1. The decision of the Responsible Authority is affirmed. In permit application No. P2011/6222 no permit is granted.

Erection and display of a floodlit major promotion sky sign at the front of the site.

The sign comprises two panels facing east and west each with dimensions of 12.66m x 3.35sq.m (42.4sq.m) arranged in a V-configuration. The panels would be mounted on a 9m high pole with an additional 900mm support structure. The overall height is 13.25m and the sign would partially overhang the roof of the existing building. Four flood lights from the bottom edge of each sign panel are proposed. Advertising messages on display would vary from time to time.

An existing freestanding business identification sign 3.93m x 1.5m (5.9sq.m) is to be removed, rotated 90o and attached to the pole.

Application under Section 79 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987.

• Business 3 Zone (B3Z).
• Vegetation Protection Overlay - Schedule 1 (VPO1).
• Design and Development Overlay - Schedule 1 (DDO1).
• Significant Landscape Overlay - Schedule 2 (SLO2)
• Special Building Overlay (SBO).[1]

• Clause 52.05-8 - Advertising Signs - Category 2.
• No permit is required under any of the Overlays.

• Clauses 11; 15; 17, 18, 21; 22.01; 22.02.
• Clauses 52.05 and 65.

The land is an irregular shaped parcel with a corner splay at the rear where it adjoins Ferny Creek and Kings Park. The site has a frontage to Burwood Highway on its south side of 45.72 metres, a depth of between 127.01 and 146.19 metres and an overall area of 6469 square metres. The land presently supports a single storey retail premises currently used for trade supplies.

The site is located at the eastern end of a commercial strip on approach to the Ferntree Gully neighbourhood activity centre. Further east is a residential area.

I inspected the site and surrounding area on the morning of Monday 3 September 2012.

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

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

1. IOM Pty Ltd ("the Applicant") has sought a planning permit from Knox City Council ("the Council") to erect and display a floodlit major promotion sky sign ("the sign") on a commercial site with frontage to Burwood Highway in Upper Ferntree Gully.
2. The sign is intended to attract the attention of passing motorists along Burwood Highway, although it may also be visible from the nearby Belgrave Railway Line on the opposite side of Burwood Highway.
3. The Council, required notice of the application and 18 objections were received, including a number of residents from the local area. The Council failed to make a decision in the prescribed time which has prompted the Applicant to lodge this review.
4. Notwithstanding, the Council has since resolved that it would have refused to grant a permit, based on four grounds. Those grounds include concerns about the sign's consistency with the zone provisions and various planning scheme policies, in particular the Dandenong Foothills Policy and the Industrial and Restricted Retail Sales Area Design Policy.
5. The Council's opposition is supported by a small group of nearby residents. They raise concerns regarding the appropriateness of the proposed sign at the gateway to the Dandenong Ranges which attracts many tourists, in close proximity to residential properties, and in a location where it could distract passing drivers. One resident also raised a concern about the potential for distasteful advertising on the sign.
6. The Applicant asserts that this is a suitable location for the sign being at a topographical low point and in a commercial area which has a robust built form character. It is further contended that the sign will be prominent but not dominant and it will not punctuate the skyline nor interfere with views of the Dandenong Ranges.
7. I consider that the key issues for determination are:
   • (a) Is the proposed sign consistent with planning scheme policies and provisions?
   • (b) Is the scale, location and form of the sign acceptable relative to its physical setting?
   • (c) Will the sign unreasonably impact the amenity of nearby residential properties?
8. The Tribunal must 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 parties not present at t the hearing I have decided to refuse the grant of a permit. My reasons follow.

Is the proposed sign consistent with planning scheme policies and provisions?

1. While there is limited guidance in respect of advertising signs within the State Planning Policy Framework, there are some broader themes that are relevant to my consideration of this proposal including the following:
   • Planning is to contribute to the economic wellbeing and prosperity of all communities and the State across all sectors of the economy including tourism, business and industry so that each district may build on its strengths and achieve its economic potential.[3]
   • Protect environmentally sensitive areas with significant recreational value such as the Dandenong and Macedon Ranges, the Upper Yarra Valley, Western Port and Port Phillip Bays and their foreshores.[4]
   • Protect landscapes and significant open spaces that contribute to character, identity and sustainable environments.[5]
   • Manage the road system through strategies that include planning and regulating the design of transport routes and nearby areas to achieve visual standards appropriate to the importance of the route with particular reference to landscaping and the control of outdoor advertising.[6]
2. The Local Planning Policy Framework identifies that the Dandenong Ranges are recognised as a regionally significant environmental, landscape and recreational feature that provides a significant backdrop to metropolitan Melbourne.[7] The site is located in the Dandenong Ranges Significant Environment Landscape[8], nestled at the foot of the Dandenong Ranges and Lysterfield Hills. Policies seek to promote sensitive design in the foothills areas that enhance the landscape and environmental significance of this area and which link the landscape qualities of the hills with the suburbs.[9]
3. Urban Design policies also seek that declared arterial transport corridors are to make a positive contribution to Knox's image. Strategies seek to encourage development that emphasise views to the Dandenong Ranges and which contributes to the creation of a "bush boulevard" character as a way of expressing the landscape transition between the edge of the suburbs and Dandenong Foothills.[10]
4. Policies also encourage development that is sensitively designed to maintain the character of the area as a natural bush environment dominated by indigenous vegetation where the treed slopes rise above the suburbs.[11]
5. Economic development policies seek to enhance the image and character of Knox as an attractive place to do business. Maintaining high standards of visual amenity in commercial areas and minimising signage clutter are relevant strategies.[12] The Economic Strategic Framework Plan identifies that Upper Ferntree Gully (and The Basin) demarcate gateways to tourist activity within the Dandenong Ranges.
6. Of particular relevance to this site are the Dandenong Foothills Policy at Clause 22.01 and the policy for Industrial and Restricted Retail Sales Area Design at Clause 22.02.
7. Under Clause 22.01, the site appears to be within Precinct 3 "Foothills Backdrop and Ridgeline Area". Policies seek to ensure that development blends with vegetation on hillsides to maintain and enhance the appearance of the area as an extension of the Dandenongs. Policies also seek to limit development so that it does not rise above the tree canopy height. A maximum building height of 7.5m is suggested.
8. Clause 22.02 applies to all land zoned Business 3, Business 4 and Industrial 1. There is an emphasis on landscaping that promotes the green and leafy image of Knox and building design is to minimise apparent visual bulk. Guidance is also provided for signage with objectives that signage be uncluttered and integrated with the architecture and landscaping of a building.
9. 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.
10. Aside from these policies which I have taken into account, Clause 52.06 provides guidance and controls in relation to advertising sigs. There are a series of specific considerations that relate to Major Promotion Signs at Clause 52.l05-6 in addition to the decision guidelines at Clauses 52.05-3 and 65.
11. The purpose of this specific provision is:

To achieve high quality visual standards for the siting of major promotion signs.

To ensure that the signs are not detrimental to the appearance of their surroundings or the safe and efficient operation of the route through the application of consistent planning controls.

1. Guidelines for consideration include the sign's impact on the streetscape, buildings, any significant view corridor, residential areas, heritage places and open space areas. Locational principles are also expressed and these encourage signs in commercial and industrial locations (provided they complement or enhance the character of the area) and discourage such signs in open space areas, tourist roads, landscaped sections of freeways and locations where they will form a dominant visual element from residential areas and heritage places.
2. In forming my view about the acceptability of this proposal, I have taken into account these various policies and provisions and the permit required nature of this sign type in a Business 3 zone. I have sought to balance conflicting objectives such as those policies which promote economic development against those which seek to protect and enhance the visual qualities of this particular location at the foothills of the Dandenongs in favour of net community benefit.
3. In doing so, I accept Mr Whitford's submission that I should determine this proposal from a neutral rather than negative point of view in the nature of the Tribunal's findings in Kings Funeral Services. As Senior Member Byard pertinently observed:

[23] Sign cases, including this one, have to be judged on their own merits and on their own design, site, context and location.

Is the scale, location and form of the sign acceptable relative to its physical setting?

1. It is true that the site is not located on a high point in the landform and this is a favourable attribute in terms of its physical context. Nonetheless, I would also observe that the overall height of the sign at 13.25m seeks to redress the site's lower position in the landform, commensurate with an inherent purpose of advertising signs - that they are designed to be seen.
2. Having said that, the site is still one that has a reasonably high degree of exposure from distant vantage points. This is particularly so on the more sensitive approach from the west which is one of several major routes providing access to the Dandenong Ranges National Park from the metropolitan area. As one rounds the curve east of Forest Road along Burwood Highway and continues eastward, partial vistas of the Dandenongs begin to re-emerge together with distant views towards the review site about 400m away. This is due to a number of factors which include:
   • the geometry of Burwood Highway allowing views across the divided carriageway, particularly at the median break;
   • the elevated position of the east-bound carriageway relative to the opposite (south) side;
   • the limited height of buildings on the south side, west of the review site, which are predominantly one storey with a low slung horizontal emphasis;
   • the substantial front setbacks of many buildings along this portion of Burwood Highway, often accommodating at-grade carparking and landscaping; and
   • sporadic central median planting.
3. Closer range views, still on approach from the west reveal what appears to be the merging of the Dandenongs with the heavily treed hillside of the Grandview Crescent area behind the review site.
4. From the east, the emergence of the review site is appreciable from closer range views, given the different landform, straighter road configuration and more enclosed streetspace either framed by kerbside vegetation adjacent to the residential environs, generally between Willow Road and Forest Oak Drive, or closer positioning of commercial buildings to the Burwood Highway frontages just east of the review site.
5. It is the proposal's visual impact when viewed from the west that is most problematic, given its higher degree of exposure and importantly, its position en-route to and within a relatively short distance from the Dandenongs.[13]
6. I consider that the position of the sign and its height would introduce a visually intrusive element that detracts from one's appreciation of distant views towards the Dandenongs. Aside from some closer range views, I generally accept Mr Whitford's submission that the sign is unlikely to obscure vistas of the Dandenongs themselves. However, I consider that the sign would introduce an uncharacteristically dominant structure that disrupts the continuous treed backdrop of the Grandview Crescent hillside and Dandenongs further behind.
7. I consider that outcome to be at odds with policy at Clause 22.01-3 for the Dandenong Foothills Backdrop and Ridgeline Area which asks for:
   • Development [that] blends with vegetation on the hillsides to maintain and enhance the appearance of the area as an extension of the Dandenong Ranges National Park.
8. Closer range views of the sign would also reveal a structure that sits partly above the silhouette of the Grandview Crescent hillside contrary to policy for this area that also seeks the following:
   • Development does not rise above the tree canopy height to maintain the significant landscape character of the area and near and distant view lines.
9. A further concern that I have with this proposal is the overall scale, proportions and height of the sign whose presence would tend to overwhelm its immediate built form streetscape setting including the host building in a way that is not a characteristic of development in this particular location. I regard that outcome as being inconsistent with the decision guidelines at Clauses 52.05-3 and 52.05-6.
10. This situation can be distinguished from the Wyndson case referred to by Mr Whitford where the Tribunal, in deciding to grant a permit for a 10m high promotion sign along Nepean Highway Mentone, observed that there were buildings in the surrounding area that were of sufficiently large scale and proportions capable of anchoring that proposal.
11. The existing building has a height of around 6.03m - a height that is fairly typical of existing and new development nearby such as the newly constructed warehouses at the rear which range in height from around 6.5m to 7.6m - reflecting the direction of the Dandenong Foothills policy that seeks to limit the height of buildings to 7.5m.
12. At an overall height of 13.25m, the sign would extend more than double the height of the host building well above its roof.
13. The advertising panels spanning a length of 12.66m above the building's roof top would also be uncharacteristic of the scale and position of other signs in the area, which typically do not rise above the height of existing buildings. Most signage in the area is at a substantially lower height and scale, often attached to or incorporated into the design of building facades. Where freestanding signs exist, these are typically commensurate with the scale of surrounding buildings.
14. I find that this proposal represents too great a departure from the nature and pattern of signage in the area.
15. It is primarily for these reasons that I find that this proposal would not be an acceptable one. I therefore make only brief findings in relation to the remaining matters or consideration.

Will the sign unreasonably impact the amenity the residential area behind?

1. Mr Pithouse and Mr Dobrzynski live at No. 52 and 52 Forest Oak Drive respectively in the residential area south-east of the review site. Both expressed concerns about the appearance of the sign, particularly when illuminated at night, from their residential environs. Mr Dobrzynski also raised concerns about the visual impact of the sign from an upper storey window of his dwelling with an outlook towards the review site.
2. I estimate that the sign would be located about 150m away from their properties near the intersection of Sugar Gum Court and Forest Oak Drive.
3. Notwithstanding, I find that the sign would be visually intrusive from some locations within this residential area. While the same level of visual amenity cannot necessarily be expected at the interface between a residential and commercial area, the character of this particular area is one where built form within the commercial area is mostly limited to 6-7.5m. Views of commercial buildings from these local streets are therefore very limited and the area has an overwhelming residential feel.
4. Given the sign's elevated position above surrounding buildings, in a context where structures of more than 13m in height are not the norm, the sign will be visually dominating. I am particularly concerned about the westward view towards the eastern sign panel on approach to the intersection of Sugar Gum Court and Forest Oak Drive which I think will be highly exposed and intrusive, particularly when illuminated at night.

Are there any other matters that warrant refusal of this proposal?

1. I note that the application was referred to VicRoads and no concerns were raised on traffic safety grounds. In the absence of any evidence to the contrary and taking into account the absence of any animation as well as the prevailing road conditions, I think it is unlikely that the sign would cause any traffic safety problems.

1. It is a long held principle that the content of advertising sign messages which on promotion signs will change on a regular basis, is not a relevant reason for refusing the grant of a permit.

1. Neither detailed submissions nor any evidence in relation to the method of illumination were presented at the hearing. However, were I minded to grant a permit, conditions could be imposed requiring that any light spill is to be limited so as not to cause unreasonable amenity impacts in respect of surrounding residential properties.

1. While this site is zoned Business 3 and is not located on a topographical high point, the site is nonetheless within a sensitive location at the foothills to the Dandenong Ranges - a major scenic, landscape and recreational resource of regional significance.
2. I conclude that this sign, because of its height and overall proportions would be too intrusive and would have a dominating impact in the streetscape and upon its broader setting including nearby residential streets.
3. For the reasons I have set out, the decision of the Responsible Authority is affirmed. I will direct that no permit be granted.

[1] The DDO1, SLO2 and SBO only affect a small portion of the site at the rear.

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

[3] Clause 17 of all Victorian Planning Schemes.

[4] Clause 12.04 of all Victorian Planning Schemes.

[5] Clause 12.04 of all Victorian Planning Schemes.

[6] Clause 18.02-4 of all Victorian Planning Schemes.

[7] Clause 21.01 of Knox Planning Scheme.

[8] Clause 21.03 - Strategic Framework Plan - Knox Planning Scheme.

[9] Clause 21.02-3 of Knox Planning Scheme.

[10] Clause 21.04 of Knox Planning Scheme.

[11] Clauses 21.06 and 22.01 of Knox Planning Scheme.

[12] Clause 21.07 of Knox Planning Scheme.