The reasons for the council’s refusal of planning permission for the Grapevine wine bar have been made public and they make cautionary reading for the establishment’s owner and other businesses tempted to pursue projects which could adversely affect Rye’s historic character.
The Grapevine had applied for permission to attach tables seating up to 18 people to the side of its listed building by means of metal brackets. The seats would have been on a very steep part of Conduit Hill and would have blocked the existing footpath. Not only this, but the building is located in Rye conservation area, where higher protection is afforded to the town’s heritage.
Rother District Council’s (RDC) planning case officer declared that: “Concerns are raised about the effectiveness and structural integrity of the brackets”, while the decision notice said the proposal would “adversely affect the setting and special architectural and historic character and interest of the listed building as a designated heritage asset”.
It’s been a difficult few weeks for RDC, after the council came in for public criticism after approving the use of electronic advertising screens inside Rye conservation area on a busy A-road roundabout where illuminated advertising had been rejected in the past. Further controversy emerged last week when, with no consultation, the council cut down the historic cedar tree in the centre of Rye Cemetery. A number of local people have questioned the reason for felling the tree — which the council claimed was because the tree was diseased.
However, it seems the decision to refuse the Grapevine seating project has earned the council some credit on the local ledger, with Rye Conservation Society saying that it’s pleased that the proposal has been rejected. One hopes the council will be similarly decisive when other plans arise that would threaten Rye’s built heritage, its strategic gaps, open spaces and the ‘compactness’ advocated by the Rye Neighbourhood Plan.
At the same time, it’s safe to say that Rye residents have noticed glaring inconsistencies in some of RDC’s planning decisions. Why, for example, was the Grapevine’s proposal refused — with one argument being its location in the conservation area — when the electronic screens were approved, despite also being inside the area? Surely one can’t pick and choose which parts of a protected area to ignore. The council’s planning department often gives great weight to certain material planning considerations, while inexplicably ignoring them at other times.
The nuances of planning — for long a contentious issue — would take too long to explain in a short article, but one sometimes wonders whether the phrase ‘common sense’ has any place in the planning process.
Last week’s Grapevine decision does, however, demonstrate common sense and it will serve as a reminder to Rye businesses that planning applications which threaten the town’s historic setting and character will not be approved by the local planning authority. It also indicates that objections lodged by individuals and bodies can still have an impact on planning outcomes.
Image Credits: Nick Forman .
‘Grapevine project slammed by council…’. Really? Unless there’s something not included in the article it just looks like the application was turned down with reasons straightforwardly outlined. But it’d be great to hear if/how there was any slamming…
“Slammed” is surely just a more sensational word than “rejected” or “turned down”, typical of the more sensational newspapers. I doubt it was ever employed by RDC. It does seem a shame if an established and respected online newspaper such as Rye News feels it’s necessary to use such a word for emphasis, but I’m not the editor.
On a different tack, I’m surprised that the illuminated signs by “Skinner’s roundabout” fall within Rye Conservation Area. What about Costcutter next door? But I do question the wisdom of RDC allowing these brightly lit signs on other grounds such as road safety.
Good evening Patrick, thanks for your comment but you will notice the article is a letter from a reader, not an article by Rye News. We chose to print the authors letter verbatim. I trust this clarifies the situation and hope you continue to feel that Rye News is still an established and respected online newspaper. Nick Forman, Editor.
Must admit that I hadn’t noticed it was a letter rather than an article – do authors of letters get to write their own headlines…?
Keep up the good work anyway.
Thank you, Nick – I’d overlooked the “Letters” heading at the top and thought it was an article by Rye News staff. Presumably Edward (the letter writer) had supplied a heading for his letter, though I’d have thought this was unusual. But it’s a small point and Rye News does an excellent job.