1. In application P1466/2019 the decision of the responsible authority is affirmed.
2. In planning permit application P/2019/7047 no permit is granted.

Ms Sue Zhang, town planning consultant, Glossop Town Planning.

The proposal seeks to build a roof mounted, single sided electronic sky sign. The sign measures 6.72 metres x 3.84 metres with a company nameplate located on the perforated metal clad section of the structure with dimensions 2.144 metres x 0.7 metre.

Application under section 77 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 - to review the refusal to grant a permit.

Design and Development Overlay Schedule 7 Boronia Structure Plan Area (DDO7)

The site is located on the south west corner of Dorset Road and Boronia Road, Boronia.

The site is located within the Boronia Activity Centre on the gateway to the Dandenongs. The built form in the surrounding area is primarily single storey but it is noted that there is some two storey form.

1. Maple Media have sought to erect a major promotion sign on the roof of the building at 116 Boronia Road, Boronia.
2. Council refused the proposal on the grounds that the sign does not achieve the urban design outcomes sought by the Planning Policy Framework, fails to meet the objectives and is inconsistent with clauses 21.03, 21.05, 22.01 and 52.05, fails to meet the objectives of DDO7. A ground of refusal also stated the objection of VicRoads (now the Department of Transport - DOT).
3. Council put that policies discourage an electronic major promotion sky sign at this location. Council further submitted that the sign fails to comply with the relevant objectives of clause 52.05.
4. DOT objected to the proposed sign and put to me that the proposed sign poses an unacceptable road safety risk and should not be approved.
5. The permit applicant contended that the proposed sign is appropriate as it will add vitality to an activity centre that is in need of assistance, the sign does not interrupt the views to the Foothills and it does not pose a road safety risk.
6. This case has two key issues:
   • Does the proposed sign pose an unacceptable safety risk?
   • Is the proposed sign acceptable having regard to urban design issues?
7. Having considered the submissions and inspected the site and the surrounding area, I have decided to refuse to grant a planning permit. My reasons follow.

1. It is proposed to construct a roof mounted, single sided electronic sky sign. The sign measures 6.72 metres x 3.84 metres with a company nameplate located on the perforated metal clad section of the structure with dimensions 2.144 metres x 0.7 metre.

Figure 2: Location plan detailing review site and Boronia Road and Dorset Road intersection.[3]

1. The site is located on the south west corner of Dorset Road and Boronia Road, Boronia. It is irregular in size with a street frontage of 8.077 metres. The site currently accommodates a single storey commercial building. The building currently contains a business identification sign and awning sign, but is currently vacant.
2. The site is located in a row of commercial buildings located at the south west corner of the intersection. The buildings are generally single storey in height with a couple of two storey exceptions. There is a concentration of business signage on these buildings.
3. The site forms part of the Boronia Major Activity Centre. The majority of retail activity occurs on the north side of Boronia Road with each corner accommodating either a Coles or Woolworths supermarket, speciality shops and car parking.

1. A range of policies at clauses 11, 12.05, 15 and 18 seek to ensure that development including signs minimises the detrimental impacts on the amenity of the natural and built environment and on the safety and efficiency of roads.
2. Policies at clause 21.03, 21.05 and 21.07 identify the site as part of the Boronia Activity Centre. Clause 21.07 sets the strategic direction to increase the scale and level of activity while ensuring development is well designed and respects the setting amongst the foothills of the Dandenong Ranges including protecting views towards the Dandenong Ranges.
3. Clause 21.05 Built Environment and Heritage identifies that Knox has a series of significant road corridors identified as 'Bush Boulevards' and 'Paths into the Hills'. Boronia Road is identified as a 'Bush Boulevard' which are arterial roads with wide reservations running east-west through Knox and are planted with informal avenues of native trees. It is planning policy to enhance the landscape character of the 'Bush Boulevards' and to 'protect and emphasise views to the Dandenong Ranges'. As this policy relates to advertising signs, it is acknowledged that advertising signs provide important information relating to local businesses and services and support economic growth, however the challenge is to ensure that advertising signs are able to adequately and appropriately identify local businesses and services whilst taking into account their visual impact on the built form, streetscape and local amenity.
4. There is also an advertising sign policy at clause 22.01. Again, this policy notes the need to provide for effective identification of businesses in the municipality whilst ensuring that they do not detract from valued landscapes and the visual amenity of the municipality.
5. Council and the permit applicant referred me to the Boronia Renewal Project. Council has recently completed a draft Boronia Renewal Strategy 2019. The strategy forms the starting point of Council's vision towards 2040 for the centre. Council resolved to adopt the strategy and has written to the Minister for Planning seeking authorization to prepare and exhibit Planning Scheme Amendment C178 to the Knox Planning Scheme (planning scheme). I give this document minimal weight. The document/Amendment has not yet been authorized, has not been put on public exhibition and there has been no public and/or professional assessment of the merit of the Amendment. I agree with the parties that the Amendment plans for the future and seeks to improve the Boronia Major Activity Centre, but I consider this document to be at its inception stage. My decision making is based on my site inspection, submissions of the parties and what the current planning scheme informs me.
6. The site is zoned C1Z. The site is affected by DDO7 which implements the Boronia Structure Plan. Relevantly clause 5 of DDO7 reads:

Signage (including billboards) within the Activity Centre, and along approaches into the Centre, will be discouraged, with the exception of business identification and directional signage.

1. Clause 52.05 includes planning permit triggers and assessment criteria for signs. The purpose of clause 52.05 is to regulate the development of land for signs and associated structures and ensure they are compatible with the amenity and visual appearance of an area (existing or desired). The provisions contain specific guidance relating to Major Promotion Signs.

1. The proposed sign is located at 116 Boronia Road, on the south west corner of the intersection. The intersection is controlled by traffic signals for all straight-through and right-turn movements, and by the "give way" rule for left-turn movements. DOT further explained that this includes the left-turn movement from Boronia Road (westbound) into Dorset Road (southbound), where the sign is proposed.
2. The intersection is open and broad.
3. The intersection carries in excess of 46,500 vehicles per day or as the permit applicant submitted, over 18 million vehicles per year.
4. The permit applicant submitted that there have been seven crash incidents in five years, within the vicinity of the site, but not at the site or intersection. The permit applicant submitted that crash statistics are a core indicator of the complexity of an intersection. It was contended that given the limited number of incidents, a sign as proposed would not pose a risk or distraction to drivers. It was further submitted by the permit applicant that the intersection is not one that requires an elevated level of concentration (above any other similar road or intersection).
5. The permit applicant submitted that this is not a high pedestrian environment. It is a car based location.
6. The permit applicant did not call any traffic evidence (it was noted that Council and DOT also did not call any evidence). The permit applicant, referred me to various decisions including Australian Leisure and Hospitality Group Pty Ltd v Knox CC[4] where the Member made observations about the matter of signage and safety and distraction to drivers. In Australian Leisure and Hospitality Group Pty Ltd v Knox CC, the following observation was made:

[31] In the main, these submissions turn on the sign's potential to distract drivers. VicRoads' argument is that the crash statistics for this intersection suggest that it requires a high level of driver concentration. It says location, size and format of the sign are such that it is designed to be read by drivers. The reading of the sign is the distracting activity that, once undertaken, will diminish the driver's attention to the more important task of navigating the intersection.

[32] Ms Dunstan's evidence is to the contrary. She says the intersection is designed to operate safely and the crash statistics reflect the intersection's high traffic volumes more than anything else. Regarding driver distraction, her summary of the available research is that drivers shed unnecessary information when required.

[33] I am persuaded by Ms Dunstan's evidence, particularly given the specific turning movements that VicRoads relies on. In each of these circumstances, I find the information conveyed by the sign is likely to be shed by drivers in favour of the more critical driving task before them. While the sign is electronic, which allows the display of varying advertising content, its 30 second dwell time is consistent with VicRoads' standard and its transfer from one display to another is instantaneous. As such, I am not persuaded that the sign's format is a critical element in terms of whether its information will distract or will be shed by drivers.

1. In addressing matters of safety, the permit applicant also referred to the 'latest research findings' regarding the impact of signs on drivers behaviour.
2. I agree with the permit applicant that the conclusions made in Australian Leisure and Hospitality Group Pty Ltd v Knox CC are relevant in so far as they apply to the site 20-22 Princes Highway, Dandenong. I also make the observation that quoting research findings to me regarding driver distraction and signage provides background, but its usefulness is limited as the research documents were not provided nor was there any traffic evidence or analysis of the proposed sign on the intersection that DOT was particularly concerned about. I find that to rely on crash statistics to confirm that the intersection is not one that requires an elevated level of concentration, is a simplistic approach to the matter of road safety.
3. DOT submitted that the sign poses an unacceptable risk as the sign:
   • could dazzle or distract drivers; and
   • is at a location where particular concentration is required.
4. DOT further submitted that they are not saying the entire intersection is unsafe, but their concern is focussed on the left hand turn from Dorset Road into Boronia Road. Of a prime concern is that for vehicles travelling west along Boronia Road and turning left to travel south along Dorset Road, the proposed sign will be directly in the field of view of drivers as they negotiate the uncontrolled left-turn movement and adjacent pedestrian crossing. It was contended that:

[5] The prominence of the proposed sign in a driver's line of sight is exacerbated by the vertical geometry of the road - the subject site on the other side of Dorset Road is notably lower than the westbound lanes of Boronia Road east of the intersection, and the proposed sign is on the roof of a low, single-storey building.[5]

1. Unlike the Member in Australian Leisure and Hospitality Group Pty Ltd v Knox CC I do not have the benefit of evidence before me analysing the safety or otherwise of the intersection and the impact of the proposed sign on the intersection. I therefore take the precautionary approach that if DOT is specifically concerned about a particular movement and the impact of the sign on that movement, then I am persuaded that there is sufficient concern that the proposed sign could distract drivers in a location where concentration is required. I am persuaded that the combination of the level of the site (the land slopes down and the site is at the lowest point in the intersection), the sign sitting at driver eye level, the location of the zebra/pedestrian crossing and the left hand turn into Maryville Way metres before the left hand turn into Dorset Road, results in a location that requires concentration and the driver may be distracted by the proposed sign.
2. I also agree that the location is not a high pedestrian volume intersection. But this does not negate the potential safety issue.
3. I am persuaded by DOT that the proposal fails to achieve the provisions of clause 52.05 -8 Decision Guidelines as the sign is a safety hazard as it:
   • Could dazzle or distract drivers due to its size, design or colouring, or it being illuminated, reflective, animated or flashing.
   • Is at a location where particular concentration is required, such as a high pedestrian volume intersection.

1. I was referred to Drive by Developments Pty Ltd v Knox CC[6] where the Member made the observation that the intersection of Boronia Road and Dorset Road is not currently a high quality urban design environ and that the Boronia Activity Centre does not have strong existing landscape character. In this case, it was agreed by the parties that the Boronia Activity Centre is in need of a 'lift' in terms of urban design and commercial mix. The planning scheme at clause 21.10 Boronia Activity Centre identifies the key issues for the centre including the lack of variety in land uses, housing types and retail premises, poor connectivity and the need to protect the views to the Dandenong Ranges, the landscape setting of the Foothills and the unique character of Boronia within this setting. Objective 1 seeks:

To enhance the Boronia Activity Centre as a destination and a gateway to the Dandenong Foothills.

1. Clause 21.05-7 Built Environment and Heritage provides guidelines for advertising signs A key issue is:
   • Managing the impact of large format signs such as sky signs, promotion signs and promotion panel signs.
2. Objective 11 further seeks:

To ensure advertising signs meet the advertising needs of businesses on the land, without causing visual clutter or having detrimental streetscape or amenity impacts.

1. Clause 21.05 also identifies a series of significant road corridors that are nominated as 'Bush Boulevards' and 'Paths into the Hills'. 'Bush Boulevards' such as Boronia Road are arterial roads with wide reservations funning east-west through Knox that are planted with informal avenues of native trees. They extend into the Foothills where the road becomes 'Paths into the Hills'. Policy seeks to enhance the landscape character of the City's 'Bush Boulevards'.
2. There was common ground that there is a need for advertising signs to meet the needs of local businesses. Clause 22.01 Advertising sign policy identifies the need to provide for effective identification of businesses in the municipality but further identifies the proliferation of advertising signage and poorly located signs can significantly detract from valued landscapes and visual amenity of the municipality. The policy addresses major promotion signs stating:

Major promotion signs and promotion panel signs may be supported where they are located within Knox Central, Bayswater, Boronia, or Rowville Activity Centres, are attached directly to the wall of a building, meet all other requirements of this Policy and meet all other relevant requirements of the planning scheme applicable to their location.

1. Council contended that the Dandenong Foothills forms a backdrop to the site and this is a sensitive and highly valued landscape that is readily visible from many vantage points within the Activity Centre and on the approaches to the centre. It was submitted that the location of the site and the height of the proposed sign will detract from the views towards this sensitive location.
2. I agree with the permit applicant, that the proposed sign will not interrupt views of the Dandenong Ranges as it is located towards the corner of the north-south road, not east-west looking towards the Dandenong Ranges. However, planning policy is not limited to only the view of the Dandenong Ranges. Policy takes a broader view. The permit applicant submitted that whilst Boronia Road may be a 'Bush Boulevard', the section of road immediately in front of the subject site does not display 'Bush Boulevard' characteristics. It was put that Boronia Road outside the site is a harsh robust environment.
3. I agree with the permit applicant that the section of Boronia Road outside the site is not a boulevard of trees and that the Boronia Activity Centre does not have a strong existing landscape character. However, this does not negate the vision of Council to ensure that the landscape character of the area is enhanced. I find the proposed sign will detract from this vision of improving the location of the site.
4. I find the proposed sign to be at odds with the host building and location. I find it will dominate and overwhelm the host building and location. On my site inspection, I observed that the site is located in a collection of buildings that is congested with business signage. The site is part of a location that has a low built form but there is a proliferation of advertising signage, albeit the signs are business signs on buildings. There is no cohesion to the existing signs in this location and it is visually cluttered. I am concerned that the proposed sign will add to visual clutter and visual disorder in the area.

1. The purpose of clause 52.05 Advertising Signs is:
   • To regulate the development of land for signs and associated structures.
   • To ensure signs 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.
   • To ensure that signs do not cause loss of amenity or adversely affect the natural or built environment or the safety, appearance or efficiency of a road.
2. I find the proposed sign fails in the following manner:
   • It is incompatible with the amenity and visual appearance of the area. It will be visually dominating.
   • The sign will contribute to excessive visual clutter and visual disorder. The existing location is cluttered with signage.
   • I am persuaded by DOT that there is a safety concern with location and orientation of the proposed sign.
3. For the reasons given above, the decision of the responsible authority is affirmed. No permit is granted.

[1] The submissions of the parties, any supporting exhibits given at the hearing and the statements of grounds filed have all been considered in the determination of the proceeding. In accordance with the practice of the Tribunal, not all of this material will be cited or referred to in these reasons.

[3] Source Glossop Planning Submission on behalf of Council.

[4] Australian Leisure and Hospitality Group Pty Ltd v Knox CC [2015] VCAT 1678.

[5] Department of Transport submission, paragraph 45.

[6] Drive by Developments Pty Ltd v Knox CC (Corrected) [2019] VCAT 1881.