A proposed electronic billboard on Cameron Street in Cranbourne has been rejected by the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal, backing Casey Council’s refusal.
VCAT Member Katherine Paterson ruled on 6 February that the major promotional sky sign proposed by Maple Media Pty Ltd would have an “unreasonable impact” on nearby residential properties and would dominate the streetscape when viewed from surrounding homes.
The application sought approval for a two-sided electronic advertising sign with a combined display area of more than 50 square metres, mounted on a 7.7-metre pole at Unit 1/45 Cameron Street, within the Cranbourne Major Activity Centre.
Casey Council rejected the sign, claiming that it would not complement the character of the area due to its size and height; would create visual clutter; the illumination from the electronic sign would be a distraction for drivers on Narre Warren-Cranbourne Road, and would adversely affect the amenity of residents within the residential area.
Council also submitted that major promotion signs are inconsistent with local planning policies, which seek to limit signs to business identification signs that are less than 7 metres in height and limit the number of pole signs on each property.
While the Tribunal accepted that the sign would generally be suitable when viewed from Narre Warren–Cranbourne Road and the industrial side hookup of the activity centre, and would not pose a traffic safety risk, it found the residential outlook told a different story.
“I find that the views from the residential area are sensitive, and the proposed sign will appear jarring in the streetscape, particularly due to its electronic form from this vantage point,” Member Paterson.
“Whilst the sign has been designed so that it is orientated towards Narre Warren-Cranbourne Road, with only a narrow element visible from the residential properties directly in front of the sign, it will be visible from Jagger Circuit and possibly from the dwellings that will be constructed to the south, as shown in the view line diagram provided with the application.
The Member also raised concerns about the impact on key gateway views into the precinct, particularly from the southern entrance, saying the sign would remain apparent, even if not fully legible, from those locations.
VCAT also found the proposal conflicted with Council’s local signage policy, which discourages major promotion signs and sky signs in favour of smaller business identification signage integrated into building design.
While acknowledging that some locations in Casey could potentially support large promotional signage, the Tribunal said such developments require “great care” in site selection.
VCAT affirmed Casey Council’s refusal, with no permit granted for the billboard.
