The Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal (VCAT) has knocked back Maple Media Pty Ltd’s plan to install a large rooftop electronic billboard along Burwood Highway in Ferntree Gully, the Tribunal found the sign to be visually dominant and out of character with the area.
The decision was made on Friday, 5 December, where VCAT member, Cassandra Rea stated no planning permit will be issued for Maple Media Pty Ltd’s application to place a major promotion sky sign at 5/718 Burwood Highway, after it was initially refused by the Knox City Council.
The proposed sign was to sit on the roof of a one-to-two storey commercial building on the south-west corner of Burwood Highway and Hayward Road.
Plans detailed an LED display measuring 3.36 metres high and 12.64 metres wide, with a total advertising area of 42.47 square metres and a maximum height of 10.79 metres above the footpath.
The sign would have featured a static display with automatic brightness adjustment and a minimum dwell time of 30 seconds.
The applicant (Maple Media Pty Ltd) argued the sign was a contemporary, well-integrated form of electronic signage suited to the Commercial Two Zone and said it would complement the Burwood Highway East Corridor.
It stated that a high-quality, well-managed electronic sign could coexist with the bush boulevard landscape character without detriment to amenity, safety or visual cohesion.
But Knox City Council stated that the sign failed to meet key objectives of the Knox Planning Scheme, particularly those that addresses the built environment, landscape character, urban design and signage.
The council said the sign’s size and scale were disproportionate to the low-rise building, would dominate the streetscape, create visual clutter and detract from views and the surrounding landscape.
After inspecting the site, VCAT member Rea found that signs in the commercial areas of Burwood Highway were generally “interspersed, setback and not dominant elements.”
She stated there were no other examples of major promotion signs, electronic signs or sky signs mounted on rooftops in the area.
Ms Rea said the applicant’s claim that the sign integrated with the roofline was not persuasive.
She found the proposal would form a new and dominant element in the streetscape and was not compatible with the scale of the building or the surrounding environment.
Ms Rea said while the site sits within a significant business location, policy support for major promotion signs depends not only on zoning but also on their form and the way they respond to character, streetscape and the public realm.
Relevant local policies direct that major promotion signs be attached to walls rather than installed as sky signs, and discourage signs that visually dominate or obstruct views in bush boulevard areas.
However, both parties agreed the sign would not obstruct key view corridors to the Dandenong Ranges, Ms Rea found the height, proportions and rooftop placement of the structure would still result in an inappropriate visual intrusion.
She was not satisfied the proposal would avoid cumulative signage impacts, and stated business identification signs would continue to operate at the site.
While potential light spill and residential amenity impacts were raised, Ms Rea said the proposal already failed on character and streetscape grounds and further analysis on light impacts was unnecessary.
“I conclude that despite the sign being located within a commercial zone, this siting, height and proportions of this sign is not acceptable in this particular setting taking into account the existing character and urban design, and landscape outcomes sought by local policies,” Ms Rea said.
For these reasons, the Tribunal upheld council’s refusal and confirmed that no permit be granted.
