Hand-painted first-floor sign at Daley Solicitors, 42A High Street, Reigate
Summary of planning committee decision
Decided by Reigate Planning Committee on 22 Apr 2026.
What was proposed
The application sought retrospective listed building consent for a hand-painted first-floor sign reading “FINE ART ADAM’S GALLERY & FRAMING”.
“Permission is sought retrospectively for advertisement and Listed Building consent for an external hand painted sign at first floor level reading: 'FINE ART ADAM'S GALLERY & FRAMING'.”
“Consent is sought retrospectively for a hand painted sign at first floor level of the building painted directly onto the rendered wall. The sign is 3000mm x 1400mm in overall size. It includes a border with hand painted lettering inside reading 'FINE ART ADAM'S GALLERY & FRAMING'.”
Officer report
The site and its setting
The site is a Grade II listed commercial building in Reigate Conservation Area and the town centre, with commercial units at ground and first floors.
“The application site compromises a Grade II Listed building within Reigate Conservation Area which is within Reigate Town Centre. The building forms a commercial unit at first floor level with a further commercial unit located at ground floor level. The wider area includes a mix of residential and commercial properties together with a variety of Listed Buildings. Reigate Castle grounds are situated immediately to the north of the High Street.”
Officer report
Earlier applications
Earlier applications for the hand-painted sign were refused, and the current proposal made no change to its appearance.
“01/01441/LBC Alterations to building including new door/window at the rear and additional internal wall to provide self contained entrance to first floor b1 offices. Approved with Conditions 95/01060/LBC DISPLAY OF NON-ILLUMINATED SIGN BOARD Approved 99/17060/CLE Certificate of Lawfulness for existing use as office reception area. Approved 25/01722/ADV & 25/01721/LBC Addition of handpainted sign. Refused…”
“The proposal follows on from refused applications 25/01722/ADV and 25/01721/LBC. The proposal has made no change in terms of the appearance of the advertisement from the previously refused application.”
Officer report
What officers recommended
Officers recommended refusal because the sign’s size and first-floor position would harm the listed building, with benefits insufficient to outweigh that harm.
“It is therefore considered that the proposal would result in less than substantial harm that would bring about limited public benefit (the benefits being largely associated with the financial benefits of the company operating the site). Given similar benefits could be achieved with a smaller sign, such benefits would not outweigh the harm identified.”
“In summary on the listed building issue, the size and positioning of the advertisement on the building is considered harmful to the character of the listed building. Whilst this harm is less that substantial the sign is considered to fail to comply with Policy NHE9 of the Development Management Plan.”
Officer report
What residents said
Residents submitted 83 representations for advertisement consent and 8 for listed building consent, all supporting or neutral, citing economic, visual and community benefits.
“Letters were sent to neighbouring properties on 3 March 2026 for the Advertisement 24 March 2026 for the Listed Building Consent application. Site notices were also placed on 9 March 2026 and 31 March 2026 respectively. In accordance with the requirements of a Listed Building Consent application a notice was also placed in a local paper on 25 March 2026 in respect of the Listed Building Consent application.”
“Issue Response Benefit of Housing Need See paragraph 6.17 Community/regeneration benefit See paragraph 6.20 Economic growth / jobs See paragraph 6.18 Visual amenity benefits See paragraph 6.20 Consider the sign better than surrounding examples. See paragraph 6.19 Comments relating to the address See paragraph 6.22 Historic signage in this location See paragraphs 6.6 and 6.8”
Officer report
The committee vote
Following a vote, the committee resolved that advertisement consent and listed building consent be approved.
“Following a vote on the motion it was RESOLVED that the advertisement consent and listed building consent be APPROVED for the reasons/conditions outlined above.”
Minutes
The final decision
Listed building consent was granted subject to approved-plan, sign-control, tenancy, and banner-sign conditions.
“Listed Building Consent is GRANTED subject to conditions as set out below:”
“There shall be no variation in the text, logo, topography, font, border, background, lettering, size or colour of the sign permitted without first obtaining Listed Building Consent and Advertisement Consent.”
Minutes
The members' reasons
“The Committee felt that it did an important job making democratic decisions.”
Minutes
Source: the council's minutes, quoted word for word.
Sources
- Reigate Planning Committee minutes, 22 April 2026
- Agenda and papers (council website)
Source: Plota analysis of Reigate's committee minutes and officer report. Quotations are the council's own words; headings and summaries are Plota's.
Committee decisions and nationwide planning applications, in one API
The Plota API returns planning applications from every council we cover, each with its decision, whether a committee or officers decided it, and the committee date. Build it into your own tools.
See the API →At the meeting
- Committee
- Reigate Planning Committee
- Council
- Reigate
- Date
- Wednesday 22 April 2026
- Committee decided
- Approved
- Minutes
- The council's minutes
- Meeting
- Agenda and papers (council website)
- Application
- View application →
- All decisions
- Reigate committee decisions →
This committee's year
24 decisions in the 12 months to this meeting, 1 against officer advice.
Source: Plota analysis of the committee's minutes.