Agenda item

Installation of 9 x internally illuminated signs and 1 x non illuminated sign.

Recommendation: Split Decision

RESOLVED - The application was approved as per the officer's recommendation, subject to the amended conditions as agreed by the Members.

Officers introduced the application and highlighted the addendum. The application sought permission to install 9x internally illuminated signs and 1x non illuminated sign.

A petitioner addresses the Committee in objection of the proposal and made the following points:

-       Local residents did not accept the number and size of signs, illuminated or otherwise which had appeared on this site;

-       The main issues concerned night time lighting. Unlike nearby sites which are built in built up areas, this site is in a conservation area with the river pin behind and close to residential homes. The distance to the back of the homes is only some 22 m and may residents will suffer as a result of the illuminated signs, particularly in the winter when tree foliage will not protect them from the sites.

-       Outside daytime the lights are stronger as they are surrounded by a unlit area. In winter months this brightness will be felt for a longer period.

-       The site is trading and all signs have been installed, along with others that have no permission. Whilst waiting the Committee's determination on this application MRH agreed not to turn on the canopy lights.

-       Petitioners requested the ESSO sign continue to be unlit outside day light hours. Illuminated front COOP sign has been installed contrary to the officers report, which should also be unlit outside of day time hours. Petitioners requested that a condition was added to this effect.

-       Welcome the recommendation for pump lighting to be refused.

-       Overall the petitioner requested for all lights to be unlit at night as canopy and shop lighting were sufficient. Suggested a lights ot be off between 10 - 6 in the winter and summer months.

The Chairman of the Eastcote Conservation panel addressed the Committee and made the following points:

-       The Eastcote Conservation panel fully agreed the concerns raised by the petitioner and local residents.

-       They have an aim to preserve all aspects of the conservation area.

-       The new layout of the shop has affected the local area and removed from the rear of the site means that there is no "buffer" between the lighting and the river. The light level of the pin far exceeds the optimum.

-       This area is also a site of importance for nature conservation and is covered by blue ribbon policies and blue chain policies. This excessive lighting is contrary to the policies.

-       The company has not obliged with conditions previously imposed. The lack of fulfilling conditions shows how uncooperative the company has been.

-       This current application has 6 lit panels, including synergy, coop, Costa coffee, esso and two petrol price indicators.   Which is 5 more then previous and the duplication is not necessary.

-       Contested that extra lighting would be detrimental to the river, local residents and the conservation area.

-       It is obvious that there is petrol station and there is no need for excessive lightening.

The agents working on behalf of the applicant for this site addressed the Committee and made the following points:

-       MRH now owned Eastcote service station but did not own during previous signage applications made. It Therefore cannot be held responsible for earlier failings.

-       Site is recently redeveloped. It is the first collaboration between the company MRH and the COOP group. It had to remain comemrically confidential which is why there have been some discrepancies in the signage.

-       The application has been remodified to remove much of the illumination following feedback and remove the shard element of shop signage.

-       Night time illumination levels given off by the signs are based in individual perception but nevertheless they must be considered relative to the existing lighting levels in the area, in particular the street lights.

-       the application docs show that the degree of lights coming of the signs is very low and an be considered to be absorbed in the exiting neighbourhood

-       the applicant is happy with the officers report and the proposed conditions. Proposed an alternative proposition, accept that condition that certain lights are non illuminated at all times.

-       Illumination for the flag signs- there have been no objection by highways, the flag sign is what motorist see from both sides of the road leading people make the decision to use the service station. It allows drivers to slow speed down and drive safely.

-       The company has reduced the number of signs it usually used and has followed officer recommendation.

Councillor Nick Denys addressed the Committee as Ward Councillor for Eastcote and East Ruislip. He agreed with the views put forward by the petitioner and Chairman of the Eastcote Conservation panel. He welcomed the refurbishment of the petrol station, addition to the COP shop and commended the positive local development. Eastcote village has kept its green feel to it and is not as lit up as nearby area particularly in relation to street lightening. The service station in the village environment close to residents, wildlife the river does not work in the local area. The local residents are asking for more sensitivity for what Eastcote village is about.

Members of the Committee deliberated the application. The main issue is the canopy and the lightening has now changed as LEDs are being used. The condition that has to be switched off. The COOP signs on the side of the building want to be lit. If the lit sign was off then drivers would assume that that service station was closed. Members were concerned about the impact of light pollution on the river. Tan ecology report had signed off the canopy lightening but the further lightening underneath the canopy could impact the river and this underpinned the refusal. There was a concern there may be too much signage on the site and it may be cluttered if anything further is allowed. There is an illuminated atm which is not part of the application which is why an additional condition to state that the blades are non illuminated.

Members noted that there had been some give and take by the applicant. The flag sign does not particularly lit up according to the pictures. However also bore in mind that they were only pictures and were advised not to read too much into photographs. No banner across the top of the canopy and there is enough lightening on the signs to says that its open.

To summarise, there was no suggestion to turn the illuminations off at night, no support for the applicant's suggestion that the non illuminated way blade signs get left, there is a suggestion that the officers report is accepted as proposed. ESSO signs to be switched off after 10 pm. Take the report as it is eith the exception that the esso on top of the canopy is switched off between 10 pm and 6 am.

A motion for the officer's recommendation was moved, seconded, and upon being put to a vote was unanimously agreed.

RESOLVED:

(1)  The application be approved with a varied condition; and

(2)  The Head of Planning be delegated authority to vary the recommendation to ensure that the ESSO sign on the canopy and COOP sign on the shop is switched of between the hours of 10 pm - 6 am.