Mike Daisley of The Wildfowler in Terrington St Clement frustrated after West Norfolk Council demand planning permission for new sign

A barman has been left frustrated after having to seek planning permission for a new sign - but councillors insist that regulations must be followed.

Mike Daisley, who runs The Wildfowler in Terrington St Clement with his wife Lisa, put up new front-of-house signage when he took on the pub around 18 months ago.

This was to showcase the business’ new branding, and Mr Daisley says it is the exact same size as the previous display.

However, West Norfolk Council recently became aware of the change - meaning he now needs to pay around £1,000 to attain retrospective planning permission.

This has left him discontented during a time in which he feels local authorities should be doing everything they can to help struggling companies during a cost of living crisis.

However, displaying unauthorised signage is a criminal offence under The Town and Country Planning Act 1990 - meaning Mr Daisley could face prosecution if he did not comply.

He said: “I asked if I could have the planning for the previous sign so I could copy the dimensions and use the drawings for that, but there’d never been planning for it.

“But they’ve just noticed that it’s changed and decided that I need to put in for planning permission for that.

“It’s just things like that which will cost me over £1,000 just to get drawings done and put it in.

“It’s not like I’ve gone and put two million lights up and made it look like Vegas - we’ve just literally changed the sign to a new one because the other one was broken and we put our new logo in it.

“When things are hard enough, you’ve got your own local council red-taping you on silly little things like that.

“If there’s ways to help, that would be a way to help. It’s not interfered with any residents, no one’s complained about it.

“Why on earth would they want to harm people that are trying to have a go at it?”

If the borough council becomes aware of a potential breach of the Town and Country Planning Act, it normally invites an application for consent - as it has done in The Wildfowler’s case - or requests its removal.

A council spokesman said: “In this case, Mr Daisley has put up new signage in the time since he took over tenancy of the pub, which is situated within a conservation area, approximately 18 months ago.

“It would appear that the previous signage was also unauthorised, but had achieved a ‘deemed consent’ as it appeared to have been displayed continuously for at least ten years.

“Mr Daisley had offered to reinstate the old signage but because this signage has not been displayed for ten years up to now (because his new signage replaced it) it would also now be considered ‘new’ signage that requires consent.

“This means his only option is to remove the signage altogether or obtain the necessary consent.

“We understand Mr Daisley’s frustration, and appreciate this is an expense he could do without, but the council would not be acting fairly if it chose to disregard breaches in planning control on this basis.”