Our AGM—an opportunity to put forward your ideas followed by Mark Webb speaking on the lost buildings of
Much Park Street Monday, April 13 at 7.30pm Shop Front Theatre, City Arcade
April 2015
refreshments
Martin Yardley, Executive Director of Place, said: “In planning terms this is the critical bit—cladding would have required permission. Painting does not.” The insensitive action by Study Inns transforming what was one of the best city centre high rise buildings into a depressing edifice almost like ‘a Lego building’ has alienated a significant section of the local population. After applying for retrospective permission to paint the once bronze glass of the former AXA building in a pattern of red, grey and blue, more than 70 locals wrote to the city council objecting to the plan. Sadly much of the painting was already completed as the last day of consultation arrived. To make matters even worse Coventry Council suddenly informed some
objectors that planning permission after all was not required and Study Inns would have its application returned. Coventry Society would have thought that discussions between Study Inns and city planners might have caused questions to be asked when a particularly well-designed building, and dominant both in the city centre and viewed from the suburbs, was about to be transformed into something quite different. Having made so many improvements to the public realm in the city centre surely planners would have questioned whether a quality building like the former AXA should be radically changed in appearance, rather than conserved as a model for future developments. Apparently not. We said in our objection: It's a common error to paint something that's ugly in fairground colours in the hope of improving its appearance. The paint doesn't hide anything; it just accentuates the ugliness. In the case of the AXA building, it's already an elegant building so it doesn't gain from painting it in fairground colours. The patchwork of strident colours several storeys above ground is noticeable from various directions including viewpoints some miles away. It doesn't add anything to the appearance of the city. It appears to be a form of advertising, including the large sign that has been erected. The current rash of painting the outsides
of buildings appears to be due to designers who are paid a percentage of the cost of the works they design, so it isn't in their interest to say "It's OK, leave it alone". Instead they want to slap paint on every surface, thus creating a maintenance liability that was not there before. The large number of brick pubs that have been painted is an example. A new coat of paint may attract business in the short term, but unless the building's owner has the resources and the will to maintain the painted surface, the appearance will deteriorate over time. In the case of a multi-storey building, maintenance will be expensive so is more likely to be neglected. We should be developing the city for the long term rather than for short -term gimmicks with long-term penalties. Only durable facings that are polite neighbours should be permitted. We note that the work has already been carried out. The large number of retrospective applications recently suggest that developers are sensing that planning permission is more likely if the work has already been done. Worse still, the council has contributed funding for this project through its Coventry Investment Fund.” Coventry Society seizes every opportunity to take part in council consultations that will hopefully bring about a better quality city. This most unpleasant saga has left a bitter taste and concerns both our members and the wider community.
Another retrospective application The Bluecoat C of E School failed to apply for permission to construct a car park on land adjacent to the garden at Charterhouse, and having completed the work has now put in for retrospective permission. Charterhouse Residents’ objection is absolutely clear: the car park has been constructed on scheduled ancient monument land; and it has raised the height of the land up against the Charterhouse wall meaning that vehicles
dominate the view from the gardens themselves. The original car park was built without planning permission, then given retrospective permission. As the residents point out, this has encouraged a pattern of poor behaviour that now compromises the historic Charterhouse lands. On top of this new car park lighting has apparently led to a higher level of light pollution until late evening.
More news and views on our website: www.coventrysociety.org.uk