PRINTER FRIENDLY VERSION

Environment, Resources and Development Court of South Australia

DISCLAIMER - Every effort has been made to comply with suppression orders or statutory provisions prohibiting publication that may apply to this judgment. The onus remains on any person using material in the judgment to ensure that the intended use of that material does not breach any such order or provision. Further enquiries may be directed to the Registry of the Court in which it was generated.

Development Act 1993 - applicant appeal against the decision of the Council to refuse application to erect two, 16 metre high free standing pylon signs (advertising hoardings) with advertisement panels - Neighbourhood Centre Zone; Northfield Neighbourhood Centre, a new "greenfields" centre on a Secondary Arterial and Major Collector Road - signs already erected - neither to advantage or disadvantage of appellant - Council policy on signs (maximum height and area) outside the Development Plan and not to be given weight - purpose, public safety, opportunity for vandalism/graffiti considered - relationship of signage to the Neighbourhood Centre and centre's hierarchy considered - absence of numerical guidelines in Development Plan for signage - locality, streetscape and site contexts significant - visibility, appearance, impacts on visual amenity and character and to trees on the site, all considered - sign (A) on Fosters Road found to be acceptabe - sign (B) on Folland Avenue acceptable if reduced in height by 3 metres - amended plan received - conditions submitted - signs, as amended adequate, sufficiently meet Development Plan guidelines - conditional Provisional Development Plan Consent warranted - appeal upheld, decision of the Council reversed.

Development Act 1993; Development Regulations 1993, referred to.

Oakden Shopping Centre Pty Ltd v City of Pt Adelaide Enfield [2004] SAERDC 15; Kouflides & Jenquin Pty Ltd v Corporation of the City of Salisbury (1982) 28 SASR 321, considered.

 

 

1 This matter comprises an applicant appeal against the City of Port Adelaide Enfield (‘the Council’) to refuse Development Application No. 040/03270/02, made under the Development Act 1993, seeking consent to erect two freestanding pylon signs at Northgate.

2 The Council refused the application on the following basis:

1.     The development fails to comply with the Development Plan Port Adelaide     Enfield (City) Council Wide Principles of Development Control 108(i), 109(b) & (g) and Council’s policies on signage in that:

1.1 The proposal is not in scale with the amenity of the area.

1.2 The proposal is not compatible with the predominant character of other developments in the locality.

1.3 The proposal is not designed in such a way as to be in scale with the development as a whole, the buildings therein and the desired character of the zone.

1.4 The proposal exceeds the height of the buildings on the subject land and in the surrounding areas.

1.5 The dimensions of the proposal, in regards to height and area, are well in excess of the recommended maximum as stated in Council’s Policy on signage.

3 A summary of some of the relevant details in this matter is as follows:

4 The Court viewed the subject land and the locality on the morning of Monday, 14 March 2005 in the presence of the parties. Witnesses providing evidence to the Court comprised, for the appellant, Mr G Edwards, a registered and experienced consultant architect (Exhibit A2); Mr M Wakim, pharmacist and owner of the Chemplus tenancy; Mr K Cooney, general manager Makris Group (centre owner), an experienced centre developer and retail manager; Mr R Bateup, FRAIA, an experienced consultant architect and urban designer (Exhibit A3); and Mr J Stimson, MPIA, an experienced consultant town planner (Exhibit A4); and in the respondent’s case, Mr R Fink, a qualified town planner, employed by the Council as a development officer – planning (Exhibit R2 and photos taken under his direction in Exhibit R3).

5 The subject land comprises Allotment 304 DP48194 (CT Volume 5468 Folio 212). It has frontages of some 144 metres to Fosters Road and 134 metres to Folland Avenue, an area of approximately 2 hectares and it contains the Northgate Shopping Centre opened about two and half years ago. The centre includes a supermarket and some 12 speciality shops (3 current vacancies), setback some 20 metres from Fosters Road and 60 metres from Folland Avenue with parking areas surrounding on all sides including to both road frontages, with landscaping and paving around the buildings and within and on the periphery of the parking areas, and with a corner office/consulting rooms building including a clock tower structure. Footpath or perimeter A-frame signs were not evident on the view, but are clearly seen in two of Mr Stimson’s photographs in Exhibit A4, Appendices 2 and 4.

6 The two pylon sign structures, the subject of this appeal, already exist on the site. One to be labelled and referred to hereafter as ‘(A)’ is setback some 13 to 14 metres from the Fosters Road boundary and the other to be labelled ‘(B)’ is in a central position erected some 1.5 metres from the Folland Avenue boundary. They are double-sided, illuminated and erected perpendicular to the road boundaries.

7 Relevant built form heights on the land comprise:

• supermarket (at rear) 8 metres;

• speciality shops and corner office/consulting rooms building approximately 5 metres;

• several entry porticos – 7 metres;

• clock tower building feature on the corner approximately 9.5 metres;

• parking area lighting approximately 9-10 metres; and

• pylon signs approximately 16 metres (to the top of ornamented poles).

 

8 The land has a gentle slope from north-east to south-west. Hence, the sign on the Fosters Road frontage appears at a higher level than that on the Folland Avenue frontage.

9 On the view with the parties a row of ‘Queensland Box’ trees were noted, currently 2-4 metres in height at approximately 6 metre spacings, planted in the outer landscaping garden bed along both Fosters Road and Folland Avenue. There were also other trees interspersed and lower level vegetation.

10 An easement for electricity purposes of 5 metres in width, runs parallel to and along the Fosters Road frontage, and within it are high voltage lines and high pylons, estimated by Mr Stimson at 22-25 metres in height. There are also additional lower level (8-10 metres) electricity lines and Stobie poles adjacent the boundary on the western side of Fosters Road and another corridor of higher voltage lines and high pylons on the eastern side of Fosters Road (all clearly seen in photos contained in Exhibit A4, Appendix 2 – first three pages and in Appendix 4).

11 The development proposal for two pylon signs shown in Exhibit R1, p.4 – attached, seeks Provisional Development Plan Consent for what has been erected already and as found in Oakden Shopping Centre Pty Ltd v City of Port Adelaide Enfield [2004] SAERDC 15, not to have already been approved by the Council in prior consents for the Centre.

12 The two pylon signs comprise two separate developments to be assessed independently, though with obvious regard one to the other. Each are shown on the drawing to be 16.0 metres high to the top of the ornamented poles with three panels of 3.4 metres in width spaced one to the other, contained within the poles and having a total surface area of approximately 30.9 square metres. The top panel contains the name and logo of the centre; the second the prime supermarket anchor tenant (Woolworths); and the third containing 13 tenancy panels (though 12 only are shown on the drawing), with 9 only utilised at present, including for a perimeter real estate agent, thus leaving the bottom 4 panels blank or white. The gap from ground level to the bottom of the sign panels scales on the drawing at 4.7 metres, but I doubt that this matches the ‘as-built’ position from observations on the view and I suspect a height more in the order of 5 metres in each case.

13 The poles taper (some 450 mm in diameter for the base 5 metre section and in the order of 300 mm in diameter for the section above that), and they are a dark aqua colour matching other trim on the Centre buildings.

14 It is also noted that other signage elements for the Centre in the original development proposal lodged, have since been separated and approved under separate application.

15 The siting of sign (A) to Fosters Road has been dictated by the ETSA easement and the further setback distance required from electricity infrastructure. The 13-14 metre setback, limits the distance the sign can be directly viewed, particularly from the south (north bound traffic) on Fosters Road.

16 The development proposals each comprise an advertising hoarding as defined in s.4 of the Act, that is the structures, and with advertisements or signs (also defined), attached thereto comprising development pursuant to Schedule 2, clause 7 of the Regulations.

17 In the relevant Neighbourhood Centre Zone or Regulations, they are not listed as either complying or non-complying development and are therefore to be assessed on their merits.

18 As a town planning concept, the locality has generally been considered to comprise that part of the area surrounding the subject land that is of tangible influence on it and that the specific proposal is likely to impact upon, to a notable degree. In this case, the locality definition is to be based on visual factors alone.

19 I have considered the locality definition of the expert witnesses and consider them to be not dissimilar. I find that the locality extends:

• to the north along Fosters Road corridor for a distance of approximately 400 metres from the subject land;

• to the east along Sir Ross Smith Boulevard corridor for perhaps 100 metres to the landscaped reserve;

• to the south-east along Fosters Road corridor for a distance of approximately 150 metres to near the corner with Lord Howe Avenue;

• to the south-west across broadacres (yet to be developed) to Redward Avenue for approximately 1,000 metres;

• to the west along Folland Avenue corridor for a distance of approximately 650 metres to the Northgate Parade roundabout; and

• to the north-west into residential areas for a distance of approximately 150 metres to the intersection of Navigator Drive and Northwood Avenue.

20 There is generally housing development of one or two storeys to the east and to the north-west; a childcare centre and parking area approximately 100 metres to the west; paddocks with sheep grazing and former farm buildings to the south-west; certain educational/institutional uses further to the north; and a place of worship and research centre in closer proximity to the east.

21 In the new residential areas, vegetation is relatively low, yet to fully mature, however there is a tall row of mature pines on the eastern side of Fosters Road both north and south of the Folland Avenue roundabout and other mature trees (pines and others) adjacent the church/research buildings and in the reserve to the east which obscures views of the signage from further afield on the eastern side of Fosters Road. A row of ‘Peppercorn’ trees along Fosters Road (eastern side), partially obscure views of the signs to the south for north bound motorists or pedestrians.

22 Fosters Road is shown as a Secondary Arterial Road on MAP PAdE/1 (Overlay 7), and Folland Avenue a Local Road, although elsewhere in the Plan it is depicted as a Major Collector Road. It is likely that Fosters Road carries higher traffic volumes and each has roundabouts to slow traffic to encourage compliance with the applicable 60 kph speed zones.

23 The readability distance of the contents of the signage on my observations are estimated to be:

• to the top Northgate Shopping Centre logo – approximately 350–400 metres;

• to the middle Woolworths supermarket sign/logo – approximately 400-450 metres (with more contrast between lettering and a white background);

• the lower tenancy panels – all readable to approximately 70 metres; perhaps five only of nine readable to approximately 120 metres, diminishing to approximately three only of nine at 170 metres (such as adjacent the townhouses on Folland Avenue); one only at 200 metres and none readable at approximately 220 metres (each dependent on lettering/logo, size and contrast to background).

24 The character of the area is therefore mixed with centre type, residential, transportation, educational/institutional and religious uses.

25 Visual amenity levels in the new residential areas are above average and from the public realm along the roads or on land with public access facilities it is moderate, enhanced by some taller trees and built form, the appearance and qualities of the new Centre and certain new streetscape works on Folland Avenue but marred significantly by the three corridors of overhead electricity lines and poles, the older style streetscape of Fosters Road, and exposure of some servicing/loading areas of the Centre.

26 In terms of approach, firstly, the fact that the proposed pylon signs for which consent is sought are in existence on the land, is neither to the advantage or disadvantage of the appellant (Kouflides and Jenquin Pty Ltd v Corporation of the City of Salisbury (1982) 28 SASR 321). Their existence, observable features and visual impacts, enable a much clearer appreciation of that which is now sought to be approved, than if they did not exist. However, I assume for assessment purposes that the signs do not exist.

27 Secondly, reliance by the Council (in its refusal reasons - refer above) and Mr Fink in his report and recommendations to it (Exhibit R1, pp.8-12), on a Council policy concerning signage and particularly a maximum numerical figure for height (and surface area) within it, which is outside the Development Plan, is, on the basis of case law, an erroneous and an inappropriate consideration. Whilst the Council and Mr Fink also had regard to the Development Plan, it appears that they may have been significantly influenced by the maximum height policy for signs in particular (namely 10 metres).

28 In other respects the approach to assessment is on the conventional, usual basis of this Court having regard to case law.

29 The dual purpose of the signs is acknowledged – that is, as a general centre identification (focal point and icon) for the neighbourhood community, and as an advertisement for the major tenant and the several small tenancies, such as Chemplus (vide the evidence of Mr Wakim). Quality visible signage is no doubt highly important to the viability and success of the Centre as a whole and to individual tenants. It is noted that the Centre identification purpose or role of the signs is partially duplicated by the clock tower structure with Northgate Centre logo signage upon its southern and eastern faces, located on the corner of Fosters Road and Folland Avenue.

30 The need to design signs (materials and ground clearances) to minimise the likelihood or effect of vandalism and graffiti, is also acknowledged as a reasonable requirement, but not to an extent that dictates an unreasonable approach or under-emphasis on other important aspects.

31 The goal of public safety (for motorists, cyclists and pedestrians alike), is also to be considered and is highly relevant, particularly that adequate time be available for decision making by drivers concerning entering the centre car park (to purchase goods or services) and hence the degree of visibility and readability of the signs to enable safe decision making and vehicle manoeuvring. However, the readability of some of the small tenancy signs is relatively limited to approximately 70 metres only. Again, this consideration cannot dictate an under-emphasis on other important factors to the extent of justifying for example, all such signs to be much larger or higher to be readable at distances of 200 metres or more.

32 The subject land is within the Neighbourhood Centre Zone, part of the Centre’s hierarchy set out in the Development Plan (Council Wide Objectives 22 and 26 in particular), Council Wide Principle 101 seeks centres having minimal adverse impact on residential areas and Principle 108(a) seeks development within centres to have regard to ‘their location and assigned role in the centre hierarchy of designated centres and designated centre zones, or areas’.

33 Northfield Neighbourhood Centre Objective 1, in the context of Council Wide Objective 26 and the Neighbourhood Centre Zone Objective 1 and Principle 1, encourages centre development and facilities ‘to serve the surrounding neighbourhood’. The primary trade catchment area for this centre was generally agreed by the experts to be no further than Grand Junction Road to the north, Sudholz Road to the east, North East Road to the south and Hampstead Road to the west, though this area is likely to overlap with the catchments of two to three other Neighbourhood or District Centres. Hence, the majority of users (some 80% on the evidence of Mr Cooney) are likely to come from within this area by car, bike or on foot, utilising primarily Fosters Road (in a north-south direction), Folland Avenue (from the west) and Ross Smith Boulevard (from the east). Most of these potential centre customers and users are likely to become readily aware of the existence of the Northgate Centre and would utilise it regularly on an as needs basis.

34 Mr Cooney also envisages the signage proposed, its height in particular, to stimulate attraction to the Centre by persons passing through the locality and residing in a wider area, and he said it is the goal of the Centre owners to capture and enhance a greater percentage of trade from those secondary and tertiary catchment area sources. Maximisation of such trade may well be at the expense of other centres.

35 From his extensive retail property management experience, Mr Cooney opined that there is a relationship between the height, and readability of signage and capturing additional broader trade, including from greater impulse purchasing by passers by.

36 Hence, in the Centre’s hierarchy context in the Development Plan, care is required in assessment of a proposal, including signage, to ensure that one centre does not inappropriately encroach on the trade of others. In the words of the Plan under Council Wide Objective 22 (p.11), ‘each development proposal for a centre should be evaluated against that centre’s and other centres’ defined role in the centre hierarchy’.

37 In part, the signage proposed could be said to seek to impinge on the trade of other surrounding shopping centres, however, in this Council’s Development Plan there is no hierarchy of signs size commensurate with centre type and role (as there is in some other Development Plans). Hence, site and locality context become of critical relevance. In terms of land use and purpose, the proposed signs are appropriate and acceptable.

38 Within the Neighbourhood Centre Zone and the Northfield Neighbourhood Centre provisions, there are no specific guidelines for signage (unlike for some other neighbourhood centres in the Council area such as Gilles Plains and in the Neighbourhood Centre (Semaphore Road) Zone). One must therefore turn to the Council Wide guidelines but keeping in mind the more general objectives and principles relating to form and appearance of land and buildings for the Zone and the Northfield Centre. References to the Centre Concept Plan and relevant principles of development for the Northfield Neighbourhood Centre, are of virtually no assistance as the Council has allowed the centre design and placement of built form and parking areas to depart significantly from that envisaged in Fig NCe(NF)/1. A distinctive and attractive appearance is sought, with established trees in Folland Avenue and Fosters Road encouraged to be retained.

39 Through the Neighbourhood Centre Zone and Northfield Neighbourhood Centre provisions, particularly Principles 8 and 9 of the former, and under the broader Telecommunications Facilities guidelines (Objective 99 in particular), such facilities including towers, masts and monopoles are envisaged and encouraged in centre zones. There appeared to be none in the Northgate Centre at present. Mr Stimson sought to place some reliance on this possibility for the Northgate Centre (and indeed the Greenacres District Centre some 1.3 kms to the south has a very tall, possibly 25-30 metre tower and telecommunications facility which is clearly visible from Folland Avenue), and a comparison of the height of such structures with the proposed signs height. This is a speculative possibility and little weight can be placed on that.

40 Similarly, the possibility of low impact telecommunications facilities being established on the tops of the proposed signage poles (with some 3-5 metres possible additional height), such as has occurred with pylons in some other centres in Adelaide (notably on top of the main pylon sign for the Big W Centre at Cumberland Park), and potentially, without either the consent of the Council or the land owner effectively being required, is not to be given any significant cognisance in the assessment of the proposals.

41 Signage in other Neighbourhood Centre and District Centre Zones in the Port Adelaide Enfield Council area, as inspected on the view, vary significantly in almost all characteristics but it would seem to be the case from the evidence and Exhibit R3, that none exceed 12 metres in height. Comparison of those signs to the subject Centre and the proposals are not particularly relevant in the absence of any quantitative guidance within the Development Plan for the various centre zones. Nor is any reliance or weight to be placed on the Council policy apparently specifying a maximum of 10 metres in height (and 10 square metres in surface area) on larger sites such as the subject land.

42 Council Wide provisions in the Plan are of assistance (refer below) but they are entirely qualitative in nature – there are no numerical guidelines with respect to size (height, width, surface area) of signage. It is then highly important to consider the locality, streetscape and site contexts.

43 Sign (A) is primarily seen and read from north and south along Fosters Road which carries the three overhead electricity infrastructure corridors with significant pole structures some 22-25 metres and 8 metres in height. Proposed sign (A) has been constrained in its siting by the ETSA easement and setback requirements and it is setback some 13 metres from the boundary and some 15-16 metres from the carriage way of Fosters Road.

44 Fosters Road is a somewhat busier road with wider carriageway than Folland Avenue and to enter the subject land, for a vehicle travelling from south to north, there are three entry choices, whilst for a vehicle travelling from north to south there is only one entry on the northern boundary of the subject land.

45 Sign (A) is visible for a distance of some 400 metres to the north (for south bound motorists or pedestrians). However, its visibility is limited to the south (north bound motorists or pedestrians) by the corner clock tower building (from some points the top part of the sign is visible over it) and by a row of Peppercorn trees parallel to Fosters Road, south of the Folland Avenue roundabout and for a distance of some 250 metres, such that it is not seen by a north bound motorist until about 20 metres before the roundabout at a distance of some 100-120 metres to the sign itself. These factors provide greater justification for a sign of the height and size proposed in the location of sign (A).

46 Sign (B) on the other hand is clearly visible, from residential streets and gardens to the north-west, sometimes with a direct view or over roof tops and it is primarily visible from along Folland Avenue for some 650-700 metres to the west (for east bound motorists or pedestrians), and from along Sir Ross Smith Boulevard to the east for some 100-150 metres (for west bound movement). Neither of these road corridors have overhead electricity infrastructure to confuse or partly obscure views of the sign, and carry street lighting poles in the order of 8 metres in height. There is a single entrance (ingress and egress, allowing for both right-hand in and right-hand out movements) to the Centre, some 25 metres west of the siting of sign (B). This sign is in clear, extensive and uninterrupted view from along Folland Avenue given its siting close to the street boundary.

47 Sign (B) is also more clearly seen in the context of the corner clock tower building (9.5 metres height), the internal parking area light poles (9-10 metres) and external Folland Avenue lighting poles (approximately 8 metres) and relatively newly planted trees some 2-4 metres in height that are likely to mature, possibly to 10 metres in height. Whilst it is open to view to the south-west across the paddocks for some 1,000 metres, this is likely to diminish significantly with the further stages of urban residential development planned for that sector. These factors do not lend support for a sign of the height and size proposed in the location of sign (B).

48 It is the visual appearance of the signs and their impact on streetscapes, visual amenity and character of the locality and visual relationships to buildings onsite or adjacent, that are the central aspects of this matter and the assessment.

49 The Centre and signs location are effectively on a ‘greenfields’ site, undertaken on a planned and coordinated basis and with considerable space around and length of road frontage of the subject land.

50 Whilst the signs are visible (highly so from some points) and illuminated, I do not consider they are likely to cause a nuisance or hazard due to their visual intrusion, or to impair views of or from nearby development.

51 Whilst in part these considerations are subjective, fraught with interference by personal biases or preferences of the viewee or assessor, nevertheless, there are a range of guidelines in the Plan to assist and base this task upon, notwithstanding the opinion of Mr Bateup that planning polices ‘dumbed down’ urban design responses and solutions. The evidence of Messrs Edwards and Stimson in particular, and Mr Bateup were of assistance, whilst that of Mr Fink did appear, at least in the first instance, to be somewhat reliant on the Council’s policy on signage (outside the Development Plan), a comparison with the height of other signs in other centres and an emphasis on the element of height alone, perhaps in isolation of all of the relevant contexts.

52 The key Development Plan guidelines of assistance in this task are as follows:

COUNCIL WIDE

…..

Objective 90: The amenity of localities not impaired by the appearance of land, buildings and objects.

Objective 91: Enhancement of the townscape and built-form character of the council area generally, and in particular, historic areas, important landmarks and views.

…..

Objective 94: An urban environment and rural landscape not disfigured by advertisements.

Objective 95: Advertisements in retail, commercial and industrial urban areas, and centre zones, designed to enhance the appearance of those areas.

…..

PRINCIPLES OF DEVELOPMENT CONTROL

…..

108 Development or redevelopment within business, centre, and shopping zones, or areas, should have regard to the following:

…..

(i) Signs designed in scale with the amenity of the area, and carefully located. Illumination from signs or floodlights should not spill over to adjacent areas.

109 Development within centre zones should conform with the following design principles:

…..

(f) Landscaping should be provided and maintained in order to:

(i) establish a buffer between development in the zone and adjacent areas;

…..

(g) Outdoor signs, both freestanding and attached to buildings, should be located and designed in such a way as to:

(i) be in scale with the development as a whole, the buildings therein and the desired character of the zone or otherwise be compatible with the character of the locality;

…..

215 The location, siting, size, shape and materials of construction, of advertisements should be:

(a) consistent with the desired character of areas or zones as described by their objectives;

(b) consistent with the predominant character of the urban or rural landscape; or

…..

216 Advertisements should not detrimentally affect by way of their siting, size, shape, scale, glare, reflection or colour the amenity of areas, zones, or localities, in which they are situated.

217 Advertisements should not impair the amenity of areas, zones, or localities, in which they are situated by creating, or adding to, clutter, visual disorder and the untidiness of buildings and spaces.

219 The scale of advertisements should be compatible with the buildings on which they are situated and with nearby buildings and spaces.

222 Advertisements on buildings that have a single architectural theme but which contain a number of tenancies, should be attached and displayed so as to be co-ordinated with that theme.

223 Structural supports of any advertisement should be designed wherever possible to be concealed from public view.

53 The key words are underlined and crucial in this case are the words size and scale – relating to areas, zones, locality, townscape, and nearby buildings and spaces.

54 Clearly in town planning terms the word size refers to all three mathematical dimensions and the magnitude of the item, whereas the word scale might properly include a consideration of relationships, progression of size relative to other things and in this case, space around in the setting. Mr Stimson and Mr Bateup tended to overlook the former in favour of emphasis on the latter. In terms of size (height in particular), the signs are medium to large on any reasonable comparison.

55 As identified by Mr Bateup, these terms and concepts also require consideration of:

• the viewer positioning, viewing angle and mode of movement;

• serial vision – sequential viewing experience;

• perspective and planar views; and

• existing and future likely obscurity of views (buildings and vegetation as it matures).

56 They also involve some trade-offs, for example, a greater number of lower, broader signs (potentially creating clutter), compared in this case to two only taller, relatively narrow, integrated, readily visible signs avoiding clutter.

57 With respect to sign (A) on Fosters Road, in terms of its Neighbourhood Centre status, its particular siting and constraints, the relevant streetscape and locality context, its relationship to buildings and uses on-site and nearby, and its readability and reasonable requirements for that, I consider this sign sufficiently meets the various tests and is appropriate and acceptable in all the relevant circumstances. It is appropriate in forming part of the new Northgate Shopping Centre character, it is well designed and integrated in appearance with the shopping centre design, its visual impact is acceptable in its context and it is acceptable in comprising a balanced solution to all of the guidelines in the Development Plan.

58 With respect to sign (B) on Folland Avenue, in that streetscape context, its visibility from within residential areas, its relationship to lighting poles (internal and external to the site), absence of tall electricity poles/corridors, its clear visibility and readability for much longer, in my view, unnecessary distances, suggest to me that it is higher than is acceptable, balancing all relevant factors and all guidelines in the Development Plan. However, I consider that a pylon sign height reduced by some 3 metres would sufficiently meet guidelines and would be acceptable.

59 I am mindful of the implications of such a reduction for replacement, or at the least, trimming of perimeter trees along the Folland Avenue frontage to a lower height, but in any event that may well be better to be undertaken sooner rather than later given the likely mature height of Queensland Box trees. These trees would obscure the tenancy panels of the sign as proposed/erected within a few years. In that, I disagree with Mr Bateup - ‘the opportunity to allow vegetation to grow over time into a mature landscape should have priority over the design of signage’.

60 I am also conscious that as currently designed such a reduction in height of sign (B) may mean a clearance to the ground level of some 2 metres, giving rise to a greater vandalism/security risk to it, however, one or more of the 13 tenancy panels might be dispensed with as surplus to need in the constrained, reduced height circumstances or spacing between panels reduced. Subject to that minor amendment, it is also appropriate in forming part of the new Northgate Shopping Centre character on the Folland Avenue frontage, it is also well designed and integrated in appearance with the shopping centre design, and its visual impact would then be acceptable in its context and comprise a balanced solution to all of the guidelines in the Development Plan.

61 The proposal for two large pylon signs, and the various assessment issues involved, perhaps more than many matters, requires a careful consideration and integration of all relevant Development Plan guidelines, consideration of all relevant factors and of the specific locality, streetscapes and site contexts.

62 Proposed sign (A) is adequate and acceptable in its current form. Proposed sign (B) would become adequate and acceptable if it were amended to be reduced in height in the order of 3 metres.

63 The proposed signs are not necessarily the ideal from all perspectives, but that is not the test. The signs will sufficiently meet the relevant Development Plan to warrant Provisional Development Plan Consent and are therefore acceptable. That is, they will be sufficiently in keeping in scale, compatibility and consistency with the desired Neighbourhood Centre character, would enhance and not detract from or impair visual amenity of the locality and would be appropriate and compatible relative to neighbouring buildings, trees, light poles, electricity infrastructure and space surrounding.

64 By Memorandum dated 31 March 2005 I invited the appellant to consider an amendment along the above lines and if receptive, to provide an amended elevation plan to the Court.

65 I also invited both parties to confer and to make any submissions concerning conditions sought to be attached to any consent granted by the Court.

66 I heard the parties further in these regards on 15 April 2005 and the Court received an amended proposal plan now marked Exhibit A5, and also attached, showing amendments to be applied to sign (B) on Folland Avenue, reducing its height by 3.0 metres and with other adjustments made to the main centre identification panel.

67 The Court also received draft conditions, subsequently agreed by the Council.

68 The appeal is upheld on the basis of an amended plan and the decision of the Council reversed. Provisional Development Plan Consent is granted subject to the following conditions:

1. The Fosters Road pylon sign shall be developed in accordance with the submitted plan prepared by Matthews Architects numbered 9899014 Sign 03 and dated December 2002 and the Folland Avenue sign shall be developed in accordance with the amended plan prepared by Matthews Architects numbered 9899014 Signs dated April 2005, marked Exhibit A5, except where varied by these conditions.

2. The work required to make the Folland Avenue sign comply with the approved plans shall be undertaken within three (3) months of the date of this consent.

3. The advertisements and supporting structures shall be prepared and erected in a professional and workmanlike manner and maintained in good repair at all times, to the reasonable satisfaction of Council.

4. Lighting associated with the signs shall be of an intensity not to cause a light over spill nuisance to adjacent occupiers, or cause a distraction to drivers on adjacent public roads.

69 There will be an order to that effect.