Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal|2004-06-02|Before: Prime Advice P

Prime Advice Pty Ltd v City of Bayside [2004] VCAT 1074 (2 June 2004)

The decision to review the decision of the Responsible Authority in refusing to permit for the floodlit roof sign is disallowed. A permit is to issue for the fascia identification with the following conditions -

3. All signs must be located wholly within the boundary of the land.

4. All signs must be constructed and maintained to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

5. Signs must not be illuminated by external lights except with the prior written consent of the Responsible Authority.

Ms Jennifer Bowdern, Legal Support Planner represented the Responsible Authority.

1 This application is brought under Section 77 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 to review a decision of the Responsible Authority to refuse to grant a permit for a "floodlit major promotional sky sign".

2 The subject land is on the south east corner of South Road and Highbury Avenue adjacent to the Moorabbin junction. The land has a frontage of 15.24m to South Road and a depth of 40.84m containing a two storey office building.

3 In general terms the proposal is to erect an illuminated major promotion sign. The proposed sign has an area of 42.28 square metres with a length of 12.66 metres and a height of 3.34 metres.

The main features of the major promotion sign are as follows:

* The sign will be located on the top of a double storey office building at the corner of South Road and Highbury Avenue.

* The sign has an area of 42.28 square metres with a length of 12.66 metres and a height of 3.34 metres.

4 The subject land is zoned Business 2 under the Bayside Planning Scheme and no overlay controls apply. Adjacent buildings fronting Nepean Highway are zoned Business 1 whilst the rear of the subject land are residences and zoned Residential 1.

5 The grounds of refusal and reasons for this request are:

1. The proposal would result in an inappropriately dominant feature in the streetscape.

2. The proposed sign would detract from the neighbourhood character of the area.

3. The proposed sign is excessive in height and size.

1. The building is situated on the corner of Nepean Highway and South Road. There is a sign of identical proportions on the building next door. Therefore, the sign will not be a dominant feature in the streetscape and it cannot be claimed to be excessive in height and size.

2. In addition to our corner office building there are additional office buildings along South Road for a further 400 metres. South Road is also a 6 lane major thoroughfare. It is therefore inappropriate to say that our sign would detract from the neighbourhood character of the area.

6 The Tribunal considered it necessary to visit the site and adjacent area before preparing this decision. The inspection was carried out on Monday afternoon 31 May 2004.

7 The proposal is for a fascia business identification sign and a flood lit sky sign. The request relates to the refusal of the Responsible Authority to permit a sky sign, however although they indicated to the applicant that the fascia sign was in order, there has been no mention of it in the refusal, nor the applicant's current request before the Tribunal.

8 Both parties at the hearing agreed that a permit should issue for the fascia sign and I will refer to this sign later.

9 In relation to the sky sign, the Tribunal is aware that this is a second request for virtually a same sign size and location that was refused by the Responsible Authority and the Tribunal in 2000.

10 The reason for the inspection was to determine if any changes to building had occurred in the area to warrant a reconsideration of that decision.

11 The inspection was helpful and showed little change to alter the decision of 2000.

12 Mr Vass considered the host building to be in the commercial precinct of Moorabbin and that it related to Nepean Highway and the large hotel building opposite rather than South Road and together with its zoning of business the proposed sign was appropriate.

13 It is true that additional office buildings have been erected on the south side of South Road west of Highbury Avenue in the Business 2 zone, but they are of two storey profile and Business 2 leading into residential to the west and south.

14 The South Road entrance off Nepean Highway is uncluttered with sky signs, leaving the Highway and should remain that way.

15 There are no reasons to alter the Tribunal decision of 2000 and really there should never be the clutter of signs develop along South road in this short business zone.

16 The request is disallowed in relation to the sky sign, however referring to 8 above, the Tribunal will direct the issue of a permit for the proposed fascia sign with the conditions as submitted by the Responsible Authority.

Prime Advice Pty Ltd v City of Bayside [2004] VCAT 1074

At a glance

Court

Decision date

Before

Source

Judgment (32 paragraphs)

Prime Advice Pty Ltd v City of Bayside [2004] VCAT 1074 (2 June 2004)

Parties