“Richer sounds, as far as I know, are one of UK's best hifi dealers. A twin tape deck I bought over 15 years ago - yes they were still around then -is still working perfectly. I would give Richer sounds and other retailers an easy time to improve this part of Bath. The only stipulation I'd make, in the case of Richer sounds is that they rename the branch to be more in-keeping with its environment. I suggest Bath's Richer Tones.... (BRT)...”

“In reply to DaveF's points
1. grade 2
2. No - they could have used G Binns' researches and I would have said fair play. The work submitted is superficial. I don't mind who does it - but at least try to get it right.
3. The rear part of the building is the oldest bit - not appreciated by the survey submitted. Other research backs that up.
4. As a pub, I think everyone knows it's past its sell-by date. But other landlords have seen the state it's in. One considered taking it over, but saw how much needed spending. And if something substantial isn't done, it won't need demolition, it will deteriorate to the point of collapse. My information is that it needs a new roof for a start. These plans do not appear to address the seriousness of the situation.
5. There are several applications - thus increasing the work - and one of these relates to signage. That's the one that so far has been turned down.
6. There are some very good hifi shops in the Bath/Bristol area already - are you so desperate to use Richer Sounds that only they will do?

Given DaveF's apparent antipathy to me (I've no idea why - as far as I know I've never met him) I expect he'll bounce back with something else but I've got other things to get on with, so relax, folks - this is my last word on the subject.”

“"If you want to make alterations to a listed building..."

What Grade is the listing?

"These researches have been simply ignored..."

Sour grapes?

"As we point out, it is shown on a map of 1787."

Shown, maybe, but is that the building that's in existence? If not then your argument is irrelevant.

"We certainly wish to see something done to save this building"

Have I missed something? Who's suggesting that it's being demolished?

"from talking to pub landlords, that the work required on it is colossal. "

But no-ones suggesting to keep it as a pub, so your points are, again, irrelevant.

The proposals seem to have no concept of quite what is required.

"Blame the councillors, if you like, for their decimation of the planning department, and the Historic Environment team in particular, which is almost certainly going to make such delays inevitable, but not, in this particular case, the officers."

But who, apart from the officers, would reject based on the signage?
The size is restricted to the footprint of the pub. Hardly a huge expanse & definitely not "inappropriate and uncharacteristic"

Personally I've wanted Richer Sounds to open in the area for a long time & would have no problem with them being on my doorstep especially as I need to upgrade my Hifi.

I wouldn't mind Domino's either if it meant that the pavements of Walcot street weren't continually blocked any more by the delinquents that they employ as delivery drivers.”

“Before we all start shedding tears on behalf of Richer Sounds, could I point out that they really have no one to blame but themselves. If you want to make alterations to a listed building, you have to have an historic survey. As someone who does these myself, I can state that this can make or break an application for listed building consent. In this case, the Porter Butt had previously been extensively researched, not only by my husband and I but also by Geoffrey Binns. These researches have been simply ignored, and the report is wrong and underestimates the importance and age of the building. It states, for example, that the inn did not exist until the early 19th century. As we point out, it is shown on a map of 1787.

We certainly wish to see something done to save this building, but another point is that I know, from talking to pub landlords, that the work required on it is colossal. The proposals seem to have no concept of quite what is required.

Given all this, I think the planning officers have every right to be wary of what is put before them. I know and like Alex Schlesinger, but I wish he had done a little more research into the subject before making this outburst. Blame the councillors, if you like, for their decimation of the planning department, and the Historic Environment team in particular, which is almost certainly going to make such delays inevitable, but not, in this particular case, the officers.”

“The Bath Chronicle, July 16th 2009, published a letter from Francine Haeberling, Leader of Bath and North East Somerset Council. She said:

"If the opportunity to deliver these (BTP) transport improvements is lost because councillors are not willing to show the necessary leadership, then the people of Bath will never forgive us... If this rare chance to tackle congestion and kickstart regeneration is rejected, then it sending the message that Bath is closed for business. This must not happen."

This £65million transport scheme, in the Council's own conclusions, will do nothing to improve the congestion and air quality on the London Road. And yet still there is no explanation why they pursue it.

Along with qualified details of a commitment to remove city centre car traffic in their proposed Public Realm improvements, the Council Leader and her colleagues should now be making it absolutely clear what measures are proposed to improve the London Road approach for residents and businesses alike. Because, as things stand, the area is in danger of becoming much more than just "fossilised" as reasons to both live and work there will soon be extinct.

Not simply "dragging its heels", the Council leadership's actions appear to be the only things sending an unambiguous message that Bath is closed for anyone with basic good business and common sense.”

“Bath...where for some reason a boarded-up business is considered a more appropriate addition to a World Heritage site than an "uncharacteristic" sign proclaiming "open for business".

Considering the derelict former petrol stations, factories and business premises that litter the Upper and Lower Bristol Roads, can anyone think of a gateway to Bath that DOESN'T cause the vehicle-bound visitor to think they've inadvertantly taken a wrong turn into a ghost town somewhere in the Chernobyl area?”

“Alex Schlesinger says: "People pass through it all day - it doesn't look good."

This raises the very serious question of whether this is the result of Council policies or is happening despite the policies, as Mr Schlesinger very generously suggests might be the case.

But there's really no doubt the former is most likely true given there is only evidence to support this and none to the contrary. Red tape it isn't.

In seeking to spend in excess of £60 million of public money to create a BRT route through the area, a route which will only be as rapid as any other bus using the inbound London Road bus lane and have no real time advantages travelling outbound, it's blindingly obvious that only further degredation will follow.

This "BRT" scheme will lead to further congestion as it negotiates the entering and leaving Walcot and the busy Cleveland Bridge junction, where further parking restrictions (and possibly increased parking charges) will be implemented in order to accommodate the oversize 'bendy' buses proposed. If this were not adding enough insult to injury for those living and working in the London Road area, the buses will be designated as park and ride services only - ensuring that even more people will simply be encouraged to pass through on their journeys in and out of the city.”