Saturday, 13 August 2011

Does it matter?

This latest manifestation of a restaurant chain has again caused problems for the conservationists. The company have now appealed against a refusal to grant retrospective permission for the shop front. I have reproduced below the planning officer's original reasons for this refusal, for information, and wonder what do YOU think about it?

A. Application SE/10/1591

Listed building consent be Refused subject to the following reasons:

35 Abbeygate Street is a Grade II* listed building located within the Bury St Edmunds (Town Centre) Conservation Area where the Local Planning is seeking to maintain control over the display of advertisements in the interests of amenity, to preserve the character and appearance of the locality and to protect the special qualities of the building by preventing inappropriate additions and alterations. The Local Planning Authority is of the opinion that the proposed signage included in the application are contrary to those objectives in that:
i) the use of illumination accentuates the prominence of the fascia sign which is located above the ground floor commercial frontage and which historically has adequately identified the use and occupation of the building in non-illuminated form. Illuminated signs are not a feature of the street and there absence contributes to the distinctiveness of the locality where signage is restrained in both its form and impact. The Local Planning Authority is seeking to retain this local distinctiveness by resisting the encroachment of illuminated signs into the historic core. Approval of the illumination would be contrary to this aim and would detract from both the appearance of the street scene and the historic character and appearance of this important listed building,
ii) the signage includes the use of aluminium and stainless steel. Both of these are not traditional materials and their use does not have regard to the need for the use of materials that are sensitive and respectful to the special architectural and historic qualities of the listed building,
iii) the illuminated menu box located on the flank wall of the building is inappropriately placed and fails to relate in an appropriate manner to the commercial frontage of the architecture of the building. The incongruous nature of the menu box is accentuated by the external cabling that has been affixed to the building to provide the illumination and again this element of the scheme is not sensitive to or respectful of the special architectural and historic qualities of the listed building.
The display of the signage is considered to be harmful to amenity as a result of being intrusive and being detrimental to the special architectural or historic interest of the building. In the circumstances, the sign does not accord with the provisions of Policies TCR3, HC1 and HC6 of the Replacement St Edmundsbury Borough Local Plan 2016, Policy CS3 of the St Edmundsbury Borough Core Strategy December 2010 and Policies HE7 and HE9 of PPS5 ‘Planning for the Historic Environment’.

B. Application SE/10/1592


Advertisement consent be Refused subject to the following reasons:

35 Abbeygate Street is a Grade II* listed building located within the Bury St Edmunds (Town Centre) Conservation Area where the Local Planning is seeking to maintain control over the display of advertisements in the interests of amenity, to preserve the character and appearance of the locality and to protect the special qualities of the building by preventing inappropriate additions and alterations. The Local Planning Authority is of the opinion that the proposed signage included in the application are contrary to those objectives in that:
i) the use of illumination accentuates the prominence of the fascia sign which is located above the ground floor commercial frontage and which historically has adequately identified the use and occupation of the building in non-illuminated form. Illuminated signs are not a feature of the street and this contributes to the distinctiveness of the locality where signage is restrained in both its form and impact. The Local Planning Authority is seeking to retain this local distinctiveness by resisting the encroachment of illuminated signs into the historic core. Approval of the illumination would be contrary to this aim and would detract from both the appearance of the street scene and the historic character and appearance of this important listed building,
ii) the signage includes the use of aluminium and stainless steel. Both of these are not traditional materials and their use does not have regard to the need for the use of materials that are sensitive and respectful to the special architectural and historic qualities of the listed building
iii) the illuminated menu box located on the flank wall of the building is inappropriately placed and fails to relate in an appropriate manner to the commercial frontage of the architecture of the building. The incongruous nature of the menu box is accentuated by the external cabling that has been affixed to the building to provide the illumination and again this element of the scheme is not sensitive to or respectful of the special architectural and historic qualities of the listed building.
The display of the signage is considered to be harmful to amenity as a result of being intrusive and being detrimental to the special architectural or historic interest of the building. In the circumstances, the sign does not accord with the provisions of Policies TCR3, HC1 and HC6 of the Replacement St Edmundsbury Borough Local Plan 2016, Policy CS3 of the St Edmundsbury Borough Core Strategy December 2010 and Policies HE7 and HE9 of PPS5 ‘Planning for the Historic Environment’.


2 comments:

Bury Boy said...

It may be the thin edge of the wedge, On this occation I think the planners are correct, illumination has not been required to date for any of the other businesses and would be out of charater for such a historic street. A simple menu inside the building or in keeping would be acceptable, but not a illuminated metal onThis si a historic Market Town NOT a clone high street. If it was in the cattle market a different story maybe. One big tick for the planner. The A board I dont have a problem with.

Councillor Paul Farmer said...

Thanks BB. It will be interesting to see whether the inspector agrees with you and SEBC or not. I will try to ensure I update when the result is known.