1 Richards Avenue Surry Hills NSW 2010

PAN-255459 Other - Installation of street art

External link Read more information

We found this application for you on the planning authority's website about 1 month ago. It was received by them 3 days earlier.

(Source: City of Sydney, reference D/2022/865)


Have your say by adding your own comment.

  1. Chris Davies commented

    I strongly object to this "mural" and do not agree with the SEE statements 1) "The proposal is not considered to detract from the existing scenic quality of the locality." in our opinion, it absolutely does detract. It's yet another image of a football player being plastered all over the community, surprising as it may seem, not everyone is interested in footy.
    2) "A range of positive social and economic impacts are expected because of the proposal and include social benefits arising from the unique, hand painted murals which will enhance the streetscape, and create visual interest" What s the factual basis of this statement, could the author provide verifiable facts that there is any truth to this statement?

    We have no objection to a mural in this location, but I think the question is what that mural should be and we do not believe it should be a footy player. Next the building up the road will apply to put a mural of their favorite footy player or and NBA player. Enough is enough, while art is subjective, it should not be promoting someone's favourite team while creating visual pollution for the rest of us.

  2. Trevor Hall commented

    Its a nice bright addition to the wall. The strong use of Red and White is positive

    Josh has been a great role model to many people in Sydney and should be celebrated

  3. John Spatchurst commented

    I totally agree with Chris Davis. Moore Park/Surry Hills are residential neighbourhoods and yet we have just been presented with a new oversized coarsely detailed stadium with oversized coarse signage. At the other end of the pathway to Central Station on the corner of Crown Street we have an oversized Adam Goodes and now a proposal for an oversized aggressive football thug mural.
    The 'Statement of Environmental Effects' states 'The proposal is appropriate for the site as it integrates with the architectural elements of the facade of the building'.
    How can an out of scale neo-realist mural possibly integrate with a domestic building?
    This obsession with 'bigness' destroys the scale and unity of the street and is totally inappropriate for residential neighbourhoods. Also we have to question who is financing this mural and for what reason?

  4. Alexa Wyatt commented

    The applicant, Apparition Media, are funding this mural. They are also an advertising agency. The purpose of the giant mural according to the application is dubious at best, and does not adhere to the 2016 Public Art Policy as the application states. To claim 'it creates a vibrant public space in an area which lacks visual interest' is entirely subjective. I think there is plenty of visual interest in the beauty of the rows of terraces that line Richards Ave and back onto Shannon Reserve. Must we fill every blank wall in the city? The mural will also allegedly 'create an artistic culture in an emerging commercial area'. I fail to see how a mural of a footballer creates an artistic culture, and Surry Hills is not an emerging commercial area. It has been a vibrant residential and dining district for decades. But most bewildering is the choice of subject. Sure Josh Kennedy has had an illustrious career, but so have many many other people in a wide range of professions that never receive the accolades sports stars do. Adam Goodes' contribution to addressing racial intolerance and as a First Nations' role model is undeniable, but do we need another footballer celebrated? What selection process arrived at this decision? Was the community consulted on a list of possible people to honour? There must be dozens of Surry Hills residents who have made their mark on history, or local artists who could contribute their vision and interpretation of the Surry Hills neighbourhood, not a company from Melbourne. I see no merit, artistic or otherwise, in this proposal.

  5. Geoff Teys commented

    Whether your for or against the mural I fond to suggestion that it depicts a thug footballer offensive. Josh Kennedy played the game in the right spirit and has never been associated with bad sportsmanship.

  6. Cyn Dy commented

    A mural is a beautiful thing when delivered well, however, I can not help but notice that there is this Fad?/clinging on to representing predominantly larger-scale realism or not portraits of people as opposed to the plethora of ideal images that could or probably should be explored as options.
    As someone mentioned the area has grassroots as a diverse cosmopolitan suburb well known for its art galleries, antique dealers, cafes and pubs, fashion and rag trade outlets.


    As for a marketing company footing the bill - seriously? how is this allowed?
    let alone tolerated, I say this not because of any distaste for marketing - quite the opposite really however there is a deep biased at play without doubt.

    Lastly, as a local business owner who has many artists and their work (murals/sculpture) at my fingertips - the exercise could be a lot more than a DA application/conversation - we have so many creatives in our beautiful city who would Die for the opportunity to leave a little self footprint on the area.

  7. Alex S commented

    I object to this application, especially in regards to the intentionnal deception in calling work-for-hire advertising street art. As the applicant quotes from SLEP2012 "Street art does not include advertisements, advertising structures or signage" but their very own website reveals their motivation is just that as "Apparition is Australia’s leading agency specialising in hand-painted *advertising*" https://www.apparitionmedia.com.au/about

    This application would be more appropriatelly assessed against the criteria of the Signage and Advertising Structures Development Control Plan 2005. In that regard the applicant has dealt themselves yet another blow by conceding their proposal does not constitute "public art" and is located within a local heritage conservation area, criteria which would be considered for an honest application to erect Commercial Advertising Signage.

  8. John Avery commented

    I object to this proposed mural. It is not in my view street art. The concept of street art seems to have been adopted and taken over by commercial interests.

    It is unclear to me who is funding this and why.

    I agree we don’t need another oversized portrait of another sportsperson.

  1. Have you made a donation or gift to a Councillor or Council employee? You may need to disclose this.

  2. Please use your real full name if possible.

  1. We never display your street address. Why do you need my address?

This week

Find PlanningAlerts useful?

This independent project is run by a local charity, the OpenAustralia Foundation. PlanningAlerts is powered by small, tax-deductible donations from the people who use it to stay informed about changes to their local area. If you find it useful, chip in to support PlanningAlerts.

Back PlanningAlerts