Issue - meetings

The Committee received an application for Advertisement Consent.

 

The application sought approval for erection and retention of 6 No. standalone marketing advertisement signage boards.

 

Councillor Harford and de Lacey raised concerns that Girton Parish Council had not been consulted regarding signage that would impact on Girton. Councillor de Lacey reported that the Parish Council, along with residents of Girton, were unhappy with the size and magnitude of the proposed erection of a new advertisement at the corner of Huntingdon Road and Eddington Avenue.

 

The Assistant Director advised that the consultation might have been undertaken some time ago as the application had been linked to a parallel City Council application that had been determined separately. It was also likely that the consultation had outlined two applications, one South Cambs and one City, at the same time.

 

The Case Officer checked the records and confirmed that Girton Parish Council had been consulted on the 16 January 2017 but no response had been received.

 

The Committee made the following comments in response to the application:

     i.        The proposed signage to Huntingdon Road was large and would adversely impact on the green separation between the City gateway and the village of Girton.

    ii.        The area was rural and green in nature and large sign would be out of keeping with the area.

   iii.        The location of the large sign would be at the symbolically important end of Girton Gap.

  iv.        There were no objections to the signage further in the site.

   v.        The Harris fencing already carried a lot of advertising for the developer.

  vi.        On the Sainsbury sign a compromise had been reached and a smaller totem sign had been approved following negotiation and a refusal.

 vii.        A similar application had been refused for Madingley Road and it could be argued that Huntington Road was more rural in character when compared to the urban nature of Madingley Road. Huntingdon Road therefore needed more protection.

 

The Assistant Director reminded the Committee that where planning applications sought approval for signage in more than one location, the recommendations could be considered individually.

 

The Committee:

 

The Committee decided to deal with each matters individually (as detailed in paragraph 2.1 of the officer’s report) in the following manner:

 

Recommendations 1:

 

b) the retention of three advertisements on the western side of Eddington Avenue within the NWC development, and

c) the erection of two new advertisements on the eastern side of Eddington Avenue.

 

 

Unanimously resolved: to grant the advertising consent (part (b) and (c) as above) in accordance with the officer recommendation, for the reasons set out in the officer report, and subject to the conditions recommended by the officers.

 

Recommendation 2:

 

a) the erection of one new advertisement at the corner of Huntingdon Road/ Eddington Avenue

 

Resolved (by 12 votes to 1) to reject the officer recommendation to approve the application (part (a) as above).

 

Resolved (by 12 votes to 0 and 1 abstention) to refuse the application (part (a)) contrary to the officer recommendation for the following reasons:

 

The proposed Huntingdon Road homes marketing sign (labelled blue on the location plan), by reason of its prominent location and overall size would be unduly strident and visually intrusive, out of character with its surrounding context on a key approach into the City.  As such the proposal would cause significant harm to visual amenity, contrary to policies NW2 and NW4 of the North West Cambridge Area Action Plan 2009, government guidance contained within the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) 2012 and the Town and County Planning (Control of Advertisements) (England) Regulations 2007.