Planning – Application Comments

The signage is currently of very poor quality and in the worst possible taste.
Considering the proprietors previous actions in erecting this hideous edifice, I cannot expect anything better to be erected.
The current signage is totally out of keeping within a village setting any additional signage will be no better and in fact longer and even more hideous, (if such a state could exist).
I object on the grounds not only of taste but for securing the village atmosphere along with the very close proximity to a grade 1 listed church.

Please note that this planning application has not been displayed publicly outside of the shop as I understand it should be.
Therefore public knowledge of this plan is very limited.
As a neighbour we have also not received notice of this application or its associated one in writing via post.
It would concern me that others have also not been informed.

The existing signage is not in keeping with the look of the village. The proposed signage is still not an improvement this already looks like something out of coronation street! The new signage should reflect that this is a village and be appropriate.

How can anyone be for this to happen , the frontage of the post office is the biggest eye sore in the village , there is nothing about it that is in keeping with the village , I cringe every time I see it and it sadness me when it's next door to the Outwell church and the cottages opposite, I feel sorry for the residents who look out and see such a ugly sight .

No no no the signage is already so out of keeping with the surrounding area making it stand out more can only look worse

Not in keeping with the area

Can someone please explain to me how on earth simply reversing the white font on a red background to a red font on a white background makes this look any better? This is utterly preposterous.

As a local resident (my property is immediately adjacent to the Post Office), I have had to put up with the current garish, tacky, cheap looking signage (not to mention the cheap, bright and totally unnecessary LED and neon lighting introduced by the current business owner) which is totally out of keeping with the local surroundings. Indeed it would look out of place in a deprived inner city street scene.

Currently the frontage looks completely out of place and cheapens the local area. As a resident I am horrified that the proposed alternative is likely to be no better. Simply reversing the colourway will NOT improve this shocking image. Can I urge the planning committee to actually visit the site so that they can see for themselves that this shop sits opposite a row of 19th century cottages and immediately adjacent to a an ancient parish church which is of current archaeological and historical interest?

It was my understanding that the changes to signage would be more sympathetic to the local area and a more classical white frontage with neutral coloured lettering would be introduced. The proposed plans do not support this.
In addition, there seems to be no mention of what steps are going to be taken to curb the level of light pollution emanating from the shop in the form of bright led lights and neon signage.

In short, I object to these proposals as they do not address the current issues/concerns in any way. This is (or rather was until the new Post office owners arrived) a quiet, peaceful, harmonious street which prided itself on its historical cottages and church. This needs to be restored with retail frontage more in keeping with this environment. The proposal do not support this.

I would strongly like to object to this proposal on the following grounds (safety, traffic, noise, street scene) and raise additional areas for consideration:
The Grade II listed building situated to the right hand side of our driveway means that visibility is already difficult when leaving our property. An extension to the shop would mean that visibility to the left will be severely reduced to the point where we effectively won¿t be able to see pedestrians approaching from either side until we have driven onto the pavement. This would cause a major hazard and an increase in potential accidents whenever traffic leaves our shared driveway.
The visibility splay of 2m x 2m MUST be adhered to in this application if safety is to be considered of paramount importance, as it should be.

Despite the H-bar across the entrance to our property, we encounter issues on a daily basis of Post Office customers parking across our driveway preventing us access to and exit from our property. If the building size is increased, people would notice our driveway even less and we would be continually blocked in or out of our property.
I presume when this H-bar was put down by the Council, it was done so at a specific required length to ensure visibility and safe use of a driveway. An extension to the Post Office would pretty much make this H-bar null and void.
I also feel we would struggle to get any large vehicles down to our property if the building is extended ¿ particularly during busier times when cars are parked opposite and either side of our driveway. I would need reassurance that not only could oil tankers remain able to get down to our house but more importantly Fire Engines or other emergency vehicles if necessary.

Parking outside the Post Office is already a nightmare and regularly results in congestion along the road. Cars are often damaged as cars attempt to pass by from both sides. Equally, residents often find that they are unable to park outside their properties. I really don¿t feel that Church Terrace can cope with any additional parked cars and traffic that, inevitably a bigger shop will bring.
Having reviewed the plans it appears that the applicant will have to park his car to the rear of his property. This would be highly unlikely due to lack of space: there is a static caravan in place and the applicant currently parks his long wheel-based van to the rear of the property. He owns two additional cars and I am sceptical as to whether he will have room to park both and the van to the rear in light of the proposed extension to the storeroom. I would welcome a site visit to investigate this further.

The proposed change of shop signage as outlined in the application is still completely unacceptable. If the current red writing on white plastic background has been declined why on earth has the revised proposal continued to keep this colour theme? I thought traditional signage and colours had been advised. The Church next door is beautiful, along with the 19th century cottages opposite ¿ let¿s not ruin it with cheap, tacky, badly lit signage that just isn¿t necessary. Everyone knows where the Post Office is ¿ you don¿t need big red signs to advertise it.
From the plans, it seems that there will be a large sign affixed to the western end of the extension overlooking our driveway facing traffic approaching from the Upwell direction. This is completely unnecessary and will be an eyesore not to mention be very close (in fact, according to building regs, too close) to the Grade II listed tram ticket office.

The proposed new storeroom is immediately adjacent to the grounds of Outwell church, a building of current significant historical interest. I would also support the application from Kelly Gibbons, the Historical Environment Officer, for an archaeological investigation to take place before any new construction commences. Also, I would like to point out that the proposed documentation states that it will ¿demolish old store rooms¿. This description is not accurate ¿ these store rooms have only recently been added since this Owner moved in and they have been ¿make-shifted¿ out of various bits of old wood. I wonder if planning consent was ever sought for this current stock room or permitted.

My last few points that I wish to be considered are as follows:

I feel that the proposed LED lights are not at all in keeping with the traditional look of the village and lighting should be kept discrete and tasteful.

I am not happy with the sense that this extension is to put other local shops out of business and gain complete monopoly of the village. Costcutters supermarket has been present in Outwell for many years and I think it would be a major shame to see the success of this shop decline and potentially fail. Particularly as Costcutters provides off road parking and therefore creates no traffic issues to the area.

Increased customer footfall in conjunction with the recent successful application for extended opening hours has resulted in additional and unacceptable anti-social behaviour and noise pollution. In addition to this, the amount of discarded litter found in the area (our driveway, Church yard and street) has significantly increased. These problems will only get worse if the shop is extended.

The plans submitted give the impression that the static caravan is situated flush to the rear and western boundary fences and that the rear access to the Post Office garden is unaffected. This is most definitely not the case - the caravan is still not properly in the correct position as it is clearly too big for the gap proposed for it to sit in and it still protrudes out onto our shared access driveway. In my view, the size of the caravan means that access to the rear of the applicant¿s property is restricted in width. Are there plans to increase the entrance to the rear Post Office yard because this will probably be required and I would want to be consulted on this?

There is currently access to the front of the applicant¿s property with a gate to close this off. It seems from the plans that this access and the current low level fencing and gate will need to be removed. This would need to be replaced and done so without encroaching upon our current property boundary. How does the applicant propose to achieve this?

Finally, I would like to add that we have not been notified of this planning application in writing as we should have done given that we are neighbours. This really concerns me as I therefore feel that maybe not all relevant parties have been given correct notification of the plans and, as a consequence, may not have enough time to get their comments in.
Also, the application that is displayed outside of the Post Office shows only that of the extension and store room ¿ it does not show anything about signage. This is a major flaw as residents will not be aware about the plans and cannot comment. As far as I see it, there are 2 separate applications and therefore BOTH MUST be displayed. I cannot see how a decision can be made in the time frame allowed if appropriate notification has not been displayed.