Gail’s has been embroiled in an ongoing battle with local authorities over its branch in Lewes High Street since October of last year.
When Gail’s originally applied for planning permission to convert the historic Grade II listed building on Lewes’ High Street into a coffee shop, the plans did not include removal of the property’s original timber door.
Despite not having permission, Gail’s removed the door and replaced it with glazed doors.
After being ordered to reinstate the original door, the chain applied for planning permission to retain the replacements.
On October 9, Lewes Town Council rejected the application, much to the relief of disgruntled residents who slammed the replacement doors as “cheap and not in keeping with the style and prominence of the building”.
The bakery chain lodged an appeal challenging the South Downs National Park Authority’s decision (SDNP) on January 23, therefore escalating the decision to a government inspector.
Today (May 28), the appeal has been dismissed, following a government inspector’s review.
The inspector said the building, which dates from 1770, has “both historical and architectural interest”.
“The appellant seeks to downplay the importance of the solid panelled doors”, the inspector said.
“There was a suggestion in the application documents that the doors only dated from 1984. That suggestion was not pursued in the appeal statement. Rightly so, given the clear evidence that the main entrance was moved to the corner during the 1920s.”
The inspector said “it is argued that the doors were a minor feature. Again, I disagree”.
The inspector said there was “no doubt” the building’s architecture was intended “to convey a sense of institutional strength and reliability” and the doors were an “intrinsic part of that architectural statement”.
“Removal of the doors has harmed the significance of the listed building, both through loss of historic fabric and through dilution of the architectural expression of the elevations”, the review concluded. “This has caused harm to the conservation.”
The inspector also dismissed Gail’s justification of safety and security and said there was no evidence to suggest the doors were “weathered” and in need of replacement, as had been suggested.
Source link
[Featured]
[Just In]
