Agenda item

To determine the application.

Kimberley Crow presented the report to members.

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

·       Councillor Marks referred to the reasons for refusal, in particular the impact on the street scene and character of the area and failure to protect and enhance heritage assets, and queried if this is the building front which this sign has covered over, which he feels is protecting heritage assets. He stated that he is still of the same opinion as last time, especially as things have changed in the town centre since September with the demolition of Barclay’s Bank, the toilets being built and the hoarding removed around them showing the impact on the town centre and permission has also been given to an illuminated barber’s pole. Councillor Marks made the point that there is an illuminated sign that now has permission, which is since this sign was last considered, and various other things that have happened within March town centre that he believes has changed the heritage within the town centre.

·       Councillor Connor referred to the photos of the premises on the screen and further up the street illuminated signs can be seen. Councillor Marks stated that he can see illuminated signs both ways, USA Chicken and the barber’s, but Domino’s has not got an illuminated sign, but he thinks another one does further along. Councillor Connor feels it is clear to see that since this application was last debated, although the application in itself has not changed, the surroundings have, USA Chicken, the barber’s pole and this premises are all lit up in darkness. He agrees with Councillor Marks that the vista has definitely changed.

·       Councillor Benney stated that he fully supported this last time and was amazed that it was refused. He made the point that March Broad Street has changed, the fountain has been moved, Barclay’s bank has disappeared, the barbers has an illuminated sign and he sees nothing wrong with this sign whatsoever. Councillor Benney expressed the view that a high street changes all the time, nothing is cast in stone and in another 50 years this sign would not be there, something else will and, in his view, the structure of the building is not being damaged, the feature is not being taken away and is just covered, protecting it. He stated that he supported it before and will be supporting the application again today.

·       Councillor Marks made the point that the bakers has moved since the last application so it is organic with the high street changing almost monthly so there is a difference to what was there 3 months ago. He expressed the opinion that he cannot see what is wrong with this sign and appreciates that heritage should be preserved but heritage changes as well.

·       Councillor Connor stated he was not present when the application was considered last time but does feel that had he had been present he would have supported it.

·       Councillor Purser stated that he voted against this when it was last considered and feels nothing has changed, he has nothing against the restaurant or signs but having spent so much money on the Broad Street and making it look so much better he feels this is dominating Broad Street and looks unattractive. He expressed the view that if it was a smaller sign to just show what the premises is supposed to be he would probably support it but cannot personally support it in its current form.

·       Councillor Marks expressed the view that like any business they are advertising as they feel they should advertise and driving along most city streets there will be bigger signs on buildings, some of those will be in Conservation Areas and some will not. He feels this is a business, the Council is here to support businesses and are told Fenland is Open for Business. Councillor Marks expressed the opinion that what is the point in having a very small sign, driving through March people would not notice it is there, so they are only making use of what space they have got out the front. He feels that if the restaurant was half the size, the sign would be half the length and they are making, in his view, good use of the space available.

·       Councillor Connor referred to driving through the middle of Dunstable in the dark and there were so many signs, with most businesses having signs equal to this and lit up, probably having a more pro-policy approach to signs. He expressed the view that this application cries out to be approved.

·       Councillor Marks stated that this is a business that is paying rates to the Council and they need to promote their business.

·       Councillor Benney made the point that the purpose of a sign for a business is to advertise it, and, in his opinion, that is what this sign does. He feels there are plenty of other buildings with internally illuminated signs in March and in to the centre of the March, feeling it brightens the town centre up. Councillor Benney expressed the view that the demolition of Barclay’s Bank has made a massive change to the town centre. He stated that he supported the sign last time and will be consistent and support it this time.

·       The Legal Officer stated that the Code of Conduct and case law refers to consistency of decision making and, appreciating what members have said, this is exactly the same application that was previously refused by the Council and in those circumstances, unless there has been a significant change in planning circumstances, there is a risk of legal challenge and an Ombudsman complaint unless very good reasons are given. He appreciates the reasons that members have been giving are because there has been a change in the high street in terms of signage in other areas but, in his view, as there has not been any change to this building and the fact that there have been some other signs elsewhere on the street is slightly tenuous in terms of it being a significant change. The Legal Officer stated that is ultimately a measure of planning judgement here but wanted to raise that there is a risk because this application was previously refused.

·       Councillor Marks stated he understands these comments and the application itself has not changed, however, members are being told that it is not acceptable as it is in a Conservation Area but, in his view, the Conservation Area has changed so it cannot be both ways, something either has changed or it has not. He feels the committee is being consistent, the application itself might not have changed but other things have changed around it, therefore, members are still being consistent in what they are saying regarding the sign if it is approved. Councillor Marks reiterated that one of the reasonings this is being refused is because of what has happened around it regarding it being in a Conservation Area, but, in his view, if the Conservation Area has changed surely committee should move with the times with the application as well.

·       Matthew Leigh stated that what Councillor Marks is saying, to some extent, is correct if, and as the Legal Officer has said in relation to the Code of Conduct, about there needing to be planning changes and if the character of an area changes, if developments are approved and the character changes then members have a right to revisit a recommendation and give different weight to the various material considerations. He continued that Barclay’s Bank had already been approved to be demolished before this item was previously considered so the committee when determining this advert were quite aware that Barclay’s Bank was to be demolished and the demolition was not recommended for approval by officers but members of this committee found the building as it was to be detrimental to the character of the Conservation Area and that the demolition would enhance the character of the Conservation Area. Matthew Leigh agreed that Conservation Areas do change, the value of them, their historic artifacts, the architectural features, there may be small changes through permitted development, etc, and this has to be assessed, but the demolition of Barclay’s Bank was categorically said by this committee to not have a detrimental impact on the character of the Conservation Area. He expressed the opinion that this sign, for the reasons outlined earlier, was found to be harmful to the Conservation Area by this Council and to argue that the loss of Barclay’s Bank has watered down the Conservation Area to then allow this sign he feels would be a dangerous consideration because the committee said that the demolition improved the Conservation Area, with the committee being aware of this when determining this advert. Matthew Leigh referred to the sign for the barber’s shop that was allowed, which was once again against officer’s recommendation, as it was found that this advert did not detract from the Conservation Area so the character of the Conservation Area has not eroded since this application was considered previously, therefore, to say that the Conservation Area has changed, which to some extent it has, is a bit of a moot point because the quality of the Conservation Area has not decreased, not been eroded and not been detracted from. He referred to the Legal Officer outlining the important of consistency in decision making, with the Council finding that this sign detracted from the Conservation Area, but the change of retails units within a Conservation Area to his knowledge does not impact upon the quality of the special character and appearance of the Conservation Area. Matthew Leigh feels that members would need to find something that has happened in the last four months since this was previously considered that has in planning terms demonstrably detracted and eroded the quality of this Conservation Area for the committee to now say there is no longer any harm from this, which is difficult when the points being raised are being promoted as either being neutral or promoting the Conservation Area. He stated that members also need to remember that this application talks about the loss of the ability to see the architectural features and the quality of the building within the street scene so the loss of the ability to see and enjoy those features are the things that erode the quality of the Conservation Area and really harm a heritage asset. Matthew Leigh feels that members need to demonstrate what has brought the Conservation Area down to a standard that a sign that was found unacceptable four months ago is now acceptable and with consistency in decision making it is not about individuals, the planning system is about decisions as members of the committee change, officers change and Inspectors change but decision making in theory should be consistent and the decision of the Council should be the starting point for consideration of this application.

·       The Legal Officer added that the reasons for refusal last time focused on the particular features of the building, not just the impact on the Conservation Area and, in his view, there has been no change in planning terms to this. He made the point that the legal framework, whilst it can feel sort of frustrating at times, is the guidance and case law and to approve this departs from this.

·       Councillor Benney stated that he listened to the legal advice, and it did say that the application has not changed but the legal advice used the phrase circumstances change and, in his opinion, the circumstances have changed. He takes on board the comments from Matthew Leigh about Barclay’s Bank, members knew it was going to be demolished, but there is approval for over 2,000 homes in Fenland that have had planning permission but have not been built out so there is no guarantee because something has planning permission it is going to be built and the fact that permission was given for demolition, committee did not know for certain it would go ahead. Councillor Benney expressed the view that now the bank has been demolished, members can see what they are dealing with and it can be looked at with different eyes and to look at the loss of the heritage status of the building by putting a sign over it he feels the heritage asset is not being damaged and will still be fully intact and if people want to look what is under the sign they have only got to walk underneath it and can still see the arches, which was the predominant feature that members were being told must be preserved and they are preserved. He stated that he stands by his position last time and still thinks it is the right decision to approve the sign.

·       Councillor Marks referred to the photo showing what the building and Broad Street used to look like, making the point that things have changed Broad Street is now pedestrianised on that side of the street and Nat West has gone. He feels that members are told when they have had training that planners work in black and white and committee work mostly in the gray area in the middle. Councillor Marks expressed the opinion that standing by the toilets that are now on show and looking down Broad Street it has changed because Barclay’s Bank has now been demolished and he believes the heritage has changed.

·       Councillor Connor expressed the view that if the Turkish restaurant stopped trading those signs would be taken down and the heritage asset would be there for everybody to see so it is not lost forever.

Proposed by Councillor Purser that the application be refused as per officer’s recommendation, but no seconder was forthcoming.

Proposed by Councillor Benney, seconded by Councillor Marks and agreed that the application be GRANTED against officer’s recommendation, with conditions to be applied by officers in consultation with Councillors Connor, Benney and Marks.

Members do not support officer’s recommendation of refusal of planning permission as they feel that the Conservation Area has changed and the heritage is not lost but just covered by the sign.

(Councillor Mrs French declared that she is a member of the Broad Street Regeneration Committee and took no part in the discussion or voting on this application)

(Councillor Marks registered, in accordance with Paragraph 2 of the Code of Conduct on Planning Matters, that he had been lobbied on this application)

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