Mango can go, Have the planners got this right? Options

[Bofem]

Well the price of a curry could be about to get more expensive.

WBC says the signage at the Mango Restaurant in Bart St (formerly Ellora) is too much and must be torn down. That's a £3000 headache for a fledgling local business because one council worker regards it as 'lurid'.

Gurkha Chef had to redo their sign and remove the words "Nepalese tandoori". Starbucks were left alone, the Dolphin were not.

I find it a bit strange that the Tories want to hassle family firms in our town, especially when there are about to be so many empty shops due to the £7m baksheesh enticing existing retailers to set up in Park Way.

Does Mango denigrate a 'streetscene' that's full of takeaways?

[Andy Capp]

And especially as the have sanctioned the ugly and oppressive looking Parkway and Vue Cinema!!!! This sounds like people trying to justify a position to me.

The council just seem to make it up as they go along. No obvious consistency.

[dannyboy]

I think the idea is you apply for planning, get it approved & ensure your signage equals what you applied for & were granted.

Sticking up a sign & hoping for the best often gets you into financial loss.

[JeffG]

Starbucks were left alone

Even though they desecrated a listed building.

[user23]

And especially as the have sanctioned the ugly and oppressive looking Parkway and Vue Cinema!!!! This sounds like people trying to justify a position to me.

The council just seem to make it up as they go along. No obvious consistency.

The obvious consistency is that if you apply for permission before putting up a sign you stand more chance of not being told to take it down.

[dannyboy]

Even though they desecrated a listed building.

The building wasn't listed & although the green tiles were nice, they were not original.....

[Andy Capp]

I think the idea is you apply for planning, get it approved & ensure your signage equals what you applied for & were granted. Sticking up a sign & hoping for the best often gets you into financial loss.

The obvious consistency is that if you apply for permission before putting up a sign you stand more chance of not being told to take it down.

So it is OK to stick something up that is grotesque, so long as you ask first.

[user23]

So it is OK to stick something up that is grotesque, so long as you ask first.

No, but if you ask first you won't have to take it down if they say no.

[Andy Capp]

No, but if you ask first you won't have to take it down if they say no.

Sensible, although that wasn't my point.

[massifheed]

...the Tories want to hassle family firms in our town...

Really? I'm assuming you have something to back this up, and it's not just OTT personal opinion?

[dannyboy]

So it is OK to stick something up that is grotesque, so long as you ask first.

That is both a matter of opnion & how the system works.

[Andy Capp]

That is both a matter of opnion & how the system works.

Clearly.

[JeffG]

The building wasn't listed & although the green tiles were nice, they were not original.....

OK, I wasn't sure, but according to this fascinating thread, giving quite a detailed history of the tiles, the building was listed originally until all the listed features had somehow been surreptitiously removed.

[blackdog]

Even though they desecrated a listed building.

The listed building was desecrated (ie demolished) for Alliance & Leicester - Starbucks came along much later.

[Bofem]

Really? I'm assuming you have something to back this up, and it's not just OTT personal opinion?

Where do we start?

The cafe evicted to make way for the Tourist Info Centre?
The 20 businesses evicted from Park Way?
Forcing the market back to the Market Place when they did so well in Northbrook Street?
The shopkeeper in Fifth Road banned from upgrading his signage.
The 3 shops knackered by the car ban in the Market Place.

If it is OTT, I apologise. It's a perception these planning decisions give out. I just hope that Pizza Express, who have a retrospective planning application awaiting decision, get the same treatment as family-run Mango.

[Strafin]

I don't like it when people decide they are above the rules set in place for everyone. The family running the Mango included. They have tried to do what they like and deserve the consequence, which is in my opinion fair. Had they got away with it it wouldn't have cost them anything, but that was their chance to take.

[Andy Capp]

Yes the complaints from board members and the letters in the NWN about the obscene signage at Mango's was deafening, it is no-wonder the brave council had to waded in and save the day. Meanwhile; has anyone noticed the not unsubstantial sign wrapped round the Vue cinema? Notwithstanding the pig-ugly mountainous building itself.

Nevermind, so long as you ask first.

[Bofem]

I don't like it when people decide they are above the rules set in place for everyone. The family running the Mango included. They have tried to do what they like and deserve the consequence, which is in my opinion fair. Had they got away with it it wouldn't have cost them anything, but that was their chance to take.

lets hope pizza express who also have a retrospective application for their new signage in get the same treatment then.

[dannyboy]

lets hope pizza express who also have a retrospective application for their new signage in get the same treatment then.

If it is decided that The cumulative impact of the signs, due to their size, materials and illumination has
a harmful effect on the visual amenity of the area and detracts from the appearance
of the surrounding Conservation Area in which it is set, I'm sure they will be.

[Andy Capp]

If it is decided that The cumulative impact of the signs, due to their size, materials and illumination has
a harmful effect on the visual amenity of the area and detracts from the appearance
of the surrounding Conservation Area in which it is set, I'm sure they will be.

Or not, if you are a large multinational bank or chain.