The wall at the Bell - refused

Mon 15 Jan, 14:19

I don't understand why people can't separate these two things out though. Yes, the wall is nice and fine and looks better than before, but it's not what permission was granted for. If we don't care about that, then why bother having a planning system at all? Why don't we just decide on what looks nice, irrespective of the cultural/historical/structural impact........?

Mon 15 Jan, 12:50

I think it is a nice wall. That appears to be immaterial - there is a breach of planning permission. Nothing else.

Mon 15 Jan, 12:49 (last edited on Mon 15 Jan, 12:50)

Emily. You miss the point. Whilst I totally agree with you that building and then seeking retrospective approvals is not best practice it should not be an absolute prohibition to approval. Surely, it has to be on the merit of the application. As a Chartered Surveyor I am fully aware of the importance of reading all documentation. The test I referred to was hypothetical in testing whether it is better to have the wall in its current state or not. You appear to personalise this matter which I may suggest is more divisive. Well done. I think I have made my view clear so I won’t add anything further.

Mon 15 Jan, 12:37

Oh dear ! A bit personal - heading for the debate section.  Other relevant topics on the forum have followed the same or similar route and alterations made during the process . It’s still a nice wall . Thought that when it was being constructed. If these are personal points and comments , then the best way to show your disapproval is not to frequent the places ! We are lucky to have these new facilities, efforts and concentration on how to provide the infrastructure ( parking ) should be the primary aim of the TC ? rather than the current tone being expressed in this topic.

It is a nice wall though …….. do you agree ?

Mon 15 Jan, 09:25 (last edited on Mon 15 Jan, 09:59)

Paul, my eyesight is fine, thanks. How's yours? Because it seems, like most "divisive issues" on the Forum, those complaining don't actually read the decisions made by the Town Council or the WODC. They would rather react to piecemeal information on the Forum. 

I will repeat what I said before, as maybe you weren't reading with your glasses on: The Bell made a planning application which included a wall around the seating area at the front. The application was approved, which would therefore suggest that the TC and WODC actually approved of the initial design of the wall.

The Bell then went ahead and deviated from the planning application so that the wall that is there deviates from the wall promised in the application. The Bell then went ahead and put in a retrospective application, which was denied. 

Pragmatism is fine but if we allow retrospective applications that deviate from the original planning applications, especially on listed buildings, then we are going down a slippery slope. 

Sun 14 Jan, 21:42

Planning Policies change all the time and are often based on what government is in charge, although I appreciate some times there can be a significant time lag in adopting change. I very much doubt most people would feel that the wall that was erected restricts views up and down Church Street or indeed restricts the view of the front of the Bell. Everyone I have spoken to thinks it is complimentary and an important safety feature. I should know this as I drive in and out of the entrance to the Bell to access my own home.  I would have expected a more pragmatic response from the Town Council. Perhaps they should take the optician's test; better with or without. My view firmly is better with; than supporting some outdated policy!!

Sun 14 Jan, 16:31

The planning permission for the wall was refused in part because it contravenes policies NE2 and HE2 of the Charlbury Neighbourhood Plan. In particular, the Neighbourhood Plan made a big deal of the fact that developments need to respect important views, and specifically mentioned the open view down Church Street as integral to the character of the Town Centre. 

The Neighbourhood Plan pointed out that the area in front of The Bell Hotel has remained open throughout living memory, and also highlighted the significance of the building (and the open space in front of it) to the town centre streetscape. 

Whether the Neighbourhood Plan was right to make such a big deal of the open view down Church Street can certainly be disputed (including by me), but given that the plan specifically picked out the open space in front of |The Bell as an important feature of the Charlbury townscape, the Town Council had not alternative but to object to the wall.

There's nothing "spiteful" about the decision, but refusal was inevitable given the Neighbourhood Plan which had been written before the Bamfords took over The Bell. Daylesford did make some modifications to the wall, given the Town Council's objections, but why those with very deep pockets think they can do whatever they like and don't need to respect planning constraints is quite beyond me. 

Sun 14 Jan, 14:59

Charlie. Im sorry but I could not disagree more. How the wall fails to fit in with the refurbishment of the Bell holistically which has brought a poorly maintained building into the 21st century. In what way does it move away from the character and historic nature? It creates a safe and complementary environment to the front of the building. Frankly one of the pointless and stupid planning decisions I have seen. I hope they appeal!

Sun 14 Jan, 14:57

Another case where the common sense is missing….

Sun 14 Jan, 14:44

Don’t think the wall was built last year . 

Sun 14 Jan, 13:29 (last edited on Mon 15 Jan, 14:14)

A lot of walls are "nice"! But those who own Listed Buildings have additional responsibilities (and here I speak from previous personal experience). To quote from the refusal, the proposal "fails to conserve or enhance the special architectural and historic character of the Bell". That's good enough for me.

Also, as far as I am aware, this wall was the reason why, at last year's Street Fair, the stage had to be positioned at 90° to its usual position (facing across Church Street). This resulted in only a very small area where the bands and other goings-on could be viewed properly, compared to how the stage is normally positioned. Of course in the great scheme of things, many may consider that this matters little...

Sun 14 Jan, 12:33

It is not a case of the council being spiteful or petty, Rachel. The Bell made a planning application which included a wall around the seating area at the front. The application was approved. The Bell then went ahead and deviated from the planning application so that the wall that is there deviates from the wall promised in the application. The Bell then went ahead and put in a retrospective application, which was denied. The Bell is a business and should know better. 

Charlbury can both welcome new businesses and trade to the town, whilst also expecting those businesses to adhere to the rules, whether that be planning applications or environmental regulations. 

Sun 14 Jan, 02:14

Nice wall that ! Made the outside look tidy and enclosed / safe . 

Sat 13 Jan, 22:54 (last edited on Sat 13 Jan, 23:24)

Problem caused, unfortunately, by a Maserati parked on the double yellows in front of the Bull and sticking out into Browns Lane (as usual) , forcing the bus to be unable to turn down Church street, as a van and Land Rover parker on the double yellows there also. 

Police called and all resolved after 40 minutes or so. 

Funniest part was hearing someone from inside one of the pubs saying "oh god, the villagers are going to hate this" followed by lots of laughter. 

Sat 13 Jan, 21:01

Any one have a car parked on double yellow lines by the rose. The bus has been stuck for 30 minutes and the police have turned up. 

Sat 13 Jan, 19:49

Well said Rachel 

Sat 13 Jan, 18:25

Seems pretty spiteful to reject this given how vastly they’ve improved the pub and its forecourt from what it was before. As with all the whining about the Bull, it’s pretty sad that people come to Charlbury to offer something new and improve the place and are met with such petty resistance. 

Sat 13 Jan, 18:01

Absolutely nothing wrong with the wall that has been built - the whole forecourt area is a vast improvement on what it used to look like....

Sat 13 Jan, 17:10

Ridiculous decision. What is wrong with the wall? 

Sat 13 Jan, 16:35

I’m not surprised.  Moreover, what was built bears no resemblance to what they applied for.

Sat 13 Jan, 16:05

This is the wall at the front. 23/01599/LBC and 23/01598/FUL refers.