Construct a floodlit major promotion sign. The sign will have two panels, forming a V-arrangement so that travellers approaching from either direction along the highway will be able to view one or other face. Each panel will have an advertising display area with dimensions of 12.66 metres length and 3.35 metres height (giving each an area of 42 square metres) and the whole display will be mounted on an 8-metre high pole. Each panel will also have a strip below the advertising area with a depth of 0.9 metres. Four 120W LED floodlights are proposed at the base of each panel.

The whole arrangement will have an overall height of 12.25 metres. The plan of the sign's location indicates that the sign's centreline will not be orientated at right angles to the highway but at a 570 angle, so its southwestern face would be almost directly facing North Street.

The sign will be set back 5 metres from the carriageway of Maroondah Highway and 5 metres from the median strip of north Road (or about 0.4-0.6 metres from the property boundaries).

The location of the sign would require removal of three existing display-parking spaces.

Application under Section 77 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 to review Council's decision to refuse to grant a permit.

Maroondah Highway is zoned Road (Category 1. A small abutting section of North Road, together with other land to the south, is zone Residential 1. Land opposite the site, across the highway, is also zoned Business 4.

Clause 52.05-7: display a floodlit major promotion sign.

Within the Business 4 zone, signs are designated as Category 1 - Business Areas (Minimum Limitation).

The site is an irregularly (kite) shaped lot on the eastern corner of the Maroondah Highway and North Road. The site is currently developed and used as a car-sales yard, with a small office building at its south-eastern end, with the balanced used to display cars. The site falls about 3.5 metres towards the highway and the land continues to rise to the east of the site, thereby forming a distinctive, dwelling-clad backdrop to views of the site from the highway.

I made an unaccompanied inspection of the site and its locality on 26th May.

1. IOM Pty Ltd has sought a review of the responsible authority's decision to refuse to grant a permit for the display of a floodlit major promotion sign on a lot abutting the Maroondah Highway and within a Business 4 zone.
2. Council's concerns related to the prominence of the sign within its relatively low-scale commercial setting and its potentially detrimental effect on adjoining properties. One North Road resident had objected to the sign on amenity-related grounds and a nearby car-sales business had objected on grounds relating to traffic safety, the potential for inappropriate (or competing) advertising and precedence for further, similar signs.
3. The matters that I have found necessary to address are, therefore, the sign's visual appropriateness in its setting (neighbourhood character issues) and its affect on nearby residential amenity. I have also considered a number of other matters that would not be determinative of this review.

1. Council submitted that such a large and prominent sign is inappropriate for this commercial area that acts as a gateway and tourist route to the Shire's rural hinterland.
2. I have concluded for the reasons set out below that the sign is appropriate in this location.
3. Clause 22.04 contains a set of policies that appear to largely relate to business identification signs and signs that are generally not dissimilar in size to the existing pattern of signs. There is no acknowledgement of any potential for major promotion signs.
4. Clause 22.07 sets out specific policies for the Lilydale Activity Centre. The site is within Precinct F - Highway Oriented Commercial/Retail[1]. On the southern side of the highway, this precinct extends from Anderson Street, to the west (which also forms the eastern end of the centre's retail and business area) for a distance of about 2 Kilometres to a point to the east near Goodall Drive. On the Highway's northern side, Precinct F is limited to a short strip of about 450 metres frontage, extending eastwards from a point about opposite the subject site[2].
5. Council accurately described the character of this section of Precinct F as follows:

Existing signage on the property includes 8 vertical flags, about 6 metres in height along the Highway frontage, and business identification signage on the façade of the existing office building.

Uses on either side of the site are more mixed (than opposite), including car dealerships, a motel, and a funeral parlour. Several of these sites contain medium sized pole signs providing business identification. Signage on building facades is minimal on this side of the Highway.

Land on the opposite side of Maroondah Highway is developed for bulky goods retail. Built form within this area consists of predominantly single/double storey built form, with minimal side setbacks are (sic) minimal and low lying landscaping within frontages. ... Advertising signage is visible on building facades and there is one pylon sign providing identification on each business within the complex.

1. In effect, the streetscape is a confusion of low-scale commercial buildings of varying design and siting, together with a mix of visual clutter of varying intensity and character. As Council's submission reasonably observed:

There is little consistency in the built form elements throughout this area, with a range of utilitarian buildings, structures, outdoor display areas, cluttered advertising signage and limited landscaping.

1. Council's submission referred to potential actions that Council could take to enhance the Precinct's appearance but these all referred to actions within the public domain (reconstruction of roadside verges, reorganising kerbside parking and avenue planting).
2. In terms of policy, Clause 22.04 is of general applicability throughout the Shire and makes no specific reference to particular zones, Structure Plan Precincts or sign types. Its general tenor, though, is that signs should "not detract from the amenity and streetscape ... character of the area", be of modest scale and limited to business identification purposes.
3. Clause 22.07 Lilydale Activity Centre sets out policies for this centre. Only one objective relates to the centre's appearance:

To promote high standards of urban design so that new development makes a positive contribution to the appearance of the activity centre.

1. Relevant policies of Clause 22.07 deal with various aspects of land use for the various precincts identified in the accompanying map. There is no reference to urban design or signs. If the Lilydale Major Activity Centre Structure Plan (June 2006), a reference document in this clause, contains any relevant strategies, Council did not referred them to me.
2. Clause 52.05 determines when various types of advertising sign are permitted, permissible or prohibited. Major promotion signs are permissible (section 2 of Clause 52.05-7) in Category 1 and 2 advertising areas. Only Category 1 provides overt support for promotion signs per se (as different from major promotion signs), designating these as not requiring a permit. Major promotion signs are prohibited in all other Categories.
3. The general objectives of Clause 52.05 include:

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.

1. For major promotion signs, there are further, more specific objectives which include:

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 ...

1. Clause 52.05 then sets out a number of Decision Guidelines. Referring to these, and responding to Council's arguments, I conclude that this strip of Precinct F is:
   • Not a significant view corridor, viewline, gateway location or landmark site identified in a framework plan or local policy
   • Not a tourist route
   • Not a significant streetscape, building or skyline or landmark site
   • Not a forest route, a tourist road or a scenic route
   • Not an area with a strong built form character.
2. While Council emphasised the Precinct's gateway function and the Maroondah Highway as a tourist route, the former should be identified in a framework plan or planning scheme local policy. While the Maroondah Highway can be considered a tourist route beyond Lilydale, this section within Precinct F can only be described as leading to a tourist route. Within Precinct F, the Highway is simply another section of main road within a rather ordinary commercial strip extending (on the highway's southern side) for about 2 Kilometres.
3. In this context, and given my above conclusions, I find that I have to judge the suitability of this sign within its immediate commercial context and with no regard to what lies beyond this commercial area.
4. Because Clause 22.04 policies are of such general application and because they do not refer to circumstances where a major promotion sign could be appropriate, they offer no assistance to my assessment of a type of sign that is permissible in this zone. This is particularly the case in a location for which the Decision Guidelines of Clause 52.05-6 (Major Promotion Sign) give specific if qualified support for such signs:
   • Major promotion signs are encouraged in commercial and industrial locations in a manner which complements or enhances the character of the area.
5. Clearly, an initial major promotion sign will, unless located in a commercial area with unusually tall buildings, dominate its immediate surroundings. Consequently, this probability is, in a sense, of itself a given outcome of the approval of most major promotion signs. The question to then consider is whether in any particular case such prominence is acceptable.
6. It would also be obviously silly to expect or require major promotion signs to be placed anywhere other than on major traffic routes; their whole purpose is to be seen by many people.
7. In conclusion, I find that this section of Precinct F and this site are quite appropriate locations, in principle, for a major promotion sign. With respect to the qualification in the above Decision Guideline, I note that the combination of the sign's large size and simple form would ensure that it would not relate to or be confused with other, smaller signs and would therefore not create visual clutter. In effect, as a once-off structure, its bold simplicity would provide a visual focus that would tend to draw the eye away from the broader sense of the existing visual clutter of the Precinct's development and land-use activities. For this reason I have concluded that the proposed sign would enhance the character of the area and thereby meets the test of the relevant Decision Guideline.
8. Because of the sign's scale and elevation, I do not consider the question of how its setbacks from street boundaries compares to that of nearby buildings to have any useful relevance.

Would the sign have an unreasonable effect on the amenity of nearby dwellings?

1. The single residential objector was concerned about loss of residential amenity. I have concluded that, subject to appropriate permit conditions, it would not cause any unreasonable detriment to its residential neighbourhood.
2. There are a number of residential properties along the southern side of North Road which face towards the sign, and dwellings along the northern side. Those nearer and along the southern side of North Road would be most affected by light spill at night and most nearby dwellings would have some degree of view of the bulk of the sign, though its base would be at a lower level than any of these dwellings. The sign's proposed orientation is such that, as discussed earlier, the western-facing panel would directly face the western dwellings on the southern side of North Road. There are a number of large deciduous canopy-type trees along the northern side of North Road that would at least partially screen the proposed sign from dwellings along the road's southern side though not at night in winter.
3. The sole residential objector's dwelling is at the northern corner of a large unit-development on the northern side of North Road, so that it is about 100 metres from the sign and about 4 metres above its base mounting[3].
4. These dwellings, and those nearer in North Road are close to a Business 4 zone and cannot reasonable expect the amenity that they would enjoy if situated in the residential hinterland. Likewise, of course, properties in the Business 4 zone abutting or close to dwellings cannot expect the licence that they would enjoy in the commercial hinterland.
5. That said, the only significant effects that the proposed sign would have on nearby dwellings is light spill at night and visual intrusion - its bulk and general appearance. For properties on the south side of North Road, the scale and bulk of the sign would occur within the frame of the avenue trees' canopy and, even when bare of leaves, this would be a substantial mitigating factor at times other than winter evenings (as previously noted).
6. With respect to potential light spill and glare, I accept that this can be adequately addressed by screening the edges of the illuminated panels, orienting the panels away from dwellings or minimising the light level. This may require some reorientation of the sign and, in turn, this may affect the number of display parking spaces to be removed.

Are there any other reasons to refuse to grant a permit?

1. Objectors raised a limited number of other reasons why this sign should not be allowed: precedence for other, similar signs to be allowed; affect on traffic safety; affect on the values of nearby dwellings; effect on commercial competition and inappropriate sign content. I have concluded that none of these concerns are relevant to my decision in this matter.
2. VicRoads has no objection to the sign, subject to a number of conditions being included in any permit granted. VicRoads is the pre-eminent authority concerned with the safe and efficient operation of the highway. In the absences of any evidence to the contrary, I accept VicRoads' view in this matter.
3. With respect to the effect of a decision on property values, the Tribunal has long held that this is not a relevant matter for it to consider. Inherently, any planning decision has the potential to benefit or disbenefit the value of adjoining property.
4. With respect to whether a decision to grant a permit in this case would set a precedent for similar, future decisions relating to land along this section of highway, the Tribunal has long pointed out that each case must be determined on its merits and the merits of each case are likely to vary. In this case, a decision to grant a permit could be equally likely to act against the potential of a similar decision nearby on grounds that a further sign would create visual clutter!
5. One objector was concerned about the potential for inappropriate advertising content or for content that would support competing businesses. The nature of any advertisement content is generally dealt with by other legislation. It is not a town planning matter. With respect to the possibility that the sign would carry advertisements for competing car-sales businesses, we live in a society where competition between businesses is deemed to be in the public interest. Again, the ability of any one business to survive these competitive pressures is not a town planning matter.

1. At the conclusion of the hearing, the parties discussed Council's draft permit conditions. Mr. Whitford sought to have the permit expiry date set at 25 years. Clause 52.05 sets 15 years as a default time limit. Mr. Whitford did not advance any particular reasons why the expiry time limit should be varied and I therefore determine to maintain the 15-year limit.
2. I have previously indicated that I consider it important that the sign's lighting should be shielded to the degree necessary to avoid unreasonable detriment to dwellings along the southern side of North Road and I have included a condition to achieve this outcome.

1. As set out above, I have concluded that the proposed major promotion sign would be acceptable in its particular urban character and land use context and would not cause unreasonable detriment to nearby dwellings.
2. I therefore find that I should set aside the responsible authority's decision and direct that it grant the permit.

Display a floodlit major promotion sign in accordance with the endorsed plans.

1. Before the sign is displayed the plans must be amended to demonstrate that no visible part of an illuminated sign is visible from dwellings on the southern side of North Road and west of Albert Road, whether by baffles or by reorienting the relevant panel away from the dwellings or other means.
2. The layout, location and construction of the permitted signage shown on the endorsed plans must not be altered or modified without the written consent of the Responsible Authority.
3. The permitted signs and support structures must be maintained in good condition to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.
4. No advertising sign other than those allowed in accordance with the Planning Scheme can be erected on the site without a planning permit from the Responsible Authority.
5. The sign must not be animated and no flashing or intermittent lights may be displayed.
6. Any external lighting of the sign must be designed, baffled and located so as not to cause glare or distraction to motorists or other persons or loss of amenity, to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.
7. The intensity of illumination must be limited so as not to cause glare or distraction to motorists or other persons, or loss of amenity, to satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.
8. This permit will expire if one of the following circumstances apply:
   1. the permitted sign is not erected and displayed on site within 2 years of the date of this permit;
   2. 15 years from the date of this permit.

The Responsible Authority may extend the period referred to if a request is made in writing before the permit expires or within three months afterwards. --- End of Conditions ---

[1] The map at the end of Clause 22.07: Precincts - Lilydale Activity Centre

[2] Interestingly, Precinct F on the northern side of the Highway does not include a section of Business 4 zone to the west of the designated section, extending to the (now) rail trail.

[3] From a Land Vic contour map provided by Mr. Whitford.