Agenda item

The Planning Committee is asked to consider and determine this planning application for:

One no externally illuminated projection sign, one no externally illuminated fascia sign and one no internally illuminated menu sign

RESOLVED

(1) CC/18/00192/ADV

Permit

(2) CC/18/00196/LBC

Permit

Mrs Stevens presented this planning application for one no illuminated projection sign, one no externally illuminated fascia sign and one no internally illuminated menu sign (this was the description in the report but it was amended in the agenda update sheet as stated below).

Mrs Stevens explained the proposal with reference to slides shown on the screens consisting of (a) a location plan; (b) a site plan showing where the signs would be positioned; (c) photographs of the restaurant’s frontage; (d) drawings of the proposed designs; (e) a coloured photograph montage of the restaurant frontage; and (f) photographs of the exteriors of three Zizzi restaurants elsewhere in the country.

Mrs Stevens drew attention to the agenda update sheet which reported an amended description of the development for the listed building consent application so that it included the painting of the ground floor of the building as follows:

‘Painting of the building in Dulux Azure Fusion 1 weather proof breathable paint and door frames and window frames in Farrow & Ball London Clay. Installation of 1 no illuminated fascia sign, 1 no illuminated projection sign and 1 no illuminated menu sign.’

No members of the public addressed the Planning Committee for this item.

Mr Hayes expressed his regret that Chichester City Council had not sent a representative to speak in view of its objection to these applications having resulted in them being listed for determination by the Planning Committee.

During the debate all but one of the members who spoke were in favour of the two applications. The restoration of the construction date of the original building and the proposed colour scheme and lighting were welcomed.

One member expressed concern about the departure from the shopfront guidelines insofar as the non-use of painted lettering on the frontage instead of the proposed copper letters. He said that this would be the latest example of a significant number of shops and businesses in the city which failed to comply with those guidelines, the aggregate effect of which was to have an adverse impact on the city’s important streetscape. He alluded to the response made by the Chichester Conservation Area Advisory Committee (para 6.2 of the agenda report).

Mrs Stevens advised that officers considered that the proposals complied with the shopfront guidelines. Whilst this was an historic building, it did not have a traditional Victorian shop front compared with other buildings and there was built up plastic lettering on the building previously so the proposal was acceptable. CDC’s Historic Buildings Advisor made no objection (para 6.3 of the report). She gave details of the dimensions of the proposed trough light, which had been scaled down to comply with the shopfront guidance.

Decision

The Planning Committee voted on a show of hands by 12 to one with no abstentions in favour of the officer recommendations in the agenda report for each of the applications as set out below.

RESOLVED

(1) CC/18/00192/ADV

Recommendation to permit agreed.

(2) CC/18/00196/LBC

Recommendation to permit agreed.

[Note At the end of this item there was a short adjournment between 10:38 and 10:51]