A fish and chip shop owner has lodged an appeal to try to keep his shop signage after planning permission was refused.
Abbanoub SamirGad Salama, 29, previously submitted plans for an “almost identical” proposal for illuminated signage at Fish and Chips at 86-87 Preston Street, Brighton. The application was refused.
Brighton and Hove City Council served an enforcement notice. The applicant appealed and lost.
After the latest – retrospective – planning application, an official council report said: “The difference (is) that the current proposals seek to remove the method of illumination for the signage.”
Turning down the most recent proposal, the council said that the size, location, material and colour “detracts from the appearance of the site and wider Regency Square Conservation Area”.
The applicant, a director of ANA Supermarkets Ltd, said in his statement of appeal that the latest refusal did not take into account other signs in the area which are a similar colour and made with similar materials.
He said: “The refusal decision bears no relation to the City Plan and seems to have been made to add credence to the serving of an enforcement notice because the signs were illuminated and the application to make them non illuminated in order to retain them after they have been in-situ since 2020 frustrates that enforcement.
“Across the city, the same materials and colours are used without objection and the visual fact that Preston Street seems to be no different to most areas would indicate that the refusal based on the City Plan is both absurd and unfair.”
The council’s Conservation Advisory Group (CAG) objected to the application, saying that the sign was overly large, garish and unsympathetic to the conservation area.
It also said that 86-87 Preston Street was opposite the grade II listed 5 Preston Street.
In 2022, an enforcement noticed was issued to remove the signs and outdoor seated area which was first installed in 2020.
Mr Salama applied for planning permission in July 2021 but his application was turned down.
Late last year, Mr Salama was informed that he had lost his appeal against the enforcement notice.
The council planning needs to take a walk around the listed structures the council look after, the seafront is in a really bad state. This chip shop at least looks tidy and clean. Lots of other buildings on the same street are in decay. This time the council needs to back down.
Is that not a argumentum tu quoque, Mr Pattison?
You are Jacob Rees-Moog and I claim my ten pounds
It’s added much needed character to an otherwise run down street, it would be a shame to see it go.
It added a mess. The black and white don’t go with anything.
It gives the appearance of being accessible but it isn’t when you get close up.
Perhaps if they applied for a planning permission BEFORE building it they could have done something that would have passed muster with the planners.
Although planning should be obtained the council itself is the worst offender for not looking after listed structures just have a walk around.
can you be more specific about the accessibility issues?
There are several restaurants in the City who flout planning rules. The Council needs to force the owners to comply. .
They are.
It just takes time when they can appeal to the planning inspectorate and then ignore the ruling and then have to be taken to court for an enforcement order.
Have a walk along the seafront many listed structures the council look after are falling apart, pointless the council planning coming down heavy when it is the worst offender in listed areas.
To be fair, the frontage of this shop is shocking, and totally out of keeping with Preston Street.
The reason they are in this mess is that they made the drastic changes without consulting anybody.
If you think that is acceptable then we might as well give up on the idea of conservation areas.
Missed brown envelope opportunity.
“detracts from the appearance of the site and wider Regency Square Conservation Area”, which it does