513-517 Princes Highway Pty Limited v Bayside Council

Rockdale Local Environmental Plan 2011

1. Pursuant to the Rockdale Local Environmental Plan 2011 (RLEP), the site is located within the B2 Local Centre zone.
2. The proposed development is an innominate permissible use in the B2 Local Centre zone.
3. For completeness, it is noted that the following clauses of the RLEP are not applicable to the proposed development or otherwise create a jurisdictional bar to the grant of consent: * Clause 6.1 of the RLEP is not applicable as the development application does not propose any works below the natural ground surface, or any works by which the water table is likely to be lowered such to impact on Acid Sulfate Soils. * Clause 6.2 of the RLEP is not applicable as the development application does not propose any earthworks. * Clause 6.5 of the RLEP is not applicable as the development application does not propose development on land in the foreshore area. * Clause 6.6 of the RLEP is not applicable as the site is not land to which cl 6.6(2) applies in relation to flood planning. * Clause 6.8 of the RLEP is not applicable as the site is not land to which cl 6.8(2) applies in relation to biodiversity protection. * Clause 6.9 of the RLEP is not applicable as the site is not land to which cl 6.9(2) applies in relation to riparian land, watercourses and artificial waterbodies. * Clause 6.10 of the RLEP is not applicable as the site is not land to which cl 6.10(2) applies in relation to wetlands. * Clause 6.11 of the RLEP is not applicable as the site is not land to which cl 6.11(2) applies in relation to active street frontages. * Clause 6.13 of the RLEP is not applicable as the development application does not propose development for the purposes of sex services premises. * Clause 6.14 of the RLEP is not applicable as the development application does not seek consent for development to which cl 6.14(2) applies.
4. The parties are otherwise satisfied that consent can be granted to the development application in consideration of the matters at: * Clause 6.3(3) of the RLEP relating to aircraft noise. * Clause 6.4(2) of the RLEP relating to airspace operations, as the Council is satisfied that the proposed development will not penetrate the Limitation or Operations Surface and therefore consultation with the relevant Commonwealth body is not required (see letter from Sydney Airports dated 10 May 2018 - tab 7 of Council Bundle). * Clause 6.7(3) of the RLEP relating to stormwater management. * Clause 6.12 of the RLEP relating to essential services.

State Environmental Planning Policy No 55 - Remediation of Land (SEPP 55)

1. Clause 7(1)(a) of SEPP 55 requires the consent authority to consider whether the land is contaminated. Council records indicate that the site has been used for commercial purposes for a significant period of time with no prior land uses. In this regard, it is considered that the site poses no risk of contamination and therefore, no further consideration is required under cl 7(1)(b) and (c) of SEPP 55 and the land is considered to be suitable for ongoing commercial land use.

State Environmental Planning Policy No 64 - Advertising and Signage (SEPP 64)

1. The proposed development is a "wall advertisement" for the purposes of cl 22 of SEPP 64.
2. Pursuant to cl 11 of SEPP 64, a person must not display an advertisement, except with the consent of the consent authority or except as otherwise provided by this Policy.
3. Clause 8 of SEPP 64 provides that a consent authority must not grant development consent to an application to display signage unless the consent authority is satisfied: (a) that the signage is consistent with the objectives of this Policy as set out in clause 3 (1) (a), and (b) that the signage the subject of the application satisfies the assessment criteria specified in Schedule 1.
4. The parties agreed and I accept on the evidence filed with the Court that the proposed development is consistent with the objectives of SEPP 64 and satisfies the assessment criteria in Sch 1.
5. Clause 13(1) of SEPP 64 (which has a degree of overlap with cl 8) also provides that a consent authority must not grant consent to an application to display an advertisement to which this Policy applies unless the advertisement or the advertising structure, as the case requires: (a) is consistent with the objectives of this Policy as set out in clause 3 (1) (a), and (b) has been assessed by the consent authority in accordance with the assessment criteria in Schedule 1 and the consent authority is satisfied that the proposal is acceptable in terms of its impacts, and (c) satisfies any other relevant requirements of this Policy.
6. Pursuant to cll 17 and 18 of SEPP 64, the application was forwarded to RMS who provided its concurrence (by way of letter dated 28 June 2018 - see folio 309 at tab 8 of Council Bundle).
7. For the purposes of cl 13(1)(c), the other relevant requirements of SEPP 64 which apply to the proposed development is cl 22 which provides the following development standards (see Apparition Media Pty Ltd v The Council of the City of Sydney [2018] NSWLEC 1590 at [16 ): "… (1) Only one wall advertisement may be displayed per building elevation. (2) The consent authority may grant consent to a wall advertisement only if: (a) the consent authority is satisfied that the advertisement is integrated with the design of the building on which it is to be displayed, and (b) for a building having: (i) an above ground elevation of 200 square metres or more - the advertisement does not exceed 10% of the above ground elevation, and (ii) an above ground elevation of more than 100 square metres but less than 200 square metres - the advertisement does not exceed 20 square metres, and (iii) an above ground elevation of 100 square metres or less - the advertisement does not exceed 20% of the above ground elevation, and (c) the advertisement does not protrude more than 300 millimetres from the wall, unless occupational health and safety standards require a greater protrusion, and (d) the advertisement does not protrude above the parapet or eaves, and (e) the advertisement does not extend over a window or other opening, and (f) the advertisement does not obscure significant architectural elements of the building, and (g) a building identification sign or business identification sign is not displayed on the building elevation. (2A) In the case of the display of a wall advertisement on transport corridor land, subclause (2) does not apply and the consent authority may grant consent only if satisfied that the advertisement is consistent with the Guidelines. (3) In this clause, building elevation means an elevation of a building as commonly shown on building plans."
8. The parties agree and I accept on the evidence before me that consent can be granted to the development application in consideration of the matters at cl 22(2).
9. The parties agree and I accept on the evidence before me that the advertisement is integrated with the design of the building on which it is to be displayed (pursuant to cl 22(2)(a)).
10. In relation to cl 22(b)(ii), the parties note that "Advertising display area" is defined under cl 4 of SEPP 64 as: subject to subclause (2), the area of an advertisement or advertising structure used for signage, and includes any borders of, or surrounds to, the advertisement or advertising structure, but does not include safety devices, platforms or lighting devices associated with advertisements or advertising structures
11. Clause 4(2) referred to above states as follows: - The advertising display area of an advertising structure that contains advertising on two or more sides is to be calculated separately for each side and is not the sum of the display areas on all sides.
12. Further cl 22(3) of SEPP 64 provides: In this clause, building elevation means an elevation of a building as commonly shown on building plans.
13. The parties agree and I accept on the evidence before me that the proposed advertising display area of the proposed advertising structure has two sides. The first side comprises the eastern elevation facing Princes Highway and a second side is the southern elevation facing Tramway Arcade. On this point, the parties note the agreed position of their respective town planners in the Joint Experts Report - Planning (at par 68) that there are "two elevations (of) the building".
14. The parties have formed the agreed position that when one assesses each of the proposed display areas on the two sides, the following figures are arrived at: - 1. Eastern Elevation facing Princes Highway. The proposed side has an area of 145.9m2 with a display area of the new sign of 19.5m2. Under cl 22(2)(b) of SEPP 64, the proposed sign must not have an area exceeding 20m2. The proposed sign has an area of 19.5m2 and therefore complies. 2. Southern Elevation facing Tramway Arcade. The proposed southern side has a proposed façade of 132.98m2 and a proposed sign display area of 19.5m2. Under cl 22(2)(b) of SEPP 64, the proposed sign must not have an area exceeding 20m2. The proposed sign has an area of 19.5m2 and therefore complies.
15. I agree with their interpretation of the clause and the development is therefore compliant.
16. In relation to the remaining requirements of cl 22(2)(c)-(g) of SEPP 64, the proposed development does not: * Protrude more than 300 millimetres from the wall; * Protrude above the parapet or eaves; * Extend over a window or other opening; * Obscure significant architectural elements of the building, and * Result in a building identification sign or business identification sign being displayed on the building elevation.

Conclusion

1. As the parties' decision is a decision that the Court could have made in the proper exercise of its functions, I am required under s 34(3) of the LEC Act to dispose of the proceedings in accordance with the parties' decision.
2. The Court orders that: 1. The appeal is upheld. 2. Development Consent is granted to 2018/94 for: 1. the replacement of an existing advertising sign with an LED digital display advertising sign on the corner of Princes Highway, Tramway Arcade and The Seven Ways, 511 Princes Highway, Rockdale; 2. construction of a new art deco façade on the first level above the street awning; 3. removal of a business identification wall sign (located on the wall above the awning to the Princes Highway frontage), removal of business identification sign (above the door and shop windows to the Princes Highway frontage), and removal of business identification sign (above the door and shop window to the Princes Highway, Tramway Arcade frontage and splay corner); subject to the conditions at Annexure A.

Senior Commissioner of the Court Annexure A (226009, pdf)

DISCLAIMER - Every effort has been made to comply with suppression orders or statutory provisions prohibiting publication that may apply to this judgment or decision. The onus remains on any person using material in the judgment or decision 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 or Tribunal in which it was generated. Decision last updated: 18 December 2020