- Application Number
- 19/03766/LBA
- Application Date
- 22/08/2019
- Closing Date
- 26/09/2019
- Address
- Mitchells & Butlers Retail Ltd, Old Police Station, Orange Grove
- Status
- Object
External alterations for display of 1no. fascia advertisement.
Our Response
The BPT objects to this proposal based upon its standard policy for the appearance of signs, adverts, banners, and awnings as published in 2016. Fascia signs are strongly recommended to be of a minimal, neutral design and colour that is respectful to the character of the building. On principle, we object to the use of illuminated signs due to their conflict with historic commercial frontages. In particular, illuminated signs can pose a threat to Bath’s internationally-recognised identity as a low-illuminated city in which low light levels are integral to its social and visual character.
We are also concerned with the application’s lack of detail regarding how the new sign will be fixed to the stonework, and how the sign will be lit. Any possible fixings or cables have a strong potential to disrupt the building’s aesthetic merit as well as posing an unnecessary risk to the historic fabric.
Ultimately, we feel that this scheme does not correlate with the priorities of Bath’s Placemaking Plan Policy in which development must be informed by the architectural landscape, ultimately creating an attractive and visually-unique city. Limitations on design and colour is intended to enforce Bath’s aesthetic continuity, a characteristic this proposal does not acknowledge. Furthermore, the scheme contravenes chapter 16 paragraph 194 of the NPPF in which any potential harm to a heritage asset requires adequate justification or explanation; the potential material impacts of the scheme were not considered and is therefore unsatisfactory.
We are also concerned with the application’s lack of detail regarding how the new sign will be fixed to the stonework, and how the sign will be lit. Any possible fixings or cables have a strong potential to disrupt the building’s aesthetic merit as well as posing an unnecessary risk to the historic fabric.
Ultimately, we feel that this scheme does not correlate with the priorities of Bath’s Placemaking Plan Policy in which development must be informed by the architectural landscape, ultimately creating an attractive and visually-unique city. Limitations on design and colour is intended to enforce Bath’s aesthetic continuity, a characteristic this proposal does not acknowledge. Furthermore, the scheme contravenes chapter 16 paragraph 194 of the NPPF in which any potential harm to a heritage asset requires adequate justification or explanation; the potential material impacts of the scheme were not considered and is therefore unsatisfactory.