‘Not a museum’: Secret billboard docs shed light on controversy
Some of the bizarre reasons used to justify the placement of two giant LED billboards along one of Brisbane’s most charming retail strips have been revealed.
Local
Don't miss out on the headlines from Local. Followed categories will be added to My News.
Council documents show plans to build two giant LED billboards in the heart of one of Brisbane’s loveliest high streets were vigorously opposed by BCC officers.
But the documents, not publicly seen before, show a senior council officer later approved the billboards at 78 Latrobe Tce and 284 Given Tce.
The documents do not reveal why there was a sudden change of heart last year and Paddington Councillor Peter Matic did not answer Westside News’ questions about the backflip.
Cr Matic has repeatedly said he was unaware council officers had approved the signs until work began on the one at 78 Latrobe Tce, only a few hundred metres from his office.
The documents, obtained under Right To Information by Paddington resident Angus McTavish, also revealed some of the bizarre reasons consultants acting for the billboard owners gave Council when asked to justify the two locations.
Council halts new billboard approvals pending review
Show your hand: call to reveal all billboard sites
The eyesore coming to one of our most charming streets
Consulting firm Great Site said Paddington was “not a museum’’, such as historic Richmond in Tasmania, and that “we all live in a digital age’’.
It went on to say nearby buildings were “colourful’’, the streets had a lot of traffic and hosted council LED Slow For SAM signs.
“I believe the sign, while it will be noticeable, will sit comfortably with the view along Latrobe Tce and will not substantially erode the inherent character or visual qualities of this busy commercial centre,’’ Great Site said in a response to council in November, 2018.
“It certainly won’t affect the timber and tin character of the wider Paddington area.’’
Great Site also pointed out that nearby Paddington Central shopping centre was not a character building and had many (non-LED) signs.
Great Site claimed Cr Matic was “supportive’’ of the plans when it discussed the Latrobe Tce billboard with him in 2018.
Mr McTavish said Council’s Urban Design team clearly had concerns about the visual impact of the LED billboards on the retail strip, which boasts beautifully restored Queenslanders and workers’ cottages, some dating back to the late 1800s.
The controversial billboards sparked a streetside protest recently.
Cr Matic was also forced to announce a citywide halt to new billboards while council reviewed its approval processes.
At the moment, residents do not have to be consulted and cannot appeal approvals, which are made at officer level.
Council claims those provisions were made by the State Government.
“The approval for the sign was made by independent council officers,’’ Cr Matic said.
“I note the claim by a third party (Great Site) about an alleged conversation with the site owner in 2018 regarding the sign.
“No such conversation with the site owner occurred.
“I was approached by the applicant and I made it clear the sign was a bad fit for the area and I suspected the community would oppose it.
“I subsequently called for a review into LED billboards right across the city, and this is currently under way.’’
Katinka Winston-Allom, the Greens candidate for the local state seat, disputed Cr Matic’s claims.
“Cr Matic has claimed he had no knowledge of this development application prior to its approval and feigned powerlessness to stop it, but this RTI suggests otherwise,’’ Ms Winston-Allom said.
“The Council’s own Urban Design team objected to this billboard, foreshadowing the controversy and noting that its presence would be “not be compatible with the distinct Paddington character”, “unduly dominating” and “oppressive”.
“Further, and prior to its approval, the owner seems to have consulted with Matic, who (according to Great Site’s response to an Urban Design team query) extended his support for its construction.
“After the community’s understandable uproar, Matic has claimed bold-faced that he had no prior knowledge of the application.
“It’s deeply disappointing that it seems our local councillor has misled the community in a farcical attempt at playing both sides.
“This is a classic example of a local politician who is far more interested in the wishes of their property developer mates than those of their own constituents.’’
Cr Matic hit back, saying it was disappointing the Greens were “playing politics’’ with the issue.