Advertising Signs Provisions Advisory Committee Final Report

ADVISORY COMMITTEE REVIEWING

ADVERTISING SIGN PROVISIONS

IN PLANNING SCHEMES

Final Report

December 2007

Review of VPP Advertising Sign Provisions Final Report, December 2007

ADVISORY COMMITTEE REVIEWING

ADVERTISING SIGN PROVISIONS

IN PLANNING SCHEMES

MARK MARSDEN (CHAIR)

MARGARET BAIRD

GEORGIE BIRCH

DECEMBER 2007


CONTENTS Executive Summary i - iv

1. Introduction 1

2. The Process So Far 2

3. Addressing Issues About VPP Sign Provisions 3

3.1 Operational Issues with the VPP 3

3.1.1 Simplifying Sign Definitions 3

3.1.2 Allowing More As-Of-Right Signs 11

3.1.3 Operation and Sign Categories in Clause 52.05 14

3.1.4 Permit Application Requirements 21

3.1.5 Third Party Exemptions 26

3.1.6 Clause 52.05 Decision Guidelines 28

3.1.7 Time Limits 31

3.1.8 Temporary Signs 36

3.2 Responding to Current Issues and Trends 47

3.2.1 Road Safety and New Sign Forms 47

3.2.2 Urban Design of Signs and Structures 55

3.2.3 Promotional Signs on Public Infrastructure 60

3.2.4 Logo Boxes 67

3.2.5 Corporate Branding 69

4. A Streamlined Approach 71

4.1 Overview of Recommendations 71

4.2 A New State Policy in the VPP 72

4.3 A New Clause 52.05 in the VPP 73

4.4 A New Clause 73 in the VPP 82

4.5 New State-Wide Advertising Sign Design Guidelines 82

4.6 A New VPP Practice Note 83

4.7 Other Recommendations 84


APPENDICES

1. Persons and Organisations Forwarded the Issues and Options Paper

2. Persons and Organisations Responding to the Issues and Options Paper

3. Persons and Organisations Participating in the November 2007 Workshops

4. Current Clauses 52.05 and 73 of the VPP (as amended by VC45)

GLOSSARY

DPCD Department of Planning and Community Development

DSE Department of Sustainability and Environment

Lux The metric unit of measure for illuminance of a surface. One lux is equal to one lumen per square metre.

MAV Municipal Association of Victoria

OMA Outdoor Media Association

PEAct Planning and Environment Act 1987

SEITA Southern and Eastern Integrated Transport Authority

VCAT Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal

VPP Victoria Planning Provisions

Review of VPP Advertising Sign Provisions Executive Summary Final Report, December 2007 Page i

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Signage has an important role in informing and directing the community as well as promoting products, goods and services. When designed and sited well, signage can add vitality and make a positive and dynamic contribution to its setting. When designed or located poorly, or when left unkempt, signage can detract from our experience of the built and natural environment.

Signage provisions in the Victoria Planning Provisions (VPP) evolved from pre-VPP planning schemes. Their review is required for a range of reasons, including the imperative to streamline the planning system as recommended by Cutting Red Tape in Planning and to improve urban design outcomes. The context of the review needs to be understood against an increase in the number of sign applications and the emerging new technologies for advertising displays such as scrolling, animation and electronic images and messages.

In April 2007, the Minister for Planning appointed an Advisory Committee to review the signage provisions in the VPP. The Advisory Committee comprises Mark Marsden (Chair), Georgie Birch and Margaret Baird, assisted by Cluny Ferguson, Senior Planner, Department of Planning and Community Development.

The aims of the review include improving and simplifying the signage provisions (including definitions), reducing the number of advertising signs requiring a permit, and addressing the effect of signage on road safety. While the Advisory Committee’s task has been to develop a new Clause 52.05 of the VPP, the Committee has also considered related parts of the VPP to achieve an improved and updated VPP such as advertising sign definitions at Clause 73.

The Committee has seen its role as facilitating an improved and consistent approach to the management of outdoor advertising and signage for the benefit of those seeking to erect and display signs and for the wider community in terms of amenity and urban design outcomes. It has made clear that its role is not to debate the functions and benefits of signs or to attempt to regulate the content of advertising signs. Rather, the Committee has been required to examine ways to update and improve signage controls through the VPP, while balancing the various interests and ensuring good outcomes are achieved for the urban environment in a fair, reasonable and timely manner.

The review has been a two staged process. During the first stage, the Committee conducted workshops with advertising industry representatives, government agencies, local government planners, planning consultants and urban designers to identify relevant issues and potential options. From this process the Committee produced an Issues and Options Paper (September 2007) which identified key issues and trends and which also identified operational issues with the VPP.

Review of VPP Advertising Sign Provisions Executive Summary Final Report, December 2007 Page ii

The Issues and Options Paper proposed:

• A new framework for advertising signs in the VPP including a new clause specifically relating to advertising signs in the State Planning Policy Framework (SPPF).

• A new updated Clause 52.05 to address the operational matters relating to application requirements, decision guidelines, permits exemptions, and exemptions from notice and review and time limits.

• The replacement of the 18 existing definitions with three definitions (relating to the purpose of signs) and a description of the types of signs (relating to the format of signs, including the new emerging technologies).

• Recommendations that state-wide design guidelines be introduced into the VPP as an incorporated document, with the dual benefit of assisting responsible authorities without a policy or guideline on signs and reducing the amount of duplication relating to general urban design principles that are apparent in most of the existing local policies on signs.

The second stage of the review involved submissions to the Issues and Options Paper and the holding of two workshops with submitters and their representatives. A total of 39 submissions were received from councils and the Municipal Association of Victoria (MAV), VicRoads, VicTrack, Department of Infrastructure, Property Council and the Law Institute and the Outdoor Media Association (OMA). Submitters requesting to be involved in further consultation workshops were invited to meet with the Committee. These provided an opportunity for the Committee to further test its options and possible recommendations.

There was strong support by submitters for the proposed framework for advertising signs as outlined in the Issues and Options Paper, however many submissions identified issues that required further refinement and review of the draft provisions.

This final report discusses the submissions and options considered by the Committee. It does not recite material that is included in the Issues and Options Paper, although it does reference some of that information and discussion.

The final report is divided into three sections: Operational Issues with the VPP; Responding to Current Issues and Trends, and Recommendations for a Streamlined Approach.

The Committee’s key recommendations include the following changes to the VPP:

• Introducing a new framework for signs including a new clause into the State Planning Policy Framework;

• a revised Clause 52.05;

Review of VPP Advertising Sign Provisions Executive Summary Final Report, December 2007 Page iii

• Reducing the number of sign definitions to three to cover the three main purposes of signs; namely, for identification, information and promotion to replace the existing Clause 73 definitions.

• Introducing new descriptions of the different sign types and criteria (formats), that include signs containing emerging scrolling, animation and electronic technologies, also in a new Clause 73.

• Introducing permit application requirements in Clause 52.05.

• Retaining the category approach in Clause 52.05, but introducing the capacity for all zones to include a schedule to vary the advertising sign requirements (the capacity is currently limited to nine zones). Planning authorities could use the schedule to create permit exemptions or remove existing prohibitions of sign types or formats.

• Amending Clause 52.05 to widen the provision to enable planning authorities to identify any purpose of sign or format of sign to be exempt from the notice and appeal rights of the Planning and Environment Act 1987.

• Removing time limits for identification signs, but retaining a default time limit of 15 years for promotion signs with scope to vary the time limits to a minimum of 10 years and a maximum of 25 years against a set of decision guidelines.

• Amending the temporary signs provisions to include wrapping or shrouding of construction sites, the temporary display of balloons and inflatable devices and to provide more certainty for “real estate” signs.

• Retaining the VicRoads “10 point road safety checklist” in Clause 52.05, and VicRoads being made a referral authority for all animated, electronic or scrolling signs within 60 metres of a declared road or freeway under Clause 66.

While one of the main objectives of this review has been to identify potential streamlining opportunities, the Committee received few submissions that specifically suggested the type of signs and the nature of areas where signs could be exempt from a permit and exempt from notification and appeal rights. The aim is, however, one the Committee is keen to facilitate. Its recommendations provide scope to vary the advertising sign requirements by a schedule to all zones and to exempt specified signs from third party involvement by a schedule to Clause 52.05. That will provide planning authorities with an opportunity for streamlining advertising sign applications. The Committee notes that the use of schedules to zones and overlays is in accordance with the VPP framework where these mechanisms are used to develop controls to respond to local circumstances.

The proposed draft Clause 52.05 includes new category tables based on the new sign definitions and sign types (or formats).

Review of VPP Advertising Sign Provisions Executive Summary Final Report, December 2007 Page iv

The Committee’s approach has been to develop a policy neutral translation of the existing requirements, however it is acknowledged that as a result of the new definitions and formats that a completely policy neutral translation has not been fully achieved. For example, the requirement in the proposed table that an identification and promotion sign must be flush mounted on a building or awning is not a specific requirement under the existing table.

With respect to advertising on public infrastructure such as bus and tram shelters, the Committee considers that given the public benefit that can be achieved by the provision of new and maintained shelters, a streamlined approach be considered by the implementation of the following two recommendations:

• Permit exemptions be included in Clause 62.02-1 of the VPP so that councils could prepare a local law (based on a “model” local law) that requires no permit for promotion signs on public infrastructure; and

• Third party exemptions from notice and appeal rights for advertising signs on public transport infrastructure be introduced in the Business 1, 2, 3 and 4 zones and the Industrial 1 and 2 zones.

The Committee recommends the new VPP provisions being supported by:

• State-wide design guidelines for signs be prepared by DPCD (assisted by a steering committee or reference group) be included in the VPP as an incorporated document reflecting standard design themes and aims for signs.

• A practice note to assist responsible authorities administer advertising sign policies and controls with the aim of improving consistency in approach. It could also assist the preparation of location-specific policies by planning authorities.

The Committee proposes a number of other recommendations including:

• VicRoads establishing a working group to prepare guidelines in the application of the checklist and that VicRoads initiate the recommendation of the Parliamentary Road Safety Inquiry into Driver Distraction to develop a more consistent approach to the installation of the various formats of electronic advertising signs.

The Advisory Committee recommends the Minister for Planning adopt the recommendations contained in this report.

Finally, the Advisory Committee wishes to extend its thanks and appreciation to the submitters and workshop participants for their participation in the process. Many good ideas came out of the consultative process resulting in significant improvements to the draft proposal contained in the Issues and Options Paper.

Review of VPP Advertising Sign Provisions Page 1 Final Report, December 2007

1. INTRODUCTION

In April 2007, the Minister for Planning appointed an Advisory Committee to review the signage provisions in the Victoria Planning Provisions (VPP). The Advisory Committee comprises Mark Marsden (Chair), Georgie Birch and Margaret Baird, assisted by Cluny Ferguson, Senior Planner, Department of Planning and Community Development (DPCD).

The review aims to improve and simplify the signage provisions, including definitions, to reduce the number of advertising signs requiring a permit, and to address the effect of signage on road safety.1 While the Advisory Committee’s task is to develop a proposed new Clause 52.05 of the VPP, the Committee has also considered other aspects of the VPP to achieve the required outputs notably an improved and updated VPP, such as definitions at Clause 73.

The Committee has seen its role as facilitating an improved and consistent approach to the management of outdoor advertising and signage for the benefit of those seeking to erect and display signs and for the wider community in terms of amenity and urban design outcomes. It has made clear that its role is not to debate the functions and benefits of signs or to attempt to regulate the content of advertising signs. Rather, the Committee is required to examine ways to update and improve signage controls through the VPP, while balancing the various interests and ensuring good outcomes are achieved for the built and natural environment in a fair, reasonable and timely manner.

1 The terms of reference were set out in Appendix 1 of the Issues and Options Paper, September 2007, released by

the Advisory Committee.


2. THE PROCESS SO FAR

The terms of reference require the Advisory Committee to undertake its review in three stages – preparation of an Issues and Options Paper, a call for submissions including workshops or hearings as appropriate to explore the submissions, and the preparation of a final report. The Committee is required to test its proposed new Clause 52.05 to ensure it is able to be implemented and meets stakeholder expectations.

The Issues and Options Paper explained signage controls in the VPP, referred to local policies, and noted forms and trends in advertising signage. It identified a range of issues for discussion and comment.

Section 3 of the Issues and Options Paper explained the Committee’s process to 6 September 2007 when the Paper was released. The Paper was prepared by the Committee to facilitate discussion about issues that require attention and ways to address perceived problems. The Advisory Committee invited written submissions in response to this paper by 19 October 2007. Responses were invited on the issues identified, additional issues that may not have been canvassed in the Paper, the suggestions made by the Committee to address issues, and the possible framework that was included in the Paper. Submitters were invited to state if they wished to meet with the Committee to elaborate upon the submission. In addition to the Issues and Options Paper being sent to a wide range of persons and organisations listed in Appendix 1, the Paper was made available on the DPCD’s web-site. A ZAP on-line survey was also made available to facilitate responses.

By December 2007, 38 written submissions were received from local government authorities, transport agencies, the OMA, MAV, VicRoads, Department of Infrastructure, Property Council and Law Institute. A list of submitters is included in Appendix 2.

Subsequently, the Committee conducted two workshops on 16 November 2007. The participants are listed in Appendix 3. The workshops provided the opportunity for the Committee to further test its options and possible recommendations including a new Clause 52.05 and revised sign definitions.

This final report discusses the submissions and options considered by the Committee. It does not recite material that is included in the Issues and Options Paper, although it does reference some of that information and discussion.


3. ADDRESSING ISSUES ABOUT VPP SIGN PROVISIONS

This section reviews the matters identified by the Committee as concerns held by some or all involved in seeking permits for signs or making decisions about permit applications for signs. Consistent with the approach used in the Issues and Options Paper, one group of issues refers to practical and procedural issues arising in the operation of the VPP. Another group of issues refers to the trends identified above from the perspective that the VPP might need to be varied to address new technology and forms of signage. The issues are not set out in a priority order. The final section of this report brings the Committee’s recommendations together into proposed revisions to the VPP and other actions recommended by the Committee.

3.1 OPERATIONAL ISSUES WITH THE VPP

3.1.1 Simplifying Sign Definitions

OVERVIEW OF ISSUES AND SUBMISSIONS

Two of the main issues associated with the VPP in relation to advertising signs are the multiple sign definitions and the lack of flexibility within those definitions to deal with new and emerging technology. Amendment VC45 has sought to address “electronic billboard signs” but submissions received in response to the Issues and Options Paper confirm views expressed in the Committee’s first consultative phase that the existing definitions needlessly complicate many permit applications, for both applicants and responsible authorities. A typical concern is categorising a proposal in terms of the Clause 73 definitions to ascertain the applicable Clause 52.05 provisions.

The Committee sought to address this matter by discussing a fresh approach to definitions firstly, in terms of sign purpose or function and secondly, the format of sign displays and structures.

The Committee invited comments on its suggestion that all sign definitions be deleted and replaced with four new definitions as follows:


- 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. It does not include any advertising relating to a person or business that does not carry out a business at the premises or place.

- Promotion sign. A sign that advertises 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.

- Direction sign. A sign that directs vehicles or pedestrians. It does not include a sign that contains commercial information.

- Community information sign. A sign that advertises or provides information about community events, activities, or emergency information whether or not the event or activity is on the land on which the sign is sited. It includes information about services in towns accessed from freeways. It does not include a sign that contains commercial information.

The Committee’s suggested definitions were supplemented by criteria that could define the sign format, linked to revised tables citing the level of control to apply to each Zone in Clause 52.05. The criteria included in the Issues and Options Paper were based on current definitions and were grouped as follows:

(a) No. of signs per premises a. one b. more than one

(b) Attachment a. flush mounted on building b. extended from building c. free standing

(c) Lighting a. illuminated b. floodlit c. non-illuminated

(d) Animation/Scrolling a. yes b. no

(e) Electronic Display/Screen a. yes b. no

(f) Total display size (g) Clearance over pavement

a. ≤ 3.7 metres above ground b. ≥3.7 metres above ground


The Committee also sought feedback on any limit on display areas for community information and direction signs.

Many submitters concurred with the Committee’s approach to remove and simplify sign definitions, this being in line with the goal of cutting red tape. Several submissions noted and supported the focus of the proposal separating a sign’s function and its physical features. The potential to reduce the number of sign definitions to two (being identification and information) was canvassed through the November workshops.

Some specific issues identified with the Committee’s suggested four sign definitions included:

• Definitions should make clear the primary function of the sign. (Cardinia Shire Council).

• Non-commercial uses, such as churches, sporting and government bodies, may not fit within the business identification sign definition (Law Institute) while other signs may also not fit (eg. parks interpretative signs and community information signs with real estate agents information).

• OMA proposed additional definitions of “non-static electronic message displays” and “static message displays”.

• OMA also proposed a definition for street furniture to cover telephone booths, bus shelters and tram shelters, and definitions for construction building wraps and hoardings as well as temporary and major promotional signage.

• There is a need to define logo signs and sub-advertising (Nillumbik Shire Council and MAV).

• There is a need to deal with mobile signs, bunting, flags, and inflatable signs that are the subject of ongoing debate. (Melbourne, Moonee Valley and Kingston councils and ZAP survey respondents).

• Greater Shepparton City Council commented on the electronic sign definition and noted it can be both business and promotion.

• Community information signs could be 2 square metres as of right and directional signs 0.3 square metres (Nillumbik Shire Council) but the former needs to consider the fact that many signs are sponsored by and erected by companies such as real estate agents. Others felt that the size should relate to the land size or should be exempt where proposed by a municipal council or land manager.


• Definitions for community information and direction signs were regarded as potentially pointless by some submitters and/or there is a need for more explanation about community information signs (Greater Dandenong and Hobsons Bay).

• VicRoads was concerned that the definitions would give rise to permits being required for traffic control signs.

• How to address signs that do not fit into a definition (Hume City Council).

The use of criteria, supplemented by an explanation of the criteria, was also supported in principle by many submitters. This was not, however, consistent, with the Law Institute submitting fewer sign definitions may increase advertising sign policies in schemes to recreate a raft of definitions or sub-definitions similar to those which the Committee seeks to reduce.

In relation to the criteria, detailed comments raised in submissions included:

• There is a need to refer to sign height in the criteria (Cardinia Shire Council).

• There is no stated basis for the clearance above pavement at greater or less than 3.7 metres (Hume City Council).

• The definition of flush mounted signs that should provide for access to meet OHS requirements (including via AS1657-1992) such as walkways behind the wall mounted sign. It was suggested that the distinction be “attached to a building” and “free standing” (OMA).

• Criteria could be broadened to include above verandah, below verandah and above roof (Kingston City Council).

• There could be a maximum sign area (unnamed submitter) such as for directional signs while another submitter referred to limits needed on community information sign sizes in rural areas.

The Committee noted in the Issues and Options Paper that local policies within Schemes are sometimes linked to the existing Clause 73 definitions, raising issues about implementation of revised signage definitions through the VPP. This was a matter that a number of councils drew attention to – including timing and resources associated with a review of local policy, policy neutral translations and/or issues arising from redundant local policies. In addition, the MAV and Moreland City Council submitted replacement of sign definitions should be the subject of thorough road testing.


DISCUSSION

A positive outcome of this review would be to achieve simplified sign definitions for the benefit of all parties involved in permit applications for signs. The Committee has considered a range of options for definitions in addition to the suggested four sign types put forward in the Issues and Options Paper. These other options include:

• Limiting sign definitions to two (identification and information).

• Splitting the suggested definition of “business identification sign” into “building identification sign” and “business identification sign”.

• Retaining the suggested definition of “business identification sign” but varying it to clarify that it includes identification of the occupier of the land/activity conducted such as a church, non-commercial or not for profit organizations or bodies.

• Maintaining a definition for “promotion sign” with all other signs to be within a common definition of “place identification” (other than directional and community information signs).

• Introducing a new definition for “information sign” such as:

Information Sign - an advertisement providing information for the use of facilities or features of a site (such as an “entrance” or “parking” sign, or a menu board for a drive-thru), or an advertisement providing information about the intended future use or development of a site or facility (such as “future school site” or “stormwater upgrade project” sign).2

• Including reference to inflatable devices, flags and bunting in the definition of promotion signage.

• Creating a new definition for temporary signs and display homes/estate sales signs.

• Maintaining a definition for electronic/non-static signs or modifying the VC45 definition to delete reference to billboard.

Having reviewed these options, and considering the other recommendations in relation to Clause 52.05 being made in this report, the Committee considers there are three sign purposes that can provide the basis for a revised Clause 52.05:

2 This definition is used in SEPP64 (NSW).


• Identification. A sign that provides business identification information about a commercial or non-commercial use, business or industry carried out on the land where the sign is displayed. The information may include the name of the use, business or building, the street number of the premises, the nature of the use or business, a business logo or other business identification information. It does not include any advertising relating to a commercial or non-commercial business or a person that does not carry out a business at the premises or place.

• Promotion. A sign that advertises 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.

• Information. A sign that directs vehicles or pedestrians, advertises or provides information about community events, activities, or emergency information whether or not the event or activity is on the land on which the sign is sited. It does not include promotion advertising.

An important outcome of this review is for the VPP to be able to respond to, and provide controls addressing, new signage formats. The Committee is not disposed to separately define electronic advertising although it notes the terminology relied upon by the industry for static message displays and non-static electronic displays that can assist in the sign format criteria discussed below. Static and non-static electronic messages can be distinguished in the same manner as other features or formats of signs, such as the structure, position and height. This approach avoids the potential problem identified in section 3.2.1 about the size of electronic signs controlled through VC45.

Community information and directional signs are arguably more complicated, as is sub-advertising on community signs. The Committee sees benefit in a definition that merges its suggested direction sign and the information sign referred to above. Signs with community information are often temporary in nature while small directional signs (without corporate logos) could be as of right. Similarly, the Committee does not see a need for a new definition relating to real estate signs as these can also be dealt with under temporary or exempt sign provisions - any sign not meeting that test would be a promotion or information sign and dealt with under the advertising control categories 1-4.

The Committee’s proposed definitions are expected to reduce, but not remove, debates about signs that have promotion and/or identification functions. To address this, the Committee proposes maintaining the current provision within Clause 52.05 that “If a sign can be interpreted in more than one way, the most restrictive requirement must be met”.

The Committee does not see any need to control traffic control signs, which would usually be exempt under Clause 62 of the VPP. In addition, many signs that provide direction or community information would be exempted as they relate to the function of a road or would be temporary.


The second arm of the Committee’s approach to revising sign definitions is the list of criteria distinguishing the format of displays and structures. The Committee found a significant level of support for the criteria suggested in the Issues and Options Paper. The criteria are proposed to provide the basis for the level of control set by the four category tables in Clause 52.05 (business areas, office and industrial high amenity areas and sensitive areas).

The Committee has reviewed the criteria associated with revised definitions and submissions addressing the sign purposes. It sees merit in revising some of the criteria but does not consider height above ground level is a factor that might be determinative of whether a sign is prohibited, requires a permit, or is as of right when considered in context with other modified criteria. The revised criteria are set out in the table overleaf with a brief description of what each represents, those descriptions in part having been assisted in their formulation by reviewing the Brisbane Local Law.

It is envisaged that the explanation of the criteria would be within the state-wide design guidelines, could form part of Clause 52.05 in a glossary or could be included in a new Clause 73 with the three new definitions of sign purposes. One of the latter two options is preferred for ease of use of the VPP. The Committee recommends diagrams accompany the descriptions to assist interpretation, as is so effective in the Brisbane City Council’s 2005 Advertisements – Subordinate local law. The category of scrolling, electronic and animated signs could, in time, include criteria relating to dwell time and change time to distinguish the level of control applying to these signs in specified locations – this could be an outcome of the process described in section 3.2.1. In absence of these criteria at this time, the Committee includes non-static and electronic signs in one group.

RECOMMENDATIONS

The Committee recommends the following:

1. Delete all sign definitions in Clause 73 of the VPP and replace them with new sign definitions comprising three sign purposes: Identification, Promotion and Information as defined by the Advisory Committee.

2. Retain a provision in Clause 52.05 that if a sign can be interpreted more than one way, the most restrictive requirement must be met.

3. The sign format criteria identified by the Committee provide the basis for controlling advertising displays and structures. The criteria should be described in Clause 73 accompanied by diagrams in the Clause to assist interpretation.


Advisory Committee’s Recommended Sign Format Criteria

Sign Format Explanation

No. of signs per premises Number of signs on a building or site.

Form of sign attachment How the sign is affixed to a building regardless of the type of sign structure (eg. flat panel or on a pole) or material from which the sign is made (including fabric and painting on walls or awnings).

• flush mounted on building or awning

Sign attached flat to a wall provided that the sign panel or structure may sit out from the wall or facade by no more than 0.3 metre to allow for service access and maintenance unless a larger dimension is required for occupational health and safety reasons.3 Fascia sign on an awning or sign mounted on the awning fascia that does not project above or below the awning.

• extended from building, roof or awning

This includes signs projecting in any direction from a wall, roof or awning such as above the verandah, below the verandah, outwards from the verandah, above a roof, or out from a wall.

Free standing Sign structure mounted on, or fixed to, the ground using one or more supports.

Height The vertical distance from natural ground level to the top of a sign or sign structure (whichever is the highest) at any point.

Lighting The way in which the sign is lit.

• internally illuminated Any form of internal illumination.

• floodlit Any form of floodlighting illuminating the display area.

• non-illuminated No illumination.

Scrolling, electronic or animated

Sign that can display moving images and/or messages regardless of the time an image is still and time taken to change an image. It includes illuminated and non-illuminated displays and an illuminated sign projected onto a display surface.

Total display size The area of an advertisement or advertising structure used to display signage including borders or surrounds, but excluding safety devices, platforms and lighting structures.

Variety of sign formats and purposes, Bridge Road, Richmond

3 This is similar to the approach adopted in NSW via SEPP64.


3.1.2 Allowing More As-of-Right Signs


One initiative to streamline the planning system is to allow more as-of-right signs, that is, signs that do not require planning permission. Some as-of-right signs could also be subject to Code Assess, that is, exempt if they meet certain criteria. To test this opportunity, the Committee sought responses through the Issues and Options Paper as to whether promotion and business signs of a specified size in business and/or industrial areas could be as-of-right if they met criteria on size and location [The potential for signs on public infrastructure to be as-of-right is considered in section 3.2.3].

There were mixed views on this question. While some Council submitters (e.g. Frankston, Hobsons Bay) supported more as-of-right signs, there were a number of councils (Port Phillip, Cardinia, Hume, Greater Dandenong, Banyule, Stonnington, Boroondara) that considered the current provisions of Clause 52.05-6 provide adequate scope for as–of right signs (particularly the 8 square metres rule and the under-verandah sign provisions). A number of Council submitters also expressed concern that more as-of-right signs would compromise the built environment in terms of clutter (Moonee Valley and Melbourne), and would only support more as-of-right signs if there were appropriate conditions (Nillumbik, Maroondah, MAV and Moreland). Moreland stressed the need to develop appropriate conditions such as using the Code Assess approach before supporting more as-of-right signs. Council submitters were unanimous that as-of-right signs should not be allowed in sensitive locations such as heritage areas.

Mornington Peninsula Shire Council suggested that there should not be more state-wide as-of-right signs, but that councils should have the ability to use schedules to the VPP zones to introduce more as-of-right signs. In addition, at the November workshops a suggestion was put forward by Mornington Peninsula Shire Council that state-wide ‘modules’ could be developed which set out permit requirements (including as-of-right signs) for different sign types for different locational types.

VicRoads suggested that a ‘corridor’ approach could be adopted whereby a landscape or urban design plan is prepared which nominates the locations and types of signs that could be displayed. VicRoads indicated that it has commenced a corridor approach for the Monash and Westgate Freeway corridor (which extends for over 70 kilometres). Provided signs were in accordance with the landscape plan or urban design plan they could be exempt from a permit.


Similarly, a number of Council representatives at the November workshops stated that a structure plan applying to an activity centre could nominate specific locations for different sign types and such signs meeting the structure plan could be exempt from a permit.

Few submitters addressed the potential initiative of Code Assess. Some submitters considered that Code Assess provides little streamlining benefit because the applications have to be checked anyway.

Wyndham submitted that exemptions could apply to a standard suite of signs, for example display homes or medical centres.

DISCUSSION

Despite the Committee’s request for submitters to provide details on the type of signs that could be as-of-right or subject to Code Assess, there were no submissions with specific examples.

Despite that, the Committee considers that the VPP should provide opportunities for planning authorities to introduce permit exemptions for advertising signs in all zones or, as discussed in the next section of this report, to nominate a different category of signage control. This could be achieved by a schedule being available to all zones in the VPP - currently the ability to use a schedule is limited to nine zones (refer table below4):

Zones with a schedule to vary advertising signage controls

Zones without a schedule to vary advertising signage controls

Public Conservation and Resource Public Park and Recreation Public Use Docklands Capital City Priority Development Special Use Comprehensive Development Urban Floodway Zone

Residential 1, 2 and 3 Low Density Residential Mixed Use Township Industrial 1, 2 and 3 Business 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 Farming Rural Activity Green Wedge Green Wedge A Rural Living Rural Conservation Road

The OMA and advertising sign industry representatives expressed concern at the November workshop that using schedules to zones to introduce exemptions from a permit resulted in inconsistency across the State.

4 Amendment V6 has recently removed the Rural and Environmental Rural Zones from the VPP.


While that may be true, in the absence of specific suggestions for state-wide exemptions, a more localised approach to introducing exemptions is a viable alternative way forward. Concern was expressed that councils may not use schedules because advertising sign controls are not a high priority in strategic planning. Notwithstanding, the Committee notes that Melbourne City Council has used the schedule to the Capital City Zone to vary the advertising sign requirements and other councils (eg. Banyule) have used the PPRZ’s schedule to allow advertising signs on public reserves. In the absence of suggestions of state-wide exemptions the Committee considers it is desirable to provide a mechanism to give planning authorities an opportunity to allow exemptions.

The module approach suggested by Mornington Peninsula setting out permit requirements (including as-of-right signs) for different sign types for different location types has some merit. However, the Committee considers that developing modules that would be supported by a sufficient number of planning authorities may be a difficult exercise given the diversity in physical settings across Victoria. Planning authorities continually highlight the need for planning controls that suit local circumstances, and applying a module approach may not provide sufficient flexibility for many councils.

As well as using schedules to zones to introduce more permit exemptions, the Committee strongly supports an area-based approach to identify opportunities for the appropriate location of signs and permit exemptions such as suggested by VicRoads along transport corridors. This has the potential to foster an integrated approach to the design and landscaping of the built form and help achieve design excellence. An Incorporated Plan Overlay may be an appropriate mechanism to apply with this approach. The Westgate/Monash corridor could be a case study to explore this further.

Hume City Council suggested that any further exemptions should be implemented through ‘Signs not requiring a permit’ provisions. Temporary signs that could be exempt from a permit are identified later in this report.

RECOMMENDATIONS


4. Introduce a provision in all VPP zones that a schedule can be used to vary the advertising sign requirements of Clause 52.05 including to nominate places where no permit is required for specified sign purposes or formats.

5. DPCD and VicRoads explore further opportunities to introduce exemptions from permit for advertising signs using an area-based or corridor approach using the Monash Freeway/Westgate transport corridor as a potential case study.


3.1.3 Operation of Sign Categories in Clause 52.05

Allocating Categories to Zones

DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS

During consultation leading to the Issues and Options Paper, there was little indication that the current allocation of categories to zones is not appropriate. That view has been confirmed in responses to the Paper. The main exceptions are in relation to the Mixed Use Zone and Public Park and Recreation Zone, discussed below, and the following points:

• One industry-based submitter (ZAP survey) stated that excessive categorisation makes it hard for everyone and serves no practical purpose, particularly referencing inflatable and temporary signs.

• Another submitter who, in the ZAP survey, stated there is a lack of suitable categories for sensitive business areas such as those in environmentally prominent or heritage areas.

• Cardinia Shire Council suggested the Farming Zone be included in a different signage category whereas other councils stressed the importance of protecting high amenity areas (eg. Moira Shire Council). A ZAP submitter referred to the restrictive nature of the Farming Zone level 4 categorisation that was said to fail to allow promotional signage for business and towns.

For signage controls in heritage and environmentally sensitive areas, the Committee considers that the application of Overlays in those areas provides the means by which an application should be assessed against the heritage or environmental values that are identified for the place. The Committee does, however, propose that these situations should be addressed in state-wide design guidelines where examples can be given of desirable and undesirable sign formats and locations. State-wide advertising sign design guidelines were suggested in the Issues and Options Paper and received wide-spread support in submissions, as discussed in detail in section 3.2.2 of this final report.

There was no strong theme in submissions made to the Committee that the category system, or the categories applied, are flawed or require revision. The Committee also sees no reason to depart from the accepted approach and degree of control for most land use zones including the Farming Zone. Concerns in relation to temporary and inflatable signs are discussed in section 3.1.8 of this report.



6. Retain category-based signage controls by zone (with the ability to vary by zone schedules as proposed in Recommendation 4).

7. Introduce State-wide advertising design guidelines to address, among a range of matters, business and promotional signage in heritage and environmentally sensitive locations.

Control Categories for the Mixed Use Zone and PPRZ


In the Issues and Options Paper, the Committee explored two main questions regarding the allocation of zones to categories of control in Clause 52.05:

• whether the Mixed Use Zone should be moved from Category 3 to 2, to provide the opportunity to consider applications for major promotional signs in these areas; and

• whether the level of control should also be relaxed in the Public Park and Recreation Zone to, for example, allow promotional signs in support for sponsorship of local sporting and recreational clubs.

The Committee noted the potential to use schedules to these two zones to allow variations from a state standard to deal with local circumstances.

In relation to the issues identified by the Advisory Committee:

• There were divergent views as to whether the Mixed Use Zone should be the subject of a lesser control. Councils such as Greater Dandenong, Stonnington, Moonee Valley, Nillumbik and Melbourne noted the zone sits within the suite of residential zones and contended the appropriateness of a higher level of control for that reason. Others, such as the MAV, Banyule and Monash City councils felt the level of restriction could be reduced given the location and context of Mixed Use Zones in those municipalities. Hume City Council suggested if category 2 was adopted for the Mixed Use Zone, a schedule should allow for an alternative to be selected by a Council. OMA considered the controls over these areas should be brought into line with other states, enabling permit applications to be made and/or existing signs to be continued.


• There was some support for promotion signage within the PPRZ such as associated with public infrastructure including tram/bus shelters and telephone booths (eg. OMA) or sporting clubs but that was not consistent across all submitters (eg. opposed by Stonnington). One submitter made a distinction between signs around ovals and signs that face outside a reserve. Nillumbik and Kingston councils proposed that this type of signage be as of right in the PPRZ where the consent of the land manager has been obtained. Banyule City Council referred to its experience with category 3 and issues about additional sponsorship exemptions that might be appropriate. Another submitter referred to exemptions where signs cannot be seen from nearby land. The City of Melbourne noted that temporary signs are not permitted in the PPRZ and the potential benefits associated with internally illuminated signs.

Sponsors’ signage on the boundary fence and above the scorer box at a local sports facility


The Committee has considered the various views in relation to the Mixed Use Zone, noting that options available to address the perceived issue include:

• lessening the control to become category 2 instead of category 3;

• developing a separate (new) category of control for the Mixed Use Zone;


• maintaining category 3 and adding a schedule to the Zone to allow for local variations.

The Committee does not believe it appropriate to shift the category being applied on a state-wide basis for two related reasons. First, the nature of uses within Mixed Use Zones varies substantially across Victoria including within townships and metropolitan Melbourne. Some areas that are zoned Mixed Use have a strong residential focus while others are much more commercially-oriented. Moreover, the wider contexts vary markedly – some of these zones abut residential areas while others might be within a more industrial or commercial setting. As they are not consistent or uniform, further investigation of the physical circumstances of the many Mixed Use Zones would be warranted before a shift of this type would be supported by the Committee. Second, the Committee was provided with little information as to the context, format, and extent of existing signs that are now said to be prohibited. To contemplate a state-wide change would warrant a review of these circumstances as well because of the change in rights that would result.

These investigations are not regarded as necessary if there is the option available for schedules to be used to allow a reduced level of advertising control based on local conditions and the strategic direction being pursued for a specific Mixed Use Zone. (Refer Recommendation 4). There are few instances of the schedules being used in existing planning schemes, notable exceptions being the Capital City Zone and several municipalities that have shifted parks and reserves into category 3 under the schedule to the PPRZ. However, with the proposed introduction of a schedule to the Mixed Use Zone, local councils would have the opportunity to consider where greater latitude could be possible in relation to, for example, promotion signs. Moreover, there would be an avenue by which proponents could request amendments to a scheme to seek the inclusion of specific sites or areas within the schedule.

The Committee reaches the same conclusion in relation to the Public Park and Recreation Zone for essentially the same reasons as given above. The ability to provide for local circumstances is already available in the schedule to the PPRZ, several councils having availed themselves of this opportunity (for example, Banyule City Council has all land within this Zone as category 3).


8. Introduce a schedule to the Mixed Use Zone to provide the opportunity for amendments to be sought to allow a reduced level of advertising sign controls in planning schemes having regard to local conditions and planning circumstances (Refer also to Recommendation 4).

9. Retain the category 3 level of advertising sign control for the Public Park and Recreation Zone and the schedule to that Zone.


Some of the concern about the Mixed Use Zone may arise from rezonings that have occurred, changing the status of some signs without, it is said, the knowledge of sign companies and the signage industry. The Committee acknowledges this concern and understands how it might be possible for this interested group to possibly be overlooked in strategic studies and rezoning proposals.


10. State-wide advertising sign design guidelines include a note that owners and lessees of larger promotion signs, and potentially the Outdoor Media Association, might be notified of planning scheme amendments as relevant to the circumstances of the amendment.

Signs for Freeway Service Centres


The Committee invited submitters to comment upon whether the VPP require modification to address signage for freeway service centres given comments made during the initial consultation phase. There were few submissions on this matter. VicRoads felt that much of the signage associated with freeway service centres is directional but that other signage should be included in Section 2 – Permit required.

The Committee has considered two options in relation to this signage:

• provide a schedule to the Farming Zone (as per Recommendation 4) and seek amendments on a case by case basis; or

• amend Clause 52.30 and the Freeway Service Centres Design Guidelines, May 1997, that deal with freeway service centres to include decision guidelines relating to advertising signage and, concurrently, amend the Farming Zone (Clause 35.07-7) to require signage associated with a freeway service centre to be excluded from category 4 and to comply with the particular provision at Clause 52.30.

The Committee prefers the second option as this avoids delays associated with a planning scheme amendment in a situation where a proposed freeway service centre may only require a planning permit (and no amendment). While there were some comments made about the Farming Zone, there was no case put to the Committee to lead it to conclude that the level of control for the Farming Zone is flawed, rather, a high level of control is regarded as desirable.


Signage at entry to freeway service centre, near Seymour, Hume Freeway


11. The Minister for Planning request the Advisory Committee reviewing Freeway Service Centre Guidelines to consider:

• amending Clause 52.30 and the Freeway Service Centres Design Guidelines, May 1997, to include decision guidelines relating to advertising signage and, concurrently, amending the Farming Zone (Clause 35.07-7) to require signage associated with a freeway service centre to be excluded from category 4 and instead to comply with Clause 52.30.

• developing decision guidelines in relation to advertising signage for inclusion in Clause 52.30 and/or revised Freeway Service Centres Design Guidelines.

Additional Details for Category Tables

DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATION

The Committee sought feedback on the idea of listing the applicable zones in each category for ease of reference.


Of those submitters who commented, this idea was supported. However, Banyule City Council noted the potential for scheme users to be misled if there are variations allowed by schedules that might otherwise be overlooked.

Decision guidelines for each category of signage control were supported by some submitters, such as Cardinia Shire Council, but there was not a significant level of comment on this matter.

The Committee considers the use of the Scheme would be easier if the zones to which each category applies were listed in Clause 52.05, as supported by a number of submitters. This would work well particularly where there are no variations created by land being within schedules to zones. The point made by Banyule City Council is understood – how should variations by schedules be addressed in a list of zones to avoid discrepancies and confusion? As is already the case with a number of zones where there is a note at the end of the clause5, a note could be added to emphasise that schedules to the Zones should be checked in case there are any variations from the standard. There does not, however, appear to be a need for decision guidelines for each zone – that would simply give rise to duplication as most, if not all, of the criteria would be the same for each category.


12. Each category of advertising control include a list of zones applying to that category with a note that schedules to the zones should be checked in case there are any variations from the VPP standard.

The Committee questioned whether lighting levels should be applied to each category. This was not supported by Nillumbik Shire Council because it was felt difficult to enforce but it was supported by some other municipalities (eg. Greater Shepparton City Council). However, Nillumibik proposed lux levels be required for illuminated signs in category 3 and 4 areas.

The Committee considers this may, to a degree, be too difficult to determine on a state-wide basis given the variable ambient lighting levels. There is also little information to provide the basis for a control. Thus, the Committee does not consider the inclusion of lighting levels in the categories is appropriate at this stage – more work would need to be done to reach a position in consultation with stakeholders. Individual applications involving lighting can be assessed on their merits, within the context of the site’s setting. The proposed permit application requirements (refer next section) can ensure lighting details are supplied by proponents where appropriate.

5 For example, “Check whether an overlay also applies to the land”.


3.1.4 Permit Application Requirements


The Committee observed in the Issues and Options Paper that, unlike some other VPP provisions, there is no list of information required to accompany permit applications. The Committee suggested this could be a useful addition to clarify information expectations for permit applicants and responsible authorities. It could reduce delays associated with requests for further information as many sign applications are lodged by individual businesses that may have little experience with the planning process.

A draft list of permit application requirements was suggested by the Committee as follows, upon which feedback was invited:

An application for the erection and/or display of an advertising sign must be accompanied by the following information, as appropriate: • The location of the proposed sign on the site or building and distance from property

boundaries. • The dimensions, height above ground level and extent of projection of the proposed sign. • The height, width, depth of the total sign structure including supports. • Associated on-site works. • Details of any form of illumination. • The colour, content, lettering style and materials of the proposed sign. • Any landscaping details. • The structure of the sign and method of support. • The location and size of existing signage on the site including details of any signs to be

retained or removed. • The location and form of existing signage on abutting properties and in the locality

(photographs would be acceptable). • Identification of any viewlines or vistas that could be affected by the proposed sign. • The size of the display (total advertising area including all sides of a multi-sided sign). • The location of any corporate logo and proportion of display area occupied by such a logo. • For any sign over 18 square metres in area:

o Level of illumination and animation including lux levels; o A description of the existing character of the area including built form and

landscapes; o Any existing identifiable advertising theme in the area; o The relationship to any significant or prominent views and vistas.

Those submitters commenting on this proposal expressed support for a list of permit application requirements agreeing with the Committee that it could reduce delays associated with further information requests (Monash and Wyndham councils). It was noted that signage applications are often poorly prepared by persons unfamiliar with the planning system and this type of information would help all involved in the process.


A number of councils supported details of logo boxes being part of an application (discussed in section 3.2.4). Another ZAP survey respondent referred to the benefits of a “pro forma” guide for signage applications.

There were no negative comments arising from submissions on this topic, other than in relation to some specific items or improvements as follows:

Owner’s consent should be provided for signs on public land (Kingston City Council, and Moreland City Council in relation to road reserves).

VicRoads sought the inclusion of additional information relating to the location of nearby traffic control signs.

OMA desired a consistent set of requirements across municipalities focusing on provisions in a plan, description, photo montage and lighting detail.

The list referred to “content” and this was suggested to be inappropriate to control through the planning process (OMA) whereas Greater Dandenong and Hume councils sought to include control over aspects of content such as adult entertainment, adult bookshops and alcohol. Greater Dandenong City Council also requested guidance in relation to bilingual advertising and the use of graphics in addition to multilingual signs.

Reference to lux levels for signs over 18 square metres was not supported by the OMA because it may be too onerous and costly. Instead, the industry expressed a preference to provide details of lighting only. Conversely, some councils expressly supported a requirement for lux levels to be cited (Nillumbik) and information about lighting baffles (Greater Dandenong City Council).

Boroondara City Council, Nillumbik Shire Council and the MAV suggested details of any sub-advertising should be required in a permit application.

Maroondah City Council referred to illuminated signage having hours of operation and switched off at night.

The Property Council opposed structural details being required to be provided while Greater Shepparton referred to legal advice it had received that references the importance of the material associated with a sign in deciding whether a permit is currently required or the proposal prohibited.

OMA suggested a specific list of permit application requirements for signage associated with street furniture, to assist to provide greater consistency between municipalities.


Port Phillip City Council suggested additional information for sky and pole signs including a streetscape perspective showing the relationship of the sign to the existing building or site, surrounding buildings and other signage.

Banyule City Council suggested adding “any other information required by the responsible authority” to encourage permit applicants to seek advice from councils.

The City of Melbourne sought a heritage impact statement for heritage areas and streetscape analysis from a pedestrian perspective.

Moonee Valley City Council proposed replacing several proposed points with a site context plan/report.

Stonnington City Council sought further information about acceptable levels of illumination.

Electronic moving sign, St Kilda Junction

DISCUSSION

The main benefits of requiring permit applications to contain prescribed information would be to reduce the extent of material that may be sought by further information requests by responsible authorities. It would add certainty to the permit application process. There was no case put to the Committee that this list is unnecessary or superfluous, or that there is another or better way to adduce necessary information to accompany a permit application. Rather, submitters responded positively to this idea.


The Committee has reviewed the additional matters proposed by submitters. It considers a number of the additional points have merit, such as a site context report, requiring the location of traffic signs to be shown in applications, and the use of photo montages/streetscape perspectives for larger sign formats. The Committee’s suggested list of permit application requirements has been refined. The following conclusions have been reached by the Committee on some of the more substantive issues raised during consultation:

• Signage content. The Committee has taken the position from the start of this review that it is not the place of the planning system to control signage content per se, but it is appropriate to ensure signs do not include content or colours that could be regarded as a road safety hazard. Many permits have been issued with conditions requiring, for example, there be no display of animated, intermittent or flashing lights.6

• Lighting. There are mixed views on this point. It is a matter that requires a high level of technical knowledge. The Committee does not consider a requirement for lux levels to be supplied for all forms of illuminated signage is necessary. It does, however, consider this information to be warranted where a larger promotion sign is proposed particularly close to roads and residential areas. Thus, the Committee recommends that lux levels be included in permit applications where the sign is on or within 60 metres of a Road Zone, residential zone or Business 5 zone, or public use zone.

• Public infrastructure. The Committee does not believe separate permit application requirements should be developed for signs on infrastructure. This would result in unnecessary duplication within the Scheme. Instead, the desire for consistency may be better pursued through the proposed state-wide design guidelines or a practice note as included in Recommendation 43.

• Road safety. Some councils expressed concern that VicRoads may not always be involved in reviewing proposals for signs with non-static content where they are not close to a Road 1 Zone. They felt road safety information is necessary to inform a permit assessment but sometimes in-house expertise may not be available. The Committee considers this type of information could be supplied by a permit applicant with the opportunity for a responsible authority to review that road safety report in-house or with the benefit of external expert advice. These signs, whether on or close to a Road 1 Zone, or any other place, should be accompanied by a report assessing potential impacts of moving images on road safety (refer also section 3.2.1).

6 This and other conditions can be seen on many permits issued by the Tribunal with conditions proposed by

VicRoads as can be viewed on http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/vic/VCAT/.


• Copy of land owner’s consent for signs on reserved land. This idea has merit because, if the necessary consent cannot be obtained, resources will be saved from assessing futile permit applications.

• Heritage areas. Heritage issues are addressed under the Heritage Overlay with its own decision guidelines.7 Adding a requirement in Clause 52.05 for a heritage assessment in these areas is not appropriate. State-wide guidelines would be expected to address signage in heritage areas including information requirements.

Thus, the Committee’s revised list of permit application requirements is:

An application for the erection and/or display of an advertising sign must be accompanied by the following information, as appropriate: • A site context report addressing:

o The location of the proposed sign on the site or building and distance from property boundaries.

o The location and size of all existing signage on the site including details of any signs to be retained or removed.

o The location and form of existing signage on abutting properties and in the locality (photographs would be acceptable).

o The location of closest traffic control signs (photographs would be acceptable). o Identification of any viewlines or vistas that could be affected by the proposed sign.

• Land owner’s consent where the sign is on public land. • The dimensions, height above ground level and extent of projection of the proposed sign. • The height, width, depth of the total sign structure including method of support and any

associated structures such as safety devices and service platforms. • Details of associated on-site works. • Details of any form of illumination including details of baffles and the times at which the sign

would be illuminated. • The colour, lettering style and materials of the proposed sign. • The size of the display (total advertising area including all sides of a multi-sided sign). • The location of any corporate logo box and proportion of display area occupied by such a

logo box. • For signs involving scrolling, electronic and/or animated displays, a report addressing the

decision guidelines at Clause 52.05-4 relating to road safety. • Any landscaping details. • In addition to the above, for any sign over 18 square metres in area:

o A description of the existing character of the area including built form and landscapes; o The location of any other signs over 18 square metres, or scrolling, electronic or

animated signs within 200 metres of the site; o Any existing identifiable advertising theme in the area; o Photo montages or a streetscape perspective of the proposed sign. o Level of illumination including:

lux levels for any sign on or within 60 metres of a Road Zone, residential zone, public use zone or Business 5 zone;

the dwell time and change time for any non-static images; o The relationship to any significant or prominent views and vistas.

7 The Committee notes the final report of the Advisory Committee reviewing Heritage Provisions in Planning

Schemes (submitted 16 August 2007) does not recommend changes to Clause 43.01 relating to signs.


RECOMMENDATION


13. Include a list of permit application requirements in Clause 52.05 in the form recommended by the Advisory Committee.

3.1.5 Third Party Exemptions


With the exception of major promotion signs that meet requirements in the schedule to Clause 52.05, advertising signs are not currently exempt from the notice requirements of Section 52 of the PEAct and the appeal rights of Section 82(1) of the PEAct.

The Committee requested submitters provide specific examples where exemptions from public notification would be appropriate, for example, business identifications signs in business areas [Consideration of third party exemptions for advertising signs on street furniture such as bus and tram shelters is addressed in section 3.2.3 of this report].

Submissions make clear that mixed views are held on this matter. Some Council submitters (Cardinia, Greater Dandenong, Moonee Valley and Stonnington) considered that the status quo should remain and a responsible authority should have the discretion to decide when notification should occur. Other local government submitters (Monash, Banyule, MAV, Boroondara) supported introducing exemptions from notification, particularly in business and industrial areas. Further, Hume, Kingston and Hobsons Bay City councils suggested signs in category 1 and 2 areas could be exempt where the proposed sign is less than 30 metres from a residential zone. Mornington Peninsula Shire Council submitted that third party exemptions should be included in a schedule so that signs that may meet particular criteria in a given location are not subject to public notification. The OMA submitted that the current exemptions that apply work reasonably well.

During the August workshops, there appeared to be a general view of participants that councils were usually (but not always) reasonable in their decision to require public notice of an application.


DISCUSSION

The Committee expressed some surprise in the Issues and Options Paper that Clause 52.05-5 currently enables major promotional signs to be exempt from notice and review rights whereas other sign types do not enjoy that opportunity, even though the opportunity is currently seldom used.

Few specific examples of the type of signs that should be exempt from public notification were suggested by those making submissions to the Committee. In addition, there appears to be a general view that current provisions for notice under Section 52 of the PEAct are reasonably applied by responsible authorities. For these two reasons, the Committee does not believe that a strong case has been mounted to introduce broad ranging exemptions from notification for particular types of signs or signs in particular categories.

The Committee sees merit in the suggestion to exempt signs in category 1 (business areas) and category 2 (office and industrial areas) from notice provided they are more than 30 metres from a residential zone. Currently the VPP includes third party exemptions for buildings and works in business and industrial zones that are 30 metres from a residential zone or a sensitive use. Introducing a similar provision with respect to advertising signs in business and industrial zones would promote more consistency in the planning framework. However, a significant concern is larger, possibly illuminated, signs that may be highly visible to a residential zone despite being more than 30 metres away.

Given that concern, the Committee considers that alternative opportunities for introducing exemptions from third party notice should be available within the VPP. The Committee sees capacity to introduce exemptions from the giving of notice for all types of signs (not just promotion signs) in a schedule to Clause 52.05 in the same manner as currently available for major promotional signs. The desire to exempt certain signs from notice and review rights might emerge from structure planning or other strategic planning processes for geographic areas.

Thus, the Committee proposes to maintain the potential to exempt larger promotion signs from third party notice and appeal rights and extend that opportunity to all purposes and formats of signs. A practice note could provide guidance on the circumstances as to the nature of locations and sign types that could be exempt from notice and review. That is on the basis that the decision to require notice is discretionary and if a proposed sign does not cause a material detriment it should not be subject to public notification.


RECOMMENDATION


14. Using the schedule to Clause 52.05, Clause 52.05 be amended to enable planning authorities to identify sign purposes and/or formats that are exempt from the notice requirements of Section 52(1)(a), (b) and (d), the decision requirements of Section 64(1), (2) and (3) and the appeal rights of Section 82 (1) of the Act.

3.1.6 Clause 52.05 Decision Guidelines


Section 8.3 of the Issues and Options Paper proposed a revised set of decision guidelines for Clause 52.05. This was as follows:

Before deciding on an application to erect and/or display a sign, in addition to the decision guidelines in Clause 65, the responsible authority must consider, as appropriate: • The character of the area including:

o The sensitivity of the area in terms of the natural environment, heritage values, waterways and open space, rural landscape or residential character.

o The compatibility of the proposed sign with the existing or desired future character of the area or locality in which it is proposed to be located.

o The consistency with any identifiable or particular them for outdoor advertising in the locality.

• Impacts on views and vistas: o The potential to obscure or compromise important views from the public realm. o The potential to dominate the skyline or protrude above the predominant building line. o The potential to impact on the quality of significant public views. o The potential to impede views to existing signs.

• The relationship to the streetscape, setting or landscape: o The proportion, scale and form of the proposed sign relative to the streetscape, setting

or landscape. o The position of the sign including the extent to which it protrudes above existing

buildings or landscape and natural elements. o The ability to screen unsightly built or other elements. o The ability to reduce the number of signs by rationalising or simplifying signs. o The ability to include landscaping to reduce the visual impact of parts of the sign

structure. • The relationship to the site and/or building:

o The scale and form of the sign relative to the scale, proportion and any other significant characteristics of the host site and/or host building.

o The relationship to any important or significant features of the building and/or site. o The extent to which the sign displays innovation relative to the host site and/or host

building.


• The impact and position of logos and structures to display and maintain the sign: o The extent to which logos and structures form an integral part of the signage or

structure on which it is to be displayed. • The impact of any illumination:

o The impact of glare and illumination on the safety of pedestrians and vehicles. o The potential to control illumination temporally or in terms of intensity.

• The level of compliance with the Design Guidelines for Advertising and Signage, DSE, xxxxx 2008.

The draft sought to include improve upon the existing decision guidelines including consideration of urban design issues and grouping of criteria. It was framed on a New South Wales model. It was noted in the Issues and Options Paper that the suggested guidelines did not include VicRoads’ ‘10 point checklist’ as that had not been introduced into the VPP via Amendment VC45 at the time of the Paper’s publication.

The draft decision guidelines were the subject of some general comments in submissions, including support by some (such as Wyndham City Council) for the inclusion of urban design considerations. There were some specific wording suggestions by VicRoads, SEITA, Melbourne City Council, Greater Geelong City Council and Mornington Peninsula Shire Council.

The Committee has reviewed the relatively few suggestions. It recommends a revised set of decision guidelines. Not all suggestions proposed have been adopted but the Committee has accepted the tenor of most. The revised decision guidelines recommended by the Committee are:

Before deciding on an application to erect and/or display a sign, in addition to the decision guidelines in Clause 65, the responsible authority must consider, as appropriate: • The character of the area including:



o The cumulative impact on the character of an area or route. o The consistency with any identifiable or particular theme for outdoor advertising in

the locality. • Impacts on views and vistas:

o The potential to obscure or compromise important views from the public realm. o The potential to dominate the skyline or protrude above the predominant building line. o The potential to impact on the quality of significant public views. o The potential to impede views to existing signs.



buildings or landscape and natural elements. o The ability to screen unsightly built or other elements. o The ability to reduce the number of signs by rationalising or simplifying signs.


o The ability to include landscaping to reduce the visual impact of parts of the sign structure.

• The relationship to the site and/or building: o The scale and form of the sign relative to the scale, proportion and any other

significant characteristics of the host site and/or host building. o The relationship to any important or significant features of the building and/or site. o The extent to which the sign displays innovation relative to the host site and/or host

building. o The extent to which the sign requires the removal of vegetation or includes new

landscaping. • The impact and position of logo boxes and structures to display and maintain the sign:

o The extent to which logo boxes and structures form an integral part of the signage or structure on which it is to be displayed.

o The extent to which logo boxes, lighting and other sign elements are integrated. • The impact of any illumination:

o The impact of glare and illumination on the safety of pedestrians and vehicles. o The impact of illumination on the amenity of nearby residents and the amenity of the

area. o The potential to control illumination temporally or in terms of intensity.

• The impact on road safety. A sign is a safety hazard if the sign: o Obstructs a driver’s line of sight at an intersection, curve or point of egress from an

adjacent property. o Obstructs a driver’s view of a traffic control device, or is likely to create a confusing

or dominating background which might reduce the clarity or effectiveness of a traffic control device.

o Could dazzle or distract drivers due to its size, design or colouring, or it being illuminated, reflective, animated or flashing.

o Is at a location where particular concentration is required, such as a high pedestrian volume intersection.

o Is likely to be mistaken for a traffic control device, because it contains red, green or yellow lighting, or has red circles, octagons, crosses, triangles or arrows.

o Requires close study from a moving or stationary vehicle in a location where the vehicle would be unprotected from passing traffic.

o Invites drivers to turn where there is fast moving traffic or the sign is so close to the turning point that there is no time to signal and turn safely.

o Is within 100 metres of a rural railway crossing. o Has insufficient clearance from vehicles on the carriageway. o Could mislead drivers or be mistaken as an instruction to drivers.

• The level of compliance with the Design Guidelines for Advertising Signs, DPCD, xxxxx 2008.

RECOMMENDATION


15. Clause 52.05 be amended to include a new set of decision guidelines applying to all permit applications in the form recommended by the Committee.


3.1.7 Time Limits

Permit Expiry


Time limits can be confusing for all involved with signage displays and structures. The Issues and Options Paper observed how signage is currently treated differently compared with other applications for land use and/or development in terms of time limits by the VPP. It also highlighted that major promotional signs are differently treated when compared with other sign types.

The Committee questioned whether there should be a difference in time limits between sign types (eg. major promotion vs others) or whether all signs could rely on the same expiry conditions? It suggested there could be a standard prescribed time limit on all sign permits such as 15 years (except temporary signs) and then decision guidelines to assess whether a shorter or longer time limit should be required. It also raised the situation where signs are approved as part of the architecture of a building and why they should be treated differently to the balance of the development. There is also the related matter of the operation of the existing use rights provisions of the VPP.

In response, many submitters supported the removal of time limits for business identification signage whereas there was stronger support for time limits for promotional signs (eg. Frankston, Kingston and Hume councils). Some opposed the removal of time limits per se (such as Moonee Valley City Council). Some submitters opposed mandatory time limits because of the enforcement and monitoring required by local government, although one submitter suggested any sign display a date at which it was erected to help with enforcement. Some felt there are no issues (Monash City Council) and no change is required.

The precise time limits for promotion signs referred to by submitters varied from shorter (maximum 5 years by the City of Melbourne) to longer or not at all (by outdoor advertising companies and planning consultants). The latter group of submitters opposed a reduction from the current VPP, being 10 – 25 years, should mandatory time limits be retained. The Committee’s suggestion for a 15 year limit with decision guidelines for shorter or longer times was supported by submitters (such as Moreland, Mornington Peninsula, Greater Shepparton, SEITA and MAV) while VicRoads felt a 5 year limit might be appropriate in certain circumstances stated by it. Some councils such as Port Phillip and Hobsons Bay suggested that time limits be removed and, associated with that, standard permit conditions be applied to sign permits to ensure dismantling of signs when the sign is no longer used and ongoing maintenance. The second suggestion was also made by a number of other councils such as Moira Shire.


The Property Council proposed a default position of no time limit.

The changing character of activity centres was highlighted in some submissions as a reason why time limits should be retained. The need to clarify the situation with existing use rights was raised (Boroondara, Greater Dandenong and MAV) while Banyule sought for such rights to be dealt with under Clause 52.05 and not Clause 63.

Nillumbik Shire Council strongly supported the notion of a single time limit where signage is approved as part of a building’s architecture.

The criteria suggested by the Advisory Committee for shorter or longer time frames for permits were not the subject of submissions, other than by Moonee Valley and Greater Geelong City councils. They made a number of detailed comments on the proposed wording including a problem in referring to investment given in most circumstances cost is not relevant in the assessment of a permit application.

DISCUSSION

The Committee considers there to be a strong case for no mandatory time limit on business and identification signage (using the definitions recommended in section 3.1.1). The Committee has reached this conclusion on the basis that this type of generally small scale identification signage should be able to be continued, and as necessary the identification message changed, on an ongoing basis provided that a mandatory standard condition requires “The sign must be maintained in good order and appearance to the satisfaction of the responsible authority”. This sentence borrows from wording used to refer to maintenance in other VPP clauses such as the Industrial 1 Zone (Clause 33.01-4). The notion of a standard condition for the removal/replacement of business or identification signage once the business on the land has ceased is more problematic. Trying to trace a previous owner and equity issues relating to the cost of removing a sign are central to the concerns raised by some submitters. The Committee agrees with these concerns and does not recommend a mandatory permit condition to remove business and information signs.

In relation to promotion signs, the Committee considers there to be a case for time limits to be required for all promotion sign formats (not just larger format signs). The 1996 review of advertising controls along major routes did not support mandatory time limits on outdoor advertising but indicated that this could be a discretionary matter, with a minimum of six years. This recommendation was not ultimately adopted by the then Minister. However, that Committee’s rationale remains relevant and is similar as being proposed in this current review. This Committee observes that the context of the current review is different as it is dealing with a wider range of sign types in the context of VPP schemes (which was not the case in the previous review).


Tensions between the views of submitters as to a desire for shorter or longer time limits or no time limit at all are obvious. On balance, the Committee considers a standard permit condition on all permits for promotion signs should be a time limit of 15 years unless an assessment is made against decision criteria included in Clause 52.05 for shorter or longer time limits. That would be within a framework of a minimum of 10 years and a maximum of 25 years except for promotion signs associated with building wraps and signage. The criteria address matters raised in submissions such as the prospect that an area might change through deliberate planning strategies and structure plans.

Furthermore, the Committee considers it appropriate to add into the criteria whether the promotion signage is integrated into the architecture of the building. While this could give a basis for no time limit consistent with the situation that would typically apply for the development itself the Committee has not sought to distinguish that format in terms of its recommended expiry clause. The proposed criteria to decide upon shorter or longer time limits are:

• The purpose of the sign. • The existing or desired character, of the area. • The State Planning Policy Framework and the Local Planning Policy Framework, including

the Municipal Strategic Statement and local planning policies in terms of the extent to which the area might be expected to change and the proposed advertisement might be consistent with, or inconsistent with, that policy direction.

• Whether the promotion sign is part of a building wrap or shrouding. • The extent to which the signage is physically and visually integrated into the architecture of a

building.

RECOMMENDATIONS


16. A standard permit condition prescribing a time limit be applied for promotion signs of 15 years with the ability for a responsible authority to require a shorter or longer time limit based on decision guidelines. That is subject to a minimum of 10 years or a maximum of 25 years unless the promotion sign is for a special event or shrouding during construction when a shorter time period could apply. The recommended decision guidelines are:

• The purpose of the sign. • The existing or desired character, of the area. • The State Planning Policy Framework and the Local Planning Policy

Framework, including the Municipal Strategic Statement and local planning policies in terms of the extent to which the area might be expected to change and the proposed advertisement might be consistent with, or inconsistent with, that policy direction.

• Whether the promotion sign is part of a building wrap or shrouding. • The extent to which the signage is physically and visually integrated into the

architecture of a building.


17. Business and identification signs not be subject to the mandatory time limit proposed for promotion signs but instead a mandatory permit condition requiring:

The sign must be maintained in good order and appearance to the satisfaction of the responsible authority.

Signs Expiring on 18 September 2008


Attention was also drawn by the Advisory Committee to the provision at the end of Clause 52.05-5 which sets a time limit for certain major promotion signs (approved between 19 September 1993 and 18 September 1997) to expire on 18 September 2007, which has been extended to the same date in 2008 under Amendment VC45. The Committee was advised by the OMA of some 60 signs affected by this provision and also has argued in other processes that the reference to 1993 should be 1995 based on the provisions of Amendment C51.8

The current VPP retain reference and provision for major promotion signs that were given a four year time limit and are now due to expire on 18 September 2008. The Committee considers that these signs were approved with a short time limit that has been extended several times to the point that some will have been allowed for over 10 years. The Committee does not believe it would be appropriate to continue to extend the life of all of these permits, such as by another 5 or 10 years. Instead, the Committee considers the permit should be allowed to expire and any fresh application can be assessed on its merits. In the interim, it is considered appropriate for the error in the reference to 1993 to be corrected to 1995.


18. A Ministerial amendment to correct the provisions of Clause 52.05-5 to change the date “19 September 1993” to “19 September 1995”.

19. There be no further continuation, beyond 18 September 2008, of the rights afforded to the major promotional signs displayed in accordance with a permit granted between 19 September 1995 and 18 September 1997.

8 The Committee agrees with this position having regard to the documents provided to it by OMA.


Presumption of renewal

DISCUSSION

Having regard to points made by the OMA early in the consultation process and existing sign provisions, in the Issues and Options Paper the Committee asked whether there is or should be a presumption of renewal for sign permits that have expired? The industry strongly argues this point and suggested such a presumption could be facilitated through a practice note or decision guidelines. Other submitters such as the Law Institute made reference to the ability to apply for an amendment to a permit to enable a continuance and protection of rights where signs have become prohibited through rezoning.

A presumption of renewal for existing large format promotional signs is not an approach adopted by the planning system in Victoria. The Committee does not concur with OMA’s submission on this question that, the Committee believes, challenges the foundation and operation of the VPP. That does not, however, mean that the presence of a sign on a site is irrelevant and indeed this consideration is proposed in the permit application requirements and the Committee’s suggested decision guidelines in relation to the rationalisation/removal of any signage associated with an application.

Existing Signs and Clause 63


The Issues and Options Paper made a brief reference to Clause 63 (existing use rights). The submission by the Law Institute drew attention to a tension between signage display controls, development controls and use controls as well as within continuing use rights as did several other submitters noted in section 3.1.7. The Law Institute questioned whether it is routinely assumed that signage structures are controlled even though the VPP may only control the display. It submitted that it would be appropriate to clarify if the VPP control the sign structure and display. It also commented on the existing sign provisions at Clause 52.05 and how those provisions might work with or conflict with Clause 63.05 and 63.10.

This submission raises legal questions the Committee considers warrant further investigation. The zone tables specifically exclude advertising signs from the land use tables and, on its face, the VPP have been formulated to deal with signs separately through Clause 52.05 than via the provisions of Clause 63.


The display of a sign is arguably seen as neither a use nor development. If buildings and works are not subject to planning control, then the consequences of making signs a “use” for the purpose of Clause 63 needs to be carefully assessed.

This issue was not the subject of other submissions and the Committee does not consider it appropriate to conclude a position on this complex question in absence of an opportunity for public submissions and legal advice.


20. Retain the “existing sign” provisions in Clause 52.05.

21. Clarify in Clause 52.05 that the VPP relate to the display of signage and erection of associated structures.

22. After further legal investigation and consultation by DPCD, Clause 52.05 and Clause 63 be amended, if required, to make clear that continuing display rights for signs and sign structures are addressed via Clause 52.05.

3.1.8 Temporary Signs

Clause 52.05-3 of the VPP outlines conditions under which signs may be erected without the need for a permit. Dot points 10 – 14 of Clause 52.05-3 deal specifically with temporary signs. [The Clause is included in Appendix 4]. During the workshops, many councils expressed concern over non-compliance with these provisions, and the difficulties associated with regulating and enforcing some of the provisions.

New Technology


The advertising industry proposed that the temporary sign provisions should deal with the new technology relating to building wraps and shrouding used on building sites during construction period.


The Committee was provided with photographs of examples of these signs (one of the examples is shown below) and was impressed by the positive effect they could have on the local environment and streetscape when well designed. That is in terms of concealing the construction site from view and providing a safer streetscape environment.

Example tendered by OMA of construction hoarding in Paris

Currently this form of temporary sign is not exempt from a planning permit usually because of the desired size and/or number allowed, as the relevant dot point (10) in Clause 52.05-3 states that a permit is not required for:

A sign with an advertisement area not exceeding 2 square metres concerning construction work on the land. Only one sign may be displayed, it must not be an animated or internally-illuminated sign and it must be removed when the work is completed.

It seems that the City of Melbourne has dealt with this issue more than most councils. Representatives explained at the workshops that the Council has approved such applications by limiting the extent of advertising on the shrouding to a percentage of the shrouding size, and using time limits to ensure their timely removal, which, as far as the Committee can see, is dictated by the period of construction anyway.

The use of building wraps or shrouding for promotional purposes, not associated with a construction site is a separate consideration which the industry argued should be given special, expedited, attention.


DISCUSSION

The Committee considers there is scope to allow building wraps and shrouding during construction periods without the need for a permit, but that building wraps/shrouding solely for promotion purposes (and not being related to any construction period) should be controlled through the standard provisions of Clause 52.05. The latter are a format of promotion sign and the issue for the industry is more about the responsiveness of permit processing times than being controlled per se.

The Committee understands that there is a ‘built in’ time limit on such construction shrouding, as once construction is complete, the shrouding is removed. For this reason, the Committee considers that they can be exempted from requiring planning permission in certain circumstances. If it is desired to install shrouding that depicts either:

• the building underneath in its existing or new form; and/or

• the occupier/use of the building (such as a retailer, supermarket, or fast food outlet);

then this should be allowed as-of-right.

That is on the basis that:

• the shroud or wrap is one colour or depicts the building underneath (whether in its extant or modified form following construction); and

• any promotion sign contained on the wrap or shrouding:

o represents no more than 25% of the wrap or shrouding face; and

o relates to goods, services or any other matter provided, undertaken or sold or for hire on the land or in the building on which the sign is sited.

The figure of 25% has been adopted by the Committee on the basis that this would not dominate the shrouded area. Some discussion of the proportion of a façade occupied by signage referred to by the City of Melbourne in its advertising sign review has been of assistance in this regard.

Any exemption should require that the shrouding is appropriately maintained over the period of construction.

If promotion shrouding not related to the building is desired, then a planning permit should be applied for, as would also be the case if a higher proportion of promotion signage is sought than 25% of the wrap or shrouding face. That would be subject to consideration under the decision guidelines of Clause 52.05. There is an argument that in the case of temporary installations, a quicker or fast track permit process could be appropriate.


RECOMMENDATION


23. Introduce a new provision in Clause 52.05 relating to signs that are exempt from a planning permit relating to signs on construction sites known as shrouding or wraps. The provision should exempt building wraps and shrouding that reflect the new or existing building form from requiring a permit. If promotion content unrelated to the building beneath is desired, then the normal permit process should be followed. The provision should be:

A construction site may be wrapped or shrouded for the duration of the period of construction without a permit provided:

• the wrap or shrouding is only one colour or depicts the building underneath (in either its extant or modified form); and

• any promotion sign contained on the wrap or shrouding:

o represents no more than 25% of the wrap or shrouding face; and

o relates to goods, services or any other matter provided, undertaken or sold or for hire on the land or in the building on which the sign is sited.

The wrap or shrouding must be maintained in good order, not be illuminated and must be removed immediately once construction is complete.

Construction hoarding, Prada store, Collins Street, Melbourne


Local Events


Dot point 11 of 52.05-3 states:

A sign with an advertisement area not exceeding 5 square metres publicising a local educational, cultural, political, religious, social or recreational event not held for commercial purposes. Only one sign may be displayed on the land, it must not be an animated or internally-illuminated sign and it must not be displayed longer than 14 days after the event is held or 3 months, whichever is sooner. A sign publicising a local political event may include information about a candidate for an election.

Common examples are provided by real estate agents that provide boards to advertise local events such as markets, school musicals and church services. While some concerns were raised with the Committee regarding signs being left on display long after an event date had passed (presumably the sponsors appreciate the publicity), little else was raised as a concern with this temporary sign exemption.

Local event sign


Dot point 11 of 52.05-3 appears to function satisfactorily and is a reasonable exemption to maintain. Enforcement officers can regulate any abuse of this clause, since most signs include dates of events (therefore the length of time the sign has been displayed can be calculated), and it is obvious when there is more than one sign on the land.

The Committee observes that these signs usually contain promotion content (ie. the real estate firm or another company that supplies the sign). The Committee believes that should be allowed. For this reason, the Committee considers an exemption for what it terms ‘sub-advertising’ should be provided, allowing no more than 25% of the sign area to be occupied by promotion material.


24. Retain dot point 11 in Clause 52.05-3, relating to the advertisement of local events, and regulate ‘sub-advertising’ by adding words at the end of the exemption to the effect of:

The sign may include sub-advertising of a promotional nature, provided the promotion content does not occupy more than 25% of the sign area.

Special Events


Dot point 12 of 52.05-3 states:

A sign publicising a special event on the land or in the building on which it is displayed, provided no more than 8 signs are displayed in a calendar year and the total number of days the signs are displayed does not exceed 28 in that calendar year. The sign must be removed when the event is finished.

This dot point was criticised, in the context of lack of definition of ‘special event’, difficulty in regulation in terms of who monitors the 8 signs per year, and the total number of days, when the sign is exempt from requiring planning permission.

The Committee understands that dot point 12 provides opportunities for commercial premises to advertise sales and other such events on premises, without the need for planning permission. The Committee is reluctant to recommend removal of this exemption, as it could result in an unwelcome increase in permit applications/requirements for signs that were previously exempt, and mostly innocuous.


The Committee does however, acknowledge the enforcement issues that might result, but believes that it is the responsibility of councils to monitor such signage and enforce where appropriate.


25. Retain Dot Point 12 of Clause 52.05-3, relating to special events, in its current form.

Sale of Goods and Livestock


Dot point 13 of Clause 52.05-3 relates to the sale of goods or livestock on land or in a building which is not normally used for that purpose. Little feedback was received in its regard, except to say that the 3 month allowance without a permit was appropriate. Dot point 13 relating to goods and livestock sales appears reasonable and the Committee has not been informed as to any reason why it should be amended.

The Committee recommends:

26. Retain dot point 13 in Clause 52.05-3, relating to goods and livestock sales, in its current form.

Real Estate Boards


Dot point 14 states:

A sign with an advertisement area not exceeding 10 square metres publicising the sale or letting of the property on which it is displayed. Only one sign may be displayed, it must not be an animated sign and it must not be displayed longer than 7 days after the sale date. A permit may be granted for:

• The advertisement area to exceed 10 square metres if the sign concerns more than 20 lots.

• The sign to be displayed on land excised from the subdivision and transferred to the municipal council.

• The sign to be displayed longer than 7 days after the sale date.


Criticisms of this dot point focused on the requirement that the sign not be displayed longer than 7 days after the sale date. The concerns were firstly, the definition of the sale date (auction date, signing papers’ date, settlement date) and secondly, the fact that signs are displayed for much longer than 7 days after any obvious date (ie. the auction date).

It was also noted that only one sign is allowed (although a permit can be granted for more) but that it might be reasonable to allow a second sign in the case of corner allotments or wide street frontages (say in excess of 150 metres). It was suggested that it might be appropriate to include a cap on the number of signs that are allowable on larger sites (City of Greater Geelong).

The Committee believes that dot point 14 should be amended slightly to reflect modern day practices – perhaps 21 days after auction or sale date is more realistic, and the option to display a second or additional sign be provided for corner allotments or wide street frontages. The Committee is reluctant to use settlement date as being the trigger for removal of the sign, since settlement periods can be very lengthy (ie. 120 or more days is not uncommon) possibly complicated by the question of staged subdivisions.

The Committee notes also that its recommendations provide a greater amount of flexibility for real estate agents and a greater number of signs that are allowed as-of-right, and supports the view put forward by the City of Greater Geelong that it is appropriate to include a cap on the total number of signs that are allowed as-of-right. A total of four signs has been recommended by the Committee as an acceptable limit for permit exemption. If any more signs are sought then a permit application could be made.


27. Replace dot point 14 in Clause 52.05-3, relating to real estate boards, to better reflect current practices, including allowing 21 days after the sale for removal of the sign, plus more than one sign on a corner allotment or wide street frontage:

A sign with an advertisement area not exceeding 10 square metres publicising the sale or letting of the property on which it is displayed. Only one sign may be displayed, unless the property is a corner allotment, in which case one may be erected on each street frontage, or if it has a street frontage of more than 150 metres, in which case one sign may be erected every 150 metres, with a total of not more than 4 signs. It must not be an animated, scrolling, electronic or internally illuminated sign and it must not be displayed longer than 21 days after the sale (not settlement) date. A permit may be granted for: The advertisement area to exceed 10 square metres if the sign concerns more

than 20 lots. The sign to be displayed on land excised from the subdivision and transferred

to the municipal council. The sign to be displayed longer than 21 days after the sale (not settlement)

date.


Bunting and Inflatable Devices


An issue raised by several municipalities in submissions and the workshops relates to flags, bunting, streamers, balloons, inflatable advertising devices, and banners that are not currently addressed by the VPP temporary sign provisions. Councils requested that the Advisory Committee turn its attention to the regulation of these ‘signs’ and an appropriate method of regulating their use and proliferation in the built and natural environment.

The concerns raised by local government in relation to flags, bunting, banners, inflatable advertising devices and so on are understood. The Committee is of the view that bunting, when merely flags strung together with no identifying advertising content, should be managed by local laws, as it understands already occurs in some municipalities. The Committee does not consider this form of display to be a ‘sign’ and thus does not consider it appropriate that Clause 52.05 be modified to regulate it.

However, the Committee does believe inflatable devices warrant regulation. Inflatable devices can add colour, vitality and attract attention though the Committee has observed many instances of inflatable installations that have been in existence for some time (even years) that can be unsightly and detract from the streetscape and urban environment.

Consistent with the Committee’s recommendations in relation to special events signs, a limit of 28 days is proposed for balloons and inflatable devices. It is also proposed to oblige written notice to the responsible authority when this format of temporary sign is installed, to assist with monitoring and enforcement. The creation of a new register may seem to add a layer of regulation, but it would have the benefit of improving a responsible authority’s ability to monitor and enforce the VPP temporary signage controls.


28. Update Clause 52.05-3 by including an additional dot point relating to balloons and inflatable devices, with words to the effect of:

A balloon or inflatable device may only be erected provided the device is displayed for no more than 28 days. Written notice of display of a balloon or inflatable device must be given to the responsible authority at the commencement of the display. If no notice is given, the responsible authority may require the immediate removal of the sign.


Temporary inflatable device without advertising, Violet Town

Temporary inflatable promotion sign, Moonee Ponds activity centre


Lifestyle Signage


Some councils (outer and regional/rural) have referred to the emergence of ‘lifestyle signage’ that is used increasingly on new estates (mostly residential, but also business and industrial) to advertise the new subdivision. This can be in place for years as the subdivision is realised and developed. A recent VCAT decision9 described ‘lifestyle signage’ as often carrying graphically-appealing images of people or aspects of daily living such as social interaction, relaxation, family and the home environment. The signs do not advertise any particular product, good, or service but rather display images that are indirectly relevant to the environment or precinct. Some councils expressed difficulty in regulating this signage.

‘Lifestyle signage’ on flags, banners and the like can have a significant impact on the places where they are erected. While often temporary, they can also be erected on permanent structures with the opportunities to change the images over time or promote events. The Committee considers there are two ways to manage this signage – through the normal planning process (ie. no particular exemptions offered) or through local laws. The former is preferred given the sign format can vary widely and the sign often serves a promotion purpose. The schedules recommended to all zones give an opportunity for this type of sign to be controlled on an area-wide basis by a Council.


29. No separate provision be made in Clause 52.05 (temporary signs) for lifestyle signage.

Video screen on Nepean Highway – the type of sign discussed in the context of road safety

9 Phileo Australia Limited v Greater Bendigo CC [2007] VCAT 2075.


3.2 RESPONDING TO CURRENT ISSUES AND TRENDS

3.2.1 Road Safety and New Sign Forms


The terms of reference ask the Committee to consider the recommendations of the Road Safety Committee on the Inquiry into Driver Distraction and the Government’s response to the Road Safety Committee’s final report. The terms of reference specifically asks the Committee to consider the application and effectiveness of VicRoads' road safety checklist and whether “the largely subjective checklist” can be improved by “specifying limits of acceptable practice”. In addition, the terms of reference ask the Committee to consider whether there is a need for more prescriptive measures controlling advertising in or near road reserves.

After the Issues and Options Paper was released, on 17 September 2007 Amendment VC45 was introduced into the VPP with three important changes:

• it inserted the VicRoads “10 point road safety checklist” (the “checklist”) into Clause 52.05 of the VPP [refer to the last list of bullet points in Clause 52.05-2 at Appendix 4]. The checklist applies to all permits for advertising signs.

• it established VicRoads as a referral authority for electronic billboards within 60 metres of a declared road or freeway.

• it introduced a definition for electronic billboards:

A sign that can be updated electronically. It includes screens running television footage, large screen video displays and the like.

The main issue concerning driver distraction is whether there is evidence to support or prove arguments or contentions that certain types of signs, particularly electronic “moving” signs, cause driver distraction. The Road Safety Committee concluded there is:

A lack of clear and consistent scientifically-based conclusions with respect to the effect of billboards on driver performance. This may be due to methodological deficiencies, lack of sufficiently large or adequately recorded crash circumstances, or unsuitable experimental environments.10

10 Report of the Road Safety Committee on the Inquiry into Driver Distraction at page 108 also cited on page 20 of

the Advisory Committee’s Issues and Options Paper


Comprehensive submissions on this issue were received from VicRoads and the OMA.

The VicRoads submission can be summarised as follows:

• It is acknowledged that the extent to which signs contribute to driver distraction is uncertain however, signs that include movement or flashing lights are likely to be on the higher end of distraction.

• There is a need for further research to understand the extent to which signs can distract drivers.

• Current knowledge would suggest that signs including changing visual content should not be placed in locations where they can be seen by drivers as they negotiate complex driving situations.

• The general conclusion of a review of current literature on driver distraction by the Monash University Accident Research Centre (MUARC)11 was roadside advertising can be a traffic hazard, especially for the animated, moving, flashing, brighter electronic displays.

• A review of possible options that may lead to a better understanding of the role of distraction in crashes should be undertaken and completed and the results then used to provide input into the Committee’s proposal to review changes to the VPP sign definitions and the development of higher level prescriptive controls over advertising signs, particularly digital, moving and electronic signs along road reserves.

• The retention of the ‘10 Point Road Safety Checklist’ is strongly supported, although it is acknowledged that there is an opportunity for VicRoads to review the checklist having regard to the results of further research.

• VicRoads’ “operational requirements for variable advertising message signs”, used by VicRoads to assess applications for a variable advertising message sign, should be included in the VPP.

• VicRoads strongly supports an amendment to Clause 52.05-1 to introduce VicRoads as a section 55 referral authority for any application to display an advertising in, on or over a road reserve of a freeway or declared arterial road.

• Road safety and driver distraction matters should be included in any urban design guidelines, for advertising signs on public infrastructure and other signs that could affect drivers.

11 Commissioned for this review.


The OMA’s submission can be summarised as follows:

• The premise that outdoor advertising signs, including electronic outdoor advertising, causes a dangerous distraction to drivers is not accepted.

• A number of studies confirm that digital billboards have no statistical relationship with the occurrence of accidents.

• Moves to further allow static and non-static electronic outdoor advertising in appropriate locations would be supported (which could be administered by State-wide road safety or decision guidelines).

• The standards adopted in the USA - The Federal Highway Administration “Guidance on Off-Premises Changeable Message Signs” could be adopted in Victoria (which have standards on duration of message, transition time, brightness, spacing and location).

Advertising sign industry representatives at the November workshops emphasised that different guidelines may need to be developed for signs with moving electronic displays (for example, animation, images and television) and static electronic displays (involving electronic or digital signs that display a series of static images, which includes scrolling).

Most Council submitters supported the inclusion of the checklist, and some also supported the inclusion of the “operational requirements for variable advertising message signs” in Clause 52.05. Supporters of including the checklist in Clause 52.05 were Cardinia, Hume and Greater Dandenong councils, SEITA and the Property Council. However, Nillumbik Shire Council suggested that the checklist could be included in a practice note rather than as a decision guideline because of the largely subjective provisions.

Monash City Council and the MAV expressed concern that assessment of signs against the checklist raised concerns with responsibility and resourcing and it could be seen as an example of cost shifting from state to local government.

Supporters for the inclusion of the operational requirements for variable advertising message signs in the VPP were Cardinia and Maroondah councils as well as the MAV.

Most Council submitters also supported establishing VicRoads as a referral authority for electronic billboards within 60 metres of a freeway or declared arterial road. Supporters of this approach included Nillumbik, Kingston, Monash, Greater Dandenong, Moonee Valley, Greater Shepparton and Stonnington. Hobsons Bay and the MAV added that all applications for signage in or near road reserves that do not meet prescriptive requirements should be referred to VicRoads. One suggestion was that VicRoads should be a referral authority for all electronic signs within a certain distance of traffic signals.


There was strong support in many submissions for introducing more prescriptive requirements on addressing road safety and driver distraction. Frankston City Council suggested that criteria should refer to proximity to traffic lights, message changes and illumination, and Hobsons Bay City Council proposed that criteria should be developed on level of lighting, road speed limit, speed of message and message change. There were no other submissions that provided details on what the prescriptive provisions could be. Moonee Valley City Council suggested that the provisions could be similar to those in NSW.

Sign on Hume Freeway near Broadford with changing electronic content

DISCUSSION

The Committee considers that the main issue concerning road safety and driver distraction is whether the current provisions introduced into the VPP with the approval of Amendment VC45 on 17 September, 2007 should be retained, modified or deleted.

VicRoads believes that the research on driver distraction requires a risk averse approach and made a number of suggestions which would strengthen the provisions on road safety in Clause 52.05. As noted above, those suggestions included introducing the “operational requirements for variable advertising message signs” in the VPP and establishing VicRoads as a referral authority to display an advertising sign in, on or over a road reserve of a freeway or declared arterial roads.


Despite these suggestions, VicRoads has acknowledged the research on the impact of advertising signs on driver distraction is not conclusive and suggested the Committee should recommend that more research be undertaken so that the checklist can be reviewed and the introduction of more prescriptive requirements on such matters as permissible sign types, locations and spacings are considered.

On the other hand, the OMA referred to research that concludes that electronic messaging signs do not result in “dangerous” distraction of drivers and that guidelines recently introduced in the USA support the display of electronic messaging signs along highways provided standards on matters such as duration of message, transition time, brightness, spacing and location criteria are met.

The Committee considers there is strong support for the introduction of the checklist into Clause 52.05 as approved in Amendment VC45. For the first time, there is a statutory requirement that a responsible authority must consider potential road safety concerns when assessing an application for advertising signs.

The MAV and some local government bodies expressed concern that the checklist effectively transfers the resourcing and responsibility on road safety from state government to local government. The Committee understands this issue. The Committee recommends that signs that have a potential road hazard on a state-controlled but are not required to be formally referred to VicRoads (ie. if not scrolling, animated or electronic) could be accompanied by a road safety report addressing road safety decision guidelines in Clause 52.05. This would require a proponent to consider this question up-front with the obligation to provide a road safety report as part of a permit application. That would give a responsible authority information that could assist an assessment as to whether there is a potential hazard.

VC45 requires the referral of an electronic billboard within 60 metres of a declared main road or freeway to be referred to VicRoads. This new provision ensures that the electronic signs that may have a potential impact on safety on the State’s controlled roads are considered by the relevant state agency. However, the Committee strongly believes greater assistance should be available to responsible authorities in assessing potential road safety concerns. That could occur by developing guidelines to assist in the application and interpretation of the 10 point road safety checklist. Accordingly, the Committee supports VicRoads' offer made at the November workshops that guidelines be prepared to assist in the interpretation of the checklist including the consideration of more definitive standards.

There is scope to introduce more prescriptive standards with respect to electronic variable message signs within or adjacent to road reserves. This includes signs that move continuously and signs that have static displays that turn-over (like a PowerPoint presentation).


More prescriptive standards have been introduced in NSW12 and according to the OMA in the USA. However, other than suggestions for including the “operational requirements for variable advertising message signs” in the VPP, the Committee did not receive detailed submissions on what the standards should be in Victoria. Thus, the Committee is not in a position to recommend precise standards akin to those adopted in NSW. Accordingly, the Committee believes VicRoads should initiate the recommendation of the Parliamentary Road Safety Inquiry into Driver Distraction13 that VicRoads, DSE (now DPCD) and local government develop a more consistent and stringent approach to the installation, use and content of scrolling, moving and video-style advertising within and adjacent to road reserves. Part of the working group’s consideration should be to determine the different standards that may need to be applied to signs with moving electronic displays and signs with static electronic displays.

The Committee considers that Amendment VC45 strikes an appropriate balance at this stage in ensuring that all signs that have a potential road safety impact are subject to a range of road safety considerations and that the “electronic billboards” are referred to VicRoads for more careful scrutiny. However, the Committee considers there is some confusion whether “electronic billboards” include all electronic signs or only electronic signs greater than 18m2. A number of Council submitters in particular indicated that the referral was triggered for electronic billboard signs 18m2 or greater. But the new definition of “electronic billboard” does not include any reference to size even though the word “billboard” suggests or infers that it applies to larger format signs. Given there is no size limitation in the definition of “electronic billboard”, the Committee considers electronic messaging signs that are within 60 metres of a freeway or declared road should be referred to VicRoads regardless of their size. Under the Committee’s recommended Clauses 52.05 and 73 (refer discussion in sections 3.1.1 and 4), the “electronic billboard’ definition would be removed and all animated, electronic or scrolling signs within 60 metres of a declared road or freeway would be referred to VicRoads. This should overcome any different interpretations of the existing provision. In time, some of these sign formats may be regarded as ones that VicRoads no longer seeks to consider and this can be determined through the development of interpretative guidelines to support the checklist as discussed above.

The Committee does not support nominating VicRoads as a referral authority for any application to display an advertising sign in, on or over a road reserve of a freeway or declared arterial road. That may have significant resourcing implications for VicRoads, and it is not clear to the Committee that VicRoads has the capacity to manage a significantly increased workload on referred applications.

12 Transport Corridor Outdoor Advertising and Signage Guidelines: Assessing Development Applications under SEPP

64 July 2007. 13 Report of the Road Safety Committee on the Inquiry into Driver Distraction, August 2006 on

www.parliament.vic.gov.au/rsc/Distraction/default.htm


Further, it is the Committee’s understanding that such a provision would conflict with existing legislation which gives CityLink and the SEITA control over advertising signs over their sites.14 It is understood that CityLink and SEITA operate under a set of urban design and road safety guidelines with respect to advertising signs.

Councils that may have concerns with the safety impact of proposed advertising signs (other than those for which VicRoads would be a referral authority) on or near State controlled roads could seek formal advice from VicRoads by notifying them under Section 52 of the Planning & Environment Act 1987, by seeking informal advice from VicRoads, or requiring a proponent to lodge a road safety assessment. This is a matter that could be addressed in the practice note.

Electronic running text message, Elizabeth Street, Melbourne

RECOMMENDATIONS


30. The ‘10 point road safety checklist’ that applies to all advertising signs requiring a permit should be retained in the decision guidelines of Clause 52.05.

14 SEITA’s submission refers to the EastLink Project Act 2004.


31. VicRoads establish a working group and involve relevant stakeholders prepare guidelines to assist in the interpretation of the 10 point road safety checklist.

32. In accordance with the recommendation of the Parliamentary Road Safety Inquiry into Driver Distraction, VicRoads establish a working group to develop a more consistent and stringent approach to the installation, use and content of scrolling, moving and video-style advertising within and adjacent to road reserves. This includes standards for signs with moving electronic displays and signs with static electronic displays.

33. Appoint VicRoads as a referral authority for all animated, electronic or scrolling signs within 60 metres of a declared road or freeway.

34. A practice note indicate that councils with concerns about the safety impact of a proposed advertising sign on or near State controlled roads for which VicRoads is not a referral authority could:

• seek formal advice from VicRoads by notifying it under Section 52 of the Planning & Environment Act 1987; or

• seek informal advice from VicRoads; and/or

• require an assessment of road safety with the permit application.

Row of signs abutting Hume Freeway between Donnybrook and Craigieburn


3.2.2 Urban Design of Signs and Structures

State-wide advertising sign design guidelines


In the Issues and Options Paper, the Committee acknowledged the importance of advertising signs in the built environment and was mindful of the lack of urban design focus in the VPP decision guidelines for signs. It also observed that a number of local policies have been introduced to fill the gap but have done so with varying degrees of success and specificity.15

The Committee suggested that state-wide guidelines could be incorporated into the VPP to provide a standard approach to the siting and design of signs. If state-wide guidelines were introduced, the Committee identified a need to make clear how local policies would fit with those guidelines. It asked whether appropriate geographic locations for particular types of signs could be identified eg. nominated activity centres?

There was strong support by most submitters for state-wide urban design guidelines. Many submitters considered that it was logical for guidelines to establish basic urban design principles such as site context, sign proportion, sign size and the protection of important vistas. The MAV stated that state-wide urban design guidelines would be beneficial to municipalities without local advertising sign policies, particularly rural councils.

However, most Council submitters considered that if state-wide guidelines were introduced, the following matters should be addressed:

• A collaborative process must be developed involving relevant stakeholders such as the State architect, advertising industry, urban designers and local government etc (Frankston and Moreland councils, MAV).

• The guidelines should not ‘relax’ current advertising controls in Clause 52.05 nor allow a proliferation of advertising signs (Nillumbik and Monash councils, MAV).

• Councils should have the capacity for location-specific local policies appropriate for their municipality – including more or less prescription depending on the strategic objectives of an area (Nillumbik, Port Phillip, Hume, Monash, Greater Dandenong, Frankston, Banyule, Hobsons Bay and Boroondara councils, Department of Infrastructure, and Melbourne).

15 The Committee inadvertently omitted reference to the local policy in the Hume Planning Scheme from the list

included in the Issues and Options Paper in section 5 on page 7.


• Transitional arrangements need to be developed to ensure there is no policy vacuum if state-wide urban design guidelines are introduced and that existing local policies are not left out-dated (Kingston City Council, MAV).

Electronic signs can have health and safety benefits. This sign recently abutted CityLink.

DISCUSSION

The Committee supports many of the comments made in submissions. It considers state-wide guidelines should address ‘higher order’ urban design principles such as scale, proportion and characteristics of a site, building or structure in which a sign is to be located. In addition, the state-wide guidelines should address general urban design principles that may be appropriate in different area types – that is, commercial, industrial, residential, heritage, rural or coastal landscape. The existing local policies in many Planning Schemes have common principles that could apply more broadly given they are based on “good” urban design or heritage practice.

The Committee has considered the NSW SEPP 64 on Outdoor Advertising and Signage Guidelines. This document, adopted by the NSW State Government in July 2007, contains general and specific design assessment criteria for advertising signs. The Committee considers that it is an extremely useful document and a good starting point in developing state-wide guidelines for Victoria. In addition, VicRoads provided suggestions on the nature of urban design issues in transport corridors, including broader urban fabric or regional context, visual clutter/advertising sign clustering, site-specific and structural/form/detailed design.


Thus, the Committee sees a beneficial role for state-wide guidelines. It also strongly believes there is an important role for councils to develop location-specific policies containing objectives and decision guidelines on advertising signage. Urban design issues impacting upon a specific location are matters for the relevant planning authority to address through the development and implementation of policies and guidelines as part of its overall strategic planning responsibilities to manage built form.

Currently, there are very few examples of local policies with a strong location-specific focus. Most of the local policies on advertising signs contain general design principles, such as the location and placement of signs on buildings or sites and the nature of signs that may be appropriate in different location types. An exception is the City of Melbourne. It has specific objectives for signage in different parts of the municipality including Burke Hill, Chinatown, Greek precinct, Swanston Street and the Yarra River environs. Further, the City of Melbourne has recently prepared a comprehensive new policy on advertising signs which identifies more specific locations each with their own objectives and guidelines. In some areas, such as parts of the retail strip of Elizabeth Street, the policy proposes the encouragement of clustering of advertising signs while in other areas, such as the boulevards, major avenues and gateways, less signage is encouraged. It is understood the Minister has advised Melbourne City Council that the new policy will not be authorised pending the outcomes of this review.

The Committee makes no comment on the specific merits of the City of Melbourne’s proposed advertising sign policy, but it supports the principle that location-specific policy as proposed by the Council is the type of policy approach that should be developed in the context of state-wide guidelines. Further, the Committee strongly supports the inclusion of these policies in planning schemes following a process of scrutiny through notification, submission and, if necessary, panel review.

A list of possible contents in state-wide advertising sign design guidelines has been prepared (section 4.5) indicating matters that could be addressed. This is not exhaustive and would be expected to be developed further. The NSW SEPP64 guidelines, existing Clause 22 local policies and even non-statutory Council advertising policies provide a strong basis from which these guidelines could be formulated as many of the themes are the same. There should be a strong pictorial focus in the design guidelines.

With respect to transitional arrangements, the Committee considers that state-wide guidelines would not necessarily “override” local policies because the guidelines would be based on urban design principles that seem common to many planning schemes and would not contain provisions that would dictate the extent of advertising that may or may not be appropriate in any particular area. Moreover, the guidelines would not override the provisions of Clause 52.05-6 which sets out the permit requirements and decision guidelines for advertising signs.


Nonetheless, it is acknowledged that some local policies may require review or become redundant with state-wide design guidelines and a new approach to advertising sign definitions. There would need to be a program of considering which local policies would require review or deletion on development of state-wide guidelines and/or implementation of new sign definitions and a new Clause 52.05. One avenue might be for councils to update and review their local policies as part of their standard planning scheme review. It would be helpful if the State government produced guidelines assisted local councils prepare location-specific policies and guidelines where local policies would need to be revised or removed.

RECOMMENDATIONS


35. DPCD develop state-wide advertising sign design guidelines containing “higher order” urban design principles and general area type guidelines.

36. Include the final adopted guidelines at Clause 81 as an incorporated document in the VPP, and include the document by reference in Clauses 19 and 52.05.

37. DPCD establish a steering committee or reference group comprising relevant stakeholders including representatives of the advertising industry, urban designers, local government and others to develop state-wide advertising sign design guidelines.

38. The steering committee referred to in Recommendation 37 also prepare guidelines to assist councils prepare location-specific policies and guidelines on advertising signs.

Recognising advertising signs in the SPPF


The Issues and Options Paper included a proposal for a new State planning policy to be included in Clause 19 of the VPP. This arose from the Committee’s belief that an overarching policy basis for the consideration of advertising signage is currently lacking including a strong urban design focus that is now so important in decisions about advertising signs. It was envisaged that this clause would make reference to state-wide design guidelines for signage.


A possible clause was included in the Paper as follows:

19.0x-1 Objective To ensure the design and siting of signs contribute positively to their setting character while minimising detrimental impacts. 19.0x-2 General Implementation Responsible authorities should require that all permit applications for outdoor signs, as appropriate:

• Are compatible with the amenity and visual appearance of an area. • Are compatible with the existing or desired future character of the area or locality in

which it is proposed to be located. • Provide effective communication in terms of identifying premises and promoting

goods and services on offer without being excessive in their size, height, number or appearance.

• Are of a high quality in their design, presentation and finish. • Avoid visual disorder and clutter. • Do not intrude on significant views and vistas. • Do not obscure or detract from the architectural and historical qualities and features of

the host, adjacent and or nearby buildings. • Are compatible with the size and style of the building, adjacent built form and land

use, the streetscape, and/or landscape. • Have regard to safety and the operation of the road network in terms of the location,

form and scale of signs. Planning and responsible authorities must have regard to the Design Guidelines for Advertising and Signage (DSE xxxxx 2008).

This idea was widely supported in submissions on the basis that it be a separate Clause rather than included in Clause 19.03 (an option that was canvassed by the Committee). Some comments were made about the precise wording proposed by the Committee. For example, that there be reference to the removal of illegal signs (Greater Geelong City Council), that there be commentary about the positive role of signs (OMA), that there be reference to applicable local policies (Nillumbik) and road safety (VicRoads), and that the clause should delete reference to “outdoor” to avoid debates about interpretation (Hume).

The Committee has refined the proposed Clause 19 policy as set out below having considered these comments and in light of other recommendations being made in this report. The Committee does not consider it appropriate to address illegal signs in this policy but has varied the wording to respond to the other matters identified by submitters. The recommended wording is:

19.0x-1 Objective To recognise that advertising signs can make a positive contribution to the environment when carefully designed and sited.

To ensure the design and siting of advertising signs: • contribute positively to their setting character; and • minimise detrimental impacts; and • maintain road safety.


19.0x-2 General Implementation Responsible authorities should require that all permit applications for advertising signs, as appropriate:


which it is proposed to be located including any applicable local policy. • Provide effective communication in terms of identifying premises and promoting





form and scale of signs.

Planning and responsible authorities must have regard to the Design Guidelines for Advertising and Signage (DPCD xxxxx 2008).


39. A new Clause, in the form recommended by the Advisory Committee, be added to Clause 19 of the VPP to give a strategic basis to decision making regarding advertising signs by responsible and planning authorities.

3.2.3 Promotion Signs on Public Infrastructure

Public Transport Shelters and Phone Booths


The funding of public infrastructure by promotion signs, known by some as ‘advertisements for infrastructure’ is a trend that has grown significantly in Victoria over the past few years. Currently, the advertisements appear on tram and bus shelters and phone booths in Victoria, while in other states (such as NSW), pedestrian bridges and other infrastructure have been funded by promotion advertising.


Private operators such as JC Decaux and Adshel enter contracts with public transport providers (usually government or government agencies) to provide bus and tram shelters and other infrastructure (notably phone booths) which incorporate advertising display panels. Revenue raised by advertising offsets the cost of provision and maintenance of the shelter and infrastructure over the duration of the contract.

Figures provided by the OMA state that approximately 73% of all advertising sites in Victoria are related to street furniture (bus and tram shelters), and a further 20% are in the transit category (including advertising on buses and trams). The outdoor advertising industry currently provides more than 3,700 bus and tram shelters in Victoria – that alone is more than $5.6 million worth of infrastructure, maintained at a cost of more than $700,000 per year.

The emergence of this practice has markedly improved the quality of the structures that house the advertising signage, as well as providing the public with new and replacement shelters (with lighting) offering heightened safety for pedestrians and shelter users. The Department of Infrastructure has indicated a desire to see one in four stops fitted with a shelter by 2030. According to Yarra Trams, one advertising panel (with two faces) can fund 4 metres of linear shelter.

The VPP require permits for the advertising signs, but often the structure itself is exempt. When notice of such applications is given, third parties are frequently unaware of the distinction, and oppose the siting of the shelter itself as well as the signage, whereas only the latter is the subject of a permit. This can cause confusion where the ambit of discretion in decision-making is confined to the promotion sign and not the shelter or phone booth.16

In submissions made to the Committee, many councils acknowledged the benefits provided by the provision of this infrastructure. The OMA and some councils agreed there is the potential for some advertising associated with shelters and infrastructure to be exempted from planning permit requirements. Some issues in relation to the advertising component raised by local government were as follows:

• Concerns relating to the locations selected for signage, such as sites located near or in front of heritage buildings, parks and in residential settings.

• The quantum of signs per structure, and the number of structures in close proximity to each other, leading to visual clutter (particularly in the City of Melbourne, where ‘saturation’ is apparently being reached).

• Light spill when the advertisement(s) is illuminated – different rules and exemptions could apply depending on location and/or zoning.

16 Some recent VCAT cases are JC Decaux Australia Pty Ltd v Melbourne CC [2006] VCAT 1884, Adshel Street

Furniture Pty Ltd v Stonnington CC [2005] 2270, and Telstra v Melbourne CC [2006] VCAT 734.


Some councils considered separate guidelines for advertising on street furniture would be helpful, while other councils and VicRoads argued that all signage should be subject to the same rules and regulations, regardless of any perceived public benefit.

VicRoads said its 10 point checklist should apply to ensure that a driver’s line of sight is not obstructed and the form of advertising is not distracting to drivers. VicRoads sought a requirement to obtain its consent for the construction of any public infrastructure that includes advertising signs. Some councils suggested that if approved by the landowner, (ie. Council’s property services department, VicRoads or VicTrack) then no permit should be required for infrastructure signage.

The City of Greater Dandenong expressed concern about the content of advertisements on infrastructure that it felt should be better regulated. While the Committee understands there are wide ranging views as to the nature of what is displayed, it is not the Committee’s role to regulate the content of advertising signs.

During both the August and November workshops, JC Decaux and Adshel referred to inconsistent treatment by different councils (and indeed, within councils). They said information to accompany permit applications, and treatment of applications during the consideration process varies across councils, while the property, planning and contracts sections of councils sometimes take contrary views about the infrastructure.

Through its submission, the OMA suggested:

• Separate guidelines for advertising-funded street furniture, since it is of a consistent size (two square metres) and is always associated with a shelter that provides amenity for public transport users.

• Opportunities for scrolling advertising panels, which can minimise the total number of advertising assets required as part of a street furniture contract.

• Opportunities for electronic (static or non-static) advertising on advertising-funded public infrastructure, which again, could minimise the total number of advertising assets required as part of a street furniture contract.

• Removing the need for permits for advertising signs which are integrated into and fund street furniture and are not located in sensitive areas.

• Removing the blanket prohibition of advertising (on street furniture) in certain areas (ie. along major boulevards, along main roads that are residential, in some heritage overlay areas and in the MUZ and PPRZ). Due to the current prohibitions on advertising in these areas, many shelters in highly frequented areas cannot be replaced under contracts.


• Where permits are required:

− Establishing a clear planning permit application process for street furniture, to be implemented consistently across all Victorian municipalities.

− Providing exemptions from third party involvement, where the advertising is integrated into and funds street furniture.

The OMA made further suggestions about rectifying these issues, including:

• Defining street furniture in Clause 73 of the VPP, covering bus and tram shelters and telephone booths.

• The specification at Clause 52.05-4 (existing signs) that no permit is required to replace the advertisement on an animated or internally-illuminated sign which funds street furniture.

• The inclusion in Clause 52.05-3 (signs not requiring a permit) of promotional signs which form part of street furniture which is not otherwise subject to a planning permit requirement.

• The inclusion of ‘application requirements’ or ‘practice notes’ in the VPP which detail the level of information required to be submitted with each application for a new piece of infrastructure.

One Council (Nillumbik) suggested that this kind of signage could be controlled using local laws and other regulations, rather than by the VPP.

Tram shelter, Elgar and Riversdale Roads, Burwood


DISCUSSION

The Committee considers advertising on street furniture should be treated in the same manner as other forms of promotion signs but it recognises that the community benefit associated with the provision of infrastructure such as shelters gives weight to signage being facilitated in appropriate locations. Those benefits include the provision of the new, well-designed infrastructure, the maintenance program built into contracts, the provision of lighting to improve public safety, and positive encouragement for public transport use. The Committee does not question the exemptions that exist for the infrastructure itself (with no advertising) - that should be unchanged.

State-wide exemptions from planning permits for promotion signs on infrastructure are not recommended by the Committee. These are the types of matters that should be addressed on a location basis, as the ability to allow signage to be placed in a different control category would allow. State-wide exemptions could lead to a proliferation of signage and infrastructure in certain areas that may be undesirable. For example, if a ‘standard model’ was developed for a basic tram shelter that met certain criteria in certain locations (business zones for example), then there might be a temptation by different providers to place several shelters in close proximity. The outcome may not be positive in terms of pedestrian and visual amenity. The Committee maintains that view even though there is ability for some municipal control via the public ownership of land.

Similarly, the Committee does not accept submissions recommending the removal of blanket prohibitions on advertising on street furniture such as along boulevards and in heritage areas. Again, this is a matter that should be the subject of local review. The proposed inclusion of schedules to all zones allowing signs to be placed in different category again provides the mechanism to achieve signs in some locations where currently prohibited through an amendment process.

The Committee considers there is merit in expediting of permit applications for signs on shelters and phone booths by providing certain exemptions from third party notice and review rights given the potential for some siting to be non-contentious. Exemptions from these notice and review rights could apply in Business Zones 1, 2, 3 and 4 (not 5, as this zone has a residential component) and Industrial Zones 1 and 2 (not 3, as this tends to be the buffer zone and often has a residential or other sensitive interface). It is noted that the construction and display of a sign is exempt from third party notice and review rights under the Heritage Overlay.

Another option is the opportunity for councils to develop local laws to deal with the provision of this infrastructure, in a similar way as local government deals with tables, chairs and sandwich boards on pavements.


This could be achieved by providing an exemption in Clause 62.01 that states that no permit is required for:

Display of a promotion sign on public infrastructure if authorised by Council under a local law and has the written consent of the landowner and, if in or adjacent to a Road Zone 1, the written consent of the road manager.

Councils could develop their own local law to apply to designated locations and for certain public infrastructure models deemed appropriate in these areas.

Tram shelter, Victoria Parade, East Melbourne

Further, the Committee considers zoning controls should be modified to allow discretion in relation to the provision of promotion signs on street furniture in certain locations. For example, a new schedule within the Mixed Use Zone could allow a different category to apply to certain appropriate areas (in commercial precincts for example). By including this schedule in the zone, there would be capacity to change the applicable category in certain locations. Currently, a large number of zones do not have this capacity, and a relatively simple change could alter that while still ensuring the necessary checks and balances are in place, since an amendment process would be required to change the advertising category via the schedule.


Complaints from the industry about a lack of consistency in permit application requirements and decisions by responsible authorities are noted. The Committee recommends the formulation of a commonly agreed list of permit application requirements, a standardised permit application process and a list of planning permit conditions for advertising on bus shelters, tram shelters, telephone booths and other street furniture, to provide consistency for all players in the process. This could be in the form of a practice note.

RECOMMENDATIONS


40. Introduce third party exemptions from notice and appeal rights for advertising signs on public transport infrastructure in the Business 1, 2, 3 and 4 zones and Industrial 1 and 2 zones.

41. Include a permit exemption in Clause 62.02-1 - that no permit is required for the display of promotional advertising on public infrastructure if authorised by Council under a local law and has the written consent of the landowner and, if in or adjacent to a Road Zone 1, the written consent of VicRoads.

42. DPCD, in association with the MAV, assist councils to develop a model local law to apply to promotion signs on street furniture in designated locations. The local law could cover criteria such as site context, sign orientation, pedestrian amenity, visibility, and driver distraction.

43. A practice note include guidance for permit applications involving promotion signs on street furniture including permit application requirements, criteria for consideration of applications, and a list of potential planning permit conditions.

Pedestrian Bridges and Major New Infrastructure

As noted, some major pieces of infrastructure are being funded by promotion signage in NSW. The Committee is not aware of any similar examples yet in Victoria but it is possible that projects of this kind will be pursued in the future. The Committee considers the framework it is recommending has the capacity to address signage associated with these proposals including the ability for schedules to zones to nominate a different signage control category.


3.2.4 Logo Boxes


Major outdoor advertising companies include their logo boxes on promotion signs, usually on the structure supporting the advertisement, or attached to the lower edge of the sign. Other locations can be used, such as on the wall of a building above a major promotional sign. This is not a new practice, although the Committee’s impression is that the number of logo boxes is increasing, perhaps as older billboards become part of a company’s portfolio.

Logo box placement is regarded by advertising signage companies as a positive feature, as it provides information about the sign owner and information to the public for the purpose of any complaints. It is also a form of advertising in its own right, which is unregulated and can lead to proliferation and clutter. In some cases, the logo boxes are internally illuminated and in other cases are floodlit (as the associated advertisement is too). The size of logo boxes may be standard for each company when used on billboards and large promotion signs but there is no uniformity across the outdoor advertising industry.

At the workshops, members of the advertising industry stated that they had never encountered a complaint regarding the use of logo boxes on advertising signs, and that it seemed unnecessary to regulate them as a consequence.

In the Issues and Options Paper, the Committee asked whether corporate logo boxes should be subject to approval. The majority of submissions stated that it was unnecessary to require separate approval for logo boxes but most agreed it is not unreasonable for a permit application for a new sign to provide details of the logo box, including its dimensions and location, and lighting details. The industry wanted to make sure that if, after a sign was erected, the logo box needed to change, no further planning permission would be required.

Most submitters agreed that a limitation on the size of the logo box to a percentage of the overall advertisement area was appropriate although the advertising industry did not think this was necessary. The NSW SEPP 64 limits such signage to being (inter alia) within the advertising display area, or a strip below the display, with a maximum area of 0.25 square metres. This display, if an attached strip, is used in calculating the total display area for a sign.

A number of submitters (mostly councils) expressed the view that the number of logo boxes per sign be regulated and limited. The industry argued against this, stating that sometimes two companies were involved with a sign, and both should be able to include their logo.


In addition, the Committee observes that if it is desired to add a new logo box to an older sign, where previously there was no sign, this may trigger a permit requirement or secondary consent under an existing permit.

Promotion sign, Kingsway, with logo box to the lower right corner

DISCUSSION

The Committee considers it appropriate that logo boxes be acknowledged as part of a permit application for a promotion sign and assessed through the application process. There does not appear to be a need for wider control in terms of replacement of company names or changes to box sizes when a different purchases or leases a sign. Thus, the Committee believes these matters would be best addressed through secondary consent provisions on planning permits.

RECOMMENDATION


44. Logo boxes on promotion or other signs:

• Be considered as part of the planning permit application.

• Be required to be identified in a permit application ensuring all details (including number of logo boxes, area in square metres, location and lighting) accompany the permit application.


3.2.5 Corporate Branding


As noted in the Issues and Options Paper, corporate branding of buildings is a strategy increasingly being adopted by some businesses. In the case of a building painted entirely in corporate colours, it can be hard to define where the sign begins and ends. Generally speaking, painting does not require a permit, unless in a heritage overlay area with the paint controls ‘switched on’ by the schedule to Clause 43.01. Even in this circumstance, the paint controls only apply to unpainted surfaces (ie. if already painted, and paint controls are not switched on, a permit is not required).

Commercial premises, Seymour business centre

Most submitters who commented on this issue agreed that it is very difficult to regulate this situation without the introduction of an additional level of control relating to paint colours. That is undesirable not least because of the increased workload and number of permit applications it would generate. It seems this practice is really only criticised when the choice of paint colour is regarded as visually intrusive.


This is not a wide-spread issue based on the submissions received by the Committee and it is recognised that the colourful displays can be regarded as reasonable in business areas and activity centres. The Committee notes that there are many examples of Heritage Overlays where the paint controls are not activated by specific planning schemes but the ability to do so is an option open to councils through an amendment process. In addition, buildings and works controls in business and industrial zones give a basis for discussing building appearance through permit applications (noting the permit application requirements in VPP zones such as Clause 33.01 and 34.01 include details of colours).

The Committee concludes that no action should be taken at this time on the question of corporate branding because the alternative of introducing wide-ranging paint colour controls is impractical and counter-productive to cutting red tape. It remains to be seen whether this trend develops further to a point where it requires control outside heritage areas. In the meantime, the proposed Practice Note could refer to the means by which corporate branding via painted surfaces can be considered and managed.


45. No action be taken at this time in relation to corporate branding.

46. A practice note for advertising signs refer to corporate branding and options available to address corporate branding via painted surfaces.


4. A STREAMLINED APPROACH

4.1 OVERVIEW OF RECOMMENDATIONS

This section draws together the Committee’s recommendations from section 3 of this report into revised VPP provisions and associated recommendations.

The recommended package of VPP changes, to be actioned by DPCD, are:

• Introducing a new state policy on advertising signs in Clause 19 of the State Planning Policy Framework;

• Replacing Clause 52.05 with a new clause incorporating the changes recommended by the Committee, including:

o A new provision on expiry of permits.

o Extended and amended decision guidelines.

o Amended provisions for permit exemptions (Signs not requiring a permit).

o Updated “existing signs” provisions.

• Expanding the opportunity for exemption from third party notice and review to all signs via a schedule to the Clause.

• Within a schedule to the Clause, exempt promotion signs on bus shelters, tram shelters and telephone booths Business 1, 2, 3 and 4 zones and Industrial 1 and 2 zones from the notice requirements of Section 52(1)(a), (b) and (d), the decision requirements of Section 64(1), (2) and (3) and the appeal rights of Section 82 (1) of the PEAct.

• Amending the category tables to ensure they are consistent with the new sign definitions and format criteria.

• Providing an exemption in Clause 62.01 that states that no permit is required for:

Display of a promotion sign on public infrastructure if authorised by Council under a local law and has the written consent of the landowner and, if in or adjacent to a Road Zone 1, the written consent of the road manager.


• Making VicRoads a referral authority for all animated, electronic or scrolling signs within 60 metres of a declared road or freeway under Clause 66.

• Introducing the three new sign definitions of identification, information and promotion signs to replace the existing sign definition in Clause 73.

• Introducing an explanation of sign formats/structures into Clause 73.

• Introducing state-wide advertising sign design guidelines that would become an incorporated document at Clause 81.

The proposed Clause 52.05 includes new category tables which are based on the new sign definitions and sign types (or formats). The Committee’s approach has been to develop a policy neutral translation of the existing requirements, however it is acknowledged that as a result of the new definitions and formats that a completely policy neutral translation has not been possible. For example, the requirement in the proposed table that identification and promotion sign must be flush mounted on a building or awning is not a specific requirement under the existing table.

The Committee’s preference would be for the state-wide guidelines to be introduced concurrently with the VPP amendment. In preparing a VPP amendment, some additional road testing of the clause would be appropriate. DPCD will need to carefully consider the implications of VPP amendments in the context of impacts on local policies currently within planning schemes.

It is anticipated that the proposed framework incorporating new definitions and new provisions on temporary signs may assist responsible authorities in enforcing their planning scheme.

4.2 A NEW STATE POLICY IN THE VPP

The following policy is recommended to be included in Clause 19 of the State Planning Policy Framework to recognise the importance of signs in the natural and built environment and provide a framework for decisions by planning and responsible authorities.

19.0x-1 Objective To recognise that advertising signs can make a positive contribution to the environment when carefully designed and sited.

To ensure the design and siting of advertising signs: • contribute positively to their setting character; and • minimise detrimental impacts; and • maintain road safety.


19.0x-2 General Implementation Responsible authorities should require that all permit applications for advertising signs, as appropriate:


which it is proposed to be located including any applicable local policy. • Provide effective communication in terms of identifying premises and promoting





form and scale of signs.

Planning and responsible authorities must have regard to the Design Guidelines for Advertising Signs (DPCD xxxxx 2008).

4.3 A NEW CLAUSE 52.05 IN THE VPP

The following revised Clause 52.05 is recommended to replace the existing Clause 52.05.

52.05 ADVERTISING SIGNS Purpose To regulate the display of signs and associated structures.

To allow signs that are compatible with the amenity and visual appearance of an area, including the existing or desired future character.

To allow signs that 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. 52.05-1 Requirements Advertising categories The zone provisions specify which category of advertising control applies to the zone. The category of advertising control is contained in the tables at Clauses 52.05-7 to 52.05-10 where conditions are set out when a sign may be displayed without a permit when the conditions are met, where a permit is required, and where a sign is prohibited and must not be displayed. If a sign can be interpreted in more than one way, the most restrictive requirement must be met.


Expiry of permit A permit for a promotion sign must include an expiry date being 15 years from the date of issue of the permit. A period of no less than 10 years or more than 25 years may be specified if appropriate. Before deciding to require a lesser or greater time limit than 15 years, the responsible authority must consider, as appropriate:

• The purpose of the sign. • The existing or desired character, of the area. • The State Planning Policy Framework and the Local Planning Policy Framework,

including the Municipal Strategic Statement and local planning policies in terms of the extent to which the area might be expected to change and the proposed advertisement might be consistent with, or inconsistent with, that policy direction.

This expiry clause does not apply to a permit for a special event or shrouding during construction. Permit requirements A permit for a business sign or information sign must include the following condition:

• The sign must be maintained in good order and appearance to the satisfaction of the responsible authority.

52.02-2 Application requirements An application for the erection and/or display of an advertising sign must be accompanied by the following information, as appropriate: • A site context report addressing:

o The location of the proposed sign on the site or building and distance from property boundaries.

o The location and size of existing signage on the site including details of any signs to be retained or removed.

o The location and form of existing signage on abutting properties and in the locality (photographs would be acceptable).

o The location of closest traffic control signs (photographs would be acceptable). o Identification of any viewlines or vistas that could be affected by the proposed sign.

• Land owner’s consent where the sign is on public land. • The dimensions, height above ground level and extent of projection of the proposed sign. • The height, width, depth of the total sign structure including method of support and any

associated structures such as safety devices and service platforms. • Details of associated on-site works. • Details of any form of illumination including details of baffles and the times at which the sign

would be illuminated. • The colour, lettering style and materials of the proposed sign. • The size of the display (total advertising area including all sides of a multi-sided sign). • The location of any corporate logo box and proportion of display area occupied by such a

logo box. • For signs involving scrolling, electronic and/or animated displays, a report addressing the

decision guidelines at Clause 52.05-4 relating to road safety. • Any landscaping details. • In addition to the above, for any sign over 18 square metres in area:

o A description of the existing character of the area including built form and landscapes; o The location of any other signs over 18 square metres, or scrolling, electronic or

animated signs within 200 metres of the site; o Any existing identifiable advertising theme in the area; o Photo montages or a streetscape perspective of the proposed sign.


o Level of illumination including: lux levels for any sign on or within 60 metres of a Road Zone, residential zone,

public use zone or Business 5 zone; the dwell time and change time for any non-static images;

o The relationship to any significant or prominent views and vistas.

52.05-3 Exemption from notice and review An application for a sign is exempt from the notice requirements of Section 52(1)(a), (b) and (d), the decision requirements of Section 64(1), (2) and (3) and the appeal rights of Section 82 (1) of the Act provided the sign: • Is to be displayed within an area listed in the schedule to this clause. • Meets any condition listed in the schedule to this clause.

52.05-4 Decision guidelines Before deciding on an application to erect and/or display a sign, in addition to the decision guidelines in Clause 65, the responsible authority must consider, as appropriate: • The character of the area including:



o The cumulative impact on the character of an area or route. o The consistency with any identifiable or particular them for outdoor advertising in the

locality. • Impacts on views and vistas:

o The potential to obscure or compromise important views from the public realm. o The potential to dominate the skyline or protrude above the predominant building line. o The potential to impact on the quality of significant public views. o The potential to impede views to existing signs.



buildings or landscape and natural elements. o The ability to screen unsightly built or other elements. o The ability to reduce the number of signs by rationalising or simplifying signs. o The ability to include landscaping to reduce the visual impact of parts of the sign

structure. • The relationship to the site and/or building:

o The scale and form of the sign relative to the scale, proportion and any other significant characteristics of the host site and/or host building.

o The relationship to any important or significant features of the building and/or site. o The extent to which the sign displays innovation relative to the host site and/or host

building. o The extent to which the sign requires the removal of vegetation or includes new

landscaping. • The impact and position of logo boxes and structures to display and maintain the sign:

o The extent to which logo boxes and structures form an integral part of the signage or structure on which it is to be displayed.

o The extent to which logo boxes, lighting and other sign elements are integrated. • The impact of any illumination:

o The impact of glare and illumination on the safety of pedestrians and vehicles.


o The impact of illumination on the amenity of nearby residents and the amenity of the area.

o The potential to control illumination temporally or in terms of intensity. • The impact on road safety. A sign is a safety hazard if the sign:

o Obstructs a driver’s line of sight at an intersection, curve or point of egress from an adjacent property.

o Obstructs a driver’s view of a traffic control device, or is likely to create a confusing or dominating background which might reduce the clarity or effectiveness of a traffic control device.






o Is within 100 metres of a rural railway crossing. o Has insufficient clearance from vehicles on the carriageway. o Could mislead drivers or be mistaken as an instruction to drivers.

• The level of compliance with the Design Guidelines for Advertising Signs, DPCD, xxxxx 2008.

52.05-4 Signs not requiring a permit A permit is not required to display the following signs:

A sign identifying the functions or property of a government department, public authority or municipal council, but not a promotion sign displayed at the direction of any of these bodies.

A sign controlling traffic on a public road, railway, tramway, water or in the air, provided it is displayed at the direction of a government department, public authority or municipal council.

A sign at a hospital that gives direction to emergency facilities. A sign in a road reserve which gives direction or guidance about a tourist attraction, service

or facility of interest to road users. The sign must be displayed to the satisfaction of the road authority.

A sign required by statute or regulation, provided it is strictly in accordance with the requirement.

A sign at a railway station for the information of people using the station. A sign on a showground, on a motor racing track or on a major sports and recreation

facility, provided the advertisement cannot be seen from nearby land. A sign with an advertisement area not exceeding 1 square metre to each premises that

provides information about a place of worship. It must not be animated, scrolling, electronic or internally illuminated.

A sign inside a building that cannot generally be seen outside. A sign with an advertisement area not exceeding 2 square metres concerning construction

work on the land. Only one sign may be displayed, it must not be animated, scrolling, electronic or internally illuminated and it must be removed when the work is completed.

A construction site may be wrapped or shrouded for the duration of the period of construction without a permit provided:

o the wrap or shrouding is only one colour or depicts the building underneath (in either its extant or modified form); and

o any promotion sign contained on the wrap or shrouding: represents no more than 25% of the wrap or shrouding face; and


relates to goods, services or any other matter provided, undertaken or sold or for hire on the land or in the building on which the sign is sited.

The wrap or shrouding must be maintained in good order, not be illuminated and must be removed immediately once construction is complete.

A sign with an advertisement area not exceeding 5 square metres publicising a local educational, cultural, political, religious, social or recreational event not held for commercial purposes. Only one sign may be displayed on the land, it must not be animated, scrolling, electronic or internally illuminated and it must not be displayed longer than 14 days after the event is held or 3 months, whichever is sooner. A sign publicising a local political event may include information about a candidate for an election. The sign may include sub-advertising of a promotional nature, provided the promotional content does not occupy more than 25% of the sign area.

A sign publicising a special event on the land or in the building on which it is displayed, provided no more than 8 signs are displayed in a calendar year and the total number of days the signs are displayed does not exceed 28 in that calendar year. The sign must be removed when the event is finished.

A sign with an advertisement area not exceeding 2 square metres publicising the sale of goods or livestock on the land or in the building on which it is displayed, provided the land or building is not normally used for that purpose. Only one sign may be displayed, it must not be animated, scrolling, electronic or internally illuminated and it must not be displayed longer than 3 months without a permit.

A sign with an advertisement area not exceeding 10 square metres publicising the sale or letting of the property on which it is displayed. Only one sign may be displayed, unless the property is a corner allotment, in which case one may be erected on each street frontage, or if it has a street frontage of more than 150 metres, in which case one sign may be erected every 150 metres, with a total of not more than 4 signs. It must not be animated, scrolling, electronic or internally illuminated and it must not be displayed longer than 21 days after the sale (not settlement) date. A permit may be granted for:

The advertisement area to exceed 10 square metres if the sign concerns more than 20 lots.

The sign to be displayed on land excised from the subdivision and transferred to the municipal council.

The sign to be displayed longer than 21 days after the sale (not settlement) date. A balloon or inflatable device may only be erected provided the device is displayed for no

more than 28 days. Written notice of display of a balloon or inflatable device must be given to the responsible authority at the commencement of the display. If no notice is given, the responsible authority may require the immediate removal of the sign.

No permit is required to fly the Australian flag or to display the flag on a building, painted or otherwise represented, provided it is correctly dimensioned and coloured in accordance with the Flags Act 1953.

52.05-6 Existing signs A sign that was lawfully displayed on the approval date or that was being constructed on that date may be displayed or continue to be displayed and may be repaired and maintained.

A lawfully displayed advertisement may be renewed or replaced. However, a permit is required: • To renew or replace the advertisement of a scrolling, animated or internally-illuminated

sign. • If the advertisement area is to be increased. • If the renewal or replacement would result in a different purpose or format of sign.

A sign that is reconstructed must meet the relevant advertising sign requirements.


52.05-7 Category 1 - Business areas

Minimum limitation

Purpose

To provide for identification and promotion signs and signs that add vitality and colour to business areas.

Section 1 - Permit not required

SIGN CONDITION

Identification sign

Promotion sign The total display size of all signs to each premises must not exceed 8 sq m. This does not include a sign with an advertisement area not exceeding 1.5 sq m that is below a verandah or, if no verandah, that is less than 3.7 m above pavement level.

Must be less than 3.7 m above pavement level.

Must be flush-mounted on building or awning or sit below verandah, or if no verandah, less than 3.7 m above pavement level.

Must not be electronic, animated or scrolling.

Must not be freestanding.

If internally illuminated, must not exceed 1.5 sq m, and the sign must be more than 30 m from a residential zone or pedestrian or traffic lights.

Information sign If for community events, must be less than 5 sq m and contain nomore than 25% sponsor (promotional) content.

If not for community events, must not contain promotional advertising.

The total display size of all signs to each premises must not exceed 8 sq m. This does not include a sign with an advertisement area not exceeding 1.5 sq m that is below a verandah or, if no verandah, that is less than 3.7 m above pavement level.

Must be less than 3.7 m above pavement level.

Must be flush-mounted on building or awning or sit below verandah, or if no verandah, less than 3.7 m above pavement level.

Must not be electronic, animated or scrolling.

Must not be freestanding.

If internally illuminated, must not exceed 1.5 sq m, and the sign must be more than 30 m from a residential zone or pedestrian or traffic lights.


Section 2 - Permit required

SIGN CONDITION

Any sign not in Section 1 or 3

Section 3 - Prohibited

SIGN CONDITION

Nil

This Category applies to the Business 1 and 4 Zones. Check whether a schedule relating to advertising signs also applies to the land.

52.05-8 Category 2 - Office and industrial

Low limitation

Purpose

To provide for adequate identification signs and signs that are appropriate to office and industrial areas.


SIGN CONDITION

Identification sign

The total advertisement area of all signs to each premises must not exceed 8 sq m. If internally-illuminated, the advertisement area must not exceed 1.5 sq m, and the sign must be more than 30 m from a residential zone or pedestrian or traffic lights.

Must not be electronic, animated, or scrolling.

If freestanding, must be less than 7 metres high.

If not freestanding, must be flush-mounted on building or awning.

Information sign If for community events, must be less than 5 sq m and contain no more than 25% sponsor (promotional) content.


The total advertisement area of all signs to each premises must not exceed 8 sq m. If internally-illuminated, the advertisement area must not exceed 1.5 sq m, and the sign must be more than 30 m from a residential zone or pedestrian or traffic lights.

Must not be electronic, animated, or scrolling.

If freestanding, must be less than 7 metres high.

If not freestanding, must be flush-mounted on building or awning.



SIGN CONDITION

Any sign not in Section 1 or 3


SIGN CONDITION

Nil

This Category applies to the Industrial 1, 2 and 3 Zones, and the Business 2 and 3 Zones. Check whether a schedule relating to advertising signs also applies to the land.

52.05-9 Category 3 - High amenity areas

Medium limitation

Purpose

To ensure that signs in high-amenity areas are orderly, of good design and do not detract from the appearance of the building on which a sign is displayed or the surrounding area.


SIGN CONDITION

Identification sign Only one to each premises.

The advertisement area must not exceed 0.2 sq m.

Must not be floodlit or internally illuminated.





SIGN CONDITION

Identification sign Information sign

Must not be higher than 10 m above the ground.

Promotion sign The advertisement area must not exceed 2 sq m.



SIGN CONDITION

Any sign not in Sections 1 or 2

This Category applies to the Residential 1 and 2 Zones, the Mixed Use Zone, the Priority Development Zone, the Business 5 Zone, the Special Use Zone, the Comprehensive Development Zone, the Docklands Zone, the Low Density Residential Zone, the Township Zone, the Rural Living Zone, the Green Wedge and Green Wedge A Zone. Check whether a schedule relating to advertising signs also applies to the land.

52.05-10 Category 4 - Sensitive areas

Maximum limitation

Purpose

To provide for unobtrusive signs in areas requiring strong amenity control.


SIGN CONDITION

Identification sign Only one to each premises.

For bed and breakfast and home occupation purposes, the advertisement area must not exceed 0.2 sq m.






SIGN CONDITION

Identification sign The total advertisement area to each premises must not exceed 3sq m.

May be floodlit.

Must not be internally illuminated.

Information sign May be floodlit.

Must not be internally illuminated.



SIGN CONDITION


This Category applies to the Public Use Zone (except PUZ4), the Public Park & Recreation Zone, the Farming Zone, the Public Conservation & Resource Zone, the Urban Floodway Zone and the Rural Conservation Zone. Check whether a schedule relating to advertising signs also applies to the land.

4.4 A NEW CLAUSE 73 IN THE VPP

The Committee recommends the sign definitions in Clause 73 be deleted and replaced with the following three sign purposes:

• Identification. A sign that provides business identification information about a commercial or non-commercial use, business or industry carried out on the land where the sign is displayed. The information may include the name of the use, business or building, the street number of the premises, the nature of the use or business, a business logo or other business identification information. It does not include any advertising relating to a commercial or non-commercial business or a person that does not carry out a business at the premises or place.

• Promotion. A sign that advertises 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.

• Information. A sign that directs vehicles or pedestrians, advertises or provides information about community events, activities, or emergency information whether or not the event or activity is on the land on which the sign is sited. It does not include promotion advertising.

In addition, the table included in section 3.1.1 (page 10) describing sign formats should be included in Clause 73 to assist interpretation of the category tables in Clause 52.05. The Committee strongly recommends diagrams accompany these descriptions to assist interpretation.

4.5 NEW STATE-WIDE ADVERTISING SIGN DESIGN GUIDELINES

The Committee considers state-wide guidelines could be beneficial for multiple reasons as set out in section 3 of this report. It is recommended that DPCD develop these guidelines in association with a steering committee or reference group as set out in Recommendations 37 and 38.


A possible structure for the guidelines is:

1. General design objectives 2. Design criteria

• Location of signs on sites, buildings and structures

• Signs on walls

• Signs above the roof

• Free standing signs

• Animated, scrolling and electronic signs

3. Signs on public infrastructure

4. Signs in area types • Business areas

• Office and industrial areas

• High amenity areas

• Sensitive areas

• Other – eg Main Roads

5.Possible structure for local policy framework for advertising signs

• Objective

• Policy basis

• Brief description of area and preferred character

• Location and design objectives

o Promotion signs

o identification signs

o Information signs

4.6 A NEW VPP PRACTICE NOTE

A VPP Practice Note addressing advertising signs could serve multiple purposes to assist responsible authorities administer advertising sign policies and controls with the aim of improving consistency in approach. It could also assist the preparation of location-specific policies by planning authorities.

A practice note would be expected to include guidance to planning and/responsible authorities consistent with the wide range of practice notes that have been developed to assist the operation and administration of the VPP. Arising from the recommendations in section 3 of this report, the Practice Note would also address:


• Consistency in policy and control

Assistance for responsible authorities to administer advertising sign policies and controls with the aim of improving consistency in approach. It could also assist the preparation of location-specific policies by planning authorities.

• Application requirements for advertising on public infrastructure

Formulation of a commonly agreed list of permit application requirements, a standardised permit application process and a list of planning permit conditions for advertising on bus shelters, tram shelters, telephone booths and any other street furniture, to provide consistency and efficiency to the industry, VicRoads and councils.

• Exemptions from notice and review Guidance on the circumstances regarding locations and sign types that could be exempt from notice and review, on the basis that the decision to require notice is discretionary and if a proposed sign does not cause a material detriment it should not be subject to public notification.

• Road safety

Provision of advice to councils with concerns about the safety impact of a proposed advertising sign on or near State controlled roads for which VicRoads is not a referral authority. This could involve seeking formal advice from VicRoads by notifying it under Section 52 of the Planning & Environment Act 1987; or seeking informal advice from VicRoads; and/or requiring an assessment of road safety with the permit application.

• Corporate branding

Provision of advice regarding options available to address corporate branding via painted surfaces.

4.7 OTHER RECOMMENDATIONS

A number of other recommendations have been made by the Committee that, if accepted, require action by the Minister for Planning, DPCD and/or VicRoads. These are focussed on signage issues relating to road corridors. They are:


1. DPCD and VicRoads explore further opportunities to introduce exemptions from permits for advertising signs using an area-based approach using the Monash Freeway/Westgate transport corridor as a potential case study. (Recommendation 5).

2. The Minister for Planning request the review of Freeway Service Centre Guidelines to consider:

o amending Clause 52.30 and the Freeway Service Centres Design Guidelines, May 1997, to include decision guidelines relating to advertising signage and, concurrently, amending the Farming Zone (Clause 35.07-7) to require signage associated with a freeway service centre to be excluded from category 4 and instead to comply with Clause 52.30; and

o developing decision guidelines in relation to advertising signage for inclusion in Clause 52.30 and/or revised Freeway Service Centres Design Guidelines. (Recommendation 11).

3. VicRoads establish a working group and involve relevant stakeholders prepare detailed guidelines to assist in the interpretation of the 10 point road safety checklist (Recommendation 31).

4. In accordance with the recommendation of the Parliamentary Road Safety Inquiry into Driver Distraction, VicRoads establish a working group to develop a more consistent and stringent approach to the installation, use and content of scrolling, moving and video-style advertising within and adjacent to road reserves. This includes standards for signs with moving electronic displays and signs with static electronic displays. (Recommendation 32).

The Committee envisages the last two recommendations (31 and 32) would be actioned concurrently by one working group.

In addition, the Committee has recommended an amendment to the VPP, a Ministerial amendment, to correct the current provisions of Clause 52.05-5 to amend the reference to 19 September 1993 to 19 September 1995 (Recommendation 18). The Committee considers this should be undertaken promptly, and ahead of other changes to the VPP sign provisions.

Review of VPP Advertising Sign Provisions Appendices Final Report, December 2007 Page i

APPENDICES

Various sign purposes and formats, Bridge Road, Richmond

Review of VPP Advertising Sign Provisions Appendices Final Report, December 2007 Page ii

APPENDIX 1

Persons and Organisations Forwarded the Issues and Options Paper All Victorian Councils Government Corporations

• Chalita Rodor Department of Infrastructure • Florence Raffarad Connex Melbourne Pty Ltd • Ron Hamilton Victorian Rail Track Corporation Stuart Niven Urban Design Unit, DSE

Industry Groups and Businesses

• Helen Willoughby Outdoor Media Association Inc • Ron Fredinands Claude Group Pty Ltd • Peter Franklin Independent Outdoor Melbourne • Louise Nehme Network Outdoor Australia Pty Ltd • Brad Munro Outdoor Elements Pty Ltd • Not Supplied EYE Corp • Ross Eden-Smith Jewell Partnership Pty Ltd • Helen Willoughby Outdoor Media Association Inc • Kelvin Whitford JC Decaux Australia Pty Ltd • Ron Ferdinands Urban Initiatives Pty Ltd • Liz Oswin Bay Media

Peak Bodies

• John Cain Law Institute of Victoria • Liz Johnstone Municipal Association of Victoria • Helen Gibson Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal • Mark Bernhardt Planning Enforcement Officer’s Association

Inc • Jason Black Planning Institute of Australia – Victoria

Division • Jennifer Cunich Property Council of Australia - Victoria • Philip Goad Royal Australian Institute of Architects -

Victoria • Rae Perry Victorian Local Governance Association • Jane Power Victorian Planning and Environmental Law

Association

Review of VPP Advertising Sign Provisions Appendices Final Report, December 2007 Page iii

APPENDIX 2

Persons and Organisations Responding to Issues and Options Paper

• Helen Willoughby Outdoor Media Association • Jeremy Livingston Nillumbik Shire Council • Stephen Baxas City of Port Phillip • Tracey Parker Cardinia Shire Council • Sue Jacquinot VicRoads • Peter Gaschk Hume City Council • Rosa Zouzoulas City of Kingston • Brian Goyen City of Monash • Sue Vujcevic Moreland City Council • David Becroft Moira Shire Council • W. Wood City of Greater Dandenong • Glen Aitken Frankston City Council • Anthony Diaferia Maroondah City Council • Brett Hope Public Transport Division, DOI • Scott Walker Banyule City Council • K McClusky Hobsons Bay City Council • Alan Cowley Mornington Peninsula Shire Council • Geoffrey Provis Law Institute of Victoria • Lisel Thomas Municipal Association of Victoria • Stephen Wainwright City of Yarra • Peter Van Til Wyndham City Council • Leonie Kirkwood City of Melbourne • Sabine Haas Yarra Trams • Anne Izat Moonee Valley City Council • Colin Kalms Greater Shepparton City Council • Ken Mathers SEITA • Jennifer Cunich Property Council of Australia • Stuart Draffin Stonnington City Council • Shiran Wicks Boroondara City Council • Not Supplied Moreland City Council • Melissa McBride City of Greater Geelong

Review of VPP Advertising Sign Provisions Appendices Final Report, December 2007 Page iv

APPENDIX 3

Persons and Organisations Participating in the November 2007 Workshops

Workshop # 1

• Alan King VicRoads • Alan Collins VicRoads • David Williams VicRoads • Brett Hope Department of Infrastructure • Ron Ferdinands Adshel • Lisel Thomas Municipal Association of Victoria • Lorrae Wild VicRoads • Philip McCall Outdoor Media Association • Karen Dowling Property Council of Australia • Simon Corrigan APN Outdoor • Ross Eden-Smith Eye Australia • Kathy Lazanas JC Decaux • Kelvin Whitford IOM P/L • Roz Franklin Mornington Peninsula Shire Council • Leonie Kirkwood City of Melbourne • Kate Yuncken City of Melbourne • Luke Brett Network Outdoor • Ged Hart Network Outdoor • Peter Franklin APN Outdoor

Workshop # 2

• Kristen Bell Hume City Council • Emina Keijestorac Hobsons Bay City Council • Michelle Lee City of Greater Geelong • Rodney Kean City of Greater Dandenong • Peter McKinnon City of Wyndham • Peter Van Til City of Wyndham • Zopan Jovanovski Moreland City Council • Anthony Diaferia Maroondah City Council

Review of VPP Advertising Sign Provisions Appendices Final Report, December 2007 Page v

APPENDIX 4

Current Clauses 52.05 and 73 of the VPP (as amended by VC45)

52.05 ADVERTISING SIGNS

Purpose 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.

52.05-1 Requirements

Advertising categories Clauses 52.05-7 to 52.05-10 specify categories of advertising control. The zone provisions specify which category of advertising control applies to the zone.

A sign in Section 1 of the category may be displayed without a permit, but a condition opposite the sign must be met. If the condition is not met, the sign requires a permit unless specifically included in Section 3 as a sign that does not meet the Section 1 condition.

A sign in Section 2 may be displayed only with a permit and a condition opposite the sign must be met. If the condition is not met, the sign is prohibited.

A sign in Section 3 is prohibited and must not be displayed.

Some overlays require a permit for Section 1 signs.

If a sign can be interpreted in more than one way, the most restrictive requirement must be met.

Referral of an application for permit An application to display an electronic billboard sign within 60 metres of a freeway or arterial road declared under the Road Management Act 2004 must be referred in accordance with Section 55 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 to the referral authority specified in Clause 66.03 or a schedule to that clause.

Expiry of permit A permit for a sign other than a major promotion sign expires on the date specified in the permit. If no date is specified, the expiry date is 15 years from the date of issue of the permit.

52.05-2 Decision guidelines Before deciding on an application to display a sign, in addition to the decision guidelines in Clause 65, the responsible authority must consider:

• The effect of the sign on the amenity of the area including the need to avoid visual disorder or clutter of signs.

• The effect of the sign on the built environment or the landscape, with particular thought to its effect on any objects of scenic, historic, architectural, scientific or cultural interest.

• The need for identification and the opportunities for adequate identification on the site and nearby.

• The advertising pattern and theme in the area and the number of signs of the same type.

• The effect of the sign on existing signs.

Review of VPP Advertising Sign Provisions Appendices Final Report, December 2007 Page vi

• The size and likely impact of the sign having regard to the size of the premises on which it is to be displayed and the scale of surrounding buildings.

• The effect of the sign on the safety, warning and security of premises and public areas.

• The effect of the sign on the appearance and efficiency of a road, railway, waterway or other public way, having particular regard to the sign’s colour, brightness and location.

• The effect of the sign on road safety. A sign is a safety hazard if the sign:

o Obstructs a driver’s line of sight at an intersection, curve or point of egress from an adjacent property.

o Obstructs a driver’s view of a traffic control device, or is likely to create a confusing or dominating background which might reduce the clarity or effectiveness of a traffic control device.






o Is within 100 metres of a rural railway crossing.

o Has insufficient clearance from vehicles on the carriageway.

o Could mislead drivers or be mistaken as an instruction to drivers.

52.05-3 Signs not requiring a permit

A permit is not required to display the following signs:

• A sign identifying the functions or property of a government department, public authority or municipal council, but not a promotion sign displayed at the direction of any of these bodies.

• A sign controlling traffic on a public road, railway, tramway, water or in the air, provided it is displayed at the direction of a government department, public authority or municipal council.

• A sign at a hospital that gives direction to emergency facilities.

• A sign in a road reserve which gives direction or guidance about a tourist attraction, service or facility of interest to road users. The sign must be displayed to the satisfaction of the road authority.

• A sign required by statute or regulation, provided it is strictly in accordance with the requirement.

• A sign at a railway station for the information of people using the station.

• A sign on a showground, on a motor racing track or on a major sports and recreation facility, provided the advertisement cannot be seen from nearby land.

Review of VPP Advertising Sign Provisions Appendices Final Report, December 2007 Page vii

• A sign with an advertisement area not exceeding 1 square metre to each premises that provides information about a place of worship. It must not be an animated or internally-illuminated sign.

• A sign inside a building that cannot generally be seen outside.

• A sign with an advertisement area not exceeding 2 square metres concerning construction work on the land. Only one sign may be displayed, it must not be an animated or internally-illuminated sign and it must be removed when the work is completed.

• A sign with an advertisement area not exceeding 5 square metres publicising a local educational, cultural, political, religious, social or recreational event not held for commercial purposes. Only one sign may be displayed on the land, it must not be an animated or internally-illuminated sign and it must not be displayed longer than 14 days after the event is held or 3 months, whichever is sooner. A sign publicising a local political event may include information about a candidate for an election.

• A sign publicising a special event on the land or in the building on which it is displayed, provided no more than 8 signs are displayed in a calendar year and the total number of days the signs are displayed does not exceed 28 in that calendar year. The sign must be removed when the event is finished.

• A sign with an advertisement area not exceeding 2 square metres publicising the sale of goods or livestock on the land or in the building on which it is displayed, provided the land or building is not normally used for that purpose. Only one sign may be displayed, it must not be an animated or internally-illuminated sign and it must not be displayed longer than 3 months without a permit.

• A sign with an advertisement area not exceeding 10 square metres publicising the sale or letting of the property on which it is displayed. Only one sign may be displayed, it must not be an animated sign and it must not be displayed longer than 7 days after the sale date. A permit may be granted for:

o The advertisement area to exceed 10 square metres if the sign concerns more than 20 lots.

o The sign to be displayed on land excised from the subdivision and transferred to the municipal council.

o The sign to be displayed longer than 7 days after the sale date.

• No permit is required to fly the Australian flag or to display the flag on a building, painted or otherwise represented, provided it is correctly dimensioned and coloured in accordance with the Flags Act 1953.

52.05-4 Existing signs A sign that was lawfully displayed on the approval date or that was being constructed on that date may be displayed or continue to be displayed and may be repaired and maintained.

A lawfully displayed advertisement may be renewed or replaced. However, a permit is required:

• To renew or replace the advertisement of an animated or internally-illuminated sign.

• If the advertisement area is to be increased.

• If the renewal or replacement would result in a different type of sign.

A sign that is reconstructed must meet the relevant advertising sign requirements.

Review of VPP Advertising Sign Provisions Appendices Final Report, December 2007 Page viii

52.05-5 Major promotion sign

Purpose To achieve high quality visual standards for the siting of major promotion signs.

To ensure that the signs are not detrimental to the appearance of their surroundings or the safe and efficient operation of the route through the application of consistent planning controls.

Exemption from notice and appeal An application for a major promotion sign is exempt from the notice requirements of Section 52(1)(a), (b) and (d), the decision requirements of Section 64(1), (2) and (3) and the review rights of Section 82 (1) of the Act provided the sign:

• Is to be displayed within an area listed in the schedule to this clause.

• Meets any condition listed in the schedule to this clause.

Permit requirement A permit for a major promotion sign must include conditions that specify:

• An expiry date, which is not less than 10 years or more than 25 years from the date of issue of the permit unless a local policy specifies a different expiry requirement.

• That the sign must not:

o Dazzle or distract drivers due to its colouring.

o Be able to be mistaken for a traffic signal because it has, for example, red circles, octagons, crosses or triangles.

o Be able to be mistaken as an instruction to drivers.

A major promotion sign displayed in accordance with a permit granted between 19 September 1993, and 18 September 1997, may continue to be displayed until 18 September 2008.

Decision guidelines Before deciding on an application, in addition to the decision guidelines in Clause 52.05-2 and Clause 65, the responsible authority must consider, as appropriate:

• The effect of the proposed major promotion sign on:

o Significant streetscapes, buildings and skylines.

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

o Residential areas and heritage places.

o Open space and waterways.

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

• Major promotion signs are encouraged in commercial and industrial locations in a manner which complements 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 within open space reserves or corridors and around waterways.

Review of VPP Advertising Sign Provisions Appendices Final Report, December 2007 Page ix

• 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.

52.05-6 Category 1 - Business areas

Minimum limitation

Purpose

To provide for identification and promotion signs and signs that add vitality and colour to business areas.


SIGN CONDITION

Bed and breakfast sign Business identification sign Home occupation sign Promotion sign

The total advertisement area of all signs to each premises mustnot exceed 8 sq m. This does not include a sign with anadvertisement area not exceeding 1.5 sq m that is below averandah or, if no verandah, that is less than 3.7 m abovepavement level.

Direction sign

Internally-illuminated sign

The total advertisement area to each premises must not exceed1.5 sq m.

No part of the sign may be above a verandah or, if no verandah,more than 3.7 m above pavement level.

The sign must be more than 30 m from a residential zone orpedestrian or traffic lights.


SIGN CONDITION

Any sign not in Section 1


SIGN CONDITION

Nil

19/01/2006 VC37

Review of VPP Advertising Sign Provisions Appendices Final Report, December 2007 Page x

52.05-7 Category 2 - Office and industrial

Low limitation

Purpose

To provide for adequate identification signs and signs that are appropriate to office and industrial areas.


SIGN CONDITION

Bed and breakfast sign Business identification sign Home occupation sign Pole sign

The total advertisement area of all signs to each premises mustnot exceed 8 sq m. This does not include a direction sign.

Direction sign Only one to each premises.

Internally-illuminated sign

The advertisement area must not exceed 1.5 sq m. The signmust be more than 30 m from a residential zone or pedestrian ortraffic lights.


SIGN CONDITION

Any sign not in Section 1


SIGN CONDITION

Nil

52.05-8 Category 3 - High amenity areas

Medium limitation

Purpose

To ensure that signs in high-amenity areas are orderly, of good design and do not detract from the appearance of the building on which a sign is displayed or the surrounding area.


SIGN CONDITION

Bed and breakfast sign Home occupation sign

Only one to each premises. The advertisement area must not exceed 0.2 sq m.

Direction sign

19/01/2006 VC37

19/01/2006 VC37

Review of VPP Advertising Sign Provisions Appendices Final Report, December 2007 Page xi


SIGN CONDITION

Above-verandah sign Business identification sign Floodlit sign

High-wall sign Must be a business logo or street number.

Internally-illuminated sign Pole sign

Promotion sign The advertisement area must not exceed 2 sq m.

Reflective sign


SIGN CONDITION


52.05-9 Category 4 - Sensitive areas

Maximum limitation

Purpose

To provide for unobtrusive signs in areas requiring strong amenity control.


SIGN CONDITION

Bed and breakfast sign Home occupation sign

Only one to each premises. The advertisement area must not exceed 0.2 sq m.

Direction sign


SIGN CONDITION

Business identification sign

The total advertisement area to each premises must not exceed 3sq m.

Floodlit sign


SIGN CONDITION


19/01/2006 VC37

Review of VPP Advertising Sign Provisions Appendices Final Report, December 2007 Page xii

73 OUTDOOR ADVERTISING TERMS

The following table lists terms which may be used in this planning scheme in relation to outdoor advertising. A term listed in the first column, under the heading "Outdoor Advertising Term", has the meaning set out beside that term in the second column, under the heading "Definition".

OUTDOOR ADVERTISING TERM

DEFINITION

Above-verandah sign A sign above a verandah or, if no verandah, that is more than 3.7 metres above pavement level, and which projects more than 0.3 metre outside the site.

Advertisement area The total area of an advertisement. If the advertisement does not rotate or move, the area is one side only.

Animated sign A sign that can move, contains moving parts, changes its message, flashes, or has a moving or flashing border.

Bed and breakfast sign A sign at a dwelling that advertises bed and breakfast accommodation in the dwelling.

Bunting sign An advertisement that consists of bunting, streamers, flags, windvanes, or the like.

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.

Direction sign A sign not exceeding 0.3 square metre that directs vehicles or pedestrians. It does not include a sign that contains commercial information.

Electronic billboard sign

A sign that can be updated electronically. It includes screens running television footage, large screen video displays and the like.

Floodlit sign A sign illuminated by external lighting provided for that purpose.

High-wall sign A sign on the wall of a building so that part of it is more than 10 metres above the ground.

Home occupation sign A sign at a dwelling that advertises a home occupation carried on in the dwelling, or on the land around the dwelling.

Internally illuminated sign

A sign illuminated by internal lighting or which contains lights or illuminated tubes arranged as an advertisement.

Major promotion sign 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.

19/01/2006 VC37

Review of VPP Advertising Sign Provisions Appendices Final Report, December 2007 Page xiii

Panel sign A sign with an advertisement area exceeding 10 square

metres.

Pole sign A sign:

a) on a pole or pylon that is not part of a building or another structure;

b) that is no more than 7 metres above the ground; c) with an advertisement area not exceeding 6 square

metres; and d) that has a clearance under it of at least 2.7 metres.

Promotion sign A sign of less than 18 square metres 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.

Reflective sign A sign finished with material specifically made to reflect external light.

Sign An advertisement and any structure built specifically to support it.

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.

Documents

Advertising Signs Provisions Advisory Committee Final Report