VICTORIAN CIVIL AND ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
planning and environment LIST	vcat reference No. P503/2020
Permit Application no. PLN19/0420	
CATCHWORDS	
Application under s77 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987. Yarra Planning Scheme. Commercial 1 Zone. Heritage Overlay. Electronic major promotion sign. Adverse impacts on heritage place.	

APPLICANT	GM Billboards Pty Ltd	
responsible authority	Yarra City Council	
Referral Authority	The Head, Department of Transport	
SUBJECT LAND	276 Brunswick Street
FITZROY  VIC  3065	
HEARING TYPE	Hearing	
DATE OF HEARING	15 February 2021	
DATE OF ORDER	6 April 2021 	
CITATION	GM Billboards Pty Ltd v Yarra CC [2021] VCAT 309	

Order

1	In application P503/2020 the decision of the responsible authority is affirmed.
2	In planning permit application PLN19/0420 no permit is granted.

Cindy Wilson
Member 			

Appearances
For applicant	Mr Peter Jewell, town planner of Jewell Partnership Pty Ltd	
For responsible authority	Ms Tamara Orrlov, urban planner 	

Information
Description of proposal	The construction and display of an electronic, major promotion, high wall sign.	
Nature of proceeding	Application under section 77 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 – to review the refusal to grant a permit. 	
Planning scheme	Yarra Planning Scheme	
Zone and overlays	Commercial 1 Zone
Heritage Overlay, HO311 	
Permit requirements	Clause 43.01-1 A permit is required to construct or display a sign under the Heritage Overlay. 
Clause 52.05-11 A permit is required to construct or put up for display a major promotion sign and an electronic sign.	
Land description	The review site is located on the north east corner of Brunswick Street and Victoria Street, Fitzroy. 	
Tribunal inspection	I inspected the site and surrounds before and after the hearing.	

Reasons
What is this proceeding about?
1	Yarra City Council refused an application for the construction and display of an electronic, major promotion, high wall sign at 276 Brunswick Street, Fitzroy. Council’s reasons for refusal relate to adverse impacts on heritage, character and amenity. 
2	The applicant submits the proposed sign will have minimal impact on the character of the area, will not adversely affect heritage values and is consistent with policy expectations. 
3	The Department of Transport do not oppose the grant of a permit subject to imposition of permit conditions which address lighting, digital timing, advertising content and other matters. 
4	The Tribunal must decide whether or not a permit should be granted and, if so, what conditions should be imposed. After considering the submissions, had regard to the policies and provisions of the Yarra Planning Scheme and having inspected the site and surrounds, I have decided no permit should be granted. Although the activity centre location provides a setting where signage may add to the vibrancy and vitality of an area, I find the heritage values of the area will be adversely impacted by the proposed sign. 
5	I describe the site context and the proposal, provide a summary of the relevant Planning Scheme provisions, summarise the key points made in submissions of the parties and then set out my reasons for refusing the proposed sign. 
What is the physical context of the site?
6	The review site is located on the north eastern corner of Brunswick Street and Victoria Street, Fitzroy. It is south of the intersection with Johnston Street. 

Figure 1: Aerial view Source: Madin Lyons plan dated March 2019
7	The building on the site presents as three storey to Brunswick Street and at the corner, lowering to two storey as it returns to Victoria Street. The building comprises shops at ground level with a verandah projecting over the footpath other than a section of blank façade to Victoria Street which is used for promotional advertising. At upper levels the building contains windows facing both streets. 
8	An outdoor seating area associated with a café occupying the corner tenancy is located on the widened footpath in Victoria Street together with a public toilet. An established street tree is located adjacent to the seating area.
Figure 2: Review site looking north east from opposite side of Brunswick Street. Source: Council submission
9	The Brunswick Street Major Activity Centre is a linear commercial area extending along Brunswick Street comprising a strip centre including shops, dining, entertainment venues, offices and residential uses. A central tramline extends along the street. It is located within a heritage precinct with many buildings from the Edwardian and Victorian eras.
What is proposed?
10	The proposed sign is to wrap around the chamfered corner of the building at second floor. It would have dimensions of 9 metres by 3 metres with a total advertising area of 27 square metres. The sign would present its greatest area to Victoria Street. It would be 7.45 metres above street level extending to an overall height of 10.54 metres and would not project above the parapet. 
11	The sign would operate 24 hours per day providing static images with a 30 second time dwell. 

Figure 3: Photograph showing proposed sign superimposed Source: Part of permit application material 
What does the Planning Scheme say?
12	The review site is zoned Commercial 1 (C1Z). The purpose of the C1Z includes to create vibrant mixed use commercial centres for retail, office, business, entertainment and community uses. 
13	A precinct based Heritage Overlay (HO311) applies along Brunswick Street, including the review site. The building on the review site is not contributory to the heritage precinct. Purposes of the HO include:
To conserve and enhance heritage places of natural or cultural significance. 
To conserve and enhance those elements which contribute to the significance of heritage places.
To ensure that development does not adversely affect the significance of heritage places.
14	A permit is required for construction or display of a sign under the HO. The Statement of Significance for the precinct details what is significant, includes a reference to the late Victorian era commercial buildings including the Moran & Cato Merchants building (at 277-285 Brunswick Street, opposite the review site) and identifies the 19th and early 20th century as the main significant period for the commercial strip. 
15	The building upon which the sign is proposed has no contributory heritage value.
16	There are a number of relevant provisions in the Planning Policy Framework with key themes including:
•	Support for vibrant activity centres with high quality development that provides a focus for business, shopping, working, leisure and community facilities.
•	Encouragement for development that responds to context, character and that respects places with identified heritage values.
17	The Municipal Strategic Statement and local policies include similar themes but provide additional and more detailed guidance on development in areas subject to an HO and for advertising signs. 
18	Clause 52.05 sets out the purpose, requirements and decision guidelines in relation to signs. There is specific guidance for major promotion signs. The site is within Category 1 relating to commercial areas where there is minimum limitation. A permit is required for the proposed sign in this category. The purpose of Category 1 is: 
To provide for identification and promotion signs and signs that add vitality and colour to commercial areas.
19	The decision guidelines at clause 65 are relevant. 
In summary, what do the parties say?
20	The applicant submits that although there are cautious policy and control settings relating to signage within the HO and policy, that does not mean there is an inherent conflict between promotional signage and the attributes of a heritage overlay. In this proposal the applicant submits the sign is acceptable having regard to the following matters:
•	The host building has no heritage value and the sign will be framed by a large bland building of limited aesthetic appeal.
•	The sign will be prominent for only a very small section of Brunswick Street of approximately 60 metres to the south. This limits the level of influence and nearby heritage fabric will be on the periphery of the viewshed. 
•	The streetscape setting is less formulaic than most heritage areas with diverse buildings and this increases the scope for experimentation and the capacity for the sign to be accommodated. The proposed sign is different but can co-exist in this context without being dominant or interrupting the reading of the heritage streetscape. 
•	The review site is in a location where different types of solutions are appropriate relating to the cultural evolution of the street. There is no obvious theme or pattern of signage – more of a ‘larrikin’ approach with a willingness to experiment with signage, and this sign fits with that expression. 
•	Although Brunswick Street is fine-grained there are examples of larger holdings with extensive signage.
•	The small viewshed will likely result in more locally targeted advertising rather than big brand national campaigns.
•	The sign is a bespoke design and could be considered a superior outcome to the current ‘blight’ on display, a description referred to by Council. 
•	The sign is likely to have a limited life as the nature of the existing building creates redevelopment potential.
21	Council submits the sign will be a dominant visual element within the heritage streetscape and adversely affect the cultural significance, character and appearance of the heritage place. Council says the starting position is that major promotions signs are discouraged in heritage areas and there are objectives that seek to ensure signs do not detract from the character, significance and integrity of places of heritage significance. 
22	Council submits the bespoke signs existing in the street have artistic overtones made for individual tenancies and reflect the fine grained nature of much of the built form. This approach is not reflected in the proposed sign.
23	In Council’s submission the sign will be out of scale with the existing approach to signage, out of keeping with the level and type of illumination in the area, out of keeping with the hours of operation of key uses in the centre, would sit poorly on the host building and would detrimentally impact the viewshed and visibility of key individually significant buildings adjacent to the site – all matters which are at odds with clause 52.05 considerations. 
24	The impact of the sign on the Victoria Street streetscape is criticised; Council says it will be dominant in a street that is not a main road and forms an entry to a predominantly residential area particularly given its size, dynamic nature and 24 hour illumination. The existence of a tree on the road reserve, although limiting views of the sign, could be removed and should not be relied upon to support the sign. 
Tribunal findings
25	I consider the sign will be a dominant element in the heritage setting of both Brunswick Street and Victoria Street resulting in an adverse and unacceptable impact on the heritage values. 
Brunswick Street 
26	Brunswick Street contains a high number of architecturally distinctive and individually significant buildings and is a relatively consistent Victorian and Edwardian era commercial streetscape. It is my view that the sign will be apparent from Greeves Street when travelling north, with some limited visibility further south. In the section of Brunswick Street between Greeves Street and the review site there are 11 buildings on the east side of the street of which nine are classified as contributory, one is individually significant and one is non-contributory. On the west side of the street there are 12 buildings of which nine are contributory, one is individually significant and two are non-contributory. 
27	On the north west corner of Victoria and Brunswick Streets is the individually significant Moran & Cato Merchants building. This is a detailed, striking and prominent heritage building directly opposite the review site.
28	The combination of these buildings creates a highly intact section of heritage streetscape. Whilst the viewshed is limited, it contains a relatively consistent section of buildings of heritage value. The street view, which includes a distance of approximately 60 metres south of the review site, shown in Figure 6 below demonstrates this setting.  

Figure 4: Looking north along Brunswick Street with the three storey Moran & Cato Merchants building on left and the review site on the right. Source: Nearmap from Google streetview 
29	I find the proposed sign will be visually dominant in this heritage setting, inappropriately detract from the prominence of the individually significant Moran & Cato Merchants building and adversely affect the significance and appearance of the heritage place. This outcome is contrary to a number of Planning Scheme provisions including:
•	The purpose of the HO that seeks to ensure that development does not adversely affect the significance of heritage places.
•	The locational principles for major promotion signs at clause 52.05-8 that discourage major promotion signs where they will form a dominant visual element within a heritage place.

•	The advertising signs policy at clause 22.04 that, in addition to discouraging major promotion signs in heritage areas, also seeks: 
To protect and enhance the character and integrity of places of heritage significance. 
30	I accept the viewshed for the sign is limited but it nevertheless contains important heritage fabric with individually significant and contributory buildings that form part of a wider heritage place. The confined opportunities to view the sign does not alter my opinion that the impact on heritage values will be unacceptable.  
31	It is my view that the design of the sign with its curved façade, 27 square metre overall size, use of static images with a 30 second dwell time and a 24 hour operation introduce a proportion, scale and type of sign that will be intrusive in the streetscape with its predominantly fine and vertically grained built form and individual business signage. It cannot be considered as small and restrained as sought for advertising signs in heritage areas. 
32	 In making this finding, I acknowledge some existing signage along Brunswick Street could not be considered restrained. Rather it is quirky and creative signage which reflects the ‘strip of bohemian cafes, bars, restaurants, hotels …’ that developed along the street in the late 1970s referred to in the statement of significance for the heritage precinct. As described by Council, it is bespoke signage with artistic overtones made for individual tenancies and contributes to an identifiable and unique character for Brunswick Street. I agree with Council that the proposal for a relatively large electronic sign in a prominent corner location is inconsistent with this character.
33	The redevelopment potential of the site and the likelihood that the advertising will be locally targeted does not negate my concerns about the adverse impacts of the sign on the heritage streetscape. 
Victoria Street 
34	The larger section of the curved sign will face Victoria Street. 

Figure 5: South Elevation – View from Victoria Street Source: Madin Lyons plan dated March 2019 

35	That part of Victoria Street east of Brunswick Street includes land within a Commercial 1 Zone and Neighbourhood Residential Zone. Heritage Overlay, Schedule 334 South Fitzroy applies to the land. 
36	In this section of Victoria Street there are five properties on the north side and eight properties on the south side. All properties on the south side are contributory to the heritage precinct. On the north side there are three that are contributory and two which are individually significant, including the adjacent building at 107-109 Victoria Street (separated by a laneway). This short section of Victoria Street presents with a highly intact heritage setting although the built form and eras of development vary. 
37	It is my view that the sign will be inappropriately dominant in the heritage streetscape of Victoria Street, particularly given the larger section faces this street. Contrary to local policy, it will not protect and enhance the character and integrity of this place of heritage significance and does not accord with the clear preference for major promotion signs to be on main roads.
38	For the reasons provided, I affirm the decision of Council and direct that no permit issue. 

Cindy Wilson
Member