South Kesteven District Council investigates after illuminated signs reported by Stamford Town Council
A sign saying ‘Ooh la la’ has caused a stir in Stamford - but not because of its cheeky message.
The problem some people have with the pink neon exclamation, situated in the window of St Mary’s Street shop Margo and Plum, is that it could be in breach of local planning rules on advertisement consent.
And while owners Karen and Iain Terpening are happy to follow the rules, the sign isn’t part of their branding but simply something they have on sale.
“We knew we had to be conservative when we came to Stamford with the window displays, it can’t be over the top or offensive,” said Iain, adding that they had explained this to someone at the planning authority, South Kesteven District Council.
According to the Town and Country Planning Regulations 2007, adverts in buildings ‘must not be illuminated or displayed within one metre of any window or other external opening through which they can be seen from outside the building’.
Coun Nick Robins (Con), cabinet member for planning on South Kesteven District Council, said the council was looking into a complaint about Margo and Plum that was first raised by Stamford Town Council.
But he admitted the rules were not clear.
“The definition of an advertisement is set out in the Town and Country Planning Act, which does not make a clear distinction between an illuminated sign and a product for sale - or whether an illuminated product for sale in a shop window is advertising,” he said.
“Our council officers are exploring this by researching case law and precedent, following the correct procedure regarding this complaint, and any response will be proportionate.”
Planning officers have taken a dim view of other establishments too.
An illuminated barbers’ pole in the window of Boss Cuts in Stamford High Street was removed after a letter was sent to the business by planning enforcers.
And the nearby Stamford Shawarma Bar was also reported for having an illuminated advert on its shop front.
Others, it seems, have been left in the dark over their violation of the ‘light law’.
Staff at Café Black, which has an ‘open’ neon sign over the serving hatch were shocked by the issues caused by other businesses’ neon signs.
Paul Burke, who took over Café Black in Ironmonger Street earlier this year, said he has not received advice from either town or district council.
He said he would appeal against an attempt to have the sign removed, adding that the Stamford businesses that come under the council’s spotlight have not been displaying anything that seems ‘out of place’.
It is not the only business that has escaped local authority attention so far, with other lit-up signs visible in Stamford’s shopping streets and squares.
According to Coun Shaun Ford, chairman of Stamford Town Council’s planning committee, illuminated signs and ‘exterior illumination’ are not allowed in the town’s conservation area. This covers the town centre, from North Street down to High Street St Martin’s, and across from Waterfurlong to the west, to Wharf Road and Brazenose Lane in the east.
Coun Ford believes many people are unaware of the regulations in Stamford and this is why the town’s planning rules regarding signs are broken fairly regularly.
“The planning department has taken a lot of trouble over the years to make sure everything in town is in keeping with the heritage,” he said, adding that those planning a new ‘shop front’ should get in touch with district council planning officers for guidance.
While the councils are keen to keep businesses in line, chairman of Stamford Civic Society Jim Mason takes a more liberal view.
He said: “It’s a case of doing things in moderation.
“The civic society’s aim is to protect the conservation of the town but we don’t want to freeze Stamford in the 17th Century. The town’s viability is based on its visitor economy.”
Stamford Civic Society provides businesses with guidance on how to be in keeping with the town’s heritage, and it is consulted on town centre planning applications.
“We find many people don’t realise they need planning permission to alter signs or the buildings and shop front,” said Jim.
For residents, the issue over signs seems to be something of a storm in a teacup.
John Partridge, who lives locally, believes making businesses remove illuminated signs is ‘small-minded’, while Alysia Anderson, also from Stamford, said: “I can’t imagine why anyone would object. People like seeing nice things, and it’s up to the shop - it’s their shop front.”
Anneke Davies, a teacher at Stamford Endowed Schools, said she felt the existing signs were relatively small and were fine. “I don’t think there is anything ‘sticking out’,” she added.
But Will Elliot and Tom McDermott, both in their 20s, believe having something that ‘stands out’ helps the town’s economy.
“It makes businesses more obvious,” they agreed. “Stamford shops are always changing and you never know which shop is doing what.
“I know they want to keep the town traditional but it’s not like there are any big neon lights.”
Jane and Nick Manns, a retired couple visiting from Kettering, agreed that: “If everything went neon in Stamford it would change the place.”
A spokesperson for South Kesteven District Council said there is no outright ban on illuminated signs, but businesses do need permission for them in Stamford’s conservation area.
They added that each application or report is considered on a case-by-case basis.
- What do you think? Email smeditor@stamfordmercury.co.uk