The proposal is for the construction and display an electronic, major promotion, sky sign on the roof of the building located on the south-west corner of Burwood Highway and the western most section of Hayward Road.

The sign will be 3.36 metres high, 12.64 metres wide with a total advertisement area of 42.47 square metres. The maximum height of the structure will be 10.79 metres above footpath level.

The sign will have an LED display that has automatic brightness adjustment responding to light conditions and will be a static display content with a minimum dwell time of 30 seconds and instantaneous transitions.

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

Clause 52.05-11: Construction or put up for display an electronic, major promotional, sky sign

Clauses 02.03-4, 02.03-6, 12.05-2L, 15.01-1S, 15.01-11L, 52.05 and 65.01

The site includes a one-to-two storey commercial/ retail building comprising five tenancies with a frontage of 36.25 metres to Burwood Highway and 96.39 metres to Hayward Road, and an area of approximately 4320sqm.

To the rear of the building is at-grade car parking and a telecommunications tower.

1. This is an application for review lodged by Maple Media Pty Ltd ('applicant') to review the decision of Knox City Council ('council') to refuse to issue a planning permit for the construction and put up for display of an electronic, panel, major promotion, sky sign on the roof of 5/718 Burwood Highway, Ferntree Gully ('site').
2. Council has refused the application on grounds relating to:
   1. The proposal does not meet objectives and strategies of the Knox Planning Scheme ('scheme') including clause 02.03-4 (Built Environment and Heritage), clause 12.05-2L (Landscape, boulevards and gateways), clause 15.01-1S (Urban Design), clause 15.01-1L (Signs) and clause 52.05 (Signs).
   2. The sign would be of an inappropriate scale and size relative to the host building.
   3. The sign would not be compatible with the surrounding streetscape and landscape character of the area.
   4. The sign would be an inappropriate visual intrusion and would negatively impact on views to and within an area of landscape significance.
   5. The visual dominance of the sign would be amplified during the evening hours.
   6. The sign would detract from other business identification signage within the surrounding area.
   7. The sign would unreasonably contribute to visual clutter within the surrounding area.
3. The applicant contends:
   1. The sign is proportionate, contemporary and well-integrated form of electronic signage within the Commercial 2 Zone along Burwood Highway.
   2. The proposal demonstrates that a high-quality, well-managed electronic sign can coexist with the bush boulevard landscape character without detriment to amenity, safety or visual cohesion.
   3. The sign will result in a high-quality urban design outcome through a restrained and visually contained design that complements the surrounding streetscape.
   4. The proposal can readily accommodate any road authority requirements relating to luminance, dwell time and image transition, and any residual amenity or technical matters can be managed through standard permit conditions addressing brightness limits, display duration and ongoing maintenance.
   5. The sign is consistent with the strategic policy of the scheme.
4. Having considered the submissions, in the context of the relevant policies and provisions of the scheme, I have determined to affirm the decision of the responsible authority and direct that no planning permit be issued. My reasons follow.

1. It was undisputed that the sign is classified under clause 73.02 of the scheme as:
   1. Electronic: A sign that can be updated electronically. It includes screens broadcasting still or moving images.
   2. Major promotion: A sign which is 18 square metres or greater that promotes goods, services, an event or any other matter, whether or not provided, undertaken or sold or for hire on the land or in the building on which the sign is sited.
   3. Sky sign: A sign: on or above the roof of a building, but not a verandah .....
2. I raised with parties whether the sign could also be classified as a panel sign which has the following definition under clause 73.02 of the scheme:

A sign with an advertisement area exceeding 10 square metres.

1. The council agreed that the sign would also meet the definition of a panel sign whilst the applicant submits that the definition of a panel sign competes or, will be in conflict with the definition of major promotion sign and/or sky sign.
2. Given that I have determined to refuse the application and that there are no particular policy implications if the proposed sign is classified as a panel sign or not, I have not undertaken any further analysis whether the application ought to have been made for a panel sign.

1. Under clause 52.05 of the scheme, the site is classified for category 1 signage and a planning permit is required to construct, or put up for display an electronic, major promotional, sky sign.
2. Decision guidelines for signs are outlined at clause 52.05-8 of the scheme, and require the decision maker to have regard to:
   1. Character of the area
   2. Impacts on views and vistas
   3. Streetscape, setting or landscape
   4. Impact to host buildings
   5. Impact of supporting structures
   6. Impact of illumination
   7. Impact of logo box
   8. Need and opportunity for identification
   9. Impact on road safety and potential for safety hazards
   10. For major promotional signs, the effect on:
       1. Significant streetscapes, buildings and skylines.
       2. The visual appearance of a significant view corridor, viewline, gateway location or landmark site identified in a framework plan or local policy.
       3. Residential areas and heritage places.
       4. Open space and waterways.
   11. For major promotional signs, the locational principles:
       1. Major promotion signs are encouraged in commercial and industrial locations in a manner that complements or enhances the character of the area.
       2. Major promotion signs are discouraged along forest and tourist roads, scenic routes or landscaped sections of freeways.
       3. Major promotion signs are discouraged within open space reserves or corridors and around waterways.
       4. 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.
       5. 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.
3. The Head, Transport for Victoria offers no objection to the proposed sign. Their interest in the application is road safety, and the applicant says that there are a suite of pre-agreed conditions that deals with matters of interest to Head, Transport for Victoria. As there is no dispute regarding potential impact on road safety, I will not focus on this matter any further in this decision.
4. Having considered all the submissions, and inspected the site and its locality, I find that the key issues in this proceeding are:
   1. Is this an appropriate location for the sign?
   2. Is the sign appropriate in relation to character, streetscape and public realm?
   3. Does the sign result in any unacceptable residential amenity impacts?
5. In arriving at my decision, I have exercised integrated decision-making as required by clause 71.02-3 of the scheme, which states:

The Planning Policy Framework operates together with the remainder of the scheme to deliver integrated decision making. Planning and responsible authorities should endeavour to integrate the range of planning policies relevant to the issues to be determined and balance conflicting objectives in favour of net community benefit and sustainable development for the benefit of present and future generations. However, in bushfire affected areas, planning and responsible authorities must prioritise the protection of human life over all other policy considerations.

HOW RELEVANT ARE OTHER TRIBUNAL DETERMINATIONS FOR SIGNS?

1. Council relies on the following cases to advance their grounds:
   • Maple Media Pty Ltd v Knox CC[2]
   • Maple Media Pty Ltd v Knox CC[3]
   • Maple Media Pty Ltd v Knox CC[4]
   • Maple Media Pty Ltd v Knox CC[5]
   • Media Circus (VIC) Pty Ltd V Knox CC[6]
2. Whereas the applicant relies on the following cases to convey why it says a permit ought to issue:
   • Media Circus (VIC) Pty Ltd v Greater Dandenong CC[7]
   • Citizen Outdoor Pty Ltd v Maroondah CC[8]
   • Media Circus (VIC) Pty Ltd v Darebin CC[9]
   • Citizen Outdoor Pty Ltd v Moonee Valley CC[10]
   • Perpetual Corporate Trust v Monash CC[11]
   • Citizen Outdoor Pty Ltd v Monash CC[12].
3. The facts in the cases cited above are not the same as the current case before me.
4. In each of the above cases I have looked at the proposal before the Tribunal at the time and the context and then considered the decisions in the context of the application before me.
5. All parties rely on the principle established in many of the previous Tribunal decisions that applications for signs have to be judged on their own merits based upon the design, site, context and location.[13]

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. The purpose of clause 52.05-11 - Category 1 - commercial areas is:

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

1. Broader policy context relevant to the application include:
   1. The site is located within the Burwood Highway East Corridor and is identified as a significant business location (clause 02.03-6).
   2. It is a strategy to Improve the quality of urban design for the Burwood Highway East Corridor to support its transition to a strategic business expansion area (clause 17.01-1L).
   3. Knox has identified significant road corridors. 'Bush Boulevards' are arterial roads with wide reservations planted with informal avenues of native trees (clause 02.03-2).
   4. Buildings along the bush boulevard contribute to this landscape character with setbacks from the street, and canopy tree planting. These road corridors link the suburbs of Knox to the landscape character of the Dandenong Foothills (clause 02.03-2).
   5. It is a strategy to create attractive road corridors that link the suburbs with the landscape of the Dandenong Foothills (clause 02.03-2).
   6. Design the transport system and adjacent areas to be responsive to local context, particularly for landscaping and the placement of signs (clause 18.01-1S).
   7. Signs will be supported if they are compatible with the scale of the building, the surrounding streetscape and landscape character of the area (clause 15.01-1L).
   8. Support signs that are similar to the size and nature of other signs in the area, do not create visual clutter, or adversely impact on residential amenity (clause 15.01-1L).
   9. Support signs that are integrated with the building façade and site (clause 15.01-1L).
   10. Support signs that co-ordinate with the colour, graphic content and placement of the building and other signs on the building (clause 15.01-1L).
   11. Avoid signs that visually dominate the streetscape (clause 15.01-1L).
   12. Support illuminated signs located at ground level to add vitality to a centre and in scale with the building (clause 15.01-1L).
   13. Support major promotion signs and promotion panel signs in Major Activity Centres, except Mountain Gate and Boronia Major Activity Centres (clause 15.01-1L).
   14. Avoid sky signs (clause 15.01-1L).
   15. Avoid major promotion signs and panel signs including within the front setbacks of a site where they will be dominant visual element, located within or adjacent to significant landscapes and impact on views and vistas towards significant landscapes (clause 15.01-1L).
   16. Avoid signs that have an adverse visual impact on the character and operation of major transport corridors (clause 15.01-1L).
   17. Avoid signs that protrude above the height of building rooflines, beyond fascias, parapets or walls (clause 15.01-1L).
   18. Protect Bush Boulevards by ensuring signs do not detract from the landscape character and amenity of these areas, avoiding major promotion signs, promotion panel signs and sky signs in these areas and discouraging signs that dominate, inhibit or hinder views of significant landscapes (clause 15.01-1L).
   19. Major promotional signs should be attached directly to the wall (clause 15.01-1L).

1. It is undisputed that:
   1. The site is located within the Commercial 2 Zone and is designated in the scheme as being within the Burwood Highway East Corridor and a significant business location.
   2. A significant business location under the scheme is a location where appropriate commercial development and signage can contribute to business visibility, corridor vitality and employment outcomes.
   3. The site is not within a major activity centre, although it is near Mountain Gate Major Activity Centre.
   4. Burwood Highway is designated as a bush corridor and carries significant traffic volumes.
   5. Not all sites are suitable to construct and display major promotion signs given zoning restrictions and sourcing sites with high audience catchment.
   6. The proposed sign will not hamper key view corridors to the Dandenong Ranges.
   7. There are no strategic plans indicating that this site, or nearby sites are likely to undergo significant change.
2. The design guidelines of clause 52.05 of the scheme establish that major promotion signs are encouraged in commercial and industrial locations in a manner that complements or enhances the character of the area.
3. Clause 15.01-1L of the scheme provides a preferred location for major promotion signs within major activity centres. Furthermore, clause 15.01-1L directs that major promotional signs should be attached directly to the wall.
4. Whilst the applicant proffers that council discourages major promotion signs on most sites, I find that this is an oversimplistic assessment of the policy and disregards policy that directs how the form of the major promotion sign may 'complement or enhance the character of the area' by displaying the major promotion signs on a wall, rather than as a sky sign.
5. Ultimately, I find that the appropriateness of a major promotion sign is not just a matter of zoning, but also form of the sign, including whether it is appropriate to the character, streetscape and public realm.
6. To this matter, council submits that the proposed scale and size of the sign on the host building results in inappropriate visual intrusion and clutter and would negatively impact on streetscape and landscape character of the area. Furthermore, the council submits that the visual dominance of the sign would be amplified during the evening hours.
7. My site inspection revealed, consistent with the submissions of council, that in the commercial areas of Burwood Highway, that signs are generally interspersed, setback and not dominant elements. There were no examples provided to me, nor did I observe, other major promotion signs, electronic or sky signs mounted on the roof of a building.
8. The applicant submits that the proposed sign has 'integration with the existing roofline'. I disagree that the sign that sits atop of the building can be described as 'integrated'. The proposal is for a sky sign and this will be a new element in this streetscape and a dominant structure. The decision guidelines of clause 52.05 of the scheme discourages major promotion signs from being erected on the roof of a building unless there is a strong built form character and it is recessive in the streetscape.
9. Whilst the applicant submits that the built form can be described as 'robust', I am not persuaded that the existing buildings in the significant business location are substantial and find that the large size of the sign is not proportional to the low scale host building, or nearby commercial buildings.
10. I find that the taller elements located nearby, such as light towers, bus shelter and two telecommunications towers, will not be sufficiently akin to the proposed structure of this sign with a display area of 42.47 square metres, height of 10.79 metres and a width of 12.64 metres.
11. The applicant submits that the 'structure recedes visually within the setting'. However, on the basis of its sizeable display area and location mounted on the roof, I am not persuaded that the proposed sign will be compatible with the scale of the building, the surrounding streetscape and landscape character of the area.
12. The applicant submits that the sign ought to be supported as the 'design avoids cumulative signage impacts' and 'consolidating signage within a single, architecturally integrated display'. I find that this will unlikely be the case given the proposal seeks major promotion signage which is in addition to business identification signage used to market businesses operating from the site. The consequence of this is visual clutter.
13. I am less persuaded that the sign is inappropriate on the basis that Burwood Highway in this location is a tourist or scenic route, although I will accept that Burwood Highway leads to the foothills and the well-recognised tourist attraction of the Dandenong Ranges. The recent tree planting within the road reserve may assist in the future to transform Burwood Highway into the landscaped bush boulevard that policy seeks to deliver. I accept on other nearby sites that landscaping is a more influential characteristic on sites.
14. I also accept that this site is unlikely to be a high pedestrian area, even with the nearby bus stop.
15. The decision guidelines of clause 52.05 of the scheme requires the decision maker to consider whether major promotion signs will be a dominant visual element from a residential area. Both parties agree that the generous proportions of Burwood Highway provide a separation between the proposed sign and nearby residential properties however no specific analysis was undertaken to demonstrate how much visibility of the sign will be afforded.
16. The applicant says that you can only see the sign from a specific spot on the inbound lanes of Burwood Highway. My understanding is that submission is referring to being able to see the electronic message of the sign. The sign structure itself is likely to be seen further afield and there were no submissions put to me regarding the impact that topography on the north side of Burwood Highway may have on the visibility of the sign structure.
17. The recent juvenile planting within the median strips of Burwood Highway will take some time to become a meaningful screen, and even if these trees were of a more advanced age they have been planted at intervals and possibly will not result in a continuous screen.
18. Had potential views from nearby residential properties been the only outstanding matter, I could have asked for further submissions on this issue. Given I find the proposal already fails in relation to character and streetscape, as set out above, I have not burdened the applicant with the cost of further submissions and analysis.
19. The applicant also submits that the light spill is compliant with the relevant Australian Standard relating to the control of obtrusive effects of outdoor lighting. The original application was accompanied by a light impact assessment[14] however the assessment appears to be based on dwellings being approximately 200 metres to the north and east of the proposed sign[15]. At the hearing, it was suggested that the nearest dwelling is closer at approximately 70 metres from the sign. Had I been in a position to support the electronic sign in this location, further material could have been provided to demonstrate appropriate light impacts.

1. I conclude that despite the sign being located within a commercial zone, this siting, height and proportions of this sign is not acceptable in this particular setting taking into account the existing character and urban design, and landscape outcomes sought by local policies.
2. 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.

[2] [2021] VCAT 282.

[3] [2020] VCAT 104.

[4] [2020] VCAT 324.

[5] [2022] VCAT 913.

[6] [2024] VCAT 1033.

[7] [2025] VCAT 514.

[8] [2022] VCAT 1457.

[9] [2022] VCAT 1288.

[10] [2021] VCAT 469.

[11] [2024] VCAT 105.

[12] [2023] VCAT 213.

[13] A notable example Kings Funeral Services Pty Ltd v Greater Dandenong CC [2008] VCAT 487.

[14] Prepared by Rubidium Light dated 7 January 2025

[15] Page 12 of the light impact assessment report.