Agenda item

3 no. vertical halo illuminated signs and 1 no. non-illuminated vertical sign.

The Senior Planning Officer, Colin Harding, gave a detailed presentation on the report relating to the abovementioned planning application, a copy of which had been circulated (for copy see file of minutes).  Members noted that the written report was supplemented by a visual presentation which included photographs of the site.  The Senior Planning Officer, CH advised that Members of the Committee had visited the site and were familiar with the location and setting.  The application was for 3 no. vertical halo illuminated signs and 1 non-illuminated vertical sign and was recommended for approval.

The Senior Planning Officer, CH asked Members to recall that the application had been deferred at the last meeting, the Committee having raised issues in relation to the number of signs and the illumination.  It was noted there were additional photographs and visualisations, showing the new proposals and similar styles of such halo illuminated signage, and an approximation of such signage at night.

The Senior Planning Officer, CH noted that representations were as set out in the updated report, with the City of Durham Parish Council objecting in terms of the number of signs, stating there should be two, not illuminated and the sign should be in line with other Purpose-Built Student Accommodation (PBSAs) and have an actual name and that name should be the prominent aspect.  He added that there had also been objections received from the St. Nicholas Community Forum and the City of Durham Trust.

The Senior Planning Officer, CH reminded Members that the application was advertising consent, and therefore the relevant considerations were in terms of impact upon amenity and upon public safety.  He noted Officers felt the signage was appropriately designed and located and would not impact upon amenity.  He added there had been no objections from the Highways Section or Durham Constabulary in terms of public safety.

The Chair thanked the Senior Planning Officer, CH and asked Parish Councillor Roger Cornwell, representing the City of Durham Parish Council to speak in relation to the application, noting he had accompanying slides which would be displayed on the projector screens.

Parish Councillor R Cornwell explained that the objections from the Parish Council remained in relation to the amended application. 

He noted that while the Council’s Street Naming and Numbering Team had confirmed that the building was formally named 20-29 Claypath, this would not appear on any of the proposed signage. 

Councillor J Robinson entered the meeting at 1.15pm

He added that it was felt that a name with local significance, and smaller mention of the brand of the student accommodation, similar to other PBSAs across the City would be more appropriate.  He reiterated that the Parish Council felt two non-illuminated signs would be sufficient, adding that once students had moved in to the accommodation they would know where they lived.

Parish Councillor R Cornwell noted the application was within the Durham City Centre Conservation Area, and in the context of listed buildings nearby.  He added that the Parish Council felt he application was contrary to saved City of Durham Local Plan Policies E21, E22, E23 and Q16, noting the application would: not preserve and enhance the historic setting; not enhance or preserve the Conservation Area; not safeguard listed buildings and their setting; and would be detrimental to visual amenity or highways safety.  He asked the Committee to refuse the application

The Chair thanked Parish Councillor R Cornwell and asked Mr James Taylor of Lichfields to speak on behalf of the applicant.

Mr J Taylor thanked the Committee for the opportunity to speak and noted apologies he been unable to attend the previous Committee, his colleague A Willis having spoken at the last meeting.  He explained that the revised application had taken on board the comments made by the Committee at the last meeting, with the removal of the illumination of the sign adjacent to Christchurch, the remainder to have the accent lighting as previously proposed.  He added that the two-metre-deep recesses meant that two of the signs would only be visible if viewed head on, with the gable signage being designed for waymarking.

Mr J Taylor noted a proposed used for the building at 17 Claypath for a hotel and added that there would be the context of individual bedroom spaces that would be lit in that building and the PBSA.  He referred Members to a slide within the Officer’s presentation, noting the similar signage at Riverwalk, and added that he would be happy for a condition in terms of the Case Officer setting the level of lighting.  He added the subtle effect, being a halo onto warms bricks, would not be cold.  He explained that the issue raised relating to the name of the property were not relevant in terms of the application, and that the address of the property was 20-29 Claypath.  He concluded by asking the Committee to agree with the Officer’s recommendation to approve the application.

The Chair thanked Mr J Taylor and asked Councillor J Robinson if he felt he could make a decision upon Item 5a, Councillor J Robinson noted as he had arrived after the presentations had begun he would not vote on this application.  The Chair asked Members of the Committee for their comments and questions.

Councillor D Freeman explained he was a Member of the City of Durham Parish Council, however, was not a member of their Planning Committee and had no input into their comments on the application.  He noted that he had agreed with the views put forward by Committee Members at the last meeting, in terms of the number of proposed signs and whether there was a need for illumination.  He added that the changes made by the application had result in no reduction in the number of signs, still four, and three of those remained as illuminated signs.  He explained he felt that the illuminated signs as proposed, relating to the brand of student housing, was advertising for that brand, akin to supermarket signage with company logos.

Councillor D Freeman added he felt that there had been a missed opportunity in respect of having a name for the building in keeping with the local area and that the changes to the application since the last meeting were not sufficient and therefore he would not support the application.

Councillor M Davinson noted the discussions that had taken place at the last meeting and added that the applicant had made some concessions.  He noted that Members had attended the site and that given the depth of the recesses on the front of the building, he did not feel those signs to not present any issues.  He added that those on the gable ends would be much more visible when going up or down the street, and he whilst understood the concerns raised by objectors.  Councillor M Davinson explained he could not see where the Committee could reasonably object to the application such that any appeal against the decision could be dismissed.  Councillor M Davinson added he felt the application was now the best that would be put forward in this regard and proposed that application be approved in line with the Officer’s recommendation within the report.  Councillor P Jopling seconded the proposal.

RESOLVED

That the application be APPROVED subject to the conditions as set out within the report.