Planning Enforcements
From Bath Shopfronts Guide:
Colour: No other single aspect of design has so much effect on the character of a shopfront than its colour. A good design can be completely spoilt by poor colour, or a nondescript design uplifted by the right choice of colour. Colour also has an effect on the Street Scene; out of key or aggressive colour will be damaging to everything within the field of vision.
Signs: The design and disposition of signs and the style of the lettering should always be historically credible and correct in design and detail for the design of the shopfront.
Illumination: The character of a shopfront and of the street will be altered by external illumination. This is often not acceptable, particularly where the shopfront is part of a listed building.
Appearance: Changes of a radical nature such as moving door positions are not normally acceptable. These may however be viewed more favourably if they can be shown to produce a permanent benefit such as the provision of a door to the upper floors.
Quick Finder (Follow links for more information)
Bar 8 - No.2 Victoria Buildings
We have reported what we believe to be unauthorised signage and repainting to this listed building, and we are waiting for a response from the council.
Go back to top index
Bath City Lets - No.9 Edgar Buildings, George Street
This one has a complicated history. A planning application was raised for alterations to the frontage and new signs (by Cluttons, the previous occupant). This was refused, and the applicant appealed. The appeal decision was issued on 30 July 2008. The Inspector was happy with the amendments to the frontage (as was the Case Officer originally) but ruled: I dismiss the appeal insofar as it relates to alterations to existing signage. So even after the appeal, there is no planning permission to alter the signage.
Nevertheless, new signs have been installed. It is unlikely that planning permission will be given for these, even retrospectively. This is what the Inspector said about the plans: The [previous] projecting sign is ... overly large with somewhat clumsy fixings and appearing out of place on Edgar Buildings, where there are no other fixed projecting or hanging signs. There is no record of consent for the projecting sign however and ... I consider that it would be inappropriate to attach significant weight to any benefits of its replacement in determining the appeal.
As far as the proposed replacement signage is concerned, the Inspector was equally dismissive:
The frontage of the [Edgar Buildings] group has a mainly uncluttered appearance which I consider benefits from the lack of projecting signage. As with the existing sign, in my opinion, the replacement sign would seem obtrusive and out of place. Its aluminium construction and vinyl applied graphics would also not accord with the SPG preference for use of natural materials appropriate to the character of the building. The same reservation about materials would also apply to the proposed fascia signage, where the SPG indicates a preference for sign-writing rather than the painted aluminium and applied vinyl graphics now proposed.
I consider that in this case the signage proposals would be harmful to the character and special interest of the appeal premises. They would also detract from the character and setting of the other properties in the Edgar Buildings group, as well as other nearby historic buildings, to the detriment of the character and appearance of the area in this important part of the World Heritage Site.
We have checked, and the Inspector is right, in that there are no projecting signs anywhere else along Edgar Buildings. We have therefore informed Enforcement that the signs have been erected by Bath City Lets without planning permission.
Go back to top index
The Belvedere - No.26
We have reported possible unauthorised listed building work
The ground floor interior has been gutted leaving the lath and plasterwork exposed.
Go back to top index
Beaujolais - Queen Square
We have reported an "A" board that obstructs pedestrians when it is placed on a traffic island. The Enforcement Officer conducted a site visit, but found no "A" board. We have informed him of the time of day that it is placed there, and he will follow this up as a health and safety issue if it continues to obstruct the highway.
[5/10/08] The use of the sign seems to have been discontinued, so the case has been closed by the Enforcement officer. We will continue to watch.
[12/10/08] And it is a good job we did continue to watch. On at least two occasions, the last being on Saturday 11 October, the "A" board was seen back on the traffic Island. Enforcement have been informed.
Go back to top index
Belushi, Formerly St Christopher Inn - No.9 Green Street
This Listed Building shop front has been repainted. New Fascias have been installed. New signs have been installed. New swan-neck lighting has been added to the outside, with visible wiring strung along the outside of the building. The historic balustrades have been covered in gloss paint.
The colours chosen are not from the palette normally enforced for listed buildings in the central area. The swan-neck lighting is specifically mentioned in the council's Shopfront Guide as unacceptable in any circumstances, as is visible wiring; illuminated signs are listed as usually unacceptable.
Also, the interior appears to have been gutted, and council officers have been assigned to check the full extent of the work that has been done. We believe a period fireplace has been removed, but have no photographic evidence of what was there before.
This is one of the worst destructions of a listed building we have seen, and we can find no planning application for these changes.
[28/9/08] We have been informed that a site visit has taken place and the complaint has been served on Belushi's in writing.
Planning applications 08/04001/LBA for listed building consent and 08/04000/FUL for planning permission have been raised for retrospective permission for the changes made. We object to it. The changes made are inappropriate for such a prominent listed building.
[21/12/08] On the 17th December 2008, the planning application for the fascia lighting was refused permission. On the 18th December 2008, the listed building application for the lighting was also refused permission. Their continued presence now becomes an enforcement issue, as does the change of colour of the frontage for which permission has not yet been sought.
Go back to top index
Camden Mill - Lower Bristol Road
We reported to Enforcement that the "Cowshed" being built in the Camden Mill car park (picture on the Camden Mill page) was very different from the structure that was given planning permission (application 06/02787/FUL).
Enforcement closed the case saying it was close enough to the original plans. At that time, the building work was still in progress. Since then, the situation has got worse. Lights have been added to the front (which were never mentioned on the plans), and wire mesh has been installed on the elevation facing the river. What a scruffy view of a listed building is now offered to those in the conservation area on the north bank.
We are considering whether to take this one up again.
Go back to top index
The Card Shop - No.3 Milsom Street
The listed building shop front has been repainted.
We can find no planning application requesting permission to do this.
The Enforcement Officer has replied as follows:
Some further approved painting has taken place on site. This is being monitored by a member of the Heritage and Environment Team who is in discussions with the owners.
We will therefore pass our views on the latest paint to the Heritage and Environment Team.
Go back to top index
Consol Suncentre - No.26A Shaftesbury Road
Two planning applications were raised for this property, one (08/01673/FUL) for change of use to hair salon and solarium, and the other (08/01612/AR) for shop signs. The change of use was approved, but the application for the signs was refused on the grounds that the colour design, materials and illumination were inappropriate. In the officers report there is a recommendation for a fascia sign in the style of the earlier sign for the kitchen shop and a traditional non-illuminated hanging sign. No other application was made after these two were determined.
Nevertheless, the property now sports a myriad of new signs. Along with a boxed fascia is a projecting sign, and although we have seen neither switched on yet, they both look as though they are illuminated. They are different from the signs described in 08/01612/AR.
The whole shopfront is now a mess of signage, with splashes, a full window internal vinyl and more of the "sunburn pink" used for the fascia. None of these signs has planning permission. They certainly don't enhance the area.
Go back to top index
Delfter Krug - The Sawclose
We reported Delfter Crug to Enforcement because workmen were repainting their shopfront and we couldn't find a planning application to cover this work on a listed building.
We have received a response from Enforcement, informing us that they have checked with the Conservation team and they have stated they have no objection to the new colour, and so the case has been closed.
This leaves us with a problem. The Historic Environment Team have long had a policy (based on PPG15) that repainting a listed building with the same or similar colour was "permitted development" but a significant change of colour requires planning permission. This is a significant change of colour, from rich blue to pale grey undercoat (pictured above) and then to a heritage green (pictured right). The fact that if there had been a planning application, Watchdog would have supported it enthusiastically doesn't alter the fact that if this establishment can repaint in a different colour without listed building consent, it sets a precedent for other shops who might choose something far less acceptable as the final colour.
So we think that Enforcement should pursue Delfter Crug for a retrospective planning application, if only to have some leverage against Rossiters who have opted for a totally unacceptable colour
[16/11/08] Early in November, some canvas awnings on a metal frame were installed beside Delfter Krug, attached to the front of the Regency Garage. Later, (though it does not show in this picture) a power lead was seen running back into a window of Delfter Krug, so it must be their awnings.
This Regency Garage front is known to be in a weak condition, so there was a real risk that if the awnings collected rainwater and the weight pulled on the front of the building, serious damage might result.
So we reported this to both Enforcement and the Historic Environment Team. Within days, the unauthorised awnings were gone. The "raw" sign remains.
Go back to top index
Flan O’Briens - No.21 Westgate Street
Scaffolding has been erected around Flan O’Briens but there appears to be no listed building application for work affecting the external appearance of a listed building (there was an application granted in 2003 but that is now time expired). It is possible that the work planned falls under the category of "permitted development", but we have asked Enforcement to investigate, just in case something more than that is intended.
Go back to top index
Flight Centre - No.15 Union Passage
We can find no planning application for the signs that have been installed, so these appear to be unauthorised shop signs and illumination.
The Enforcement Officer has responded with information on a planning application.
[7/12/08] Planning application No 08/04264/AR was submitted to the Local Planning Authority on the 18th November but at the present time the document set is declared invalid. No further enforcement action can be taken until after the planning application has been accepted as valid and a decision has been reached.
We will update again when the planning application is available for public comment.
[21/12/08] On 9th December the planning application 08/04264/AR was validated (the applicant had initially got the address wrong). No further enforcement action can be taken until after the planning application has been available for public comment and a decision has been reached. At the time of writing, the site notice does not appear to have been put up. We will object. The hanging sign dwarfs the other signs in Union Passage and the illumination is unnecessary, and indeed excessive.
Go back to top index
The Former Hobbs - No.32 Milsom Street
The sign that has been installed is different to the one given planning permission. Light fittings were also installed for which there was no planning application.
The illumination was removed the sign remains.
Go back to top index
Jamies Italian - No.43 Milsom Street & 10 Milsom Place
There is a new planning application 08/03676/AR for signs for "Jamies Italian", one being externally illuminated. The application is brand new, registered on 1st October, and no site notices have been put up yet. Nor are the documents available on-line yet, so there is no definitive description of what is planned. There is a clue to what the signs might look like in one of the documents raised for the listed building application for 43 Milsom Street, 08/03669/LBA, for which documents are available, and we can see that alterations are planned for the upper floors.
The problem is that there are signs in place, though not in the positions shown in the planning application, and the restaurant is open for business despite the public consultation period running to 9th November for the listed building application, and 21 days after the site notice is place for the advertising application. Because part of the listed building application was the replacement of services and alteration of layout in preparation for the use of the third floor for restaurant seating, it seems likely that this has gone ahead as well as the signs.
Regardless of the acceptability or otherwise of the alterations and signs, planning permission should be granted before works starts. Supposing the listed building application is refused? Does the applicant have sufficient records of what changes were made to the listed building in order to restore it to its former state? Supposing planning permission is granted? Is the restaurant going to remove its signs from their current positions and place them where the planning application shows them?
[19/10/08] We have received a response from the Enforcement Officer explaining that the Conservation Officer was aware that the work has started whilst there is an application to be determined, but he didn't think that there were any issues associated with the application which is expected to be granted consent, so it would not be expedient to take enforcement action.
There are two things wrong with this. Firstly, the work already carried out does not follow the drawings in the planning application, so even if permission is granted there remains an enforcement issue. Also, the planning application is still in the public consultation phase, and the Conservation Officer, who is also the Case Officer is not supposed to pre-judge an application before having considered all the comments made by the statutory consultees, the council departments and the public. We think that this statement proves that the case officer is not impartial, and therefore the casework should be transferred to another case officer.
[21/12/08] On 26th November 2008 the listed building application was given consent, despite the fact that the signage installed is different from that given permission. On 3rd December 2008 the application for advertising consent was given permission, but only after revised drawings had been received so that the application matched the signs installed.
So now we have the ridiculous situation where the signs installed have advertising consent but not listed building consent because of the shoddy work of the listed building Case officer. All we can do now is let Enforcement pursue a resolution.
Go back to top index
Jollys - Nos.7-14 Milsom Street
We reported Jolly's to Enforcement because the windows were obscured with vinyl graphics.
We have received a response from Enforcement explaining that the signs in the windows are only temporary signs which will be removed once the end of season sale has finished, so it would not be expedient to carry out enforcement action.
We can sympathise with this point of view to some extent: there are certainly worse offences than a temporary infringement in this list of ours; ones that need Enforcement's action to prevent them becoming permanent.
But there was a planning application 08/00205/AR for vinyl signs on Jolly's windows which was refused on the grounds that they would be "harmful to the visual amenity of the area including the appearance of the Grade II listed building". Like the current temporary signs the refused ones covered the whole window and blocked all views of the goods in the shop; and that is why we reported the sale promotion signs.
We think that as a minimum, Enforcement should inform Jollys that enforcement action will be taken if they repeat this offence, and that in future all sales promotions should retain the appearance of a shop window with views through it.
Go back to top index
L K Bennett - Post Office, New Bond Street
Listed building consent (07/02887/LBA) was granted for bronze metal letters spelling L.K.Bennett to be fixed to the wall of the Post Office building in the positions shown in the picture on the right, and also higher up to the left of the words "POST OFFICE" (and out of shot). The drawings given approval show the high level sign mounted proud of the surface on studs and the low level signs described as "Lettering to be applied hard up to stonework".
However, the low level signs have also been fitted proud of the stone surface.
In the two pictures on the left (one taken perpendicular, the other from angle) it is just possible to see the shadows formed by the letters because there is a gap between the letters and the stonework.
In close-up, the spacers behind this letter can be clearly seen. It is our opinion that the method of fixing for the high-level sign has been used in error on the lower lettering.
This makes them and the stone behind vulnerable to vandalism: it will be easy to insert a lever behind and prize them off, which could just remove the letter, but more likely will remove the mounting and a section of stone.
So we believe that Enforcement should ensure that the lettering is installed according to the permission granted, to protect the Post office wall from possible future damage.
Go back to top index
Lloyds TSB - No.16 Lower Borough Walls
Unauthorised signage has been installed. This has an unusual history.
Planning application 07/02195/LBA was for protruding "3D" signs and was refused permission on 5th September 2007 on the grounds of wrong materials, scale and style. Then application 08/02405/AR was raised proposing a different scheme of flat, non-illuminated signage, but the case officer decided that for what was proposed, advertising consent was not required.
Last week Lloyds installed the signage that had been refused in 07/02195/LBA, not that described in 08/02405/AR, hence the reason why we have reported this to Enforcement.
Go back to top index
Nokia Shop - No.3 New Bond Street
[7/12/08] The Enforcement Officer reports that has sought the advice of the Historic Environment Team, and is awaiting a response. No action will be taken until this response is received.
Unauthorised signage has been installed. We have reported this to Enforcement and have been allocated a reference number, but the signs are still in place at the time of writing [21/9/08]. (Picture to follow)
Go back to top index
Orange Telephone Shop - Nos.20-21 Cheap Street
Planning application 08/01807/AR was refused permission on 1 August 2008. Nevertheless, the signs in the refused application have been installed (our photograph was taken on 18 August 2008).
Since then, the shopfront has been painted black, again without planning permission. The refused sign remains.
Go back to top index
Phase Eight - No.2 Broad Street
The Phase Eight store is Grade II Listed. The building itself is a neo-Georgian replacement but was listed for its group value with Nos.1-7 to prevent possible disruption of the terrace.
There is a planning application 08/03550/LBA which hasn't yet had its site notice put up, but the shopfront has already been installed, and the store is open.
Likewise there is a planning application 08/03549/AR for advertising consent for the "Phase Eight" sign which has not yet been determined, but the sign is in place.
This cannot possibly be a last minute decision because this shopfront appeared in publicity brochure for the new Milsom Place that was being handed out in July.
It is not in keeping with the style of the street, so was it deliberately held back to make the due process is no more than a sham, gambling on Milsom Place being too important to refuse permission? The planning application documents are poor, there is no historical survey, which is required for listed buildings where structural changes are to be made, and the Design and Access Statement has nothing to say about the design. None of the drawings adequately cover what changes are to be made to the structure of the listed building (one drawing just says there is a potion of wall "to be removed by others" without identifying what type of wall it is).
The whole set of documentation reads as though it is promotional material for a firm of shopfitters rather than documentation for a planning officer to evaluate. Watchdog believes that the application should not be granted, because the documents are not definitive enough, and the shopfront as installed is inappropriate for a listed building that has a group value.
[19/10/08] We have received a response from the Enforcement Officer, explaining that when they checked they were informed that a member of the Historic Environment Team has been working closely with the owners in the build up to application 08/03550/LBA, so it is unlikely that any objectionable alterations are taking place, and in any case some of the works may have been authorised under an earlier application (which we assume is for Milsom Place) so it would not be expedient to proceed with any formal enforcement proceedings pending the determination of 08/03550/LBA.
We will be giving this planning application very careful scrutiny, and because the historic style shopfront has already been destroyed we will add it to the list of failed World Heritage stewardship examples that we are preparing for UNESCO. This building was group listed with its neighbours because it was part of a continuous row of unspoilt authentic shopfronts. Milsom Place was intended to be a prestige development, yet our picture shows that its name sits above a disaster of a design.
If the Historic Environment Team had been working with the owners in an unbiased capacity, the planning application would not even have been validated because the Historical Survey is missing and the Design and Access Statement only mentions access and not design. It is not sufficient for 08/03350/LBA to receive scrutiny, it should be put on hold until it has a complete and comprehensive set of documents, because it cannot properly be determined in its current state. Look at the quotations from the Shopfronts Guide at the top of the page. Objectionable alterations have already taken place, to the extent that they have invalidated the reason why this building was listed, and we shall encourage English Heritage to object in the strongest possible terms to any attempt to rationalise the currently installed shopfront with Listed Building Consent.
[21/12/08] On 11th December 2008, application 08/03350/LBA was given consent. Much of the Officer's report is inaccurate, and our research reveals that the shopfront in Broad Street has never received planning permission.
The officer's report says: "The removal of the shop fronts in this building was granted consent under the Milsom Place application". Oh no it wasn't! We have examined the Milsom Place application (05/03527/LBA) and Phase Eight's
Broad Street shopfront is specifically excluded. The drawing on the right is an extract from a larger drawing that was granted permission, and the area altered by the proposed works is only that part where the tunnel goes through into Milsom Place. The shopfront still shows its original glazing bars and timber fascia.
The officer's report says: "The shop fronts were simple 1930s design and of little merit". Wrong! The English Heritage listing says "Neo-Georgian 3 storey front with plain shop front ground floor. ... Nos 1 to 7 (consec) 7A, 8 and 9 Kingston Motors, King Edwards School and Nos 10 to 16 (consec) with archway to York Hotel yard form a group". It is obvious even from this small section of the drawing that there is a pattern to the shopfronts in Broad Street, and Number 2 is listed because of its commonality (group value) with the rest of the street. (Kingston Motors is no longer in existence, but it was located in what is now Shires Yard.)
The officer's report says: "The design of the plate glass window into the surround follows the design philosophy of the units within Milsom Place". So what! This window is not within Milsom Place, it is in Broad Street, and it is listed for its group value with the rest of Broad Street.
The officer's report says: "The glazing is not considered harmful to the character of the building." Considered by whom? It is clearly the reason why English Heritage listed this neo-Georgian in-fill building, so we don't imagine English Heritage would agree with the Case Officer.
We draw the conclusion that this window does not have planning permission, and Enforcement should order the former shopfront to be restored in order to avoid any risk of having the building de-listed.
We also wonder how the Case Officer approached the decision he came to. The real facts were readily available and it did not take us long to find them, so why did he not research the subject before jumping to conclusions? In a year when UNESCO had grave concerns about how Bath was protecting its heritage, we expect a lot more care to be taken over listed building applications than was shown when dealing with this one.
Luckily, because it was wrongly thought that the Broad Street shopfront already had planning permission, no harm has been done by the consent that has been granted (we don't object to the internal alterations or the Milsom Place elevation). But if a new retrospective application is raised for the Broad Street frontage, it ought to be given to a different case officer so that it is considered by fresh eyes with Broad Street rather than Milsom Place as the focus.
Go back to top index
Prêt à Manger - No.2 Stall Street
Prêt à Manger were granted planning permission for external tables (application 06/03966/FUL) and after the tables were installed, a canvas barrier was used to separate the tables from the rest of the pavement. There was no permission for this, and Enforcement was informed. Subsequently, Prêt à Manger raised a retrospective planning application (08/01022/AR) for the canvas barrier, but that was refused permission on 3rd June 2008 (and this photograph was taken the next day). We were informed that the manager had been instructed to remove the barriers on 28 June 2008.
Nevertheless, we understand that the canvas barriers have been seen to have been installed on the pavement on several occasions since that date. We will report this again next time they are seen.
Go back to top index
Rosewell House - No.12 Kingsmead Square
Rosewell House is Grade I listed (described by Pevsner as 'Baths most ornate and unashamedly Baroque with German-Flemish influence') and is occupied by more than one business, with residences above. Until recently, one end of the building housed a newsagent's with a barber's shop behind. The newsagent's closed a few weeks ogo, but the barber's continued for a while after that until it too closed.
Then a group of builders entered and started removing internal doors, without planning permission and without listed building consent (which for a Grade I listed building has to have the Secretary of State's agreement).
[19/10/08] We have received a response from the Enforcement Officer explaining that the owners have agreed a programme of works with the Council's Historic Environment Team to rectify the damage.
The approach being taken should lead to a satisfactory conclusion, but we will keep an eye on this building to make sure that the work agreed is carried out.
Go back to top index
Rossiters of Bath - Nos.38-41 Broad Street
This listed building shopfront has been repainted, changing the colour from a grey that was completely appropriate for the age and style of the building, into a purple colour that in a colour that is not from the palette normally enforced for listed buildings in the central area and which breaks all the guidelines in the council's Shopfronts Guide.
We can find no planning application requesting permission to do this. Rossiters cannot even claim that they did the repainting unaware that planning consent was needed, because they applied for (02/02175/LBA) and were granted permission in 2002 to redecorate in the colour they are now covering up.
[2/11/08] We have received a response from the Enforcement Officer who said that after he and a Senior Conservation officer had viewed the colours and had decided that the new colour is acceptable based on the vibrant array of colours on show on other shop fronts in the street, and so there will no further action in relation to this case. We disagree.
PPG15 makes it clear that planning permission is necessary: C.17 External painting: Painting - or re-painting such as a change of colour - requires listed building consent when it could affect the character of a listed building; and because Rossiters did apply for planning permission to redecorate in the colour they are now covering up, they can hardly claim they did not know that they should apply again for this latest change. Even more worrying is that the Conservation Officer is apparently ignorant of the Government guidelines and accepted the colour change without a listed building application.
And we wonder which street was visited to see the "vibrant array of colours", because apart from Rossiters (the subject of this enforcement, on both sides of the road) and Belushi's (also the subject of enforcement) and Phase 8 (also the subject of enforcement) the colours used in Broad Street are all appropriate for listed buildings.
Go back to top index
Route One - No.9 Broad Street
We spotted this shop with a painter at work on the shopfront. As this is a listed building in a conservation Area, planning permission is needed for a significant change of colour, according to both PPG15 and the Heritage Environment Team.
This building used to be the Postal Museum. In August 2007, planning permission was granted for a change of use, with a retail premises on Ground Floor and Basement, and residential above. However, we could not trace any Listed Building application to redecorate the shopfront.
The fascia has also been illuminated by two spotlights and these were seen working Friday evening. Not only is planning permission necessary for installing illumination, the style of lighting is contrary to the council's Shopfront Guide, so permission is unlikely to be granted.
Go back to top index
Rymans - No.20 Westgate Street
Rymans applied for planning permission (08/01572/AR) for some brightly coloured and illuminated signs, and while they were waiting for a planning decision, went ahead and installed them (our photo was taken a week before the planning decision).
Then the planning application was refused on the grounds that they were inappropriate for the location. Nevertheless, the now unauthorised signs remain.
Go back to top index
Shaw Trust - No.11 George Street
We are including this for completeness, but the report to Enforcement was made by a planning case officer in response to a retrospective planning application (08/03471/LBA). This picture is from the planning application and shows the undamaged part, and 9to the edge of the picture) the boarded up damaged part.
The shop front of No.11 is highly decorative, and considered to be of such high quality that it is specifically featured in the council's Shopfronts Guide as an exceptional example. It has recently been vandalised and repaired, and the planning application was raised to obtain retrospective permission for the repairs. We have checked the documentation, and it clearly says that repairs will be made to return the shop front to its original condition. The Case Officer has quite rightly pointed out that the repairs that have been done do not match this "as original" aspiration, and therefore planning permission cannot be given, and therefore it becomes an Enforcement issue. We wholeheartedly support this decision.
We will try to obtain a picture of the repaired part at a later date.
Go back to top index
Townsend Antiques - No.1 Saville Row
This shop front has been boarded up so securely that it is impossible to tell if it is to protect the shopfront from further damage (we understand that there might have been some vandalism to it) or to conceal unauthorised listed building work. So we have asked Enforcement to check.
Go back to top index
TP Windows - Nos.85-86 Lower Bristol Road
TP Windows have an unauthorised timber sign attached to the wall of St James Cemetery.
We can find no planning application for the newly installed sign.
St James Cemetery includes listed structures. The Gateway, The Lodge and Cemetery Chapel are all Grade II listed. Therefore anything attached to the Cemetery wall, which is curtilage listed with the gateway, requires listed building consent, and there is no application for this either.
[28/9/08] The Enforcement Officer has written requiring removal of the sign by 30/9/08 and to make good any damage caused. Watchdog has also been in touch with cemetery staff, who assure us that if approached by TP Windows, they would not give permission for any sign to be attached to the cemetery wall.
[5/10/08] The debate goes on. The Enforcement officer believes that the wall in question belongs to TP Windows and not the cemetery, and therefore it is not listed. We disagree. Whether a structure is listed or not depends on its function, not on who owns it, and this wall encloses the cemetery, is continuous with the rest of the wall that forms the cemetery frontage, and leads into the listed cemetery Lodge and Gateway. Therefore the walls enclosing the front of the cemetery are curtilage listed, according to the definition of curtilage in PPG15. Meanwhile, Enforcement have insisted that the sign is removed because it has not got planning permission, and has recommended that a planning application is submitted to get approval for the sign.
[12/10/08] The sign has not been removed yet. We have closely examined this sign, and some of the supporting timbers encroach into the cemetery (see picture right - the sign itself is to the right of the picture and the metal post with the ball top belongs to the cemetery, so all the timber beyond that point is in cemetery land. It is also possible that the erection of the sign dislodged the railings seen on the left of the picture, but we have no "before" photograph so we cannot say for certain, but we will ask the Cemeteries Manager if he knows). Because of this encroachment into the cemetery we are insisting that the sign is removed immediately, regardless of any intention to apply for planning permission for a sign.
During our examination we also noticed how poor and unsightly the attachments to the wall were (pictured left), and how much damage has been done by fixing the sign. Whilst in all probability it does not reflect the quality of the workmanship that is used to fit the windows this company supplies, we do wonder whether the appearance of the protruding crossed screws and unsightly spacer might deter potential customers from entering the
premises.
[7/12/08] The Enforcement Officer has provided an update explaining that he hasn't seen for himself what has been done but he has been informed that the old sign has been replaced with a smaller sign which falls within the guidelines for forecourt signs, and he would be interested in our views.
So we had a look. There is no doubt that the new sign (pictured left) is not so tall as the first sign (pictured right to approximately the same scale), though is is of similar width. Also noticeable is that the supporting timbers reach the ground rather than finishing partway up the wall.
However, we don't think that this meets the definition of a forecourt sign because it is still attached to the cemetery wall (see picture below left), and we still maintain that it needs Listed Building Consent for that because the wall is the functional boundary of the cemetery and is continuous with the Grade II listed entrance arch,
it is curtilage listed (see box below right), regardless of who claims to own it. A forecourt sign should be free standing. This one isn't.
From PPG15:
3.31 The listing of a building confers protection not only on the building, but also on any object or structure fixed to the building which is ancillary to the building.
3.34 The principal tests relate to ... whether the structure forms part of the land, and its use and function. Changes in ownership, occupation or use after the listing date will not bring about the de-listing.
We also consider that this sign in this position is a distraction to traffic. In both photographs you can see a road sign immediately to the right of the advertisement board, but the board is bigger, more brightly coloured and contains words, so it will tend to attract a driver's eye more than the sign a driver should be heeding. In fulfilling its function as an advertisement, it is a traffic hazard.
So on these grounds, we maintain our objection, and will report that to Enforcement.
Go back to top index
Travelodge - Rossiter Road
Planning Application 08/03963/AR is for four illuminated signs and four non-illuminated signs for the Travelodge Hotel (formerly Thimble Mill) at the end of the Kennet and Avon canal.
Despite the consultation period for the planning application being not yet expired, the signs have already been installed (one of which is pictured here). We have reported this as an Enforcement issue, and have also objected to the signs because they do not comply with the standards in the council's Shopfronts Guide.
This is probably the same signage that has been installed in the other Travelodges up and down the country. It is therefore not appropriate nor in context for its location in terms of style, colours, materials and quality and it detracts from the conservation area and the World Heritage Site. Some of the signage appears over scaled and dominant and not sensitive to its setting. We hope that these plans are refused permission and a new set of proposals is submitted for a high quality design in traditional materials that is more in keeping with the local context.
Go back to top index
Velo Lounge - Nos.30-31 Moorland Road
The Velo Lounge installed unauthorised illumination in the form of four swan-neck light fittings. When this was brought to the attention of the council, the business submitted a retrospective planning application (08/02456/AR).
Swan-neck lighting is specifically mentioned in the council's Shopfront Guide as unacceptable in any circumstances, and planning permission was refused. But despite that refusal the lights remain.
The sun blind also had no planning permission, but a retrospective application for it has now been raised (08/04398/FUL). As the interior is always needing lights on, the purpose of the sun blind is not at all obvious.
Go back to top index
Visions Windows - No.6 Walcot Buildings
We have reported what we believe to be unauthorised work to this listed building, and we are waiting for a response from the council. There was a planning application 07/03074/LBA which was approved. However, the work in progress is not in accordance with the drawings given planning permission
The sketch on the left shows the side profile of the shop front, according to the planning permission, and the sketch on the right shows the front view. the point to note is that there are two small steps out from the shop front to the flat top.
The reason why this is important is that this is the style of the frontages. The picture on the right is of the shop next door, and although the mouldings are more elaborate, there are two clear steps out to a small overhang, but they are small steps so that they don't hide the detailing in the shade. Other shop fronts along Walcot Buildings are similarly constructed.
Now look at the photograph taken on 5th October on the left. Even accepting that the work is unfinished because bare wood is showing, it is only a crude imitation of what was given planning permission. It is just a shelf, and it protrudes far too far in all directions.
The decorative gilding is still there, but it is overpowered by the slab immediately on the top of it. When the previous ledge (now removed) was in place, it had a moulding above the gilded ornamentation (pictured right) that set it in context, and anybody looking at the sketches from the planning application would have expected those mouldings to be retained with the new decking on top.
So why have we got this jerry-built apology for a listed shop front? It is not what was given consent.
[19/10/08] We have received a response from the Enforcement Officer explaining that the Senior Conservation Officer has been aware of this issue since the Spring when a site visit took place, but in that Department's view, although there were minor deviations noted from the approved plans of the Listed Building Consent, they were such that it would not be expedient to take enforcement action in this matter.
We disagree. The shop fronts along this part of the road have a consistency of appearance even though they differ one from another. This shopfront has some very fine detailing (pictured) which is now completely overshadowed by an oversized shelf, despite the planning drawings stating explicitly "overhang reduced". An original moulding above the gilding has also been removed, presumably never to be seen again. The fact that nobody cares enough to get this rectified is a disgrace.
Go back to top index
The White Company - Nos.15-16 Northgate Street
There are two planning applications pending: 08/02832/LBA which applied for new signs and decoration to the shop front plus internal alterations combining the two separate addresses (Nos. 15 and 16) into a single shop, and 08/02833/AR for the advertising signs.
Despite these planning applications being still pending decisions, work started on redecorating the shop front and some internal alterations could be seen inside the premises. The case officer and Historic Environment Team were notified.
Progress report: After intervention by the listed building officer who entered into discussions with applicant, work stopped for a while, but has now restarted (this picture was taken on 16th September 2008). Some revised documents were submitted to the listed building application on 1st September. Watchdog has objected to the advertising signs.
Go back to top index