Submission to North Sydney Council Regarding Draft Amendment to North Sydney Development Control Plan 2013 – Advertising and Signage

About Benmill Pty Ltd

Benmill Pty Ltd makes this submission is in relation to the proposed Draft Amendment to North Sydney Development Control Plan 2013 – Advertising and Signage.

Benmill Pty Ltd is the owner of 275 Alfred Street North, North Sydney. Fivex is the building’s asset manager.

Fivex is a family owned, multi award-winning, commercial property and asset management company that has more than 40 years of industry experience. We actively manage our portfolio of office and retail assets and lease space to commercial and retail business operators directly.

Fivex manages, owns and leases high-traffic office and retail space in locations including Woolloomooloo, Surry Hills, Double Bay, Paddington, Newtown, Katoomba, Melbourne CBD and Cairns.

We are committed to innovation in the commercial property space. Our environmentally sustainable, commercial property in Double Bay won prestigious awards for its architectural excellence, energy and water efficient design and construction. Our Woolloomooloo development showcases a state of the art parking auto-valet system not seen before in the Sydney residential development market.

Our most recent mixed use commercial, retail and residential development is an adaptive use conversion of the 19 ^th Century Newtown Post Office that respects the heritage of the past and creates a micro urban environment with new residents, new jobs and new retail spaces virtually under the one roof.

Introduction

The Draft Amendment to North Sydney Development Control Plan 2013 – Section 9 Advertising and Signage (from here on referred to as the Draft DCP) primarily focuses on the controls relating to rooftop signage and digital display signs.

A staff report to the council says there has been a steady increase in the number of development applications lodged for large LED (light emitting diode) digital display signs in the past two years, However, the report points to only four development applications for rooftop digital display panels that have been determined by council, only one of which was granted development consent by the North Sydney Independent Planning Panel (NSIPP).

If the Draft DCP is adopted, Benmill Pty Ltd believes it will introduce severe restrictions on rooftop signage and digital advertising that will have far-reaching deleterious effects on commercial businesses, property owners and smaller retailers in North Sydney.

The lack of consultation with property owners and industry bodies before the council publicly exhibited the Draft DCP and the minimalist approach to publicising its exhibition risked leaving many interested parties unaware of the proposals. Possibly due to that lack of pre-consultation, the Draft DCP is flawed. It displays little understanding of the value of third party and point of sale advertising to businesses and the economy, the history of building signage in the growth of North Sydney as a commercial centre, and the application of modern digital advertising and management of illumination and dwell times.

Rather than enhancing the character of North Sydney, the Draft DCP will reduce the vibrancy of North Sydney through its attempts to curtail the contribution advertising makes in major commercial centres and cities.  While the objectives of the Draft DCP indicate the focus is to deliver and maintain a high quality public domain, we believe the proposed controls reveal perceptions of digital signage that are ill-informed and outdated and analysis that has led to a draconian outcome.

One of the more concerning aspects of the Draft DCP are the restrictions that will apply to small and medium businesses and retailers wishing to have digital signs in their buildings. For example, the proposed controls on general advertising signs say messages must not have a dwell time of less than five minutes.

The Draft DCP provides little reasoned argument to justify the restrictions on property owners around rooftop signs. There are few insights for why restrictions are proposed for digital signs when many retailers are transitioning towards them as the cost of LED screens continues to fall.

For all these reasons, Benmill is making this submission in opposition to the Draft DCP and we respectfully request an opportunity to discuss it with council officers after the close of submissions.

We strongly urge North Sydney Council not to proceed with the Draft DCP in its current form; and instead to begin genuine consultation with affected parties and interested industry bodies.

Draft DCP

North Sydney Council says its Draft DCP is proposed to amend Section 9 – Advertising and Signage to Part B of NSDCP 2013 to:

Section 9.1.1.    The Draft DCP says the general objectives of are to ensure that signage:

Each of the report’s seven objectives indicates that the overwhelming focus of the Draft DCP Amendment is to deliver and maintain a high quality public domain. However, we believe the proposed controls appear to be based on attitudes towards advertising and signage, and digital signage in particular, that are ill-informed or subjective opinion.

For example, the Draft Amendment says:

How or why the viewpoint from a ferry or yacht on Sydney Harbour is negatively impacted by a building with signs on three of its facades is not argued. Similarly, a cogent reason for overturning current practice that permits third party rooftop signage is not offered.

The proposed controls relating to general advertising begin with a comment that could have come from Joseph Heller’s novel Catch 22. It says:

The objectives of the DCP and their provisions imply that it is not possible to achieve a high quality public domain that contains digital signage and large format advertising and signage. It suggest the two are mutually exclusive.

Objective 4 implies that the existence of digital signage will have adverse environmental impacts and detract from the public’s view. Meanwhile Objective 5 carries the implication that digital signage will have an adverse impact on sky glow.

The introduction of controls that fail to acknowledge that rooftop signage and general advertising are legitimate land use functions which play a vital role in supporting the economy and contributing to a locality’s vibrancy and personality will have serious repercussions on the LGA of North Sydney from both a cultural and commercial perspective.

In many cases the conclusions reached in this report are not argued, merely stated. While the background information accompanying the Draft DCP acknowledges the need for quantitative controls on illumination in digital signage, the report falls short in providing information to inform the provisions.

The report states that in September 2015 a delegate for the Minister for Planning permitted a dwell time of 10 seconds for a Roads & Maritime Services (RMS) digital sign at Cremorne. By contrast, the North Sydney DCP’s proposed controls on dwell time for static content on digital signs are based on the longest time that research could uncover – some four and a half times longer than the RMS example.

North Sydney – history of signage  

It is no coincidence that the history of rooftop signage signage in North Sydney is aligned with North Sydney’s growth as a commercial centre.

Today North Sydney is renowned for its prominent sky signage. It sends a clear message that global and Australian corporations, including some of the world’s biggest brands, are proud to be represented in North Sydney, proud to have their names atop the peaks of the local skyline.

Some top of building signs are licensed to major brands that are not occupants of the buildings. Or they are not major tenants of the buildings. It has been like this for decades.

Sky signs have been part of North Sydney’s character since the 1970’s. They put North Sydney on the map. They give North Sydney life and vitality. Before the signs were switched on North Sydney was a backwater.

Switch the signs off and North Sydney will stagnate. You will deny North Sydney’s history and sense of place. It will be detrimental to the beauty of the buildings and to the amenity of the environment. Take away the character of North Sydney’s rooftop signs and you condemn the area to replicate the brutalist designs of those drab 70s and early 80s Sydney buildings for universities, local government and the courts.

This is not to say that North Sydney is Times Square, Piccadilly Circus (where the signage is currently undergoing conversion to digital) or Shibuya Crossing in Tokyo. But North Sydney has developed its own personality through the building signs.

What company name sits on top of a building is irrelevant to the wellbeing of the environment. Whether the company is in occupation or not makes no difference to the built environment.

This makes the Draft DCP’s opposition to third party advertising nonsensical. Its prohibition of third party advertising on roof or sky signs will not affect the amenity of the environment.

It will affect local business. Advertising is an important part of the local economy. The Draft DCP’s proposals will destroy hundreds of millions of dollars of commercial property values for no gain to the community. Much of the revenue is export revenue as it is paid for by overseas businesses.

The signs are a big part of the economic feasibility of North Sydney property development. Developments will be less viable and there will be less construction and employment and less economic activity if roof and sky signs are restricted to owners or major tenants.

Third party signage has been a very successful industry in North Sydney for many years. It is a significant point of differentiation for North Sydney. The high traffic movement on the Warringah Expressway makes it commercially viable. Trying to destroy the long established commercial activity of third party signage benefits no-one and detracts from North Sydney’s vitality.

Out Of Home media

Out Of Home media companies are making substantial investments in digital advertising technology which helps brands engage with audiences more than ever, not just in traditional billboards on roadside and on buildings but also in other environments such as inside airports, retail centres, office towers, cafes and gymnasiums. All those environments – except airports of course – exist in North Sydney.

Digital advertising is here now and it is growing. Just like banking, entertainment, media, communications, education and so many other areas, we live in a digital world. Out Of Home advertising has moved from the static to dynamic and the revenue from digital signs is approaching 50 per cent for the best of these Out Of Home companies. Out Of Home media is one of the few mediums that are growing because of its unmissable location-based nature.

Yet it appears this Draft DCP wants to turn back the clock by prohibiting digital roof or sky signs and introducing virtually unworkable restrictions for small and medium businesses that unreasonably limit digital signs to the ground floor and constrict their size, content, dwell time and setback from the shop window.

Recent research by Deloitte Access Economics for the Outdoor Media Association highlights the growing contribution of the Out Of Home industry to Australia’s economy and the benefits from Out Of Home advertising for all levels of government.

With the industry worth $790 million in Australian in 2016, the Outdoor Media Association says the industry pays $1 in every $2 of revenue in rent and taxes to government and other landlords. For every person directly employed in the Out Of Home industry, it supports two other jobs elsewhere in the Australian economy.

The Outdoor Media Association says the 17,664 pieces of public infrastructure delivered by Out Of Home media companies help make cities – like North Sydney – more user-friendly.

Responding to the Draft DCP in detail

In this section of our submission we have made comments chronologically on the Draft DCP report, identifying headings in the report.

LINK TO DELIVERY PROGRAM

The report says the North Sydney CBD is one of Australia’s largest commercial centres. It states the Council’s desire for North Sydney to have a diverse, strong, sustainable and vibrant local economy.

Advertising and signage are an integral part of CBDs the world over. We believe that North Sydney Council can achieve legitimate planning outcomes relating to character of the locality and the design of rooftoop signs without banning third party rooftop advertising signs that have existed in North Sydney for five decades and contributed to its identity and economic success. We also believe that the use of digital signage technology can add to the vibrancy of cities and its current and future utilisation by small and medium business owners and commercial property owners alike in North Sydney can enhance the vitality of the municipality.

Contrary to what the report states, we believe the Draft DCP proposals have the potential to reduce vibrancy, reduce economic vitality and reduce community connectivity rather than increase it. Rather than providing civic leadership for North Sydney’s strategic direction, the proposals would create enormous economic damage to property owners for no discernible benefit.

BACKGROUND

The Draft DCP says council staff have noted a steady increase in the number of development applications lodged for large scale digital display signs. Initially they related to , the replacement of existing static general advertising signs, more recently they related to the replacement and erection of new rooftop signs.

However, the report fails to demonstrate either a steady increase of a large number of such DAs. The report talks about DAs for only four buildings lodged since 2004.

In fact, we believe that there are few economically viable locations for new commercial signage on rooftops in North Sydney. The prerequisite for a commercially viable sign is very large exposure to vehicle or pedestrian traffic. Secondary sites attract little or no interest from advertisers. For this reason the prospect of proliferation of advertising signage in the municipality is factually non-existent.

The pattern of development applications demonstrates the point. If there were widespread commercial opportunities, Council would have received many dozens of applications. That is not the case.

The only rooftop signs that are commercially viable are those that are on rooftops of buildings oriented towards the Warringah Expressway. The building cannot be too tall, or else the sign is too high to be seen from the main target audience on the expressway. Most of these sites already have rooftop signage and there are very limited opportunities for new signage.

The rooftop signs on the buildings facing the highway in North Sydney make an enormously positive contribution to the appearance of North Sydney. In many cases the buildings are aesthetically unattractive and the signage adds some colour and character to the drabness below. Signage on buildings is similar to badges on motor vehicles. Remove the brand badges from a car and it loses appeal.

If you switched off North Sydney’s rooftop signs, the city would look dead. You’d be left with a skyline of bleak and bland buildings, exposing the plethora of rooftop plant and equipment. We believe the Draft DCP would lead to detrimental and unintended outcomes for North Sydney’s economic vitality and visual amenity as the character and attraction of the expressway skyline will be inadvertently ruined.

DETAIL

This section opens by stating: Since the advent of advertising, signage companies have been devising ways to maximise revenue from a single advertising structure by increasing the number of images displayed from a single panel or site. We trust this is not perceived as a problem by North Sydney Council – if so, it is certainly not one that the council has been elected to solve.

3 Planning Framework

3.2 Transport Corridor Outdoor Advertising & Signage Guidelines 2007

SEPP 64 requires certain advertisements (within 250 metres of a classified road) to be considered with regard to the Transport Corridor Outdoor Advertising and Signage Guidelines which provide controls relating to issues such as illumination and message content.

The Draft DCP acknowledges that the Department of Planning and Environment released draft amendments to the guidelines in December 2015 which assist in the assessment of variable content digital signage.

The proposed changes to the guidelines include the length of time an image can be displayed on the sign (the dwell time), the brightness of the signs (luminance) and sign content (changes to reduce driver distraction).

It is therefore both surprising and unfortunate, given the relevance of the guidelines to local government authorities, that North Sydney Council has progressed with its Draft DCP proposals on advertising and signage before the New South Wales Government has enacted its amendments to the Transport Corridor Outdoor Advertising and Signage Guidelines.

3.5 NSDCP 2013 and B4 Mixed Use Zones

Section 9.11 to Part B of the DCP states roof or sky signs are generally not permitted and P2 says they will only be permitted on buildings used solely for non-residential uses in the B3 Commercial Core or B4 Mixed Use zones.

The Draft DCP, in its review of Australian controls, says there is a consistent approach across Australian councils to permit rooftop signs within commercial, industrial and mixed use zones, while prohibiting these signs from residential zones.

Later, in 9.2.2 B4 – Mixed Use Zone, the Draft DCP says rooftop identifications signs are to be phased out and over time removed.

We believe that a blanket ban is likely to have unintended consequences. We believe there should be more flexibility on this issue and that a nuanced approached would deliver the balance between the needs of advertisers, property owners and residents that the Draft DCP says it favours.

It is not reasonable for Council to expect a property that has had signage for a long period of time to suddenly give up that revenue source merely because the property is in a mixed-use zone or has been rezoned mixed-use over a period of time.

It is a principle of planning law to respect existing use rights and in the context of a DCP, in the very least the DCP should have a savings provision protecting existing signs in mixed use zones in order to ensure the ongoing economic usage of the land in question.

4.1 Content of Digital Display Panels.

The report says that widespread use of LED technology has significantly changed the way in which advertising is presented to the public in the outdoor domain. It says the technology can have a number of negative impacts – we wish to respond to each of these claims:

In regard to the North Sydney Development Control Plan 2013 and digital display signage, the report says it is therefore recommended “that a policy position be established before such signage proliferates through the LGA in an ad-hoc manner and irreversible changes the character and amenity of localities.”

The report presents no examples of proliferation and ignores the reality that proliferation will not occur at rooftop level because there are very few commercially viable rooftop advertising signage locations available in North Sydney.

On sky glow, this section of the report gives no weight to the management of digital signs – the illumination is definitely changeable and can be controlled manually or automatically.

One only has to look north from Sydney Town Hall and two things are obvious: only a fraction of buildings have illuminated rooftop signs and those that do – Citibank, Westfield, Hilton, JP Morgan, Suncorp, and CommBank to name some – are illuminated without damaging effect on the surrounding locality.

The report does not adequately acknowledge all of the benefits of digital signage – one clear benefit that is not mentioned is that the change of message in a static sign involves significant disruption to surrounding residents and businesses while digital signage can be managed remotely without interruption.

4.2 Codes SEPP

The Draft DCP notes that the Codes SEPP was amended in 2014 to include new provisions that enable the content of an existing rooftoop sign to be changed. The Draft DCP proposes action to prevent digital display signs being changed on a regular basis by restricting dwell times of the message or limiting the message to a business located within the building.

As a matter of law the DCP cannot overturn the Codes SEPP. In the case of North Sydney sky signs, the Codes SEPP would not have adverse impacts and would have no practical adverse effect on the area’s character.

The digital signage need not be a ‘large rectangular box’ – the description given in the Draft DCP report. Calling it a large box misrepresents the shape and depth of the screen that is possible with modern LED technology – it can be extremely thin notwithstanding the dimensions of the signage.

In the case of existing signs – for example signs for MLC, Meriton, AGL and Konica –  if they were digital modules recessed into the structure there would be no appearance of a ‘large rectangular box’ and no-one would know if the signage was made of metal, plastic, neon or LED Digital modules. The external appearance of each would remain identical. Therefore we submit that a municipality-wide ban on digital technology at the top of buildings is short-sighted.

Regular changes of message will not reduce wayfinding. There is no evidence presented for this argument in the Draft DCP report.

Digital rooftop signage in North Sydney will not morph into general billboard-style advertising purely for the reason that the viewing distances are such that unless a letter is two metres high the information is not visible to passing traffic. Billboard advertising on rooftops would never find a commercial market due to lack of legibility at the prevailing view length. Complex messages will not work commercially on rooftops in North Sydney.

We believe that Council could require rooftops in North Sydney to display simple messages on digital signs only while not permitting billboard style messages on the rooftops.

4.3 Characterisation

The Draft DCP report expresses a concern that digital signs – despite no change to the sign’s structure – could change the character of an area. All the concerns can be addressed by controls on size, design, luminosity, dwell times and controls limiting message complexity. As an example, if the MLC sign changed once a day or once a week, there would be no objective change to the character of the area. On the contrary, it would introduce some subtle vitality.

Prohibiting digital display signage would plunge North Sydney into the technological dark ages. When North Sydney is seeking to attract technology businesses in order to create economic activity, vitality and employment opportunities, the Council must avoid sending a retrograde message to the very technology businesses it so desperately needs to attract. Without technology businesses, the future of North Sydney diminishes; the flow-on effects of banning a new technology is to curtail future prosperity.

It is premature for North Sydney Council to look at banning something without even exploring what the technology permits by way of addressing potential concerns such as luminosity or the so-called “large rectangular box” issue.

The Draft DCP suggests that the whole digital panel has to be illuminated. This is not so. Many of the pixels would remain non-illuminated; this is a false argument answering a false problem. Digital signs often incorporate black backgrounds.

The report says there would be a homogenous shape of digital rooftop signs. Again, this is a false assumption. Analyse each of the signs in North Sydney and if digital panels were incorporated into the existing structure one would never distinguish the sign from what prevails there now.

The report fails to appreciate that digital signage has the potential to improve the skyline of North Sydney, add to its vitality, improve economic outcomes for local business and be designed and controlled in a way that ensures that the adverse impacts the Draft DCP is worried about are appropriately controlled.

Instead of embracing the future, the Council’s current draft policy is stuck in the past and needs to be completely re-thought and re-worked so that well-crafted controls on the content of top of building signage and appropriate signage outcomes are actually achieved.

4.4 Strata Lots.

It is ironic that while Council has added an objective to the signage DCP relating to the economic use of land it seeks to ban the creation of a strata lot for signage. The strata title system was created so that discrete parts of a building could be given the same legal protection as freehold title, thus maximising its economic value. It is contrary to the new objective that strata lots are banned. Therefore the creation of a strata lot for signage creates no environmental impact and should not form part of the DCP.

4.5 Multiple Building Names

The Draft DCP suggests that if digital display panels were permitted to be erected on rooftops to display multiple businesses over a short period of time, it would be difficult for people to properly identify the building.

This argument overplays any public benefit from rooftop signs as markers for wayfinding, as we point out elsewhere in this submission. There are many buildings in North Sydney without building or business identifications signs – more in Sydney’s CBD – so it does not make a case against having variable rooftop signs.  We believe the proposed one-year dwell time period is far too restrictive for no public benefit.

We also see potential for tasteful signage changes within the proposed dwell time that are community-minded and socially innovative. For example a building could adopt a pink colour scheme to their logo for Breast Cancer Awareness day/month, or rainbow colours for Mardi Gras, or have Christmas themes on the logo at that time of year. The notion that long dwell times make digital screens pointless is short-sighted and dismissive of their potential to add to the LGA’s character and that of the businesses within it.

Wayfinding

At various places in the Draft DCP, from the Primary Issues Section 4 to Attachment 3 section 2.4.3, there is opposition to changing rooftop signs because of a perceived reduction in what it calls wayfinding opportunities through a locality in night-time hours. There is no evidence to this point; instead an inconsistency within the report on wayfinding. On the one hand it advocates against changing rooftop signs because they may help people find their way around North Sydney’s business district; then it argues against rooftop building signage in other business areas within the municipality.

This approach ignores the reality of buildings in Sydney and cities such as New York and London that have no identification signs. They can be identified by their shape, accentuated by in-building lighting at night (for example the Chrysler Building, Empire State Building and Rockefeller Centre in New York, and The Shard in London).

If wayfinding from on high is so important, council should mandate that every building should have a roof sign on it to assist with the desired improvement to wayfinding. Clearly, that would be an absurd outcome.

Building signs at roof level ordinarily cannot be seen from ground level in commercial districts and hence they count for little or no impact on wayfinding from a pedestrian’s perspective.

Small and Medium Businesses

In section 9.11 of the proposed controls relating to rooftop signs, the DCP puts forward onerous and unworkable provisions that would affect every small and medium business, particularly retailers, wishing to introduce digital signs to their premises. These prohibit digital signs located other than at ground floor level. They say the signs:

Key controls proposed in the Draft DCP

The Draft DCP proposes restrictions on new rooftop building signs and restricting rooftop signs to commercial buildings with a maximum of two signs per site in North Sydney.

It says rooftop signs are generally not permitted but may be considered only where it is a building identification sign, the building is non-residential, only one business entity is displayed for the life of the sign, the sign represents the logo of a business, and the ‘message’ of the sign relates to an owner or major tenant of the building.

The proposed provisions for general advertising digital signs restrict businesses to displaying static images or messages and – without providing any reasonable argument for such an onerous time limitation – require that messages that can be changed electronically must not have a dwell time of less than five minutes.

Attachment 1: Table 1 Analysis of Planning Controls and Attachment 3: 1.1 Review of Australian Controls and 1.2 Review of International Controls  

The Draft DCP says a review was undertaken of the signage controls of other capital cities in Australia and LGAs containing significant commercial centres within NSW. A review of international controls was also conducted.

None of the local or overseas jurisdictions reviewed for the report have banned digital display signs. Does North Sydney really want a reputation for banning modern technology? We believe there are adequate opportunities to implement controls to prevent unwanted signage outcomes without banning digital signage and without banning third party signs.

The countries analysed in the Draft DCP report are a tiny proportion of the world and many of the examples referenced in the photographs demonstrate signage that is currently unlawful as a result of the SEPP. To reference examples that do not and would not comply with Australian law is disingenuous and in no way advances the argument. In very many ways the council’s Draft DCP report is trying to solve a problem that does not exist.

What may appear as glow in a photograph in fact does not glow in the real world. It may be a function of camera technology or perhaps of filters applied to the photo. For example, the photo of the sky glow presented in the report is not a representation of a real world sky glow. It is misleading to present these photos as a rationale for banning a technology or for banning third party advertising on rooftops in North Sydney.

Digital display signs have been installed very successfully on top of iconic heritage buildings in cities such as Paris, Rome, Barcelona and many others. Surely, appropriately controlled digital signage can be designed and installed in North Sydney without causing unreasonable amenity impacts.

The report identifies the range of controls in Australian and some international cities and then proposes what observers would see as a lowest common denominator or strongly restrictive approach to advertising.

Number and content and location of digital signs

In its analysis of planning controls and the use of digital display panels, the Draft DCP says only a few councils restrict the number of rooftop signs. Rooftop signs are generally restricted to one per façade.

The Draft DCP says the City of Sydney has the most restrictive controls with a maximum of two per site – under the City of Sydney draft 2015 DCP it’s two signs at the rooftop and one at the building entrance.

However, the City of Melbourne permits a maximum four rooftop signs per site, one per façade. Permissible content comprises the logos of:

o   Corporate bodies with naming rights

o   Major tenants (or)

o   The name of the building

Again, Brisbane City Council allows consistent content on all facades that may display the name of the building, the owner of naming rights or one occupant of the building.

It is inexplicable that the North Sydney Draft DCP should fall in behind the most restrictive controls on sign numbers (the City of Sydney) – it proposes signs on two facades only but fails to argue why this is good policy. It is also unexplained why North Sydney proposes to ignore other councils’ controls on content that are consistent with the decades-old practice in North Sydney.

The report says only four of the 10 Australian councils reviewed specifically limit the content of rooftop signs for building identification purposes, restricting such signs to the owner or major tenant of the building and prohibit third party naming rights. Again, without reason, it proposes to take the most restrictive approach.

The report says its review of international digital signs showed an absence of controls restricting the number of digital display panels permitted on a site. It says the City of Toronto restricts digital panels to a maximum of one per site and is considered appropriate for incorporation into North Sydney’s DCP. It provides no reason why the Canadian city takes this approach or why it is appropriate for North Sydney.

There are numerous buildings in North Sydney that have top of building signs displaying global and Australian brands on more than two facades. All these businesses and property owners would be affected by the Draft DCP’s proposals.

North Sydney Councillors, if they accept the Draft DCP, will be wading into battle with some of the world’s biggest multi-national communications, information technology equipment, computer security and insurance companies, for no reason.

Examples of rooftop signage that currently exceed the Draft DCP’s restrictions include:

o   Australian Catholic University – four rooftop signs & four logos, one of each on each facade

o   Fujitsu, four rooftop signs to the north, east, south and west

o   McAfee – four rooftop signs to the north, east, south and west

o   Zurich – four rooftop signs to the north, east, south and west

o   Panasonic – four rooftop signs and logos

o   Vodafone – three rooftop signs

o   Cisco – three rooftop signs

o   Genworth – three rooftop signs

o   AAMI – three rooftop signs

o   Richardson & Wrench – three rooftop signs and a lower level sign

o   HSBC – three rooftop signs and a lower level sign

o   Bayer – three rooftop signs and a lower level sign

The report says the City of Toronto is the only city that restricts the location of digital display panels on a building – they are to be located below the second story level. It says: “The general approach established by the City of Toronto is considered appropriate for incorporation into NSDCP 2013.” Why is North Sydney choosing the most restrictive approach?

The report embarrasses itself by including a photograph said to be of the Beijing Skyline in China with a caption that claims building identification signs tend to saturate the skyline around the harbour foreshore. Beijing is, of course, inland and 170 km north-west of its Tianjin Port. The picture is of Hong Kong’s skyline.

Dwell time and illumination

The report says the City of Sydney’s draft DCP 2015 “is the only plan to enforce a minimum dwell times – of 45 seconds – for static content on digital display signs.” It says its review of international cities shows the majority of councils restrict digital display panels to static content with dwell times ranging from eight seconds (Auckland, Phoenix) to one minute (Toronto).

Again, the Draft DCP is consistent in favouring the most restrictive example, when it says: “it is not considered appropriate for NSDCP 2013 to permit static content with a dwell time less than one minute.” The report claims these controls ‘will minimise impacts of ground level digital display panels on pedestrian and road safety’ but gives no definition of the ‘impacts,’ their range, frequency or severity.

The Draft DCP proposes the imposition of curfew hours and maximum levels of luminance to restrict illumination of rooftop signs in order to preserve local amenity and minimise increases in sky glow ‘that can impact on astronomical observations.’

It says digital signs should comply with the luminance levels for digital signs as identified under the government’s draft Transport Corridor Outdoor Advertising and Signage guidelines. While there appears to be some concern about sections of ‘black screen’ in the curfew hours in the summer morning hours, we believe this can be overcome by having twilight illumination levels stipulated in the DCP and shifting the curfew hours shift for summer months.

Conclusion

North Sydney Council’s report and the proposed Draft Amendment to NSDCP 2013 – Advertising and Signage are conceptually and factually flawed. The report’s analysis shows misunderstanding about the real world issues around digital display screens and the dire conclusions about the impact of advertising and signage are not backed by evidence.

There was a serious lack of pre-consultation around these changes before the report was put on public exhibition – changes that would have severe consequences not just for the vibrancy of North Sydney but for its economy.

Business industry groups, apart from the Outdoor Media Association, were not informed directly about these far-reaching proposals. Similarly, the local North Sydney Chamber of Commerce. Commercial property owners too were kept in the dark. A newspaper advertisement or exhibition at the council’s customer service centre or library is no substitute for adequate communication.

We are grateful for the extension of the time for submissions so that we could properly review the report. Having done so, we urge North Sydney Council to make a fresh start and embark on genuine consultation with affected parties and interested industry bodies and not to proceed with the Draft DCP in its current form.

We also urge North Sydney Council to take a measured approach with the Draft DCP to avoid earning a reputation for wanting to ‘ban the future’ by draconian restrictions on digital technology in advertising and signage.

Thank you for the opportunity to make this submission. We look forward to discussing our views with the Council and its planning team.

Submitted by Benmill Pty Ltd

North Sydney

March 2017