Southend businessman has plans dismissed for arcade signs

A planning inspector has now rejected John Remblance’s appeal over the sign - emblazoned with Circus Circus - at the arcade on the corner of Marine Parade and Pier Hill.

It may now need to be removed.

The businessman, who owns a series of seafront businesses, has been locked in a war with Southend Council over the sign since it was branded “inappropriate”.

The new signage at Circus Circus arcade (Image: Google Maps)

He could also be told to pull down the sign at Scoops 37 - just two doors away from Circus Circus - after retrospective plans for the new sign were rejected.

Other seafront traders have rallied in support of the businessman and praised him for the signs on the seafront which has many other businesses with colourful and often garish signs.

Martin Richardson, who owns the nearby Happidrome Arcade, said: “It is a seafront. We all have big and bright signs, that is what a seafront is about, the big, bright lights. It is ludicrous.

"It’s what it’s supposed to be like. It is the circus circus theme, it isn’t offence, it is an arcade. We want our seafront to be bright and vibrant. That sign is new and modern. I cannot understand it, it is ludicrous.”

Mr Remblance has also lodged an appeal with the Government planning inspectorate over the Scoops 37 signage, at Pier Hill. Southend Council also rejected those plans as well for similar reasons cited for the Circus Circus amusement arcade. The businessman had previously spoken about his disappointment when both applications were refused by the council.

In the appeal document, the planning inspector believes a “more sympathetic alternative would achieve the same benefits”.

They said: “The advertisement is substantial in size and spans across the frontage of Nos 2-8 Marine Parade. It significantly exceeds the size of the fascia.

“The appellant advises the advertisement is necessary in order to attract customers to the business and compete with adjacent amusement arcades, which would have an economic benefit. However, there is no compelling evidence before me why a more sympathetic alternative would not achieve the same benefits.”