Sushi restaurant fears losing thousand for ‘incongruous’ sign

Twm Owen, local democracy reporter

A restaurant boss fears losing thousands of pounds less than a year after opening having being told her branding is a breach of planning rules.

Yoon Hoe Yee opened Japanese plant-based sushi and noodle bar, Hikari, in Chepstow in February but four months later council officials ruled the fascia sign stretching across the width of the restaurant, below its first floor windows, didn’t have advertising permission.

Ms Hoe Yee now faces having to tear down the sign following an unsuccessful appeal after Welsh planning body PEDW ruled it “appears incongruous” among the “traditional appearance of nearby listed buildings and the wider street scene” on St Mary Street in the town centre conservation area.

“I’ve run out of ideas and don’t know how to proceed,” said Ms Hoe Yee, speaking in English with the assistance of a staff member as an interpreter.

‘Blank wall’

“The sign cost £3,000 and if it is removed there would just be the blank wall behind it as I don’t have the money replace it with another sign as the business has only just started and isn’t busy and the economy isn’t great at the moment.”

It’s thought Hikari is the only meat free restaurant locally and the owner who belives the branding is important in attracting passing footfall said: “It’s very brave to open and to help people eat a healthier and environmentally friendly diet, and there’s been lots of local support, but unfortunately the council doesn’t see it like that.”

In her appeal Ms Hoe Yee explained that a splintered wooden base, for a previous sign, is behind the current covering and as she couldn’t afford to cover it the appearance would be unsightly.

Drawings

She had also offered to remove drawings on either side of the company name on the sign following the council decision in June.

Her appeal was considered by independent inspector Christopher Sweet who said he couldn’t consider arguments put forward over the “cost of replacement signage and any necessary renovation, and potential consequential economic impacts”.

Mr Sweet ruled the sign dominates the ground floor of the building, which isn’t listed, and it has “a shiny, cluttered appearance”.

His report stated: “These factors result in a dominant, unsympathetic contemporary addition that appears incongruous when viewed against the traditional appearance of nearby listed buildings and the wider street scene.”

It was also stated this would be “exacerbated” if the sign is illuminated at night.

The appeal was dismissed as the sign is “unacceptably harmful to the visual amenity of the area and fails to preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the conservation area” and Mr Sweet said “less harmful” alternative designs could be used.