VICTORIAN CIVIL AND ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
planning and environment LIST	vcat reference No. P11102/2021
Permit Application no.TP648/2020(1)	
CATCHWORDS	
Application under section 77 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987; Review the refusal to grant a permit; Maribyrnong Planning Scheme; Activity Centre Zone – Schedule 1; Display an internally illuminated, business identification, sky sign.	

Applicant	Joseph Place Pty Ltd	

Responsible Authority	Maribyrnong City Council	

SUBJECT LAND	4 Hallenstein Street,
FOOTSCRAY VIC 3011	

HEARING TYPE	Hearing	

DATE OF HEARING	14 February 2022	

DATE OF ORDER	1 March 2022	

CITATION	Joseph Place Pty Ltd v Maribyrnong CC [2022] VCAT 223	

Order
Permit granted
1	In application P11102/2021 the decision of the responsible authority is set aside.
2	In planning permit application TP648/2020(1) a permit is granted and directed to be issued for the land at 4 Hallenstein Street, FOOTSCRAY VIC 3011  in accordance with the endorsed plans and the conditions set out in Appendix A.  The permit allows:
•	Construction or putting up for display a sign that is:
o	a ‘Business identification sign’ where the total display area of all signs to each premises exceeds 8 square metres; 
o	an ‘Internally illuminated sign’ where the display area exceeds 1.5 square metres; and
o	a ‘Sky sign’.

Sarah McDonald
Member			

Appearances
For applicant	Vicky Grillakis, town planner, Urbis.	
For responsible authority	Olivia Savona, principal panner,
Maribyrnong City Council	

Information
Description of proposal	Display an internally illuminated, business identification, sky 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	Maribyrnong Planning Scheme.	
Zone and overlays	Activity Centre Zone – Schedule 1 (ACZ1).	
Permit requirements	Clauses 52.05-2 & 52.05-12:
To construct or put up for display a sign that is:
•	a ‘Business identification sign’ where the total display area of all signs to each premises exceeds 8 square metres; 
•	an ‘Internally illuminated sign’ where the display area exceeds 1.5 square metres; and
•	a ‘Sky sign’.	
Land description	The review site is bounded by Hallenstein Street to the west, Joseph Road to the east, and the Warde Street extension to the north.
The site is developed with buildings comprising a podium with two multi-storey towers.
The site is within the Footscray Major Activity Centre.	
Tribunal inspection	An unaccompanied inspection of the review site and surrounding area was undertaken before the hearing.	

  Reasons
What is this proceeding about?
1	Joseph Place Pty Ltd (the applicant) is seeking a permit to display an internally illuminated, business identification, sky sign (the proposal) on the land at 4 Hallenstein Street, Footscray (the review site).
2	The proposed sign is:
•	to be 11.90 metres long and 1.51 metres high;
•	feature individually cut, internally illuminated 3D white acrylic lettering, with each letter framed in black powder coated steel with a depth of 250 millimetres;
•	to be directly affixed to the screen around the plant/equipment on the roof of the building on which it is to be affixed;
•	to comprise the name ‘Growland’.
3	The Maribyrnong City Council (the Council) has refused to grant a permit for the proposal.  Its grounds for refusal relate to the proposal not responding to the existing character and future aspirations of the area, failing to meet requirements of the Activity Centre Zone – Schedule 1 (the ACZ1) of the Maribyrnong Planning Scheme (the Scheme), and not meeting the decision guidelines of the ‘Signs’ provisions at clause 52.05 of the Scheme.
4	The applicant has sought this review of the Council’s decision.  Its grounds for review essentially refute the Council’s grounds of refusal.
5	Although the Council received eight objections to the permit application, none of the objectors have submitted a statement of grounds to the Tribunal and are not parties to this proceeding.
6	The Tribunal must decide if a permit should be granted, and if so what conditions should be applied.  In doing so I must consider whether the proposal will produce ‘acceptable outcomes’, in relation to the relevant policies and provisions of the Scheme.
7	Based on the material before me, the key issues to be determined relate to the character of the building and area, the relationship of the sign to the building and its setting, visual impacts, amenity impacts, and the orderly planning of the area.
8	Having considered the submissions, and relevant policies and provisions of the planning scheme, and having undertaken an inspection of the review site and surrounding area, I have decided to set aside the Council’s decision and direct that a planning permit be issued, subject to conditions.  My reasons follow.
What is the physical context of the site and its surrounds?
9	The review site forms part of a larger development site (the Growland development) bounded by Hopkins Street to the south, Joseph Road to the east, Neilson Place to the north, and Hallenstein Street to the west.  Figure 1 shows the location of the review site within the context of the larger development site and the broader precinct within which it is located.
Figure 1:  Review site & and context

10	The Growland development comprises six mixed use (residential, commercial, and retail) towers over three stages, as follows:
•	towers 1 and 2 across the southern portion (stage 2, under construction);
•	towers 3 and 4 across the central portion (stage 1, constructed); and
•	towers 5 and 6 across the northern portion (stage 3, yet to commence construction).
11	The review site comprises towers 3 and 4 and the shared podium building above which they are constructed.
12	The layout and scale of the overall development is reflected in the image at Figure 2.
13	Overall, the development consists of 1,049 dwellings and 4,235.4 square metres of commercial tenancies, comprised of 2,776.2 square metres of retail and 1,459.2 square metres of office.
14	The applicant submits that:
The entire three-stage development is being developed by Growland (Joseph Place Pty Ltd), who will retain the commercial component of the development as the lessor and landlord, while also operating out of a tenancy within the development.
Figure 2:  3D image of the review site development

15	The proposed sign is to be displayed on tower 3, which is the tallest tower within the Growland development.  Tower 3 is 27 storeys high, plus plant/equipment on its rooftop (referred to as level 28).  The building includes a 2.9m high aluminium screen around the plant/equipment on the roof.  The proposed sign is to be mounted on the southern face of the plant/equipment screen at level 28.
16	The sign is associated with a sales office in a retail tenancy in the podium under tower 4.  At the hearing the applicant confirmed that the tenancy is a 115 square metres retail premises, which is to be used as a sales office for selling properties from this Growland development as well as another Growland development in Southbank.
17	The review site and the Growland development are within a precinct of the Footscray Major Activity Centre (the Footscray MAC).  Several properties within the precinct have already been developed with relatively tall residential and mixed use buildings, including towers 3 and 4 on the review site.  The emerging form and character of the Joseph Road precinct is of robust building forms and taller buildings.
What is the relevant planning context?
Zone
18	The review site is within ACZ1, which applies to the Footscray MAC.
19	The review site is within ‘Precinct 5: Joseph Road’ (Precinct 5) under the Footscray Framework Plan.  This precinct is essentially triangular in shape, bounded by Hopkins Street to the south, the Maribyrnong River to the east and the rail line arcing across the north and west.
20	The ‘Precinct objectives’ for the Precinct 5, include:
•	To create a vibrant, mixed use precinct that complements the role and function of the Footscray Central Activities Area …
•	To establish a robust urban character with:
–	high quality architecture and urban design
–	an active, attractive and accessible riverfront with improved public recreation opportunities and high amenity public spaces and places
–	an active and improved frontage to Hopkins Street that marks the precinct as a ‘gateway’ to Footscray.
21	The ‘Precinct guidelines’ at clause 5.5-4 of the ACZ1 schedule are focused on development, building forms and vehicle access, rather than providing guidance regarding signs.  Of some relevance is that these guidelines reflect the expectation that building forms in this area will create a robust urban character.
22	The provisions for signs under the ACZ1 schedule specify that:
The following requirements should be met to the satisfaction of the responsible authority: Signage should:
•	Be coordinated across the centre;
•	Not dominate the streetscape or increase visual clutter; and
•	Respect the scale, architecture and character of the building or public space.
23	Precinct 5 is subject to the ‘Category 2 - Office and industrial’, which is the ‘low limitation’ signs category at clause 52.05 – Signs provisions.
24	Decision guidelines are included at clause 37.08-9 of the ACZ1 and clause 8.0 of the ACZ1 schedule.  I have had regard to these in reaching my decision.  I note, however, that these decision guidelines relate primarily to use and development of land, rather than signs.
Sign terms
25	The applicant sought a permit for ‘Signage display <18sq.m’.  The correspondence accompanying the application includes that the proposed sign is considered a ‘Sky sign,’ pursuant to the advertising term at clause 73.  
26	The Council’s report assessing the application describes the proposal as ‘Display one internally illuminated, business identification, sky sign’.  The applicant’s submission at the hearing also includes that ‘the sign is an ‘internally illuminated, business identification sky sign’ pursuant to Clause 73.02’.
27	These signs are defined at clause 73.02 – Sign terms as follows:
Sign term	Definition	
Business identification sign	A sign that provides business identification information about a business or industry on the land where it is displayed. The information may include the name of the business or building, the street number of the business premises, the nature of the business, a business logo or other business identification information.	
Internally illuminated sign	A sign illuminated by internal lighting or which contains lights or illuminated tubes arranged as an advertisement	
Sky sign	A sign:
a)	on or above the roof of a building, but not a verandah;
b)	fixed to the wall of a building and which projects above the wall; or
c)	fixed to a structure (not a building) so that part of it is more than 7 metres above the ground.	

28	I am satisfied that the proposed sign comprises an ‘internally illuminated, business identification, sky sign’.  I do note, however, that if not for the fact that the sign is to be associated with the Growland sales office in a retail tenancy within the podium under tower 4 that forms part of the review site, the proposed sign could be a ‘major promotion sign’.  A major promotion sign is defined as follows:
A sign which is 18 square metres or greater 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.
29	At the hearing the Council confirmed that it considered the sign is a ‘business identification sign’.
Clause 52.05 – Signs
30	The purpose of the Signs provisions at clause 52.05 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.
31	Under the provisions for Category 2 signs at clause 52.05-12, a planning permit is required for the proposed sign as follows:
i	a ‘Business identification sign’ as the total display area of all signs to each premises exceeds 8 square metres;
ii	an ‘Internally illuminated sign’ as the display area exceeds 1.5 square metres;
iii	a ‘Sky sign’.
32	Decision guidelines are included at clause 52.05-8.  I have had regard to these in reaching my decision.
Planning policies
33	The decision guidelines of the ACZ1 and clause 65.01 require me to consider the Planning Policy Framework.
34	The policies referred to by the parties variously support developing activity centres, achieving high quality urban design, and providing for a strong and innovative economy.

35	Of most relevance to this proposal is the Urban design policy at clause 15.01-1S.  This policy includes the strategy 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’.
What are the Tribunal’s findings?
36	With the existing recent development and more development currently underway, including the towers on the review site, Precinct 5 is well on its way to reflecting the ‘robust urban character’ sought by the ACZ1.
37	Even though the robust urban character is clearly emerging, also evident is the very limited signage that is displayed on the existing buildings within the precinct.  There are no other Sky signs evident within this precinct.  Nor are there existing business identification signs or internally illuminated signs of the scale of this proposal.  This is no doubt partly because this is a developing area with only some of the land currently developed.
38	I accept that the emerging robust urban character of this precinct is one that could accommodate more robust signage.  I also acknowledge that the precinct is intended to be a ‘mixed use’ precinct, rather than a residential precinct.  This indicates to me that this area will have a different sense of character and amenity to that of a purely ‘residential’ area, and as such is more capable of accommodating more robust signage.
39	In this context there will always be a ‘first cab off the rank’ that may result in some change to the existing circumstances.  This is the situation with this proposal.
40	Having considered the proposal against the relevant policies, provisions and decision guidelines of the Scheme, I am satisfied that the proposal will provide an acceptable outcome.  I say this for the following reasons.
41	In principle, appropriate business identification signage supports the role and function of the activity centre and economic development, as sought by various planning policies.  The fact that other signage has been approved for the review site and towers 1 and 2 within the Growland development, does not persuade me that additional signage is not acceptable, nor that it should not be different to the ‘theme’ of signage already approved.  Rather, I have assessed the proposed sign on its merits against the relevant policies and provisions of the Scheme, and with the understanding that the proposed sign will be in addition to other signs already approved.
42	I am satisfied that the scale and type of the proposed sign is compatible with the robust urban character sought for Precinct 5.  I am also satisfied that the scale and form of the sign is also proportional to the scale of the building on which it is to be located.  The sign will integrate with the building architecture by sitting within the perimeter of the plant/equipment screen at level 28, rather than protruding above it.
43	In the absence of other Sky signs, Internally illuminated, or ‘High-wall’ signs evident within Precinct 5, I am satisfied the proposed sign will not result in visual disorder or clutter of signs within the precinct.
44	I am persuaded that the siting of the sign is such that it will not be visible or will be only minimally visible within the streetscapes within Precinct 5, and as such will have no or very low impact on the streetscapes or view lines within precinct.  Even though the sign will be visible to varying degrees from various points along the Maribyrnong River trail and other public reserves and streets to the south of the site,  I have not been taken to any part of the Scheme that identifies these as ‘important views’.  Nor is the mere visibility of the sign the relevant ‘test’ of acceptability.  Rather, what is relevant is the acceptability of any resultant impacts of the visibility of the sign.  The sign is located some distance from and at a significantly elevated height to the public realm environs of the Maribyrnong River trail and the nearby public reserves.  In this context, I am satisfied that the sign will not have an unacceptable impact on the quality of the views within these public realm areas.
45	I accept that the sign will be visible to varying degrees within various broader range views to Precinct 5, particularly at night when the sign is illuminated against the dark sky.  However, I am satisfied that this is not unexpected in the context of the review site being within a Major Activity Centre where a robust urban character is anticipated.
46	I am satisfied that the siting of the sign atop the highest of the six towers within the Growland development will avoid unacceptable amenity impacts on the surrounding residential apartments within the development and surrounding sites.  I am persuaded by the applicant that there will be limited views to the sign from the surrounding apartments.  To the extent that the sign may be visible from apartments and dwellings beyond the building’s immediate interfaces, I am satisfied that the intervening distance will reduce and minimise the visual impact on the amenity of those dwellings.
47	As to the potential impact of the intensity of the internal illumination of the sign, the permit application does not include details of the level of the illumination.  However, I am satisfied that these details can be addressed through permit conditions.
48	I understand the Council’s arguments that other existing internally illuminated business identification signs within the Activity Centre are typically signs where there is a clear synergy between the signs and the occupants of the building.  These include, for example, the State Trustees building and the Victoria University.  However, there is nothing in the policies and provisions of the Scheme, and in particular the provisions of the ACZ1 schedule, that limit internally illuminate sky signs to the primary building tenant.  I am not persuaded that this is a sufficient basis to refuse to grant a permit for the proposal in the circumstances that it otherwise provides an acceptable outcome when assessed against the relevant policies, provisions and decision guidelines of the Scheme (as outlined above).
Conclusion
49	For the reasons given above, the decision of the responsible authority is set aside.  A permit is granted, subject to conditions.
50	The conditions contained in this Order reflect those proposed by the Council, the submissions of the parties, and the further consideration of the Tribunal.

Sarah McDonald
Member			

Appendix A – Permit Conditions

Permit Application No	TP648/2020(1)	
Land	4 Hallenstein Street,
FOOTSCRAY  VIC  3011	

What the permit allowS	
In accordance with the endorsed plans:
•	Construction or putting up for display a sign that is:
o	a ‘Business identification sign’ where the total display area of all signs to each premises exceeds 8 square metres; 
o	an ‘Internally illuminated sign’ where the display area exceeds 1.5 square metres; and
o	a ‘Sky sign’.	

Conditions
Signage Conditions
1	The location and details of the sign, including those of the supporting structure, as shown on the endorsed plans, must not be altered without the written consent of the Responsible Authority.
2	The lighting associated with the sign must be located, designed, directed and baffled to comply with Australian Standard AS/NZS 4282:2019 (Control of the Obtrusive Effects of Outdoor Lighting) so that:
(a)	The lighting does not dazzle, distract or obstruct the view of motorists or pedestrians, obscure traffic signals or constitute a road safety hazard in any way; and
(b)	The lighting does not cause any adverse effects on adjoining land (including the roadway);
to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.
3	The lux level of the lighting associated with the sign must prevent any adverse effect on residential apartments on the site and surrounding land, to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.
4	The internal illumination of the sign must not include flashing lights or change colours.
5	The sign must be constructed and maintained to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.
6	Bunting, streamers, flags, wind-vanes or festooning must not be displayed without the written consent of the Responsible Authority.
7	The sign may only be displayed while Growland is a tenant of one of the retail/commercial tenancies within the buildings on the review site (comprising towers 3 and 4 and the associated podium below) and Growland is the business name displayed on that tenancy.  If/when Growland ceases to be a tenant of one of the retail/commercial tenancies within the buildings on the review site or Growland ceases to be the business name displayed on that tenancy, the sign approved by this permit must be removed immediately.
Expiry
8	This permit will expire if the sign is not constructed or put up for display within 2 years of the date of this permit.
In accordance with section 69 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987, an application may be submitted to the responsible authority for an extension of the periods referred to in this condition.
9	This permit expires 15 years from the date of issue. Upon the expiry of this permit, the sign and any structures built specifically to support and illuminate the sign must be removed, to the satisfaction of the responsible authority.

– End of conditions –