Two illuminated signs at 2 - 3 Central Buildings, Staindrop, Darlington

What was proposed

The application sought consent for two externally illuminated timber-framed hand-painted signs on the building’s north and west elevations.

“Full Application Description: 2 no. externally illuminated timber framed hand painted signs to the north and west elevations.”

“The application seeks advertisement consent for the erection and display of a single externally illuminated timber framed hand painted sign to each of the north and west elevations.”

Officer report

The site and surroundings

The premises were vacant, had last been a restaurant or café, and were a Grade II listed building within the Staindrop Conservation Area.

“The application site comprises 2-3 Central Buildings, Staindrop. Although currently vacant the premises were last in use as a restaurant/ café (Use Class E).”

“The premises are grade II listed and also lie within the Staindrop Conservation Area.”

Officer report

Earlier applications and signs

Earlier applications for signage and other works were withdrawn, while previous sign consents had been granted in 1995, 2006 and 2010.

“There have been a number of previous applications relating to the building, including proposals relating to extensions, alterations, works and signage. The following applications are considered relevant to the current proposals.”

“Listed building consent and advertisement consent was granted in 2010 for the erection of 1 no. fascia sign, 2-3, Central Buildings (6/2010/0037/DM/AD and 6/2010/0042/DM/LB).”

Officer report

What officers recommended

Officers recommended approval because the signs were considered appropriately designed and unlikely to harm heritage, residential amenity or public safety, subject to conditions.

“The application seeks advertisement consent for the installation of two hand painted timber signs. One would be installed above the door within the north elevation and one would replace the existing side to the west elevation. This is considered to be a proportionate amount of signage for the size of the premises, with the signs themselves and associated lettering considered to be of an appropriate scale.”

“Despite objections, it is considered that the proposals are appropriately designed in terms of scale, colour, lighting and materials and on balance, would not look out of place or be unduly prominent. The adverts are considered to have a neutral impact on the character and appearance of the conservation area and the significance of the listed building, thereby causing no harm.”

Officer report

What consultees said

The Parish Council objected, while highways, design and conservation, and environmental health officers raised no objection subject to conditions or revisions.

“Design and Conservation – Comments provided, the scale, location and materials are appropriate to the building and surrounding visual amenity therefore no objection is raised in principle. Following revisions, the removal of the logos is welcome, there remains no objection.”

“Environmental Health and Consumer Protection (Nuisance) – Following revisions relating to the externally luminated signs are satisfied with the changes. They confirm that having assessed the environmental impacts which are relevant to the development in relation to their potential to cause a statutory nuisance, as defined by the Environmental Protection Act 1990 are satisfied, based on the information submitted with the application that the development is unlikely to…”

Officer report

What residents said

Thirteen public representations raised concerns about the signs’ appearance and lighting, heritage, noise, traffic, parking, access and safety.

“Position of door on north elevation opening onto narrow pavement and main road • Requests for road crossing in the village • Disabled access • Equality Act 2010 the application does not address how the shop has made provision for disabled access or parking • Access issues to neighbouring properties Safety Concerns • Position on a busy road • Position of proposed entrance door • Proximity of door to the road • Health and Safety Risk Other Matters • Time taken for letters to…”

Officer report

Who spoke

The committee heard objections from a parish councillor, residents and another objector, followed by responses from planning and highways officers.

Members’ debate

Members discussed the signs, window vinyl, access, highway concerns and the limits of conditions relating to the building’s use.

“J Robinson, Principal DM Engineer appreciated the concerns from objectors, however the building already had extant planning permission for retail use hence any highway issues were not material to the determination of this application which solely concerned the installation of advertising signage. The proposed illuminated signs were positioned satisfactorily in terms of highway and pedestrian safety.”

“The Principal Planning Officer reiterated that the application was focused on seeking advertising consent for the sign and listed building consent for the internal alterations only. The applications could not be refused on highway issues as they were satisfied and highway issues arising from the use of the premises were not relevant. He was unsure why the vinyl was to be used and assumed it was for privacy.”

Minutes

The vote

Members unanimously voted to refuse the application for advertising consent.

“That the application for advertising consent be REFUSED.”

Minutes

The final decision

Advertising consent was refused after members moved and seconded refusal because the proposal was considered contrary to policies and not in keeping with the village.

“Councillor L Brown moved a motion to refuse advertising consent based on it contradicting Policies 29, 31 and 44 and because it would impact on the historic environment of the village.”

“Councillor M Stead noted that the building was in a conservation area and seconded the motion for refusal of the advertising consent based on contradiction of Policy 44 and that it was not in keeping with the village itself. He had found it difficult to refuse the side sign as there was already a sign on the side of the building.”

Minutes