Hoarding advertisements at Police Station, Jones Lane, Hythe

Earlier applications

Earlier proposals included retirement accommodation, with one refused and dismissed on appeal and another under consideration after an appeal against non-determination.

“4PLANNING HISTORY 25/10996 – Redevelopment to provide 45 retirement apartments and 6 retirement cottages; communal facilities; access, parking and landscaping. An appeal against the non-determination of this application has been made and is under consideration by the Planning Inspectorate. 18/10050 – Demolition of the police station building and erection of a building comprising 35 retirement living apartments.”

Officer report

Officers’ recommendation

Officers recommended approval because the hoardings would provide a tidier frontage without unacceptable harm to amenity or public safety.

“11OTHER MATTERS Third-party comments have also raised concerns regarding land ownership and whether part of the hoarding lies outside the applicant’s land. Officers consider the hoarding to sit on land within the applicant’s control. In any event, any residual dispute regarding ownership or boundary position would be a private civil matter and is not determinative of this application for advertisement consent.”

“Having regard to the Advertisement Regulations, the NPPF, the Neighbourhood Plan and Policies ENV3, ENV4 and DM1 insofar as they relate to amenity and public safety, the proposal is considered acceptable subject to appropriate conditions. Any limited visual impact inherent in a site hoarding is outweighed by the benefit of a tidier and more managed site frontage on a temporary basis. It is therefore recommended that advertisement consent be granted.”

Officer report

Concerns raised

The parish council, a councillor and two objectors questioned the hoardings’ scale, appearance, highway safety, conservation setting and retrospective nature.

“The Parish Council noted that the application is retrospective, with the developer having erected the advertising hoardings without the requisite consent, and expressed concern that the hoardings give the impression that planning permission has already been granted for the proposed redevelopment.”

“The objections raise the following matters: ·Public safety – concern that the hoardings distract drivers, particularly vehicles exiting the adjacent car park, and may obstruct visibility at a nearby junction; ·Amenity – concern that the boards are oversized, overbearing and visually intrusive, and create a harsh frontage not in keeping with the surrounding street scene; ·Conservation Area context – concern that the hoardings are out of keeping with the site’s sensitive…”

Officer report

Public speakers

No public participants spoke at the meeting.

The committee’s vote

The committee granted consent subject to conditions, with the chair using her casting vote in favour.

“Note: The Chairman used her casting vote in favour to Grant subject to conditions.”

Minutes

Conditions applied

The hoardings must be maintained safely and tidily, must not create highway hazards, and must be removed by 19 December 2028.

“Proposed Conditions: 6.The signs hereby approved shall cease to be displayed and shall be removed from the site on or before19 December 2028. Reason: The signs are justified only for a temporary period, and a longer-term display would result in unjustified harm to the visual amenities of the area. Further Information: Graeme Felstead Telephone:”

Officer report