Tesco express Lower Clapton Road illuminated signs application
Not a big planning application, but I’m interested in this as it’s so close to me. I also clearly remember a condition being put on the planning application that it shouldn’t have an illuminated sign as it’s so close to a conservation area, hence the slightly nicer one that is there right now. I’ll do some digging around and see if that note was actually recorded at the time of the hearing.
I’m also interested in if and how it would affect the area and the people living above the shop. Does anyone have any information / facts pro or against illuminated signs?
Application Number: 2014/0792
Current Status: REGISTERED
Proposal: Installation of internally illuminated ATM signage and x 1 externally illuminated projecting sign to front fascia. Installation of x 1 external non-illuminated sign adjacent to existing ATM.
Site address: 144 – 146 Lower Clapton Rd London E5 0QJ
Comments until: 15-03-2014
Date registered: 14-03-2014
Proposed land use: Unknown
Case officer: Evie Learman 0208 356 8245
Very confusing, just noticed that there was only one day to comment on this case! Registered 14th March, comments until 15th March, that can’t be right.
They are only consulting the block of flats immediately above the shop too:
Consultees details for Planning Application – 2014/0792:
SHIRE COURT, 144 Lower Clapton Road, Hackney, LONDON, E5 0QJ, ALVA COURT, 146 Lower Clapton Road, Hackney, LONDON, E5 0QJ
Sounds like a question for @nick ?
Pingback: London E5 (@LDNe5)
The short consultation time, is, I guess to do with the fact its an ‘express advertisement consent’. There is no general requirement to consult even neighbours on certain types of advertisement.
In a Conservation Area (CA), The Council’s shopfront design guide stipulates no internally-illuminated (that is to say ‘backlit’) signs, but like all guidance it evaluated in context. For instance, the Narrow Way is in a CA but there are lots of internally illuminated signs already. Tesco is just outside the Clapton Pond CA but might affect it’s setting, though Palm II and the shops opposite set the tone somewhat.
Internal illumination clearly does have an effect on “visual amenity” so the Council should be considering if it is sufficiently harmful given the context. However, isn’t there already an ATM there? Is that illuminated?
The new NPPG gives some guidance: http://planningguidance.planningportal.gov.uk/blog/guidance/advertisments/considerations-affecting-amenity/
The ATM isn’t illuminated and the application is also for it. What is somewhat annoying is the things I remember being conditions at the time of planning consent were:
» no bollards (there are bollards)
» no posters on the windows (there are posters on the windows)
» and no illuminated signage (this application)
It may be that my memory is not what it once was, I’m trying to find more information to see if that is the case or not.
But it feels like everything that was agreed in the planning meeting has since been ignored, which itself is a concern.
I’d be surprised (though delighted!) if there was a condition on no posters – this is one of my pet hates – vinyl filling a ‘window’ so its no longer a window. I’ll do some digging.
It’s worth expressing an opinion even though there is no obligation to consult. I’d resist the internal illumination as the shop is hardly in the middle of a row of shops with an obvious commercial ‘vibe’.
As for the other issues – get on to enforcement, but it’s a hard slog and you have to keep on at them.
Thanks for the tips. I was sure when the permission was granted that the shop would slowly change to the state it originally wanted despite what was discussed at the hearing, this is that exact thing happening…. As well as the trucks driving over the pavement and customers parking in front of the gates blocking residents access and exit to the estate. We just seem to be powerless against it.