Meriton Apartments Pty Ltd v Waverley Council

[2004] NSWLEC 53

Land and Environment Court

of New South Wales

CITATION:	Meriton Apartments Pty Ltd v Waverley Council [2004] NSWLEC 53
PARTIES:	APPLICANT Meriton Apartments Pty Ltd RESPONDENT Waverley Council
FILE NUMBER(S):	11510 of 2003
CORAM:	Hoffman C
KEY ISSUES:	Development Application :- Proposed large signs on the tops of 2 high rise towers - Impacts on adjacent residential apartments - Desired existing and future character of Bondi Junction
LEGISLATION CITED:	Joint Waverley and Woollahra Planning Scheme Ordinance Woollahra Local Environmental Plan No. 46 State Environmental Planning Policy No. 64
CASES CITED:
DATES OF HEARING:	19/02/2004
EX TEMPORE JUDGMENT DATE :	02/19/2004
LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES:	APPLICANT Mr D Grynberg, corporate counsel RESPONDENT Mr M Staunton, solicitor SOLICITORS Staunton Beattie

JUDGMENT:

IN THE LAND AND
ENVIRONMENT COURT
OF NEW SOUTH WALES

11510 of 2003 Hoffman C 19 February 2004

Meriton Apartments Pty Ltd
Applicant

v Waverley Council
Respondent

Judgment

1 . This was a class 1 appeal No. 11510 of 2003 between Meriton Apartments Pty Ltd and Waverley Council in regard to the refusal of four internally illuminated signs saying the word “Meriton” including two internally illuminated company logos or shields. They were to go two each on the two towers on the Tiffany apartments at No. 422 Oxford Street, Bondi Junction.

2 . One building is about 68 m tall and the other about 85 m tall at their highest point which gives them front line status amongst the high rises at Bondi Junction facing towards the harbour.

3 . The signs incorporating the logo would in overall dimensions be about 2 m high x 13.7 m wide. The ones with the word only were about 1.4 m high x 8.6 m wide. At the hearing the applicant moved the signs a little higher on the screen walls on which they were to be mounted. Above the signs would be some louvre grilles and a capping to the screen walls. It was a minor change not objected to by the respondent.

4 . In the drive around the district the Court was shown that the tops of the high rise towers of Tiffany could be seen from many places from many directions. In some places the signs could not be seen due to intervening structures, and as one came closer towards them they could be seen from fewer places because the signs were set back from the main roof parapets. The signs were erected on the screen walls to external equipment mounted on the roof of the lift towers.

5 . The applicant pointed out that the signs could be seen from various principal roads coming towards Bondi Junction, and that was the important feature, as it identified the Meriton serviced apartments for tourists unfamiliar with the area but trying to find them.

6 . The one-site hearing was attended by:

• Mr D Grynberg, corporate counsel
• Ms S Lewis, corporate town planner
• Mr M Staunton, solicitor for the council
• Mr A Biller, town planner for the council
• Dr R Lamb, visual impact specialist
• Ms R Findlay-Debeck, Waverley Council
• Mr A Stevens, Chair Eastgate Gardens Body Corporate
• Prof D White, Harbourview Residents Group
• Ms C Hardin, Strata Corp Management Services Pty Ltd
7 . The issues in the appeal were:

1. Whether or not the proposed signs are consistent with the signage controls as set out in the Bondi Junction Commercial Centre Development Control Plan
2. Whether or not the proposal is consistent with the objectives and controls of State Environmental Planning Policy 64 - Advertising and Signage
3. Whether or not the proposed signage is third party advertising and would detract from the 'sense of place' of Bondi Junction
4. Whether or not the proposed signs are acceptable in respect to the appearance of the existing buildings and the Bondi Junction skyline.

5. Whether or not the illumination of the proposed signage is acceptable in respect to the amenity of adjoining residents
6. Whether or not the proposal is in the public interest.

8 . Mr Stevens took the hearing to his apartment on the nearby Eastgate Gardens Towers. He spoke on behalf of, and was chairman of the Body Corporate. His apartment’s living room windows and principle north facing terrace looked at the Tiffany towers at about the level of the signs. He would see 2 of them. He said the appearance of the signs would detract from his view which was magnificent even with the Tiffany towers in the foreground. At the moment there was only the architectural form of towers, but the signs would take attention away from the rest of the view especially at night when they were to be illuminated. A similar impact would occur to all the units that could see one or more of the signs.

9 . It was put the signs would be turned down to 50% power at 11 pm and off at midnight. He said it was good they would be off after midnight, but when he was awake, eating dinner on his terrace or dining room, or in his living room and kitchen, the signs and the glare would be present. That was unacceptable in residential towers he said.

10 . Professor White represented Harbourview Residents Group who were about 850 houses between Sid Einfield Drive and Cooper Park north of the property. He said the glow from existing lights at Bondi Junction illuminated their yards and bedrooms and other windows facing that way. Residents were concerned about the cumulative effect of more signs and lighting from the commercial precinct. It was already intrusive and should not become worse.

11 . The skyline of the ridge should be protected he said, and should not become like North Sydney or the CBD with its many huge corporate signs on high rise buildings. Also he said the character of Bondi Junction was different to them because primarily the towers were residential occupancies, most for permanent residents, with commercial uses at the lower levels. The residential amenity of tower residents and nearby houses should take priority.

12 . Except for a Westfield sign apparently not approved by either Waverley or Woollahra Councils, none of the high rises had signs on top of them. Approval of the proposed signs would be inconsistent with this character. This was confirmed during the view the Court was taken on.

13 . The representative of the Bondi Junction Precinct Committee had been detained by family illness. However, the objection was in evidence and sought refusal for similar reasons.

14 . Mr Biller said the statues and DCP’s also precluded approval on many counts. In the DCP there was no definition for Business Identification sign as applied for, so the application fell under the definition for “advertisement”. He thought the word MERITON was explicitly a commercial sign for all of Meriton’s operations and therefore a 3rd party sign which was not permitted.

15 . It was agreed that there were several applicable planning schemes. One was the Joint Waverley and Woollahra Planning Scheme Ordinance 1991 under which the land was zoned General Business 3(d), and the signs were not specifically and statutorily prohibited. But Woollahra Local Environmental Plan No. 46 also applied. It was a deemed instrument following a local government boundary change and it carried merit tests under cl 47B(7) (a),(b)(c) that the proposal could not comply with.

16 . The applicant said it was a Business Identification sign under State Environmental Planning Policy No. 64 where there was a definition. Because Meriton owned the whole development, had not sold any units and operated it as serviced apartments, it was appropriate sign to identify the building and serviced apartment operation. When pressed it was revealed that the apartments had been strata titled although not sold, but they could be sold. The applicant said that did not matter as they could possibly be sold to investors under a property trust and still be operated by Meriton as serviced apartments.

17 . It was also put that if there was a concern about Meriton not being a business on the site in the future, the approval could be time limited and not renewed on expiry if the situation had changed. It was also put that if the Court wished the signs facing the Eastgate Towers could be deleted.

18 . The respondent further put that several other matters justified refusal, such as, the Development Control Plan (DCP) sought not to have boxed backlit fluorescent or neon signs, and specifically did not want signs on the tops of mixed use buildings, nor 3rd party advertising signs. And, because the signs were above the main roof parapet they could technically be seen as sky signs also specifically not allowed.

19 . One other aspect was that in order to create the desired character of Bondi Junction as different to the CBD and North Sydney with the residential emphasis, signs were required by the DCP to service and provide information to people in the streets of the locality and to contribute to the character by their design and location. These signs could not be seen from local streets except for the arterial roads at some distance, and they could not fulfil those requirements which in the DCP were conjunctive.

20 . Under SEPP 64 similar statutory objectives applied and could not be complied with.

21 . Overall the Court has come to the following conclusions:

22 . The determining evidence in this case is the impacts on nearby residents and their amenity and views, and the preservation and propagation of the desired future character of Bondi Junction as seen from within and without, and as sought in the statutes and controls. The consistent prevention of signs on the tops of high rise buildings was evidence of this commitment by the council. The proposed signs are clearly contrary to those beneficial outcomes in the public interest.

23 . The Orders of the Court are:

1. The appeal is dismissed.
2. The exhibits are returned to the parties except for Exhibits A, B and 2.


______________
K G Hoffman
Commissioner of the Court
rjs