Agenda item
2 Scrubs Lane, London NW10 6RB (Ref. 10/2704)
Decision:
Planning permission refused.
Minutes:
PROPOSAL: Continued display of free-standing, internally illuminated sign, incorporating non-illuminated signage for the City Mission Church to the rear, on site of church on south side of Harrow Road, adjacent to existing petrol station |
OFFICER RECOMMENDATION: Refuse planning consent. |
Mr Martin Stephens the applicant’s agent stated the site had been in use for advertising hoarding for over 20 years and that this application merely sought to continue that use. He added that as the advertising hoarding and signage had caused no harm to the residents there had been no complaints or objections raised. Mr Stephens continued that since its re-development the church rather the signage had become the dominant feature in the immediate area and therefore the view that its appearance would be excessive, overbearing and detract significantly from the streetscape and the existing buildings was not valid. He urged members to grant planning consent for the advertising hoarding. In response to members’ questions, Mr Stephens clarified that the signage would be non-illuminated to the rear of the church and that he understood that Reverend Hall, the applicant was in discussion with the Council about the reinstatement of the art sculptures.
In accordance with the provisions of the Planning Code of Practice, Councillor Powney, ward member stated that he had been approached by the applicant. Councillor Powney submitted that as the Head of Transportation had not raised objections to the application and that there had been no harm caused or complaints received, there were no valid reasons to recommend refusal on grounds of highway safety and loss of amenities. He added that the scale of the signage would be in keeping with its surrounding following the redevelopment of the church, income for which was dependent on the size of the signage.
In accordance with the provisions of the Planning Code of Practice, Councillor Thomas, ward member stated that he had been approached by the applicant. Councillor Thomas stated that the church had become the focal point for the whole community following its redevelopment and its planned use as “food bank” distributing free meals to those in need. He reiterated that there had been no concerns raised or complaints received because no harm or loss of amenities had been caused by the signage. He added that the survival of church was dependent on income from the signage and its size and that to refuse the application could have serious financial implications for the church and the community. Councillor Thomas referred to a similar application by a local church in the Borough of Hammersmith & Fulham which granted planning consent to support his view that a relevant precedent had been set which could allow members to grant planning consent for this application.
In the ensuing discussion, Councillor Kataria expressed a view that the size of the advertising hoarding was excessive and its appearance overbearing which would detract significantly from the streetscape and the existing buildings. He added that the financial arrangement between the church and the advertisers was not a planning consideration. Councillor Hashmi echoed similar sentiments adding that the application would contradict planning policies BE2, BE7 and BE21 of the Unitary Development Plan (UDP). Councillor Cummins added that the redevelopment of the church had made it a pleasant building which could be obscured by the advertisement hoarding. He also made reference to the disappearance and the need for the reinstatement of the art sculptures. Councillor Long in expressing a differing view stated that the existing landscape was not attractive, the art sculptures not required due to their poor quality and that the size of the proposed advertisement hoarding would be equal to other hoardings in the area.
In responding to the issues raised, Andy Bates the Area Planning Manager stated that despite the grant of advertisement consent in 2004 for the hoarding, the size and scale of the hoarding was now deemed excessive and particularly obtrusive contrary to policy BE21 of the UDP 2004 and Supplementary Planning Guidance 8 (SPG8). He added that the size, scale and prominent location of the proposed hoarding would significantly detract from the local streetscape, would appear visually obtrusive when viewed from various points along Harrow Road and would add to the existing clutter of this prominent location. Andy Bates continued that the proposed hoarding would not serve to enhance the appearance of the area as it would be completely disproportionate to the size and scale of the existing built environment. In reiterating the recommendation for refusal Andy Bates stated that whilst he appreciated that the continued display of the advertisement hoarding provided added revenue for the church it would be unacceptable by reason of its excessive size and overbearing appearance which would detract significantly from the streetscape and the existing buildings.
DECISION: Advertisement Consent refused. |
Supporting documents: