VICTORIAN CIVIL AND ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
planning and environment LIST	vcat reference No. P158/2024
Permit Application no.P/2023/6434 	
CATCHWORDS	
Section 77 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 (Vic); Knox Planning Scheme; Commercial 1 Zone; Electronic major promotion sky sign; Internally illuminated business identification sky sign; Scoresby Village Neighbourhood Activity Centre; Clause 52.05; Bush boulevards; Scale; Visual impact; Host building.	

Applicant	Media Circus (VIC) Pty Ltd	

Responsible Authority	Knox City Council	
Referral Authority	Head, Transport for Victoria	

SUBJECT LAND	1391 Ferntree Gully Road
SCORESBY  VIC  3179	

HEARING TYPE	Hearing	

DATEs OF HEARING	16 and 17 October 2024	

DATE OF ORDER	28 October 2024	
CITATION	Media Circus (VIC) Pty Ltd V Knox CC [2024] VCAT 1033	

Order
Withdrawal of statement of grounds
1	Leave is given to the following person to withdraw their statement of grounds:
Brightlite Nominees Pty Ltd ACN 005 137 217
Permit application amended
2	Pursuant to clause 64 of Schedule 1 of the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 1998 (Vic), the permit application is amended by substituting the following plans for the permit application plans:
•	Prepared by:	Media Circus Australia.	
•	Drawing numbers and revisions:	Drawing no. 01, Revision A, dated 24 June 2024; and Drawing nos. 02 and 03, both Revision E, dated 21 August 2024.	
No permit granted
3	In application P158/2024 the decision of the responsible authority is affirmed.  No permit is granted.

Margaret Baird
Senior Member			
Appearances
For Media Circus (VIC) Pty Ltd	Nick Tweedie SC and Emma Peppler of counsel, by direct brief from Ratio Consultants, who called the following witnesses:
•	Gokhan Karpat, visual amenity, Ratio Consultants.
•	Charmaine Dunstan, traffic engineer, Traffix Group Pty Ltd.
•	Ryan Shamier, lighting engineer, Electro Light.
•	Stuart McGurn, town planner, Urbis Pty Ltd.	
For Knox City Council	John Klarica, Calibre Planning Pty Ltd.	
For Head, Transport for Victoria	No appearance.
	
Information
Description of proposal	Electronic major promotion sky sign with an internally illuminated business identification.  	
Nature of proceeding	Application under section 77 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 (Vic) – to review the refusal to grant a permit. 	
Planning scheme	Knox Planning Scheme.	
Zone and overlays	Commercial 1 Zone.  Ferntree Gully Road and Stud Road are in a Transport 2 Zone.	
Permit requirements	Clause 52.05-2 and clause 52.05-11 – the land is in ‘Category 1 – Commercial Area (minimum limitation)’.	
Relevant scheme policies and provisions	Clauses 11.01-1S, 11.02-1S, 15.01-1S, 17.02-1S, 18.01-1S, 18.02-4S, 21.02, 21.03, 21.05, 22.01, 34.01, 52.05, 62, 65, 71.02, 73 and 74.	
Land description	The subject land is on the north-west corner of Ferntree Gully and Stud Roads.  It comprises three lots with a total site area of 2,920m2.  Each lot contains a commercial building, generally of one and two storeys in scale.  To the north and west of the land are retail, commercial, recreational and community uses, including a supermarket and recreation reserve.  A residential area is to the east.  The land is in the Scoresby Village Neighbourhood Activity Centre.  	
Tribunal inspection (unaccompanied)	14 October 2024, as I stated at the start of the hearing.  23 October 2024 in the evening (after dusk).	
Reasons
ABOUT THIS APPLICATION
1	Media Circus (VIC) Pty Ltd (‘applicant’) proposes to erect an electronic major promotion sky sign which includes an internally illuminated business identification above the parapet of an existing building on the subject land.  The location of the site is shown in Figure 1.

Figure 1 – Aerial image of the subject land and surrounds.  Source – Council’s submission at page ii.

2	The Knox City Council (‘Council’) refused a planning permit on three grounds.  The applicant has applied to the Tribunal for a review of this decision.  It challenges all grounds relied on by the Council.  
DECISION MAKING Framework
Acceptable outcomes
3	I must decide whether to grant a permit and, if so, what conditions should apply to a permit.  Does the permit application produce an acceptable outcome having regard to the relevant policies and provisions in the Knox Planning Scheme (‘scheme’)? 
Integrated decision making
4	Clause 71.02-3 of the scheme explains the task of ‘Integrated decision making’.  The Planning Policy Framework operates together with the remainder of the scheme to deliver integrated decision making.  Planning and responsible authorities should endeavour to integrate the range of planning policies relevant to the issues to be determined and balance conflicting objectives in favour of net community benefit and sustainable development for the benefit of present and future generations.  
Overview of parties’ positions
5	Council submits the proposal is an inappropriate design response with respect to the surrounding area and policies for bush boulevards having regard to the characteristics of the subject land and environs.  Ferntree Gully Road and Stud Road are two of Knox’s significant thoroughfares and both are designated as bush boulevards by the scheme.  Council encourages high quality urban design outcomes that complement the urban environment and protect the visual amenity of the area.  
6	Council submits the proposed signage fails to achieve the objectives of clause 21.03 (Environmental and landscape values), clause 21.05-3 (Bush boulevards and gateways), clause 21.05-7 (Advertising signs) and clause 22.01 (Advertising signs).  The signage is inconsistent with the objectives and decision guidelines in clause 52.05 and is incompatible with the amenity and visual appearance of the area.  Reasons include the following:
•	The signage is a dominant and visually intrusive form that does not achieve the amenity objectives sought in this area or for transport corridors. 
•	The signage does not achieve a good design outcome that positively contributes to the area, and does not integrate with existing building and vegetation. 
•	The signage is excessive and overly intense for this site and does not respond appropriately to the land’s physical context.
•	The design, height, size and position of the signage is inappropriate for this location, incompatible with the locality, and negatively impacts on area including residents on the east side of Stud Road.  
•	The signage would not enhance the visual integrity of the location, in that it will be unreasonably dominant and will add to visual clutter.
7	The applicant relies on the expert evidence of Ms Dunstan, Mr Karpat, Mr McGurn and Mr Shamier in support of its submission that the proposed signage is acceptable.
8	The applicant submits scheme provisions and policies encourage major promotion signs in commercial areas while policy discouragement relates to sensitive locations, of which the subject land is not one.  Importantly, scheme policies must be applied appropriately and fairly to the physical context of the scheme and with balance. 
9	The applicant explains that the proposed signage is in a commercial zone in a large activity centre at the intersection of two major roads.  Both major roads are boulevards and are sensitive to signage.  However, there are nodes at major intersections along the boulevards, of which the subject land is one, where the character is different to that referred to by the Council.  It is ‘almost brutally urban’. There are multiple traffic lanes, and infrastructure such as light poles and power lines.  The context is not the leafy canopy treed arterial road environment that can be found or is a feature of bush boulevards elsewhere.
10	Signs should not be assessed negatively; they are part of the built features of urban life.  They are not inherently inappropriate and exceptional circumstances are not required for them to be determined to be appropriate here.  The applicant submits the proposed signage is quite modest, below the blade sign already on the host building, and does not result in signage clutter.  It submits that it is difficult to view the signage as dominant or discordant in its scale.  Development of the activity centre will see greater scale to a height consistent with the proposed signage. 
11	The applicant submits the signage is well integrated with the host building, is in proportion with the host building, and does not overwhelm the building.  The signage is simply an extension to the utilitarian building that already has interesting signage features.  Moreover, the proposal will not impact upon any significant views or areas of landscape significance.  It would not impact on views and vistas towards significant landscapes, or the Dandenong Ranges. 
12	The applicant submits the council fails to give weight to parts of the scheme that support signs such as that proposed in this type of location.  Those parts of the scheme are in the purposes of clauses 22.01 and 52.05-11.  The proposal does not offend the purpose.  Signs are part of a commercial node at a busy intersection with a different character and sensitivity than is the case with other parts of the bush boulevards.  This is an appropriate and expected location for signage such as that proposed, which has a range of benefits and positive outcomes including to business that should be given weight in the overall assessment of net community benefit.
13	With respect to illumination, the applicant relies on expert evidence in support of its submissions that the proposed signage is capable of being controlled to not unreasonably impact on residential amenity and road safety. 
PROPOSAL
14	The amended plans, which are the basis of the permit application I must determine, have modified the type and location of the proposed signage compared with the signage that was the basis of the Council’s decision.
15	The proposed signage would be mounted above the roof and parapet of the existing corner building form.  The proposed signage would have two panels of 12.48 metres in width and 3.20 metres in height, separated by an internally illuminated static panel (which will have a business identification logo).  The maximum height of the structure would be 11.30 metres above ground with the underside of the sign being 8.1 metres above ground level.
16	Wrapping around the parapet atop of the existing corner building, the proposed sign would be set back between 16.48–21.08 metres from Ferntree Gully Road and Stud Road, noting the splayed corner associated with a left-hand turn lane adjacent to the site.  There is car parking within this set back area, with limited landscaping.  Ferntree Gully Road and Stud Road each have multiple traffic lanes, as divided roads, with their intersection being fully controlled.
17	Figure 2, below, shows the proposal in its south elevation.   

Figure 2 – Proposed signage – south elevation.  Extract from drawing 03 Revision E.

18	Photomontages presented through expert evidence assist to depict the proposal in views from the south (northbound on Stud Road) and east (westbound on Ferntree Gully Road).

Figures 3 and 4 – Cropped images extracted from Mr Karpat’s evidence, Views 1 & 2.

AGREED OR UNDISPUTED MATTERS
19	There is no dispute between the parties with respect to:
•	The subject land and its physical and planning contexts in terms of:
o	Factual descriptions of the subject land’s physical setting.
o	Details of the proposal.  
o	Applicable permit triggers and decision guidelines in assessing the amended permit application.
o	Applicable scheme provisions and policies, of which clauses 21.03, 21.05 (including 21.05-3), 21.05-7, 22.01 and 52.05 are key.
•	The role of policies, which are not mandatory, do not prohibit signs, and must be applied fairly and as relevant to the specific facts and circumstances; each case is assessed on its merits.
•	Key principles relating to major promotion signs that emerge from earlier Tribunal decisions as listed in iOM Pty Ltd v Knox City Council [2013] VCAT 1556 (and then cited in iOM Pty Ltd v Knox City Council [2014] VCAT 1315) and are relevant to my assessment:
•	Proposals for major promotion signs should be assessed from a neutral rather than negative point of view (Kings Funeral Services v Greater Dandenong CC). 
•	An inherent quality of major promotion signs is that they are typically placed in prominent locations and of a scale to maximise their exposure – that is they are designed to be seen and attract attention to themselves (Caption Pty Ltd v Melbourne CC).
•	As a matter of principle, it cannot be fairly said that major promotion signs reduce visual amenity (Wyndson Pty Ltd v Bayside CC). 
•	Such signs are a legitimate commercial activity (Wyndson Pty Ltd v Bayside CC). 
•	Major promotion signs can serve an important function in relation to public information and awareness and can add interest, colour and character to an area (Buckle Outdoor Advertising Pty Ltd v Port Phillip CC & Ors). 
•	The critical element is that any major promotion sign is of a scale, form and location that is appropriate in the context of the existing physical environment (Buckle Outdoor Advertising Pty Ltd v Port Phillip CC & Ors). 
•	Any sign must be consistent with planning policies guiding future development and have regard to potential amenity impacts on surrounding uses (Buckle Outdoor Advertising Pty Ltd v Port Phillip CC & Ors). 
•	That the proposal is acceptable with respect to:
o	Traffic safety and operational efficiency based on the referral authority’s position and the expert traffic evidence.
o	The ability of illumination to be controlled and for the signage to meet relevant standards having regard to the expert traffic evidence.
20	The agreed or undisputed aspects of the merits of the permit application are relevant in assessing the acceptability of the permit application and decision making including with respect to clause 71.02-3.
RELEVANCE OF TRIBUNAL CASES REFERRED TO BY PARTIES
21	Parties have referred to or relied on multiple Tribunal decisions in support of their submissions.  I have considered the decisions and the parts of them relied on by parties and accept:
•	A permit application for the proposed signage can be made and:
o	Requires a balanced assessment having given weight to all relevant provisions and policies (which may be positive to the proposal, neutral, or negative).
o	Must be assessed on its merits.
o	Can be found to be acceptable such that a permit issues.  
•	Scheme policies should not be applied so rigidly so as to effectively seek to prohibit the proposal.  I observe that this is, however, different to judging the weight scheme policies and balancing conflicting objectives in favour of net community benefit.
22	When considering these and other Tribunal decisions it must be accepted that each case is decided on its own facts and circumstances including:
•	The specific proposal applied for and being assessed.
•	The specific site and physical contexts.
•	The policy context required to be considered by the relevant planning scheme at the time at which the decision was made, as policies will vary between schemes and can change over time.
23	The facts in the cases cited are not the same as the current case before me.  An example is the Tribunal’s refusal of a permit application for major promotional signage on a property adjacent to the subject land (758 Stud Road) in Maple Media Pty Ltd v Knox CC [2021] VCAT 282 (‘Maple Media’) where differences include the specific context, as well as the siting, design, style, type and orientation of the proposed pole-mounted two-sided electronic and illuminated major promotion sign.
TRIBUNAL FINDINGS
Key issues
24	Having regard to the submissions and evidence, the key issues with respect to contested matters are:
•	Is the location for the proposed signage acceptable, in principle?
•	Is the proposed signage an acceptable addition to the host building?
•	Is the proposed signage acceptable in character, streetscape and public realm terms particularly having regard to applicable scheme policies?
•	Is the proposal acceptable with respect to residential amenity impacts?
Physical and strategic contexts
Subject land and its setting
25	Figure 1 showed the location of the land.  The subject land:
•	Contains a commercial building with existing large business identification signs that are part of the building’s architectural form with their framed feature forms.  A blade sign, for business identification (‘Beacon Lighting’) is atop as seen in Figure 5.

Figure 5 – Extract of photo 8 in Council’s submission - panorama view, east elevation.

•	Is at a prominent corner at a broad, fully controlled, road intersection.
•	Abuts two, wide, busy, major arterial roads with associated infrastructure such as road signage, street lighting and business signs.
•	Is at a junction where the road alignment varies to the east and south.
•	Is one of four corner sites where there are different buildings of one to two storey scale and varied landscaping.  The subject land has parking around its road frontages.  Other road corners contain a medical centre, service station, and vegetated land adjacent to commercial lots.
•	Is part of the Scoresby Village Neighbourhood Activity Centre, with commercial premises including a supermarket to the north and west.
26	The road alignment and topography, together with building positions and vegetation, all influence the extent to which the subject land is exposed to views beyond the immediate environs of the intersection.  Backdrop tree planting frames some views, as evident from earlier images.  
27	The roadside or edge canopy planting and backdrop canopy trees are not consistent and have some dispersed characteristics.
28	The signage character comprises business identification signs, in addition to traffic and road signs, for example.  A pole sign on Ferntree Gully Road displays signage for the supermarket while the service station has panel signage among its multiple signs.  There are other pole signs with business identification in the commercial area.  It is fair to observe that there is a considerable amount of other business signage much of which is on building walls.  No promotional signs of the nature or size proposed are evident.  
29	Night-time lighting is influenced by road infrastructure such as street lights, vehicle lights, traffic lights and lighting associated with commercial premises.
Strategic context
Zoning
30	The property report extract shown in Figure 6, below, shows the zoning of the land and surrounds.  In addition to showing the subject land’s commercial context and Commercial 1 zoning (‘C1Z’), it assists to understand the road alignment, the land’s position at the north-western corner of the intersection of major roads and where redevelopment can be expected into the future.  A Residential Growth Zone (‘RGZ1’) is on the east side of Stud Road where development could also be anticipated in the future.  The Commercial 2 Zone (‘C2Z’), to the south/south-west of the subject land is part of a core employment area.

Subject land

Figure 6 – Planning property report, zoning plan.

31	At clause 34.01-9, the sign requirements applicable to land in C1Z are at clause 52.05 and the sign is in category 1, commercial areas, minimum limitation.
32	No overlays apply to the land.
Sign provisions
33	The relevant scheme clauses in relation to this proceeding have been cited earlier.  While considered fully, not all are repeated here.
34	A permit is required for the construction and putting up for display of advertising signs.  The proposed signage is an electronic major promotion sky sign with internally illuminated business identification signage as part of the sky sign structure.
35	The purpose of clause 52.05 (Signs) is:
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.
36	The purpose of clause 52.05-11 – Category 1 – commercial areas is:
To provide for identification and promotion signs and signs that add vitality and colour to commercial areas.
37	In addition to the decision guidelines in clause 52.05-8 relating to all signs, decision guidelines in clause 52.05-8 addressing major promotion signs are:
•	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. 
•	When determining the effect of a proposed major promotion sign, the following locational principles must 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.
Policies – design and built environment, and landscape values
38	Clause 15.01-1S (Urban design) includes strategies to:
Ensure that development, including signs, minimises detrimental impacts on amenity, on the natural and built environment and on the safety and efficiency of roads.
Promote good urban design along and abutting transport corridors.
39	Clause 21.05-2 (Urban design) includes Objective 2:
To create high quality, well-designed places that respect and strengthen the local context and landscape qualities of Knox. 
40	Strategies under this objective include:
2.1 	Require development to be high quality and to respect and positively respond to the site and local context
2.4 	Require development on corner sites to maximise the prominence of the location through scale, activation of frontages and building orientation. 
41	Clause 21.03-5 includes objective 5:
To enhance the landscape character of the City's ‘Bush Boulevards’, 'Paths into the Hills' and ‘Gateways’ and link them to the significant landscapes of the Dandenong Foothills, the Lysterfield Hills and Valley and the Dandenong Creek Valley. 
42	Strategies at 5.1 address Bush Boulevards as follows:
•	Protect and enhance existing native vegetation within road reservations and minimise crossovers and impacts to street trees. 
•	Protect and emphasise views to the Dandenong Ranges. 
•	Outside of activity centres, require development to integrate with the surrounding landscape with substantial setbacks from the road planted with a natural arrangement of native canopy trees. 
•	Within activity centres, maintain a continuous setback that is planted with a native tree canopy and formal landscaping to reflect the role and context of the activity centre and to support active and pedestrian-friendly street frontages and public spaces.
43	The parties agree that Stud Road and Ferntree Gully Road are both designated ‘bush boulevards’ in the scheme.  
44	Clause 22.01 is to be applied to applications for the display of advertising signs on bush boulevards to protect significant landscapes.  Significant landscapes are referred to in clause 21.03-4, a clause that does not refer to bush boulevards.  Significant landscapes are specified in clause 22.01 as well as (among others) bush boulevards, to which I refer below.
45	Clause 21.05-7 addresses advertising signs.  It states advertising signs provide important information relating to local businesses and services and support economic growth, however they can have detrimental impacts on the visual amenity of local areas.  It continues that the challenge is to ensure that advertising signs are able to adequately and appropriately identify local businesses and services whilst taking into account their visual impact on the built form, streetscape and local amenity.  Key issues are identified as:
•	Excessive signs and visual clutter, which dominate streetscapes. 
•	Managing the visual impact of signs on the views and vistas towards, from and within the Dandenong Foothills, Lysterfield Valley and hills, and Dandenong Creek Valley. 
•	Managing the impact of large format signs, such as sky signs, promotion signs and promotion panel signs.
46	Objective 11 in clause 21.05-7 is: 
To ensure advertising signs meet the advertising needs of businesses on the land, without causing visual clutter or having detrimental streetscape or amenity impacts. 
47	Strategies under this objective are:
11.1 	Support advertising signs which are 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. 
11.2 	Avoid advertising signs which will impact on views to significant landscapes, create visual clutter, or adversely impact on residential amenity. 
11.3 	Assess applications for advertising signs in accordance with the Advertising Signs local policy at Clause 22.01.
48	Clause 22.01 applies to all applications for the display of advertising signs in the municipality.  The local policy:
•	Acknowledges that when designed and located properly, advertising signs are a legitimate and effective means of communication and promotion of businesses in the municipality which can add interest, colour and character to local streetscapes.  
•	Identifies Knox’s significant landscapes as the Dandenong Foothills, the Lysterfield Valley and hills, and the Dandenong Valley Parklands. It states ‘Bush Boulevards’, ‘Paths into the Hills’ and ‘Gateways’, as defined in clause 21.05-3, are along major roads and also enhance the east-west relationship of providing views and vistas towards the Dandenong Ranges and significant landscapes. 
•	States these areas need to be protected from imposing large format signage including major promotional, promotional panel, pole and sky signs.  Large format signs which impact upon views to and within these areas of landscape significance are considered highly inappropriate.
49	Policy objectives include:
•	To support businesses in Knox to have adequate opportunities to identify their location, name and nature of business in an appropriate manner. 
•	To support the scale, form and location of signs that respect the character of buildings to which they are attached and the streetscapes and landscapes in which they are located. 
•	To require that signs respect and respond to the character and amenity of residential, environmental and other sensitive areas. 
•	To avoid major promotion signs, promotion panel signs and sky signs within areas of significant landscapes, in ‘Gateways’ on ‘Bush Boulevards’ and ‘Paths into the Hills’. 
•	To avoid advertising clutter and ensure that signs do not visually dominate the streetscape either individually or as part of a group. 
•	To support signs of high quality construction and presentation. 
•	To support consolidation of signs, where appropriate, to improve visual amenity outcomes.
50	Clause 22.01 includes policies and strategies for all signs as well as commercial areas including:
General 
•	Advertising signs have a size and form which is 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. 
•	The location of signs (illuminated and non-illuminated) which will adversely impact residential amenity are avoided. 
•	Signs are integrated with the building facade and site and coordinated in terms of colour, graphic content and placement. 
•	Signs do not dominate, inhibit or hinder views of significant landscapes as defined in this Clause. 
•	Lighting of signs is designed and baffled to limit light spill beyond site boundaries. 
•	Signs for multiple occupancies are co-located and coordinated in order to reduce clutter, where appropriate. 
•	Flashing, animated and/or digital signs, where they create clutter, visual disorder and amenity impacts are avoided. 
•	Signs which protrude above the height of building rooflines, beyond fascias, parapets or walls are avoided. 
•	Illuminated signs at ground level, which add vitality to a centre and/or create a safer environment at night (provided that the sign is in scale with the building and does not abut a Category 3 - High amenity area at Clause 52.05-9 of this Scheme) are supported.
•	Consolidation of existing signs is supported, where appropriate, to achieve a more integrated advertising outcome, reduce sign clutter and improve visual amenity outcomes for the site. 
•	Signs should not have an adverse visual impact on the character and operation of major transport corridors, including the EastLink freeway corridor. 
Category 1 – Commercial areas 
•	Signs that attract patrons to business areas, adds visual interest, effectively promote goods and services and enhance the commercial centre’s character and vitality are supported. 
•	Pole signs are set back from the street, contained within the site, and the number of pole signs is limited to one per frontage. 
51	Decision guidelines in clause 22.01 require that before deciding on an application, in addition to the decision guidelines in clause 52.05 and clause 65, the responsible authority must consider, as appropriate: 
•	Whether the sign is proportional to the size and scale of the building/premises on which they are being erected and complement the style and character of the building, abutting buildings and the overall streetscape. 
•	The colours, graphic content and placement of the sign. 
•	Whether the proliferation of signs will cause any detriment to the visual amenity of surrounding area. 
•	The amount and type of existing signs on the site and on abutting properties. 
•	Whether the sign is part of an integrated and coordinated advertising sign package for the site. 
•	Whether supporting structures have a potential detrimental visual impact on the amenity of the area.
•	Whether the sign will have a detrimental impact upon views to or within a significant landscape. 
•	Whether the sign will dominate a significant landscape. 
•	Whether the sign will detract from or dominate the landscape character of ‘Bush Boulevards’, ‘Paths into the Hills’ or ‘Gateways’.
Approach
52	The provisions and policies reflect the balance that the applicant and Council have acknowledged.  
53	There is encouragement for signage of the type proposed to be in commercial locations, together with the acknowledgement of benefits that such signage can bring to a locality, to business and to the community.  Signage is to be provided in a manner that complements or enhances the character of the area.  Principes in clause 52.05-8 specify locations where major promotion signs are encouraged and discouraged.
54	Scheme policy assists decision-making.  Local policy is a guide and does not mandate outcomes.  It also cannot deal with every situation or scenario.  The consistent application of planning policy over time should achieve a desired outcome.  So, although there are multiple policies and provisions that do not lend support to the proposed form of signage at the subject land (as a sky sign, as a major promotion sign and as a site on a bush boulevard and a potentially a scenic route), this is not where the assessment starts and finishes.
55	Relevant too is consideration of the parties’ approach to bush boulevards and the site’s setting and context.
56	The applicant refers to the description in clause 21.05-3 which includes:
‘Bush Boulevards’ are arterial roads with wide reservations running east-west through Knox (except Stud Road, which runs northsouth) [sic] that are planted with informal avenues of native trees. As ‘Bush Boulevards’ extend eastwards into the Foothills they become 'Paths into the Hills' that have roadside verges containing significant understorey and canopy vegetation. Buildings along these roads generally contribute to this character with setbacks from the street and canopy tree planting.  
57	The applicant emphasises the character and context of nodes along bush boulevards, notably at major intersections such as the location of the subject land, where:
•	there is a different character; and
•	a strong and robust presence of built form and infrastructure; and
•	where vegetation might form a backdrop in some views but there is not a presence, or consistency, in roadside verges along the transport corridor containing significant understorey and canopy vegetation. 
58	In this context, the applicant submits among other matters that:
•	The objective in clause 22.01 ‘to avoid major promotion signs, … and sky signs within areas of significant landscapes, in ‘Gateways’ on ‘Bush Boulevards’ and ‘Paths into the Hills’ cannot be read as a blanket prohibition on all signs proposed for land within Bush Boulevards. 
•	The policy that ‘sky signs are avoided’, and ‘Major promotion signs … are avoided where they will: … be located on ‘Bush Boulevards’ … are also of little assistance in considering the merits of a particular proposal.
59	The Council has highlighted the presence of vegetation around different parts of the intersection, along Stud Road and Ferntree Gully Road, and vegetation is that part of the backdrop.  This view seems consistent with Maple Media where the Tribunal’s findings included that the immediate context of that site at No. 758 Stud Road was generally consistent with the bush boulevard designation of both Stud Road and Ferntree Gully Road.
Acceptability of the proposed signage
60	I have set out scheme provisions and policies at length.  They demonstrate general policy support for the type of signage proposed in commercial areas and cite the positive outcomes that can result.  
61	The decision to be made in this proceeding focuses on the acceptability of the signage proposed at this specific site and location.  Direction offered by policies and clause 52.05-8 involves a consideration of the features of the particular setting including the host site, its buildings, streetscape, and character.  The latter includes the existing and desired future character.
62	Clause 22.01 identifies a key issue is the management of large format signs, such as sky signs, major promotion and panel signs.  It contains an objective to ensure that signs meet the needs of businesses on the land without causing visual clutter or having a detrimental streetscape impact.  This includes avoiding signs that impact views to significant landscapes, supporting signs that are compatible with the scale of the building/site and surrounding landscape and streetscape character, and the implementation of local policy.
63	The siting of electronic major promotion signage on commercially-zoned land, at a substantial and broad intersection, in an activity centre may be reasonably contemplated, in principle.  
64	I agree with the applicant that the scheme (though multiple references) focuses the bush boulevard vision on the road corridor itself.  I also agree that bush boulevards vary considerably along their length and are not all the same.  
65	For example, Stud Road rising to the north of the subject land where tree planting along the road corridor is present.  The open setting of a major intersection is a contrast, and it is this immediate context to which the subject land interfaces and proposed signage would also (but not only) be present.  I also accept that opportunities for landscaping in the roadsides of the intersection could be constrained given safety and requirements associated with road safety and network operation.  
66	However, I do not consider the policies relating to bush boulevards and sky signs are of little assistance, rather, the subject land and its context are among the considerations as to the weight such policies carry in reaching a balanced decision.  
67	Further, there are policies relating to activity centres at clause 21.03-5 as well as the ambition and vision for the municipality’s road corridors.  The broader vision relating to landscape and urban character is also relevant.  Clause 21.03 explains the ‘treed city’:
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. 
68	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. 
69	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.
70	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.
71	I reach these conclusions given the combination of the following:
•	The signage height is not, per se, problematic, rather:
o	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.
o	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. 
o	The signage would detract from the purposefully designed signage associated with the host building.
o	The signage would overwhelm the TAB framed corner sign and clutter that corner with signage that is not integrated.
o	The signage would detract from other business signage by its substantial size, form and visual presence.
o	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.
72	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.
Residential amenity
73	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.
74	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. 
75	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.  
76	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.
NET COMMUNITY BENEFIT
77	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.
Conclusion
78	For the reasons given above, the decision of the responsible authority is affirmed.  No permit is granted.

Margaret Baird
Senior Member