®Planning appeal decision
3-4 Market Hill, Cambridge , CB2 3NJ
Planning appeal 3325985 at 3-4 Market Hill, Cambridge , CB2 3NJ (Cambridge City Council) was dismissed on 9 July 2024 by Inspector Woodwards O, by written representations. The main issue, as the Inspector framed it: whether or not the advertisements have an acceptable effect on public amenity, including whether or not they, and the painting as appropriate, preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the Central Conservation Area, the effect on the special architectural or historic interest of the Grade II listed building '4 Market Hill', and on the special architectural or historic interest of the Grade I listed building '5 Market Hill' with regard to its setting.
2no non-illuminated fascia signs, 2no non-illuminated double sided projecting signs, delivery drivers ID signage, manifestations to entrance doors glazing windows, and painting of the front façade at ground floor level (Appeal A: advertisement consent; Appeal B: listed building consent for retention)
- Authority
- Cambridge City Council
- Appeal type
- advert · Advertisement Appeal
- Procedure
- Written Representations
- Development
- advertisement · Other minor developments
- Inspector
- Woodwards O
- Postcode
- CB2 3NJ
Main issues, as the Inspector framed them
- whether or not the advertisements have an acceptable effect on public amenity, including whether or not they, and the painting as appropriate, preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the Central Conservation Area, the effect on the special architectural or historic interest of the Grade II listed building '4 Market Hill', and on the special architectural or historic interest of the Grade I listed building '5 Market Hill' with regard to its setting
- whether or not the projecting sign has an acceptable effect on highway safety
What decided it
The cumulative effect of the cramped Popeyes sign, the unnecessary slogan sign creating clutter, and the overly bright orange painting elements cause unacceptable harm to public amenity and heritage assets that outweighs the negligible public benefits.
What the Inspector cited
- Development plan policies
- Policy 61Policy 64Policy 65Appendix H: Shopfront Design Guide
- National Planning Policy Framework
- Paragraph 141Paragraph 203Paragraph 205Paragraph 208
How the Inspector dealt with each one is set out in the app, in order: the development plan, national policy, housing land supply, other considerations and the planning balance, beside the letter.
See how each was appliedThe decision letter
Town Planner Pro holds this letter. The Appeals plan opens it and every other letter we hold, all of them searchable, with the main issues and what decided each case picked out. We do not show letters on the free site because they carry people’s names and addresses.
With an account
What an account adds to this decision
More decisions in Cambridge
The authority’s record since 2016 · every decision in 2024
- Dismissed24 September 20266012288Pavement O/S 144 Hills Road, Cambridge, CB2 8PB
- Dismissed24 September 20266012284(A) Pavement O/S 144 Hills Road, Cambridge, CB2 8PB
- Allowed7 April 20266004408Pavement O/S Specsavers, 13 Fitzroy Street, Cambridge, CB1 1ER
- Allowed7 April 20266004406Pavement O/S Specsavers, 13 Fitzroy Street, Cambridge, CB1 1ER
- Dismissed9 March 20263372768Pavement O/S 90 Hills Road, Cambridge, CB2 1LQ
The main issues, what decided it, the planning balance and the policies and judgments listed as cited are read from the published letter by Town Planner Pro and are our summary, not the Inspector’s words; the letter itself is the record. Contains public sector information licensed under the Open Government Licence v3.0. Research, not advice.