Planning Applications Reference:17/04521/AR

Further Information on this property is available on the Council's My House web page.

View Further Information
Type of Application:Advertisement Consent
Status:Split decision/check certificate or file
Address of Proposal:Zizzi, 9 Sawclose, City Centre, Bath,
Ward:Abbey
Proposal:Display of 1 no halo illuminated fascia sign and non illuminated signs on planters and umbrellas
Decision:Split decision - check file/certificate
Decision Type:Delegated
Inpectorate Ref:APP/F0114/Z/18/3193134
Appeal Type:Refusal of Advert Consent
Appeal Status:Appeal In Progress
Appeal Process:Householder Appeal
Planning Portal Reference Number:PP-06395949
Applicant Name:Azzurri Group
Agent Name:Technical Signs
Agent Address:Hille Business Centre, 132 St Albans Road, Watford, Herts, WD24 4AE
Case Officer Name:Alice Barnes
Date Application Received:19/09/2017
Date Application Validated:19/09/2017
Neighbourhood Consultations sent on:14/11/2017
Standard Consultations sent on:14/11/2017
Last advertised on:28/09/2017
Expiry Date for Consultation :19/10/2017
Target Decision Date14/11/2017
Date Decision Issued:14/11/2017
Permission Expiry Date::14/11/2022
Appeal Start Date:05/02/2018

Documents

ConstraintsAgric Land Class 3b,4,5, Article 4 Bath Demolition Wall, Article 4 HMO, Article 4 Reg 7: Estate Agent, Conservation Area, MOD Safeguarded Areas, Policy B1 Bath Enterprise Zone, Policy B2 Central Area Strategic Policy, Policy B4 WHS - Boundary, Policy B4 WHS - Indicative Extent, Policy CP12 Centres and Retailing, Policy CP9 Affordable Housing Zones, Policy HE1 Scheduled Ancient Monuments, SSSI - Impact Risk Zones
Related Property:Zizzi,9 Sawclose,City Centre,Bath,BA1 1EY.
Reference Proposal Application Received Status
17/04521/AR .Display of 1 no halo illuminated fascia sign and non illuminated signs on planters and umbrellas19/09/2017Split decision/check certificate or file

The Comments tab lists all public comments received on this application (not statutory consultees, e.g. The Environment Agency, Highways DC, etc). The majority of comments are submitted via our Comments Form through the website and you can expand the comment to view all of the text by clicking on the plus button. A minority of comments are submitted by post or email and it is not possible to include all the text here, however when you expand the comment you will see a link to our Associated Documents page where you can search for the comment.


Name Address Comment type Comment1 Comment2 Comment3 Date
Bath Heritage Watchdog Not Given O View Associated Documents 24/09/2017
Bath Preservation Trust Bath Preservation Trust , 1 Royal Crescent, City Centre, Bath, Bath And North East Somerset, BA1 2LR O 19/10/2017: Object: As the Sawclose and Casino public realm is built out and finalised it is extremely important that the character of the outdoor seating areas is closely managed and planned. In this case we find the larger Zizzi sign acceptable but not the smaller acrylic lettering, which should be a better quality material such as metal or timber. We have an in principle objection to internal illumination in the historic core of the city but recognise that some form of subtle illumination of the main sign is probably justified. The plethora of branding on the jumbrellas and planters should be rationalised so that there is less signage clutter in this area. We would suggest, as per the Giggling Squid, that there is small ‘Zizzi’ lettering on the jumbrella valances (not the large branding proposed on the jumbrella slopes) and that the branding is omitted from the planters. This sensitive historic area could cumulatively become visually disordered if signage was permitted on every piece of furniture (see Vino Vino and The Oven for an example of low quality public realm created by signage). In particular we refer to Policy D.9 regarding taking opportunities to reduce signage and to D.10 regarding enhancing the public realm.
The noted parts of the proposed signage by virtue of its amount and siting would be harmful to the setting of significant nearby designated heritage assets, would neither preserve nor enhance the character and appearance of the conservation area, would be detrimental to the visual amenity of the street scene and would detract from the special qualities of the WHS. The scheme would be contrary to 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,D.10, B.2 of the Placemaking Plan. We would therefore recommend the application be amended in-line with our proposals or refused.
19/10/2017