485 South Dowling Street Surry Hills NSW 2010

The plans don't seem to say what these signs will be for. If it's commercial advertising, the plans will not be in the interest of the local community and will seriously detract from an area comprised of beautiful historic buildings. The signs shouldn't be permitted unless they complement and enhance what is already there, which these don't seem to do. The area around Taylor Square already has too many large advertising hoardings and these will add to that visual clutter.

This is not a commercial area and shouldn't have commercial signs. The spread of commercial signage is insidious and in an area where many houses are heritage listed and close to the edge of Moore Park this new proposal is completely unacceptable.

The accompanying documentation to the application states that the intention is for advertising signage that will measure over 7 metres tall, which is allegedly justified because the signs will "improve the appearance of the building elevations as they are located on what is existing largely a blank wall". This is an absurd and entirely disingenuous statement to say that enormous advertising signage is preferable to a blank wall. I'm sure a quick survey of surrounding residents would disagree entirely. If the blank wall must be used, why not for something with aesthetic design which contributes to the community in some way like a mural? Scotty Marsh could do something brilliant with that space. This application must be rejected, there is enough visual pollution in our city as it is.

I agree with the preceding comments from Ms Harvey, Mr Waterhouse and Ms Wyatt that this is not an appropriate development, as it is not in keeping with the heritage area status of the location, nor with the general non-commercial, primarily residential aspect of the area.

The application notes in response to the City's guidance that "commercial advertising signs are generally discouraged in the city of Sydney" no exceptional circumstances that I can identify - the argument made around clause 1 relating to this guidance is specious.

I also note the application's own attached statement of environmental effects states that "new work on contributory buildings should ... not be visibly prominent" and, more tellingly, "a uniform paint scheme is highly desirable on rendered terraces and face brick on Federation terraces should remain unpainted".

The application is not for a uniform paint scheme on the rendered terrace and therefore invalidates itself based on its own documentation. It makes no good argument for an exception. It should be rejected as it is not in the public interest in my view.

I walked past this site the other day.

I concur with other comments opposing this signage.

It would be unsightly and not in keeping with the area.

I have no idea why this is even being considered as allowable.

There is no other such signage in the immediate area.

The application is mite on the type of sign content. The implication is simply advertising thst would be unditting.

A proposal not for pvc advertising but a suitable mural or similar would be more fitting and potentially a landmark. And part of the growing inner city art that has been developing recently.