Agenda item

The PO introduced the Officers report and recommendation for approval. He noted the historic applications for a replacement sign which had been refused by officers, and identified that the sign currently in situ was unlawful, and was subject to an enforcement case.

He stated that the site was located close to an AONB, but not within the AONB, and that the proposed sign was a reduction of 1.4m of the current sign, and compared to the original sign was only half a metre taller and roughly half a metre wider including posts.

He informed Member’s that the relevant policies for consideration were Chapter 8 of the North Norfolk Design Guide which observes the proportionality of the size of the sign to its associated business, and policy EN4 of the adopted North Norfolk Core Strategy. Officers had determined that the current proposals satisfied both the relevant National and the Council’s own adopted policies.

Public Speakers:

John Simpson – Runton Parish Council

1. Local Member – Cllr S Bütikofer – considered the impact of the sign on the surrounding area to be significant, particularly with respect of the signs close proximity to the AONB.  She stated that the standalone nature of the sign and situation near the road made it more impactful and that it would dominate the landscape. The Local Member asked that policy EN3 of the North Norfolk Core Strategy, be considered, and stressed the importance of protecting the undeveloped coast. She determined that the sign should be considered non-essential as the Dormy House Hotel could be clearly and easily be identified from the road, and the lack of a freestanding sign would not have a detrimental impact on the business. Cllr S Bütikofer expressed surprise that the Highways Authority had not commented on the application, and felt that there were many highway safety issues with the associated area which would be further exacerbated by the proposed sign. She considered it preferable that a smaller sign, comparable to that of the original, be introduced, if a sign was seen as necessary.

2. Cllr N Pearce considered the placement of the proposed sign to be dangerous in that it would obscure driver’s view of the A149, and that the application should be refused on highways safety grounds. He stood with the Local Member in the need to protect the undeveloped coast.

3. Cllr A Brown noted that no comments had been submitted by the Highways Authority and reflected had there been concerns about the impact of the sign on road safety, by that Authority, that this would have been reported. He affirmed that the proposal was complaint with policy EN4 of the adopted North Norfolk Core Strategy, and questioned the application of policy EN3 which he understood to be designed for new developments as opposed to replacement signage.  Cllr A Brown proposed acceptance of the officers recommendation for approval.

4. Cllr P Heinrich stated his support for the Officer’s recommendation, and agreed with Cllr A Brown that the lack of representation from the Highways Authority indicated that they had no concerns about the proposed sign. He considered that whilst the sign was large it was not excessively so.

5. Cllr G Mancini-Boyle affirmed his belief that the size of the sign was unacceptable and agreed with the Local Member that a replacement sign comparable with the size of the original should be introduced. 

6. In response to questions from Cllr R Kershaw on the associated road accident statistics, The MPM advised that if Members were concerned about the impact of the sign on highways safety, and considered this to be a defining issue in coming to their determination, that this Item could be deferred to await a response from the Highways Authority.

7. Cllr J Toye noted Crashmap UK data for the area, and the history of accidents on the road. He stated that the sign was 30% larger in volume than the original and considered this sign to be unacceptably large. He affirmed that whilst he wanted to support the local business, he considered the sign to be too large.

8. In response to questions from Cllr A Varley about the proposed signs proximity to the AONB, and the impact this should have on decision making, the PO affirmed that the site was not within the AONB and that this could not be considered therefore material in decision making. He stated that the application of policy EN3 should be given lesser weighting that policy EN4, as the application was for advertising consent.

9. On reflection of member’s debate and concerns about Highways Safety, Cllr A Brown withdrew his proposition.

10. The MPM advised Members that in making their assessment, the Highways authority considered a variety of factors not just accident history. He reiterated that if Members would find a submission from the Highways Authority useful in coming to their determination, that this Item could be deferred, till such representation was received. 

11. Cllr P Grove-Jones advised Members that the Officers recommendation must first be voted upon, before an alternate proposition be put forward and so proposed acceptance of the Officer’s recommendation. Cllr Heinrich seconded.

THE VOTE WAS LOST by 3 votes for, 7 against and 2 abstentions.

12. Cllr R Kershaw proposed deferment of the item to await clarification from the Highways Authority on the visual impact of the sign on road safety. Cllr Pearce seconded.

RESOLVED by 9 votes for and 3 against.

That planning application ADV/21/1260 be DEFFERED to await clarification from the Highways Authority