Agenda item

Advertisement consent for the display of 2 No. Externally Illuminated Hanging Signs and 1 No. Internally Illuminated Fascia Sign Revolution Bar (Formerly Bishop Langley).

The Area Planning Team Leader (Central and East), Sarah Eldridge, gave a detailed presentation on the report relating to the abovementioned advertisement 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 application was for advertisement consent for the display of 2 no. externally illuminated hanging signs and 1 no. internally illuminated fascia sign at Revolution Bar (formerly Bishop Langley) and was recommended for approval.

The Area Planning Team Leader noted the application was at Revolution Bar, formerly the Bishop Langley and prior to that the Coach and Eight public house.  She explained that there were three signs, and referred to slides showing them in situ, the application being retrospective.  She noted that to three sides of the application site there was commercial development, with one side having a small row of terraced properties.  The Area Planning Team Leader noted that photographs showed the site in the context of the Conservation Area, World Heritage Site of the Castle and Cathedral, and the close proximity to Framwellgate Bridge, a scheduled ancient monument.

The Area Planning Team Leader noted that previous signage that had been in place had been deemed to be unacceptable and retrospective consent for that signage had been refused in January 2019.  She explained that the situation had improved with the current signage having been considered to be acceptable, however, again being in situ prior to this application being determined.  The Area Planning Team Leader referred Members to slides showing the signage at the site over a number of years, from the Coach and Eight in 2009 through to the current signage in place.

The Area Planning Team Leader noted no objections from the Highways Section and Design and Conservation Team.  She noted objections had been received from the City of Durham Parish, the City of Durham Trust, the World Heritage Site Coordinator and one local resident, with the objections as set out within the report.

The Area Planning Team Leader reminded Members that when determining advertisement consent, the two issues being considered were impact upon amenity and public safety.  She noted that in terms of visual impact upon heritage assets, the hanging/fascia signs were considered to be acceptable, and the 2020 pole mounted sign was felt to be equal in impact to previously acceptable signage and therefore itself acceptable.  In respect of public safety, the Highways Section had raised no objections in relation to the signage and the Area Planning Team Leader noted that, subject to conditions, the application was recommended for approval.

The Chair thanked the Area Planning Team Leader and asked Parish Councillor R Cornwell to speak on behalf of the City of Durham Parish in objection to the application.

Parish Councillor R Cornwell noted he had an accompanying slideshow that he would refer the Committee to while setting out the Parish Council’s objections.  He noted that it was the pole mounted sign that brought the matter to Committee today; the Parish Council not challenging the other two elements of the application.

Parish Councillor R Cornwell explained he had been complaining about the sign since November 2018, when the applicants put up a sign without planning permission shortly after the bar opened.  He added the applicants appeared to have hoped they could get away with it and put in their first planning application.

Parish Councillor R Cornwell noted that planning permission was rightly refused on 31 January 2019, nevertheless the earlier sign was still in position in July when the Parish council wrote to the Planning Department urging them to take action.  He added that the applicants were promising to submit a revised application without doing so, just stringing the Council along for as long as possible in order to keep their unauthorised sign in place.

Parish Councillor R Cornwell noted the applicants did remove the sign after an enforcement notice was issued and added that one evening he saw the sign had gone.  He explained that the next day its replacement was in place and noted he could not see any practical difference between the old sign and the new sign, with the applicant having submitted the application as before Committee today.

Parish Councillor R Cornwell noted the Parish Council felt that the Planning Officer’s review of planning policy should also have mentioned Paragraph 194 of the NPPF, which the Parish referred to within its submission:

“Any harm to, or loss of, the significance of a designated heritage asset (from its alteration, destruction or from development within its setting), should require clear and convincing justification.  Substantial harm to or loss […] assets of the highest significance, notably [a list ending with] World Heritage Sites, should be wholly exceptional”.

Parish Councillor R Cornwell noted the comment from the Design and Conservation Team basically stated that the new sign was essentially the same as the previous sign for the Coach and Eight, and this was also reflected within the applicant’s statement and the Officer’s assessment.  Parish Councillor R Cornwell noted the Parish Council disagreed and asked if those commenting actually knew what the old sign looked like.  He added the Parish Council did, and it looked nothing like its replacement.  He referred Members to a slide showing a photo from Google Streetview taken in mid-2009 showing the Coach and Eight sign and noted that particular sign was quite muted and almost merged into the trees behind.

Parish Councillor R Cornwell explained that the 2009 sign was also much closer to Bridge House, and in fact was in a position behind where a skip was unfortunately placed on the bridge currently.

He added that 2009 position had meant that once starting to cross the bridge, the sign dropped out of view, its position being to attract those walking away from the Castle and Cathedral rather than walking towards it.

Parish Councillor R Cornwell referred to a slide showing the current signage in 2020 and noted the sign was around four metres closer to the river and was much more prominent in the views of the World Heritage Site.  He added that it was designed to be seen by people going in both directions and was also glossier and far more ‘in your face’ than its predecessor.

Parish Councillor R Cornwell noted that the site was for many years the Coach and Eight, then the Bishop Langley, an intermediate stage that did not prosper.  He noted that the Coach and Eight sign had been matt, and in muted greens and blues, the Revolution sign in contrast being a large metallic starburst design that was much more prominent.

Parish Councillor R Cornwell added that the Parish Council would point out that Framwellgate Bridge was not only, as stated, Grade I listed and a scheduled monument, there were well-advanced proposals to enlarge the World Heritage Site to include Framwellgate Bridge itself.  He insisted that the matter of the advertisement consent was not one to be decided “on balance” as the Design and Conservation advice had put it.  Parish Councillor R Cornwell noted any harm to the World Heritage Site had to be “wholly exceptional” and he felt that case had not been made.

Parish Councillor R Cornwell noted there was a reference to the signage on Psyche and he explained that the Parish were clear that the result there was seen as a mistake and explained that mistake in granting permission should not be used to justify another.

Parish Councillor R Cornwell concluded by noting that the Committee could find grounds for refusal helpfully set out within Paragraph 26 of the Officer’s report, to which the Parish Council would add Paragraph 194 of the NPPF.

The Chair thanked Parish Councillor R Cornwell and asked Mr Michael Hurlow, representing the City of Durham Trust to speak in objection to the application.

Mr M Hurlow noted he spoke as a Co-opted Trustee and asked Members to draw their attention to the context and circumstances relating to the application.  He noted the heritage context was the same as before, however, with greater recognition of the existing scheduled ancient monument, Conservation Area and World Heritage Site.  He expanded on the importance of greater recognition in terms of: historic cultural value, intangible heritage; as an historic route into City; a pilgrimage route; and now visitor route, the first close view for those entering City.

Mr M Hurlow noted that development had taken place in this part of the City Centre, with negative impact from: the Psyche illuminated sign, highly visible at night; modern materials and poor quality at the Riverwalk entrance, a new application for Curious Mr Fox; the new Revolution terrace conservatory, highly visible especially at night and permanent in appearance; and cumulatively negative impact on bridge view to World Heritage Site and Conservation Area.  He added that positive developments in the area had included the £600,000 relighting of the Castle and Cathedral and the resurfacing of Framwellgate Bridge, noting this was very good and represented a lot of investment.

Mr M Hurlow noted the leisure presence on historic streets growing with increasing numbers of potentially prominent applications, competition and national chains.  He added this was feeding off the heritage value and student presence with little feeling for the historic environment that supported it.  He referred to other Revolution Bars in the contexts of World Heritage Sites and noted as a large national chain, it had bars in both Bath and Liverpool’s Albert Dock, both of which had received much more sensitive signage, especially the example in Bath, with Durham being treated differently, in fact worse.

Mr M Hurlow noted that in terms of impact, the lower frontage signs had some impact upstream of bridge, however, the greatest impact was by the lit pole sign by the bridge, directly on the bridge view of the World Heritage Site and Castle, day and night.  He added that the City of Durham Trust did not agree with the views of the Design and Conservation Team at the Council and that the individual and cumulative impact was negative with the pole sign having a very obvious negative impact especially at night and with the new positioning being such it physically blocked part of the view.

Mr M Hurlow noted that, in summary, the impact of signage was negative, harming the World Heritage Site, Conservation Area and bridge as listed building and scheduled ancient monument.  He added the impact was both as individual proposal and cumulative and that failure to refuse would be contrary the range of Local Plan Saved Policies intended to protect the historic environment.  He noted that failure to refuse would also be to allow a proposal with an impact that other World Heritage Sites have managed to avoid and allow corporations to damage the significant public investment in the historic environment.

The Chair thanked Mr M Hurlow and noted Mr James Beckely, from the Applicant, Revolution Bars Limited was in attendance.  Mr J Beckley noted he did not intend to speak, however, was willing to answer any questions the Committee may have, through the Chair.

Councillor J Shuttleworth noted the recommendation of Officers and took the view that the business was generating income for the area in terms of business rates and employment and therefore moved that the application be approved.

Councillor M Wilkes noted that he disagreed with Councillor J Shuttleworth and asked why the sign had been put up without permission in place, especially as the situation appeared to mirror the position prior to the last sign having been refused.  The Chair asked if Mr J Beckley wished to respond.  Mr J Beckley noted he had only become the Area Manager in this region in the Summer of 2019 and noted that external advertisements were key to generating interest in the business and the signs had been similar to those in place previously.

Councillor M Wilkes noted he felt removal of the sign would not be detrimental to the livelihood of the business and felt the negative impacts of the sign on the World Heritage Site were such that he would move the application be refused as it was contrary to Saved Policies E3, E21, E22, E23 and Q16.

Councillor P Taylor asked why the application was at Committee, and whether pre-application advice had been sought.  The Chair asked if Mr J Beckley wished to respond.  Mr J Beckley reiterated he had recently taken over in the area and noted he had not spoken to Officers beforehand, when he looked at the case and application he saw no objections from the Council and therefore assumed there were no planning issues.  The Area Planning Team Leader noted that following the refusal of the first retrospective application, conversations with the applicant had taken place as regards suitable materials and illumination, however, the sign had been put in place prior to the application being determined.

Councillor M Davinson noted the Planning History of the report seemed to suggest no history of permission for any signage at the site.  The Area Planning Team Leader noted consent granted in 2005, though noted signage for the Bishop Langley appeared to have not been granted permission.

Councillor P Taylor seconded Councillor J Shuttleworth, Councillor B Coult seconded Councillor M Wilkes.  The Chair noted that as Councillor J Shuttleworth’s proposal had been seconded first, that would be voted upon first.

RESOLVED

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

Councillors M Davinson and K Hawley left the meeting at 2.41pm