P L A N N I N G A N D D E V E L O P M E N T C O M M I T T E E R E P O R T

Agenda Item 5.5

5 August 2004

PROMOTIONAL SIGNS ON VICTRACK LAND

Division Sustainability & Innovation

Presenter John Noonan, Group Manager, Sustainable Regulatory Services

Purpose

1. To advise the Committee of further consideration two proposals to erect and display major promotional signs on two sites owned by VicTrack, as follows:

1.1. combined planning scheme amendment request and planning permit application to erect and display one illuminated single sided panel monopole sky sign on VicTrack land in Dudley Street, West Melbourne; and

1.2. planning permit to erect and display a promotional sign on a bridge over Spencer Street, West Melbourne.

Background

2. At the 8 July 2004 Committee meeting a report dealing with two advertising proposals by VicTrack was presented. The report is provided at Attachment 2.

3. The officer recommendation at that time was that both proposals be rejected based primarily on amenity considerations.

4. In response to the report and following a submission by the applicant, the Committee resolved:

”That the Planning and Development Committee defer this matter for one cycle to allow further discussions with VicTrack to take place and advice be received on questions of signage and graffiti removal raised this evening.”

Issues

5. In response to the comments made by Councillors at the July meeting, VicTrack has submitted a letter that outlines a number of improvement initiatives that it intends to implement.

6. The letter from VicTrack is included in Attachment 1.

2

7. Further information received from VicTrack advises that signs to be removed within the City of Melbourne include:

7.1. Richmond Station – Brunton Avenue;

7.2. Richmond Station – Punt Road/Swan Street;

7.3. Brunton Avenue;

7.4. Corner Flinders and Spencer Streets; and

7.5. Dynon Road – Moonee Ponds Creek.

8. It is understood that VicTrack will make a detailed presentation at the Committee meeting.

9. Whilst any initiatives to remove redundant signage and upgrade facilities are supported, as a general principle it is not considered that this should result in additional signage in locations that are not deemed to be appropriate for large promotional signage. It could be argued that VicTrack should as part of its own responsibilities maintain and upgrade facilities in line with acceptable community standards.

10. However, VicTrack has advised that any initiatives it undertakes are funded from revenues received from its commercial activities, including outdoor advertising. VicTrack receives no Government funding or revenue from transport activities conducted on its properties and infrastructure.

11. In making a decision on these advertising proposals, Council needs to be mindful of the precedent the decisions may set. Council has for many years taken a very careful approach to the approval of major promotional signage in the City, particularly in prominent locations, like the areas adjacent to the Yarra River. This careful approach has resulted in a City that is not dominated by promotional signage, and where the character of the City is defined by its built form and quality of public spaces. This is a key factor in setting Melbourne apart from other cities in Australia. In an environment where the Council is dealing with many requests for major promotional signage and where policies generally discourage large promotional signage, it is important that the reasons for approving a sign in a specific location are clear and that the impact of these signs is very limited.

Time Frame

12. The planning application for the Spencer Street sign has surpassed the statutory 60 day time limit. There is no timeframe for the consideration of the request for a planning scheme amendment relating to Dudley Street site.

Finance

13. There are no significant financial implications for Council of this report.

Legal

14. Division 1 of Part 4 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 sets out the requirements in relation to applications for permits pursuant to the Melbourne planning scheme.

3

Sustainability

Connected and Accessible City

15. The proposals are unlikely to have any impact on this element of City Plan.

Inclusive and Engaging City

16. The proposals would have a negative impact on this element of City Plan as the proposed signs are likely to detract from the amenity of the areas in which they are located.

Innovative and Vital Business City

17. The proposals may have a minimal impact on this element of City Plan as the existence and content of the proposed signs may encourage investment within the city.

Environmentally Responsible City

18. The proposals are likely to have minimal impact on this element of City Plan. Some native vegetation is proposed as part of the Dudley Street sign which would be likely to have a minor positive contribution to flora and fauna within the municipality.

Conclusion

19. After consideration of the VicTrack proposal summarised in Attachment 2 it is considered that, under these unusual circumstances, it would be beneficial for the City of Melbourne to have redundant signs removed and for beautification to occur in the vicinity of the locations where the signs are to be removed. Therefore, it is considered that there would be a net benefit to the City in accepting the offer of VicTrack, that being, Council approval of the two new signs in favour of removal of the seven panels listed in the locations set out in paragraph nine. If the Council was to agree to this arrangement it would need to be set out in the form of an agreement ensuring that these sites would continue to be maintained in terms of the landscaping, removal of graffiti, etc.

Recommendation

20. That the Planning and Development Committee:

20.1. endorse an agreement to be entered into with VicTrack, under Section 173 of the Planning and Environment Act, that the City of Melbourne will support the proposed new signs at Spencer Street Rail Bridge, Melbourne and Dudley Street, West Melbourne, provided that VicTrack removes seven existing panels at:

20.1.1. Richmond Station – Brunton Avenue;

20.1.2. Richmond Station – Punt Road Swan Street;

20.1.3. Brunton Avenue;

20.1.4. Corner Flinders & Spencers Streets; and

20.1.5. Dynon Road – Moonee Ponds Creek;

Attachments: 1. Letter from VicTrack 2. 8 July 2004 Planning and Development Committee Report

4

20.1.6. beautify the above locations by vegetation planting and other improvements as set out in their letter of July 15 2004 (Attachment 1) together with removal of graffiti from these locations and that these sites be maintained in that improved condition for the length of the agreement;

20.2. note that it is proposed by the Group Manager Sustainable Regulatory Services acting under delegation, to:

20.2.1. issue a permit TPE04/123 to erect and display a promotional sign on the Spencer Street Rail Bridge subject to standard conditions; and

20.2.2. commence a combined Planning Scheme Amendment and Planning Permit Application to amend Schedule to Clause 36.01 (Public Use Zone) of the Melbourne Planning Scheme to specify that the subject land is in category two for the purposes of advertising signage to allow a planning permit application to erect and display one illuminated single-sided panel monopole sky sign on railway land in Dudley Street, West Melbourne; and

20.3. note that this decision is being made by the Committee under delegation from the Council and is subject to the referral notice process.

Attachment 2 Agenda Item 5.5

Planning and Development Committee 5 August 2004

1

P L A N N I N G A N D D E V E L O P M E N T C O M M I T T E E R E P O R T C O V E R S H E E T

Agenda Item 5.4

8 July 2004

PROMOTIONAL SIGNS ON VIC TRACK LAND

Division Sustainability & Innovation

Presenter Eloise Gucciardo, Principal Officer Development Planning

Purpose

To advise the Planning and Development Committee of two proposals to erect and display major promotional signs on two sites owned by Vic Track, as follows:

• combined planning scheme amendment request and planning permit application to erect and display one illuminated single sided panel monopole sky sign on Vic Track land in Dudley Street, West Melbourne; and

• planning permit to erect and display a promotional sign on a bridge over Spencer Street, West Melbourne.

Given the precedent that the approval of these signs would set, Council officers consider it appropriate to seek Council direction on these matters.

Summary

Application Number: TPE04/123

Proposal: Erection and display of an illuminated major promotional sign on the southern side of the rail viaduct suspended over Spencer Street, located to the south of the intersection of Spencer Street and Flinders Street, Melbourne.

Applicant: Glossop Town Planning on behalf of Vic Track Access

Zoning: Road Zone Category 1

Overlay: Design and Development Overlay 1 (Areas 2 and 3)

Existing Use: Railway bridge

Number of Objections:

N/A

Key Issues: • Aesthetic impact • Community benefit • Impact on surrounding area

Attachments: 1. Location Plan – Spencer Street 2. Plans of Spencer Street sign 3. Location Plan – Dudley Street 4. Plans of Dudley Street sign 5. Grounds of Refusal – Spencer Street 6. Strategic justification – Dudley Street

2

Recommendation: Refusal

2

Combined Amendment Request and Planning Permit Application

Proposal: To amend the Schedule to Clause 36.01 (Public Use Zone) of the Melbourne Planning Scheme to specify that the subject land is Category 2 for the purposes of advertising signage (Clause 52.05),

To enable a planning permit application for one illuminated single sided panel monopole sky sign on land on the northern side of Wurundjeri Way, West Melbourne.

Applicant: Glossop Town Planning Pty Ltd on behalf of Vic Track Access

Zoning: Public Use Zone 4 (Transport)

Overlay: Nil

Existing Use: Railway land

Number of Objections:

N/A

Key Issues: • Aesthetic impact • Community benefit • Emerging role of the subject land as a city gateway

Recommendation: To reject the combined request for a planning scheme amendment and

planning permit application

Time Frame

The proposals have been through the proper processes and must now be determined.

Finance

There are no direct financial implications for Council in the recommendations of this report.

Legal

Division 1 of Part 4 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 (“the Act”) sets out the requirements in relation to applications for permits pursuant to the relevant planning scheme.

Division 5 of Part 4 of the Act set out the required process for a combined permit application and planning scheme amendment process.

Attachments: 1. Location Plan – Spencer Street 2. Copy of Plans – Spencer Street 3. Location Plan – Dudley Street 4. Copy of Plans – Dudley Street 5. Grounds of Refusal – Spencer Street 6. Strategic justification – Dudley Street

3

Sustainability

Connected and Accessible City

The proposals are unlikely to have any impact on this element of City Plan.

Inclusive and Engaging City

The proposals would have a negative impact on this element of City Plan as the proposed signs are likely to detract from the amenity of the areas in which they are located.

Innovative and Vital Business City

The proposals may have a minimal impact on this element of City Plan as the existence and content of the proposed signs may encourage investment within the city.

Environmentally Responsible City

The proposals are likely to have minimal impact on this element of City Plan. Some native vegetation is proposed as part of the Dudley Street sign which would be likely to have a minor positive contribution to flora and fauna within the municipality.

Recommendation

That the Planning and Development Committee:

• refuse planning permit application TPE04/123 to erect and display a promotional sign on the Spencer Street rail bridge, Melbourne subject to the grounds set out in Attachment 5;

• reject the combined planning scheme amendment request and planning permit application to amend the amend the Schedule to Clause 36.01 (Public Use Zone) of the Melbourne Planning Scheme to specify that the subject land is Category 2 for the purposes of advertising signage to allow a planning permit application to erect and display one illuminated single sided panel monopole sky sign on railway land in Dudley Street, West Melbourne subject to the strategic justification set out in Attachment 6; and

• note that this decision is being made by the Committee under delegation from the Council and is subject to the referral notice process.

4

P L A N N I N G A N D D E V E L O P M E N T C O M M I T T E E R E P O R T

Agenda Item 5.4

8 July 2004

PROMOTIONAL SIGNS ON VIC TRACK LAND

Division Sustainability & Innovation

Presenter Eloise Gucciardo, Principal Officer Development Planning

Purpose

1. To advise the Planning and Development Committee of two proposals to erect and display major promotional signs on two sites owned by Vic Track, as follows:

1.1. combined planning scheme amendment request and planning permit application to erect and display one illuminated single sided panel monopole sky sign on Vic Track land in Dudley Street, West Melbourne; and

1.2. planning permit to erect and display a promotional sign on a bridge over Spencer Street, West Melbourne.

2. Given the precedent that the approval of these signs would set, Council officers consider it appropriate to seek Council direction on these matters.

Background

3. Vic Track Access (‘Vic Track’) manages a large portfolio of advertising signs on behalf of the State Government of Victoria. This portfolio has been accumulated over many decades, with many of these signs located along or nearby the state’s railway corridors.

4. Vic Track has embarked upon a statewide rationalisation of its outdoor advertising portfolio. Vic Track states that the program will see a reduction in the total number of advertising signs and a reduction in the total advertising area of signs both across the state and within the metropolitan area. The program involves the replacement of some existing outdated signs with new signs.

5. In June 2001, Vic Track Access approached the City of Melbourne with a proposed Outdoor Advertising Portfolio Redevelopment which forms part of its rationalisation program. The proposal involved a rationalisation of existing signage on Vic Track land and included proposals for new signage at several sites throughout the municipality.

6. Over the following months, various discussions and correspondence between the City of Melbourne and Vic Track occurred regarding proposals for several signs within the municipality. The City of Melbourne also liaised with the Docklands Authority regarding signs affecting land within the Docklands.

5

7. In May 2002, the City of Melbourne advised Vic Track (by letter) which of the proposed signs might be supported at that time. The letter advised that a sign proposed above the retaining wall opposite Wurundjeri Way (subject of the current combined request for a planning scheme amendment and planning permit application) was not supported. The letter also advised that the proposed signage on the Spencer Street rail bridge (subject of the current planning application TPE04/123) was not supported.

8. In July 2002, Vic Track made a further submission to Council providing additional details regarding its Portfolio Redevelopment.

9. City of Melbourne advised Vic Track (by letter dated 13 September 2002) that separate planning permit applications could be lodged for those signs which are discretionary under the Melbourne Planning Scheme.

10. In January 2004 Glossop Town Planning, acting for Vic Track Access, lodged five separate applications for signage on Vic Track land throughout the municipality. Subsequent research revealed that three of these sites were located within the Docklands and therefore the Docklands Authority is the responsible authority for those applications.

11. The remaining applications for the two sites which are located within the City of Melbourne and are discussed within this report are:

11.1. planning permit application TPE04/123 to erect and display a promotional sign on the Spencer Street rail bridge, Melbourne; and

11.2. combined request for a planning scheme amendment and planning permit application for one illuminated single sided panel monopole sky sign on land on the northern side of Wurundjeri Way, West Melbourne.

12. Following discussions with various staff of the City of Melbourne, Vic Track made a further written submission (dated 6 April 2004) outlining the specific benefits of each of the proposed signs.

13. Vic Track has stated that as a result of discussions with the City, it has agreed to not pursue the development of sign panels at a number of alternative locations.

Consultation

14. Planning permit application TPE04/123 was not advertised because it was considered that only the Melbourne Convention Centre to the west of the site could have potentially been materially affected, but following an internal assessment of the application it was determined that the application be refused.

15. The second planning permit application has not been subject to advertising as it is part of a combined planning scheme amendment process. The combined planning scheme amendment and planning permit application would undergo a full community consultation process if the matter proceeds to exhibition stage.

Government Relations

16. If the proposed planning scheme amendment proceeds, further discussion will be needed with the Department of Sustainability and Environment and other government departments. The Docklands Authority will also be consulted.

6

Relation to Council Policy

State Planning Policy Framework (SPPF)

17. The objectives of the SPPF relevant to this assessment include Clause 19.03-1 of the SPPF seeks to achieve high quality urban design and architecture that:

“Reflects the particular characteristics, aspirations and cultural identity of the community.

Enhances livability, diversity, amenity and safety within the public realm.

Promotes attractiveness of towns and cities within broader strategic contexts.”

18. The general implementation section of Clause 19.03-1 considers a number of design principles including:

“The public realm, which includes main pedestrian spaces, streets, squares, parks and walkways, should be protected and enhanced.

Landmarks, views and vistas should be protected and enhanced or where appropriate, created by new additions to the built environment.”

Local Planning Policy Framework (LPPF)

19. The existing Municipal Strategic Statement (MSS) seeks to:

“Enhance the physical quality and character of Melbourne’s streets and city form through sensitive and innovative design and, in particular, improve the experience of the City for pedestrians.”

20. Furthermore, the MSS requires advertising signs to respect the character of the surrounding streetscape and to ensure they do not dominate a streetscape or building to interrupt the skyline.

Amendment C60

21. Melbourne Planning Scheme Amendment C60 reviews the MSS. This amendment has been exhibited and was the subject of a recent Panel hearing. Amendment C60 is similar in intent to the existing MSS with respect to advertising signage within the municipality.

22. The key Local Planning Policy relevant to the assessment of this proposal is the Advertising Signs Policy, with respect to these proposals, the Policy seeks:

“To allow for identification and promotion of institutions, businesses and buildings and communication of messages.

To protect the characteristics of significant buildings and streetscapes.

To protect important vistas from obtrusive and insensitive advertising.

To ensure that signs in residential areas and other high amenity areas do not detract from the appearance or character of the area.

To ensure that signs do not detract from the significance of a heritage place.

7

To encourage, where appropriate, signs that contribute to the lively and attractive character of an area.

To encourage signs that improve the quality of an area.”

8

23. The policy also considers a series of design matters, including:

“Design:

Signs should be sensitive to the building style and scale and the character of the street.

Visual clutter is discouraged and any existing signs on the building or site will be taken into account when assessing new proposal. Adequate space should remain for identification of other occupancies.

Pole signs and sky signs shall not generally be supported.

Major Roads, Boulevards and Gateways

Visual clutter should be avoided:

Important views and vistas should not be interrupted by signs (eg. View to the city, along St Kilda Road).

Signs should be limited in number and their size and height should complement the dominant built form and/or quality of the landscape.

Promotion and pole signs are generally not appropriate.”

General Advertising Provisions

24. The general advertising provisions of the Planning Scheme provide additional guidance on the assessment of sign proposals with the purpose of this section being:

“To allow adequate and effective signs appropriate to each zone.

To provide for the orderly display of signs.

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.”

25. The provisions provide decision guidelines for planning permit applications to display major promotion signs. These include:

“The effect of the sign road safety (situations in which a sign is considered a safety hazard are listed).

The effect of the proposed sign on:

significant streetscapes, buildings and skylines.

the visual appearance of a significant view corridor, viewline, gateway location or landmark site identified in a framework plan or local policy.

residential areas and heritage places.

open space and waterways.”

9

26. When determining the effect of a proposed sign, the following locational principles must be taken into account:

“Major promotion signs are encouraged in commercial and industrial location in a manner which compliments or enhances the character of the area;

Major promotion signs are discouraged along forest and tourist roads, scenic routes or landscaped sections of freeways;

Major promotion signs are discouraged where they will form a dominant visual element from residential areas, within a heritage place or where they will obstruct significant viewlines;

In areas with a strong built form character, major promotion signs are encouraged only where they are not a dominant element in the streetscape and except for transparent feature signs (such as neon signs), are discouraged from being erected on the roof of a building”

Issues

Planning Permit Application TPE04/123 to erect and display a promotional sign on the Spencer Street Rail Bridge, Melbourne

Site Description

27. The subject site is the rail viaduct suspended over Spencer Street, located to the south of the intersection of Spencer Street and Flinders Street, Melbourne.

28. The rail viaduct extends for approximately 800 metres from the south of Spencer Street Station to the west of Flinders Street Station.

29. This application is concerned with the southern side of the rail bridge.

30. The map at Attachment 1 shows the location of the subject land.

Existing Use and Development

31. The site is used as a rail bridge.

Zone and Overlay Controls

32. The section of the bridge overpass concerned with this application, is included in a Road Zone Category 1 where a planning permit is required to construct or display a sign.

33. The area surrounding the site is included in Capital City Zone 1.

Proposal

34. The applicant seeks approval to erect and display an illuminated major promotional sign in accordance with the attached plans (see Attachment 2).

35. The proposed sign would be attached to the southern side of the Spencer Street rail viaduct.

36. The sign would be predominately viewed by northbound traffic on Clarendon Street/Spencer Street.

10

37. The proposed sign would be 15 metres in length and 2 metres in width, comprising a total area of 30sqm and incorporating an additional 1 metre of cladding at each end of the sign.

38. The applicant is undertaking a statewide rationalisation of its outdoor advertising portfolio, which will result in the reduction in the total number of advertising signs and replacement of redundant signs. The applicant has stated that this rationalisation includes the removal of an advertising sign on the northern side of the rail viaduct at the intersection of Flinders Street and Spencer Street.

Referrals

Urban Design

39. Urban Design has provided the following response to the proposal:

“The proposal for this internally illuminated, major promotional sky sign is not supported. The sign is excessive in size and will dominate the host structure and have a negative visual impact on the immediate area.

The signs would not relate to a business or activity on the site itself.

The proposed sign is located along a principal access into the city. The proposed sign would detract from views of the city and the Grand Hotel building in particular. The sign will overwhelm the existing bridge and contribute further to visual clutter on this important route into the city.

The sign is not designed to enhance or improve the quality of the area. The sign will be visible from Batman Park and Northbank Promenade and may also be visible from parts of Southbank Promenade. These are all important areas of pedestrian amenity and recreation. We can see no argument that a major promotional sign would enhance the public’s enjoyment of these public spaces.

The sign does not reflect the form of the bridge and is proposed to extend above the line of the top surface of the bridge thereby interrupting it’s unadorned and horizontal nature.

We strongly oppose this application for this intrusive and insensitive advertising sign.”

VicRoads

40. VicRoads has no objection subject to a height detection device being installed to our standard, and that the image does not flash or be animated or replicate any traffic direction device. Such a requirement would be a condition of permit in any approval.

Assessment

41. The site is not in an area of special sign character nor is it included in a Heritage Overlay. It is however proposed to be erected over one of the principal access points to the city – Spencer Street, and it is therefore reasonable to consider the site is in a ‘major road, boulevard or gateway’ location. As a result the proposal would directly contradict Council policy relating to advertising signs on major roads, boulevards and gateway sites in terms of interrupting important vistas to the city.

11

42. It is considered that the proposed sign is inappropriate in terms of its size and location, and would bear no relationship to its host structure or the surrounding built form. By virtue of its size, illumination and prominent and inappropriate positioning it is considered that the sign would adversely detract from the city scape and the amenity of the area in general. Indeed, the general advertising provisions in the Scheme Planning state:

“major promotion signs are discouraged where they will form a dominant visual element from residential areas, within a heritage place or where they will obstruct significant viewlines”.

43. In the submission accompanying the planning application, the applicant advocates that the proposed sign is appropriate given that it is:

“a creative response to the appearance of the rail bridge and appropriately designed in order to enhance its appearance”.

44. The applicant also states that the sign will provide a:

“visual enhancement of a relatively lacklustre and dominant engineering structure in a generally mundane part of an urban precinct on the fringe of an active commercial and entertainment district”.

45. Whilst there is at least another example of a major promotional sign attached to a building clearly visible when entering the city from this vantage point, it is considered that the size and location of the sign would overwhelm its host structure (as viewed by northbound traffic on Clarendon Street / Spencer Street); be visually dominant; and subsequently compromise the integrity and character of the important vista and gateway location.

46. Council’s Urban Design Unit strongly objected to the proposal stating that:

“the sign is excessive in size and will dominate the host structure and have a negative visual impact on the immediate area”.

47. As noted previously, the statewide rationalisation of the applicant’s outdoor advertising portfolio includes the removal of an advertising sign on the northern side of the rail viaduct at the intersection of Flinders Street and Spencer Street. However, it is not considered that the removal of this sign addresses the highlighted issues regarding the proposed sign or justifies the erection of another sign in the subject location.

48. Notwithstanding the appearance of the bridge structure, the sign is in a highly pedestrianised area which has an interface with the Yarra River environs and is considered to be an area of high amenity within the City. It is not considered that the proposed sign will positively contribute to the quality, character and attractiveness of the immediate area. It is also not considered that the bridge is such an unattractive structure in the environs to warrant the attachment of a large sign to significantly improve its appearance.

49. It is considered that the applicant has failed to adequately demonstrate how the sign would complement, enhance or improve the site and surrounding locality. The proposal is considered to be a poor response to the site and surrounds and Council’s support of the proposal would be contrary to the objectives of the Melbourne Planning Scheme.

Conclusion

50. That a Notice of Refusal to Grant Planning Permit No TPE04/123 is issued for the erection and display of an illuminated major promotional sign on Spencer Street rail bridge, Melbourne on the following grounds:

12

50.1. the size, location and prominent positioning of the proposed sign would represent a significant visual intrusion and would be detrimental to the amenity of the surrounding area;

50.2. the proposed sign would detract from the appearance and character of the streetscape and locality; and

50.3. the proposed sign is contrary to the provisions of the Melbourne Planning Scheme particularly Council’s Advertising Sign Policy (Clause 22.07).

Combined Request for a Planning Scheme Amendment and Planning Permit for one illuminated single sided panel monopole sky sign on land on the northern side of Wurundjeri Way, West Melbourne

51. The combined amendment request and application for planning permit has been made at the request of Glossop Town Planning, on behalf of Vic Track Access.

Site Description

52. The combined amendment request and planning permit application applies to railway land on the northern side of Wurundjeri Way, West Melbourne between the Dudley Street Railway Bridge and Docklands Highway, directly opposite the intersection of Dudley Street and Wurundjeri Way.

53. The map at Attachment 3 shows the location of the subject land.

Existing Use and Development

54. The subject site is currently occupied by rail yards.

Zone and Overlay Controls

55. The site is currently located in the Public Use Zone 4 (Transport) of the Melbourne Planning Scheme. The purpose of this Zone is:

“To recognise public land use for public utility and community services and facilities; and

To provide for associated uses that are consistent with the intent of the public land reservation or purpose.”

56. The Public Use Zone is described as a Category 4 Sensitive Areas for advertising signage.

57. The sky sign proposed is prohibited within this Zone and in particular, is prohibited within Category 4 Sensitive Areas.

58. Pursuant to the Public Use Zone, a schedule to the Zone can vary the signage category that applies to some or all land in the Zone. This would allow a planning permit to be granted for an illuminated sky sign on the subject land. The planning scheme amendment requests such an amendment to the Schedule to the Public Use Zone.

59. No overlays apply to the land.

60. The majority of land within the vicinity of the site of the proposed sign is used for railway purposes.

Proposal

61. The planning scheme amendment seeks to amend the Public Use Zone of the Melbourne Planning Scheme to specify that the subject land is Category 2 for the purposes of advertising signage.

13

62. The amendment would allow consideration of a planning permit application for the proposed sign, which is prohibited under current controls.

63. The planning application seeks permission to display advertising signage on the land in accordance with the attached plans (see Attachment 4), as follows:

63.1. one single sided monopole sky sign, comprising one illuminated advertising panel. The panel will be visible to west and eastbound motorists travelling along Dudley Street and to northwest bound motorists travelling along Wurundjeri Way;

63.2. an overall height above ground level of 9.05 metres;

63.3. an overall height of 12.3 metres from the footpath;

63.4. an overall height of 7 metres from the top of the retaining wall;

63.5. the advertising panel will have a length of 12.66 metres and a height of 4.50 metres (including 700mm of cladding). The panel will have a total of approximately 56.97 square metres of advertising signage;

63.6. the centre line of the monopole will be setback approximately 11.5 metres back from the front edge of the retaining wall to the centreline of the pole;

63.7. the casing will be clad in white coloured metal to match the skyline;

63.8. the lighting output will be approximately 400 Lux across the face; and

63.9. associated landscaping around the sign is proposed.

Referrals

Urban Design

64. Urban Design provided the following response on 4 March 2004:

1. “We are generally not supportive of promotional signage unless a public benefit can be demonstrated and the City’s strategic objectives are supported. No such benefit has been demonstrated in this instance. The sign would not relate to a business or activity on the site itself. Its content would be out of Council’s control.

2. The proposed site is on the edge of the Docklands, where a great deal of effort is going into transforming an industrial area into an attractive mixed use precinct. The proposed signage would have a regressive affect on these endeavours. The sign would have a significant negative visual impact on views in the vicinity, adversely affecting pedestrians, motorists and train passengers as well as the occupants of the evolving Digital Harbour precinct. The site is a gateway between Docklands and West Melbourne, where the very highest design standards should apply. It warrants something comparable to the Tullamarine Freeway/ Citylink gateway rather than a billboard.

In summary, this application is strongly opposed”

14

VicRoads

65. VicRoads has no objection to the proposed planning scheme amendment and also to the granting of a permit for the proposed erection of an illuminated single sided panel monopole sky sign to the subject site, generally in accordance with the plans submitted with the application, subject to the following being included as a permit condition should Council decide to grant the permit:

65.1. the signs and displays shall not contain any flashing or animation; and

65.2. all light spillage to be contained within the site.

66. These requirements would be permit conditions assuming a permit is issued.

Assessment

67. The subject land is part of the rail freight complex and lies within an area that is undergoing a transformation from an underutilised lot into an important gateway to the city and the emerging Docklands precinct.

68. Dynon Road and Footscray Roads are recognised in the MSS as the major roads providing access from the city to the western suburbs. The subject site and surrounds provide an important gateway from Melbourne’s West to the city and the Docklands precinct.

69. As such, this area requires careful urban design treatment to ensure it reflects its emerging role as a city gateway. It is imperative that any proposals approved now do not compromise the achievement of aspirations for this landmark location into the future.

70. The applicant has stated that the benefits of the sign are as follows:

70.1. The establishment of vegetation and landscape works in the vicinity of the erected sign. This will enhance the present vista and form part of the overall visual screening to be delivered with installation of the sign.

70.2. Introduce a vibrant element into a somewhat lacklustre urban precinct in both day and night.

71. Vic Track has also advised that following discussions with Vic Urban (Docklands), the Authority required Vic Track to refer the sign proposal to the architects responsible for the painted wall along Dudley Street. According to Vic Track the architects have endorsed the sign proposed as set out in the photomontages.

72. It is considered that the proposed amendment and associated planning permit application do not adequately meet the objectives of the Municipal Strategic Statement. The proposal would be a dominant element in the streetscape and would not adequately respect the physical quality and character of the city form emerging around this important gateway. Although the proposal includes landscaping, it is considered that the proposed billboard would not present a sufficiently attractive frontage to Dynon Road and Footscray Roads which are recognised as the main routes from the City to the western suburbs.

15

73. It is considered that the proposal does not adequately address the objectives of other relevant Local Policies. The proposal is inconsistent with the Urban Design Policy as it does not adequately respond to the character of the site and surrounds and does not provide a sufficiently high quality urban design response to this sensitive emerging gateway site. The proposal is also deemed to be inconsistent with the Advertising Signs Policy as it does not adequately protect or enhance the current characteristics of this significant site. Given the site’s characteristics and context, it is considered that the large free standing pole sign will unduly dominate the streetscape and will not complement the existing conditions, including the feature wall along Dudley Street undertaken as part of the Docklands urban improvements.

74. It is considered that the proposed sign is inappropriate in terms of its size and prominent location, and will bear no relationship to any existing structures or the surrounding area and will adversely detract from the streetscape and the amenity of the area in general. Whilst the amenity and overall attractiveness of the immediate area is currently varied, this has been gradually changing with the development of Docklands and the associated streetscape and public improvements. In this context it is not considered that the sign proposal will assist in enhancing the amenity and physical qualities of the area.

75. Whilst the proposal does include landscaping which is likely to add to the visual amenity of the area, it is considered that the overall impact of this large, illuminated sign on the emerging character of this landmark location would on balance be negative.

76. It is considered that the applicant has failed to adequately demonstrate how the sign would complement, enhance or improve the site and surrounding locality. The proposal is considered to be a poor response to the site and surrounds and Council’s support of the proposal would be contrary to the objectives of the Melbourne Planning Scheme.

Conclusion

77. That the combined request for a planning scheme amendment to amend the Schedule to Public Use Zone of the Melbourne Planning Scheme to specify that the subject land is Category 2 for the purposes of advertising signage, to enable consideration of a planning permit application for one illuminated single sided panel monopole sky sign on land on the northern side of Wurundjeri Way, West Melbourne not be supported.

Recommendation

78. That the Planning and Development Committee:

78.1. refuse planning permit application TPE04/123 to erect and display a promotional sign on the Spencer Street rail bridge, Melbourne subject to the grounds set out in Attachment 5;

78.2. reject the combined planning scheme amendment request and planning permit application to amend the amend the Schedule to Clause 36.01 (Public Use Zone) of the Melbourne Planning Scheme to specify that the subject land is Category 2 for the purposes of advertising signage to allow a planning permit application to erect and display one illuminated single sided panel monopole sky sign on railway land in Dudley Street, West Melbourne subject to the strategic justification set out in Attachment 6; and

78.3. note that this decision is being made by the Committee under delegation from the Council and is subject to the referral notice process.

Agenda Item 5.5 Planning and Development Committee

5 August 2004

FINANCE ATTACHMENT

PROMOTIONAL SIGNS ON VICTRACK LAND

There are no significant financial implications for Council of this report.

Kerrie Jordan Acting Manager Finance Services

Agenda Item 5.5 Planning and Development Committee

5 August 2004

LEGAL ATTACHMENT

PROMOTIONAL SIGNS ON VICTRACK LAND

Combined Planning Scheme Amendment and Planning Permit Application Process

In relation to the Dudley Street West Melbourne sign, Division 5 of Part 4 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 ("the Act") sets out the procedure to be followed in relation to a combined planning scheme amendment and permit process.

Section 96D provides that the combined amendment and planning permit process may be referred to an independent panel in accordance with section 24 of the Act. This section provides that the panel must consider all submissions referred to it and give a reasonable opportunity to be heard to any person who has made a submission referred to it and amongst others any planning authority, responsible authority or municipal council concerned.

The Act provides that the panel must report its findings to the planning authority and in its report may make any recommendation it thinks fit including conditions to which the permit should be subject.

Section 96F of the Act provides that the planning authority must consider the panel's report before deciding whether or not to grant the permit.

A planning authority may only make a determination in relation to the permit if it has adopted the amendment or the part of the amendment to which the permit applies.

The decision referred to in the report headed “Recommendation” may be made under delegation from the Council.

S. 173 Agreement with VicTrack

Legal advice will be provided in relation to the agreement with VicTrack if required. Under s. 174 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 an agreement under s. 173 Agreement may provide for:

‘(a) the prohibition, restriction or regulation of the use or development of the land;’.

Appropriate delegations are in place from Council to Council’s Planning Officers to enter into s. 173 Agreements when appropriate.

Alison Lyon Manager Legal & Governance