Jolly’s, Milsom Street, City Centre

Object: The Trust objects to the application on the basis of the harmful visual impact of this signage on multiple heritage assets, on the group value of Milsom Street as a heritage asset, and that the materials proposed (aluminium and vinyl) are low quality and unacceptable in this location. Milsom Street is largely devoid of hanging signs except a very small number of historic or unauthorised signs. The absence of this type of signage clutter is a positive characteristic of Milsom Street as it allows the appreciation of the linear architecturally framed views up to Edgar Buildings and down to the Old Bond Street Island; these views form part of its special character. The whole street has a strong group value as a sequential ensemble, even with the addition of shop fronts, and it is a typical example of harmonious and ordered Georgian urban design. The addition of projecting signs on Milsom Street would significantly intrude onto the classical facades and clutter the views of the architecture of the street and its flowing, sloping form, thus harming the appreciation of the heritage assets and their setting.

We cannot see any current fixings for any hanging signs therefore the new signage could cause harm to the historic fabric of the elevation if it is to be fixed to stone. Given the building is already pockmarked from the unauthorised flags erected 2 years ago, and other accretions installed and removed over the years, consideration of cumulative harm should be key.

The proposed scheme would be harmful to the special interest of the designated heritage assets, would neither preserve nor enhance the character and appearance of the conservation area and would detract from the special qualities of the WHS. The scheme would be contrary to the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) sections 16, 66 and 72, Section 12 (Conserving and Enhancing the Historic Environment) of the NPPF, policies B1, B2, B4, and CP6 of the B&NES Core Strategy and policies CP6, D.2, HE1, D.9, B.4, B.2 of the Placemaking Plan. We would therefore strongly recommend the application be withdrawn or refused.