VICTORIAN CIVIL AND ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
administrative DIVISION
planning and environment LIST	vcat reference No. P903/2018
Permit Application no. 2018-68	
CATCHWORDS	
Electronic promotion sky sign; rooftop location; activity centre; local policy on urban design     	

APPLICANT	Jaafar Alramahi	
responsible authority	Greater Shepparton City Council	
Referral Authority	VicRoads    	
SUBJECT LAND	3/228-234 High Street, Shepparton	
WHERE HELD	Melbourne	
BEFORE	Michael Nelthorpe, Member	
HEARING TYPE	Hearing	
DATE OF HEARING	3 September 2018   	
DATE OF ORDER	17 September 2018   	
CITATION	Alramahi v Greater Shepparton CC [2018] VCAT 1421	

Order

No permit granted
1	In application P903/2018 the decision of the responsible authority is affirmed.
2	In planning permit application 2018-68 no permit is granted.

Michael Nelthorpe Member			

Appearances
For applicant	Mr Andrew Purcell, barrister instructed by Theo Magalis & Associates.	
For responsible authority	Mr Andrew Dainton, statutory planner.	

Information
Description of proposal	Erection and display of an Electronic Promotional Sky Sign of 6 square metres.	
Nature of proceeding	Application under section 77 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 – to review the refusal to grant a permit. 	
Planning scheme	Greater Shepparton Planning Scheme	
Zone and overlays	Activity Centre Zone Schedule 1
Parking Overlay Schedule 1
The land abuts a road in a Road Zone Category 1.	
Permit requirements	Clause 52.05-7: to erect and display an electronic promotion sign (sky sign)	
Relevant scheme policies and provisions	Clauses 15, 21.04-4, 37.08, 52.05, 65 & 72.   	
Land description	The site is one of four shops on an island site bound by North Street, High Street and Hopkins Street in central Shepparton.  The building containing the site is built to the north, east and west boundaries.  The sign is proposed to be erected on the roof of Shop 3,	
Tribunal inspection	10 September 2018   	

Reasons

1	Mr Alramahi (‘the applicant’) seeks a permit for a rooftop electronic sign associated with his business at 3/228-234 High Street, Shepparton.  The Greater Shepparton City Council refused to grant a permit, and Mr Alramahi seeks a review of this decision.
2	Mr Dainton, for the council, advised that the council supported advertising signage as it contributes to the vitality of the Shepparton Central Business District (‘the CBD’).  However, local policy objectives for urban design and advertising that do not support signage that detracts from the design of the building or the character of the CBD’s streetscapes, and the provisions of Schedule 1 to the Activity Centre Zone supports advertising signs that contribute to a consistent and coordinated suite of signage in the CBD.  Mr Dainton contends that this sign fails to meet these objectives and provisions.
3	Mr Purcell, for the applicant, submits that the sign is not prohibited.  He contends that it does not disrupt the visual amenity of High Street and is intentionally sited to face the intersection rather than being parallel to the street.  He says that the fact that the sign is not integrated with the building’s design should not weigh heavily against the grant of a permit, and that the sign is quite benign in its setting.  He says that it cannot be said to dominate the building given its size relative to the size of the building.  He says that VicRoads does not oppose the sign and submits that this shows that it is not something that will distract drivers.  He suggests that this indicates that it is not dominant.  He tendered photographs of similar signs in the CBD, saying that this additional sign will not be out of place.
4	After hearing submissions, I advised the parties that I would inspect the CBD before making my decision.  I advised that this was required because signage assessments are based on their policy and physical context.  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.
5	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.
6	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.
7	While I agree with Mr Purcell that the sign does not dominate the building, I find that the degree to which it detracts attention from the building’s design is not acceptable in this context where signage policy is consistently applied.  I acknowledge that VicRoads do not oppose the grant of a permit and accept Mr Purcell’s submission that this implies that VicRoads believe that the sign will not distract drivers.  However, this is not determinative because VicRoads have a confined interest in the sign’s impact.  Its support does not relate to the sign’s compliance with local policy on urban design in the CBD.
8	While the older signs that protrude above rooftops give some support for the proposal, I am satisfied that these predate the council’s commitment to a new signage regime that accords with its urban design objectives for the CBD.  As such, I give these existing signs little weight in my assessment.
9	My findings are not influenced by the fact that the sign was erected without a permit.  Mr Alramahi and his business partner appear to have complied with all directions of the council since being made aware of the sign’s non-compliance.
10	For the reasons outlined above, no permit will issue.

Michael Nelthorpe Member