Rother District Council will decide whether Rye businesses can operate illuminated electronic advertising screens after the firm which installed them without permission was forced to lodge a retrospective planning application.
For several months the three controversial screens have been in operation day and night in the front window of a letting agency on the A259/Fishmarket Road roundabout. Opponents of the screens point out that given the area’s relatively low footfall, the advertising is mainly viewed by passing vehicles which, they argue, makes the monitors illegal because the law states that no advertisement can endanger road users, or impair the visual amenity of a site.
The law is very clear on what is and is not allowed in terms of illuminated advertising.
A crucial point is that illuminated electronic advertising is strictly prohibited in Rye conservation area, where the shop is located. RDC will also need to decide whether the screens contravene rules in the Town and Country Planning (Control of Advertisements) (England) Regulations 2007. For example, the law states that illuminated adverts must not include any intermittent light source, moving feature or animation. There are also rules about minimum height of an advert’s lowest point and how close to the window and door any illuminated advertising can be.
Interestingly, in its planning application, the screens’ operator fails to offer any reason for its decision to install the technology and operate it in Rye conservation area. It does, however, reveal that the largest screen is a 75-inch screen and the two other screens 55-inches in size. Documents indicate the larger “Ultra HD High Brightness” screen puts out a brightness of 4,500 Nits but that the premises will seek to have up to 4,000 Nits available — which is the maximum luminance of the smaller screens. This information appears to be at odds with the applicant’s design and access statement which refers to “low level illuminated advertising”.
Given that the aim of advertising is to attract attention, local residents may find it incongruous that the operator argues the screens use “darker colours” to minimise glare and that the screens can be dimmed down. At the same time, its own planning application proposes to have available full brightness for the two smaller screens and only concedes an 11% reduction for the largest monitor.
On the surface this planning application might seem insignificant. However, if RDC’s planning division approves it, the precedent will mean that every shop and business premises in Rye, including Rye conservation area, will be able to install large electronic advertising screens in their windows. Many people argue that this will destroy Rye’s distinct historic character and the tourist industry it depends on so heavily.
Members of the public who wish to lodge comments on the planning application can do so by visiting RDC’s website and following to links to Planning and Building Control, quoting planning reference RR/2023/1085/A.
Image Credits: Nick Forman .
Ye Olde advertising signs… NOT.
ALL modern advertising should be banned from old historical towns like Rye.
I actually make it a point to NOT buy advertised rubbish, even on the internet.
I am writing to express strong support for what Larry McIntyre has written. Illuminated signs such as these are a blight on our environment wherever they are placed, but would be particularly unsightly and intrusive in a beautiful historic town like Rye. Consider the already unsightly shop window entirely covered with the slogan BETFRED which is one of the first things one sees as one heads up into Rye from the railway station. It is almost beyond belief that this was ever permitted by any council planners. Imagine that illuminated in the manner proposed in this application. If Rother planning department permits this application, it will indeed create a precedent which will mean that every shop and business premises in Rye, including Rye conservation area, will be able to install large electronic advertising screens in their windows with the resulting serious degradation to the appearance of the town. The fact that the company which installed the signs at the A259/Fishmarket Road roundabout in Rye did so without first applying for planning permission is evidence of the complete disregard for the environment which is regrettably so typical of the commercial world. If Rother planners approve this retrospective planning application, it will be yet another example of commercial self-interest being given priority over the preservation of our pricelessly precious pleasant environment. It is very disappointing that as yet there appear to be no comments on the Rother planning website objecting to this application. I have now submitted an objection and urge others to do so who care about the preservation of the pleasant environment of Rye. It is time-consuming to make the effort, but if enough people submit just a brief objection it could make a huge difference to preserving for the future what we love about the beauty of Rye.
Dear Elaine,
Thank you for taking the time to articulate your concerns regarding the new developments in Rye. I deeply respect the passion our community has for preserving the historic and aesthetic value of our town.
However, I’d like to emphasize that the planning department’s decision was not made lightly. They’ve granted permission with the hope that local businesses can thrive while ensuring the town’s character remains intact. Our goal is to strike a balance between the modern needs of businesses and preserving the town’s unique charm.
It’s important to note that diversity in opinions helps shape a community. As you pointed out, there are differing views on what is aesthetically pleasing or appropriate for Rye. We aim to be sensitive to these views and take them into account in our decisions.
Again, I appreciate your insight and your commitment to preserving the beauty of Rye. Let’s continue this dialogue to ensure our town remains a place we all cherish.
Warm regards,
Peter Ockenden
I do wonder if the decision would have been different had the application been made before the screens had been installed and operated, rather than a retrospective application being required? This, albeit conditional, consent rather encourages contractors to take a chance against legislation which exists for the very purpose of controlling such activities.
I would encourage anyone with a view to submit their views via this link https://planweb01.rother.gov.uk/OcellaWeb/planningDetails?reference=RR/2023/1085/A&from=planningSearch
Isn’t there an illuminated HD advert in a shop in the high street …where ageUK charity shop use to trade . Did they need planning permission ?
As I understand it no planning permission was sought by Simply Italian to erect the awful wooden structure outside their restaurant either and the Grain Store who wanted a similar one has had their planning application refused but at least they did the right thing and did not just erect it without using the proper channels. Simply Italian have been told to remove it but it is still there and I think they are hoping that the longer it remains the better chance they have of not having to remove it. Let us hope not. It is an eye sore and people have to walk around it in the road.
I find it astonishing that this application has been marked “Approved Conditional” as at 2nd August. Unfortunately it seems that quite a lot of the documentation and submissions have been deleted from Rother’s published planning file, including that which would stipulate the “conditions”.
Just what is going on here?
In the documents section of this application there is the decision notice which lays out the conditions imposed by RDC. These state, among others, that the screens must be turned off between 8 in the evening and 8 in the morning, which is at least some improvement.
Thank you. The decision notice had not been published at the time that I made this post. Now I have read the conditions applied to the consent I note that, in addition to that to which you refer in that the displays must be turned off at night, there is an additional condition 12 which stipulates that “The digital sign shall not display any moving, or apparently moving, images (including animation, flashing, scrolling three dimensional, intermittent or video elements).”
In other words, static images only.
My understanding was that the final decision on the electronic screens would be made by RDC’s Planning Committee. If this is the case, I urge everyone to contact their councillors and members of the Planning Committee to voice their concerns about this decision and to ensure that it is placed on the PC’s agenda. Even with the conditions attached, allowing electronic advertising in Rye sets an unwanted precedent. In effect, it means that every other business and store in the town can install electronic screens advertising whatever they wish. They don’t have to advertise anything associated with Rye, despite what the condition says. They can even install bright electronic screens in Rye Conservation Area, which is where the current screens are located! I ask you all, do you want the ‘antient town’ of Rye, which depends on its historic image, to become a place that has electronic screen advertising in every nook and cranny? What in heaven’s name is RDC thinking? This decision, if confirmed, would represent one of the worst decisions made by a district council in the UK. It’s a decision that inflicts massive economic and cultural self-harm on Rye. Why has RDC’s planning team agreed to this planning application, even with conditions? It is an abnegation of planning responsibility to allow electronic screen advertising inside a Conservation Area, let alone an historic town, on a busy roundabout where the advertising is clearly aimed at passing traffic. National Highways, in its careless and casual recommendation, has also failed in its duty of care to road users and pedestrians. NH is clearly unaware that the site lies in a conservation area and that Rye’s status as a historic town is now under threat by this ‘decision’. Quest Cottages, the premises concerned, is a letting agency, not an advertising hoarding. Any revenue it gains from the screen advertising is marginal. Once again, I urge everyone to contact their councillors before every commercial premises in Rye applies to install digital screens.
I’m not sure why, of all those who have commented in Rye News on illuminated electronic advertising screens, I have been singled out for the favour of a personal reply and warm regards from Peter Ockenden. The Rye resident who alerted me to Mr Ockenden’s reply commented that he thought it “very courteous – a rare quality these days” and I readily concur, whilst observing nonetheless that “fine words butter no parsnips.” Peter Ockenden did not identify himself as a representative of Rother Planning Department, but I infer, particularly from the phrase “our goal”, that he is indeed replying on behalf of Rother Planning.
It is of course deeply gratifying that Mr Ockenden “deeply respects” the passion of the community for preserving the historic and aesthetic value of Rye. What a very great pity that this respect does not extend to refusing retrospective planning permission for illuminated electronic advertising screens which will inevitably diminish that historic and aesthetic value.
He states that the planning department’s decision was made with “the hope” that local businesses can thrive. This begs the question: What is the evidence that local businesses need illuminated signs in order to thrive ? How have businesses throughout the ages managed to thrive without illuminated advertising signs? Businesses thrive because they provide goods or services which people need or want and, if they do this in an effective and reliable way, they have no need for illuminations.
Furthermore, in examining the perceived “modern needs” of business (to use Mr Ockenden’s words), planners must take acount of local context. What may be acceptable in one location is totally unacceptable in another. For instance, what may be acceptable (Discuss!) in Westfield at Stratford in East London would be entirely inappropriate, and indeed counter-productive, in Stratford upon Avon. If a beautiful and historic environment is degraded by in-your-face commercial signs, screens and billboards, it makes it less attractive, reduces the likelihood that people will want to visit and in consequence reduces opportunities for doing business. “Scoring an own goal”, in fact.
And “creating precedence” is the extremely serious issue here. “Give someone an inch and they’ll take a mile” could not be truer. By granting retrospective planning permission in this case, Rother Planners have opened floodgates which cannot now be closed. If the goal of Rother Planners is, as claimed, to “strike a balance between the modern needs of businesses and preserving the town’s unique charm”, they have just kicked the ball very wide of the goalposts.
Can I just clarify something? Peter Ockenden is the applicant for the planning application which sought approval for the screens. He represents UK Getaways Group (Quest Cottages). He’s the person who, one assumes, is responsible for installing, without planning permission, the electronic advertising screens on the roundabout (which lies inside Rye Conservation Area). Mr Ockenden has nothing to do with Rother District Council. These screens actively attack the “historic and aesthetic value of our town” and its “unique charm” to which Mr Ockenden refers. He should surely have declared who he was in his comment. Yes, we all have different views in the town: we live in a democracy… or we hope we do. My view is that these screens adversely affect Rye’s historic character and its unique identity as a medieval Cinque Ports town — an identity upon which most of the businesses in town rely. Any argument that the screens will help local businesses thrive while ensuring the town’s character remains intact is spurious. The only people economically benefiting from these screens is UK Getaways Group/Quest Cottages. I’d be interested to know how much revenue is being produced by the screens — very little, I’d imagine, because everyone knows that the most effective advertising these days is online. As others have noted, the precedent set by RDC approving electronic advertising in Rye (albeit with conditions) will lead to other companies applying for them and soon Rye residents and visitors will be besieged by screens everywhere they go. I agree entirely with Elaine’s comments. Thank you, Elaine.
According to Companies House website, Peter Ockenden is a director (the only director listed) of Quest Cottages and is a resident of the Netherlands.
I admit I was very surprised that Rother Planning Department was apparently replying to an objector to a planning application, but Mr Ockenden’s statement did give the impression that he was writing on behalf of Rother Planning, particularly the assertion that ” I’d like to emphasize that the planning department’s decision was not made lightly… Our goal is …”(etc). More than a little presumptuous, surely?
Be that as it may, and however Mr Ockenden attempts to self-justify, the sad fact is that he and Rother Planning Department are causing far-reaching potential damage to the unique beauty and historic value of Rye – he by his installation made without planning permission and Rother Planners by retrospectively approving it and creating a seriously bad precedent.
I must admit that I didn’t read Peter Ockenden’s letter in the same way, but that doesn’t alter my previously voiced astonishment at Rother’s decision in this matter. As I have said, an application should fail if it represents a hazard to road users, or if it is detrimental to the visual amenity of the area. My previous experience with hundreds of roadside advertising sites is that you know instantly whether or not the site is likely to gain express approval, or whether there will be objection – in some cases it was known for the applicant to submit the subsequent appeal to the DoE simultaneously with the original application!
I would not have given this application, in this location, a cat in hell’s chance of success in normal circumstances, so obviously my judgement is failing. Neither have I ever heard of an appeal being made to the Dept of Environment by interested parties on an application that has actually been granted, but I am beginning to wonder if perhaps this should be the time?