Sent on 10th September:

From: Panshanger Residents Group

We have seen your letter of 6^th August to the Panshanger Residents Group, which leaves many unresolved issues.

We are disappointed to read that you do not consider our objection points 1-5 and 10-11 worthy of a response. They have been dismissed with a four sentence paragraph that begins with the bizarre assumption that no comments are necessary since you understand that we “have seen copies of the previous correspondence”.  Exactly what correspondence is not made clear; however, if you believe that our sighting of information in the public domain, which is pertinent to this consent, precludes the WHBC from the necessity of explanation, then the mere fact that we have sent you a carefully considered letter of our concerns obviously points to the fact that we are not satisfied that your decision was right, or followed the correct planning procedure. 

Hence, we wish to refer back to our original points.

1) Your assertion that you “do not consider that the signage sets a precedent for other shopping centres in the borough” does not fill us with confidence since you have not even attempted to explain why Lidl was especially granted consent. What discretion would you apply to any other business’s request for large illuminated advertising external to their premises?  The delegated report (PA Lyons 21-8-07) used the existing signs – a few A-boards and a traditional pub sign directly outside the pub – to justify permitting two massive, internally-illuminated signs outside the car park.  If this progression continues we can expect flashing Vegas-style signs throughout the centre.

2) Not addressed in your letter. 

3) Not addressed in your letter. 

4) Not addressed in your letter. 

5) Not addressed in your letter. 

6) Regarding the matter of the notification process.  We are thrilled that you state in your letter:

“I can confirm that the correct notification process was not carried out and that the decision in invalid.”

So what is the course of action to be followed having invalidly granted consent? We are glad you seem to be seeing sense at last.

Given the conclusion of the your letter, however, that nothing can be done to remove the signs,  we assume that you did not really mean this and that this is just another example of the lack of care apparently endemic in your department.

However, we believe that it is indeed the case that not all the correct neighbours were informed.  Letters were apparently sent to numbers 69 and 87[-89].  Why were numbers 91 to 101, which abut the store, excluded from the consultation?  Compare this with a very recent application for signage at 65 Moors Walk (N6/2008/1586/AD), notification of which has been sent to numbers 63, 65, 69, 83, 85 and 87-89. Note that we do not object at all to this application because it is within the boundaries of the shop and will not be switched on all night.

It is further arguable that premises close to the signs, rather than the store which they advertise, should also have been informed.  These include, but are not limited to, number 85, the Oak Tavern and the doctors’ surgery. Residents adjacent to the signs would have most definitely objected had they been informed. Again, we believe then that the consent was granted in error as proper process had not been followed.

We draw your attention to the document TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING (CONTROL OF ADVERTISEMENTS) (ENGLAND) REGULATIONS 2007. Section 111 states that local authorities “should consider whether any application would affect the amenity of neighbours. Where it does, it is good practice to seek the views of neighbours before determining the application”.

7) We are pleased that a request has been made to Lidl that the sign illumination be turned off outside store opening hours.  We look forward to hearing the outcome since over a month later the signs continue to be illuminated. One of us has just passed the shopping parade and reported that the signs are still burning away at 20:42 Sunday 7^th September.  Perhaps next time your department is faced with a similar application it will have the wit to impose a no-illumination-out-of-store-hours condition (as did the appeal inspector in the Wirral Lidl appeal).

8) You are correct that that there is disagreement between us in respect of the signs’ impact on the visual amenity of the area.  Where there is a difference of opinion between those who live near or frequently pass a site and see its physical reality, and those who work in offices over a mile away and whose views have been formed by looking at drawings and plans, we give more weight to the formers’ views.
Tellingly, you have chosen not to comment on our expectation that WHBC, as our representative, ought to have responded to Lidl’s application with the local residents’ interests uppermost.  One wonders at the disparity of judgement between The Wirral Council and WHBC, especially taking into account the residential siting of the signs here.

9) You did not address the point about the inaccuracies in the delegated report regarding one of the signs serving to highlight a non-existent access point. Lidl claimed highlighting of entry/egress points as a prime reason for the installing the signs. One of them does not perform this function; therefore surely the consent is invalid?

10) Not addressed in your letter.

11) Not addressed in your letter.

There is indeed some confusion over the period of the express advertisement consent, but not for the reason you suggest.  It is apparently caused by an inability to read.  The delegated report made a recommendation to grant consent for five years.  However, the Planning Decision Notice – Consent, dated 21-8-07, clearly reads:

The consent is granted for a period of three years from the date hereof.

Please confirm that this has been noted and that any documentation and systems used to monitor compliance with this consent have been amended accordingly.

We look forward to your reply outlining the course of action you intend to take, especially with regard to the incorrect notification process and the duration of the Express Advertisement Consent. Once again we claim that the imposition of these signs seriously detracts from the visual amenity of the area, and they are clearly out of character with the area. Anybody who has been to the site could not fail to disagree on that point. We can only speculate on exactly how Lidl were able to get this consent when areas of their application and the planning process appear to have been insufficient at best. We also noted from their application correspondence that at least one senior council employee looked upon their application very “sympathetically” for reasons unclear.

Regards,

The Panshanger Residents Group.