2019-09-10 Planning & Environment Committee Agenda

PLANNING & ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA   10 SEPTEMBER 2019




                                                        Page 59 of 76

PLANNING & ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA                                             10 SEPTEMBER 2019

                                                                              Visual Impact Assessment
                                                                                     PEA 1802 of 2019

    4     Conclusions
   19    The preceding section set out a number of reasons why the proposed sign will have limited adverse
          visual impacts on this particular visual environment. |n the simplest terms, the proposed sign is a single,
          relatively modest sign located within a visual environment where signage is expected and is already
          commonplace. The proposed sign has a very limited visual catchment and would be seen as an entirely
          appropriate signage outcome for that visual catchment. In fact, in comparison to a number of other
          signage outcomes in the visual catchment or even the broader locality (the wider industrial area), the
          proposed sign represents an exemplary outcome in so far as it is effective as a visible advertising device,
          but is not overtly or unnecessarily conspicuous, as many other signs in the area are.
    20 =©Turming specifically to Council's reasons for refusal and the provisions referred to therein:
                    i.  The proposed sign will be entirely compatible with the particular visual environment
                         (both as it exists and as it is likely to develop) and will appropriately complement the
                        desirable characteristics (such as the bushland backdrop). It would therefore satisfy
                        Overall outcome 14.74.2a) and Specific outcome O2a) of the Advertising Devices Code.
                    i.  The proposed design is an appropriate format and scale for the building it is located on
                        and, as compared to the two approved signs will present less visual clutter. It would
                        therefore satisfy Overall outcome 14.74.2b) and Specific outcome 02d) of the

                   iii. The proposed sign will have less of an impact on the streetscape of the internal road
                         (than the two approved signs do). It will be more identifiable from Rene Street (where
                        street trees obscure views towards the site), but would not be more impactful on the
                        Rene Street streetscape. It would therefore satisfy Specific outcome O2c) of the
                        Advertising Devices Code.
                   iv.  ‘The sign does not meet requirements for a maximum signface area of 4sqm (such as
                        Overall outcome 14.74.2g) and Specific outcome O1 of the Advertising Devices Code).
                        However, this assessment has shown that it would be at least as appropriate in this
                         situation as the two approved signs (which do meet the signface requirements) would.
                         Ultimately, this assessment has revealed that this is not a situation where the 4sqm
                         signface restrictions would lead to a superior or even a less impactful visual outcome.
    21 ~—s This assessment indicates that there are no compelling visual amenity reasons to refuse the proposed
          development.

                                                                                            17 of 17

                                                                                                      Page 59 of 76