It is proposed to erect a floodlit major promotion sign. The sign is in a V-formation, so as to be visible to northbound and southbound motorists on the EastLink tollway. Each panel is 18.99m wide and 4.47m high and the sign has an overall height of 19.47m.

Application under Section 77 of Planning and Environment Act 1987

The subject land is located within an industrial estate on the western side of the EastLink tollway. It has an irregular shape, with an abuttal to the EastLink road reserve of approximately 145m and a frontage to Popes Road of approximately 70m. It is developed with warehouse buildings, expansive paved areas and two large water tanks. The proposed sign is to be located on the eastern side of the land, to the north of the water tanks and adjacent to the boundary with the EastLink reserve. Between the subject land and the roadway there is a bicycle/pedestrian path and a narrow landscaped embankment.

Captions Pty Ltd v Greater Dandenong CC [2010] VCAT 1255

1. In September 2013, iOM Pty Ltd applied to the Greater Dandenong City Council to 'erect a freestanding, pole mounted major promotional sign' on industrial land at 67 Popes Road, Keysborough. The sign is of a size that is known in the industry as a 'spectacular'. It would be visible by southbound and northbound motorists on EastLink.
2. The Council's delegate adopted the planning officer's recommendation that the application be refused. The applicant seeks a review of that decision. ConnectEast, which is the road authority for EastLink,[1] argues that the proposal should be rejected.
3. The key issues are whether there is support in the planning scheme for a major promotion sign in this location and, more particularly, whether it would have an unreasonable impact on EastLink in terms of visual amenity or road safety.
4. Having considered the submissions and inspected the area, as well as driving the length of EastLink in both directions, I have concluded that a permit should not issue. My reasons are set out below.[2]

1. The Council's fourth ground of refusal refers to the application having 'significant similarities' to an earlier application for a major promotion sign on the neighbouring site to the south east (75 Popes Road). The ground of refusal notes that the Council's refusal of that application was upheld by VCAT and states 'There have been no transformational changes in material circumstances that would warrant a different decision in this case'.
2. The sign proposed for 75 Popes Road was smaller than the current proposal. It was what is known in the industry as a 'supersite' size - comprising two 12.66m by 3.35m panels on a V-shaped structure, with a total height of 15.35m.
3. The Tribunal's decision,[3] in July 2010, to uphold the Council's refusal was based on the impact of the sign on the entire road experience of EastLink and because it would conflict with the surrounding land use. Member Fong concluded:
   1. Against the existing conditions of the motorway, I form the view that the sign, due to its size, location and height, is a dominant structure that does not relate to its industrial neighbourhood. It disrupts the streetscape that is the motorway and dominates the visual amenity of this part of the motorway. It is an element that causes a visual disorder to the pattern of development and scale of structures in the area. It detracts from the visual experience of this part of the motorway.
4. The current proposal has signage panels of 18.99m by 4.576m, resulting in twice the area of advertising display of the sign rejected by Member Fong. It is also 4.12m higher. It thus seems surprising that such an application has been lodged.
5. Mr Jewell argued that this is 'clearly a repeat appeal' and therefore the long held principles regarding such situations apply. However, as the proposal relates to different land, it is technically not a repeat appeal. It is appropriate for me to have regard to the earlier decision, but I am not bound to make the same decision. The policy context has changed since Member Fong's decision, which was the first Tribunal decision regarding advertising signs after the opening of EastLink. As highlighted by Mr Whitford, there have been changes to the road corridor since then. In his words, the 'road has matured'. Furthermore, there have been changes to relevant policy and four further Tribunal decisions addressing the issue of how signs near EastLink should be considered. They all inform my assessment of the current proposal.

Do the provisions and policies of the planning scheme support a major promotion sign in this location?

1. The subject land is at the edge of a large area on the western side of EastLink that is zoned and used for industrial purposes. The land on the eastern side of the tollway, known as Greaves Reserve, is within a Public Park and Recreation Zone and accommodates various recreational facilities and the EastLink Trail.
2. Pursuant to clause 33.01-5 (Industrial 1 Zone), the advertising sign requirements of clause 52.05 (Advertising signs) are invoked. This zone is in Category 2 - Office and industrial, which is 'Low limitation'.[4] Its purpose is 'To provide for adequate identification signs and signs that are appropriate to office and industrial areas'. Various types of signs (including pole signs) are permitted as-of-right, provided the total advertisement area of all signs does not exceed 8m2. Small internally-illuminated signs are also permitted as-of-right. A major promotion sign (being a sign of 18m2 or greater) is a Section 2 (Permit required) use.
3. The purpose of clause 52.05 includes ensuring 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'. In addition to the decision guidelines at clause 52.05-3 that are relevant to all signs, major promotion signs are also subject to the specific permit requirements and decision guidelines at clause 52.05-6. The decision guidelines call for a consideration (as appropriate) of the effect of the 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.
   • Open space and waterways.
4. The 'locational principles' that must also be taken into account include:
   • 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 along forest and tourist roads, scenic routes or landscaped sections of freeways.
   • In areas with a strong built form character, major promotion signs are encouraged only where they are not a dominant element in the streetscape ...
5. State policy calls for the 'design of transport routes and nearby areas to achieve visual standards appropriate to the importance of the route', with particular reference to the control of outdoor advertising.[5]
6. At clause 21.05-1, the Council Municipal Strategic Statement has the objective 'To ensure a co-ordinated approach to sign design and placement, in commercial, industrial, residential areas and along road corridors'. Related strategies are:
   • 9.1 Ensure that the design and placement of new signs considers the cumulative impact of existing signs on the host building, adjoining buildings and the streetscape.
   • 9.2 Ensure major promotion and sky signs along road corridors are appropriately spaced so as not to dominate the overall setting and to minimise impact on viewing corridors/major view lines.
7. The Advertising Signs Policy at clause 22.11 has provisions that specifically relate to promotion and major promotion signs within 60m of arterial roads and freeways.[6] That policy, which was introduced into the planning scheme in December 2013,[7] includes:

There are commercial pressures for the erection of major promotion signs along arterial roads, including freeways, which criss-cross the City of Greater Dandenong. These arterial roads in many instances provide for many people the first impression of the municipality. It is important that the desire to take advantage of the increased viewing opportunities from these roads and gateway locations is balanced with the need to ensure that there is in place clear guidance with regard to sign location and the design elements that need to be incorporated in signs.

• Strongly discourage promotion, major promotion and sky signs along freeways.
• Adhere to the Signage Guidelines contained within the City of Greater Dandenong Gateways Strategy, December 2011.

1. The two policy references listed at clause 22.11-3.7 are EastLink Preferred signage locations and the EastLink Advertising Code.[8]

1. Given the zoning of the land, and thus its inclusion in Category 2 of the advertising provisions at clause 52.05, there is discretion to grant a permit for a major promotion sign in this location.
2. A major promotion sign is by definition a special category of sign. Its viability relies on visibility to a high number of passers-by. It is intended to be prominent. I agree with Mr Whitford that in this instance, such signs can provide a 'significant opportunity for local business, entertainment and education providers to promote their services to this major transport corridor audience'.
3. The Council's first ground of refusal includes that the proposed sign does not 'serve the industrial use of the site and surrounding area'. However, it is not necessary for a sign to be linked to a business conducted on the land. By definition, a major promotion sign promotes goods, services, events etc. 'whether or not provided, undertaken or sold or for hire on the land or in the building on which the sign is sited'.[9] Although it is relevant to consider how the proposed sign will be perceived in its industrial context, it is of no consequence that it is unrelated to the land use.
4. On the face of it, the industrial zoning and context of the subject land are factors that weigh in support of the proposal. An industrial estate is a relatively non-sensitive location for a major promotion sign. The 'low limitation' for this zone ranks above the 'minimal limitation' for commercial areas and below the 'medium limitation' for high amenity areas and 'maximum limitation' for sensitive areas. However, a focus on the industrial area itself is of marginal relevance in this instance. Workers in the industrial area are not the intended viewers of this sign. Pedestrians and cyclists using the pathway would see the sign, but it has clearly been designed to be visible from EastLink.
5. When considered in terms of the clause 52.05-6 decision guidelines for major promotion signs, there is also general support for the proposal. For instance, if the usual meaning of 'significant' is adopted, the sign would not have an adverse effect on significant streetscapes, buildings and skylines or the visual appearance of a significant view corridor, viewline, gateway location or landmark site. It is removed from any heritage place and at least 350m from the closest residential area to the west. There is an extensive area of public open space, including a waterway (Mile Creek) on the opposite side of EastLink, but it was not argued that the proposed sign would have any adverse impact on those features.
6. With respect to the relevant 'locational principles' in clause 52.05-6, this is not a location where major promotion signs are expressly discouraged. In particular, it is not a scenic or landscaped section of the freeway. It is not an area that can be characterised as having a strong built form character. It is an industrial location where a major promotion sign is expressly encouraged, provided it 'complements or enhances the character of the area'. I consider that proviso later in these reasons.
7. The proposal is not inconsistent with the strategies at clause 21.05-1 relating to a co-ordinated approach to sign design and placement along road corridors. It is not necessary to consider the proposed sign in terms of a 'cumulative impact'. It is of a very different type to signs on nearby buildings. Although the visual 'clutter' of major promotion signs has been determinative in other Tribunal decisions regarding signs along EastLink,[10] it is not an issue in this case. By my reckoning, the nearest major promotion signs are around 2.5km to the south and 9.5km to the north.
8. With respect to compliance with the local policy at clause 22.11-3.5, the Council did not rely on the City of Greater Dandenong Gateways Strategy. However, Mr Whitford correctly observed that the proposal cannot but offend the policy that strongly discourages major promotion signs along freeways. That policy can be contrasted to the provisions of clause 52.05-6, which differentiate sections along roads where major promotion signs are encouraged (with provisos) or discouraged. The policy basis at clause 22.11.30-5 refers to the need for clear guidance regarding the location and design elements of major promotion signs along freeways signs. Strongly discouraging all such signs is a remarkably blunt response to that policy basis. Mr Seach did not attempt to further illuminate the rationale for the policy, simply saying that such signs are not encouraged in any specific locations and are specifically strongly discouraged along freeways.
9. In any event, a policy that strongly discourages the proposed sign cannot determine the outcome and override the discretion in the planning scheme to grant a permit. I need to consider the specific merits of the proposal in order to determine whether it would have an unreasonable impact on the abutting roadway.

Would the proposed sign adversely affect the visual amenity of EastLink?

1. On behalf of the applicant, Mr Whitford submitted that since Member Fong's decision in July 2010 EastLink 'has matured' and a blanket approach should not apply to the consideration of signs. In particular, he noted the establishment of landscaping along the roadway and the recent development of large service centres on either side of the tollway. He argued that other divisions of the Tribunal have subsequently recognised that there is not one 'EastLink experience'. Furthermore, he highlighted that the Tribunal has allowed the erection of major promotion signs (of a 'supersite' size) on private land adjacent to the tollway in Ringwood and Seaford.
2. According to Mr Whitford, this section of the tollway does not have any core design elements, such as art or pedestrian bridges. He submitted that the western side of the road is a nondescript industrial area and it is not clear that it is part of EastLink. Mr Whitford also highlighted that this section of the tollway is not a location in which signage is 'not permitted' pursuant to the EastLink Advertising Code, which is a reference document in clause 22.11.[11]
3. Mr Whitford submitted that the proposed sign is comparable in size and design to other signs erected in the EastLink road corridor, and along other freeways and major roads. He acknowledged that the proposed sign has a greater height to the underside than the approved signs in the EastLink corridor, but argued that motorists will not perceive that. Mr Whitford even suggested that the sign considered by Member Fong was 'undersized' with respect to the approved signs within the EastLink corridor.
4. Mr Whitford also submitted that the proposed sign would not detract from the 'established EastLink urban form' and would have no 'adverse visual impact'. In that regard, he argued that it is not contrary to the local policy proposed to be introduced by Amendment C149 (which I discuss later in these reasons).

1. When travelling along EastLink there is not one consistent experience. The tollway section of EastLink[12] is 39 kilometres long and traverses very diverse areas, including suburban estates, major and minor utilities, parklands, open space reserves, wetlands, golf courses, industrial estates and open country. There is also a changing topography. Largely due to the nature of abutting land uses, there are different experiences in different sections of the tollway. It is evident, however, that there has been a holistic design approach. As well as the use of consistent traffic signage, pavement treatment, railings, gantry and bridge design, colours and materials, it is apparent that there has been a concerted attempt to provide what the lead architect, Roger Wood, has described as 'an experience, rather than just a routine car ride'.[13] The four large sculptures are prime examples of that, but the concrete and coloured acrylic noise walls, retaining wall panels, colourful pedestrian bridges and landscaping treatments are other examples.

1. Adverting signage is also a feature of EastLink. Mr Jewell explained the background to the signs within the EastLink road corridor. Essentially, the Concession Deed under which ConnectEast operates includes a right to display advertising signs, with the prior approval of the State. The EastLink Advertising Code was developed in 2007 by SEITA (a statutory authority), to guide the consideration of signage locations. Mr Jewell was at pains to point out that it was SEITA, liaising with the State, which approved the location of signs and operated a tender process. However, ConnectEast and the State receive equal shares of the revenue generated by signs.
2. A total of 11 signs were approved for sites within the EastLink road corridor. All but two of them have been erected. A table in Mr Jewell's written submission sets out the details of the signs - including location, single or double sided, orientation, size and height above road to underside.
3. Reviewing the table, and in the light of my inspection, I note the following:
   • The signs within the road corridor have various sizes, orientations and contexts.
   • Four of the signs are of the standard 'spectacular' size (18.99m x 4.5m), with half of them being V-shaped (two panels) and half single-sided. A further such V-shaped sign is proposed, but not built.
   • One sign is of the standard 'supersite' size (12.66m x 4.07m) and single-sided.
   • Four of the signs are of a smaller size, with an upright format (5.3m x 8.0m) and single-sided.
   • The other sign that is approved but not built is the largest of them all - 30.78m x 8.0m and V-shaped.
   • Most of the signs are erected on the eastern side of the roadway, although some of them are visible to both southbound and northbound traffic.
   • There are clusters of signs in the north and south section of the tollway, but no more than one sign is ever visible at the same time.
   • There are no signs in the middle section, over a length of around 12km between just to the north of Ferntree Gully Road and just to the north of the Dandenong Bypass.
   • The underside of most of the signs is not highly elevated above the road. Of the nine signs that are built, the table indicates that for eight of them the underside is elevated in the range of 3.0m-5.5m. One sign commences 8.29m above the road. The approved but unbuilt signs also commence close to the road level.
   • Many of the signs are close to the roadway, appearing to almost hover over the edge of the carriageway. Only a few have any landscaping at their base.
   • The signs have a consistent design, including their fabrication and black mesh on the back of single-sided signs.
   • There are also a number of smaller promotion signs within the road corridor, mostly advertising EastLink as a gateway to the attractions of the Mornington Peninsula.
   • In some of the abutting industrial areas the end walls of buildings carry large business signs, although most are well removed from the road reserve.
4. The Tribunal has allowed the erection of two major promotion signs of a 'supersite' size on private land adjacent to the EastLink corridor. On land within an industrial estate in Seaford, the Tribunal allowed a V-shaped (two panel) sign, but required the height of the pole to be reduced from 10m to 6m, resulting in a total height of 10.35m.[14] The Tribunal has recently allowed the erection of a single sided sign, with an overall height of 12m, on an industrial site in Ringwood.[15] Neither of the approved signs is yet erected.

1. Mr Jewell emphasised the need for a strategic approach to the whole EastLink corridor and highlighted that the tollway runs through five municipalities.[16] According to Mr Jewell, Member Fong's decision gave rise to a recognition that the area outside the corridor was 'vulnerable to inappropriate development', including signs capitalising on visibility from EastLink.
2. Of the four principal municipalities,[17] Greater Dandenong is the most advanced in terms of a planning scheme amendment. Amendment C149 was exhibited in mid 2013 and recently adopted by the Council. It has been sent to the Minister. It proposes a local policy (clause 22.12) entitled EastLink - Buildings, Works and Signage that would apply to 'all land which adjoins or has exposure to the EastLink motorway'. Its objectives include:
   • To enhance the driver experience of EastLink and promote and enhance a pleasant and safe driver experience of the motorway.
   • To encourage a visually attractive interface between the EastLink motorway and adjoining land.
   • To encourage all new development and buildings or works adjacent to the EastLink motorway to be designed in a manner that complements the motorway.
   • To ensure that promotional signage on the periphery of the motorway corridor does not detract from the established EastLink urban form.
   • To encourage buildings and works including signage to be of a high standard of design and layout with integrated landscape treatments.
3. The proposed clause 22.12 policy includes encouraging (amongst other things) 'signage that is designed and built to a high quality, and shows innovation and responsiveness in its relationship to the established EastLink urban form'. It is policy to discourage:
   • major promotional signs and sky signs where they will have an adverse visual impact in the landscape and design of the EastLink motorway corridor.
   • signs that promote goods, services, an event of any other matter, not provided, undertaken or sold or for hire on the land or in the building on which the sign is sited.
   • signage that will cause a "repetitive" effect.
   • promotional signage located along the motorway in areas requiring high levels of driver concentration.
4. The policy reference are the two documents that are listed in clause 22.11-3.7 - the EastLink Preferred signage locations and the EastLink Advertising Code.

1. On the one hand, the proposed clause 22.12 policy appears to envisage major promotional signs where they will not have an adverse visual impact on EastLink or in locations where a high level of driver concentration is not required. On the other hand, it discourages any sign that is unrelated to the use conducted on the land, and thus the most common type of major promotion sign. Given the latter provision, it is surprising that there were no submissions from the advertising industry regarding Amendment C149. Nevertheless, the amendment is a 'seriously entertained planning proposal' to which I should give weight. I note again, however, that a policy discouraging major promotion signs cannot determine the outcome and override the discretion to grant a permit.
2. It is controversial that ConnectEast has supported the development of a policy that discourages major promotion signs. While I appreciate that ConnectEast was not responsible for the planning or approval of the 11 major promotion signs within the EastLink corridor, its support of the proposed policy and its objection to this proposed sign, just outside the corridor, would certainly have more credibility if there were no major promotion signs with the corridor and ConnectEast did not earn revenue from such signs. While ConnectEast clearly has an interest in limiting the construction of competing signs on private land outside the EastLink corridor, I accept that its submissions are based on the planning merits of the proposal.
3. Notwithstanding the existing and proposed policies that discourage major promotion signs along EastLink, such signs are an existing feature of EastLink.
4. Mr Jewell submitted that 'the signs within the freeway corridor were designed specifically for the locations', with regard to 'traffic safety, urban design, integrity of major interchanges, avoidance of breaking the skyline, landscaping, roadway engineering and landform'. Having inspected each of the nine signs it is by no means self-evident how those factors have determined the locations and size of the signs. In that regard, I agree with the following observation of Member Read:

While it is clear that, due to the scale of the road, there must have been a coordinated approach, the only way that this can be perceived, in relation to advertising signs, is in their use of a common typology and detailing, the absence along some sections of road and their spacing. In other respects, ConnectEast's advertising signs strategy is completely opaque.[18]

1. While the signs are all removed from the major design elements of the tollway (including the large sculptures and coloured sound walls), a number of them are dominant elements that 'break the skyline' and only a few are integrated into the landform by their placement and landscaping. That is consistent with Member Read's observation that the nine approved major promotion signs (and two as yet not-constructed signs):

... generally stand in areas having a strong or distinct character and rise well above their surroundings; they generally have a dominating character, are set in areas with a strong character and stand against the skyline.[19]

1. It was not their 'call', but it is unsurprising that the EastLink architects did not support the erection of major promotion signs within the corridor. It is certainly questionable whether all of them comply with the design parameters of the EastLink Advertising Code. For instance, contrary to the Code, many of them dominate or protrude significantly into the skyline, only a few have complementary landscaping and it is difficult to see any of them as 'elegant yet unobtrusive'.
2. That said, it would be inappropriate to justify a further sign that is contrary to the Code, and the outcomes sought by policy, on the basis of existing signs. My principal finding is that the proposed sign, by virtue of its size and setting, would adversely affect the visual amenity of EastLink. In reaching that conclusion, I have been influenced by a number of factors.
3. The subject land is within the long central section of EastLink (from near Ferntree Gully Road to below Cheltenham Road, over a length of approximately 12km) that has no major promotion signs, either in the road corridor or on abutting private land. I have no information as to why there are no approved EastLink signs in this central section. There are likely to be different reasons for the diverse sub-sections. For instance, a short distance to the north of the subject land, the narrow road reserve is bounded by noise walls, and would preclude a large sign. In the immediate vicinity of the subject land, it would be likely that limiting factors would have included the large reserve and Mile Creek on the eastern side and, on the western side, the elevation of the road, the limited space between it and private land and the limited roadside vegetation.
4. The fact that the subject land is lower than the level of the road means that to be viewed from the carriageway - especially from the more distant southbound lanes - any sign needs to be elevated. In response, the proposed sign panels are to be erected on a 14m-high pole and have an overall height of 19.47m. In contrast, the four 'spectacular' sized signs in the EastLink corridor commence much lower to the ground (either 4m, 5m or 8.29m). There is no prospect of complementary landscaping.
5. The subject land is part of a non-descript industrial area, but that does not negate its importance in terms of views from EastLink. While the land use on the western side of this section of the tollway is not 'attractive', that is no reason to suggest that this area is not part of the 'EastLink experience'. The immediate vicinity does not have any conspicuous design elements, but it is only a short distance to the south of a section with strong elements (including sound walls and green pedestrian bridges with a sculptural form). It is not at the end of the tollway, where Member Watson allowed the erection of a major promotion sign of a 'supersite' size largely on the basis that EastLink 'fades off'.[20]
6. In the context of industrial buildings with a low profile, the proposed sign would be in a highly exposed location. By virtue of its overall size, elevation above the ground level and V-shaped configuration, the proposed sign would be a dominant element in views from EastLink. A mobile phone tower located a short distance to the south is a tall element, but has a minimal visual impact and is not illuminated. Although major promotion signs are encouraged in industrial locations, the proposed sign does not accord with the principle of clause 52.05-6 that signs in such locations complement or enhance the character of the area.
7. The proposed sign would have twice the area of advertising area, and be 4.12m higher, than the sign rejected by Member Fong on the basis of its dominance and creation of visual disorder. There have been no physical or strategic changes that would now justify a significantly larger sign than the one rejected by Member Fong.
8. The State policy at clause 18.02-4 calls for an advertising sign to achieve a visual standard appropriate to the importance of the adjacent transport route. My finding is that this sign is not acceptable in those terms. It would add nothing to the experience of EastLink.
9. Lastly, I note that that there may be scope for a much smaller sign, lower to the ground and single-sided (visible only to northbound motorists), but given the topography it is not clear how that would work.

1. The Council and ConnectEast submitted that the proposed sign would be a distraction from the VMS (Variable Messaging Service) board that is located approximately 120m to the south. With respect to northbound motorists, Mr Jewell argued that the proposed sign 'may create a dominating backdrop which could reduce the effectiveness of the VMS'.
2. Mr Jewell also submitted that for southbound motorists the proposed sign could be inappropriately located in relation to a directional sign to the Cheltenham Road exit.
3. In support of those arguments, Mr Seach and Mr Jewell relied on the decision guideline at clause 52.05-3 that calls for a consideration of the impact on road safety. It states that a sign is a safety hazard if it (inter alia):

Obstructs a driver's view of a traffic control device, or is likely to create a confusing or dominating background which might reduce the clarity or effectiveness of a traffic control device.

1. Mr Jewell also highlighted that the EastLink Advertising Code calls for no advertisements where there is a need for 'high levels of driver concentration', including 'in advance of, and past, major directional signs'.
2. There was no evidence before me on that matter. I note that Member Fong accepted the evidence of the traffic engineer, Mr Turnbull, that the smaller sign she was considering would be unlikely to affect the safety of drivers.
3. There is no suggestion that other than an ordinary level of concentration is required on this section of the tollway. It is flat and straight. The sign I am considering is substantially larger, but further removed from the VMS.
4. Ultimately, it is not necessary for me to make a finding on this issue. To support any finding that the sign would jeopardise road safety, it is likely that I would have required some evidence to that effect.

1. It follows from the above reasons that my conclusion is that the decision of the Council should be affirmed and a permit not be granted.

[1] In 2004, the State Government entered into a Concession Deed with ConnectEast which requires the latter to fund, design, construct, operate, toll and maintain EastLink for 39 years.

[2] In setting out the reasons for my decision, I do not recite all of the documentation tendered by the parties, as all material is retained on the Tribunal's file.

[3] Its citation is Captions Pty Ltd v Greater Dandenong CC [2010] VCAT 1255, but the applicant was Caption Pty Ltd.

[8] Mr Jewell advised that there is an error in the attribution of those documents. ConnectEast did not prepare them. They were prepared by the statutory authority SEITA (the Southern and Eastern Integrated Transport Authority), now trading as Linking Melbourne Authority (LMA).

[10] Regarding a proposed V-shaped sign on land on the eastern side of EastLink in Ringwood, in Adspace Outdoor Pty Ltd v Maroondah CC [2012] VCAT 1914 Member Read held that it was too close to another sign within the road corridor and would 'constitute a proliferation of such signs'. In ConnectEast v Maroondah CC [2014] VCAT 423 Member Deidun subsequently allowed a smaller single-sided sign on the same land, primarily as motorists would only read one sign in each direction.

[11] Although the Code primarily relates to land to within the EastLink road corridor, its inclusion as a policy reference suggests it should be used as a guide when assessing advertising signs on private land outside the road reserve. Locations where 'signage is not permitted' include the major interchanges and from the Monash Freeway to the Princes Highway.

[12] The EastLink project also includes the untolled Ringwood and Dandenong Bypasses, bicycle and pedestrian paths etc.

[13] EastLink: Melbourne's Motorway Masterpiece, quoted in Mr Jewell's written submission.

[14] Drive By Media v Frankston CC [2013] VCAT 2072

[15] See citation and background in footnote 10

[16] Manningham, Maroondah, Knox, Greater Dandenong and Frankston

[17] Excluding Manningham which has only a small section with abutting land not commercial or industrial

[18] Adspace Pty Ltd v Maroondah CC [2012] VCAT 1914 at [33]

[20] DriveBy Media Pty Ltd v Frankston CC [2013] VCAT 2072