PUBLIC REALM IMPACTS ON BROADER AREA INCLUDING VIEWS AND VISTAS

1. The applicant submits that the proposed sign is nestled into the landscape and would not result in any unreasonable visual impacts upon the broader area. In particular, it asserts that the proposal has been carefully designed and sited to avoid unreasonable interference with vistas of the Dandenong Ranges on approach from the west.
2. Any breach of the skyline by the proposed sign is said to be limited to closer range views and not unreasonable.

1. I accept that the proposed sign is unlikely to interfere with primary views of the Dandenong Ranges where forming a backdrop that terminates vistas along the Burwood Highway corridor to the north-east.
2. However, from some longer and medium range vantage points,[6] the proposed sign will obscure low level views towards the south-easterly reaches of the Dandenong Foothills. The obscuring impacts of these views will be limited and do not in their own right, lead me to conclude a permit should not be granted. The greater concern I have with the positioning of the sign relative to this backdrop is the degree to which the proposed sign with its positioning in the front setback, size, height above existing built form, changing messages and differing colours will be read as a strong contrast to the Dandenong Foothills, particularly in low light conditions. It will visually intrude into this vista from the west and adversely interfere with the enjoyment of this significant landscape feature and the continuous green link with the foothills sought along this 'Bush Boulevard' corridor. In doing so, the response would not protect or enhance vistas of this scenic backdrop that policies such as those at clause 15.01-1L promote.
3. I otherwise find that in closer range views and from the east, the proposed sign will result in some breach of the skyline.
4. On balance, these effects, particularly the former, are disbenefits that weigh against rather than in favour of the proposal's acceptability.

1. The applicant asserts the proposed signage would not cause any unreasonable residential amenity impacts for dwellings in terms of visual effects or illumination.
2. It is submitted that levels of residential amenity are already impacted by the proximity of dwellings to commercial use and development, street lighting and illuminated signage at night.
3. In relation to impacts associated with the illumination of the proposed signage, the evidence of the applicant's lighting engineer, Mr Shamier is relied upon. He opines that the proposal would meet the suggested limits in the Australian Standard for the 'Control of the obtrusive effects of outdoor lighting' (AS/NZS 4282:2023) including maximum vertical illuminance levels at night, during the curfew period (between 11pm and 6am). If thought necessary, the proposal's maximum vertical illuminance (Ev) levels could be reduced to not greater than 1 lux.

1. Due to the rising topography of the landform towards the north and relatively low scale of development throughout the area, the proposed sign will be visible from a number of vantage points above and between built form and vegetation from the public realm in Cinerea Avenue and, I expect, from the private realm of some dwellings in this street.
2. For some residential properties fronting Burwood Highway direct views of the sign will likely be possible.
3. I accept that from a technical perspective, if reduced to no greater than 1 lux, the proposal's vertical illuminance levels would be acceptable during curfew limits for residentially zoned land opposite in which dwellings are located. This level of illuminance would meet the suggested maximum limits for an Environmental Zone A3 and the provisions of clause 3.3.3.2 of AS/NZS 4282:2023 for signs containing dynamic content.[7] I find that adoption of the Environmental Zone A3' for residentially zoned land on the opposite the review site in Burwood Highway and surrounding streets including Cinerera Avenue is to be preferred to the Environmental Zone A4 identified by Mr Shamier. As outlined in the example at clause 3.3.1.2 (b) of AS/NZS 4282:2023, this is because the affected residential properties are to be assessed in the environmental zone applicable to those properties (in this case A3) as they comprise affected properties 'past the abutting affected property', rather than being 'an abutting affected property'. None of the affected residential properties opposite are on land abutting the review site.
4. The above findings relate to a technical or quantitative appraisal of the obtrusive effects of lighting. These can be distinguished from the proposal's visual and character related residential amenity impacts which are qualitative in nature.
5. At present, the prevailing character in Cinerea Avenue is one that typifies the visual quality of a leafy, low scale, outer suburban residential neighbourhood of Ferntree Gully. The extent to which commercial development including the degree to which existing signage intrudes upon the character of this outer suburban residential street is limited to minor glimpses.
6. The visual amenity and character of residential (and non-residential uses) on the north side of Burwood Highway is more variable, where direct line of sight to commercial use and development along this main road corridor is already appreciable from some locations.
7. From a visual amenity and character perspective, I find that the proposal is likely to introduce an intrusive visual element punctuating the skyline from some viewing locations at least in the public realm and most likely in the private realm from residential properties in Cinerea Avenue. These effects are undesirable and weigh against rather than in favour of this proposal's acceptability having regard to the decision guidelines for major promotion signs at clause 52.05-8 and policy at clause 15.01-1L.

1. The site enjoys some favourable attributes related to its commercial setting that weigh in favour of a permit. Countervailing locational sensitivities are also present, evidenced by the site's location relative to a Bush Boulevard corridor en-route to the Dandenong Foothills and residential land use and development opposite.
2. On balance, I conclude from my analysis of the issues that the proposed sign's position, scale and height in this particular physical context would result in unreasonable visual impacts within its immediate and broader context. These impacts outweigh visual or economic benefits associated with the sign's display. If the proposal were allowed, it would not achieve a net community benefit.

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, 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] This determining referral authority is identified in clause 66.03.

[3] Clause 71.02 of all Victorian planning schemes.

[5] Although capable of internal illumination, I record that the main and highest part of this internally illuminated sign was not illuminated during my inspection at night.

[6] Such as the approach to Lightwood Drive along Burwood Highway.

[7] Clause 3.3.3.2 of AS/NZS 4282:2023 suggests limits of not greater than 50% of the maximum allowable in Table 3.2 where signage contains dynamic content. For Environmental Zone A3, 1 lux is 50% of 2 lux identified in Table 3.2 as the maximum vertical illuminance levels during curfew period.