35 projecting signs at 14 Prospect Row, Bury St Edmunds

What was proposed

Advertisement consent was sought for 35 small, non-illuminated aluminium signs projecting from concrete pillars to identify shops.

“The application originally proposed illuminated signs, however, amendments have since been received omitting the lighting from the proposal.”

“Advertisement consent is sought for 35 projecting signs within the Arc shopping centre, Bury St Edmunds. The signs will project from the existing concrete pillars and will advertise their respective shops. The signs will be aluminium and 675mm in length and 322mm in height. They will be positioned approximately 3m from the ground.”

Officer report

The site and its setting

The signs would be within the Arc shopping centre, in the settlement boundary and beside the town centre conservation area, with no nearby listed buildings.

“The application site is the Arc shopping centre, Bury St Edmunds. All of which is located in the Bury St Edmunds Housing Settlement Boundary, abutting the Bury St Edmunds Town Centre Conservation Area to the East. There are no listed buildings within the locality.”

Officer report

Application background

The application came to committee after objections, and the original proposal was amended to remove illumination.

“The application is being presented to the Development Control Committee following consideration by the Delegation Panel due to objections received from the Ward Councillor, Town Council and neighbours.”

Officer report

What officers recommended

Officers recommended approval, finding the signs safe and modest, compliant with relevant guidance, and acceptable in their effect on the Arc’s appearance.

“With regards to highway safety, the Arc is a pedestrianised retail area, meaning there is no traffic to be distracted by the signs. The signs are non-illuminated and would be simple text stating the shop name. The signs are small in scale and positioned 3m above ground and would not create a hazard for a walking pedestrian.”

“The proposed advertisements are not considered to harm public safety and given their simple and modest appearance are on balance, considered acceptable in respect of their impact on amenity and the wider appearance of the Arc. Consequently, they are considered to comply with the requirements of paragraph 141 of the NPPF as well as policy LP32 of the West Suffolk Local Plan and West Suffolk Shopfront and Advertisement Guidance…”

Officer report

Consultation responses

The town council and ward councillor objected, while the Bury St Edmunds Society and a local resident raised concerns about design, necessity and clutter.

“Bury St Edmunds Town Council recommends REFUSAL on the grounds of not in keeping and poor design with conservation area.”

“The following summarised comments have been received from the Bury St. Edmunds Society and 1 local resident.”

Officer report

Who spoke

A ward member spoke against the application, and the planning officer showed videos of the site.

Members’ concerns

Members considered that the signs breached Policy LP9 and created unnecessary visual clutter conflicting with the Arc’s original design.

“Councillor Jim Thorndyke proposed that the application be refused, contrary to the Officer recommendation, as it was contrary to Policy LP9 and created unnecessary visual clutter which was in conflict with the original design of the Arc. This was duly seconded by Councillor Sara Mildmay-White.”

“The Service Manager Planning confirmed that the Decision Making Protocol would not be invoked for this motion.”

Minutes

The committee’s decision

The committee voted unanimously to refuse the application, contrary to the officer recommendation, for visual clutter and conflict with the Arc’s original design.

“Accordingly, the Chair put the motion to the vote and with the vote being unanimous, it was resolved that…”

“Planning permission be REFUSED, CONTRARY TO THE OFFICER RECOMMENDATION, as it was contrary to Policy LP9 and created unnecessary visual clutter which was in conflict with the original design of the Arc.”

Minutes