Erection and display of a floodlit major promotion sky sign at the south-western frontage of the site.

The sign comprises one panel facing north-west with dimensions of 12.66m x 3.35sq.m (42.4sq.m). The sign panel would be mounted on a freestanding pole with an additional 900mm white colorbond skirt along its lower edge. The underside of the sign would rise approximately 5.65m above ground level. The overall height is 10m and the sign would be located within an existing grassed/landscaped area. The sign panel would partially overhang carparking spaces.

Flood lights from the bottom edge of the sign panel are proposed. Advertising messages on display would vary from time to time.

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

• Industrial 1 Zone (IN1Z).
• Land Subject to Inundation Overlay (LSIO).

• Clause 52.05-8 - Advertising Signs - Category 2.
• Clause 44.04-1 - Buildings & Works (LSIO).

• Clauses 11; 12.04, 15; 17, 18, 21; 22.02.
• Clauses 52.05 and 65.

The land is an irregular shaped parcel with a total area of 2,564sq.m located on the south-west corner of Mosrael Place and Tampe Road, Rowville with frontages of 60.66m and 31m to each respective street.

The site is developed with a two-storey industrial building used for trade supplies (tiles and doors) with a front wall rising above an undercroft to a height of about 7.5m. There is an at-grade car park to the west and a landscaped area in front of the building and car park. Signage covers much of the front façade and additional signage is located close to the frontage in front of the grassed area in which the proposed sign is to be located. A number of substantial trees are located near the building although upon my second inspection, it was evident that two of these trees had been removed.

The site is located at the edge of an industrial precinct that takes in Tampe Road and Stud Road. A removalist and storage business is located immediately to the south and further south again is a vet clinic in a converted dwelling. Land to the south-west in Stud Road is in a Business 3 Zone. An area of public open space, zoned Urban Floodway and Public Park and Recreation, based along the Corhunwarrabul Creek including wetlands and walking and bike paths is located to the north-east and north-west, running alongside and beneath Stud Road.

I inspected the site and surrounding area on the 17 July and on 27 August 2013.

Wyndson Pty Ltd v Kingston CC [2000] VCAT 699.

Kings Funeral Services Pty Ltd v Greater Dandenong CC (Red Dot) [2008] VCAT 487.

Caption Pty Ltd v Melbourne CC [2009] VCAT 1967.

Buckle Outdoor Advertising Pty Ltd v Port Phillip CC & Ors Application for Review No. 1999/033589.

1. This case concerns a proposal by IOM Pty Ltd ("the Applicant") to erect and display a floodlit major promotion sky sign ("the sign") on a site within an Industrial 1 zone which has exposure to Stud Road, Rowville.
2. The sign is oriented to attract the attention of south-bound motorists along Stud Road.
3. The Council, required notice of the application and one objection was received from Mr Mackay on behalf of the abutting Dawsons removalist and storage premises to the south.
4. Council decided to refuse the grant of a permit, citing concerns about the sign's visual impact upon the area's character including the open space area to the north and the area more generally. The sign's compatibility with the direction sought by local policies, particularly in terms of the enhancement of main road corridors through design measures such as landscaping and the avoidance of signage clutter, are also concerns.
5. Mr Whitford contends that this location is a suitable one for this type of sign, taking into account the industrial zoning of the land with corresponding industrial use and development remote from residentially zoned land, the sign's focus towards a busy arterial road, the limited number of such signs within this part of metropolitan Melbourne and the direction provided by Clause 52.05-6 of the planning scheme for such signs.
6. I consider that the key issues for determination are:
   • (a) Is the proposed sign consistent with planning scheme policies and provisions?
   • (b) Is the siting, proportions and location of the sign acceptable in the context of its physical setting?
7. I record that the proposal does not present any concerns from a traffic safety perspective, nor is the site's liability to inundation problematic.
8. The Tribunal must now decide whether a permit should be granted and, if so, what conditions should be applied. Having considered all submissions presented with regard to the applicable policies and provisions of the Knox Planning Scheme, and the statements of grounds lodged by Mr Mackay, I have decided to refuse the grant of a permit. My reasons follow.
9. In reaching my findings, a number of Tribunal decisions were variously referred to by the parties in support of their respective positions. I have taken them into account
10. Some key principles of particular relevance that emerge from these decisions, and which I accept are that:
    • Proposals for major promotion signs should be assessed from a neutral rather than negative point of view (Kings Funeral Services v Greater Dandenong CC)
    • An inherent quality of major promotion signs is that they are typically placed in prominent locations and of a scale to maximise their exposure - that is they are designed to be seen and attract attention to themselves (Caption Pty Ltd v Melbourne CC).
    • As a matter of principle, it cannot be fairly said that major promotion signs reduce visual amenity (Wyndson Pty Ltd v Bayside CC).
    • Such signs are a legitimate commercial activity (Wyndson Pty Ltd v Bayside CC).
    • Major promotion signs can serve an important function in relation to public information and awareness and can add interest, colour and character to an area (Buckle Outdoor Advertising Pty Ltd v Port Phillip CC & Ors).
    • The critical element is that any major promotion sign is of a scale, form and location that is appropriate in the context of the existing physical environment (Buckle Outdoor Advertising Pty Ltd v Port Phillip CC & Ors).
    • Any sign must be consistent with planning policies guiding future development and have regard to potential amenity impacts on surrounding uses (Buckle Outdoor Advertising Pty Ltd v Port Phillip CC & Ors).

1. Key themes that emerge from a reading of local policies are:
   • The important role of the Dandenong Ranges and foothills which provide a scenic backdrop to Knox, much of the metropolitan area and are the major defining character and distinctive image elements for Knox.
   • In promoting economic development opportunities, the City's image as a high quality, attractive business location is an important outcome with an emphasis on enhancing this image through high quality urban design and landscaping.
2. Strategies seek to strengthen the area's distinctive landscape image, particularly along transport corridors and creeks and ask that advertising signage makes a positive contribution to the landscape theme along transport corridors and does not detract from views. The provision of attractive tree lined avenues and the transformation of east-west declared arterial roads and Stud Road into "bush boulevards" with "extensive native planting as a way of expressing the landscape transition between the edge of the suburbs and Dandenong Foothills" are further strategies (Clause 21.04).
3. The review site is located adjacent to the "Enhanced creek corridor and open space network" on the Environmental and Landscape Strategic Framework Plan at Clause 21.06. It also appears to be located at the edge of, if not within, an "Industrial precinct: major source of local employment" in the Economic Strategic Framework Plan at Clause 21.07.
4. The "Industrial and Restricted Retail Sales Area Design" policy at Clause 22.02 applies to all land zoned Industrial 1, Business 3 and Business 4. It too has an emphasis on landscaping that promotes the green and leafy image of Knox and shows that the site is within a "Garden Industrial Estate" where larger lots and substantial building setbacks are encouraged to facilitate landscaping opportunities. Building design is to minimise apparent visual bulk and some guidance is also provided for signage with objectives that signage be uncluttered and integrated with the architecture and landscaping of a building.
5. Performance standards that are considered to satisfy the signage objectives are that:
   • The design of the front facade of the building provides for the location of a business sign.
   • Signage is confined to that necessary to identify the business(es) on the site and to provide clear traffic and pedestrian directions.
   • If multiple businesses are accessed via a common road or driveway, provision is made for joint signage at one location.

1. In addition to its purpose of regulating the display of signs and associated structures, the overarching purposes of Clause 52.05 are:

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.

1. In an Industrial 1 Zone, advertising signs fall within "Category 2 - Office and Industrial - Low limitation". The stated purpose of these areas is "to provide for adequate identification signs and signs that are appropriate to office and industrial areas".
2. There are a number of general decision guidelines which apply to all types of advertising signs. In summary, these require a consideration of:
   • the area's character including the area's sensitivity in terms of the natural environment, waterways and open space;
   • the sign's compatibility with the existing or desired future character;
   • the cumulative impacts of signs including the avoidance of visual disorder and clutter;
   • consistency with any identifiable advertising theme;
   • impacts on views and vistas;
   • relationship to physical features including the streetscape, site, setting and buildings.
3. Together with the matters set out at Clause 65, these matters must be considered in addition to specific decision guidelines that apply solely to major promotion signs at Clause 52.05-3.
4. Guidelines for consideration include the sign's impact on the streetscape, buildings, any significant view corridor, residential areas, heritage places and open space areas. A number of locational principles are also expressed which must also be taken into account as follows:
   • 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.
   • Major promotion signs are discouraged within open space reserves or corridors and around waterways.
   • Major promotion signs are discouraged where they will form a dominant visual element from residential areas, within a heritage place or where they will obstruct significant viewlines.
   • In areas with a strong built form character, major promotion signs are encouraged only where they are not a dominant element in the streetscape and except for transparent feature signs (such as neon signs), are discouraged from being erected on the roof of a building.
5. This sign would not offend the second and fourth locational principle. In relation to the third criteria, the sign itself is not within an area of open space and it is located some distance from the Corhunwarrabul Creek but these features do contribute to the sense of space and openness that define this area's character - a matter to which I will return.
6. In relation to the last criteria, I would not necessarily describe the area as having a strong built form character. This is despite the large footprint of some buildings, particularly south of the review site, such as the Stegbar factory and the newer development opposite. The substantial width of Stud Road with its divided 6 lane carriageway, landscaping between and in front of buildings, large front setbacks and typical building height of about two storeys combine to mediate the built form character. This is particularly so on approach from the north where the site sits at the bend in Stud Road so that buildings in the background do not have a strong presence with any continuity.
7. Returning to the first criteria, I observe that there is encouragement for major promotion signs in industrial areas but that encouragement comes with a qualification. Any proposal must still complement or enhance the area's character.
8. Although I agree with Mr Whitford's assessment that high traffic volumes are a characteristic feature of this area, and I accept are a logical locational feature for major promotion signs, it does not necessarily follow that the visual amenity and character of this area is so compromised or degraded by this one element given the other physical characteristics that I have described. This is not to say that major promotion signs are only ever acceptable in a highly degraded visual environment - each proposal must be assessed on its merits.
9. I also find that there is a consistent policy direction that encourages a spacious landscaped setting in which to integrate and mediate built form elements, particularly when viewed from declared arterial roads like Stud Road. Recognition of the area as a "garden industrial estate" supported by various urban design strategies guiding the siting and height of buildings and preferred landscape outcomes together with the strengthening of the area's landscaped character through the transformation of Stud Road into a "bush boulevard" provide at least some of that direction.
10. I now turn to my assessment of the proposal's acceptability and its impacts in its physical setting.

Assessment of the sign and its impacts in its physical setting

1. Having taken all of these matters into account I have decided that the proposed sign, in this particular location runs counter to a number of decision guidelines under Clause 52.05 and policies in this particular context. More particularly, I find that:
   • The siting of the sign, its orientation, and overall proportions so close to the site frontage, would introduce a built form element that would have an uncharacteristically dominant presence. Such an outcome is inconsistent with the existing spacious setting and the urban design and landscape outcomes that are sought by local policies for this location.
   • The sign would rise well above the height of lower scale buildings in the background which are a considerable distance away. In doing so, the sign would introduce a dominant stand-alone streetscape and skyline element.
   • The sign would unreasonably compete for attention with existing signage, particularly the business identification signs relied upon by the neighbouring (Dawsons) site to the south. I note that this neighbouring site has a 'battle-axe' configuration, large building setbacks from Stud Road and is located near the bend in Stud Road so that its business identification signage has an important advisory role to play when approaching from either direction but particularly from the north.
   • The proposed sign, when combined with other signs on the site including the large signs on the building façade and those identifying the Dawsons site, would contribute to a proliferation and concentration of signage which would have a cluttered and visually discordant appearance. The concentration of signage with a substantial combined area is unprecedented within this area and nor is it consistent with the decision guidelines under Clause 52.05-3.

1. I conclude that despite some favourable locational attributes, this siting, height and proportions of this sign is not acceptable in this particular setting taking into account the existing character and urban design and landscape outcomes sought by local policies. When combined with existing signage it will contribute to the proliferation of signage and visual clutter.
2. For the reasons I have set out, the decision of the Responsible Authority is affirmed. I will direct that no permit be granted.

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