Zhou J v Marrickville C

[2005] NSWLEC 101

Land and Environment Court

of New South Wales

CITATION:

Zhou J v Marrickville C [2005] NSWLEC 101

PARTIES:

APPLICANT
Jack Zhou

RESPONDENT
Marrickville Council

FILE NUMBER(S):

11580 of 2004

CORAM:

Hussey C

KEY ISSUES:

Development Application :- erection of four pylon advertising type signs adjacent to a commercial industrial property.

LEGISLATION CITED:

Marrickville LEP
SEPP 64

DATES OF HEARING:

10/03/2005

EX TEMPORE JUDGMENT DATE:

03/10/2005

LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES:

APPLICANT
Mr R. Creighton, agent

RESPONDENT
Mr G. Christmas, solicitor
of Marrickville Council

JUDGMENT:

ENVIRONMENT COURT
OF NEW SOUTH WALES

Hussey C

10 March 2005

11580 of 2004 Jack Zhou v Marrickville Council

JUDGMENT

1 This appeal is against council’s refusal of a development application for four pylon-type, advertising signs within the front setback landscaping area of the commercial/industrial property at 19 Unwins Bridge Road, St. Peters.

2 The proposal has been assessed by Mr Lusher, the council’s planner and also Mr Boers, the applicant’s planner. Two issues were identified for the appeal. The first one concerns the signs visual impact, in detracting from the appearance from the subject property and streetscape. The second issue deals with the amount of signage currently on the building, in terms of that allowable in the council controls.

3 The planners have assessed the proposal in terms of the criteria in the Marrickville LEP, specifically cl. 41 and also SEPP 64, which contains Schedule 1 - the criteria for site evaluation. In this case the most critical aspect is the streetscape impacts because the existing development signage exceeds the amount of signage that is currently allowed. However, these experts have undertaken a joint conference and they agree that the location of the proposed signage within the landscape area is inappropriate.

4 In my assessment this is a critical conclusion because my observations on the view, indicate that the current landscaping is in poor condition and the inclusion of the signage within that area will detract further from this landscape area. In my opinion, the front landscape area is an important component of the original development consent because this industrial development forms the interface with Unwins Bridge Road, where there are other residential areas opposite. Presumably the landscaping was required to provide some visual relief for these residents, which I now consider would be compromised by the proposed signage.

5 I agree with Mr Lusher’s conclusions that these four signs do not merit consent. However, there is further discussion in the joint planners report regarding a possible alternative. This alternative indicates some reduced signage may be allowable by duplicating the style of the existing main advertising pylon sign, to be located towards the ends of the carpark. But that would be a different application, which would need to be considered on it merits.

6 In the ultimate then, I agree with the joint planning conclusion that the location of the proposed signage within the landscape area is inappropriate and it would result in excessive amount of advertising in this area, which does not demonstrate reasonable compliance with SEPP 61, cl. 41 of the LEP and councils Code for the Control of Erections of Signs and Advertising Structures. For those reasons then, I consider the application should be refused and the Court Orders are:

1. The appeal is dismissed.

2. The Development application No. 200400559 for the erection of four pylon style advertising signs in the landscape area adjacent to 19 Unwins Bridge Road, St Peters is refused.

____________________________________

R Hussey

Commissioner of the Court

ljr