In permit application no. TP/2006-4, the decision of the Responsible Authority is affirmed. A permit is not granted and no permit is to issue.

Ms S Brennan of counsel by direct brief. Evidence was called from Ms K Burns, town planner.

Ms J Forsyth of counsel instructed by MCC Legal. Evidence was called from Mr D Pryor, urban designer.

1 Power Panels Pty Ltd propose a floodlit major promotional sign on the northern wall of a six storey building fronting Queens Bridge Street, Southbank. As the Melbourne City Council refused to grant a permit for the sign, the permit applicant has asked the Tribunal to set aside the Council's decision and direct the grant of the permit. In reaching my decision to disallow the Application I have considered all submissions and evidence assisted by my inspection of the review site and wider locality during the daytime and evening. For the reasons that follow, I am not satisfied that the proposal represents an acceptable outcome in terms of the site's context and policy objectives for the area.

2 The review site comprises a lot with a frontage of 29.5 metres to the east side of Queens Bridge Street and a depth of approximately 60 metres. It is occupied by a six-storey office building, of concrete construction with a flat roof, built to the frontage and side boundaries. The north, side, elevation is a blank wall seen over other buildings northwards leading to Queens Bridge Square. The southern wall of the review site is occupied in part by a 6 metre x 10 metre promotional sign.[1]

3 To the north of the review site are a double storey showroom/office used in association with the Freshwater Place development (that is also east of the review site) and then the Queens Bridge Hotel. To the south of the review site is a double storey office/showroom that also has frontage to Power Street. On the west side of Queens Bridge Street is the Crown Casino complex including a large public space associated with the Yarra River promenade and signalised crossing.

4 It is proposed to erect and display a floodlit major promotional high-wall sign on the northern side of the existing building on the review site. The sign area is 86.4 square metres (4.55 metres high x 18.99 metres wide), located 24 metres above the ground. The sign would be lit by six floodlights sitting below the sign and extending 1.8 metres beyond the building façade. The sign would display commercial promotional material. That material would change on a regular basis.

5 The review site is located within the Capital City Zone 1 under the Melbourne Planning Scheme where a permit is required to erect and display a sign pursuant to Clause 37.04-5. Clause 52.05 sets out advertising provisions. The objectives at Clause 52.05 have been considered by the Tribunal, together with the specific provisions at Clause 52.05-5 relating to major promotional signs.[2] Several schedules to the Design and Development Overlay apply to the land[3] none of which are relevant to the matters in issue in this proceeding.

Is the Review Site Suitable for the Proposed Sign?

6 I do not think that there is any doubt that the review site is physically suitable for a major promotional sign and when considering its potential to attract passing interest. That is essentially agreed between the parties. Key attributes include the following:

•

The blank northern wall to the building on the review site is free of other signage and the proposed sign could be readily accommodated within the building envelope without protruding beyond any part of the wall or review site.

•

The northern wall can be seen in a fairly wide arc from the south side of the Yarra River, on Queens Bridge Street, and a wide cone from most of the northern side of the Yarra River northbank promenade east of the Aquarium through to the Banana Alley vaults.[4]

•

The proposed sign would be exposed to pedestrians using the Yarra promenades, in longer range views from parts of the City (eg. William Street hill)[5] as well as the very large number of motorists using Queens Bridge and potentially some tram and train travellers.

•

In some views, such as when standing in front of the Casino, the proposed sign would not be read with existing signs further south along Queens Bridge Street thereby standing out on its own.

•

With the position of the host building close to Queens Bridge Square and the spacing of signs along Queens Bridge Street, in some views from the north looking south there would not conflict/overlapping of major promotional signs although there would be a new large sign.

How Does the Proposal Respond to the Advertising Policies?

7 I consider the determinative question is whether the proposed floodlit major promotional sign represents an acceptable outcome in terms of the policies of the Scheme and the strategic direction being pursued by the Council for this area set by the Melbourne Planning Scheme.

8 The review site is located in the Southbank precinct and close to the Yarra River promenade and Queen Bridge Square.[6] This area is earmarked by policy for strengthened pedestrian and cycle activity.[7] It is also in the capital city where vibrancy is promoted and an expectation of many who visit the river-front, Casino and Southbank complexes.

9 Clause 22.07 sets out objectives and policies relating to advertising signs in terms of general policies, area specific requirements and areas of special character within the Capital City Zone. The policies at Clause 22.07 allow for the identification and promotion of institutions, businesses and buildings and communication of messages while protecting the characteristics of significant buildings and streetscapes and protecting important vistas from obtrusive and insensitive advertising. A number of the general design policies are:

•

Signs should respect the building style and scale and the character of the street.

•

Signs should fit within architectural forms and be integrated with the design of the building.

•

Signs should avoid visual clutter.

•

Signs should not interrupt important views and vistas along roads leading to and out of the Central City.

•

Promotion, panel and sky signs are discouraged. [Tribunal emphasis added]

10 These directions flow from policies set out in the Municipal Strategic Statement.[8] Table 1 to Clause 22.07 is "Guidelines for Signs within the Capital City Zone". For first floor level to 40 metres, in relation to a high wall sign, the table states a maximum number of one per façade and:

•

May be permitted in individual circumstances subject to urban design and amenity considerations. [Tribunal emphasis added]

•

To be compatible with scale of building and streetscape.

•

Signs to cover a minor proportion of the building facade.

•

Should not be detrimental to the architecture of the host building.

11 This policy is part of that relevant to my assessment.

12 Other policies at Clause 22.07 relate to the Yarra River corridor. There may be a debate as to the breadth and extent of the "Yarra River corridor" but, in this case, as the proposed sign would be seen from both sides of the River and on Queens Bridge the parties agree that the policy applies.

13 The policies for the Yarra River environs are based on the high quality amenity of public spaces along the Yarra and seek for any new signs to add interest to the area's tourism and arts characteristics. The policies seek to limit signage - to that required for business identification, to unobtrusive forms as well as to signage that is complementary to the scale and character of buildings. A specific policy is that "Panel, promotion, pole, sky and high wall signs are discouraged on buildings visible within the Yarra River corridor". Although policy clearly discourages this type of sign, there is no "blanket prohibition" on signs - there is discretion to be exercised and an assessment of the merits of any proposal must properly be undertaken.

14 As there would be no view of the proposed sign from the south, the focus of my assessment is the appearance of the floodlit major promotional sign from the north-east, north and north-west. This is in terms of near and distant vantage points including on either side of the Yarra River. In some views from the Yarra promenades the northern wall of the host building provides a backdrop to the Queens Bridge hotel and/or public spaces variously framed by Queen Bridge Square and the landscaped public space/ promenade abutting the Casino.

15 In addition to matters identified above, in its favour are that the proposed sign would not interrupt the skyline insofar as it is not a sky sign, would sit within the building envelope, would not add to a clutter of existing promotional signs as in some cases no promotional signs would be seen in the same view, and could be argued to add visual interest to an otherwise blank wall. Weighing against these considerations is, being a promotional, high wall, sign visible from various points within the Yarra Corridor and not required for business identification, there is a strong policy direction that the proposed sign does not accord with the vision set through the Melbourne Planning Scheme for a high wall sign in the Central City or for the Yarra River corridor.

16 The emphasis in the Scheme is on restrained advertising signage associated with the Yarra corridor and important public spaces. That is part of the amenity achieved in this high quality environment where many views are quite free of signage. I find the proposed sign would undermine the amenity and experience that has been deliberately pursued and created. That is, the addition of a floodlit major promotional sign, of the size proposed, would not be an acceptable outcome in terms of the Scheme's built form and urban design objectives for this important precinct having regard to the orientation and setting of the north wall of the host building.

17 Moreover, while the lack of articulation to the north wall is unfortunate, I accept the Council's submission that the proposed sign would not make a positive contribution to this setting and that the placement of the proposed sign upon the wall would detract from the Yarra River corridor, notably pedestrian/public areas, including at night.

18 For the above reasons, I conclude that the decision made by the Responsible Authority should be affirmed. I will make the necessary orders.

[1] This sign was the subject of a review in Adspace Pty Ltd v Melbourne CC [2002] VCAT 1730.

[2] Other Clauses relevant to a decision and considered by the Tribunal include 11, 12, 14, 17.01, 17.02, 19.03, 21, 22.01 (Urban Design within the Capital City Zone), 22.07 (Advertising Signs policy) and 65 (general decision guidelines). The review site is located within the Central City, for which policies are set out at Clause 22.07, and it is common ground between the parties that Yarra Environs at Clause 22.07 is also relevant. I was referred to the Yarra River : Use and Development Guidelines (1991) a reference document at Clause 22.07.

[3] DDO Schedule 1 (Active Frontages), DDO Schedule 4 (Weather Protection), DDO 38 (Southbank Central Core).

[4] Deciduous trees affect the view to some extent in a limited arc, such as if one stands on the wharf of the Turning Basin.

[5] This view is confined when deciduous street trees are in leaf closing views from William Street carriageway and tram stops.

[6] Clause 21.08, policy 1.66, refers to the role of Queensbridge Square as a new public space and as a linking feature between Southbank and the Hoddle Grid.

[7] For example, Figure 12 at Clause 21.08.

[8] For example, Clause 21.08 at policy no. 1.54.