1b) The sign detailing on the verandah facia be amended to include only words and images relating to the business on site, thereby forming a Business Identification Sign;

The verandah facia signs relocated to sit flat to the facia wall of parapet above the verandah with the total area of signage not to exceed 5.8m x 1.2m.

(b) Condition 2) is amended to read:

1. The existing roller shutter erected on the site must be removed within 18 months of the date of this permit to the satisfaction of the responsible authority.

(c) Condition 3) is amended to read:

1. The existing promotion signs on the verandah facia must be either:

Amended to form a business identification sign with only words and images associated with the business on site;

Removed from the facia and relocated to fix flat to the parapet wall above the verandah;

in accordance with plans endorsed as part of Condition 1b) within 18 months of the issue of this permit.

1. In P3078/2008 the Tribunal directs that Permit No. PA0816913 must contain the conditions set out in the Permit PA0816913 issued by the Responsible Authority on 19 September 2008 with the following modifications:
   • (a) Condition 1b) is amended to read:

1b) Details of business signage below and above the verandah.

(b) Condition 2) is amended to read:

1. The existing roller shutter erected on the site must be removed within 18 months of the date of this permit to the satisfaction of the responsible authority.

(c) Condition 3) deleted.

1. The Responsible Authority is directed to issue modified permits in accordance with these orders.

Above verandah promotional signage to 553A Geelong Road comprising four signs (3 attached to verandah façade, 1 attached to verandah side facing.) All signs are promotional signs of names of products sold on site.

Facia signage to 553B Geelong Road comprising graffiti art signage of business name, services offered (tattoos and piercing) and associated imaging.

Review is against conditions to remove roller shutters from plans (and from site as enforcement related to current erection of shutters illegally) and reduction in signage required by condition on permit (with alteration also on site as enforcement related to signage currently displayed illegally).

Section 80 Planning and Environment Act 1987

cl 52.05 - 7 (Advertising signs in Business Area exceeding 8 sqm and above verandah)

553A Geelong Road is a work wear speciality shop. 553B is a tattoo and piercing shop.

The two shops form part of a small local strip shopping centre at the south west corner of Geelong Road and Millers Road, Brooklyn. Other shops in the centre include a car wash directly east of 553A Geelong Road at the corner of Millers Road, a pizza shop, mattress shop and other specialist stores. Land to the west and south of the centre is residential, whilst land to the north and north east is industrial. The Brooklyn caravan park is located opposite Millers Road.

Geelong Road and Millers Road are both Category 1 roads with Geelong Road forming the dominant landscape feature. A large promotional freestanding pole sign is located above the sites attached to 553 Geelong Road. The sites are accessed via a service road from Geelong Road.

Newtone Retravision v Maribyrnong CC [2006] VCAT 383, Sakkas v Hobsons Bay CC [2000] VCAT 2486, Carter v Boroondara CC [2005] VCAT 2739, The Glen Centre Hawthorn Pty Ltd v Boroondara CC [2007] VCAT 596 and Xu v Hobsons Bay CC [2008] VCAT 1669, Dossetter v Maroondah CC [2008] VCAT 2556 (18 December 2008)

1. This review results from permits issued to 553A and 553B Geelong Road for advertising signs.
2. In effect the permit approvals refuse permission for roller shutters to be applied to each shop front with condition 1a requiring deletion of the shutters from plans. This condition is contested by review applicants to each permit.
3. Other conditions require reduction in signage requested. The review applicants have requested signage be approved as has been established on site[1].
4. In effect there are three matters I need to consider:
   1. Are roller shutters appropriate to each premises?
   2. Is the proposed promotional advertising on the verandah facia of 553A Geelong Road, Brooklyn appropriate?
   3. Is the proposed business signage at 553B Geelong Road, Brooklyn appropriate?

1. Roller shutters form a security measure for shops but can result in negative streetscape impact and broader safety concerns for pedestrians. Decision guidelines of Clause 34.01 - 4 include the need to address[2]:

The streetscape, including the conservation of buildings, the design of verandahs, access from the street front, protecting active frontages to pedestrian areas, the treatment of the fronts and backs of buildings and their appurtenances, illumination of buildings or their immediate spaces and the landscaping of land adjoining a road.

1. Clause 19.03 also provides specific policy relating to urban design stating:

Development should achieve architectural and urban design outcomes that contribute positively to local urban character and enhance the public realm while minimising detrimental impact on neighbouring properties

1. Both the Activity Centre guidelines and Safer Design Guidelines that form reference documents to the planning scheme provide a definition of active frontage being:

Refers to street frontages where there is an active visual engagement between those in the street and those on the ground floors of buildings. This quality is assisted where the front facade of buildings, including the main entrance, faces and open towards the street.

1. The activity centre guidelines go on to provide a number of directions to protect active frontage including:

Promote the natural surveillance of public space and street edge activity. This can be achieved by ensuring buildings address the street and contain active uses on the ground floor.

Design suggestion 1.6.1[4] - concentrate shops into continuous active frontages, with minimum setbacks to the street.

To design and plan street edges to enhance the pedestrian environment.

Design suggestion 3.3.3 - restrict the use of blank walls and reflective glazing that hides the presence of activity within buildings.

Design suggestion 3.3.4 - ensure buildings are designed so occupants can maintain eye contact with people in the street.

1. As I have found before[6] it is a difficult conundrum planners face to balance the needs of personal protection with broader community safety. Whilst individuals have a right to protect the safety of their person and property, it should not be at the significant detriment of broader community safety. In this regard, the planning scheme makes specific direction that it is important to maintain active frontage to streets and consequently the perception of safety.
2. Mr Khouri and Mr Vidovic stated the shutters were important for the business owners due to existing security issues in the area associated with poor surveillance at night and shopping centre location on Geelong Road.
3. It is however the sense of activity that can lead to casual surveillance that the planning scheme seeks to protect through use of active frontage. Proliferation of fully screened roller shutters in a street only increases the extent of blank wall / façade in the street and reduces pedestrian amenity and perception of safety. Whilst shops may not be occupied at night displays and display lighting can add to a sense of activity and safety that engages people to feel safe in a centre. This in turn can add to the real safety of the centre for users and business owners as there are then more people in the area to maintain casual surveillance of public and private property.
4. Ms Lunn stated Council's view was that alternative security arrangements were possible including internal grills, external screens (with clear shutters) or other permeable screening devices.
5. Mr Khouri noted other premises in the Hobsons Bay area that had security screens including solid shutters. Ms Lunn advised Council was endeavouring to remove a number of shutters in the municipality and that a number of the premises referred to were the subject of other enforcement action of Council.
6. Whilst the subject application has been brought from an enforcement action of Council on the subject site for shutters established without a permit, it is not my role to comment on this enforcement proceeding or whether the provisions of shutters on other properties in the street legitimises a need for shutters on the subject property. It does, however, reinforce to me concerns in incremental loss of active frontage in a centre from additional solid screens that can reduce the sense of activity and perception of safety for users of the street.
7. Ms Lunn cited a number of other VCAT decisions[7] in which the Tribunal did not support the use of solid screen shutters. I find the circumstances of this proposal to be similar and find no extenuating circumstances as to why I should deviate from other decisions of the Tribunal in relation to this site.

1. I find the shutters do not enhance the public realm, but detract from the existing[8] public realm in a similar manner that other centres have experienced, as cited in cases noted by Ms Lunn.
2. There is a need to balance protection of the property with real and perceived public safety as well as enhancement of the public realm. I find the existing shutters do not achieve this balance and therefore cannot be supported. Alternative security arrangements are available to the owners and these can be addressed on their merits through planning permit as may be needed.
3. It therefore follows that I will uphold Council's condition to remove the shutters from part of the permit approval and retain the condition that the existing shutters be removed.

1. The existing condition requiring removal states that the shutters be removed within 60 days of the permit issue. The permit however, was issued on 19 September 2008, hence this period has already lapsed. Council stated at the hearing that if an extension to timing were considered appropriate it would accept that the condition be amended to require removal of the screens within 12 months of the permit issuing. Given it is now 11 August 2009, this would leave the permit applicants one month to establish alternative security arrangements. I find it reasonable that the condition be amended to require the shutters to be removed within 18 months of the permit approval, thereby requiring the shutters to be removed by 19 March 2010.

Is the proposed promotional signage to 553A Geelong Road appropriate?

1. The permit applicant has four signs sitting above the verandah facia of the property. Three of the signs sit approximately 1.2m above the facia and extend the 5.8m width of the facia. A fourth sign, also approximately 1.2m high extends along the 1.8 m side face of the verandah facia.
2. Each sign has a different text and picture, advertising different brand names of products sold on site (e.g. Bisley, Eezneez, Bata Industrials).
3. Council has submitted the size of the signs as promotional signs is excessive and forms visual clutter to the street. At the hearing, Ms Lunn submitted a possible acceptable alternative to Council would be to have the signs moved to fix flat to the verandah parapet wall so that they were less dominant to the streetscape.
4. I agree with Council that the use of four individual promotional signs is does add to visual clutter and could be better designed.
5. However, I do not consider that reducing the size of the signs on the facia is a manageable outcome as the facia is too small to provide effective advertising space to the location.
6. Geelong Road is a busy, high volume road where traffic is often travelling at speed. Having larger signage is potentially important to enable the signs to be effective. At the same time I find it important that the signage to be clear and simple for passing trade to read. In a small neighbourhood centre such as this the dominant aim of advertising should be to identify businesses operating on site. As such I find that the use of four promotional signs does not provide clear readable business identification. Therefore I find the size of the sign on the facia is not the main issue, but the use of this sign structure to form four promotional signs that cannot be easily read or identify the business on site.
7. I therefore find that a condition to alter the signage is warranted, however, I consider this should be either to move the signage as suggested by Ms Lunn at the hearing, or to change the detailing of the signage as existing to form a single business identification sign rather than four individual promotion signs. I therefore will amend the permit condition to require either the promotion signs as existing be moved to be fixed to the parapet facia, or the sign structures retained in place but with the detailing amended so that the sign wording and imagery is altered to form a business identification sign to the premises.

Is the proposed business signage to 553B Geelong Road appropriate?

1. The permit application for signage at 553B was to provide retrospective approval of verandah facia signage and below verandah business signage. The condition in dispute requires reduction in the size of the sign on the verandah facia and removal of the words "tattoos" and "piercing" from side wall facia of the building.
2. Since this time the shop has altered its advertising to include graffiti art that covers the shutters and the side walls. Hence the wording "tattoos" and "piercing" has been replaced with part of the graffiti artwork.
3. The verandah facia signage has also been removed, but new artwork has been installed on the above verandah parapet wall.
4. I find the use of graffiti art on the business premises to be a logical and appropriate form of design given the occupation of the premises and provided the artwork is of a suitable design and quality, as exists above the verandah of the shop to form appropriate business signage.
5. A permit condition is, however, required to submit plans to confirm the current detailing that is provided on the shopfront. I also note that with removal of the roller shutters the below verandah artwork is unlikely to be compatible. Hence, new artwork may be sought by the business owner. I find it acceptable that this may include the wording "tattoos" and "piercing" as these are clearly part of the business occurring on site.
6. I will therefore direct that the permit condition be amended to require detailing of both the above and below verandah signage be submitted to Council acknowledging the amended signage placed above the verandah and a need to alter the below verandah signage with removal of the roller shutters.

1. It therefore follows that I will direct conditions be amended in accordance with my findings.

[1] Both permit applications seek retrospective approval for works already undertaken to establish roller shutters and advertising on site.

[3] Pg. 6 - Element 1 Urban Context: Activity Centre Guidelines 2005.

[6] Dossetter v Maroondah CC [2008] VCAT 2556 (18 December 2008)

[7] Newtone Retravision v Maribyrnong CC [2006] VCAT 383, Sakkas v Hobsons Bay CC [2000] VCAT 2486, Carter v Boroondara CC [2005] VCAT 2739, The Glen Centre Hawthorn Pty Ltd v Boroondara CC [2007] VCAT 596 and Xu v Hobsons Bay CC [2008] VCAT 1669.

[8] Prior to the shutters being erected.