1. The decision of the Responsible Authority is affirmed.
2. In permit application M/2011/815 no permit is granted.

Pole mounted, externally illuminated major promotion sign. The sign is proposed to have two faces and a V - shaped configuration. Each face of the sign has an area of 86.78 m2 (total advertising area of 173.56 m2). The sign will be erected above a 10 m high pole and will have a total height of 15.17m. It is proposed to locate the sign to the rear of an industrial building facing the Eastlink freeway.

Application under Section 77 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 (the Act) to review a decision to refuse a permit

Advertising sign requirements are at Clause 52.05. This zone is in Category 2 (Office and Industrial - low limitation).

Clause 52.05-8: A permit is required to display a major promotion sign.

The review site is located in an industrial area on the western side of Eastlink, about 240 m north of the Canterbury Road on ramp. The site comprises five industrial buildings. The sign is proposed to be located on vacant land to the rear of those buildings, facing Eastlink.

1. Iom Pty Ltd applied to the council for a permit to display a pole mounted, major promotion sign on land generally abutting Eastlink.
2. The council did not give notice of the application. An objection to the application was however received from Connect East Pty Ltd which is the responsible road authority for Eastlink.
3. The council refused the application on the following grounds:
   1. The proposed major promotion sign is contrary to the purpose and decision guidelines of Clause 52.05 (Advertising Signs) and Clause 15.01, Clause 18.01and Clause 21.07 due to its negative visual impact on the surrounding area as a result of the size and height of the sign.
   2. The proposed major promotion sign is contrary to proposed Amendment C61 to the Maroondah Planning Scheme which seeks to introduce new local planning policies in relation to outdoor advertising signage and major transport corridors.
4. The permit applicant has applied to the Tribunal for a review of the council's decision.
5. The issues in this case can be broadly categorised as follows:
   1. Will the proposal achieve an acceptable outcome having regard to the policies and provisions of the planning scheme?
   2. Will the proposal have an adverse affect on the amenity of Eastlink and will it contribute to visual disorder when viewed from Eastlink.
6. Having considered the submission and inspected the site and locality, I have concluded that a permit should not issue for this proposal.
7. My reasons are set out below.

Will the proposal achieve an acceptable outcome having regard to the policies and provisions of the planning scheme?

1. The proposal in this application is for a major promotion sign on a site abutting Eastlink. The council and Connect East Pty Ltd are opposed to the grant of a permit because, in their submissions, the proposal will adversely impact the visual amenity of Eastlink, and because the policies and provisions of the planning scheme specifically discourage major promotion signs in this location.
2. The applicant submits that the location of this sign has been deliberately selected to minimise its impact on Eastlink, and its siting and design is consistent with the applicable policies and guidelines.
3. Major Promotion Signs are, in addition to general policies and provisions relating to advertising signs, subject to specific permit requirements and decision guidelines that are contained at Clause 52.05-6 of the planning scheme. The purpose of this clause 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. Before deciding on an application, in addition to the decision guidelines in Clause 52.05-2 and Clause 65, consideration must be given as appropriate to:
   • The effect of the proposed major promotion 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.
2. When determining the effect of a proposed major promotion sign, the following locational principles must be taken into account:
   • 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 view lines.

• 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.

1. The council's local planning policy framework also contains provisions which encourage the development of a high quality and attractive built environment based on sound planning and consistent urban design principles, which protect and enhance the visual amenity of residential, commercial and industrial precincts and streetscapes, and which encourage development that provides and creates high quality urban places[1].
2. In relation to advertising signs, one of the strategies is to prevent the proliferation of large advertising panel and "supersite" signs, particularly in close proximity to residential or environmental precincts and along major transport routes through the municipality[2].
3. Clause 22.09 is a local policy focussing on industrial urban design and it contains objectives, policies and performance standards relating to a number of matters. With respect to advertising signs the objective is to encourage signage in industrial areas that presents a consistent and uniform image and relates to the activities carried out in the area. The council acknowledges that the performance standards in the policy are primarily directed at business advertising and not major promotion signs[3].
4. The planning scheme policies and provisions outlined above are based on a recognition that major promotion signs do have the potential to contribute to adverse visual amenity impacts. Consequently, the planning scheme calls for careful consideration to their location and siting. In broad terms the planning scheme encourages these signs in commercial and industrial locations, and they are discouraged along forest and tourist roads, scenic routes or landscaped sections of freeways. The decision guidelines also require the assessment of proposals in terms of their impact 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.
5. Freeways and tollways in general, and Eastlink in particular fall within the category of locations in which carful consideration is required to be exercised prior to approving major promotions. There are sections of freeways in which they are discouraged. My view on this point is supported by recent Tribunal decisions about major promotion signs where they abut freeways. I was referred to the decisions of the Tribunal in NLD Advertising P/L v Brimbank CC [1999] VCAT 536, Fiore v Greater Dandenong CC [2007] VCAT 1461 Caption Pty Ltd v Greater Dandenong CC [2010] VCAT 1255, Wyndham Pty Ltd v Casey CC [2005] VCAT 1948. Consistent themes emerge from a consideration of those decisions. These themes were conveniently and accurately summarised by Mr Jewell. These include:
   • A consistent approach needs to be adopted to the consideration of signage along freeways.
   • The planning scheme seeks to ensure that signage along freeways do not diminish the amenity of the roadway.
   • Poorly sited signage can have a detrimental impact on the amenity of a freeway corridor.
6. In addition, it is of some significance that the design of Eastlink has incorporated a strategic approach to matters including urban design, alignment, landscaping, public art and the positioning of signage within and along the length of the corridor. While I agree with Mr Whitford that Eastlink, like all freeways (or tollways) is a robust piece of urban infrastructure, I accept Mr Jewell's submission that Connect East has made legitimate attempts to incorporate urban design features intended to create something more aesthetically appealing than just a piece of urban infrastructure[4].
7. I have concluded therefore that this proposal, because it abuts and has been designed to present to Eastlink, is a sign that is discouraged by the policy framework and the planning scheme provisions relating to the display of major promotion and sky signs. I have reached this conclusion notwithstanding the review site's industrial zoning and the site's commercial and industrial context. I acknowledge that this feature of the site is a factor that weighs in support of the proposal because Clause 52.05-6 encourages major promotion sings in commercial and industrial areas. However, the siting and design of this proposal has been chosen because of its exposure to Eastlink. The proposal has a more profound visual and functional connection to Eastlink than it does to the surrounding industrial area[5].
8. Notwithstanding the above, a major promotion sign at this location is not prohibited. The discretion does exist to grant a permit for this sign. Clearly, my finding about the discouragement of major promotion signs in this location is very relevant to my conclusion about whether a permit should be granted or not. It is nevertheless necessary for me to assess the specific aspects of this of the proposal, its siting, design and size, in order to determine whether the sign would be acceptable in terms of its visual impact on Eastlink.

Will the proposal have an adverse affect on the amenity of Eastlink and will it contribute to visual disorder when viewed from Eastlink

1. Mr Whitford submits that the proposed sign will not be a discordant or dominant element in this local setting, or in its presentation to Eastlink. Mr Whitford disputes the description of this part of Eastlink as a landscaped section of Eastlink. Mr Whitford submits that the low level landscaping in this section exposes the industrial area to the west and the sign will sit comfortably in that context. In his submission this is not a location where the sign will compete with, for example, an avenue of canopy trees.
2. Mr Whitford further submits that the sign is separated from other signs and consequently will not contribute to visual clutter. The sign is, in Mr Whitford's submission, consistent with other signs located along Eastlink within the tollway corridor, and it will therefore be viewed as another part of Eastlink's integrated design for the tollway. Mr Whitford submits that the location of this sign has been influenced by the Tribunal's findings in the Caption case, although he was not specific about which aspects of that decision have influenced the applicant's decision about this sign's location.
3. I have not been persuaded that the location of the sign is supported by either the site's context, the features of the tollway at this location, or the design, siting and size of the sign.
4. I have concluded that Eastlink in this section is landscaped, albeit with low level landscaping, limited by the alignment of the tollway and the limited space available for more substantial landscaping north of Canterbury Road.
5. The industrial context abutting the tollway in this location is acknowledged but the sign will nevertheless have a dominant presence on Eastlink and, for the reasons I have previously discussed, this is not an outcome supported by the planning scheme. The visual dominance will be a product of the sign's size, its height, and its proximity to the tollway, and its orientation to maximise exposure to the tollway. The sign has no obvious relationship to the building on the site or the wider setting. It will protrude above the height of surrounding buildings. The extent to which the sign will be visually dominant, is such that the review site's industrial context is incidental to the consideration of the proposal's relationship to its context.
6. During the hearing, Mr Whitford intimated that Connect East derive a commercial benefit from the signs located within the Eastlink corridor and its objection to this application is commercially motivated. Mr Whitford did not aggressively pursue this point, but it is appropriate that I comment on the relevance of that submission. In this respect I merely observe that Connect East's grounds of objection, and the submission made in support of those grounds, are based on legitimate planning considerations. My consideration of the application is similarly based on an assessment as to whether the proposal is acceptable having regard to the policies and provisions of the planning scheme.
7. Finally, I am not persuaded by the submission that because major promotion signs have been approved within the Eastlink corridor by Connect East, that this sign is consistent with the coordinated approach to the location of such signs along the corridor.
8. As I have indicated above, I accept that Connect East have adopted a coordinated design approach to a wide range of factors affecting the design of Eastlink. These factors include signage. Mr Whitford did not dispute this. Some of those signs approved by Connect East have been constructed, and they do have an impact on Eastlink's visual amenity. I agree with Mr Jewell however, that a coordinated approach to decisions about the number of signs located along the corridor, their spacing and specific siting are important elements in ensuring that those impacts are contained within acceptable levels. I am unable to conclude that this sign, located immediately abutting the Eastlink corridor, visually exposed to Eastlink and visually dominant in its presentation, is acceptable in circumstances where a concerted effort has been made to limit the impact of major promotion signs on Eastlink.

1. It follows from the above reasons that it is my conclusion that the decision of the responsible authority should be affirmed and no permit issued.

[3] Amendment C61 to the Maroondah Planning Scheme seeks to introduce into the planning scheme policies based on the Maroondah Urban Framework. A new policy about advertising signs is proposed. The amendment has been exhibited and submissions received. The submissions have not been considered by an independent Panel. The amendment has not reached a stage in the planning scheme amendment process whereby it would qualify as a seriously entertained planning proposal requiring me to accord it significant weight.

[4] Partly in response to the Tribunal's findings in the Caption case cited above, Connect East has embarked on a process that it hopes will eventually lead to all municipalities through which Eastlink passes, adopting amendments to their planning schemes that will introduce a common policy basis for the consideration of development (including major promotion signs) on land abutting Eastlink.

I acknowledge the clear merit underpinning a common and strategic approach to the consideration of applications along Eastlink. However, the planning scheme amendment intended to introduce the common policy, is at best embryonic. It has not reached a stage in the planning scheme amendment process whereby it would qualify as a seriously entertained planning proposal requiring me to accord it any significant weight. I was advised that not all municipalities have agreed to amend their planning schemes. Authorisation for the amendment has not (at the time of the hearing) been obtained.

[5] My finding on this point is consistent with the finding of Member Fong in the Caption case.