The amended plans are substituted for the submitted plans. The amended plans are Dwg Nos. 100102 to100107 (inclusive) Sheets 2-7 (inclusive) of JM Planning and dated 04.08.2011.

The order of the Tribunal is that the decision of the responsible authority is set aside.

It is directed that a permit be issued for the erection of a major promotion sign and a business identification sign at 1501-1505 Dandenong Road, Oakleigh in accordance with the conditions attached at Appendix A.

Ms A Patterson, Direct Brief. Ms. Patterson called expert evidence from Mr W Bromhead, town planner

Application under Section 77 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987

Major Promotion Sign and Business Identification Sign

Design and Development (Schedule 10) Environmental Audit

1. By letter of 13 April 2012, the permit applicant advised that it would seek to substitute amended plans for the submitted plans when the matter was heard at the Tribunal.
2. The amendment to the plans reduced the size of the proposed signs by about half. Documents were served on the parties in accordance with the Tribunal's practice for amended plans.
3. At the hearing, Council advised that it had no objection to the plans being substituted. The objector, Ms Browne, also did not oppose the substitution. Accordingly I ordered that the submitted plans be substituted by the amended plans being Drawing Nos. 100102 to 100107, Sheets 2-7 (both inclusive) of JM Planning. I note that the plans are dated 04.08.2011 which is the same date as the submitted plans. To avoid any doubt, I have signed a set of the plans that the parties considered at the hearing on 25 June 2012. These signed plans will remain on the Tribunal's file.

1. TPA/39635 was lodged with Monash City Council in August 2011 for the purposes of erecting a major promotion sign and a business identification sign on the southwest corner of Warrigal Road and Dandenong Road in Oakleigh. The address of the property is 1501-1505 Dandenong Road.
2. In its amended form, the "V" shaped sign will sit above a pole and will have dimensions of 2.5m x 8.6m (each side) with a total area of 21.5m2 per side. These sides of the sign will mainly be visible from the east and west. The business sign will complete the triangle and will have an area of 2.5m x 2.1m. This side of the sign will only be visible from the north. The total sign area is proposed to be 48.25m2. The overall height of the sign is 12m. No illumination of the sign is proposed.
3. The sign is to be located 0.8m from the southern boundary of the site and 5.5m from the western boundary.

1. I have inspected the site and the area and I confirm the descriptions provided to me by the parties. Council noted that the land is currently occupied by a single storey brick building occupied by a "Bob Jane T-Mart" auto establishment. Car parking is provided in the forecourt of the site with access from Warrigal Road. Properties to the north, east and south are occupied by commercial premises including a lighting shop, KFC, Hungry Jacks, car yard, furniture sales, and a number of service stations. The land to the west is occupied by an Anglican church. To the south-west is a newly built 'Punt Hill' serviced apartment complex.
2. Most of the commercial premises in the vicinity have signage of some description ranging from modest identification to more typical commercial advertising. The car yard is festooned with flags and bunting while one of the petrol stations hosts a large balloon sitting atop its forecourt pump area.
3. I also confirmed on my inspections the submissions that were made as to the 'busyness' of this intersection. Evidently about 120,000 vehicles per day pass through this junction making it one of the busiest in the metropolitan area. Despite these numbers, the junction is somewhat unusual in that the north-western side of the junction has a more 'domestic' character with dwellings and the Anglican church building supported by mature vegetation. The eastern side is much more commercial with an array of fringe retail activities. This demarcation persists (albeit to a lesser extent) to the south with the new Punt Hill apartments west of Warrigal Road and a petrol station and convenience store on the south east corner.

1. The subject site is within the Business 2 zone (B2Z) under the Monash Planning Scheme and such a zone primarily caters for offices and commercial uses. The B2Z is included in Category 2 of the advertising sign requirements at Clause 52.05.
2. It was common ground that the larger double sided sign was defined as a 'Major Promotion Sign' while the smaller sign was a 'Business Identification Sign'. It was also common ground that both signs were 'discretionary' within Category 2.
3. The sign is also affected by the Environmental Audit Overlay (which is not relevant to an application for a sign) and by the Design and Development Overlay (Schedule 10). Despite its wide coverage, this overlay also does not trigger a permit.
4. There are also numerous state and local policy provisions and I will address these later.

1. Council advertised the application and it received four objections noting (in summary):
   • visually overbearing
   • not in keeping with the area
   • impacts on residential amenity
   • impacts on neighbouring heritage buildings.
2. Council considered the application under delegation and it decided to reject it on four grounds being:
   • The siting, design and scale of the proposal will be detrimental to, and have an adverse visual impact upon, the existing and desired future character of the area contrary to Clauses 21.03, 22.03, 22.08 and 52.05 of the Monash Planning Scheme.
   • The siting, design and scale of the proposal will have an adverse visual and amenity impact upon neighbouring residential areas contrary to Clauses 22.08 and 52.05 of the Monash Planning Scheme.
   • The proposed signage will result in a proliferation of major promotion signage and unnecessary visual clutter inconsistent with Clause 22.08 of the Monash Planning Scheme.
   • The proposal is contrary to the orderly and proper planning of the area.

1. I think that the issues raised in the refusal and in the submissions require me to respond to two fundamental questions:
   • Is the proposal supported by the policies and provisions of the Monash Planning Scheme?
   • Will the proposal have a negative impact on the visual amenity of this area?

1. Apart from relevant state policy provisions (Clauses 15.01-1 and 15.01-2) there are numerous references in Council's local policy framework that are relevant to my assessment. Of particular note are Clause 22.03 (Industry and Business Development and Character Policy) and Clause 22.08 (Outdoor Advertising Signs Policy).
2. Clause 22.03 has specific policies for advertising signs including:
   • The standard of landscaping and advertising signs along the major road network and at gateways throughout Monash be improved.
   • Visual clutter caused by advertising signs be minimised.
   • Advertising signs not detract from the urban character of the neighbourhood.
   • Advertising signs identify the business on site, not any products.
   • The number of advertising signs be minimised to reduce visual clutter.
   • The height, colour and location of advertising signs enhance the streetscape character of the neighbourhood.
3. Council advised me that the characteristic that it is trying to foster in this immediate area is of:

...............office, retail and residential buildings within an attractive and consistent landscape setting. Visual clutter should also be progressively minimised by controlling the size and positioning of advertising signs and overhead services.

1. Council also hopes to foster a future character which includes 3 metre landscape setbacks to road boundaries and canopy tree planting to soften built form and enhance a boulevard character along Dandenong and Warrigal Roads.
2. Clause 22.08 seeks (among other things) to avoid the erosion of the garden city character '... through the appropriate location and design of outdoor advertising signs ...' and by controlling the '... proliferation of advertising signs along major transport routes ...'.
3. Specific policy provisions in Clause 22.08 relating to 'Promotion signs' include:

Generally discouraged. They should be visually distinct from business identification signs.

1. All of these local provisions need to be read in the context of the permit trigger at Clause 52.05 which contains numerous relevant decision guidelines including:
   • The character of the area
   • Impacts on views and vistas
   • Relationship to the streetscape, setting or landscape
   • The relationship to the site and building
   • The impact on road safety
   • The effect of the proposed major promotion sign on:
     • Significant streetscapes, buildings and skylines.
     • The visual appearance of a significant view corridor, view line, gateway location or landmark site identified in a framework plan or local policy.
     • Residential areas and heritage places.
     • Open space and waterways.
2. In that planning scheme context, Council sought to align all of this and submitted that:

The emphasis in the planning scheme seeks to integrate development into existing areas and enhance streetscapes and retain the Garden Character of the municipality.

Advertising signs at gateways into Monash should be improved, with clutter minimised so that detraction from the urban character of the neighbourhood does not occur.

The desired future character of the area is for offices, retail and residential buildings within attractive landscape settings. Visual clutter should also be minimised.

This is consistent with Clause 52.05, which states that major promotion signs can be located in commercial areas in a manner which complements or enhances the character of the area.

1. Council also noted that the site is located at the western entry to the municipality and as such is in a prominent and sensitive location. It is important that signage be integrated into the built form and not appear as a standalone feature that will contribute to the extent of signage on the skyline.
2. This assessment seems to me to rely on the policy position at Clause 22.08 of promotion signs being 'generally discouraged' and so it rests on the assumption that major promotion signs in Monash should usually be rejected. While I think that Council unquestionably has a detailed and quite 'layered' approach to signage, it seems to me that this falls down when it comes to major promotion signs. In a free market and a competitive commercial environment, advertising has a clear place. In that context, signage has some role to play.
3. While I think that it is an acceptable strategic position for a Council to identify where it might encourage or discourage signage (for a variety of reasons), it is another thing altogether to effectively prohibit a form of advertising that is otherwise held to be acceptable in our community.
4. While I am therefore conscious of the local policy context, I think that Council's insistence on this application being contrary to policy is not surprising given its reluctance to encourage any major promotion signs anywhere in the municipality.

1. The amenity impacts of the sign are principally visual although there were submissions as to its physical and social impacts. I will deal with these first.
2. It was initially feared that the sign would cast a shadow over the historic east facing windows of the Anglican church. This was later found to be incorrect. It was also submitted that owing to the active youth program pursued at the church (as well as the presence of primary schools in the area) that the content of the sign might give rise to some social concerns. I agree with Ms Patterson that the sign content is not something that is within the province of a planning permit to control. There are industry standards (and procedures) that are to be observed lest any sign causes offence.
3. The more substantial issue is that of visual clutter and I was greatly assisted by the photos provided and by my inspections. I have already noted that this very busy intersection has an east/west split that is quite discernible.
4. Travelling east is a different experience to travelling west. Because of a bend in the road about 200m west of the junction, the site does not become apparent to the east bound motorist until quite late and even then it is screened by roadside vegetation. The main view to the east is, and will continue to be, dominated by the large pole sign on the south side of Dandenong Road about 100m east of Warrigal. Going east there is a strong sense of vegetation and canopy trees that sit in the foreground of a commercial precinct complete with corporate colours, a variety of signs and a variety of street furniture. In that context, I think that the trees in the foreground soften the impact and acceptably frame the site as a 'marker' of that change in activity.
5. Travelling west the view is a more typically commercial vista where the sign appears almost as an incidental addition to other elements of the built form, especially an array of other business and promotional signs. There are two other similar pole signs (albeit one larger than the other) east of the junction on either side of Dandenong Road. Neither really competes with the subject site as they are well enough displaced.
6. I think that the decision to reduce the size of the sign by about half greatly minimises the prospects of it contributing to visual clutter. The signs will be seen in the context of an unremarkable and predominantly yellow and blue commercial building that is nearly 50m long and only 7m high. A sign that is 8.6m long, particularly against a backdrop of poles and other signs, appeared to me to be an incidental visual addition to an otherwise main road streetscape.
7. While I appreciate that Council aspires to a landscaped office environment at this junction, I think that a 25m2 sign atop a pole is quite benign in a commercial setting.
8. I therefore did not find that this is a 'cluttered' junction but given its spaciousness and its land uses I found it to be a perfectly normal commercial intersection. It follows that I don't think this relatively small sign will add to that clutter.

1. The planning scheme, at the state level at least, contemplates a major promotion sign in certain locations and it considers that these are 'part and parcel' of a commercial urban environment. Despite this, the Monash Planning Scheme at the local level fetters this discretion to such an extent that few, if any, sites could ever be considered suitable. I don't think that this is what the scheme intended.
2. For an intersection that hosts well over 100,000 vehicle trips per day, this junction has relatively modest signage. While there are some sky signs evident and while this sign will add to that, I did not find this to be a jumbled or cluttered urban environment that would be tarnished by a relatively modest additional sign.
3. I will finally return to Clause 52.05-6 which specifically deals with major promotion signs. Its decision guidelines help frame my assessment for an application for a major promotion sign where it notes (and with my comments):
   • Major promotion signs are encouraged in commercial and industrial locations in a manner which complements or enhances the character of the area.
   • Comment: The site is in a committed commercial/industrial location which is characterised by a variety of building styles and colours, most of which support some form of signage.
   • 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 viewlines.
   • Comment: While there are residential areas to the west, these are physically separated from the site by intervening roadways, domestic level landscaping, some impressive street trees and by the church itself. No significant viewlines will be affected by the proposal.
   • 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.
   • Comment: The area does not exhibit a strong built form character. In any event, I am satisfied that the sign will not be a dominant element in the streetscape but will form part of a typical main road street scene.
4. I am therefore satisfied that the proposed sign, especially in its reduced form, attracts the support of Clause 52.05 of the Monash Planning Scheme.
5. It is directed that a conditional permit be issued.

1. The location and details of signs shown on the endorsed plans must not be altered without the written consent of the Responsible Authority.
2. All signs must not contain any flashing light.
3. All signs must be located wholly within the boundary of the land.
4. All signs must be constructed and maintained to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.
5. The sign must not distract drivers due to its colouring, be mistaken for a traffic signal, be able to be mistaken as an instruction to drivers or constitute a road safety hazard in any way.
6. The sign must not obstruct the view of motorists, obscure traffic signals or constitute a road safety hazard in any way.
7. The intensity of the light in the signs must be limited so as not to cause glare or distraction to motorists, or loss of amenity in the surrounding area, to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.
8. This permit will expire fifteen (15) years after the date it is issued.