Three illuminated fascia signs at Horizon Centre, Peachman Way, Postwick
Summary of planning committee decision
Decided by South Norfolk Broadland Broadland Planning Committee on 5 Nov 2025.
What was proposed
The application sought two internally illuminated fascia signs and one non-illuminated fascia sign for a veterinary practice.
“Applicant’s Name: [name withheld] Address Horizon Centre Peachman Way Postwick Norfolk NR7 0WF Proposal 2 no. internally illuminated fascia sign and 1 no. non-illuminated fascia sign…”
Officer report
The site and its history
The signs would be installed on the Annexe at the Horizon Centre, a Council-owned building being refurbished for veterinary practice use.
“The application proposes 2 no. internally illuminated fascia sign and 1 no. non- illuminated fascia sign on the building known as the Annexe, which forms part of the Horizon Centre that is occupied by South Norfolk and Broadland District Councils. The Annexe is owned by the Council and is in the process of refurbishment works to enable the building to be occupied as a veterinary practice.”
“Planning permission was granted under 2024/3394 and 2025/1416 for the change of use to a veterinary practice and alterations to the building including the erection of an external platform lift, erection of external condensing units, a new window on the east elevation and alteration to windows on the east and south elevations. Conditions for details on condenser units, external lighting and cycle parking were all discharged under application 2025/1611.”
Officer report
Earlier permissions
Earlier permissions allowed the veterinary practice, building alterations and related details including external lighting and cycle parking.
“2025/1611 Details reserved by condition 4 (external lighting), condition 5 (details of the external plant), condition 7 (details of the cycle parking) of 2024/3394 Approved…”
Officer report
Why officers recommended refusal
Officers considered the south elevation roof sign too prominent, oversized and brightly illuminated, harming the area’s character and appearance.
“The two signs proposed on the east elevation of the building include the business logo and a wayfinding sign to reception from the car park area. These signs are considered acceptable in terms of scale and location and they do not cause a detrimental impact on the character and appearance of the area given the east elevation is not highly visible.”
“The sign proposed for south elevation of the building is the company’s name “V for Vets” and the sign is proposed to be sited on the roof of the building. The sign will be very prominent within the immediate setting and it does not fit with the surrounding area. The other commercial signage within the area are not set above roof level.”
Officer report
What consultees said
The parish council objected to brightness, light pollution and wildlife effects, while highways did not object and Environmental Quality sought an illumination condition.
“Primary concern relates to the excessive luminosity of the proposed signage and its potential to exacerbate light pollution in our parish. We believe the proposed illumination level of 468 candelas is unduly high and will have a detrimental impact on the night sky and local environment. This is of…”
Officer report
Residents’ views
No comments were received from immediate neighbours or members of the public.
“No comments received from either immediate neighbours or members of the public.”
Officer report
The committee vote
Members voted unanimously to approve the application, contrary to the officer recommendation.
“Decision : Members voted unanimously for approval, contrary to officer recommendation, for the following reasons:”
Minutes
The decision and conditions
The committee found the signage appropriate among surrounding businesses and required standard conditions, a midnight-to-7am curfew and luminance levels.
“The signage is appropriate in the setting of surrounding businesses…”
“In addition to standards condition, to include conditions relating to a curfew between 12am and 7am and luminance levels…”
Minutes
The members' reasons
The minutes do not record the members' reasons for departing from the officers' recommendation.
Sources
- South Norfolk Broadland Broadland Planning Committee minutes, 5 November 2025
- Agenda and papers (council website)
Source: Plota analysis of South Norfolk Broadland'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
- Council
- South Norfolk Broadland
- Date
- Wednesday 5 November 2025
- Recommendation
- Officers recommended refusal
- Committee decided
- Approved, against officer advice
- Vote
- Unanimous
- Minutes
- The council's minutes
- Meeting
- Agenda and papers (council website)
- Application
- The application (council website)
- All decisions
- South Norfolk Broadland committee decisions →
This committee's year
7 decisions in the 12 months to this meeting, 1 against officer advice.
Source: Plota analysis of the committee's minutes.