August – September 2017
Week 28 2017
17/03088/LBA – Garden Maisonette 6 St James’s Square Lansdown
Internal and external alterations to replace boiler and provision of flue out the kitchen/garden wall.
Comment: As always the Trust would request that the flue is a recessive colour such as grey or cream to blend in with and not intrude upon the Bath stone elevation.
17/03055/LBA – Green Park Station Green Park Road City Centre Bath
External alterations for bird proofing measures including installation of netting and upstands/bird prevention spikes.
Comment: We are sympathetic of the need to reduce bird nuisance around the building. However, we were concerned about the excessive levels of deterrents to be installed given the historic character of the building and felt that they would be detrimental to the appreciation of the architecture. Although we do not have vast experience of bird prevention, there must be less invasive methods of improving the situation. We use high level netting concealed behind the parapets and balustrading on our own buildings. We refer, with agreement, to the extensive objection filed by the Bath Heritage Watchdog and are in accordance especially to their observations that the station has seen general neglect in cleaning and maintenance and that re-glazing the former train-shed entrance could be a more sensitive method of reducing the bird problem. The Trust feels that specialist conservation advice should supplement the application in respect of the historic building.
17/03131/AR – Cambridge House Henry Street
Display of 2no internally illuminated Fascia signs and 2no internally illuminated projecting signs
Object: The Trust objects to the use of internally illuminated signage which is inappropriate in the sensitive context of the World Heritage Site and Conservation Area. We also found the separated projecting sign to be extraneous and isolated and did not add to the scheme. Bath benefits significantly from the traditional character of its shopfronts and hence we would recommend that the proposal be withdrawn and further consultation of the Council’s Guidance on Commercial Signage and Tables and Chairs in the Conservation Area.
The proposed scheme by virtue of its materials would neither preserve nor enhance the character and appearance of the conservation area, would be detrimental to the visual amenity of the street scene and would detract from the special qualities of the WHS. The scheme would be contrary to the Section 12 (Conserving and Enhancing the Historic Environment) of the NPPF, policies B2, B4, and CP6 of the B&NES Core Strategy and saved policies D4, BH1, BH6, BH17 and BH19 of the B&NES Local Plan. We would therefore recommend the application be withdrawn or refused.
17/03193/FUL – 54 Wells Road, Lyncombe, Bath
Insertion of a pedestrian gate in existing external wall to property with permission to construct timber decked ramp from street to private garden level
Comment: The application in question does not contain adequate information and detail on the specification of works for the gateway including stone materials, gateway piers, finishing and topping and generally the appearance of the gate. Whilst overall the proposal could well be acceptable, the visibility and significance of this historic wall within the streetscape in Bath justifies further clarification on specific details.
17/02619/AR – Site Of Former St Johns Rc Primary School Pulteney Road Bathwick
Display of 4no. internally illuminated signs and 1no. non illuminated sign to display ‘Student Castle’ and logo on student accommodation building
Object: The Trust objects to the proposed signage on the basis of internal illumination which gives the scheme an appearance akin to a budget hotel; inappropriate in the sensitive context of the World Heritage Site and Conservation Area. The signage itself appears to be appropriately sized and positioned (though the acrylic element should be omitted), however should not be illuminated.
The proposed scheme by virtue of its materials would neither preserve nor enhance the character and appearance of the conservation area, would be detrimental to the visual amenity of the street scene and would detract from the special qualities of the WHS. The scheme would be contrary to the Section 12 (Conserving and Enhancing the Historic Environment) of the NPPF, policies B2, B4, and CP6 of the B&NES Core Strategy, D.9 of the Placemaking Plan and saved policies D4, BH1, BH6, BH17 and BH19 of the B&NES Local Plan. We would therefore recommend the application be amended or refused.
17/03082/FUL – Darlington Wharf Darlington Road Bathwick
Erection of 7no dwellings (3no detached & 4no terraced) with access and parking following demolition of existing builders yard. (Resubmission of 16/05905/FUL.
Support: BPT supports the ambition to provide generous high environmental standard houses built of natural Bath stone ashlar under slate roofs. The local canal-side character is carefully retained in both design and layout and generally the scheme will be a beneficial improvement on the appearance of the site making good use of an incongruous brownfield site in this attractive location close to the city centre. We are also pleased to see that the tenure of the proposed housing is available to rent, though measures should ensure that this housing contributes to local housing need rather than be available as holiday accommodation.
Week 29 2017
17/03160/FUL & 17/03161/LBA – The Pig & Fiddle 2 Saracen Street City Centre Bath
Erection of a stone wall to form bin store and alterations to the beer garden
Comment: The Trust welcomes the applicant’s intentions to upgrade and improve this unsightly garden area which is currently something of an eyesore. We have strong concerns regarding the use of render for the new wall, and would suggest random rubblestone in keeping with the side elevations of the pub. We also suggest that the render is repaired and painted (or indeed even removed if possible), in order to improve the appearance of the listed building. The line of the wall should follow the line of the black pavers, and in our view, if possible, the telecoms box should be inside the walled enclosure in order to enhance the street scene. The junction with the listed building has not been detailed in the application and we assume that the case officer will be satisfied that historic fabric is unharmed.
The upgrade for the garden area looks to be acceptable, the proviso always being that these types of high use beer gardens quickly look tired and scruffy without proper regular maintenance, particularly of planting, and therefore we wonder whether an ongoing maintenance plan could be made a condition of planning approval. We prefer the option of fixed timber trough planters rather than an enclosure wall as these are essentially a reversible fixture. The issue of public realm clutter is always of concern, however if the applicant can keep the enclosure troughs/gateway neat and well planted, much of the garden paraphernalia can be screened and therefore the overall street scene would be enhanced.
17/03185/FUL – 20 Union Passage City Centre Bath
Use of public highway for the siting of 2no tables and 8no chairs
Object: The Trust strongly objects to this application on the basis that the proposed tables and chairs are completely inappropriate, both in appearance and in position within this narrow lane. The passageway must be kept clear for pedestrians and this furniture clearly impedes this, leaving an unacceptably small amount of space to pass by in what is already a crowded alleyway. The building is currently A1 retail use and we can see no application for change of use to a cafe C3. The lurid yellow colour that has been painted on the shopfront and the excessive and intrusive window vinyl is both harmful to the appearance and therefore significance of the listed building and the streetscene within the WHS. Once again we express disappointment that an applicant has shown disregard for the planning system by going ahead with their plans prior to permission.
The proposed scheme by virtue of its materials, colour and location would neither preserve nor enhance the significance of the listed buildings, nor the character and appearance of the conservation area, would be detrimental to the visual amenity of the street scene and would detract from the special qualities of the WHS. The scheme would be contrary to the Section 12 (Conserving and Enhancing the Historic Environment) of the NPPF, policies B2, B4, and CP6 of the B&NES Core Strategy, saved policies D2, D4, BH1, BH2, BH6 and BH19, BH20 of the B&NES Local Plan and D.1, D2, D.4, HE.1 D.9 D.10 of the Placemaking Plan. We would therefore recommend the application be withdrawn or refused.
17/03283/FUL & 17/03284/LBA – 8 The Paragon Walcot Bath
Conversion of disused lower ground floor rooms into self contained 1 bed flat and reinstatement of staircase in front lightwell
Comment: In our view the application lacks some detail regarding the proposed steel staircase, in particular a detailed drawing of the staircase and how it would look in situ. Whilst steel is an acceptable material, the colour and detailing of the steps is important, as they should match the existing ironwork in terms of finesse (for example the shape and diameter of any balusters) and this includes any decorative elements such as railing finials.
17/03279/AR & 17/03200/LBA – 20 – 21 Cheap Street City Centre
Display of non illuminated written facia sign to match the standard company logo.
Comment: The Trust is generally supportive of the proposals for this shopfront, in particular the fact that the shopfront will be hand signpainted, which is entirely appropriate for the WHS. We assume the case officer will be satisfied that the actual colours are not too strident and finished in eggshell. Our only concern would be the addition of window vinyls, most of which are probably not needed and may clutter the elevation of listed building.
Week 30 2017
17/03371/AR– 19 Milsom Street City Centre
Re-painting existing pink fascia signage to white colour.
Support: The Trust supports this application, the proposed white colour for the lettering is entirely appropriate for this sensitive historic location and as always we commend the use of traditional sign writing techniques.
17/03391/AR – Pandora 16 Southgate Place Bath
Replacement of existing internally illuminated aluminium “Pandora” sign with new aluminium fascia panel with internally illuminated “Pandora” lettering to external face. Replacement of existing internally illuminated blade/handing sign.
Comment: Whilst we accept that this shop is located in the Southgate precinct and is therefore subject to slightly different signage parameters and tolerances than the historic streets to the north, however we would remind the applicant that the shop is still in the conservation area and the World Heritage Site and is still subject to the guidance provided in the B&NES commercial signage SPD. A bespoke approach would be more considerate here than the corporate appearance of the proposals. Whilst we can tolerate pin mounted lettering with subtle internal illumination, the aluminium ‘ribbon wall’ fascia board panelling is, we believe, inappropriate for this location. A white timber painted fascia with the distinctive mounted Pandora letters would give a more high quality appearance befitting the WHS. We recommend the case officer negotiates this change to the application.
17/03038/AR – 15 Kingsmead Square City Centre Bath
Display of single A Board advertisement to pavement
Comment: We do not see the justification or need for this A-Board; the new shopfront, awning and outdoor tables and chairs will advertise the business adequately. The A – Board will provide additional unnecessary clutter in an already busy area dotted with street and cafe furniture and will no doubt be placed in unauthorised, awkward and intrusive positions by staff members. The shop is already difficult to navigate past and into, usually with queues, so we recommend that this application is withdrawn or refused.
17/03413/FUL -& 17/03414/LBA – 12 St James’s Square Lansdown Bath
Internal and external alterations for the change of use from bed and breakfast (use class C1) to residential dwelling (use class C3) with the removal of dumbwaiter, reinstatement of multi-pane sash windows to front elevation, removal of paint from front lightwell, stone cleaning on rear elevation, removal of second floor landing toilet room and installation of railings to rear lightwell.
Support: Without the benefit of a site visit we cannot comment in detail on the appropriateness of every element of these proposals, but we in general support the obvious intention to repair and refurbish this heritage asset to a high standard, in particular the reinstatement or uncovering of historic features such as the installation of 6/6 pane sash timbers windows to the front elevation, the reinstatement of entrance pennant slabs and the removal of paint to the front elevation.
17/03500/FUL – 16 Cork Street, Lower Weston
Insertion of dormer to side elevation hipped roof to aid conversion of roof space to form bedroom
Object: The Trust objects to this application on the basis that the dormer window is an awkward and incongruous addition to the host building and the streetscape. Dormer windows are not generally seen in this group of streets and in this case the dormer would not be located at the rear of the end of terrace property but at the side, thereby being intrusive into the streetscape and interrupting the local roofscape pattern. In this way it would neither retain nor enhance the distinctive local character. Notwithstanding neighbour amenity issues, a much improved option could be to extend the main roof to a heightened gable end as per the house opposite to provide a neater and more logical roof form and a better internal space.
The proposed scheme by virtue of the proposed dormer window would be visually harmful to the character and appearance of the local conservation area, and would therefore detract from the special qualities of the WHS. The scheme would be contrary to the Section 12 (Conserving and Enhancing the Historic Environment) of the NPPF, policies B1, B4, and CP6 of the B&NES Core Strategy and saved policies D4,Bh6, of the B&NES Local Plan. It is also contrary to policies CP6, D1, D2, D5 BG1 and HE1 of the Placemaking Plan. We would therefore recommend the application be withdrawn or refused.
17/03252/FUL & 17/03247/AR – Mitchells & Butlers Retail Ltd Old Police Station Orange Grove
Alterations to the terrace including new furniture, umbrellas to be recovered and taller planters
Comment: The Trust has noticed the anomalies as to amount and size of umbrellas (between existing and proposed plans) and comments that this should be clarified by the applicant prior to determination. As always, a regular maintenance plan, particularly of the planting and furniture, will be crucial in keeping the appearance of this site fit for its sensitive historic location within the WHS.
17/02245/AR & 17/02246/LBA – Brigits Bakery 17 Argyle Street Bathwick Bath
Display of 2 no. non illuminated fascia signs, 1 no. hanging sign and 1 no. removable door sign
Object: The Trust strongly objects to this application and in particular to the news that the signage has already been erected. We are also very concerned to see that bright pink umbrellas have also been put in place next to the iconic Pulteney Bridge. At the risk of repeating the other objections to this application, the Trust objects on the basis of the design, style, location and materials of this signage. The use of di-bond as a material is completely inappropriate; hand painted timber signage is the only appropriate type of signage for this sensitive historic location. The use of the bright pink in both signage and umbrellas is also highly inappropriate; intruding into the setting of the Grade I bridge, one of the best known and most photographed views in the city. IF umbrellas are permissible in this area (and we understand they have not been the subject of a planning application so are currently unauthorised) then they should be a muted colour to harmonise with the Bath palette. The vault entrance security door is also entirely unacceptable with its flamboyant cartoon drawing taking over the whole surface; no heritage impact assessment has been provided to understand how this signage affects the special character and appearance of the bridge and its setting.
In addition, the quality and detail of this application is lacking, especially given the sensitivity of the location and thus the responsibility of the applicant to properly understand the significance of their site and the impact of their proposals on a nationally and internationally important heritage asset.
The proposed scheme by virtue of its materials, colour, design and siting would be harmful to the setting of significant designated heritage assets, would neither preserve nor enhance the character and appearance of the conservation area, would be detrimental to the visual amenity of the street scene and would detract from the special qualities of the WHS. The scheme would be contrary to Section 12 (Conserving and Enhancing the Historic Environment) of the NPPF, policies B1, B2, B4, and CP6 of the B&NES Core Strategy, saved policies D4, BH1, BH2, BH6, BH17, BH21 and BH19 of the B&NES Local Plan and policies CP6, D.2, HE1, D.9, B.4, B.2 of the Placemaking Plan. We would therefore strongly recommend the application be withdrawn or refused and that the unauthorised umbrellas and signage are removed immediately.
17/03512/LBA – 1 Beaufort Place Lambridge Bath
External alterations for the advertisement of 1no. fascia board and 1no. hanging sign with a logo and name of the shop on an existing historic bracket.
Comment: The Trust is concerned at the use of vinyl lettering in this sensitive historic village location and conservation area and wonders whether a more appropriate response would for the smart signage to be hand painted. It is a shame that the fascia is dibond not timber but understand that this was left by the previous owner.
17/03444/FUL & 17/03445/LBA – 15 Springfield Place Lansdown Bath
Erection of fully glazed rear garden room extension following removal of existing lean-to greenhouse
Comment: The Trust is generally supportive of this application to sensitively refurbish and repair this heritage asset in a conservation-focused way. Without the benefit of a site visit we cannot comment on specific details but in particular the desire to faithfully restore both the decorative timber balcony and the protruding Victorian toilet block are commendable. We are also supportive of a contemporary extension to the rear, our only slight concern being the relationship of the low pyramidal lead roof to the other structures on the rear elevation, as it looks to be visually awkward; the peak of the roof intruding a little into and over the balcony balusters. Perhaps a single-plane roof sitting just below the balcony line would be a better and visually neater solution to this issue.
17/03507/FUL – 17 Lower Oldfield Park Oldfield Park Bath
Proposed fenestration changes.
Object: The Trust objects to this proposal on the basis that uPVC is not an acceptable material for use within the conservation area and World Heritage Site. We support the desire to increase energy efficiency through the introduction of appropriate double glazing but not with uPVC. uPVC is not sustainable in its manufacture or disposal and it produces a low quality aesthetic that is at odds with the traditional character of timber fenestration in the city’s attractive Victorian and Edwardian suburbs. Whilst there may be local precedent for uPVC we do not see this as justification for the change to this substantial building. We understand the desire for longevity in terms of the performance of the windows and their easy maintenance, there are other materials that could provide this performance whilst also respecting the tradition of timber windows in Bath. For example pressure treated hardwood timber windows have similar properties to uPVC but maintain an appearance that is in harmony with the local context. It is now possible to buy timber-framed double glazed units even from the volume suppliers and so we do not think availability can be a reason.
The proposed windows would fail to preserve or enhance the character and appearance of the conservation area, and therefore the special qualities of the WHS. It would be contrary to Section 12 of the NPPF, policies B1, B4 and CP6 of the Core Strategy, policies D4, BH6 and BH.1 of the Saved Local Plan and policies CP6, D.1, D.2 and HE1 of the Placemaking Plan.
17/03490/FUL – R N I D Poolemead Centre Watery Lane Twerton
Erection of lift shaft, installation of lift and associated works
Comment: Whilst we have no particular opinion regarding the addition of another matching lift shaft tower to this modern building, we do question the quality of detail in the drawings in this application which appear to be inadequate, particularly in relation to the roof profile of the new structure and whether it matches the other lift shaft tower roof which appears to have a Dutch gable style form.
17/03412/AR – Unit 2 Hobbycraft Trading Limited Mero Retail Park Lower Bristol Road Westmoreland
Erection of 1no low level non illuminated sign.
Comment: As the case officer is aware, the Trust has been concerned for some time regarding the confusing array of signage applications and erected signage on and in the setting of this listed building. In particular we are now concerned regarding the proliferation of entrance advertising clutter and ‘temporary’ signs that have been erected. Understandably Hobbycraft wish to advertise their business at the front of the building for passersby to see. In our view this proposal, whilst understandable and actually quite neat in situ, is in principle potentially harmful to the listed building when reviewed cumulatively. We cannot see however, given the previous permission for Pets @ Home to erect a similar – but externally illuminated – sign on the front elevation, that there is a case for refusal. We would welcome open dialogue with B&NES, BHW and business owners about how the signage on this building can be rationalised and decluttered, and a protocol established, especially given the current application for a plethora of parking cameras and car park signs and the planned large totem sign. Soon the building will disappear under an array of signs!
Week 32 2017
17/03718/FUL& 17/03719/LBA – Kennet House Sydney Road Bathwick Bath
Internal and external alterations to replace existing side extension with two storey extension, erect rear kitchen extension, remove concrete infill to rear courtyard, erect first floor extension for bedroom access and alter interior stud wall layout to improve connectivity between rooms (Resubmission).
Comment: Since we have commented on the last two iterations of this application, the Trust has no further observations on works covered by the application description (beyond remarking that the changes to the secondary door appear to be beneficial), but we note that several further elements seem to be within the applicants’ intention (for example break in the canal wall) and would consider that if these are to be included the application, the description needs to be widened and much more detailed information is required.
17/03697/FUL & 17/03698/LBA – 9 Dafford’s Buildings Larkhall Bath
Replace existing corrugated asbestos front porch canopy with bath stone canopy to match neighbours
Support: The Trust welcomes this application to replace an unsightly porch with an appropriately designed Bath stone scroll and console canopy which will better reveal and enhance the architectural interest of the listed building.
Week 34 2017
17/03939/FUL – Hill House North Road Bathwick Bath
Erection of 1 No. new dwelling, car parking and associated landscaping in the side garden of the existing dwelling with dismantling and reconstruction of existing bath stone boundary wall.
Comment: The Trust has no concerns regarding the well conceived contemporary design of this new dwelling, and it appears to sit comfortably within the proposed plot. As always our concern is for the retention of local green hillside character and the prevention of intrusion into views. In this case the LVIA’s appear to prove that the building will not be more than marginally visible – glimpsed – in long views and we hope the case officer will ensure this element has been fully assessed. In addition, the amount of glazing and pv panels could cause light pollution in the form of light spill and reflective glare, and again we urge the case officer to be satisfied that the chosen materials for these elements prevent and mitigate negative light issues as far as possible given the visible and prominent position of this dwelling.
In addition the use of brick is a concern on the basis that the area is characterised by the use of Bath stone ashlar. In our view, as shown in the ‘other’ Hill House development on Lansdown, sharp edged brick can be an incongruous material within the conservation area. Bath natural stone smaller rectangular coursed blocks (or rough hewn brick as appears in the image on p. 6 of the Design & Access Statement) would also be appropriate. As always we urge the case officer to ensure the materials detail is specified in the permission and not left to condition.
17/03953/LBA – Unit 2 Hobbycraft Trading Limited Mero Retail Park Lower Bristol Road Westmoreland Bath
External alterations for the display of 1no. externally illuminated flexface box, complete with digitally printed pvc flexface skin to the north east elevation.
Object: We note that this application is a re-registration of an earlier application with the addition of external illumination, though in parts of the application, including the application form, it is noted as being non-illuminated; this must be clarified. It is also not clear where this signage is being placed; the north east elevation would appear to be the car park elevation not the road side but the photos show the sign in situ on this elevation! On the basis that we assume the signage is for the road elevation, the Trust objects to this on the basis of intrusive clutter on the road elevation of the listed building. The applicant has an opportunity to advertise their business adjacent to their entrance, and also on the recently approved ladder/totem sign for the Mero Retail Park. Further signage would be harmful to the architectural interest of the listed building and should be resisted.
The proposed scheme by virtue of its position would be harmful to the special interest of the listed building, would be detrimental to the visual amenity of the street scene and would detract from the special qualities of the WHS. The scheme would be contrary to the Section 12 (Conserving and Enhancing the Historic Environment) of the NPPF, policies B1, B4, and CP6 of the B&NES Core Strategy, saved policies D4, BH2, BH17 and BH22 of the B&NES Local Plan and CP6, HE1, D9 of the Placemaking Plan. We would therefore recommend the application be withdrawn or refused.
17/03374/FUL – Stothert & Pitt Recreation Ground Lower Bristol Road Twerton
Enhancement, enlargement of existing access to the site following closure of eastern access. Resurfacing of existing car park and installation of car park lighting
Comment: Whilst we have no objection in principle to the proposals to upgrade facilities at this ground, the Trust is concerned that this application will result in an urbanising effect on a rural and naturally dark edge of Bath. The application itself lacks detail on hours of lighting use, justification of need for lighting (given the pitches are not lit) and also the presence of security cameras which are not detailed in the application. There appears to be a lack of information on car park surface materials (notwithstanding the grasscrete for the overflow area) and we would also recommend that the case officer request some further information on boundary treatments and landscaping in order to mitigate the changes in access and the urbanising effect of the lighting and hard landscaping.
Week 35 2017
17/03955/LBA – 39 Milsom Street City Centre Bath
Internal and external work to repair and restore windows on the front and rear facades
Comment: The Trust welcomes this application to sensitively repair the sash windows to this important listed building and trust that the case officer is satisfied with the method statement and details of the work. Our only comment would be that if the applicant was so minded, a further conservation gain for the listed building could be the reinstatement of traditionally crafted 6/6 sashes to the front facade to complete and unify the appearance of the Somersetshire Buildings architectural composition and therefore enhance both the special interest of the listed building but also the historic streetscape.
17/04000/AR & 17/04001/LBA – The Pig & Fiddle, 2 Saracen Street City Centre
Display of 2 no. externally illuminated hanging signs and 2 no. externally illuminated fascia signs.
Comment: The Trust regrets that this application is retrospective but we broadly welcome the proposals for hand painted signage. There are however a couple of concerns we would like to raise given that there is some anomalies between the drawings and application form detail; firstly the projection of the Broad Street hanging sign appears in situ to intrude further into the streetscape than is suggested in the application drawings and we wonder whether the size of this sign has changed from the that in the application? Secondly we are uncomfortable with the removal of the Union Jack flag to be replaced by a branded flag, as this adjacent to the hanging sign and the window vinyls looks to be branding ‘overkill’ which could be regarded as harmful to the listed building. The Union Jack flag is part of the Pig & Fiddle history and perhaps should be retained.
17/04049/FUL – Brigits Bakery 17 Argyle Street Bathwick Bath
Change of use of the public pathway for use of tables and chairs
Object: The Trust objects to the amount of tables and chairs proposed in this application and also the lack of any assessment of impact on the Grade I listed Pulteney Bridge. We find the amount of furniture proposed to be excessive and also in the wrong position, they should be placed adjacent to the wall of the building and not next to the railings. This allows passers-by to properly appreciate the bridge and surroundings without undue clutter within the view. In our view the furniture should be reduced by at least one table and 4 chairs and the colour of the chairs should be a darker more recessive colour to the less visible when viewed from a distance. We are pleased that the bright pink umbrellas have been removed.
The proposed scheme by virtue of its amount, colour and siting would be harmful to the setting of significant designated heritage assets, would neither preserve nor enhance the character and appearance of the conservation area, would be detrimental to the visual amenity of the street scene and would detract from the special qualities of the WHS. The scheme would be contrary to Section 12 (Conserving and Enhancing the Historic Environment) of the NPPF, policies B1, B2, B4, and CP6 of the B&NES Core Strategy, saved policies D4, BH1, BH2, BH6, BH17, BH21 and BH19 of the B&NES Local Plan and policies CP6, D.2, HE1, D.9, B.4, B.2 of the Placemaking Plan. We would therefore strongly recommend the application be amended or refused.
17/02894/FUL – Bath Sushi Ltd 3 Victoria Buildings Westmoreland Bath
Erection of a single storey rear extension and painting of shopfront, following demolition of existing lean-to rear extension.
Object: The Trust objects to this application on the basis that there is a lack of information on the proposed schedule of works to the shop front and we understand that the lighting now installed was specifically excluded from the last approval for this site. We assume an AR application will clarify the proposed signage for the fascia and we would recommend that only hand painted signage will be acceptable on the listed building. We hope the case officer will request further details and clarity on this application in terms of the proposed works to the front and to ensure that the appropriate actions are taken in line with LPA Guidance.
The proposed scheme by virtue of its lack of proportionate detail would be harmful to the designated heritage asset, would be detrimental to the visual amenity of the street scene and would detract from the special qualities of the WHS. The scheme would be contrary to Section 12 (Conserving and Enhancing the Historic Environment) of the NPPF, policies B1, B4, and CP6 of the B&NES Core Strategy, saved policies D4, BH2, BH22 and BH19 of the B&NES Local Plan and policies CP6, D.4, HE1, D.8, D.9 of the Placemaking Plan. We would therefore strongly recommend the application be amended or refused.
17/04011/FUL – 3 Roundhill Park Southdown
Erection of a single storey front porch and two storey side/rear extension.
Comment: The Trust is concerned regarding the massing of the proposed porch given its impact on the host dwelling and the scarcity of Cornish houses in the city (and therefore the responsibility to where possible retain the legibility of their original form). The proposed porch protrudes out quite far from the building, breaks the surrounding front building line and significantly unbalances the pair. We wonder whether the LPA has an exemplar example of a porch to a Cornish house which allows the owner this extra area of space but which also respects and retains the form and special character of these buildings?
17/02264/FUL – Mawingo, Granville Road
Demolition of existing dwelling and redevelopment for an apartment building comprising 9no. flats, associated works including car parking, amenity space and landscaping
Object: Whilst we note the submission of LVIA’s as we requested in our last response (and also the amendments to building size, design, landscaping and height), the Trust continues to object to this application on the basis of the overall impact of this large building on the visual amenity of the surrounding landscape, AONB and GB. The LVIA’s, whilst thorough in written assessment, fail to show the actual building outline in the views, therefore the assertion that the overall level of effect of the building in long views will be ‘slight (adverse)’ cannot be verified by stakeholders. The building, at 2m higher than its predecessor, will be very visible on the ridge in a corner plot which is currently open, green and relatively undeveloped bar the much smaller low lying bungalow. The justification that the existing built form on the ridge means that development is acceptable by precedent is in our view entirely flawed as it is actually the opposite; the clearly harmful cumulative urbanisation of the ridge should be mitigated by the refusal of further development which would add to and exacerbate the harm already wrought to the green hillside setting of the WHS and the beauty of the open landscape.
The proposed scheme, by virtue of poor quality design, siting, massing and overdevelopment of the plot would be visually harmful to the visual amenities of the surrounding landscape setting, Green Belt and AONB, and would detract from the special qualities of the WHS. The scheme would be contrary to the Section 12 (Conserving and Enhancing the Historic Environment) of the NPPF, policies B1, B2, B4, and CP6 of the B&NES Core Strategy and saved policies GB.2, NE.1, NE.2, NE.3 of the B&NES Local Plan. It is also contrary to policies CP6, D.1, D.2, D.3, D.5, NE2, NE2A, CP8, GB1 of the Placemaking Plan. We would therefore recommend the application be withdrawn or refused.
Week 36 2017
1704218/LBA – Bath Spa Railway Station Dorchester Street Bath
External alterations for the permanent installation of four new Radio Microphone Antennae and two gate-line PCs to enhance the existing Customer Information System (CIS) to include associated new containment where required and making good as appropriate.
Object: The Trust objects to this application on the basis that it is deficient in detail and assessment of impact on fabric and special interest of the listed building. Given that it is a Listed Building application we would expect to see a certain level of detail given the significance of the asset. Whilst we have no objection to the upgrading of technology to the station, we, like BHW, question whether more analysis of both the possibilities of technology and the positioning of equipment could have been undertaken and provided, given the cumulative harm that has been seen at the station by the gradual accretion of surface mounted paraphernalia. This application just adds to the clutter which in our view, if managed in a joined up way by GWR, could perhaps be rationalised as new technology is implemented.
The proposed scheme would be harmful to the listed building therefore it would be contrary to Section 12 (Conserving and Enhancing the Historic Environment) of the NPPF, policies B1, B2, B4, and CP6 of the B&NES Core Strategy and policies CP6, HE1 of the Placemaking Plan. We would therefore strongly recommend the application be amended or refused.
17/04007/LBA – 41 Sydney Buildings Bathwick Bath
Installation of new gas meter and shut off valve on upgraded supply pipe.
Comment: The Trust is concerned at the lack of information in this application regarding how the pipe will enter and exit the vault structures and what possibly harmful impact there will be on the fabric of these areas. It is not really clear from plan or photos what structures (or not) the pipe will pass through. Vaults in Bath suffer from a number of threats but foremost is the unsympathetic insertion of utility service pipes into their structure which affects their historic water –tightness, overall condition and general structural integrity. In addition we question whether the old pipe will be removed to clear the listed structures of clutter and if so what kind of appropriate ‘making good’ will occur.
17/04172/FUL – 4 Cork Street Lower Weston
Provision of loft conversion with rear dormer.
Comment: it does not appear as if the roofscape pattern of this particular terrace has yet had any dormers added however we leave the principle of the acceptability of this type of development and impact on local character to the officer’s judgement. There is an anomaly in the planning application which talks of plain tile face to side and front of the dormer, and in the elevation drawing it details ‘black uPVC horizontal cladding’. We wonder which material is to be used and whether a low quality material such as uPVC should be used if the dormer is to be permitted? We have seen some welcome contemporary materials used on dormers but uPVC is not one of them.
17/04217/FUL – 15 Cranmore Place Odd Down
Change of use from a Residential (C3) 3 bedroom property to a House in Multiple Occupancy (C4) 3 bedroom property (retrospective)
Comment: The Trust comments that this dwelling is within child walking distance of an infants/junior school and playground and therefore in our view should remain a family home.
17/03883/LBA – 6 Lansdown Crescent Lansdown Bath
Removal of bitumen covering on bridge leading to front door. Reinstatement of original pennant stones as existing under bitumen.
Support: The Trust welcomes the proposal to remove the unsightly bitumen layer from this entrance path and the reinstatement of the original or replacement pennant stones (assume these could only be reclaimed). We have a query over the type of jointing mortar mix and whether it needs to have a water proofing element or whether this will be at odds with the weathering performance of the stone. We assume the case officer will know the answer to this question and will request a sample section be installed for review of mortar colour etc.
17/04188/FUL – 25 Shaws Way Twerton
Change of use from 3 bedroom class C3 (Domestic house) to 4 bedroom class C4 (HMO)
Comment: The Trust comments that this dwelling is very close to an infant/junior school and therefore in our view should remain a family home.
Designed by Ice House Design