Chiefs call time on pub's clock signs
Signs at an Evercreech pub commemorating the village's famous clock have struck the wrong note with Mendip planners.
Landlord Lee Carlton put up new signs outside the Bell Inn featuring the face of the village's much-talked about church clock face.
The church of St Peter's is famous worldwide for its clock, which misses out the number 10 – X in Roman numerals – but instead features two 12s – XII.
The clock was put in place for Queen Victoria's Diamond Jubilee in 1897.
Legend has it that the alterations to the face were the work of a local nobleman as a way of overcoming his wife's strict instructions to be home on time.
His wife used to tell him to be home at 10pm and he thought he could get away with coming home later if there was no number 10 on the church clock.
The story is a very popular question in village treasure hunts.
And the clock is always a talking point and picture opportunity for visitors.
The clock is a focal point of the new signs, which are black with gold embossed lettering and won praise from the parish council.
But unfortunately Mr Carlton put the new signs up without the necessary planning permission.
Although he did then apply for retrospective permission through the correct channels, Mendip District Council has refused permission and the signs must come down.
Mr Carlton said he is bitterly disappointed with the council's decision and is going to appeal against it.
Mendip argues the signs are detrimental to the historic character of the surrounding Conservation Area and the setting of nearby listed buildings – and are therefore contrary to planning policy.
Three neighbours were consulted about the signs but Mr Carlton said he does not know if they objected.
"I don't think they would have – everyone was so full of praise. We had so much backing from the villagers when we put them up. It is very disappointing."
He said he did not think the council's policy held much water when there were so many unsightly plastic signs outside several buildings in the Conservation Area.
A council spokesman said there were no formal objections from residents. He said the council's decision was based on policy relating to Conservation Areas.
7 Comments
by Nathan, Opposite The Bell
Thursday, October 08 2009, 8:21AM
“The council sent local residents a form so that they could express their opinions on the signs. I wonder now why I took the time and effort to draft a lengthy response to the council's enquiry, as they appear to have given it a stiff ignoring. Presumably they were hoping we would object so that they could cite us as the cause for their arbitrary decision making.
The "NIMBY" brigade is not responsible for this one; as the neighbour with the clearest view of the signs I think they look fantastic. The encapsulation of village history should be applauded and the signs look neither garish nor unsympathetic to their surrounding.”
by David, London
Thursday, October 01 2009, 9:01PM
“My question to the council is what are the new signs doing to offended the council?.....If any thing they make the building look better which brings more trade to the pub and then Lee has to employ more staff which is a good thing at this time.”
by James, Australia
Friday, September 25 2009, 9:24AM
“Come on and get serious. I am fed up with council red tape. Why is The Bell Inn being hounded for putting up a new sign, that fits in with the history of the very village that it was built in. I am not impressed. Surely the councillors have something better to do with their time than put down a business that has only ever worked towards helping a community. Parents and toddlers, sponsorship of various local sporting teams, charity functions at the village hall just to name a few.”
by Karen, Bulgaria
Friday, September 25 2009, 6:20AM
“Having lived in the village for many years before moving I think it is a great shame that Ian cannont put the new signs up, a conservation area and yet I remember the council giving permission for 2 "new houses" right nest door!!!! Really in keeping.”
by Jeremy Prior, South Devon
Thursday, September 24 2009, 8:41PM
“It's a shame when someone struggling to keep their Pub alive amidst a mass of Pubs nationally closing down through apathy, has come up against pedantic enforcement of restrictive laws.
After all what harm can the sign do? The legends and myths are all part of the ways to attract tourism and bring some prosperity to the place.
Having said that, I do wish it was possible to find out why the clockface has the two errors and it seems nobody knows.
The clockface looks recently refurbished and the numerals look to be painted on. I think it could be a case of someone's signwriting ability being a little ignorant or perhaps they were having an "off day".
Doesn't the church know the real reason? Perhaps it suits them to say nothing so that a mystery is created.
I hope the Pub wins any appeal it makes, they don't deserve to be bitten by the NIMBYs brigade.”
by Amiee, Spain
Thursday, September 24 2009, 10:52AM
“I am in agreement with the point made by Lyndsay in Brighton and am deeply saddened that the obvious passion for village history displayed here by Mr Carlton has been greatly overlooked in this situation.”
by Lyndsay, Brighton
Thursday, September 24 2009, 9:30AM
“I wonder if the person that made this decision saw the broken signage that was there before the new signs were added?”