Business Premises (Signs)

HC Deb 25 July 1950 vol 478 cc216-7

1. Mr. Storey

asked the Minister of Town and Country Planning why he refused the application of Manston Medical Products Limited to erect a sign at 530, Chester Road, Old Trafford, Manchester 16.

The Minister of Town and Country Planning (Mr. Dalton)

Because I agreed with the Lancashire County Council that the proposed sign would have been unsightly.

Mr. Storey

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the explanation given to the applicant was that the sign would cut the skyline? Is he further aware that while there is a roof behind this proposed sign, one has only to go a little further down the street to see a much larger sign on which two vulgar teapots and the words "Drink Co-op Teas" cut the skyline?

Mr. Dalton

I am aware of part of that, although not all. The proposed sign was, in fact, a hoarding 32 feet long and 2 ft. 6 in. deep composed of metal sheeting with iron brackets to be attached to and to run along the premises and the guttering. The Lancashire County Council thought it objectionable, and I see no reason to disagree with them.

Mr. Storey

Will the Minister see what can be done about the other sign which cuts the skyline much more?

3. Mr. Black

asked the Minister of Town and Country Planning how many forms, plans and specifications, and how many copies of each, have to be completed and submitted to the Land Board in connection with an application to erect a projecting sign outside business premises; and what is the average period of delay before a decision is given.

Mr. Dalton

None, Sir. The erection of a projecting sign outside business premises does not give rise to a development charge and is, therefore, no concern of the Central Land Board.

Mr. Black

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in some cases the local authorities are requiring the submission of plans and specifications that would be more consistent with the erection of an important new building than the erection of a small hanging sign? Can something be done to simplify the procedure?

Mr. Dalton

The hon. Gentleman asked me a Question, to which I have given an answer. There was a misleading letter—not for the first time—in the "Sunday Express" on 9th July, which may have misled the hon. Gentleman, together with others interested. In it the writer states that he was required to send plans to the Land Board. That is not true. The local authorities make their own arrangements with regard to these matters. They vary a good deal, and I do not like to interfere with them too much.