The importance of retaining and enhancing vegetation, in particular canopy tree coverage, as part of the planning application process in the face of competing development pressures is therefore a key objective. All trees, even single canopy trees in suburban backyards, contribute to the green skyline and collectively make a contribution to Knox's green and leafy character and its natural environment.

1. Other signage policies are also relevant as I have indicated earlier, such as the relationship with the host building, whether the size and scale of the signage complement the style and character of the building, abutting buildings and the overall streetscape, and the signage character.
2. Having regard to the applicable provisions and policies to which I have referred above, and in addition to general policy support, I find that:
   • The proposed signage will not obstruct views towards the Dandenong Ranges which will continue to be clearly visible to the east along Ferntree Gully Road, nor obstruct other specified viewing corridors or features.
   • The land is not part of a designated gateway.
   • Development will occur around the subject land in the commercial area and on the east side of Stud Road, in the RGZ, over time. Hence, increased building scale and form would be expected, but with landscape outcomes still being relevant given the policy settings.
   • The proposal does not affect vegetation and does not preclude more roadside planting on the site should that be possible.
   • The replacement of the 'Beacon Lighting' blade sign with a new internally illuminated business identification sky sign incorporated into the new signs, would achieve some consolidation of signage.
3. However, I find various aspects and impacts of the proposed signage are not acceptable and, overall, fail to achieve the purpose of clause 52.05 because:
   • The proposed signage is not an acceptable addition to the host building.
   • The proposed signage is not an acceptable in character, streetscape and public realm terms.
   • The proposed signage is not compatible with the scale of the building and/or site, the surrounding streetscape and landscape character of the area, and the size and nature of other signs in the area.
4. I reach these conclusions given the combination of the following:
   • The signage height is not, per se, problematic, rather:
     • The signage is out of scale and proportion with the host building, even though I understand how the applicant says it responds to the existing horizontal built form.
     • The signage is not integrated with the design of the building, rather, it sits above the roofline in line and will be backdropped in many views by sky not existing vegetation or buildings. It will be a large, dominant sky-line element, even more so at night from multiple directions in the public realm.
     • The signage would detract from the purposefully designed signage associated with the host building.
     • The signage would overwhelm the TAB framed corner sign and clutter that corner with signage that is not integrated.
     • The signage would detract from other business signage by its substantial size, form and visual presence.
     • The intrusive nature of the dominating sign would be amplified at night.
   • There is no strong built form character in the area, to which proposed signage must respond, however, there is an evident pattern of wall signage integrated with building form and design on commercially zoned land in the site's immediate environs in this activity centre. Promotional signage above the roof ridgelines and parapets is inconsistent with this character.
   • The signage would be a dominant and dominating visual element in the setting, and in a manner that is not compatible with the scale of the surrounding streetscape and landscape character of the area, and the size and nature of other signs in the area.
5. I am not persuaded that the nature of the intersection, the relationship with other buildings at this intersection, and the ambitions expressed through the scheme enable a conclusion to be reached that the proposed signage can be absorbed in the proposed location in a way that achieves the purpose of clause 52.05 nor outcomes sought by scheme policies.

1. Concerns by the Council relating to residential amenity impacts focus on how the proposed signage would dominate dwellings on the east side of Stud Road. This is the case even though the Council also accepts relevant standards for illumination can be met, based on the expert evidence of Mr Shamier.
2. The applicant relies on Mr McGurn's evidence that the proposed signage is well set back from the nearest dwelling, and separated as well by several lanes of traffic and an at-grade carparking area. His evidence is that views from the nearest and other dwellings will be oblique. Further, there is an expectation that signage will form part of the legitimate commercial context.
3. Impacts on residential amenity were given weight in the Maple Media decision. The applicant has distinguished that proposed signage and location from the subject proposal and land. I accept that there are differences and, relevantly, in the current case I have the uncontested evidence of a lighting engineer, Mr Shamier. Views to the proposed signage would be at some distance across significant infrastructure associated with the arterials road/s in an area where there is also a high degree of ambient night light. Several houses have vegetation and high fencing that would influence the visibility of the signage, although the signage would be noticeable from various habitable rooms. The dominating presence of the signage would change the existing character and outlook, albeit on land in the commercial setting - the position, form and scale of the proposed signage are the most challenging elements.
4. Into the future, properties in the RGZ are expected to change from their existing form and character. I expect the careful and considered design of new dwellings in response to that zoning could also respond to the road and commercial environments to achieve an acceptable level of residential amenity.

1. Signage has the potential to contribute positively to a commercial area, businesses and the community. In this case, the proposed signage has some policy support but also policy discouragement, taking the land's physical and planning contexts into account. I find the positive and neutral factors do not outweigh the permit application's failure to achieve the purpose of clause 52.05 and outcomes sought by local policy having regard to all relevant considerations.

1. For the reasons given above, the decision of the responsible authority is affirmed. No permit is granted.

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

[2] iOM Pty Ltd v Knox City Council [2014] VCAT 1315, [20].

[3] Council maintains its concerns about residential amenity impacts, however.

[4] For example, the Knox Planning Scheme's policy framework at the time of the decision in Australian Leisure and Hospitality Group Pty Ltd v Knox CC [2015] VCAT 1678 cited in Maple Media Pty Ltd v Knox CC [2021] VCAT 282 is not the same as found in that scheme today.

[5] Clause 21.05-3. Figure 1 to that clause shows the bush boulevards and gateways.

[7] This clause dates from 2017 (Amendment C150) which predates Amendment C148 (31 July 2018) which last amended the signage provisions. I note permission is no longer required to 'display advertisings signs' rather for the construction and putting up for display of advertising signs. Both parties, and expert planning evidence, have referred to and assessed the proposal under this clause.

[8] Mr McGurn stated bush boulevards may be regarded as a scenic route, using the phrase from clause 52.05-8.

[9] [20]-[22], noting that the 2015 decision in Australian Leisure and Hospitality Group Pty Ltd v Knox CC predates the current scheme policies such as clause 22.01.