WHAT ARE THE MAIN FACTORS GUIDING MY ASSESSMENT?

What Planning Scheme provisions are relevant to this application?

1. Although a permit is only required pursuant to Clause 52.05, any assessment of the application needs to take account of all the relevant provisions in the Planning Scheme, including the Commercial 1 Zone and DDO7 provisions, together with policies relevant to signs and for the Boronia activity centre.
2. Advertising signs within the Commercial 1 Zone are within Category 1 which imposes a minimum limitation on signs. In accordance with clause 34.01-9 sign requirements are at clause 52.05.
3. In clause 52.05-11, Category 1 - Commercial a\Areas (Minimum limitation) has the single purpose:

To provide for identification and promotion signs and signs that add vitality and colour to commercial areas.

1. In accordance with clause 43.02-4 sign requirements are at clause 52.05. Clause 4.0 of DDO7 states that:

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. The sign controls at Clause 52.05 have the following four purposes:

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.

1. Clause 52.05-8 includes decision guidelines relevant for all signs whilst specific decision guidelines are provided for major promotion signs. The general guidelines require consideration of the:
   • Character of the area.
   • Impacts on views and vista.
   • Relationship to the streetscape, setting or landscape.
   • Relationship to the site and building.
   • Impact of structures associated with the sign.
   • Impact of any illumination.
   • Impact of any logo box associated with the sign.
   • Need for identification and the opportunities for adequate identification of the site or locality.
   • Impact on road safety.
2. The specific guidelines for major promotion signs require consideration of the effect of a proposed major promotion sign on:
   • Significant streetscapes, buildings and skylines.
   • The visual appearance of a significant view corridor, viewline, gateway location or landmark site identified in a framework plan or local policy.
   • Residential areas and heritage places.
   • Open space and waterways.
3. Five locational principles are provided which must also be taken into account in determining the effect of a proposed major promotion signs:
   • Major promotion signs are encouraged in commercial and industrial locations in a manner that complements or enhances the character of the area.
   • Major promotion signs are discouraged along forest and tourist roads, scenic routes or landscaped sections of freeways.
   • Major promotion signs are discouraged within open space reserves or corridors and around waterways.
   • 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.
   • 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.
4. Clause 52.05-9 includes mandatory provisions for major promotion signs. These include requirements concerning traffic safety and expiry date.
5. Aside from the specific provisions applying to signs, it is also necessary to have regard to relevant parts of the Planning Policy Framework and Municipal Planning Strategy.
6. All five grounds of refusal fundamentally concern the visual impact of the sign (not achieving urban design outcomes, inconsistent with local policies in clauses 21.03, 21.05-7, 21.10 and 22.01, being an inappropriate visual intrusion, failing to meet DDO7, failing to meet clause 52.06 due to inappropriate scale and size, domination of viewlines, and having a negative impact on the streetscape and landscape setting).
7. Road safety was not a ground of refusal, and the Department of Transport does not object subject to the inclusion of conditions should a permit be granted.
8. Clause 22.02-01 is local policy for advertising signs. Clause 22.01-2 recognises the need to support businesses to have adequate opportunities to identify their businesses in an appropriate manner.
9. Clause 22.01-3 includes policy that major promotion signs may be supported in major centres including Boronia if they are attached directly to the wall of a building and meet all other relevant requirements. However, there is also policy at clause 22.01-3 that sky signs are to be avoided and major promotion signs are to be avoided where they will have a dominant visual element in the landscape.
10. Although Mr Whitford submitted that there is inconsistency between DDO7 and policy at clause 22.01, I am not persuaded that is the case.
11. DDO7 states that:

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. Local policy at clause 22.01-3 is that sky signs are to be avoided and that major promotion signs, even in the nominated major centres in the municipality, should be attached directly to the wall of a building. Although Boronia is one of the nominated centres, one of the provisos is that major promotion signs be attached directly to the wall of a building.
2. The proposed signs are not attached to the wall of the host building. Instead, the base of each sign is between 1.0 metre and 1.49 metres above the top of the host building. They extend to an overall height of 11.34 metres above ground or 4.84 metres above the host building's parapet. Given the height of the existing building, the new signs represent a 74% increase over the existing built form.
3. I do not support such an outcome. The signs will visually dominate the host building. As such, the proposed signs are inconsistent with policy, which amongst other things, is seeking signs that are compatible with the scale of the building, and signs that are proportional to the size of the building on which they are being erected.
4. The image on the following page provided by Council is a street view from the north in Dorset Road. The signs are to be placed on top of the building in the centre of the photo in front of the vegetated canopy of the trees behind.

1. The following image provided by Mr Whitford is a closer view of the host building.

1. Existing advertising signage reflects the low scale-built form that exists within the activity centre, and I was not made aware of any Major Promotion Signs elsewhere in Boronia. None of the photos tendered at the hearing were of Major Promotion Signs of the type proposed in this application. I accept that the absence of such signs should not be used to justify refusal of the current application and that there is no prohibition on such signs being erected. This is consistent with the views set out in the various Tribunal cases referred to by Mr Whitford.
2. However, the absence of such signs in Boronia does provide an appreciation of the existing character of signage in the centre and of the visual context in which the proposed signs will be viewed.
3. Whilst Mr Wong submitted that the signs would impact on the view towards the Lysterfield Hills in the background at the far southern end of Dorset Road, the above images demonstrate that the signs will not block views towards the Lysterfield Hills. However, the signs will be seen within the overall vista to the south which at present does not include any intrusion by sky signs, major promotion signs or significant areas of light from high level signs.
4. From the west near the train station, the signs will impact on eastward views towards the Dandenong Ranges. Whilst the signs are not located on a 'bush boulevard', 'path to the hills' or within 'gateways' specifically referenced in clause 22.01-3, the signs will impact on views towards the Dandenong Ranges. The views are at present of buildings in the foreground with the treed Dandenong Ranges rising behind providing a natural vegetated background to this part of the activity centre.
5. My inspection by train to Boronia station allowed me to understand how the signs would impact on views from the west and northwest. These views may not be from the locations referred to in paragraph 30 above, but the importance of landscape character is a consistent theme in relevant policy.
6. For example, strategies at clause 21.05-7 include to:

Avoid advertising signs which will impact on views to significant landscapes, create visual clutter, or adversely impact on residential amenity.

1. I note that residential amenity is not an issue in dispute in this application.
2. Whilst there are some sky signs and larger panel signs on the sides of buildings along Dorset Road, these almost exclusively relate to business identification. These include pole signs for McDonalds, Coles/Kmart, and the Boronia Junction shopping centre which incorporates a list of business tenants. Panel signs attached to buildings include those for Metro Cinemas and Coles.
3. Although State level policy encourages Major Promotion Signs in commercial areas, there is also recognition that signs must be compatible with the amenity and visual appearance of an area including the existing or desired future character, that they do not contribute to excessive visual clutter or visual disorder or cause loss of amenity or adversely affect the natural or built environment.
4. I do not disagree that major promotional signage is a legitimate form of advertising well suited to a main road location, but I am not persuaded that the proposed signs strike an appropriate balance between providing a legitimate form of advertising and ensuring that signs do not contribute to excessive visual clutter or visual disorder (Clause 52.05). What is meant by the word 'excessive' is not defined in the Planning Scheme. It becomes a somewhat subjective assessment as to whether a proposed sign results in a threshold to 'excessive' being crossed.
5. Given these are the first Major Promotion Sky Signs in this part of Boronia, it would be incorrect to suggest that it would result in a proliferation of such signs or an excessive visual clutter or disorder of such signs. However, every sign approval has a cumulative impact which, together with existing signs, will result in an accumulation of signs that will add to the multiplicity of signage along this section of Dorset Road.
6. It is also necessary to consider whether the proposed sign is consistent with the existing, mostly low-key business identification signage and the outcomes being sought by the Knox Planning Scheme. Each side of the sign has an area of approximately 25 square metres and represents a significant departure from the generally much smaller existing signage throughout the centre. The photos included earlier in my reasons depict the existing signage along Dorset Road in proximity to the review site.
7. To the extent that the signs can be utilised for community service announcements, such as government health, safety, and other messages, I accept that is a positive benefit arising if the signs are allowed. However, no matter how worthwhile the potential content, it is not something that I can control, and the signs could also be used for something other than community service advertising.
8. Whether the signs provide for local development, supporting jobs and local commerce is difficult to assess but I note that there is no requirement that future advertising relates to businesses in the Boronia centre. This can be contrasted with business identification or directional signage which is place specific.
9. Whilst clause 52.05 and related policies recognise that signs can add vitality and colour to business areas, I am not persuaded that these two Major Promotion Sky Signs are acceptable when assessed against the whole suite of relevant policies and controls dealing with advertising signs, particularly having regard to the specific site context.
10. When assessed on that basis, I am not persuaded that the net community benefit test contained at Clause 71.02-3 of the Planning Scheme has been satisfied.

1. I will therefore order that the decision of the Responsible Authority be affirmed and that no permit is to be issued.

[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.