VICTORIAN CIVIL AND ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
planning and environment LIST	vcat reference No. P225/2024
Permit Application no.2023-312 	
CATCHWORDS	
Electronic promotion sky sign; rooftop location; activity centre, relationship to host building     	

Applicant	Regional Billboard Co Pty Ltd	

Responsible Authority	Greater Shepparton City Council	

SUBJECT LAND	72 High Street
SHEPPARTON VIC 3630	

HEARING TYPE	Hearing 	

DATE OF HEARING	28 October 2024	

DATE OF ORDER	13 November 2024	

CITATION	Regional Billboard Co Pty Ltd v Greater Shepparton CC [2024] VCAT 1069   	

Order    

1	In application P225/2024 the decision of the responsible authority is affirmed.
2	In planning permit application 2023-312 no permit is granted.

K Birtwistle
Member			

Appearances
For Regional Billboard Co Pty Ltd	J Course	
For Greater Shepparton City Council	J Monaghan, solicitor of Maddocks Lawyers. He called expert evidence from:
•	R Furness, urban designer of Ratio

Information
Description of proposal	Erection and display of an Electronic Promotional Sky Sign with a display space of 16.1 square metres.	
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	Greater Shepparton Planning Scheme	
Zone and overlays	Activity Centre Zone - Schedule 1 (‘ACZ1’)
Parking Overlay - Schedule 1 (‘PO1’)
Abuts a road in a Transport Zone Schedule 2.	
Permit requirements	Clause 52.05-7: to erect and display an electronic promotional sky sign	
Land description	The review site is located on the southern side of High Street, at the intersection with Maude Street, Shepparton. It is rectangular in shape with a frontage to High Street of 7.62 metres, a rear interface with Union Lane of the same dimension, a depth of 34.13 metres, and an approximate area of 265 square metres. 
The site and surrounding area form part of the Shepparton Activity Centre. 
The review site is entirely occupied by a single storey commercial building. The northern section of the building is occupied by a Subway fast-food restaurant while the southern part is occupied by a cafe. The building presentation to High Street and Maude Street is characterised by large areas of clear glazing, with some tiling also to solid areas of the façade along Maude Street. 
The building includes an awning which projects over both street frontages which is occupied by business identification signage for the Subway food and drinks premises for the section of the site fronting High Street, with the cafe business identification signage also contained within the southern portion of the canopy. 	
Tribunal inspection	Unaccompanied subsequent to the hearing.   	
Reasons
What is this proceeding about?
1	Regional Billboard Co Pty Ltd (the ‘applicant’) seeks a permit for a rooftop electronic promotional sky sign above a building at 72 High Street, Shepparton.  The Greater Shepparton City Council (the ‘council’) refused to grant a permit, and the applicant seeks a review of this decision. The council refused the proposal on the following grounds:
The signage is contrary to Clause 02.03-5 Built Form and Heritage of the Municipal Planning Strategy (MPS) as it will have an effect on the appearance and visual amenity of the area based on the design, form, size and placement of the sign. 
The signage is contrary to Clause 15.01-2L of the Planning Policy Framework (PPF) as:
•	The siting of the sign on the roof would constitute a Sky sign which is expressly discouraged in all areas of the CBD. 
•	The siting of the sign is inconsistent with the preferred siting for advertising signs on (and integrated into) buildings, and will disrupt the visual amenity of the area through its inappropriate siting on the roof. 
The proposed signage is inconsistent with the objectives of the Design and Development clause of Schedule 1 to the Activity Centre Zone as 
•	The sign is not integrated into the building design. 
•	The location and form of the sign is not consistent with the character of the area. 
The proposed signage results in an unacceptable outcome with respect to the decision guidelines of Clause 52.05 of the Scheme as: 
•	The siting of the sign on the roof of the building results in a sign that does not integrate with the building or its façade and has the potential to dominate the skyline. 
•	The provision of a sign above the roof line of a building is inconsistent with the character / theme of advertising signage within the precinct that typically comprises of Business identification signage, generally sited on buildings / verandahs. 
•	Insufficient information provided in relation to the impact of the signage on the road safety pursuant to Clause 52.05. 

2	VicRoads, as a statutory referral authority, have provided conditional consent to the proposal, and have not identified any safety concerns with the proposal. Any permit to issue will require the imposition of VicRoads conditions.
3	The Tribunal must decide whether a permit should be granted and, if so, what conditions should be applied.  Having considered all submissions and having regard to the applicable policies and provisions of the Greater Shepparton Planning Scheme (the ‘Planning Scheme’), and assisted by my site inspection, I have decided to affirm the decision of the responsible authority and refuse to grant a permit.  My reasons follow.
What is proposed?
4	The proposal seeks to locate a rectangular signage panel (with a height of 2.85 metres and width of 8.08 metres) above the existing single storey commercial building, which itself has a height of 3.5 metres to the top of the existing canopy/awning. The structure and display face (2.0 metres x 8.08 metres) is oriented to the east to Maude Street, with the support structure returning along the northern side and stepping down in height along the High Street frontage. It is located right on the eastern edge of the building (zero setback) and also extends to High Street to the north. 

Figure 1: Extract Application Plans
5	The sign will be illuminated and used to display promotional advertising.

Figure 2: Perspective view – Source: Evidence statement
what is the Physical context 
6	The intersection of High and Maude Streets is a prominent location in central Shepparton. To the immediate north is the Maude Street Mall (‘the Mall’) (between High Street and Fryers Street) which is restricted to one-way traffic with a shared zone treatment, hard and soft landscaping, wide pedestrian paths and public furniture. The Mall has been the subject of recent significant capital works investment by the council who say it is the primary pedestrianised open space area within the central business district.
7	The immediate and broader environs within the Shepparton Central Business District (‘CBD’) are characterised by commercial buildings, typically of one to two storeys in scale, with some examples of taller buildings such as at Shepparton Law Courts building (a six storey building) to the west of the site. Another proximate structure of some scale is a telecommunications tower to the north of the site, at 8 Fraser Street. This structure is the tallest and most prominent feature in the CBD. 

8	In regard to signage within the CBD area, this largely consists of business identification signage enclosed within the awnings or located on the parapet of the host building. There are some exceptions to this, including examples of promotion signs – though these examples are generally not classified as sky signs and are integrated within the façade/wall of a host building. 
planning provisions
9	The review site is located in Activity Centre Zone (‘ACZ’), the purpose of the zone being:
•	To implement the Municipal Planning Strategy and the Planning Policy Framework. 
•	To encourage a mixture of uses and the intensive development of the activity centre: As a focus for business, shopping, working, housing, leisure, transport and community facilities. 
•	To support sustainable urban outcomes that maximise the use of infrastructure and public transport. 
•	To deliver a diversity of housing at higher densities to make optimum use of the facilities and services. 
•	To create through good urban design an attractive, pleasant, walkable, safe and stimulating environment. 
•	To facilitate use and development of land in accordance with the Development Framework for the activity centre. 
10	Schedule 1 to the ACZ (‘ACZ1’) applies to the Shepparton CBD and refers to the following reference documents: 
•	Commercial Activity Centres Strategy November 2015. 
•	Shepparton CBD Strategy October 2008. 
•	Shepparton CBD Strategy Addendum March 2016 .
•	Urban Design Framework – Shepparton North and South Business Areas, July 2006. 
•	Greater Shepparton 2030 Strategy Plan 2006. 
11	Land within the ACZ1 is divided into different sub-precincts, with the review site falling within Precinct 1, which has the following precinct objectives (at sub clause 5.1-2): 
•	To encourage major anchor stores, shops, cinemas, entertainment, clothing and national brand retailers to locate within the core retail area in Sub-precinct 1A. 
•	To encourage the Maude Street Mall to function as a true ‘centre’ of town and facilitate higher scale, mixed-use development that includes residential to bring more people to the mall and increases activity on the street. 
•	To encourage the implementation of a best practice model for revitalisation and activation of Maude Street Mall. 
•	To encourage redevelopment of vacant or underused sites with buildings that creates a well-defined street edge. Specifically, this includes: Improving the function and appearance of Vaughan Street through a stronger built form and architectural quality to define the streetscape and improve pedestrian amenity. 
•	Encouraging a higher density of building around the mall, including the vacant sites or surface car parks of Stewart Street, to improve its appearance and safety. 
•	To encourage the location of cafes and dining, food outlets, entertainment, and residential (above ground level) in Fryers Street and the Maude Street Mall. 
•	To improve the function and appearance of the mall as the principal open space of the CBD’s retail core and the heart of CBD activity. 
12	Clause 52.05 applies to Signage. Pursuant to the Category 1 at Clause 52.05-11 (which applies to the site as directed by the ACZ1), the signage proposed requires a planning permit as an electronic sign, a promotion sign and a sky sign. This description of the signage proposed comprises three different sign terms which are defined at Clause 73.02, being: 
•	Electronic sign: A sign that can be updated electronically. It includes screens broadcasting still or moving images. 
•	Promotion sign: A sign of less than 18 square metres that promotes goods, services, an event or any other matter, whether or not provided, undertaken or sold or for hire on the land or in the building on which the sign is sited. 
•	Sky sign: A sign: 
o	on or above the roof of a building, but not a verandah; 
o	fixed to the wall of a building and which projects above the wall; or 
o	fixed to a structure (not a building) so that part of it is more than 7 metres above the ground.
13	Mindful of the requirements described in Clause 52.05-2, if a proposed sign can be interpreted in more than one way, the most restrictive requirement must be met.

14	Before deciding on an application, in addition to the decision guidelines in Clause 65, the responsible authority must consider, as appropriate:
All signs
The character of the area including:
•	The sensitivity of the area in terms of the natural environment, heritage values, waterways and open space, rural landscape or residential character.
•	The compatibility of the proposed sign with the existing or desired future character of the area in which it is proposed to be located.
•	The cumulative impact of signs on the character of an area or route, including the need to avoid visual disorder or clutter of signs.
•	The consistency with any identifiable outdoor advertising theme in the area.
Impacts on views and vistas:
•	The potential to obscure or compromise important views from the public realm.
•	The potential to dominate the skyline.
•	The potential to impact on the quality of significant public views.
•	The potential to impede views to existing signs.
The relationship to the streetscape, setting or landscape:
•	The proportion, scale and form of the proposed sign relative to the streetscape, setting or landscape.
•	The position of the sign, including the extent to which it protrudes above existing buildings or landscape and natural elements.
•	The ability to screen unsightly built or other elements.
•	The ability to reduce the number of signs by rationalising or simplifying signs.
•	The ability to include landscaping to reduce the visual impact of parts of the sign structure.
The relationship to the site and building:
•	The scale and form of the sign relative to the scale, proportion and any other significant characteristics of the host site and host building.
•	The extent to which the sign displays innovation relative to the host site and host building.
•	The extent to which the sign requires the removal of vegetation or includes new landscaping.
The impact of structures associated with the sign:
•	The extent to which associated structures integrate with the sign.
•	The potential of associated structures to impact any important or significant features of the building, site, streetscape, setting or landscape, views and vistas or area.
The impact of any illumination:
•	The impact of glare and illumination on the safety of pedestrians and vehicles.
•	The impact of illumination on the amenity of nearby residents and the amenity of the area.
•	The potential to control illumination temporally or in terms of intensity.
The impact of any logo box associated with the sign:
•	The extent to which the logo box forms an integral part of the sign through its position, lighting and any structures used to attach the logo box to the sign.
•	The suitability of the size of the logo box in relation to its identification purpose and the size of the sign.
The need for identification and the opportunities for adequate identification on the site or locality.
The impact on road safety. A sign is a safety hazard if the sign:
•	Obstructs a driver’s line of sight at an intersection, curve or point of egress from an adjacent property.
•	Obstructs a driver’s view of a traffic control device, or is likely to create a confusing or dominating background that may reduce the clarity or effectiveness of a traffic control device.
•	Could dazzle or distract drivers due to its size, design or colouring, or it being illuminated, reflective, animated or flashing.
•	Is at a location where particular concentration is required, such as a high pedestrian volume intersection.
•	Is likely to be mistaken for a traffic control device, because it contains red, green or yellow lighting, or has red circles, octagons, crosses, triangles or arrows.
•	Requires close study from a moving or stationary vehicle in a location where the vehicle would be unprotected from passing traffic.
•	Invites drivers to turn where there is fast moving traffic or the sign is so close to the turning point that there is no time to signal and turn safely.
•	Is within 100 metres of a rural railway crossing.
•	Has insufficient clearance from vehicles on the carriageway.
•	Could mislead drivers or be mistaken as an instruction to drivers.
15	Clause 02.03-5 acknowledges that signage is a key and often highly visible component of the physical environment, and the inappropriate design or placement of signs can have a significant effect on the appearance and visual amenity of an area.
16	Clause 15.01-2L is council’s signage policy. Its objective is to manage the number, appearance, size, illumination and location of signs. Strategies to achieve this objective are to:
•	Encourage fewer signs on a host site or building, displaying a simple clear message.
•	Encourage signs to be primarily for business identification, providing basic identification information of the business.
•	Discourage sky signs, high wall signs, projecting off-wall signs on upper facades and signs that project above parapets, wall, verandahs, roof lines or building fascias. 
•	Discourage ‘V’ board signs.
•	Discourage internally illuminated promotional signs. 
17	Policy guidelines are to consider as relevant: 
•	Limiting suspended under-verandah signs to one per shopfront, except on premises with shop fronts larger than 10 metres, where the limit should be one per ten metres of shop front.
•	Providing for above-verandah signs where they:
o	Are attached to the upper facade or parapet of a host building.
o	Are parallel/horizontal to the road.
o	Have a minimal projection.
•	Limiting freestanding signs to one sign per premises with multiple occupancies encouraged to share sign space.
•	Encouraging signs on buildings that are set back from the street to be:
o	Located within the boundary.
o	Orientated to be parallel or at right angles to the street.
•	Locating signs on a building wherever possible.
•	Limiting pole signs to one per frontage and no higher than the surrounding buildings.
•	Discouraging permanent bunting, streamers, banner, balloons, animated, reflective signs or similar devices. 
•	Allowing temporary (3 month maximum) bunting, streamers, banner, balloons, animated, reflective signs or similar devices for promotions only.
•	Discouraging major promotional signs except:
o	In regional & sub-regional centres.
o	When attached to a building wall.
o	If it is less than 3 metres above the ground.
o	If it is not internally or externally illuminated.
18	My reading of council’s signage policy is that it generally seeks:
•	A minimisation of the number of signs per site.
•	A preference for signs to be on the building rather than on top of the building.
•	A preference for business signage rather than internally illuminated promotional signage.
Summary of parties positions
19	The council relies on the evidence of Mr Furness. His evidence is that based on the scale and form of the host building, the proposed sign and its associated structure will be unduly prominent from the public realm within the surrounding area. He says that the proposed signage is inconsistent with relevant policy directions which seek to integrate signage into the design of buildings and discourages sky signs and internally illuminated promotion signs. Further, he says that the proposed sign is inconsistent with existing signage in the area, which mainly comprises of business identification signage associated with a host building.  He says the proposed sign is inconsistent with both the physical and planning context which expressly discourages this form of signage, and its approval would unreasonably detract from the visual amenity and cohesiveness of this part of the CBD.

20	In rebuttal, the applicant says the proposed sign is in a robust streetscape where there are a number of examples of larger signs, taller signs, and facades with a larger percentage of their surface area covered with advertising signage. It says:
•	An 8 square metre Promotion sign can be installed in Category 1 signage areas without a permit, and the sign sits just above two times this size. 
•	The site has a 34.2 metre frontage to Maude Street, and a 7.6 metre frontage to High Street with a total frontage width of 41.8 metres. The sign takes up 8 metres of this frontage width, only 19% of the total frontage. 
•	Similarly, in height, the existing building has a total height of 3.5 metres, so the proposal increases the total height by 80% (to 6.35 metres). An outcome which is justified by, the pattern of double storey (and larger) developments, and the earmarked for a preferred street wall height of 11 metres. 
21	In responding to Clause 52.05-8 specifically it says: 
•	The area is defined by built form character. While it acknowledges the built form on the site and immediate area is small to medium scale, it says the built form character is only expected to intensify over the proposed signs permitted lifespan, particularly with a preferred street wall height of 11 metres for this area of the CBD. 
•	There is a pattern of above verandah signage throughout the precinct. 
•	The sign is not located near any residential areas, open space, landscaped areas or heritage places. 
•	The sign will assist in obscuring views to the rooftop service equipment on the site, and neighbouring properties. 
•	The proposal introduces the latest technology to the subject site and displays innovation in relation to the host building. 
Will the proposal achieve an acceptable visual outcome?
22	The parties provided me with a number of Tribunal decisions that I have considered in reaching my decision. Relevantly however, each matter turns on its own facts and circumstances. Some relate to different planning contexts (zoning, policy settings etc) and some to other municipal areas. Commonalities are that each application was considered based on the specific physical and planning context relevant to that application.

23	Pertinently, Alramahi v Greater Shepparton CC [2018] VCAT 1421 was a decision for a site at 3/228-2343 High Street, Shepparton. The proposal sought approval for an electronic promotion sky sign within the activity centre in a rooftop location. In reaching the finding that no permit should issue, the Tribunal found:
[4]…Policy that discourages signage is persuasive if it is consistently applied, yet it carries less weight if the existing physical context is crowded by signs that do not comply with it.
Having inspected the CBD, I am satisfied that the council has consistently applied its signage policies and that the grant of a permit for this sign is not warranted. In walking around the CBD, I was conscious that most signs are located on the front or sides of buildings and that only a few rather old signs protruded above rooftops. Some signs rise above the CBD’s rooftops however, these are pylon signs for anchor tenants of shopping complexes. As Mr Dainton said, a few businesses have electronic signs yet these are located on, rather than above, the buildings.
In this context, I find it would be inappropriate to approve this sign. I find that it is not consistent with the visual amenity of High Street, as signage on this street is generally on the front or side walls of its buildings. I agree with Mr Dainton that this sign is not integrated in the host building’s design as sought by policy, and that it does detract from the building’s appearance. The level of detraction is relatively low and it would not be a ground of refusal had there been a profusion of similar signage along High Street. However, there is not.
24	Assisted by the photographs provided by the partes, and having inspected the immediate area, I am satisfied that the council has continued (since the decision in Alramahi in September 2018) to consistently apply its signage policies and that the grant of a permit for this sign is not warranted.  The physical context in both High and Maude Streets tend to show business identification signage, and these are not prominent above the host building. Most existing signs are located on the front or sides of buildings and few businesses appear to have electronic signs and where these exist, they are sited on, rather than above, the building. There is a general absence of promotion signs that extend above the roofline of a building.
25	Contextually, the generally modest one to two storey buildings in this immediate area do not have any similar structures protruding above the roofline of the buildings. This leads to a generally open view to sky when traversing along both Maude and High Street, and this open sky view contributes to the expansive gateway experience for travellers. Because the host building is so low slung, a sign of the proposed height that extends above the existing building will have a dominant relationship with the host building and intrude into the backdrop of skyline views.
26	I am less concerned about the illuminated nature of the proposed signage. From my observations, a few businesses have electronic signs (noting that these are located on, rather than above, the buildings) and in an ACZ in which night-time activities would typically be supported, the illumination of signage is not unreasonable.
27	Further, I accept that VicRoads has no safety related objections to the proposal.
28	However, I agree with council that the proposal is not consistent with the visual amenity of both streets, as signage on these streets are generally on the front or side walls of its buildings, or in an under-verandah format.  I agree with the evidence that the proposed sign is not integrated into the host building’s design as sought by policy, and find that it would detract from the building’s appearance and the immediate locality.  My findings are supported by the general lack of similar above roof signage along High and Maude Streets. 
29	As a result of the sign not being integrated into the building footprint (i.e. a ‘sky sign’) it will present as a dominant feature above the modest single storey host building. It will not be viewed against a backdrop of built form, but instead be silhouetted against the sky. The low scale of the host building as well as the neighbouring buildings means that the proposed sign face and associated structure would be visible above the prevailing built form in a range of views. 
30	I agree with the evidence that the height of the sign and the limited height of the host building results in an outcome where it is almost at a 1:1 ratio compared to its host building façade. The sign is not integrated into the building design and will appear as an ‘add on’ structure above its roof. This effect is exacerbated by the location at the edge of the roof and flush with the building facades. Its scale will dominate the building.
31	Further, the nature of the design and the visibility of the site from surrounding streets also means that the signage support structure will be prominent above the roof of the host building in views where the face of the sign is not visible. 
32	I have also not been persuaded that the signage complies with Clause 52.05 for other reasons including:
•	It has not been demonstrated to me that the sign is compatible with the existing or desired future character of the area in which it is located. This is particularly the case given council’s clear commitment to CBD upgrades including to the Maude Street Mall which is the primary open space area for the CBD and which is immediately opposite the review site.
•	It results in visual disorder and clutter in combination with the extent of existing advertising on the host building.
•	The proposal does not include simplification or rationalisation of existing signage on the land.
•	No landscaping has been included to reduce the visual impact of parts of the sign structure.
33	For these reasons, I find that the siting of the signage on top of the host building (sky sign) represents an inappropriate response to the planning policy framework and local policy.  
Conclusion
34	For the reasons given above, the decision of the responsible authority is affirmed. No permit is granted.

K Birtwistle
Member