1. The site forms part of 'The Junction' which is an area characterised by a mix of commercial, retail and industrial properties fronting Plenty Road.
2. To the north of the site, on the opposite side of Bell Street (an eight-lane road), is No. 238-250 Plenty Road which contains a two-storey commercial building that is currently occupied by the Victorian Aboriginal Health Service. The building features a number of indigenous artworks on the façade and are located below the building's roof line.
3. To the south of the site are a number of single storey commercial buildings which front Plenty Road and are used for commercial/office use purposes. The buildings feature business identification signage on the facades and windows.
4. To the east of the site is a two-storey commercial building at No. 227 Bell Street that is used for office and medical use purposes with the building containing no apparent advertising signage. No. 87 Hotham Street also shares an interface with the subject site and is comprised of double storey townhouses within the General Residential Zone.
5. To the west of the site, on the opposite side of Plenty Road (a four-lane road with tram tracks), is a double storey commercial building at No. 189 Plenty Road which is used as an educational facility. The building includes business identification signage on the façade and canopy of the building.
6. Further to the east of the site, along Bell Street, is the Novotel building which is in the order of eight storeys in height.

1. Clause 22.01 applies the Junction Framework Plan. The Junction is an area that has been identified as a key opportunity area in which the preferred vision for the area is for a vibrant mix of commercial uses at ground level which will assist in creating a cohesive sense of place through built form development. Under this Clause the relevant policies note that the reduction of visual clutter is required to enhance the appearance of this area.
2. DDO3 applies to the site and broader area. The specific design outcomes of the DDO that relate to the proposal are:
   • To ensure new development supports activating areas within the Junction Area, particularly along High Street, Plenty Road, Raglan Street, Dundas Street, Miller Street and Oakover Road.
   • To encourage commercial and residential development, to improve the visual amenity of built form along St Georges Road and the adjoining public realm via high quality urban design and architecture, including the preferred retention of existing shopfront facades and the reflection of the fine-grain rhythm of traditional shopfronts and residential development in new proposals.
   • To ensure the cumulative effect of development in The Junction leads to the creation of high-quality design outcomes, including ensuring similar future development potential and high quality design outcomes on adjoining land within the Junction Area.
3. With respect to signage, DDO3 seeks:
   • Any signage above the ground floor level (including above verandahs, canopies etc.) is discouraged.
   • Signs should fit within the architectural forms and be integrated with the design of the building and must not exceed or protrude above verandahs, canopies etc.
4. The purposes of Clause 52.05 (Signs) seek:
   • 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.
5. Before deciding on an application, in addition to the decision guidelines in Clause 65, the responsible authority must consider, as appropriate:

For All signs

The character of the area including:

• The sensitivity of the area in terms of the natural environment, heritage values, waterways and open space, rural landscape or residential character.
• The compatibility of the proposed sign with the existing or desired future character of the area in which it is proposed to be located.
• The cumulative impact of signs on the character of an area or route, including the need to avoid visual disorder or clutter of signs.
• The consistency with any identifiable outdoor advertising theme in the area.

• The potential to obscure or compromise important views from the public realm.
• The potential to dominate the skyline.
• The potential to impact on the quality of significant public views.
• The potential to impede views to existing signs.

The relationship to the streetscape, setting or landscape:

• The proportion, scale and form of the proposed sign relative to the streetscape, setting or landscape.
• The position of the sign, including the extent to which it protrudes above existing buildings or landscape and natural elements.
• The ability to screen unsightly built or other elements.
• The ability to reduce the number of signs by rationalising or simplifying signs.
• The ability to include landscaping to reduce the visual impact of parts of the sign structure.

• The scale and form of the sign relative to the scale, proportion and any other significant characteristics of the host site and host building.
• The extent to which the sign displays innovation relative to the host site and host building.
• The extent to which the sign requires the removal of vegetation or includes new landscaping.

The impact of structures associated with the sign:

• The extent to which associated structures integrate with the sign.
• The potential of associated structures to impact any important or significant features of the building, site, streetscape, setting or landscape, views and vistas or area.

• The impact of glare and illumination on the safety of pedestrians and vehicles.
• The impact of illumination on the amenity of nearby residents and the amenity of the area.
• The potential to control illumination temporally or in terms of intensity.

The impact of any logo box associated with the sign:

The extent to which the logo box forms an integral part of the sign through its position, lighting and any structures used to attach the logo box to the sign.

• The suitability of the size of the logo box in relation to its identification purpose and the size of the sign.

The need for identification and the opportunities for adequate identification on the site or locality.

The impact on road safety. A sign is a safety hazard if the sign:

• Obstructs a driver's line of sight at an intersection, curve or point of egress from an adjacent property.
• Obstructs a driver's view of a traffic control device, or is likely to create a confusing or dominating background that may reduce the clarity or effectiveness of a traffic control device.
• 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.
• Is likely to be mistaken for a traffic control device, because it contains red, green or yellow lighting, or has red circles, octagons, crosses, triangles or arrows.
• Requires close study from a moving or stationary vehicle in a location where the vehicle would be unprotected from passing traffic.
• Invites drivers to turn where there is fast moving traffic or the sign is so close to the turning point that there is no time to signal and turn safely.
• Is within 100 metres of a rural railway crossing.
• Has insufficient clearance from vehicles on the carriageway.
• Could mislead drivers or be mistaken as an instruction to drivers.

1. With respect to Major Promotion Signs, Clause 52.05-8 also requires consideration of:

The effect of the 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.

1. When determining the effect of a proposed Major Promotion Sign, the following locational principles must also be taken into account:

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.

1. The site is located within a Category 1 - Commercial area at Clause 52.05-11 which has a minimum limitation. The purpose of this category is to provide for identification and promotion signs and signs that add vitality and colour to commercial areas.

**IS THE PROPOSED SIGN ACCEPTABLE IN THIS LOCATION?

Figure 1: Existing conditions - Source: Council submission

1. The Council acknowledges that while the site is situated within a commercial context, it says the sign will unreasonably dominate nearby built forms, and fails to respond to the specific gateway location. It says that the proposed sign will have a significant detrimental impact on the amenity of the area as it will add unreasonable visual clutter and visual bulk to the surrounds as it will dominate the host building, surrounding properties and will impact on views in the surrounding area.
2. It says that the site is located at the entrance to the gateway to The Junction and due to the excessive scale and size of the proposed sign, it presents as a high degree of visual clutter and would potentially lead to the proliferation of electronic major promotion sky signs in this particular location.
3. It says that:
   • large signs are not prevalent in the surrounding area and are not synonymous with the overall character of the existing surrounding area.
   • where signage exists, these are predominantly non-illuminated and relate to the businesses located on the site.
   • where illuminated signs exist, these are contained to small sections on the facades, windows and canopy facades.
   • where signage is present, they are integrated into the design of the host building and do not dominate the host building or streetscape.
   • the proposed sign is not integrated into the existing building and the overall height of the sign is more than half the height of the host building, which is not insignificant for this prominent location.
   • the proposed sign would enhance the visual clutter of the area.
   • the sign is located above the ground floor level, which is contrary to policy intent expressed in DDO3 for signs in this area.
   • the sign will distract from views due to its scale and size and will tower above other buildings and structures in the surrounding area
   • the sign will dominate the views from the Bell Street and Plenty Road intersection and will dominate the skyline.
   • the proposed sign will dominate the host building given its size.
   • the grey mesh perforated screen cladding is excessive and overwhelms the building and surrounding area.
   • at 5.1 metres in height, the supporting structure will dominate the host building and surrounding area.
4. In rebuttal, the applicant says that this a robust environment with generally non-descript buildings on a major intersection of two significant roads with no sensitive interfaces. The applicant says, rhetorically speaking, if you can't put a sign in this location then where could you?
5. They say that the sign would create a physical marker of an area identified for growth and change, and that over time the sign would continue to have a comfortable relationship with new emerging buildings in the DDO area. The strategic context supports eight storeys into the future and the DDO building setback diagrams also seek four storey zero lot line interface to Plenty Road. What is proposed sits comfortably within this preferred building envelope.
6. They say that into the future (assuming the review site is not redeveloped to the extent possible under the DDO), the sign will have a comfortable relationship with any emerging form in the area - the sign will be in the foreground to more substantial built form in the background. And in the interim, there is no harm done to present as a third storey when four storeys are contemplated up to the lot line boundary.
7. They say that the sign, being on a building with a flat parapet, allows integration with the building, and doesn't cause clutter because of other structures such as rooftop services in the backdrop. The eyeline will see it as an additional storey to the building. The curved design approach is a contemporary design response and creates visual interest in a relatively hostile pedestrian environment. They say that the supporting structure itself relates back to host building, respect its limited character and improves the condition of the intersection as a strategic intersection.
8. They say that the existing signage character in the immediate area is neither a pristine nor saturated environment. The sites particular role as the junction of two major thoroughfares makes it highly appropriate for promotional advertising signage of the scale sought. They say that the host building readily accommodates the form and scale sought and will not be dominated by it.
9. Finally, they say that any policy provision which purport to discourage a broad category of signage in a blanket category fail to have regard to factual context. Where DDO3 and policy provides a blanket discouragement of signs above ground level, this should be given little weight in the particular physical and strategic context of this site.
10. Ms Jordan's evidence is that there are no particular sensitivities associated with this host building, and that with respect to the land's strategic context, what is currently on the land is not what the Planning Scheme envisages for the future. She says that where DDO3 sub-clause 4 purports to discourage any signage above ground level, this is highly restrictive in a strategic corridor in which renewal (and higher buildings) is sought and supported.
11. She notes that this is not a highly pedestrianized environment, but one dominated by motorised transport, with Bell Street identified as Darebin's busiest road. With respect to local policy which seeks to ensure that signage is integrated into development and streetscapes, she highlights that contextually there is an absence of signage clutter but not no signage in the immediate area. She notes that the nearby Novotel building is 8 storeys high which provides a backdrop to the review site when travelling east along Bell Street. She highlights that despite Council's ground of refusal, the site is not an identified major gateway site in policy of the Junction Framework Plan.
12. With respect to the sign itself, she supports the design response chosen, which follows the curvature of the building along both alignments - which avoids an abrupt angle at the corner. She is supportive of the lack of gap between the signage structure and the building itself, such that it appears to be physically integrated including through the use of consistent colours and the use of semi-permeable mesh support.
13. She has no concerns with respect to the relationship to nearby residential properties, as these properties are largely to the rear of the structure so there will be no impact arising from the proposed illumination.

1. Promotional signs are a legitimate form of development in the planning scheme and one that is encouraged in commercial locations, in a manner that complements or enhances the character of the immediate area. In assessing applications for signage against the PPF, local policy and decision guidelines of Clause 52.05, appropriate regard must be given to the particular circumstances of the site, including the physical and policy context in which the site is located.
2. I accept that the proposal does not strictly meet all relevant policy aspirations sought for such a sign, being the policy aspiration for signs not to project above ground level. However, I am not persuaded that the proposed sign will dominate the review site, the adjoining buildings or the surrounding area. I find that the height and scale of the sign is appropriate in both its current and future context. There are no identifiable significant views or vistas that will be impacted upon nor are there any architectural features of any adjoining or nearby buildings that the proposed sign will impose upon or detract from.
3. In my view, there is no consistency about this area that would dictate that the proposed sign, and its projection above the host building, should be limited. For the reasons that follow, I am satisfied that the signage proposed is contextually appropriate both in a policy and physical sense.
4. Firstly, the review site is zoned C1Z and is therefore in a minimum limitation area for signs. I am satisfied that the proposed sign will complement and enhance the commercial character of this area.
5. Secondly, the site abuts two significant roads carrying high traffic volumes, with one having a tram line. The site is at the intersection of two major roadways. One, Bell Street, is identified as Darebin's busiest road. Vehicle traffic is a dominant experience. The intersection is wide and can visually accommodate the proposed sign at the scale proposed. Both road reserves are wide which moderate any perception of intensive scale of the proposal.
6. Thirdly, the existing built form character of the area is mixed and best described as a robust industrial/commercial area. It does not have a strong recognisable or consistent built form character. Commercial buildings present at a one to two storey scale and the architecture is relatively utilitarian. Its character is influenced by the wide roadway widths abutting, and the extensive public infrastructure associated with the intersection and its lighting.
7. Fourthly, while the existing scale of surrounding buildings is predominantly two storeys, the Strategic Framework Plan identifies this precinct as a key urban renewal area intended to transition from predominantly industrial land to a higher density mixed use precinct. While the area is characterised by a mix of uses fronting Plenty Road and High Street, the Framework Plan supports higher density development (up to eight storeys) on the review site. The immediate area therefore does not reflect the built form aspirations of the Planning Scheme. While the existing context generally comprises single and two storey form, this will transition to higher and prouder buildings over time. Although the sign is to be located on the roof of the host building, this will be silhouetted against higher built form to the east (the Novotel building) and likely future built form adjacent and as such will not appear dominant.
8. Fifthly, based on the specific policy context, I accept that the emerging robust urban character of this precinct is one that could accommodate more robust signage than currently evident. I also acknowledge that the precinct is intended to be a 'mixed use' precinct, rather than a residential precinct. This indicates to me that this area will have a different sense of character and amenity to that of a purely 'residential' area, and as such is more capable of accommodating more robust signage.
9. Sixthly, the sign itself will not dominate the existing host building being appropriately proportional to its width across both frontages. The sign does not cover important architectural features on this building. The sign and supporting structure will suitably integrate with the existing building and its construction will read as a seamless addition to the upper level of the building, presenting as an additional level to the existing form. The sign will not impede views to ground level display windows or disrupt activity at ground level.
10. Seventhly, the buildings and works associated with the construction of the sign are unobtrusive and will not offend in any significant way the design objectives of DDO3. The overall height is well less than that supported in DDO3 and the façade setback does not conflict with that sought by DDO3. While the surrounding area is predominantly two storey or lower in form, this is not the intended future character of the area and the way in which the sign will be viewed. The Framework Plan seeks redevelopment of these sites. As redevelopment occurs, the sign may form part of the redevelopment of the area or may be removed and/or replaced to make way for higher building forms.
11. Eighthly, the sign will not obscure views of signs on adjacent site or obstruct any significant view lines, based on my observations from my site inspection. It will not block any views from the public realm or wider views along both abutting roadways.
12. Ninthly, the sign is oriented to face the abutting roadways. The nearest sensitive residential uses are located to the east in Hotham Street, to the rear of the proposed sign. Where residential uses are located to the west of Plenty Road, these are separated from the review site by the main road. There is limited visual and physical connection between the review site and these sensitive uses. Where residential uses are located to the east, their viewline is to the rear of the sign structure. I am satisfied that the frame and rear of the sign have been acceptably treated.
13. Tenthly, the proposal will have no significant effect on the heritage building located on the northern side of Bell Street some 100 metres to the west. I have reached this conclusion having regard to the heritage building's physical separation from the review site and the consequent lack of visual connection between them. The location of the sign on the corner and generous setbacks to the nearest heritage buildings ensures that the proposal will not block views of any significant heritage sites within the immediate vicinity.
14. Eleventhly, the Lighting Impact Assessment Report (dated 26th October 2021 rev A) (LIA Report) that accompanied the planning permit application submitted to Council modelled the impact of the proposed sign against relevant VicRoads Guidelines and Australian Standards (AS 4282 - 2019 Control of the Obtrusive Effect of Outdoor Lighting). The report demonstrates that the proposed sign if commissioned in accordance with the report, complies with relevant criteria, guidelines and standards. The conclusions of that report reinforce my findings about the limited impact of the sign on the amenity of sensitive uses. The level of luminance is also unlikely to have a detrimental impact on the pedestrian environment on both abutting roads.
15. Twelfthly, in the absence of other Sky signs, Internally illuminated, or other such signs evident within the immediate area, I am satisfied the proposed sign will not result in visual disorder or clutter of signs within the precinct.
16. In terms of the locational principles contained in clause 52.05, I find this proposal to be consistent with those principles. The site is not on a forest or tourist road, scenic route or landscaped section of freeway. The site is not an open space reserve or corridor, is not near a waterway. The sign will not form a dominant visual element from any residential area, or within a heritage place. The sign will not obstruct any significant viewlines. The site is not within an area which has a strong built form character.
17. More broadly, I am satisfied based on the evidence of Ms Dunstan, and Council's failure to raise traffic/road safety concerns, that the proposal is acceptable from this perspective, noting the Head, Transport for Victoria does not oppose the sign subject to the imposition of certain permit conditions, which are accepted by the applicant.
18. Finally, I am satisfied that the proposal is acceptable from an illumination perspective. The Council does not raise any concerns about light amenity impacts. The evidence of Mr Shamier is that the proposal will meet the relevant Australian Standard (AS4282:2019 Control of the Obtrusive Effects of Outdoor Lighting) as well as the permit conditions proposed by the Head, Transport for Victoria, and I accept this evidence.

1. Draft conditions were circulated and discussed. These conditions include the conditions of Transport for Victoria.

1. While Council expressed concern that the proposal would create a precedent, the Tribunal has, on numerous occasions, commented on this issue and that the approval of one application does not necessarily create a precent for other similar proposals and that other, future applications should be assessed on merit, not precedent. Each application will have its own context.
2. In conclusion and having regard to the requirements of Clauses 65 and 71.02, I consider that the proposal is an acceptable outcome, and that when assessed against all relevant policies it does, on balance, achieve a net community benefit. The decision of the responsible authority is set aside and a permit is granted.

• Construction and display of an electronic major promotion sky sign.

1. The plans to be endorsed and which will then form part of the permit are the plans submitted with the application (identified as Drawing No. 02 (Site/Floor Plan) & Drawing No. 03 (Elevations) - Revision D, dated 12 September 2022 and prepared by Media Circus Australia).
2. The location and details of the sign(s) (including the size, nature, panels, position and construction), and any supporting structure, as shown on the endorsed plans, must not be altered without the written consent of the Responsible Authority.
3. This Permit will expire if the advertising sign is not displayed within three (3) years from the date of this Permit.

As relevant, the Responsible Authority may extend the times referred to if a request is made in writing:

(a) Before this Permit expires;

(b) Within six (6) months after the expiry date; or

(c) Within twelve (12) months after the expiry date if the request relates to the completion of the display of the sign.

1. The sign(s) must be constructed and maintained to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.
2. The sign(s) must be located wholly within the boundary of the site.
3. The sign must not:

(a) Dazzle or distract drivers due to its colouring.

(b) Be able to be mistaken for a traffic signal because it has, for example, red circles, octagons, crosses or triangles.

(c) Be able to be mistaken as an instruction to drivers

1. This Permit expires 15 years from the date of issue of the Permit.

On expiry of this Permit, the sign and structures built specifically to support and illuminate it must be removed.

1. No image may be displayed on the electronic sign for less than 30 continuous seconds for the sign.
2. The luminance of the advertising sign must be such that it does not give a veiling luminance to the driver, of greater than 0.25 cd/m2, throughout the drivers approach to the advertising sign.
3. The electronic sign is to be dimmable and have a suitable control system to enable maximum lighting levels to be set or adjusted if deemed necessary by the Responsible Authority or the Department of Transport.
4. Where illuminated during the day, the signage is to be fitted with Photocell/s (light sensor/s) that measure the ambient light and control system technology that enables the luminance of the signage to automatically adjust relative to the measured ambient light level.
5. For digital/electronic signage, any change to brightness levels must only be applied during an image transition, not while an image is being displayed.
6. The transition between images must be instantaneous.
7. The advertising content of the sign must not:

(a) Consist of more than one static image at a time.

(b) Contain any animation.

(c) Consist of a sequence of images giving the illusion of movement from one image to the next.

(d) Contain or consist of images which are capable of being interpreted as projections beyond the face of the advertising screen, such as through the use of 3D technology.

(e) Contain or consist of video, movie or television broadcasts.

(f) Contain or consist of present-time or other contemporary update information such as relating to news, weather or time.

(g) Contain any flashing, blinking, brightening or fading elements that create the illusion of movement or change.

(h) Be capable of being mistaken for a traffic signal or a traffic control device. This includes the use of red, amber or green circles, octagons, crosses or triangles.

(i) Be a traffic instruction, or be capable of being mistaken as, an instruction to a road user. This includes the use of the wording stop, give way, slow, turn left or turn right.

1. The advertising area must not be split into 2 screens (horizontally or vertically) with different messages.
2. The sign and advertising content must not dazzle or distract road users' due to its colouring or content.
3. The sign and any displayed advertisement must not include ancillary extension, embellishment or accessorising within or outside the permitted advertising area, unless Department of Transport has agreed in writing, prior to installation.
4. The use of sound or motion to activate the sign is not permitted.
5. The use of sound to interact with any road user is not permitted.
6. The advertising sign must shut down and cease any form of visual display (and must remain in shut down mode until the issues are resolved), in the event of:

(a) An attack by a computer hacker, virus or similar resulting in the unauthorised display of visual images or messages.

(b) Any malfunction of the advertising sign.

[1] The Statement of Grounds submitted indicated that Transport for Victoria would not be attending the hearing on the basis that certain conditions were applied to any permit issued. At the commencement of the hearing the applicant indicated that it had no opposition to the imposition of these conditions should a permit issue.

[2] Section 4(2)(d) of the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 1998 states a failure to make a decision is deemed to be a decision to refuse to make the decision.

[3] The submissions and evidence 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.