Agenda item

To determine the application.

Zoe Blake presented the report to members.

Members asked questions of officers as follows:

·       Councillor Marks referred to USA Chicken and other signage in the area and asked why has this shop been brought before committee when there is other signage that does not have permission? Alan Davies responded that the applicant’s went ahead and made an application following an enforcement investigation whereas the property next door also has unauthorised signage and the owners of that property have not come forward with a planning application. He continued that applications can only be determined that are received and those unauthorised signs within the area are being investigated by the Enforcement Team and those applications would be brought to committee in due course should those applications come forward. Councillor Marks requested clarification that enforcement have investigated this one because the applicant has submitted an application? Matthew Leigh responded that there are a number of open cases for adverts within the District and other forms of breaches and when officers engage with an applicant/owner they can decide to submit an application and other times they can be less than forthcoming. He continued that whilst there is an open case it shows the Council has not considered that it is acceptable and that it is worthy of closing. Matthew Leigh stated that this application has been submitted because the applicant has brought it forward, it has not been because officers have proactively taken action against one over another, but this applicant has attempted to regularise the situation. He made the point that officers have considered the merits of the scheme and come up with a recommendation of refusal, with the fact that there is an advert next to it that is potentially unauthorised as well is an ongoing, open case and should not have any material consideration on determination of this application.

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

·       Councillor Marks questioned whether this was just progress as 20-30 years ago it would have just been a dull bulb and now as there are LED lights they are a lot brighter. He expressed the view that 50 years ago the sign for the barbers would have just been a red and white pole and whilst he understands the approach of planning he questioned whether this is not just what is happening in a LED world that people live in. Councillor Marks stated that he cannot see the harm that is being mentioned, he can understand that it is near the fountain and is probably not as in keeping as previous lights and frontages, however, in his view, this is a modern society and he cannot see anything wrong with the application.

·       Councillor Benney referred to the signage at the Turkish restaurant being considered a couple of months ago but the committee received a slating on Facebook questioning whether members were sane for refusing this signage. He agreed with Councillor Marks that LED lights have progressed and this is modern signage, with March Broad Street having been updated at a cost of millions of pounds and Barclays Banks is being demolished on the corner and this is changing the whole of Broad Street. Councillor Benney stated that he visited March in the evening and in the Conservation Area of March there are 8 other business premises that have got internally illuminated signage and, in his view, this is a modern way of living questioning what people would rather see a shop that is lit up or one that is boarded up and empty not paying any rates or offering a service to the people of March. He stated that he will be supporting this proposal.

·       Councillor Imafidon referred to refusing in September the Turkish restaurant and whilst it is a Conservation Area, he thinks he will be supporting this proposal even though he did not support the Turkish restaurant one. He expressed the view that, compared to the previous picture shown of what the shop looked like, the sign is not significantly bigger and whilst it is illuminated so is next door. Councillor Imafidon made the point that this is a trading street so it has to somehow make itself known to passing trade and customers and the rotating pole is a recognised international sign to show that it is a barber’s shop. He stated that he will be supporting the application as he does not think it is as detrimental because it is a commercial street.

·       Councillor Marks made the point that a barbers instead of a dry cleaners relies on footfall, it is an internationally recognised sign and it works, and in relation to LED lighting, Cambridgeshire County Council replaced half of the lights in Fenland with dull lighting, so this stands out.

·       Councillor Connor stated that he called this application into committee as he thought it had some merit and he is unable to add to the comments of the other councillors but he will be supporting the application.

·       Alan Davies clarified that in terms of the officer recommendation that is based on the duty placed on the Council when assessing proposals in Conservation Areas, with the test being to preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the Conservation Area. He continued that this is an advert consent application and the signage would not necessarily be recommended for refusal if it was elsewhere in a modern shop front or modern precinct but the consideration here is the impact it has on the historic Conservation Area, with it being a modern design and not necessarily appropriate for a Conservation Area.

Proposed by Councillor Benney, seconded by Councillor Marks and agreed that the application be GRANTED against officer’s recommendation, with authority delegated to officers to apply conditions.

Members do not support officer’s recommendation of refusal of planning permission as they feel that the proposal is not detrimental to the street scene, Conservation Area or Listed Building, it enhances the regeneration of the Town Centre and character of the area and does not detract from it, and the fabric of the building is not being altered.

(Councillor Mrs French declared that she is involved with Shop Front Grants and took no part in the discussion and voting thereon. She further registered, in accordance with Paragraph 14 of the Code of Conduct on Planning Matters, that she is a member of March Town Council but takes no part in planning)