485 South Dowling Street Surry Hills NSW 2010

This site was the subject of a previous application for a giant advertisement that received a considerable number of objections on the basis of visual pollution. I take it that DA must have been rejected given the new proposal for yet another massive portrait of a male AFL player - further along this same stretch of road there are giant murals of Josh Kennedy and Adam Goodes. My objection to this new DA is not about the worthiness of the subjects, but to query why on earth we need yet more giant murals of male sportsmen? It seems a remarkably tone deaf concept in the same week that the Mathildas have united the country and delivered crowds like no other male team has ever done, an achievement all the more remarkable given women's sport receives nothing like the funding and support of men's teams. If there must be a mural of a sports player, then surely Sam Kerr deserves this place. Or better still, a Surry Hills local who has distinguished themselves in any number of ways that are not sport related. This plan by stealth to line Fitzroy and Foveaux streets with murals of men who play football is not in the public interest. Let's celebrate the other 51% of the population for a change please.

I could not agree more with Alexa Wyatt's comment, reposted below. I object to the mural of Buddy Franklin - another generic male sportsman - and propose a mural of one of the Matildas instead, who have galvanised and inspired a whole country. What an exceptional group of women - playing better football than the Socceroos EVER have.

This site was the subject of a previous application for a giant advertisement that received a considerable number of objections on the basis of visual pollution. I take it that DA must have been rejected given the new proposal for yet another massive portrait of a male AFL player - further along this same stretch of road there are giant murals of Josh Kennedy and Adam Goodes. My objection to this new DA is not about the worthiness of the subjects, but to query why on earth we need yet more giant murals of male sportsmen? It seems a remarkably tone deaf concept in the same week that the Mathildas have united the country and delivered crowds like no other male team has ever done, an achievement all the more remarkable given women's sport receives nothing like the funding and support of men's teams. If there must be a mural of a sports player, then surely Sam Kerr deserves this place. Or better still, a Surry Hills local who has distinguished themselves in any number of ways that are not sport related. This plan by stealth to line Fitzroy and Foveaux streets with murals of men who play football is not in the public interest. Let's celebrate the other 51% of the population for a change please.

Opposed to a Mural of Buddy Franklin. Whilst he may be a good AFL player, what Impact has he had on the community that he should be celebrated in such a way. He seems more interested with paid partnerships with Penfolds (alcohol) and indirectly supporting his people through designing watches instead of being hands on involved with the community. Agree with supporting those who have represented Australia or are pillars in the community and do not use drugs or alcohol.

I am also writing in agreement with the previous objections regarding the proposed AFL player mural. The points raised in the objections, I believe, reflect a broader community sentiment about the responsible use of public spaces. I agree that the repetition of another male football player mural is unnecessary. In a period where women’s sport (Netball, Football, Cricket etc) is excelling and creating huge excitement, let’s take the opportunity to have these murals celebrate the accomplishments of the entire population and especially people within the community these murals sit in.

I write yet again to object to a proposal by the applicant to place an advertisement for the AFL in a position explictly intended to be viewed by their customers. "the proposed facade will be [mostly] visible from highly frequented road corridors " "the site’s proximity to Moore Park and the Sydney Swans home ground (Sydney Cricket Ground) the proposed mural is appropriate and relevant as Sydney AFL [paying customers] will often travel past the mural "

As the applicant concedes "Street art does not include advertisement" and yet their own website describes "We are an outdoor advertising agency...Apparition blurs the lines between advertising and art". https://www.apparitionmedia.com.au/
Their social media platform is even more blunt "Advertising Agency" https://www.instagram.com/apparitionmedia/

They offer a service in which they intentionally achieve getting advertisements into places not permissable by local planning policy. While they cheekily note "will not
include any logos such as the AFL logo" the motif of a football player intended to be placed outdoors in sight of potential customers has a clearly commercial benefit and would more aptly be described as an advertising billboard

Cannot disagree with the previous comments on "just another mural of a male footballer".

And also what's the difference between this and the previous application. Still think it will be an eyesore.

Strongly oppose.

I agree with the other respondents. I strongly oppose this application as it’s merely a repeat of an earlier application and there is now ample representation of male AFL players in our neighbourhood. We are a precinct celebrating a broad spectrum of the arts, yes - sports, and diversity. If this was a genuine ‘cultural mural’ it would not be another male AFL player. But it’s not - it’s advertising. Wall on wall of footy blokes is tone deaf and inappropriate.

I object to this proposal, for similar reasons to the previous speculative proposal by this person or business. This is tantamount to, or is, advertising, which is against the spirit of the area and development/heritage rules.

I agree fully with the comment of Alexa Wyatt and of 'Alex' reposted here as it seemed to have not been delivered to CoS possibly due to containing web links:

"Alex commented 3 days ago

I write yet again to object to a proposal by the applicant to place an advertisement for the AFL in a position explictly intended to be viewed by their customers. "the proposed facade will be [mostly] visible from highly frequented road corridors " "the site’s proximity to Moore Park and the Sydney Swans home ground (Sydney Cricket Ground) the proposed mural is appropriate and relevant as Sydney AFL [paying customers] will often travel past the mural "

As the applicant concedes "Street art does not include advertisement" and yet their own website describes "We are an outdoor advertising agency...Apparition blurs the lines between advertising and art". [web link removed] Their social media platform is even more blunt "Advertising Agency" [web link removed]

They offer a service in which they intentionally achieve getting advertisements into places not permissable by local planning policy. While they cheekily note "will not
include any logos such as the AFL logo" the motif of a football player intended to be placed outdoors in sight of potential customers has a clearly commercial benefit and would more aptly be described as an advertising billboard"

Agree with previous comments. Please either give us a balance by celebrating women sporting heroes or celebrate someone who has contributed to our community. The last mural put up looks like the person depicted in it is yelling and winding up to punch someone. It's not a great reflection of our area and doesn't send an inspiring message. Please stop this company turning our streets into stealth advertising billboards for multimillion dollar corporations.

Many of us are tired of having football shoved down our throats. These guys are sportsman/women, not legends. My vote would be to put a mural of Don Bradman up instead. Perhaps Sam Kerr. But enough of the promotion of football in the name of art, we don't want to see it. It's advertising in the guise of art and therefore should be treated the same way as proposal to install an advertising sign in this location.

This proposal has understandably generated a lot of discussion and it also provokes fundamental questions about the quality of our built environment.
No sectional interest should be allowed to dominate our shared streets particularly in
a community as diverse as Surry Hills. This DA states that the mural 'will create
a sense of camaraderie as it will be visible to Sydney AFL supporters passing through the area'. That is fine for AFL supporters they can go back to where they have come from but as residents of Surry Hills we have to confront these monster images every time we leave home. As pointed out by Lucina Harvey the mural at the top of Richards Avenue shows a footballer in an aggressive pose, it is positioned half way between Crown Street and Bourke Street public schools. Does this set a suitable example to passing school children living in an increasingly violent society? The new proposed mural shows a footballer in a similar vein.
The other fundamental question is not about the subject but about the size.
These 'King Kong' murals dominate the domestic scale of the surrounding streets. Surry Hills residents did not request these intrusions they are being imposed on us
by a Melbourne outdoor advertising agency who professes to 'blur the lines between advertising and art'. So lets not pretend this is art - it is hyper-realist commercial kitsch that relies on size for impact, it's visual pollution wrapped up in a smoke screen of social benefits. I urge Council to reject this absurd and unwanted proposal.

This DA was rejected by council "Notwithstanding the applicant’s statement that the development is art, the development is considered to be an advertisement."

They're going to try again soon https://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/newslocal/central-sydney/buddy-franklin-surry-hills-mural-gets-indigenous-design-rebrand-after-city-of-sydney-refusal/news-story/1bcaba3cc604c33c024d5caf3e795f53?amp&nk=ead962bf6d01a45a641c5730a10f54ee-1709477239