First Neon A/Asia Pty Ltd v Sydney City Council

[2005] NSWLEC 24

Land and Environment Court

of New South Wales

CITATION:

First Neon A/Asia Pty Ltd v Sydney City Council [2005] NSWLEC 24

PARTIES:

APPLICANT
First Neon A/Asia Pty Ltd

RESPONDENT
Sydney City Council

FILE NUMBER(S):

11219 of 2004

CORAM:

Nott C

KEY ISSUES:

Development Application - Development Consent :- proposed projecting vertical wall sign - size and height (9 m) - streetscape character

LEGISLATION CITED:

Signage and Advertising Structures Development Control Plan 2003
Draft Signage and Advertising Structures Development Control Plan 2005
Development Control Plan No. 7

DATES OF HEARING:

3 February 2005

 
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 

02/03/2005

EX TEMPORE JUDGMENT DATE:

02/03/2005

LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES:

APPLICANT
Mr J Robson SC
SOLICITORS
Landerer & Company

RESPONDENT
Stan Kondilios, solicitor
SOLICITORS
Maddocks Lawyers

JUDGMENT:

IN THE LAND AND
ENVIRONMENT COURT
OF NEW SOUTH WALES

Nott C

3 February 2005


11219 of 2004: First Neon A/Asia Pty Ltd v Sydney City Council

JUDGMENT

1 This appeal relates to a proposed projecting wall sign at the Formule1 Motel, 191–201 William Street, East Sydney. The proposed sign is to be supported by unobtrusive horizontal supports that project out 1 m from the masonry streetfront façade of the building. The sign itself is 9 m high and projects out further by 1.2 m from the supporting members, so that the structure is then 2.2 m from the masonry façade of the building. It is necessary for the sign to be separated from the masonry elements because there are other elements in the nature of sunshades or decorative features on the front façade of the building. This proposed sign is elevated three floors approximately above street level. The sign was refused by the Council.

2 Prior to the hearing before me, the matter came on for case management before Senior Commissioner Roseth, who directed that there be only one expert for each party and that each expert should prepare a statement of evidence limited to two pages. That has been done, and I think it was a sufficient procedure to deal with the nature the application now before me.

3 The two experts were: for the applicant, Mr A Darroch, town planner; and for the council, Mr W Mackay, Area Planning Manager.

4 I accept everything that has been stated concerning the circumstances of the appeal, the history of the application, the zoning and the relevant plans that has been set out in the Statement of Basic Facts.

5 I have been assisted by a view of the subject site from various vantage points. Beside the two experts who gave evidence, there where letters of objection from residents who live nearby. The subject site is located within a business precinct but it is also nearby or adjoining residential areas.

6 The view that I have come to in respect of the proposed sign is that it is too large and is not sufficiently integrated with the front façade of the building. Because of its size, it would tend to dominate the streetscape character in this part of Williams Street. In my opinion, this would be contrary to the planning provisions that applied at the time the development application was lodged that appear in Development Control Plan No. 7. Clause 10.4.1 of DCP 7 refers one back to cl. 10.3 in which objective 2 states:

Retain the character of existing shopping streets ensuring signage in keeping with the scale and character of the buildings, in such a way that signs do not dominate the streetscape character .

7 That DCP has been repealed and the current development control plan is Signage and Advertising Structures Development Control Plan 2003 dated October 2003. The City of Sydney has a draft DCP which is Signage and Advertising Structures Development Control Plan 2005, which reproduces in substance many of the provisions of the current plan.

8 In particular, cl 3.4.3 of the draft 2005 plan refers to projecting wall signs. One projecting wall sign per street frontage is the limit. The subject site has two signs on its William Street frontage, although they are not projecting wall signs. The horizontal projection from the building should be no more than 1 m. There is also a requirement that the height should not exceed two storeys. The proposed sign does exceed two storeys and does project more than 1 m.

9 I acknowledge other provisions of this draft plan do permit projecting signs of vertical proportions where existing lawful signs of this type exist. This is provided for in cl. 6.4.9 in relation to the Williams Street precinct. However, such signs in accordance with the last-mentioned clause should be integrated with building features. The proposed sign is to some extent integrated, as it is to be erected on a vertical masonry element. But its projection out from the building does not appear to integrate with the building in the same manner as, for example, the projecting wall sign a 2 Park Street, Sydney, shown in exhibit B. The sign at 2 Park Street is much narrower in its projection out from the wall and the projection of the whole structure including the supporting elements is probably less than half that of what is proposed.

10 The question then is whether I should approve an amended version of the sign that is purportedly shown in a montage, exhibit C. The sign would have dimensions 6 m high and project out by 1.2 m from the supporting elements. However, exhibit C does not adequately show the sign because the supporting elements do not extend 1 m from the masonry elements, and the montage could to some extent be misleading. Also, the sign itself in its north-south dimension (that is, in its projection away from the building) is again 1.2 m, which is greater than what is provided for in the current DCP and the proposed draft DCP.

11 I have considered alternatives in a general sense. It is important from the applicant’s point of view that there be recognisable identification of the building. The existing signage, which is more or less flush with the front façade of the building, does not give early warning or advance notice to motorists coming from the west. Whether or not some other signage would be appropriate could be the subject of further consideration by the applicant, and appropriate plans prepared and an application made to the Council in the first instance.

12 One possibility might be that there be a painted wall sign on the western façade of subject building, where there is now no signage at all. It might not be possible to have an illuminated sign, however, on that elevation unless some arrangement was made with the adjoining neighbour, because it appears that the western wall of the subject building is built to the boundary.

13 I should also mention that there is a very large illuminated sign on the eastern façade of the subject building. This sign replaced other signage that formerly existed on the buildings that were demolished to make way for the Formule1 motel building. Query whether if that sign was reduced in size a little, it might be possible to have towards the northern corner a smaller sign indicating the use of the subject building as a motel.

14 In the circumstances, therefore, I am not prepared to approve the application actually before the Court and I have reservations about an amended sign of the type indicated in the montage.

15 Accordingly, the order of the Court is:

The appeal is dismissed, to the extent that the appeal sought consent for the sign in condition 2(a) of schedule 1 of the development consent dated 8 October 2003 to DA 03/00456.

— A J Nott,
Commissioner of the Court.