Betting shop signs at Former Fiveways Post Office, Royal Tunbridge Wells

What was proposed

The application sought consent for three internally illuminated fascia panels and one double-sided internally illuminated projecting sign.

“This application seeks advertisement consent for the erection of three fascia panels and one double sided internally illuminated projecting sign. The site is also subject to another application under reference 25/00428/FULL for the change of use of the premises to a betting shop. This application is in relation to the advertisement consent only.”

Officer report

The site

The corner building has frontages on two roads, an entrance to the south, and lies within the conservation area.

“The site is located in Royal Tunbridge Wells and sits on the junction of Goods Station Road and Grosvenor Road and has an entrance to the south of the building. Due to its corner plot, the building has two frontages to the highway. The site is wholly within the Tunbridge Wells Conservation Area (CA).”

Officer report

Earlier applications

Earlier advertisement applications included a permitted illuminated projecting sign and fascia signs, while a related change-of-use application remained pending.

“The following are not considered to be material to the application: Estimated annual council tax benefit for Borough: N/A Estimated annual council tax benefit total: N/A Annual New Homes Bonus (for first 6 years): N/A Estimated annual business rates benefits for Borough: N/A REASON FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE This application has been referred by the Head of Planning Services because the associated application under 25/00428/FULL was called-in by Councillor Rutland so both can…”

“85/00080/FUL Automatic cash dispenser Permitted 25/02/1985 91/00535/ADV Illuminated projecting sign and non- illuminated fascia signs Permitted 31/05/1991 96/00245/ADV Internally illuminated 3 No fascia signs, 2 with integral projecting signs Permitted 12/03/1997 14/00892/FULL Internal refurbishment and shop fit-out Withdrawn 14/04/2014 25/00428/FULL Change of use from Post Office (Class E) to betting shop (Sui Generis use) Pending consideration…”

Officer report

What officers recommended

Officers recommended approval because the proposal would not harm the conservation area, visual amenity, or public and highway safety, subject to conditions.

“Principle of development 9.01 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.”

“Conclusion 9.07 The proposal does not cause harm to visual amenity or the conservation area, and no concerns have been raised in relation to highway or public safety. Therefore, the application is considered to comply with the relevant policy tests and the NPPF.”

Officer report

Consultation responses

Highways and conservation officers raised no objection, finding the lighting, clearances, design and changes acceptable with conditions.

“KCC Highways – 24 April 2025 The specifications provided for both the fascia panels and projecting sign are in line with relevant guidance for the maximum permitted values for the relevant zone given in the Institution of Lighting Professionals ‘Professional Lighting Guide 05: The Brightness of Illuminated Advertisements'. All illuminated signage is noted as static.”

“Conservation and Urban Design Officer verbal – 10 June 2025 The changes to the building are minimal and not uncharacteristic of the area. No concerns about the colour of the paintwork, nor the design of the signs. The proposal is utilising the existing building and not making significant external changes. Raise no objection as it would cause no harm to the significance of the conservation area.”

Officer report

Local representations

No local representations were received.

“Site notices were posted on the two lampposts closest to the site. No local representations were received for this application.”

Officer report

Who spoke

One registered speaker addressed the committee in support of the applicant.

The committee debate

Members discussed policy concerns, the limited scope of the advertisement assessment, the need for adequate signage, and conditions protecting maintenance and safety.

“Matters of clarification by Officers and Committee Members’ questions to Officers included:”

“- Concern was raised that the proposed signage was not compliant with policy ED11 that required retention for an active frontage to enhance vitality and attractiveness of primary shopping frontage. - Members were reminded that this application required assessment of only the visual amenity and highway safety and was not policy dependent.”

Minutes

The decision

Members voted to approve the application in line with the officer recommendation, subject to the plans, conditions and informatives.

“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 Pitts, seconded by Councillor Neville and a vote was taken to approve the application in line with the officer recommendation.”

“RESOLVED – That application PLA169/25 be granted subject to the plans, conditions and informatives as set out in the agenda report.”

Minutes