Skip to the record
Trusted by locals. Built for Noosa.

Council archive · source document

08/1689 - Response to Information Request [As Published] · 142008.1689

of 3

Text shows just the words. Original shows the document exactly as it was published.

Check the original when the exact wording matters.

ao

¥

28 October, 2008
Our Ref: 080901T

nh

ken hicks

AND ASSOCIATES

Council Ref: 2008/1689

Sunshine Coast Regional Councif
(Tewantin Office)

PO Box 141

TEWANTIN QLD 4565

   
    
 

oy
LY RECEIVED

29 OCT 2008

    

ATTENTION: Glen Conforti

Dear Glen

RESPONSE TO INFORMATION REQUEST
PROPOSED OPERATIONAL WORKS — SIGNAGE

26 EENIE CREEK ROAD NOOSAVILLE
LOT 1 SP 182880

Further to Council's Information Request of 23 October 2008 for the abovementioned proposal we now
respond in full to each of the items raised.

item) _

After preliminary assessment of the proposed signage, Council considers the sign heights of 10m (Lots 1,
2 and 3) and 6m (Lot 4) excessive, and do not meet the requirements of Specific Outcome O6 of the
Advertising Devices Code, Please provide amended plans indicating the signs at a reduced height and:
width.

 

Please note that a lot comparable in size and scale within the Shire Business Centre has an approved
self-assessable freestanding sign erected (ie 5m or, less in height).

Response:

In a telephone conversation between Nick Leddy of this office and Glen Conforti of Council, Glen advised
that Council’s desired maximum signage ‘dimensions’ in this instance are 8 metres (height) and 2 metres
(width). In consultation with our client, we have re-considered our position regarding the scale of
proposed signage, and now submit the following:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Lot Proposed Height of | Change from Original | Main Justification

No, signage Application?

Lot 1 10 metres No Approved building height of 10m on
this lot / other signs in the SBC at
10m

Lot 2 9 metres Yes — 1m reduction Approved building height of 8.7m on
this lot

Lot 3 9 metres Yes - 1m reduction Approved building height of 8m with
5 degree roof pitch on this lot

Lot 4 6 metres No Planning Scheme allowance for an
8m high building on this lot

 

 

 

TOWN PLANNERS | CONSULTING SURVEYORS | URBAN DESIGNERS | PROJECT MANAGERS
Ken Hicks & Associates Pty Ltd | [email protected] | A.C.N. 010 278 823 | A.B.N, 74 308 405 611

Suite 7 Dalton Centre, 1 Newspaper Place 18/42 King Street 61-73 Sturt Street
PO Box 6380, MAROOCHYDORE BC Qld 4558 PO Box 1712, CABOOLTURE, Qld 4510 PO Box 5027, TOWNSVILLE, Qld 4810
P 07 5443 2844 F- 07 54437146 P 075455318 =F 07 54955317 P 0747213066 = F 07 4721 3088

 
Full text of the other 2 pages

Page 2

As evident from the above table, we are proposing signage heights generally commensurate with
approved (or building heights capable of being approved) on the respective sites. Thus, there would be a
reduction in the height of signs on Lots 2 and 3 from 10 metres to 9 metres. Note that on Lot 2 the
approved height limit is 8.7m, with which 9m signage would be consistent, as would be the case for Lot
3, which has approved building height of 8m with 5 degree roof pitch. We propose that the signage on
Lot 1 remain at 10 metres as this is the allowable height of buildings under the approval. Likewise
regarding Lot 4, the allowable height would be 8 metres, thus a 6 metre high sign is appropriate.

Council’s verbal stipulation of an 8m height limit for this application is particularly questionable in light of
the fact that the Stockwell signs in the same development were approved at a height of 10 metres.

It should be noted that there is no ‘width’ value specified for freestanding signs in the Advertising
Devices Code. On this basis, Council should not attempt to stipulate a width value to be complied with.
The proposed width dimension of 2,750mm is proportionate to the proposed height, and results in an
attractive signage structure that is neither bulky nor visually obtrusive.

Specific Outcome O6 of the Code states: “Advertising devices respect the scale and nature of
surrounding development and contribute positively to the visual amenity, streetscape, landscape setting
and natural and built environment of where the advertising device is placed.”

We contend that the signage, in the form outlined above satisfies this Specific Outcome, on the following
grounds:

° The Shire Business Centre is a commercial centre by nature, and thus
requires that commercial signage be installed of a nature and scale that
provides the necessary advertising and exposure for the tenancies
established in the centre. As mentioned, there are other signs in the
development that have previously been approved at 10m in height. These
signs are indicative of the advertising devices suitable for this unique zone
within the former Noosa Shire. The proposed signs that are subject of this
application will maintain consistency with other signage in the
development, as well as approved building heights for the respective Lots.

° The proposed signs will contribute positively to the visual amenity, etc of
the area, and will not detract from the quality of the visual environment in
any way. It is important to note that the differences in impact on amenity
between the proposed sign on Lot 1 (10m x 2.75m) and Council’s verbally
stipulated dimensions (8m x 2m) would be negligible.

We consider that Council, in its assessment of this application, must recognise the uniqueness of the
Shire Business Centre zone, and the resulting scale of signage required to promote the commercial intent

of this zone. To this end, we propose to establish signage at_a reduced height (but_not width) in

accordance with the above table.

We believe that our approach of having signage commensurate with approved building height is a logical
and rational planning outcome, and we encourage Council to recognise our willingness to compromise on
this issue in its assessment of the application. The applicant would be satisfied by having assigned a
condition of approval that limits the signage on Lots 2 and 3 to a height of 9 metres.

Submission of this Information Response signifies the end of the Information and Referral Stage of IDAS,
and the application is now in the Decision Stage.

We request Council to keep our office updated on the progress of this application, especially with respect
to your consideration of the content of this letter.

Page 3

Should you have any questions with respect to the above, please do not hesitate to contact me direct.

Yours faithfully
KEN HICKS & ASSOCIATES

   
   

   

ick Leddy
SENIOR PLANNER

a

Used in these records

About this file

File size
127 KB (small file)
File type
PDF

No other editions are linked here.

Original file

Log in to download the original file

08_1689 - Response to Information Request [As Published].pdf · 127 KB (small file)

The supporting record

Open full page ↗

Source document

Analyse documents ↗Open full page ↗

My Comparisons

Choose two to four records of the same kind. Drag using a handle or use the “Compare” buttons.

Your selected records are saved in this browser for your account. Results use the filters on the page where you choose “Compare selected”.