Agenda item

Application Proposal: Display of 1 No. hanging sign (Retrospective)

The Specialist – Principal Planner presented the application as outlined in the agenda. He advised that Bath House Hotel was a listed building and located within a Conservation Area and the Heritage Action Zone.  He explained that the application was retrospective and that the hanging sign was currently located in front of the first floor blank central window.  One issue of concern was that the plans received did not accurately show that there was a fixing bracket at the base and external bulky lighting.  The Specialist – Development Management concerns related to the size of the advertisement and one of the key heritage assets being used as the location for the sign. 

The Specialist – Principal Planner suggested that the vote for the Listed Building Consent application (Agenda Item 14) be taken prior to the vote for this application.

In response to questions, the Specialist - Principal Planner and Specialist – Development Management informed members of the following:

·         There had previously been a sign located within the reveal of the window;

·         As the site was located within the Heritage Action Zone where a grant scheme to restore historic buildings was being administered there was a need to ensure that existing buildings were treated sensitively to compliment the work that was being undertaken to enhance Chard's historic environment;

·         It was for members to balance between the harm to the heritage and public benefit or to consider whether the proposal could be achieved by moving the sign to one side of the blind reveal window;

·         The application for advertisement consent was received in 2019 but without Listed Building Consent the scheme could not be approved unless both issues were considered. The Listed Building application was not received until October 2020;

·         Holyrood Street would be one of the focuses of the Heritage Action Zone and this building would be one of the highlights of Holyrood Street.  It was hoped that the standard of other buildings along the street would be improved through the grant scheme;

·         A smaller sign would sit more comfortably on the building;

·         If members were minded to approve the sign, the external lighting would remain unapproved as it was not included on the plans submitted.  Members could delegate a decision to receive an accurate drawing of the sign as it had been displayed.

The Committee was addressed by the Applicant’s Agent.  He said that the applicant had considered the other location suggested by the Conservation Specialist but explained that the sign had been located in its current location because it respected the symmetry of the building and favoured neither entrance which were both of equal importance.  The sign occupying the blank central window space did not retract from it but enhanced it.  He advised that the internal wall immediately behind the blank central window had been used to secure the sign which was better than using the less secure brickwork elsewhere. 

The Ward Member commented that although he was not supportive of retrospective planning applications, he understood the reason why the applicant had gone ahead and hung the sign in the fact that it could show exactly the size and location better than any picture but was not a good course of action.  He further commented that the occupier had kept the building impeccable over the years and referred to historical pictures when the building was a public house that showed a sign hanging in the centre of the building. He noted that there was already external lighting on the front of the building and felt that the sign was in keeping with the existing signage and was of a tasteful design. He supported approval of the application subject to the submission of accurate drawings to represent the sign as it had been displayed.

During the discussion, members expressed varying views which included the following:

·         The sign would not cause any harm to the heritage of the area.

·         Unable to support a retrospective planning application.

·         The applicant was fully aware that Listed Building Consent was required but still went ahead with the display of the sign including additional lighting and a bracket that was not on the original plan. 

·         The sign would not cause harm to the improvements to the Heritage Action Zone.

·         The sign was in keeping with the building which had been restored to a good standard.

·         The sign would affect the heritage of the building as its location was in the middle of a blind window dating back to the Window Tax, one of the main heritage assets of the building.

At the conclusion of the debate, it was proposed and seconded to approve the application contrary to the Officer’s recommendation subject to the submission of accurate drawings to represent the sign as it had been displayed to include the external illumination and lower bracket.  A vote was taken and the application was approved.  There were 10 votes in favour, 4 against and 1 abstention.