McDonald’s shop signs at 94 - 102 High Street, Rickmansworth

What was proposed

The application sought signs including an externally illuminated McDonald’s letterset and Golden Arch, six parking signs and a rear panel sign.

“Relevant Planning History 1.1 24/0829/FUL – Change of use from Class E to Mixed Use for restaurant and takeaway (Class E and Sui Generis); addition of HVAC plant, provision of vehicular access from Northway accommodating motorcycle and cycle parking with associated works – Permitted April 2025. 1.2 24/0832/ADV – Advertisement Consent: Installation of 1 no. acrylic white externally illuminated "McDonald's" letterset, 1 no.”

“Description of Proposed Development 3.1 The application is seeking advertisement consent for the following advertisements and signage: - 1 no. acrylic white externally illuminated “McDonald’s” letterset to the front fascia - 1 no. acrylic externally illuminated “Golden Arch” symbol to front fascia - 6 no. aluminium non-illuminated parking signs to railings - 1 no.”

Officer report

Earlier permissions

Earlier permissions covered the restaurant use and a different advertisement scheme, including a projecting sign and yellow window vinyl.

“Omission of 1.no yellow vinyl “Golden Arch” which was to be applied to the glazing to High Street facing window. • Omission of a 1 no. projecting sign to front elevation • Relocation of “Golden arch” symbol to front façade. All other signage proposed is as per the consented scheme.”

Officer report

Consultation responses

The parish council objected because illuminated signs were considered inappropriate, the highway authority raised no objection, and the conservation officer raised no objection.

“The 1 ‘McDelivery Partners Please Go Down the Stairs’ sign would measure 620mm in height and 550mm in width. The 6 ‘McDelivery Partners Parking’ signs would measure 700mm in height and 280mm in width. Consultation 4.1 Statutory Consultation 4.1.1 Batchworth Community Council: [Objection: Call-in request] BCC strongly object to this application. The property is in a Conservation Area and illuminated signs are inappropriate to the front elevation.”

“Comments / Analysis The proposals include illuminated and non illuminated signs linked to a McDonalds store. None of the proposed signage is located on, or considered to interfere with, the highway fronting the site on High Street nor at the rear. HCC as Highway Authority would not have an objection to the provision of an illuminated sign at this location.”

Officer report

Public response

Nine people were consulted and one objection said the traditional Golden Arch should be replaced with aluminium or silver signage.

“Their primary concern was related to the “Golden Arch” vinyl fitted to the shop front glazing which is no longer proposed as part of this current application. Public/Neighbour Consultation 5.1 Site/Press Notice: None…”

“Number consulted: 9 5.3 No of responses received: 1 objection 5.4 Summary of Responses: • Traditional “Golden Arch” should be replaced with aluminium/silver signage. Relevant Planning Policy, Guidance and Legislation 6.1 Legislation 6.1.1 The Localism Act received Royal Assent on 15 November 2011. The Growth and Infrastructure Act achieved Royal Assent on 25 April 2013.”

Officer report

Who spoke

Parish Councillor Diana Barber spoke on the application.

Members discussed the signs

Members differed on whether the previously approved hanging sign or the smaller revised Golden Arch better suited the Conservation Area.

“A committee member expressed the view that the previously consented hanging sign had been more in keeping with the character of the High Street Conservation Area. Another committee member considered that the new scheme was more in keeping with the High Street due to the removal of the large vinyl ‘Golden Arch’ and its replacement with a smaller, more discreet version.”

“Officers advised that consent of the new scheme would not preclude the applicant potentially also including elements of the previously approved scheme. However, it was understood that this was not the applicant’s intention. Committee members agreed that an informative should be added requesting that only one grant of advertisement consent is implemented.”

Minutes

The committee voted

The motion to grant consent passed with 8 votes in favour, none against and 2 abstentions.

“Councillor Nelmes moved, and Councillor Lloyd seconded, that advertisement consent be granted subject to conditions and the addition of an informative requesting that only one grant of advertisement consent is implemented. On being put to the vote this was carried, the voting being 8 in favour, 0 against, 2 abstentions.”

Minutes

The decision

Advertisement consent was granted subject to conditions and an informative requesting that only one advertisement consent be implemented.

“RESOLVED: that advertisement consent be granted subject to conditions and the addition of an informative requesting that only one grant of advertisement consent is implemented.”

Minutes