BUSINESS owner Laurie Parkes says he is not ready to give up after council reaffirmed it wants him to move his advertising sign in lower Russell Street.
Subscribe now for unlimited access.
$0/
(min cost $0)
or signup to continue reading
Mr Parkes, of FrontRunner Finance Solutions, addressed councillors at their meeting last week, saying the complaints received about the sign represented "0.01 per cent" of the city's population.
But he did not get the result he was seeking after councillors debated the matter.
OTHER NEWS FROM COUNCIL:
Environmental, planning and building services director Neil Southorn's report to the meeting said Bathurst Regional Council, in granting consent for three other advertising signs on the property at 120-122 Russell Street in 2013, had included a condition requiring the relocation "of the sign attached to the front verandah" to the front lawn of the property.
Council asked for the sign to be relocated because it "visually dominates the building" and "covers important architectural features of the building", the report said.
Mr Southorn's report said the applicant "did not relocate the sign as required by the consent conditions".
When council started a follow-up program looking at advertising signage in the CBD, Mr Parkes lodged an application on February 5, 2019 to modify the consent so the sign could remain in its current location.
The modification application was refused in May "and the applicant has subsequently requested a formal review of that decision", Mr Southorn's report said.
In addressing council's meeting, Mr Parkes said "apparently four people complained when the signage was erected six-and-a-half years ago".
"The population of Bathurst is approximately 40,000 people, so therefore 0.01 per cent of the population has made a complaint about our signage," he said.
He said there had been more council staff visit his office "than there have been complaints" and wondered why his business "had been targeted in this way".
"As I drive down Russell Street towards our office, it is hard to even see our office because of a very, very large Aldi sign erected close and adjacent to the front of our business," he said.
He said the sign in question does not dominate the front of his building and emphasised that the building is not heritage-listed.
He said the reason he had not complied with the condition of 2013 was that putting a steel sign at body height so close to the footpath would be a "WHS [Workplace Health and Safety] concern" because "the pedestrian traffic at the front of our office is considerable" due to the proximity of the Aldi store and the Russell Street Medical Centre.
Cr Warren Aubin, speaking when the sign came before councillors for a decision, said he would like to see the matter referred to a working party due to what he said were "inconsistencies in signage around the place".
Mr Southorn told the meeting council was looking at a number of advertising signs in the CBD.
"We have got about 45 premises where we are in negotiation with those premises owners about non-compliant signage," he said.
"There's no single reason for the 45. The reasons are different.
"In this particular case, it's not in accordance with the consent which has been issued. And so that can't be sustained."
Cr Monica Morse said signage in the CBD should be examined in association with the heritage reference group.
Cr Alex Christian asked if the signage complied and was told by Mr Southorn that it didn't "and it is also in breach of a development consent".
"I think it's about time we put our big pants on," Cr Graeme Hanger said. "On page 60 [of the meeting papers], under conclusion, [it says] the signage was originally erected without consent. Full stop. End of discussion."
Councillors voted 5-3 (Cr Jacqui Rudge was absent) to reaffirm council's decision to refuse the modification application, meaning the sign is required to be moved.
