2019-09-10 Planning & Environment Committee Agenda

PLANNING & ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA                               10 SEPTEMBER 2019


REPORT
On 18 April 2019, Council at its Ordinary Meeting, resolved to refuse an application for an
existing Advertising Device in the form of a Wall Sign located on the side of a building located at
Noosa Metro Innovation Park, Rene Street Noosaville due to the sign being inconsistent with the
Noosa Plan’s Advertising Devices Code.
The sign measured 5.6m in width and 1.57m in height providing a total signface area of 8.792m 2
and was refused due to a number of reasons but principally as the sign conflicted with the Code’s
overall outcome for “signs with a signface area exceeding 4m2 are not located in Noosa Shire.”
The applicant’s plan of the sign is included as Attachment 1.
The applicant subsequently appealed the decision seeking that the sign be approved. The
Appellant submitted that the application should be approved pursuant to a proper assessment
under the Planning Act 2016:
1.     Because the proposed wall sign complies with the assessment benchmarks in the
       Advertising Devices Code under the Noosa Plan, as inter alia, the proposed wall sign is
       appropriately designed to result in:
       (i)   Acceptable visual impacts having regard to surrounding development and the natural
             and built environment of Rene Street, which is predominately larger format
             warehouses and industrial business uses;
       (ii) Bulk, scale and form in its context;
       (iii) Complementary character, having regard to the surrounding locality; and
       (iv) Identification of the business having regard to the location and orientation of the
             subject building to the road;
2.     Because the extent of non-compliance with an assessment benchmark in the Advertising
       Devices Code under the Noosa Plan, if any, is minor and should not militate against
       approval of the application pursuant to section 60(2)(b) of the Planning Act; and
3.     Having regard to:
       (i)   An existing development approval for a material change of use which permits
             installation of 2 wall signs on the subject building within close proximity to one
             another. This approval contemplates a combined signface area of 8m2. Approval of
             the application resolves the potential conflicts that the other development approval
             caused with the advertising Devices Code and results in the reduction of visual clutter
             of signs by consolidation; and
       (ii) Advertising devices which are established on adjoining properties to the land.
During the course of the appeal court mediation was attended with the appellant and the court
registrar which resulted in the appellant proposing to submit a Visual Report to demonstrate that
the sign did not detract from the area or result in visual clutter and was legitimately needed to
provide directions and business identification.
The appellant’s Visual Impact Assessment Report prepared by Nick McGowen of Insight Design
and Assessment Services is included as Attachment 2.
The Visual Impact Assessment Report concludes that the sign is, in all circumstances,
acceptable in terms of visual amenity issues. This visual report sets out a number of reasons
why the proposed sign will have limited adverse visual impacts and in summary draws from the
following observations:
     The proposed sign has a particularly limited visual catchment and the visual catchment has
       a low sensitivity to signage of this type. This indicates that any impacts that would be
       generated by the sign would have limited significance to the wider area.
     The visual setting is a low quality visual environment that is diverse and that is substantially
       characterised by signage and looks entirely appropriate in this visual setting.
     One of the few appealing features of the visual environment is the bushland to the south
       and east of site which provides a green backdrop to some views. The proposed sign does
       not detract from this feature.

                                                                                       Page 36 of 76