//
© 2026 Zoe. All rights reserved.
Zoe is a legal information platform. Always consult the Federal Register of Legislation for authoritative text.
[2001] VCAT 1796
respondent. The review application was disallowed. The permit was granted subject to the conditions in the Notice of Decision dated 5 April 2001, including the reduction in overall sign height to 2.9 metres.
No linked legislation citations have been extracted yet.
The Tribunal upheld the Council's permit for an illuminated sign at a medical centre in a residential area. Although the sign was larger and taller than the planning scheme's stated performance measures, the Tribunal considered the circumstances of this site, including the busy road, the sign's visibility to drivers, its position relative to nearby homes, existing landscaping, and other signs nearby. It found the sign reasonable as a way to help patients locate the clinic and dismissed the review. The decision is a site-specific assessment and the supplied judgment does not state that the same dimensions would be acceptable elsewhere.
AI-generated legal information, not legal advice. Zoe can make mistakes. Check the cited source, and for advice about your situation consult a qualified Australian lawyer.
2,080 words · generated 01/10/2026
In Lister WA v Boroondara CC & Ors [2001] VCAT 1796, W A Lister sought review under s 82 of the (Vic) of Boroondara City Council’s decision to grant a permit for an illuminated business identification sign at a medical centre at 124 Doncaster Road, Balwyn North. The permit applicants were Drs M & G Tomassoni. The subject land was in a Residential 1 Zone.
The medical centre was already operating under Permit No. 99/517, issued on 27 November 1999 ([2]). The permit application at issue was for a double-sided illuminated sign measuring 1.5 metres by 0.9 metres. Its proposed overall height was initially 3.2 metres, but a permit condition reduced that height to 2.9 metres ([1], [12]). The sign was intended to identify the clinic and give its street and telephone number. The description in paragraph 4 says the logo was red on white; paragraph 20 later describes the colours as subdued, with blue lettering on white. The decision gives both descriptions, so the colour detail is not entirely consistent in the text.
The application attracted objections. An initial objection from an adjoining owner was withdrawn after amended plans moved the sign away from that residence and closer to Buchanan Avenue ([9]). The amended proposal was advertised, and Mrs Lister objected. Her concerns included the sign’s size and height, possible effects on the residential character and her property, traffic safety, and the effect of lighting ([11]). She also argued that the medical centre’s earlier permit did not approve signage ([11]).
The Council issued a Notice of Decision to Grant a Permit on 5 April 2001. The review was heard on 2 August 2001 by Senior Member W R Gould, who inspected the site and surrounding area after the hearing ([17]). The Tribunal disallowed the review and ordered that the permit be granted subject to the Notice of Decision conditions. The practical result was that the sign could proceed under that permit, including the condition limiting its overall height to 2.9 metres.
The Tribunal set out planning policy and decision guidance that pulled in more than one direction. The residential-area policy said signs should generally be limited to what was needed to identify the use or premises, should not dominate the building or street, and that freestanding medical-centre signs should be low profile ([6]). It also discouraged floodlit signs because of potential clutter, disorder and amenity impact. Clause 22.01-4 listed performance measures including a maximum height of 1.5 metres, a total area not exceeding 0.6 square metres, and a single-faced design ([7]). Clause 52.05 called for consideration of amenity, including avoiding visual disorder or clutter ([8]).
The proposal departed from those measures. It was double-sided, its face area was 1.35 square metres on each side, and the permitted overall height was 2.9 metres. The planning submissions acknowledged those departures and advanced site-specific reasons for them, including the boundary fence, landscaping, setbacks and the opportunity to identify the property to traffic travelling in both directions ([16]).
The Tribunal’s own reasoning emphasised the practical conditions at the site. On inspection, Doncaster Road was busy in the late afternoon, making street numbers difficult to check. The Tribunal considered that some sign could give drivers advance warning of the clinic’s location and that a double-sided sign could inform traffic travelling in both directions ([17]). That wayfinding benefit was central to the conclusion in paragraph 21.
The Tribunal also found the location reasonable and unlikely to be obvious to nearby residents ([18]). On height, it considered it undesirable to interfere with the shrubs along the front fences, and concluded that the sign needed to be at the proposed height to avoid that problem ([18]). It compared signs in the area: one at 56 Doncaster Road, with faces of 1.8 by 1.2 metres, appeared excessive for a residential zone, while a sign at 123 Doncaster Road with dimensions similar to the proposal did not appear as intrusive ([19]). It also noted the subdued colours described in paragraph 20.
The outcome was therefore a site-specific balancing assessment. The Tribunal did not treat the performance measures as irrelevant: it recorded them and acknowledged the departures. But it accepted that the sign’s location, function, context and relation to landscaping made this particular proposal reasonable. It dismissed the review ([21]–[22]). The reasons do not separately quantify illumination or explain in detail why floodlighting would not create the policy concerns identified in paragraph 6.
The judgment describes the planning controls that applied to this application; it does not set out a general account of the law before and after the decision. In particular, it does not discuss earlier cases, identify a change in doctrine, or claim to establish a new legal test.
Before the Tribunal’s decision, the relevant framework, as recorded in the reasons, included the Boroondara Planning Scheme’s residential signage policy, Clause 22.01-4 performance measures, and the Clause 52.05 decision guideline concerning amenity and visual clutter ([6]–[8]). The sign’s proposed dimensions and design did not meet several of the listed performance measures ([16]). The Council nevertheless decided to grant a permit subject to conditions, including the reduced height ([12]).
After the Tribunal’s decision, the Council’s permit decision remained in place because the review was disallowed ([22] and order). That is the immediate procedural and practical effect established by the judgment. The text does not say that the stated performance measures were amended, displaced, or generally relaxed. Nor does it establish that other medical-centre signs in residential areas may exceed them.
For legal research purposes, the safest account of the decision’s significance is limited to its reasoning: the Tribunal evaluated departures from the listed measures in light of the specific site, the sign’s identification function, local context, visibility and landscaping. Any broader proposition about the legal status or application of these measures would require sources beyond this judgment.
At [17], the Tribunal said: “There is merit therefore in the provision of some kind of signage to give advance warning to drivers.” In plain English, it considered the road conditions relevant to whether signage served a practical purpose. The sign was not assessed only as a visual object; it could help drivers locate a clinic on a busy road.
At [18], it said: “The location seems reasonable, and is unlikely to be obvious to nearby residents.” This is the Tribunal’s concise conclusion on the sign’s placement and likely visibility from nearby homes. It does not say that the sign could not be seen at all, only that its location was unlikely to be obvious to nearby residents.
The same paragraph explains the Tribunal’s height assessment. It said it would be “quite undesirable to interfere with any of the shrubs planted along the front fences” and that “the sign needs to be at the height proposed.” The plain-English point is that landscaping was a concrete site constraint in the Tribunal’s reasoning. The statement supports the chosen height in this setting; it is not expressed as a general rule for signs elsewhere.
At [19], the Tribunal compared nearby signs. A larger double-sided sign at 56 Doncaster Road “appeared to me to be excessive for a Residential Zone”, whereas a sign of similar dimensions at 123 Doncaster Road “did not seem so intrusive.” This passage illustrates a comparative, contextual assessment. The Tribunal did not treat size alone as decisive: the perceived effect depended on the site and surroundings.
At [21], the Tribunal summarised its view: “the proposed sign is reasonable and will provide advance warning of the location of the clinic to patients arriving by car.” This connects its conclusion about reasonableness to the identified wayfinding purpose. At [22], the formal result is stated simply: “The application for review is disallowed.”
Finally, [23] records that concerns about under-eave security lighting were not considered in this review because it was limited to the applied-for sign. This matters when identifying the scope of the decision: the Tribunal did not determine every lighting concern associated with the premises.
The reasoning is most directly relevant to a planning dispute about a business identification sign at a medical centre in a residentially zoned area, where the sign’s height, area, double-sided design, illumination or effect on residential amenity is contested. Its factual ingredients include a busy road where street numbers are difficult to identify, a corner location, a sign positioned away from an adjoining home, existing fencing and shrubs, and comparisons with signs in the same general area ([4], [17]–[20]).
The case is particularly useful for understanding what this Tribunal considered in that setting: the usefulness of advance notice to drivers, the sign’s visibility from nearby residences, whether a lower sign would interfere with landscaping, the character of nearby signs, and whether the sign would appear intrusive ([17]–[21]). It also shows the relevance of the local policy and performance measures that the reasons reproduce ([6]–[8]).
The judgment does not establish a universal threshold at which a sign becomes too large, too high or too bright. Nor does it say that medical-centre signage will generally be allowed to exceed the stated performance measures. A different site, different residential exposure, different lighting effects, or different planning scheme wording may produce a different assessment. That qualification follows from the Tribunal’s reliance on its inspection and the characteristics of this location, rather than from an express statement that the decision is limited to its facts.
The supplied judgment contains no later decisions, subsequent appellate history, or citations showing how another court or tribunal treated Lister. It identifies no earlier judicial precedents either. On the material provided, later treatment cannot be determined, and no cases should be attributed to this decision as having followed, distinguished or criticised it.
The decision is a single-member VCAT Planning List determination. The text does not describe its own precedential status or claim that it creates a binding rule for later matters. Its reasoning can be reported accurately as an example of a site-specific assessment under the planning controls quoted in the reasons, but any account of its later influence would need additional legal sources.
The decision refers to statutory and planning materials rather than case authorities: s 82 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 (Vic), Clause 22.01-4, and Clause 52.05 are identified in the supplied text. The contents of those provisions should be understood here only as the judgment describes them. The judgment alone does not provide a complete account of their legislative history or current wording.
Several matters are not resolved in detail by the reasons. First, although the policy discouraged floodlit signs and the proposal used floodlights, the Tribunal’s analysis does not specify the lights’ intensity, direction, operating hours or measured effect on neighbouring properties. The resident raised concerns about lighting, but the stated reasoning supporting approval focuses more on location, dimensions, landscaping, comparison signs and driver identification ([11], [17]–[21]).
Second, the text does not explain in detail how the Tribunal reconciled each departure from the performance measures with the relevant scheme provisions. It records the maximum height, area and single-faced design measures ([7]), and records submissions supporting departure from them ([16]), but the reasons do not set out a separate legal analysis for each measure.
Third, the decision does not determine the resident’s reported concerns about property marketability, property value or traffic safety as independent issues. Those concerns appear in the summary of the objection ([11]); the reasons do not make express findings quantifying or separately resolving them. The Tribunal’s site inspection and finding about the difficulty of checking street numbers are the express traffic-related observations in its reasoning ([17]).
Fourth, paragraph 4 describes the logo as red on white, while paragraph 20 describes the colours as blue lettering on white. The judgment does not explain this difference. That inconsistency may matter if a later analysis depends on the sign’s exact appearance.
Finally, the provided text gives no information about whether the permit was implemented, whether later proceedings occurred, or whether subsequent planning controls changed. It also does not supply later case law applying or limiting this decision. Those points remain outside what can be concluded from the judgment provided.
This is general legal information, not legal advice. Zoe can make mistakes. Before acting on this, relying on it, or using any draft, have a qualified Australian lawyer check it.
Business identification sign, illuminated, Residential area, Medical Centre.
Medium Neutral Citation [2001] VCAT 1796
SUBJECT LAND: 124 Doncaster Road, Corner of Buchanan Avenue, Balwyn North
The permit is granted subject to the conditions set out in the Notice of Decision dated 5 April 2001.
Mr L Rigoni of Local Planning Services represented the Responsible Authority.
Mr R Lister, Applicant for Review appeared on behalf of Mrs W A Lister.
Mr P Baulch of Coomes Planning, appeared on behalf of the Respondent/Applicant.
Application under S.82 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 (PE Act) for review of a decision to grant a permit.
Illuminated Business Sign 1.5m x 0.9m, double sided.
"1. That the height and size of the sign (proposed) is excessive.
2. That lighting to the sign (proposed) will commercialise the area."
1. By application dated 19 October 2000, Drs M & G Tomassoni sought permission to erect an illuminated business identification sign measuring 1.5m x 0.9m set on poles to a total overall height of 3.2m. A condition of the Notice of Decision reduces this overall height to 2.9m.
2. The premises are used as a medical centre under Permit No. 99/517 issued on
3. The proposal was advertised by direction of the Responsible Authority and one objection was received from the owner/occupier of the adjoining dwelling in Doncaster Road.
4. Mr Rigoni gave the following description of the proposal as amended (see later):-
"The sign is proposed to be located towards the north-eastern corner of the site within the garden bed area.
The sign proposed would be 2m from the splayed front fence and 1.5m from the eastern boundary fence.
The size of the sign is 900mm x 1500mm, having a 1.35sqm sign, being located 2.3m above ground level with an overall height of 3.2m to the top of the sign.
(A condition on the Notice of Decision reduces the overall height to 2.9m).
The sign would identify the business currently operating from the subject site, identifying the name of the Medical Clinic, the street and phone number. The logo on the sign would be red on a white background.
The sign is proposed to be illuminated by floodlights positioned at two points in the garden bed (one each to the east and west of the sign).
5. Mr Rigoni pointed out that a planning permit was issued in error for the proposal by the Responsible Authority, one objection having already been received. Such permit of course is without force. A Notice of Decision to Grant a Permit was issued on 5 April 2001 and is the subject of this review.
6. Mr Rigoni then set out the various planning instruments affecting the land. The Local Policy Framework is the most relevant and includes the following objective for residential areas:-
* Signs be generally limited to what is necessary to identify the use or premises.
* Freestanding signs for medical centres be low profile and present an orderly display.
* Signs not to be placed on walls directly facing adjoining residences.
* Floodlit signs, flashing or running lights and reflective signs be discouraged due to the resultant clutter, disorder and amenity impact."
7. Clause 22.01-4 provides that the following performance measures must be considered:-
* Signs are located within the boundary of the site, are single faced and parallel or at right angles to the street.
* Freestanding signs not exceeding a maximum height of 1.5 metres above ground level.
* Total sign area not exceeding 0.6 square metres."
8. Decision guidelines are set out in Clause 52.05 with the following being the most relevant:-
* The effect of the sign on the amenity of the area including the need to avoid visual disorder or clutter of signs."
9. Following advertising and receipt of the objection (above), amended plans were lodged with the Responsible Authority which moved the sign away from the Objector's residence and closer to Buchanan Avenue. This resulted in a withdrawal of the objection.
10. However, the amended plans were also advertised resulting in an objection from Mrs Lister.
11. Mr Rigoni gave the following summary of this objection. These grounds were expanded on at the hearing by Mr Lister:-
* The permit issued enabling the property to be used for medical purposes, specifically excluded approval for any signage.
* The size, location and height of the proposed sign may adversely affect the marketability and the market value of my property.
* That the size of the sign, 1.35sqm, exceeds that of any other medical premises signage in Doncaster Road.
* That the height of the sign, 3.2m at its highest point exceeds that of any other signage for medical premises along Doncaster Road.
* As a consequence of the proposed sign being so high, the light source will have to be extremely high and therefore most likely reflect onto my property.
* No artificial lighting should be provided to the proposed sign.
* The residential nature of our environment will be destroyed due to large illuminated sign, visible from our residence."
12. The Responsible Authority issued a Notice of Decision to Grant a Permit on 5 April 2001 subject to conditions one of which requires the sign to be decreased 300mm in height.
13. Mr Rigoni said that the sign was supported by the Responsible Authority for the following main reasons:-
* The sign is located some 20m from the Lister residence and is separated by roadways from other properties.
* Being at the corner of two streets the sign would not be highly visible from the Lister residence or other houses in Buchanan Avenue.
* The sign has an area of 1.35m2 for each face and "is appropriate to the use of the site as a Medical Centre ...".
* The bottom edge of the sign face would be 2m above ground level. The support poles would be largely transparent and not generally visible from the street.
* The overall height "is justified given the existing 2 metre brick piers and front boundary wall, the slope of the land, the established landscape ...".
14. Mr Lister presented a very detailed submission covering the grounds summarised above and included a series of photographs which illustrated other signs at Medical Centres within the municipality. He said that the proposal (with one exception) exceeds the dimensions of signs on Medical Centres that are located in residential environments in Doncaster Road.
15. In response, Mr Baulch said that the proposal meets Council policy in the following ways:-
* The size and location of the proposed sign will not be a dominant feature of the review site, as its purpose is to simply identify the business.
* The location of the sign will not clutter the area or the site or cause detrimental effects upon neighbouring properties particularly the property owned by the applicant for review.
* The signage proposed will not be dominant when viewed from the main road or nearby streets and residences."
16. Mr Baulch then made the following comments regarding the relevant performance standards:-
* Signs are located within the boundary of the site, are single faced and are parallel or at right angles to the street.
The proposed sign is to be located within the property boundary at right angles to Doncaster Road and parallel to Buchanan Avenue. The sign is set back 2 metres from Doncaster Road and 1.5 metres from Buchanan Avenue. The sign is double sided thus not meeting the recommended performance measure. It is considered that the erection of a double sided sign is appropriate because of the location of the sign and the opportunity to identify the property to both east and west bound traffic along Doncaster Road.
* Freestanding signs not exceeding a maximum height of 1.5 metres (measured above the ground level to the top of the sign).
The sign which will have a total height of 2.9 metres exceeds that recommended in the performance measures however it is considered that the sign is appropriate as:
* The location and height of the fence will obscure any sign that is at a lower height.
* The existing landscaping will soften the sign.
* The setback of the sign from the property boundaries will reduce the visual dominance of the sign.
* Total sign area not exceeding 0.6 square metres.
The proposed sign will result is a total display area of 2.7 square metres. It is considered that this is appropriate having regard to the location of the sign on a main road and the minimal impacts that the sign will have on the amenity of the area."
17. The subject site and environs were inspected following the hearing. Doncaster Road was quite busy in the late afternoon making it difficult to have time to look for street numbers. There is merit therefore in the provision of some kind of signage to give advance warning to drivers. A double sided sign is indicated to inform drivers travelling in both directions on Doncaster Road.
18. The location seems reasonable, and is unlikely to be obvious to nearby residents. The size of the sign however is important. I believe that it would be quite undesirable to interfere with any of the shrubs planted along the front fences. Thus the sign needs to be at the height proposed.
19. Inspection of the other signs in the area indicates that the suggested dimensions are not unreasonable. The sign at 56 Doncaster Road (double sided, each 1.8m x 1.2m) appeared to me to be excessive for a Residential Zone whereas the sign at 123 Doncaster Road, which is of similar dimensions to the proposal, did not seem so intrusive.
20. The colours of the sign are also subdued being basically blue lettering on a white background.
21. In summary then I believe the proposed sign is reasonable and will provide advance warning of the location of the clinic to patients arriving by car.
23. Mr Lister also raised other matters at the hearing such as the intensity of under eave security lighting on the subject premises. This question is not a matter for consideration in this review which is limited to the consideration of the sign which has been applied for.
Lister WA
Boroondara CC & Ors [2001] VCAT 1796
The review application was disallowed. The permit was granted subject to the conditions in the Notice of Decision dated 5 April 2001, including the reduction in overall sign height to 2.9 metres.