Hanging sign and display board at 27 The Pantiles, Royal Tunbridge Wells

What was proposed

The retrospective application sought consent for a hanging sign and display board; the fascia panel and window vinyl were removed from this application.

“The proposal is for the installation of a hanging sign and display board. The application originally included the new fascia panel and the vinyl wrap on the inside of the front windows, however both have since been established not to require advertisement consent so have been removed from the application.”

Officer report

The site and its history

The site is a three-storey building in a listed terrace, within the conservation area and an area of special advertisement control.

“27 The Pantiles is a three-storey building within a terrace which is accessed from the Pantiles Lower Walk. The ground floor and basement are Class E (office) use. The listing description is as follows;”

“PLANNING CONSTRAINTS • Tunbridge Wells Conservation Area - (statutory duty to preserve or enhance the significance of the CA under the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990) • 17, 21-29 & 33 The Pantiles and The Old Fishmarket - Grade II Listed Buildings – Statutory duty to have special regard to the desirability of preserving the building or its setting or any features of special architectural or historic interest which it possesses under the…”

Officer report

Earlier applications

Earlier listed building and planning applications at the premises were granted, while a later fascia-sign application remained under consideration.

“PLANNING HISTORY (including appeals, relevant history on adjoining sites): Reference Number Proposal Decision Date 98/01656/LBC Listed Building Consent - Internal alterations to re-instate the premises to two separate shops (25-29 The Pantiles) Granted 09/11/1998 11/02210/LBC & 11/02209/FUL Listed Building Consent / Planning Permission: To retain installation of new boiler with new external flue in new location already carried out (27B The Pantiles) Granted 25/10/2011…”

“Listed Building Consent - (works commenced) Fascia sign Pending Consideration…”

Officer report

What officers recommended

Officers recommended granting consent because the signs would fit the area and cause no notable heritage, visual, public or highway safety harm.

“Paragraph 141 of the NPPF states “the quality and character of places can suffer when advertisements are poorly sited and designed. (...) Advertisements should be subject to control only in the interests of amenity and public safety, taking account of cumulative impacts”. Taking into consideration guidance within the NPPF and the NPPG, the main issues to consider are the proposal’s impact on visual amenity and the character of the area, and on public and highway safety…”

“The signage is non-illuminated and by virtue of its positioning does not impact upon any highways safety. Due to the commercial nature of The Pantiles it is an area of high footfall and it is noted that safety concerns have been raised regarding the height of the hanging sign. However, with a height clearance of 2.29m this is considered adequate clearance for those walking nearby. Therefore, no harm has been identified on highways and public safety.”

Officer report

What people said

One objection cited intrusive signage, potential harm and a hanging sign that was too low; the conservation officer did not support refusal.

“Treatment of the facade and shop windows intrusive and unsuitable, in particular the use of vinyl adhesive signage and privacy strips across windows. • Disagree below the threshold of less than substantial harm. • hanging sign is too low.”

“TWBC Conservation and Urban Design (11.02.2026) Whilst consent should have been sought prior to the installation and that hand- painted lettering on a white background would have been preferred in both the context of the listed terrace and the conservation area, the works are not considered to warrant refusal on heritage grounds.”

Officer report

Who spoke at the meeting

The planning officer presented the report and visuals, and no registered speakers addressed the committee.

Members discussed the signs

Members considered the A-frame’s possible hazard and location, the hanging sign’s height, the design and its wider example for other businesses.

“- The A4 framed signage presented a potential hazard for visually impaired highway users. - Officers clarified that it was not unusual to have A-frame boards present in the Pantiles, and it was expected that the frame was not to be a permanent feature and could be placed inside the premises at various times.”

“- The height of the hanging sign was not predicted to be a hazard for pedestrians as it was 2.29m above ground. - The conservation officer’s comments were challenged. The design proposal was felt to be appropriate and preferable as it brought a modern presence to the Pantiles. - An informative was deemed appropriate regarding the distance that the A Frame could be from the premises to avoid it drifting too far into the public walkway.”

Minutes

The committee voted

A motion to approve the application in line with the officer recommendation was proposed, seconded and carried unanimously.

“Decision/voting – On the basis that members were satisfied that all relevant planning considerations had been covered within the report, a motion was proposed by Councillor Neville, seconded by Councillor Pitts and a vote was taken to approve the application in line with the officer recommendation.”

Minutes

What the committee decided

The committee granted the application with the report’s plans, conditions and informatives, including a one-metre limit for the A-frame.

“RESOLVED – That application PLA302/25 be granted subject to the plans, conditions and informatives as set out in the agenda report, including an informative that the A Frame should not be placed further than one metre from the front of the premises to avoid causing an obstruction to the public walkway.”

Minutes