Agenda item

To determine the application.

Kimberley Crow presented the report to members.

Members asked officers the following questions:

·       Councillor Gerstner referred to the presentation screen and questioned whether the sign above Domino’s Pizza business has an illuminated sign? It was confirmed that the sign is externally illuminated.

·       Councillor Gerstner stated that the application site has an internally illuminated sign. Councillor Marks clarified that the sign in question is backlit. David Rowen stated that sign above Domino’s Pizza has lights above it which externally illuminates the sign whereas the signing on the application site has lighting which is inbuilt within the sign.

·       Councillor Imafidon asked officers to clarify how long the sign has been in place? David Rowen explained that it has been erected between 6 and 12 months. Matthew Leigh explained that the application is before the committee as a result of an enforcement complaint and as a result officers have advised the applicants that they needed advertisement consent.

Members asked questions, made comments and received responses as follows:

·       Councillor Benney stated that he does see that there is anything wrong with the sign and the whole of Broad Street has undergone significant change because of the regeneration works. He stated that if businesses are not supported then they will close, and he made the point that anybody who chooses to invest anything in business should be supported. Councillor Benney referred to the presentation screen and stated that the signage is hiding the keystones above three windows and he added that the keystones will still be there long after the sign comes down. He stated that signs are above businesses for a reason as they are supposed to attract custom and the sign fulfils its need. Councillor Benney expressed the opinion that he sees nothing wrong with the sign and it brightens up the High Street.

·       Councillor Purser stated that he is aware of comments made by members of the public who have commented on the significant brightness of the sign. He added that whilst he appreciates that businesses do need to be supported, the business owners in this case do not appear to be taking any notice of advice and guidance being provided to them by the Council which, in his opinion, needs to be addressed. Councillor Purser added that he thinks business owners need to submit proper planning permission before they undertake any works to their business rather than retrospectively.

·       The Legal Officer stated that retrospective planning permission is not a material consideration and should not influence the members decision when determining the application.

·       Councillor Imafidon stated that he is very much in support of local businesses and their efforts to grow and advertise. He added that he knows how difficult the current economic climate is for businesses such as this, but he has to agree with the officers, and made the point that when you compare the previous NatWest sign which, in his view, was very sympathetic and the heritage aspect was still visible especially when considering that the site is in a Conservation Area. Councillor Imafidon stated that the NatWest sign was far more presentable, and the new sign is not acceptable to him as it does not consider the Conservation Area and, in his opinion, the heritage value of the building is diminished by the sign. He stated that he will not support the application and the officer’s recommendation, in his view, is correct.

·       Councillor Meekins referred to the officer’s report and stated that March Town Council object to the sign due the location being in a Conservation Area. He expressed the view that if signage such as this is permitted there is no point in having Conservation Areas and he will be supporting the officer’s recommendation of refusal.

·        Councillor Purser referred to the Domino’s sign which has lighting that directs downwards whereas the signage in question is illuminating the whole street. He added that the previous NatWest sign did not cover the whole building and cover all of the architecture and he will not be supporting the application.

·        Councillor Marks stated that the sign is in place to attract people out of normal daytime hours to bring in custom when it is mainly dark. He referred to the presentation screen and stated that the NatWest sign is taken before the regeneration works. Councillor Marks added that as a result of the regeneration works to Broad Street the flow of traffic is now a lot further away from the businesses and he appreciates why the sign is now larger. He made the point that he agrees that the sign does cover some of the architecture but there is also another veterinary business with a neon green sign which he believes is also in a Conservation Area.

·        Councillor Benney stated that the Council has just applied to demolish Barclays Bank which is in a Conservation Area and the committee supported that application albeit against the officer’s recommendation. He stated that at the time the NatWest sign was erected it probably would have been in keeping with it at that time, but things change and evolve. Councillor Benney expressed the view that it brightens the High Street up and questioned whether the new High Street wants to include empty shops or wants to see new businesses thrive.

·        Matthew Leigh stated that this is a Conservation Area and as decision makers there is a duty to preserve and enhance the special character of the Conservation Area, He explained that the Council has decided to protect this area, and it considers that the surrounding area and the architectural features have something worthy of protection. Matthew Leigh stated that if that was not the opinion of the Council then they would choose to remove the Conservation Area, however, as one is in place then it is a material consideration of significant weight when determining the application. He stated that when members are coming to their decision, they do need to weigh the difference between the fact that they are discussing ‘this sign’ or ‘a sign’. He made the point that there is no objection to the principle of a sign on the building and there is no objection to the principle of the business trying to attract customers and members need to determine whether the current sign is acceptable. Matthew Leigh stated that the members debate appears to be with regards to the principle of a sign and the need to attract customers rather than the sign that is in place, which are two different matters, and it is a commercial area and there was a sign erected previously. He stated that there is no objection in principle from the authority, however, there needs to be consideration as to whether the sign fits with the character of the area and generally internally illuminated signs are not acceptable in Conservation Areas which is standard practice due to the level of illumination, the materials, what they attract and the way that they appear does not generally fit in with the traditional character and setting of a Conservation Area. Matthew Leigh added that generally there are very bespoke specialist signs on the buildings which have lights illuminated onto them rather than internal lighting. He made the point that significant weight must be given to that special character and appearance of this area when developments are looked at as it is something which is a requirement as there are architectural features of this building which are being hidden. Matthew Leigh stated that he agrees with the point that Councillor Benney made with regards to the fact that those features will still be there, however, they are not there now for the benefit of the public. He added that the Council has invested significant money to improve the area and aspects such as the sign will erode the special character and features and he stated that members need to consider this very carefully when determining the application and remembering that it is an area that the Council has decided to protect.

·        Councillor Marks stated that as well as the large sign there are also three smaller signs, however, the focus is on the large sign which is covering up architectural features. He questioned that if the large sign was moved so that it was located above the features would it then be deemed as acceptable. Matthew Leigh stated that a smaller sign would be acceptable, however, there would still be concerns with regards to an internally illuminated sign. He added that the officer’s report states that a number of the signs on the building do benefit from consent and where they do not need to come to the Council to gain permission. He added that it is the extra signs as well as the larger sign which exacerbates the harm to the character of the Conservation Area and the proliferation of advertisements on the one single elevation which is what the Council has concerns with.

·        Councillor Benney made the point that there appears to be other commercial businesses in the Town Centre who have internally illuminated signage and he questioned whether enforcement action is going to be taken against other businesses as a precedent has already been set. Matthew Leigh explained that he will investigate this further as some of the businesses may have already obtained consent.

·        David Rowen stated that to the best of his knowledge the majority of the signage in March Town Centre is externally illuminated and if there are internally illuminated signs and whether they are lawful or not is a moot point. He added that the committee needs to focus its debate on the application site as it has a number of signs and combined with the architectural features it is very much a bespoke building, especially when comparing it to the Domino’s building next door. David Rowen added that the application site is a far grander building with far nicer architectural features to it and, in his opinion, the committee need to consider that fact.

·        Councillor Gerstner stated that the High Street in March has completely changed and has now been modernised. He made the point that he feels that the applicant needs to be considered, and he questioned that if the internally back lit signage is not deemed as acceptable would an externally lit sign like the one at Domino’s be acceptable. David Rowen stated that he feels that the committee are roaming into the realms of designing an alternative signage scheme rather than focussing on the determination of the application.

·        Councillor Imafidon stated that the committee are not just considering the internal illumination of the sign, they also need to consider that the sign covers the architectural and historic features of the building. He added that size of the sign is massive in comparison to what was there before and he understands the importance of passing trade but if your business is in a Conservation Area then that does need to be respected. Councillor Imafidon stated that this is an enforcement matter and this needs to be dealt with as it has been flagged up to officers and the building is far grander than some of the others in Broad Street. He expressed the view it will be a failure of the committee if they do not support the recommendation of officers and enforce the issue, acknowledging that the street has been modernised, but Conservation Areas exist for a reason and as he is the Portfolio Holder for Heritage it would not sit well with him if he does not support the officer’s recommendation.

Proposed by Councillor Purser, seconded by Councillor Imafidon and agreed that the application be REFUSED as per the officer’s recommendation.

(Councillor Purser declared, in accordance with Paragraph 14 of the Code of Conduct on Planning Matters, that he is a member of March Town Council, but take no part in Planning)

(Councillor Mrs French declared, in accordance with Paragraph 14 of the Code of Conduct on Planning Matters, that she is a member of the Broad Street Regeneration Committee and has also been involved with the grant funding for shop fronts which is something that the applicant could apply for should the application be refused, and took no part in the discussion or voting on this application)