [2012] VCAT 918.

1. In February 2013, the Cardinia Shire Council determined to refuse to grant a planning permit for the display of a floodlit major promotion sign on the grounds that the sign is detrimental to the appearance of the area and creates excessive visual clutter and disorder in area that is a gateway to Pakenham. It is a decision that the Permit Applicant has requested be reviewed by the Tribunal. Several objections were lodged with the Tribunal raising concerns with the sign and supporting Council's refusal.
2. The key issue is if the proposed sign is appropriate for the location and if it contributes to visual clutter and disorder for the location.
3. The Tribunal must decide whether a permit should be granted and, if so, what conditions should be applied. Having considered the submissions presented with regard to the applicable policies and provisions of the Cardinia Planning Scheme, I have decided to affirm the decision of the Council and refuse to grant a planning permit. My reasons follow.

1. It has been established by the planning scheme and this Tribunal that major promotional signs are a legitimate form of signage. As Member Slattery observed in Adam Whitford iOM v Whittlesea CC [2012] VCAT 918:

Major promotional signs are a legitimate use in the planning scheme and one that is encouraged in industrial locations, in a manner that complements or enhances the character of the area. Major promotion signage need not be automatically reviled or feared, rather, an appropriate assessment against the state and local policy and decision guidelines of Clause 52.05 are required.

Within State Policy at Clause 15 it is an accepted premise that new development must take into account the natural and strategic context of its location. Further to this, Clause 18 requires that with specific regard to the construction and display of advertising signage, visual standards appropriate to the importance of the route should be achieved.

1. Advertising signs can add visual interest and colour to an area. They can also serve as providers of public information. However, just because a major promotion sign is permissible within an Industrial area, it does not automatically result in permission being granted. A sign such as a major promotion sign must be considered in its context.
2. In support of the sign and its appropriateness in the location, the Permit Applicant made the following submissions:
   • The proposed sign by virtue of its purpose and design does not create excessive visual clutter and that the sign could in fact be considered to improve the area through the delivery of simple clear high quality messaging of essential goods and services.
   • The area is one that is characterised by nondescript commercial and industrial buildings. It is not a high amenity area but rather a mish-mash of traditional, commercial and industrial uses.
   • The proposed major promotional sign would not be an unexpected or a discordant element within the streetscape.
   • The location is not a sensitive or landscaped area or one where special views or vistas are attached.
3. The Council described the location as being a gateway to the main street of Pakenham and an area that is experiencing an element of urban renewal. The area currently accommodates buildings that are low key and open. The site also currently accommodates three business identification signs, one attached to the façade of the building, another along the eastern elevation of the building and a third a 'V' sign to the front of the site.
4. There is evidence of other signage within the area, with the newer signs such as the Mitre 10 Mega sign presenting as a cohesive business panel sign advertising several businesses. It is noted that the Mitre 10 sign relates to the activities on the land.
5. On my site inspection, I observed that it is a typical industrial area that to some degree, is undergoing a level of renewal. In considering the appropriateness of the proposed sign, I make reference to clause 52.05. The purpose of clause 52.05 seeks:
   • To regulate the display of signs and associated structures.
   • To provide for signs that are compatible with the amenity and visual appearance of an area, including the existing or desired future character.
   • To ensure signs do not contribute to excessive visual clutter or visual disorder.
   • To ensure that signs do not cause loss of amenity or adversely affect the natural or built environment or the safety, appearance or efficiency of a road.
6. Clause 52.05-6 'Major Promotion Signs' emphasises the importance of the physical location and context and seeks 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 surrounds or the safe and efficient operation of the route through the application of consistent planning controls.
7. I am persuaded by the Council that the proposed sign would be detrimental to the appearance of the location and to the desired future character of the area. This site is on a road that is an entrance to the town centre or as Council called it, a gateway to the Main Street of Pakenham. Whilst the site and street is not formally identified in the planning scheme as a 'gateway', in considering the sign, it is necessary to consider location and context. Council put to me that Bald Hill Road currently does not provide for a particularly aesthetically pleasing entrance to the Township, but the future character of the area is to regenerate the area and improve the streetscape. The road and location is currently open accommodating low profile structures with existing signage relating to activities on the land. There is a wide grass kerb contributing to the low profile character of the area.
8. It is noteworthy that the purpose of clause 52.05 specifically provides for signs that are compatible with the amenity and visual appearance of an area, including the existing or desired future character.
9. This older style industrial and commercial location appears to be undergoing some a level of urban renewal. The Mitre 10 site and sign are evident of this. It appears that there has been a real attempt in some locations to rationalise and improve the level and type of signage. The Mitre 10 sign again is an example of this. It is a tall sign but one that directly relates to and advertises activities on the land and rationalises what could be several signs to one, avoiding visual clutter. The Pet Stock sign is another example of a tall sign but again it relates to activities on the land and rationalises several signs to present as one cohesive sign.
10. The term 'visual clutter' is a subjective one. There is no regularity of signage on the subject site or immediate surrounds. Three signs already exist on the site. While there are existing buildings and structures in the area, the area has an open nature. What is proposed is a sign that would sit taller, wider and more exposed than any other sign on the site or within the immediate location. The proposed sign also has no relationship to the activities, the buildings or structures on the land. I find that given this open nature, the sign would appear as both a dominant and prominent element in the setting and do not find this relationship as positive or as being compatible with the amenity of visual appearance of the area.
11. I see this sign as detracting from the area and detracting from the future character of the area. I am persuaded by Council that the proposed sign will be a discordant element in the immediate location. The sign will appear as dominant in the site and location. Its size is uncharacteristic of the surrounding environment and therefore I have concluded that a major promotional sign is inconsistent with the purpose of clause 52.05 as it relates to existing and future character of the area.

1. Having regard to the above, the decision of the responsible authority will be affirmed, no permit to issue.

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