| Appeal No. | AP14/0030 | | --- | --- | | Application No. | 13/01370/D |

REPORT ON AN APPEAL BY THYME AND PLAICE LTD AGAINST REFUSAL OF EXPRESS CONSENT FOR THE ERECTION OF ILLUMINATED SIGNAGE AND MENU BOARD AT JEAN PIERRE'S BISTRO, GROUND FLOOR COURT ROW CHAMBERS, COURT ROW, RAMSEY, ISLE OF MAN

1. I held an inquiry into this appeal on 24 June 2014 following a site visit on 23 June. The following persons appeared at the inquiry: For the Appellant: Mr G Charsley For the Planning Authority: Mr E Riley

THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT AND PRELIMINARY MATTERS

1. The signage has already been installed. There are 3 elements comprising (i) signage boards above and to each side of the entrance door - the sign above the door faces towards the road, while the signs to the sides face each other across an alcove in front of the door; (ii) a glazed fronted menu board mounted to the right of the entrance door as viewed from the front and facing the road; and (iii) etching-style signs on 2 windows to the right of the entrance door as viewed from the front - these are referred to as "window decals", and comprise a depiction of the Eiffel Tower on one window and the words "Jean Pierre's" and a telephone number on the middle section of another window.
2. Although there is reference to illuminated signage on the decision notice, it was agreed at the inquiry that the only element of illumination in the scheme as installed is within the menu board. The lighting of this board did not form part of the application, and so this illumination lies outside the legitimate scope of the appeal. Although there is a down-lighter above the alcove at the entrance door, any lighting of the signs above and to the sides of that doorway is incidental rather than constituting illuminated advertisements. I have considered the appeal on that basis. The Planning Authority confirmed at the inquiry that it has no objections to the menu board and window decal elements of the scheme applied for, but that it is opposed to the signage above and alongside the entrance doorway.

THE APPEAL SITE AND SURROUNDINGS

1. The appeal site is the former Post Office on Court Row, Ramsey, which is now operating as a restaurant known as Pierre's Bistro. The 2-storey building is on the west side of Court Row and the north side of Water Street at their junction, with the War Memorial to the east of Court Row opposite. The site is in Ramsey town centre and is part of the Ramsey Conservation Area. The building is of an attractive traditional design. The main front elevation is finished in stucco-style render, and has neo-renaissance influences to some of its detailing, including in particular the windows and cornice at first floor level.

THE CASE FOR THE APPELLANT

The main material points are: 5. The appellant does not agree with the Planning Authority's view that the signs around the entrance are of poor quality or that they are strident. They were professionally designed and manufactured by the same company as the window decals. They are of good and lasting quality, and are tasteful and understated. They are of far better in terms of quality and the materials used than numerous other signs in the surrounding area. There is extensive precedent for this type of signage, including many examples of signs in the Conservation Area which are more prominent, bright and strident than the signage subject of the appeal (examples are listed in paragraph 6 of the appellant's statement and photographs are provided). Much of the other signage has high gloss finishes and is on the frontages of buildings.

Additional signage appears in the area on a temporary basis, for example during the period of the TT. By comparison to the existing signage on the other premises cited, the signage in the door alcove on the appeal site is unobtrusive and can only be viewed obliquely. The materials used are non-reflective. These signs only become apparent when within 8 m of the doorway, and then only in partial view. The signs deliberately employ colours of red, white and blue to represent both the French and Manx flags, in order to show the fusion of the countries in the purpose of the restaurant. Neighbouring signage utilises the same colours in a far more prominent manner and on much larger signs. 6. The signs in the alcove have no direct lighting. Directional lighting of the signs would not have been in keeping with the high-end nature of the restaurant. Although a new fitting has been installed, there was already a light above the alcove. This light is muted and is necessary for health and safety reasons. Many other signs in the Conservation Area are directly and deliberately lit, and there is a plethora of fairy lights and lights which change colour in Post Office Square opposite the site. If necessary, the LED illumination of the menu board could be disconnected. 7. Many of the other signs in the area would also apparently fail the requirements of Environment Policy 37 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan ("the Strategic Plan") if the same criteria were applied. The appellant does not object to the other signage, but asks for equitable consideration of the appeal scheme. There have been no objections to the proposal. 8. Contrary to what was stated in the Planning Officer's report the building has not undergone recent renovation work. The appellant has no objection to the condition of the building, but draws attention to this as illustrating that there were errors made in the report. The signage erected has covered up various unsightly holes, including one left by a former bell push or entry key-pad in the foyer. 9. The signage is required to draw attention to the restaurant business, which is tucked away. The signs and the ambiance of the Bistro complement the Conservation Area and the town of Ramsey. The appeal should be allowed and consent should be granted.

THE CASE FOR THE PLANNING AUTHORITY

The main material points are: 10. The restaurant was approved under PA13/00787/B, but there is no planning history of direct relevance to the appeal. The area is identified as in mixed town centre use in the Ramsey Local Plan 1998 and the site is within the Ramsey Conservation Area. There are no Local Plan policies relating to advertisements. General Policy 6 and Environment Policy 37 of the Strategic Plan are relevant. 11. The window decals are acceptable and enhance the Conservation Area. They are well-designed. As applied for in a non-illuminated form the menu board is also acceptable, having regard to its form, size and materials. It is appropriate to the building and properly reflects the setting of the Conservation Area. Without illumination, the menu board accords with Environment Policy 37. 12. The 3 signs around the entrance door are unacceptable. They are not of a form appropriate to the character and appearance of the Conservation Area having regard to the following matters:

• the signs comprise strident colours on plastic material;

• they are at odds with the well-designed window decals;

• they conflict with criterion i) of Environment Policy 37 as they do not preserve or enhance the Conservation Area;

• they conflict with criterion ii) of that policy as the style of the signage is not appropriate to the character of the area;

• they conflict with criterion iii) of the same policy - they do not use traditional materials and finishes, and although they are not reflective they do use glossy materials;

• the signs would have been of less concern if they had been painted timber signs;

• although there are existing advertisements of poor quality in the area there are also some of good quality, and the existence of signage is not a sufficient reason to grant consent for further poor quality signage - to allow this proposal would serve to encourage further advertisements of poor quality, and would harm the efforts made to achieve better quality design for signs in the area - the appeal scheme should be treated on its own merits;

• many of the existing signs cited by the appellant probably do not have consent;

• there are no material considerations to override the poor quality of these signs.

13. For the reasons given, and due to the consequent conflict with Environment Policy 37 of the Strategic Plan, the appeal should be dismissed.

OTHER REPRESENTATIONS

14. The Director of Highways did not oppose the proposal. Ramsey Town Commissioners had no objections.

INSPECTOR'S ASSESSMENT AND CONCLUSIONS

15. The application was submitted before the Town and Country Planning (Control of Advertisements) Regulations 2013 ("the 2013 Regulations") came into operation, but the previous 2005 Regulations were revoked by the 2013 Regulations. The powers for the determination of applications for express consent are now those in Regulation 5 of the 2013 Regulations. These powers may only be exercised in the interests of amenity and public safety, taking account of any material factors. The Planning Authority has no concerns about public safety in this case, and so the main issue concerns the effects of the proposed advertisements in amenity terms, including with regard to the location of the site within the Ramsey Conservation Area. Material factors include the relevant policies of the Strategic Plan.
16. The Planning Authority has no objections to the window decals or menu board. I find no reason to disagree. These advertisements are of a high standard of design and materials, are well related to the building, and are in keeping with and do not detract from the surrounding area. These elements of the scheme accord in those respects with the expectations of General Policy 6 of the Strategic Plan. They also accord with Environment Policy 37 of the Strategic Plan with respect to Conservation Area considerations. This conclusion is made on the basis of the scheme as submitted, with the menu board in a non-illuminated form. I have identified no amenity implications that would justify refusal of express consent for these elements of the scheme applied for. The illumination of the menu board which has been installed could potentially conflict with criterion iv) of Environment Policy 37. As this illumination was not considered by the Planning Authority in originally determining the application, or by consultees in commenting on it, it would not be proper to consider it as part of the appeal.
17. The signs at the entrance door are made of a composite self-coloured plastic material. They employ relatively forceful and bright colours of red, white and blue. However, having regard to many of the other commercial signs in the vicinity, these signs at the doorway are comparatively small in area. They are set within an alcove/foyer, which is inset behind the main face of the front wall of the building. Taking into account also that the signs to the sides of the entrance face sideways, and that only the sign above the doorway faces forwards, this group of 3 signs is not unduly prominent within the street scene. On the contrary, these signs are relatively recessive in appearance within that scene.

Appeal No. AP14/0030 Page 3

18. Although the composite material is non-traditional, and it has a glossy finish, it is not a "highly reflective" material in the terms of criterion iii) of Environment Policy 37. Nevertheless, there is clearly some conflict with the expectations of that part of this policy. However, given the wide variety of existing signage within the surrounding area, including some larger and more prominent signs in similar materials and in colours of comparable visual effect, the signs are in my view in a style appropriate to the character of the area, as is expected by criterion ii) of Environment Policy 37. As the existing signage in the vicinity is an integral component of the character and appearance of the Conservation Area, I am also of the view that the signage in the appeal scheme serves to preserve the Conservation Area, in accordance with the expectation of criterion i) of the Environment Policy 37. I have concluded that the elements of signage alongside and above the entrance doorway are in broad compliance with Environment Policy 37, and that there are no grounds in terms of the interests of amenity to justify refusing express consent for them.
19. I have reached the overall conclusions that the proposal is acceptable in terms of its potential effects on interests of both public safety and amenity, that the appeal should be allowed, and that express consent should be granted. No conditions are necessary beyond those standard conditions that apply by virtue of Regulation 4(1) and Schedule 1 of the 2013 Regulations. However, for the avoidance of doubt a note should be attached to the decision notice to confirm that as illumination of the menu board did not form part of the application, the consent granted does not include illumination of that board.

RECOMMENDATION

20. I recommend that the appeal be allowed and that express consent be granted for the erection of signage and a menu board at Jean Pierre's Bistro, Ground Floor Court Row Chambers, Court Row, Ramsey, Isle of Man, subject to the standard conditions in Schedule 1 of the Town and Country Planning (Control of Advertisements) Regulations 2013 and subject to the following note:

Insofar as this grant of express consent relates to the menu board included in the scheme of signage, the consent granted does not include the illumination of this menu board as it has been installed.

Stephen Amos MA(Cantab) MCD MRTPI Independent Inspector