Agenda item

5 x flag poles, 1 x monolith, 2 x micro monolith, 4 x hanging signs; and various other signage.

The committee considered advertisement consent application P23/S3032/A for 5 x flag poles, 1 x monolith, 2 x micro monolith, 4 x hanging signs; and various other signage, on land at Yeats Lodge, Greyhound Lane, Thame.  

Consultations, representations, policy and guidance, and the site’s planning history were detailed in the officer’s report, which formed part of the agenda pack for the meeting. 

The planning officer introduced the report and highlighted that the application was called into the committee by a local ward member, Councillor Pieter-Paul Barker, and due to the objection of Thame Town Council.

The planning officer informed the committee that the site was in the Thame Conservation Area and the signage was on the site of several retirement dwellings who had been given planning permission on appeal in 2018.

There were 20 signs proposed for the site across a range of different types for a total display period of three years. The planning officer also noted that this number was a reduction from the total of 24 signs that had been on the site in September 2022.

The planning officer highlighted that the signage had been in place as of May 2022 and that they were prominent from the street scene and the Conservation Area, although she did not believe them to be unduly harmful. She also did not consider that they posed any safety risk to the users of the highway.

The Town Council did not believe that the signage conserved or enhanced the Thame Conservation Area and that they were contrary to the Local Plan and Thane Neighbourhood plan. Despite the signs being prominent in the conservation area, as she did not consider them unduly harmful, the planning officer recommended that consent be granted. 

Graeme Markland spoke on behalf of Thame Town Council, objecting to the application. 

Councillor Pieter-Paul Barker, a local ward councillor, spoke objecting to the application. 

The committee asked about if the applicant needed permission to display any signage on the site and the Head of Planning confirmed there were permitted development rights for signage of a certain size, but that the signage requested in the application needed consent.

Members then inquired into the signages potential impact on highways safety and if they could be a dangerous distraction to motorists. In response, the planning officer confirmed that she did not believe that they would be a distraction as they were not illuminated, did not project onto the highway, and that the speeds in the town centre area were low so would be unlikely to cause dangerous distractions.

Members asked about the amount of signage that the application was requesting and if there was scope to approve less, but the Head of Planning informed member that the application was for all the signage and refusal would mean they would not have permission for any of it. If the consent was refused, the planning officer noted that they could have directional signs and signs under permitted development rights.

On a question about the material issues to be consider on the application, the Head of Planning confirmed to members that determination of signage consent related to two aspects: local amenity and highways safety. 

The committee agreed that the signage did not preserve or enhanced the Thame Conservation Area due to the amount of signage proposed and that it was a visual detriment to the amenity and character of the area. In addition, members noted that the signage had been in place for over three years. And so, consent would permit the signage to be in place for six years. Members did not that the applicant could put up some signage under permitted development, but not to the extent proposed in the application.

Overall, as the committee agreed that the signage was detrimental to the amenity of the local area, including the Thame Conservation Area, they agreed that the application for consent should be refused.

A motion, moved and seconded, to refuse advertising consent was carried on being put to the vote. 

RESOLVED: to refuse advertisement consent application P23/S3032/A, for the following reasons:

The signage, due to their number, position and prominence, would adversely affect the visual amenity of the area and the character and appearance of the Thame Conservation Area. As such, the proposed advertisements would be contrary to Policies DES1, DES2, ENV6 and ENV8 of the adopted South Oxfordshire Local Plan 2035 and Policy ESDQ16 of the Thame Neighbourhood Plan (TNP).