Roger Gambba-Jones

The text below has been submitted to the local newpaper in letter form in order to correct some of the mis-information recently published and also repeatedby other letter writers.  The local paper has yet to publish it and on the assumption that, for reasons best known to themselves, they are choosing not to, I'm publishing it here. 

Some readers (of the newspaper) have been justifiably concerned about the possible loss of 25 jobs at the ‘new' Wimpey restaurant in market Place Spalding.  However, the claim that these jobs are under threat because of the planning department's refusal of its new signage is at best, disingenuous.

As most readers will recall, the new Wimpey will be in the same place as the old one. A full planning permission, once implemented, stays with the land or property in perpetuity. 

Therefore, the new owner could, without any involvement of the SHDC planning department, have opened the new restaurant, complete with the previously approved Wimpey sign and started employing these 25 people on the day he or she leased the premises.

Even if the new owner wanted a different Wimpey sign, there was still nothing stopping them from opening for business immediately and then discussing their signage requirements with SHDC in the meantime.

Incidentally, unlike the Wimpey sign, the bank sign was acceptable because it was an update of that company's standard sign, as seen in most high streets.  Unlike a city such as Chester, SHDC doesn't have a policy requiring non-standard (more discrete) shop signage in conservation areas. 

Refusal of that sign would no doubt of been appealed and that appeal would probably have been upheld, thereby wasting taxpayer's money - also something some readers have expressed their concerns about.