Current Planning Applications

May 2017

Week 19 2017

17/01138/REG03 Street Record Southgate Street Bath  

Installation of broadband network access points at various locations across the city

Comment: The Trust recognises the benefits to be brought from having good Wi-Fi throughout the city centre but had some concerns about the impact of the poles and hubs, especially given the prominent historic locationsin which they would be installed. In particular, the application was unclear as to additional height these would add to the existing posts and at which precise sites the alternative extended poles would be used. Photographic information of how the installed equipment would look would have been helpful, especially without the benefit of visiting all of the sites.

17/01966/AR 2 Milsom Street City Centre Bath

Replacement of non-illuminated lettering to fascia

Object: BPT welcomes the sensitive improvement of Bath’s shopping scene. However, we object to the use of poor quality materials such as foamex which are inappropriate on a listed building and degrade the special interest of the World Heritage Site’s historic character. We recommend that signage like this is either in wood or metal lettering or sign-written on the fascia in a traditional manner. The current and proposed lettering is also overbearing on the proportions of the fascia and this could be an opportunity to resolve this with a smaller size.

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 and BH17 of the B&NES Local Plan. We would therefore recommend the application be withdrawn or refused.

17/02064/LBA 8 The Paragon Walcot Bath

Internal alterations for the refurbishment of disused sub-basement into flat

Object: BPT has serious concerns regarding the proposed use of the vaults as a very small apartment. Whilst we do not usually comment on amenity issues, we cannot support the proposed use of the vaults as a habitable space. Not only is this contrary to best practices approaches to the use of vaults, but it also cannot be a healthy and appropriate place to live according to 21st century living standards. In our view this constitutes overdevelopment of the listed building.  Vaults were traditionally storage and service spaces, and in the modern world, the use of vaults for storage, laundry or bathing can be justified on the basis that there is some connection to their past use as ancillary areas to the main house. Whilst we support the appropriate repair and ventilation of the historic fabric of the vaults, we strongly oppose their occupation as a home as this impacts the legibility of the plan form of the house and therefore does in fact devalue its historic significance. This follows our stated position on Vaults In Bath found on our website.

17/02029/FUL The Tumps Bloomfield Road Bloomfield

Installation of 2 No. container units 1 for storage of equipment, 1 as welfare unit as support for BMX track facilities.

Comment: Without the benefit of a site visit, BPT is unable to assess whether the least obtrusive site has been chosen for the containers. We trust that the officers will be able to check this more fully. The application also notes that the colour of the containers is to be decided and we hope this will be selected so that that they are discrete within their surroundings.

17/01909/FUL Pharmacy Royal United Hospital Lower Weston Bath

Demolition of existing pharmacy and construction of the RNHRD & Therapy Centre including hydro pool, landscaping and associated infrastructure

Comment: Naturally the Trust welcomes the great public benefit to be brought from the proposed improvements to the hospital’s facilities. We also appreciate the redevelopment of the present unattractive building given its visible location and the constraints of the site’s space. However, we were concerned by the overshadowing of the main entrance court which the increased height on the new structures would cause. The Design and Access Statement acknowledges that the hospital’s main elevation will be in shade and that massing should maximise light to enclosed spaces, yet the design fails to do so. This might be mitigated by more considered grading of the structures in ascending height towards the main façade. We also felt some concern at the unappealing fenestration design, especially to the entrance (North) elevation and feel that on this public elevation there might be a higher standard of composition.

17/01859/VAR The Chapel – Unoccupied Premises Burnham Rd Twerton

Variation of 2 (plans list) of application 16/02998/FUL

Object: BPT strongly objects to this application to alter the fenestration of the front elevation of the Chapel and that we question the loss of multi-paned sashes to the rear cottage building. Our position all along regarding this non-designated heritage asset has been that we see it as having strong communal, social and historic value as a place of worship and community support in Twerton and subsequently we have strongly supported the retention of the Chapel elevations to allow the building to retain its historic legibility within this townscape.

The loss of the window forms to the front elevation further erodes the building’s connection with its past, and the simple chapel aesthetic that is part of its character. With the longer contemporary front windows, the building may as well, from an external appearance point of view, have been a rebuild as originally applied for. We do not regard these changes as ‘minor’but actually having a significant impact on the character of the building. We object to the loss of these windows and ask that they be retained to allow at least some readable remnants of the chapel to survive (i.e the principle facade), especially given that the east elevation is to be significantly changed with contemporary fenestration. We leave the consideration of the other changes to fenestration on the east elevation to the case officer, though as mentioned, the loss of traditionally detailed sash windows to the cottage are of concern.

The proposed scheme, by virtue of the proposed changes to fenestration, harms the significance of the non-designated heritage asset contrary to paragraph 135 of Section 12 (Conserving and enhancing the historic environment) of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), policies B1 and CP6 of the B&NES Core Strategy and saved policesD2 and D4 of the B&NES Local Plan. We would therefore recommend that the application be refused.

Week 18 2017

17/00651/FUL14 Union Street City Centre Bath

17/00652/LBA

Conversion to 14 – 15 Union Street of existing ancillary retail upper floors to form 4 No. flats; erection of a roof extension to form 1 No. flat; associated internal and external works including a new shop front to No.14; replacement upper storey windows; and new external door and railings to the Union Passage elevation (re-submission)

Object: BPT does not see any reason to change the objection we submitted to the original scheme. In our view the set back corner roof terrace imposes the same harm to the listed building as the previous proposal, and perhaps even more as it oriented on the corner of the principle elevation looking down on the street in an elevated position. Whether or not it is visible from the street level is not relevant, it will be visible at higher level viewpoints from around the city, and will constitute an intrusive, incongruous element to a mansard roof form. Whilst the roofscape of Bath is diverse, it tends to retain a historic character when faced towards principle streets, and the juxtaposition of a traditional mansard roof form interrupted by a modern roof terrace will be discordant and harmful to its historic setting. Setting such a precedent would risk cumulative harm to the traditional rhythm and character of the roofscape of the Georgian city.

It is our view that the proposed roof terrace would harm the special interest of the listed building, it 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 World Heritage Site. The scheme is contrary to Section 12 (Conserving and enhancing the historic environment) of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), policies; B1, B2, B4 and CP6 of the B&NES Core Strategy and saved polices; D4, BH1, BH2, BH4, BH6 of the B&NES Local Plan. We would therefore recommend that the application be refused.

17/01849/LBA 2 Milsom Street City Centre Bath

External alterations to repaint shopfront, fascia, cornice & pilasters and install new fascia lettering

Object: While the Trust welcomes the repair and retention of the city’s shopfronts, we object to the use of poor quality materials like foamex being used in place of a traditional hand-painted fascia. This is an inappropriate material for use in the World Heritage Site and on a listed building, especially in such a prominent location.

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 and BH17 of the B&NES Local Plan. We would therefore recommend the application be withdrawn or refused.

17/01907/AR 26 Stall Street City Centre Bath

Display of 1no.non-illuminated Fascia Panel & New Lettering.

Object: BPT objects to the use of vinyl lettering and plywood for the proposed signage which is inappropriate in the historic setting of the World Heritage Site and on a prominent Listed Building. Better quality materials such as wooden or metal lettering are expected for signage in this setting and for buildings of historic character, or the use of traditional sign-written lettering. These would be preferable and more sympathetic to the surroundings. Likewise, we would rather see the use of better quality hard woods for a timber fascia.

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 and BH17 of the B&NES Local Plan. We would therefore recommend the application be withdrawn or refused.

17/01912/LBA 26 Stall Street City Centre Bath

Internal and external alterations for the amendment to shopfront and new signage.

Object: BPT objects to this proposal which it finds inappropriate to the historic shop-front scene of Bath’s World Heritage Site. Firstly, the use of vinyl lettering and plywood for the proposed signage is inappropriate, especially on a prominent Listed Building. We would expect better quality materials or traditional sign-written lettering and a hard-wood fascia given the shop’s sensitive setting. Furthermore, the hanging sign, for which insufficient details are given, is objectionable by merit of its internal illumination which is inappropriate in the World Heritage Site.

We were also concerned by the insertion of concertina shutters into the shop windows. These will have a detrimental impact on the street, adding to its urban quality, and negatively affect the character of the listed building by detracting from the historic features of the shopfront design.

The reordering of the shopfront constitutes an unnecessary loss of listed historic fabric with only a small convenience in access aiming to mitigate this. The applicant’s heritage statement itself notes that the triple arched façade is unique within this streetscape. This original design contributes strongly to the architectural and historic interest of the listed building and the proposal to change it thus damages this significance and alters its authenticity. We would also expect more thorough details on the joinery and design of the new doors than is provided.

The proposed scheme by virtue of its materials and designs 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, BH19 BH20 and BH21 of the B&NES Local Plan. We would therefore recommend the application be withdrawn or refused.

17/01964/LBA Flat 2   10 George Street City Centre Bath

Internal and external alterations to facilitate installation of Flue to lounge with penetration through rear 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.

17/01918/LBA & 17/01976/FUL8 St James’s Street Lansdown Bath

Internal and external alterations for the conversion of the cafe and maisonette to single dwelling

Support: subject to the correct detailing of reinstated internal and external features, the Trust supports this application to reinstate traditional plan form and architectural features such as timber sash windows and internal joinery, and to generally sensitively refurbish and repair this listed building.

Week 17 2017

17/01823/FUL 8 Dowding Road Larkhall Bath

Erection of side and rear extensions and alterations to existing dwelling

Object: BPT objects to this proposal on the grounds of its design and excessive size within the World Heritage Site and Conservation Area. Design within the Bath Conservation area should reinforce or enhance the local distinctiveness of the surrounding built environment. While we welcome the use of Bath stone finishing to the proposed extension, the design is stark and rectilinear, does not take note of surrounding local character and thus lacks the high-quality expected for improvements in the conservation area. We were also concerned by the extent of the proposals which greatly reduce the open space of the garden and, while nearby houses do feature rear extensions, are of unprecedented size.

 

17/01780/FUL 42 Kempthorne Lane, Odd Down, Bath

Erection of single storey extension to the rear of the existing dwelling

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.  It 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 which this modern development has made efforts to replicate. It would be disappointing to encourage a precedent of poor materials within sensitively designed modern area. Whilst 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.

Week 16 2017

17/01368/LBA & 17/01920/FUL – First & Second Floor Maisonette   20 The Circus City Centre Bath

External alterations to refurbish existing roof garden by installing artificial grass and composite deck and attaching single timber pergola and timber slatted panels following the reduction in size of existing outdoor kitchen unit.

Comment: Without the benefit of a site visit it is very difficult to understand how visible this scheme will be; in particular to the front elevation as it appears to overtop the front mansard roof so could potentially intrude upon long views of the Circus and be visible from nearby upper floors. Likewise it appears to be visible in the gable end as well.  The roof area appears to  have been BPT would strongly object to any application for an addition like this that is at all visible from any viewpoint, especially showing the wooden pergola panels overtopping the mansard roof and thus interrupting the rhythm of the traditional roofscape in this Grade I listed terrace.

 

17/01657/FULTurtle Bay Bath 11 Bridge Street City Centre

Installation of new retractable awning and 3 x Umbrellas to existing outdoor seating area.

Comment: BPT can find no evidence (unless it is registered as a different address or business name) of this outdoor seating being assessed or permitted by a planning officer, and is therefore as far as we are aware, unauthorised. Is the case officer requesting a retrospective planning application for these additions to the public realm?  Aside from whether the tables and chairs are authorised, we regret the privatisation of this area of public realm that was used by picnickers for some years. We assume Waitrose has allowed the land to be used in this way but we feel it is a shame that the courtyard has been overdeveloped and cluttered.

There should be more information in the application on the colour of proposed canvas umbrellas and awning, and there is no information on whether signage on the canvas is proposed, all of which could affect the nature of the additions and add to the overall sense of clutter. We urge the case officer to address our concerns if not already done so.

17/01700/LBA & 17/01701/ARThe West Gate 38 Westgate Street City Centre Bath

External alterations to replace existing public house signage with new

Display of 1 no. brass menu box, 1 no. set of bronze letters and 1 no. brass plaque (all illuminated), 3 no. LED flood lights and 1no. etched glazing vinyl

Object: BPT has no major concerns regarding the proposed new lettered signage as it appears an appropriate clean and contemporary approach to the listed building. However it appears that the applicant is proposing floodlights to the front elevation (fixed at the top of the building) which are unacceptable both in terms of the harmful impact on the appearance of the listed building and also in terms of the character and appearance of the street scene and the overall low illuminated city. We can understand the reasons why the applicant wishes to illuminate the mounted lettering but wonder whether this form of harsh LED wash lighting is the right solution?   We are also concerned regarding the position, size and materials of the hanging sign; it is placed too far up the facade and the use of foamex is inappropriate.  The current hanging sign bracket should be reused as a fixed bus stop arrangement is also incongruous and discordant with the character of the listed building.  The sign should timber and handpainted to help retain local character and distinctiveness; external lighting of this sign is acceptable.  We agree that the application is very poor in terms of the level of detail, inconsistencies and the historic report on the listed building.

The proposed signage, by virtue of the unacceptable hanging sign and the proposed facade illumination would neither preserve nor enhance special architectural interest of the listed building, nor the character and appearance of the conservation area. It 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 D2, D4, BH1, BH2, BH6, BH17 and BH22 of the B&NES Local Plan. We would therefore recommend the application be withdrawn or refused.

17/01690/FUL27A Belvedere Lansdown Bath

Refurbishment of existing building to include creation of roof garden between existing ‘M’ roof slopes

Support: We have reviewed this application in detail though we have not had the benefit of a site visit and so cannot comment meaningfully on the proposed internal alterations. We always try to support the creative re-use of historic buildings to protect their future and in our view the overall conservation benefits of the proposed sensitive and informed repair and refurbishment of this building with traditional materials outweigh any minimal loss of historic fabric. We have reviewed the roof terrace element and have concluded that with the benefit of the high gable ends and new chimney stack, and the mansard roof form, that this roof terrace would be hidden and not be visible in long or short views and therefore can be supported, especially as it would enable contemporary use of this neglected building and bring forward other benefits to the architectural interest of the listed building such as reinstating the chimney stack, sash windows and ironwork, removing inappropriate paint applied to Bath stone, and natural slate to replace concrete tiles. We support the use of slimlite glazing in this instance where the bars will match and reinstate the style and proportions of earlier/original historic glazing pattern and as there is no loss of early historic fabric. We would suggest the case officer conditions any approval to ensure against any roof terrace paraphernalia that could be visible such as umbrellas or awnings.

17/01749/FUL & 17/01750/LB – Weston Garages   1 – 2 High Street Upper Weston Bath

Refurbishment of existing listed building and change of use to C3 residential to form a single 3no. bedroom dwelling house, construction of 1 No. link detached 3 bedroom dwelling house, 3No. terraced 3 bedroom dwelling houses and 3no. 2 bedroom apartments with associated parking, cycle and refuse storage and associated landscaping works.

Object: BPT objects to this application on the basis of overdevelopment affecting the setting of the listed building and poor quality design that fails to reflect its local context. In addition we object to the installation of large sash windows when the windows in the first floor of the listed building are thought to be original and should be repaired and retained and reinstated elsewhere on the elevation. Without the benefit of a site visit we cannot comment on the internal alterations but support the expert opinion of the conservation adviser.

Block 1 completely fails to respect or reference the listed building or nearby historic buildings in terms of the design, styling or materials. We would expect more proportion and symmetry in the fenestration, and the use of white render is unacceptable. The front elevation should be flat with no jutting porch element and the carriage arch should be redesigned with more finesse and it is currently banal.  A more appropriate treatment would be to use rubblestone with ashlar detailing to reflect the character of the listed building. If render is to be used then a Bath stone colour render is more acceptable. The use of dormer windows is acceptable as they relate to context. We object to the loss of any of the historic wall facing Crown Road and agree with the conservation officers comments that the area in front of the listed building should not be used for parking cars as this would be harmful to the special interest of the listed building and how it is viewed within the streetscape.

Blocks 2,3 and 4 appear somewhat too high and therefore overbearing to the rear of the listed building. They should be reduced in height to that of the ridge of the listed building or lower (not the top of the chimney stack). Block 5, 6 and 7 is overly bulky, boxy and tall and therefore fails to respect local townscape pattern, grain and looks incongruous within the streetscape. It appears to be an attempt to shoehorn in extra accommodation at the expense of local townscape considerations. This element should be redesigned to step down towards the Tesco car park to follow local topography and with some form of roof form that is taken from the local vernacular.  The best option is to continue the terraced approach of Blocks 2,3 and 5.  We have no objection to high quality contemporary materials for these blocks to the rear of the listed building but any render should again be a soft Bath stone colour.

The proposed scheme, by virtue of overdevelopment, design and materials, harms the setting of the listed building, would neither preserve nor enhance the character and appearance of the Conservation Area and qualities of local distinctiveness and would detract from the special qualities of the World Heritage Site.  The scheme would be contrary to Section 12 (Conserving and enhancing the historic environment) of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), policies; B2, B4 and CP6 of the B&NES Core Strategy and saved polices; D4, BH2, BH6 of the B&NES Local Plan, and emerging policies CP6, D1, D2, D5, and HE1 of the Placemaking Plan. We would therefore recommend that the application be refused.

Week 15 2017

17/01219/LBA- 8 St John’s Road Bathwick Bath

External alterations for replacement windows with white upvc

Object: The Trust objects to this proposal on the basis that uPVC is not an acceptable material for use on a traditional listed building within the conservation area and World Heritage Site.  It 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. Whilst 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 and the traditional character of the listed building.

The proposed scheme, by virtue of the proposed materials, would harm the special historic and architectural interest of the listed building, would neither preserve nor enhance the character and appearance of the conservation area and detract from the special qualities of the World Heritage site. The scheme would be contrary to the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas Act) 1990, Section 12 (Conserving and enhancing the historic environment) of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), policies; B1, B2, B4, CP6 of the B&NES Core Strategy and saved polices; D2, D4, BH1, BH6 of the B&NES Local Plan. We would therefore recommend that the application be refused.

17/01255/AR- Lamb & Lion 15 Lower Borough Walls City Centre Bath

Display of 1 no. internally illuminated hanging sign and 2no. internally illuminated acrylic signs.

Object: BPT strongly objects to this application as the proposed signage is unacceptable in both materials and the proposed internal illumination. It would appear the applicant is unaware of the Guidance on Commercial Signage SPD that has been recently adopted. The use of acrylic, aluminium and foamex materials is completely inappropriate within the World Heritage Site and conservation area, as is the use of internal illumination. We would expect a public house in this sensitive historic site to employ a traditional and bespoke approach to signage, with a traditional hand painted wooden hanging sign with a discreet external trough light, and high quality non-illuminated metal pin mounted lettering.

The proposed scheme by virtue of its materials and illumination 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 D2, D4, BH1, BH6 and BH17 of the B&NES Local Plan. We would therefore recommend the application be withdrawn or refused.

17/01253/FUL- King Edwards School North Road Bathwick Bath

Siting of 4no. temporary portacabin classrooms for time period of up to 5 years.

Comment: The application provides insufficient information from which to gauge the impact of the proposal. Without the benefit of a site visit the Trust cannot make a fully informed comment. We would note that the school’s site slopes downwards towards the City of Bath and are concerned about whether the siting of the portacabins means they will be visible in long views from the city, and short views in the nearby streets. Similarly we would hope to understand their visual effect on the surrounding school campus buildings. However, from the lack of detail in the application both these considerations are unclear and we would assume the case officer is requesting further information.

 

17/01630/FUL & 17/01631/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.

Comment: In the last iteration of this scheme we commented on the harmful impact of the size and dominance of the proposed extension on the special interest of the listed building. On review of this scheme, with the smaller stepped back extension, we find the revised proposals acceptable though we question whether the secondary doorway still competes with the historic main entrance.  We do not comment generally on internal alterations and leave this to the specialist knowledge of the case officer who has the benefit of a site visit.

17/01051/LBA- Nisbits 1 – 3 James Street West City Centre Bath

External alterations for the display of external advertising to shop.

Object: The proposed signage is excessive and invasive into the street scene, as well as being harmful to the host building with its important retained facade. The proposed use of aluminium and the strident colours all contribute to the harmful impact of the signs. The applicant should take a bespoke approach to their signage in Bath and produce smaller signs in appropriate materials. The corner sign is particularly incongruous and intrusive and should be dropped from proposals. A sign inserted over the central door would be acceptable but we would prefer to see a handpainted timber sign to this elevation. We also object to the hanging sign which is unnecessary and of poor quality materials not in keeping with the Bath palette. Importantly the application is unclear as to how the current WWII plaque would be incorporated alongside the proposed history board.

We suggest the applicant returns to the drawing board with a copy of the Guidance for Commercial Signage in the Conservation Area for use as advice.

The proposed scheme by virtue of its proportion, materials and colour 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 D2, D4, BH1, BH6 and BH17 of the B&NES Local Plan. We would therefore recommend the application be withdrawn or refused.

17/01489/AR- Premier Inn 4 James Street West City Centre Bath

Addition of an internally illuminated folded aluminium fascia with finished Antique black with distressed finish and an internally illuminated double sided projection box sign

Objection: BPT objects to this application as the proposed signage is unacceptable in both materials and the proposed internal illumination. Despite the building in question being modern, the use of acrylic and aluminium is inappropriate within the World Heritage Site and conservation area, as is the use of internal illumination. The applicant should take a bespoke approach to their signage in Bath and produce signs in appropriate materials and with subtle external illumination. We suggest referring to the Guidance for Commercial Signage in the Conservation Area as advice. Furthermore, we object to the intrusive placement of the proposed signage on the front fascia and column of the building while all other secondary signage is within the colonnade. With improved materials and illumination the signage could be relocated here.

The proposed scheme by virtue of its materials, illumination and position 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 D2, D4, BH1 and BH6 of the B&NES Local Plan. We would therefore recommend the application be withdrawn or refused.

17/01665/FUL- 18 Thomas Street Walcot Bath

Loft conversion with rear flat roof dormer.

Comment: BPT are concerned with the change made to the surrounding roofscape by the proposed window additions as the local area is mostly characterised by a mostly unaltered roofscape pattern. The proposal for five new rooflights, however, seems excessive and likely to mean considerable change to the character contributed to the area by this roof and adds to the precedent of permitting such change. Similarly, the proposed rear dormer interrupts the surrounding roofscape which is otherwise of mainly plain slopes and we question whether these additions are appropriate within the conservation area.

17/01619/FUL90 Newbridge Hill Newbridge Bath

Change of Use from Nursing Home (Class C2) to Guest House/B&B (Class C1) of 88-90 Newbridge Hill including erection of rear conservatory to form dining area and alterations to roof to form additional bedrooms. (Retrospective) (Resubmission)

Object: BPT objects in the strongest terms to the proposed alterations to the south roofscape of this attractive traditional building. The applicant has installed strange balcony style windows which intrude upon the view of the principal elevation and form deep glazed voids in the roofscape.  This is a highly dangerous precedent which if allowed could see roof openings and ‘balconies’ such as these change the quality and character and therefore the local distinctiveness of this area.  The fact that this harmful unauthorised work has already been done is also regrettable as this shows a lack of regard for the planning system.  We strongly urge the case officer to instruct the applicant to refuse and reverse these additions to the southern elevation, only rooflights should be acceptable on this elevation (and only rooflights were permitted in the original application). The rear roof window rooflight voids are a further concern but as they are located away from the main streetscene and on the rear of the property these are just about acceptable.

We hope that the decorative historic door canopies will be retained as they also contribute to the value and interest of this non-designated heritage asset. They are not included on the submitted drawings.

The proposed scheme, by virtue of the void rooflights to the southern elevation, harms the historic and architectural interest of the non-designated heritage asset, would neither preserve nor enhance the character and appearance of the conservation area and detract from the special qualities of the World Heritage site. The scheme would be contrary to the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas Act) 1990, Section 12 (Conserving and enhancing the historic environment) of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), policies; B1, B4, CP6 of the B&NES Core Strategy and saved polices; D4, BH1, BH6 of the B&NES Local Plan. It is also contrary to Policy D.2 (paras a and f specifically) and HE.1 of the Placemaking Plan. We would therefore recommend that this element of the application is amended or withdrawn or the application be refused.

17/01617/FUL  – Land At Rear Of Thornbank Place Thornbank Gardens Westmoreland Bath  

Erection of split level residential development on an existing brownfield site, to provide a single 3 bedroom dwelling.

Support: BPT supports this application for an innovative and well designed contemporary dwelling that is designed to sit comfortably and unobtrusively within its context. The use of appropriate contemporary materials in conjunction with traditional walling and a detailed planting scheme references and respects the Bath palette of colours and materials. We are always pleased to see creative modern designs which contribute positively to, and enhance the conservation area and therefore the WHS.

17/01544/FUL32 Broadmoor Lane Upper Weston   

Creation of a driveway and access.

Comment:  This section of the lane is characterised by banked gardens with retaining walls and the break in this locally distinctive pattern which is a positive attribute would impact harmfully on the character of the area.  The addition of hard landscaping would also harm the visual amenity  of the streetscape. For this reason and the setting of precedent we would recommend that this application is refused.

Week 14 2017

17/00707/LBABluecoat House Sawclose City Centre Bath

External alterations for the erection of a flag pole over the entrance portico, the addition of a non-illuminated direction sign and 2no free standing menu boxes

Object: The Trust objects to the provision of a flag to the front elevation of the listed building. Not only would this intrude upon and detract from the special architectural interest of the elaborately crafted facade but it is an inappropriate unnecessary feature and could also harm historic fabric. We have a general concern regarding the amount of written signage proposed by the applicant, and would urge that this is rationalised somewhat in order to declutter the facades and entrance, this could include some plain and some branded banners enclosing the tables & chairs.  The two menu boxes seem somewhat awkwardly placed on the pavement and we object to their illumination, perhaps a better solution would be an A-Board or menu box placed close to the blocked door way which can then be put away when the business is closed (thus negating the need for signage on the blocked doorway).  We note boxes are suggested in the outdoor area, and that these are not included in the drawings.

The proposed flag would harm the special architectural interest of the listed building, would neither preserve nor enhance the character and appearance of Conservation Area and is therefore contrary to Section 12 (Conserving and enhancing the historic environment) of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) and saved policy BH2, BH17 of the B&NES Local Plan. It is also contrary to emerging policies D2, HE1, D9 of the Placemaking Plan. We would therefore recommend that this element of the application is refused and that the applicant is required to ‘tone down’ their proposals with regards signage in accordance with principles contained in the SPD Guidance on Commercial Signage and Tables & Chairs in the Conservation Area.

 

17/01531/FUL & 17/01532/LBA – Yammo 66 Walcot Street Bath

Refurbishment of the existing building including the reopening of two existing blocked up openings to the external courtyard, the repair and improvement of the existing timber structure, the alteration of a set of stairs and the construction of an additional W.C. Improvements to the existing basement level kitchen to include the provision of adequate ventilation and drainage systems.

Comment: BPT concurs with BHW that the applicant should consider, as part of their improvement works to remove the paintwork to allow the stonework to breathe, using a specialist contractor. We note the bi-fold door/window idea has been dropped from the scheme.

In relation to the outside room, it is difficult to envisage this element without a site visit, and we question why the roof covering needs to be timber tongue and groove as this may look somewhat odd as a roof material?

17/01538/LBA & 17/01537/FULBoots The Chemists 34 – 35 Westgate Street City Centre

Internal and external alterations to install 9 no. internal sliding grilles in RAL 9010 (white) to front elevation.

Object: BPT understands the issue of security for this pharmacy but we do question the location of these security grilles directly adjacent to the shop windows, as this will directly impact on and intrude onto the appearance and interest of the listed building, be detrimental to the visual character of the street scene and would deaden the frontage when the business is closed. We wonder whether the grilles could be set back somewhat into the shop front reveal with displays in front in order to give the shop frontage a less imposing appearance. Or whether grilles could be installed around the pharmacy supplies area itself?

By virtue of their position the security grilles harm the architectural significance of the listed building, would neither preserve nor enhance the character and appearance of Conservation Area, would be detrimental to the visual amenity of the street scene and would detract from the special qualities of the World Heritage Site. The scheme would be contrary to Section 12 (Conserving and enhancing the historic environment) of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), policies; B2, B4 and CP6 of the B&NES Core Strategy and saved polices; BH2, BH6, BH21 of the B&NES Local Plan.  We would therefore recommend that the application be refused or amended.

17/01445/LBA – Cleveland House Sydney Road Bathwick Bath

Provision of lighting to the tunnel under Cleveland House. (Regularisation)

Comment:  BPT is broadly supportive of the concept of lighting this tunnel and recognise that creative, reversible lighting can add to general enjoyment of the heritage asset without undue harm. However we have a number of comments or concerns regarding this application:

As a matter of general principle, we regret that works to install this lighting to a known listed asset was done without permission, and that this application is retrospective.

We question whether these light fittings are the best type for the purpose as they are very utilitarian in nature and slightly crudely surface mounted. They have the air of a temporary installation.

The placing of the lighting does not directly illuminate the pathway, and by lighting the tunnel arch can make the actual pathway surface relatively darker. A safety-led solution would need to illuminate the pathway more clearly.

If the intention is to add to the general gaiety of the scene, we would prefer a joined-up approach to lighting the group of tunnels in Sydney Gardens.  This would help enliven this part of the canal, and improve the attraction to visitors especially at night. Historically Sydney Gardens drew crowds to its ‘illuminations’ in the old pleasure gardens.  Perhaps the applicant could liaise with the Sydney Gardens HLF Masterplan team to look at a joint project?

If granted permission, a mechanism needs to be designed through conditions if necessary which bind the new owner of Cleveland House to their tunnel lighting responsibilities, including maintaining the strict hours of operation, and be required to regularly maintain the lighting installation and the historic fabric of the tunnel.

17/01460/FUL & 17/01461/LBA- 50 Sydney Buildings Bathwick

Erection of lower ground floor and first floor extensions, removal of the greenhouse, the glass roof to the vaults at the front, installation of a traditional iron staircase down to the vaults and internal works

Support: Without the benefit of a site visit, we cannot comment in detail on each element of this application but we support the overall principle of this work to fully repair this listed building, remove damaging paint work, remove harmful additions, reinstate traditional materials and features, return the vaults and concrete floors to a non-tanked state, and generally enhance the asset and better reveal its significance. We also commend the applicant on a well detailed and researched Heritage Statement and their clear understanding of the best practice approach to repairing the heritage asset.

 

17/01542/FUL & 17/01543/LBA – Cedar Park Care Centre 27 – 28 Oldfield Road Oldfield Park Bath

Erection of replacement two storey block and additional two storey extensions to the south and east with retained buildings to be refurbished and augmented following demolition of existing central link building.

Comment: We note this application appears only marginally different to the previous refused application and on balance we would not disagree with the case officer’s previous concerns regarding overdevelopment of the site impacting on the listed building and conservation area.

We repeat our previous concerns regarding the proposed materials for the extensions to the building. It appears that render, cast stone and recon stone detailing are proposed and we would comment that these are not appropriate materials for a prominent development attached to a listed building within a conservation area as they have a low quality appearance and poor longevity which will result in harm to the listed building.  In order to retain the character and appearance of the conservation area, and to preserve the special interest of the listed building, we would recommend that Bath stone ashlar is used on all outward facing elevations, with render to the rear if appropriate.  Detailing such as quoins and cills should also be crafted Bath stone.

We draw your attention to the appeal decision for Gibbs Mews a housing development in the Bath Conservation Area where the Inspector concluded that the use of natural local stone is necessary and reasonable. The Inspectors report states that “Reconstituted stone is not natural stone. While it may seek to replicate and reflect natural stone, its different appearance and behaviour becomes increasingly obvious with time, when the natural processes of weathering reveal the inferiority of the artificial product. This can be seen in a number of twentieth century buildings in the city and, as the Council stated at the hearing, such examples illustrate why natural stone is routinely required for new development in the Conservation Area.”

We also comment that there appears to be little justification for the moving of the (listed?) gate pier and question whether an ‘in’ and ‘out’ arrangement could not be put in place to avoid changes to the layout and appearance of the frontage of the listed building. We also note the lack of a landscaping scheme, though this may be a LPA website issue.

17/01468/FULLand Between Lambridge House And River Avon London Road West    

Erection of a detached dwelling

Object: BPT objects to this application on the basis of poor quality design and an insufficiently detailed application. This site is quite exposed within the mostly undeveloped green riverscape and is within the setting of a listed building and as such, the proposed building should be designed to assimilate harmoniously into its surroundings. The box like flat roofed dwelling is bland and poorly detailed; we see a lost opportunity here for a contemporary low rise eco-house with true green credentials (rather than just a green roof) and the creative use of materials appropriate to a rural location.

We also object to the poor detail of the application which provides no Landscape Visual Impact Assessment and makes no effort to detail how the applicant has considered the impact of the dwelling in the context of the setting of the listed building or the conservation area.

The proposed scheme, by virtue poor quality design, would be contrary to and intrude upon the special rural verdant character of the riverscape and the setting of the listed building, and would detract from the special qualities of the World Heritage site and its green setting. It fails to respect qualities of local distinctiveness nor to relate well to its context. The scheme would be contrary to policies CP6 of the B&NES Core Strategy regarding high quality design and landscape, and saved polices; D2, BH2, BH6, D4 of the B&NES Local Plan. We would therefore recommend that the application be refused.

 

17/01052/FUL11 Rush Hill Southdown

Creation of driveway with hard standing including partial demolition of front wall

Comment: The streetscape in this location is characterised by a pattern of low walls and green front gardens which provide a distinctive feature. Given that there appears to be back road access to this property (with a garage?) we strongly question the need to break this pattern and introduce an alien feature in the form of hard landscaping which will not enhance the host building or the local streetscape.

This application is contrary to Policies D.2 and D.4 of the Local Plan as it does not respond to local context nor complement attractive local qualities (in this case the undeveloped front gardens), and the character of the public realm is not maintained.

 

17/01312/FUL58 Hillcrest Drive Southdown

Loft conversion and erection of a rear dormer.

Comment: The proposed box dormer appears to be overdevelopment of the dwelling, as it will take over the whole of the roof slope and looks to sit above the ridgeline.  It will appear top heavy and awkward.  Whilst we understand the householders desire to increase living space we would recommend that the proposed addition is reduced in size to assimilate with the host building more comfortably.

April 2017

Week 13 2017

17/01003/LBA19 Milsom Street City Centre Bath

Internal and external alterations to fit-out a retail unit and install a replacement internal staircase. Retaining existing fascia panel and repainting in heritage grey colour. Installing new signage in metal fret cut letters. Retaining existing shop front , repainting heritage grey and making good where necessary. Retaining existing door, repainting heritage grey and installing new timber door handles. New hanging sign to be installed. New lighting, HVAC and flooring throughout the whole unit. New staircase. Retaining existing skylights on the ground floor. Lowering the floor at the back of ground floor to match the floor level of the rest of the ground floor.

Object: The Trust objects to this application on the basis of materials and the proposal for the hanging sign. Our position on hanging signs in Milsom Street is detailed in our position statement which has been uploaded to the documents section of this submission. Given the architectural rhythm of this historic street, and the relative lack of hanging signs cluttering the elevations, we strongly object to the addition of any hanging signs on Milsom Street.  Given the character of the street as a prestigious shopping destination, we do not see the proposed use of acrylic based lettering to be appropriate as this has a low quality appearance. Whilst we do not have an in principle objection to good quality pin mounted metal lettering we would prefer, given the sensitive historic location, to see traditional hand painted lettering on this attractive shop front.

The proposed scheme, by virtue of the hanging sign and materials, harms the significance of the listed building, would neither preserve nor enhance the character and appearance of Conservation Area, would be detrimental to the visual amenity of the street scene and would detract from the special qualities of the World Heritage Site. The scheme would be contrary to Section 12 (Conserving and enhancing the historic environment) of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), policies; B2, B4 and CP6 of the B&NES Core Strategy and saved polices; BH2, BH6, BH19 of the B&NES Local Plan.  We would therefore recommend that the application be refused.

17/01286/AR6 – 10 Westgate Buildings City Centre

Installation of 5no internally illuminated brand signs and 1no. internal illuminated projecting sign onto exterior of building

Object: This application is a prime example of where a bespoke approach appropriate to the World Heritage Site should be adopted.  BPT objects strongly to this proposed signage on the basis of inappropriate amount, materials and illumination.  The use of signage and ‘flex face’ boxes affixed to the stonework of the building is excessive and clutters not only the street scene but the architecturally interesting elevations of the non-designated heritage asset.  The use of internal illumination in the conservation area is also completely contrary to policy contained in the Commercial Signage SPD as is the proposed use of low quality materials such as aluminium and acrylic.  We would recommend that if needed, good quality metallic pin mounted non-illuminated lettering could be located on each elevation but without the clutter of the logo box as well.  We understand vinyls that blank out upper floor windows are also proposed, which will impact on the vitality of the street scene and in our view could be used more effectively for advertising the business than the signage proposals currently being reviewed. The hanging sign could be better placed away from the keystone to avoid cluttering the rusticated entrance and should be of traditional signpainted timber.

The proposed scheme by virtue of its location, materials, colour and illumination 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 D2, D4, BH1, BH6 and BH17 of the B&NES Local Plan. We would therefore recommend the application be withdrawn or refused.

17/01319/LBA17 Old Orchard Street City Centre Bath

Internal and external alterations for the refurbishment and conversion of the basement into 1no self contained apartment. (Revision to conversion works approved as part of 14/03976/LBA).

Comment: BPT does not usually comment on internal alterations as we do not have the benefit of a site visit but in this case we would like to point out that the history of changes to the basement area should not be used as justification for further significant changes to the plan form. The protection of legible historic plan form and surviving in-situ historic fabric is an important consideration, regardless of what has gone on before (including lateral conversion). We know the conservation officer, with the benefit of the site visit will be able to properly assess the harm versus conservation benefits and make a judgement accordingly.

17/01449/ERES – Former Ministry Of Defence Ensleigh Granville Road Lansdown Bath  

Reserved matters application for a 72 dwelling extra care facility (subsequent to application 14/01853/EFUL).

Comment: BPT welcomes this reserved matters application and we are broadly supportive of the design details and materiality proposed. We question the protuberance of the glazed lantern as it looks disproportionately high and ask whether this element should be slightly redesigned so that it assimilates in a more natural way with the rest of the scheme and the landscape around. We support its contemporary appearance. We ask how this lantern is proposed to be lit and whether it will intrude into the night sky; in our view nothing should compete with the lit Beckford’s Tower in the Lansdown skyline at night.

We commend the intention to use natural slate tiles on the roof and hope that this element will not be value engineered out at the construction phase. We hope this can be conditioned in any grant of approval.

 

17/01313/OUTGreen Hedges 5 Grosvenor Bridge Road Lambridge

Demolition of existing house and swimming pool to facilitate the erection of 4no. dwellings and associated works (Outline with all matters reserved).

OBJECT: BPT repeats our previous objection from 2014. The Trust considers the principle of developing four dwellings at this location to be acceptable and we were pleased to participate in pre‐application consultation with the architect of these proposals. However, we are very concerned about the use of an Outline application for these proposals. Many key details are to be determined under this permission with all matters reserved. A full planning application seems more appropriate than an Outline application as this would allow for a full and proper assessment of the impact. We are very concerned to see that no materials have been specified in this Outline matters application. This leaves this development open to the abuse of using cheap and unsightly materials which will result in a degraded finish to a potentially admirable scheme. We feel strongly that the materials to be used must be specified at this stage to ensure that designs are followed through to the highest quality outcomes.

In addition the Design and Access statement states that this scheme conforms with both D.2 and D.4 of the Local Plan and we would disagree because without detail on materials the scheme and its appearance and impact on surroundings cannot be properly assessed.

Week 12 2017

17/00940/FUL & 17/00980/LBA – 7 Vineyards Walcot Bath

Installation of new gas supply for possible future use, replacing existing.

Comment: It is quite difficult to understand from the drawings how the proposed works will impact on the historic fabric and structure of the vault. Bath’s vaults have been seriously compromised over the years by the insertion of various pipes and cables to provide services to the adjacent dwelling house.  These insertions, often poorly done and with little thought for historic fabric, have broken the structural integrity of vaults and allowed water to ingress, therefore often exacerbating internal problems.  In this case it is not clear whether the new gas pipework will re—use old in-situ pipework from the mains supply through the vault, or whether new pipework will be inserted.  If new, then we strongly urge the case officer to be assured that all works will respect and retain all historic fabric and be either surface mounted and fully reversible, or that some other acceptable conservation focused solution will be found.

17/01255/ARLamb & Lion 15 Lower Borough Walls City Centre Bath

Display of 1 no. internally illuminated hanging sign and 1no. internally illuminated acrylic sign

Object: BPT strongly objects to this application as the proposed signage is unacceptable in both materials and the proposed internal illumination. It would appear the applicant is unaware of the Guidance on Commercial Signage SPD that has been recently adopted. We would also comment that there are inconsistencies and inaccuracies in the application that need to be checked. The use of acrylic, aluminium and foamex materials is completely inappropriate within the World Heritage Site and conservation area, as is the use of internal illumination. We would expect a public house in this sensitive historic site to employ a traditional and bespoke approach to signage, with a traditional hand painted wooden hanging sign with a discreet external trough light, and high quality non-illuminated metal pin mounted lettering.

The proposed scheme by virtue of its materials and illumination 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 D2, D4, BH1, BH6 and BH17 of the B&NES Local Plan. We would therefore recommend the application be withdrawn or refused.

 

17/00397/LBA25 Sydney Buildings Bathwick Bath

Internal and external alterations for the removal of modern rear single storey conservatory and shower room, forming new shower room within the front vault, removal of external s&vp and waste pipes and repositioning internally, stone cleaning the front elevation including the painted ground floor, reroofing by removing the asbestos slates and concrete tiles and replacing with natural slates and second hand double roman clay tiles and chimney repairs including replacing section of RBS blocks with ashlar.

Comment: BPT is supportive of the proposed works which look to enhance the special interest of the listed building with sympathetic repairs, the removal of unsightly modern additions and the reinstatement of traditional materials. Our only comment would be that we cannot see any details in the application of the proposed method for removal of paint from the elevations. Of course this should be done by a conservation led stone cleaning specialist who should produce a survey of the affected areas, along with a method statement and apply their chosen method to a test area first.

17/01193/FULKilowatt House North Road Bathwick Bath

Remove painted wooden gates installed at some time in 2002 and replace with painted steel gates that are in keeping with style of building.

Support: The proposed new gates take reference from the architectural detailing of the building and in our opinion enhance and better reveal the special interest of the building and its setting.

17/00907/FULMarlborough House Guest House 1 Marlborough Lane Kingsmead

Repair and rebuilding of the front boundary wall following storm damage (Retrospective)

Comment: BPT regrets the gradual and cumulative erosion of wall frontages in Bath.  In this case an extra small car space has been created. Whilst this is beneficial for the business it does represent a loss to the distinct local streetscape character which cumulatively affects the conservation area.

17/01149/ARSainsburys Supermarkets Limited Green Park Station Green Park Road City Centre Bath Bath

Display of 3x internally illuminated totem signs, 2x non illuminated way finder signs and 2x internally illuminated welcome wall panels to replace existing.

Object: BPT continues to campaign against excessive corporate signage overtaking the World Heritage Site. Whilst we sympathise with the commercial imperative for advertising the PFS and the supermarket and we understand this application looks to upgrade and add to already existing signage, the materials and internal illumination of these totems are at odds with the character and palette of Bath as a whole. We would prefer to see external illumination if any on the totems and a bespoke approach adopted that would consider the special qualities of the World Heritage Site and how signage can be developed to enhance rather than detract from the street scene. The recent application for the signage at the Mero Business Park springs to mind, where the applicant took advice from the LPA and local heritage groups in order to create a bespoke externally lit totem that was contextually relevant in terms of materials and appearance.

The proposed scheme by virtue of its materials and illumination 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 D2, D4, BH1, BH6 and BH17 of the B&NES Local Plan. We would therefore recommend the application be withdrawn or refused.

 

17/01204/FULOnega Centre Upper Bristol Road Lower Weston Bath

Erection of apartment block accommodating 44 No. residential apartments (Class C3); a ground floor café / restaurant (Class A3); and associated works following the demolition of the existing buildings

Comment: BPT finds this application broadly acceptable and we welcome the repair to Upper Bristol Road and the cafe and public realm element which will bring animation and interest to this part of the riverside walk and enhance the setting of the listed bridge. We have some comments and observations as follows:

  • Noting the copper coloured metal cladding we question the use of this and ask how it relates to Bath and the Bath palette of materials?
  • We question whether the Upper Bristol Road roofscape should be roofed in natural slate rather than metal cladding
  • We would welcome more verticality to the roofscape on the Upper Bristol Road elevation, and some refinement of the profiles of the large gables at each end of the building
  • As this street is heavily used by pedestrians, we question whether there is any traffic calming provisions to ensure that access to resident parking is the only reason cars would be using this road
  • We note that there the affordable housing element is still being discussed and we strongly urge the developer to ensure that there is an acceptable level affordable housing provision for this site.

Week 11 2017

17/00914/LBA – Ground Floor Flat   30 Daniel Street Bathwick

Internal and external works for the installation of gas central heating, underfloor soundproofing, refurbishment of windows and reinstate coving and skirting. New bathroom, revert flat back to original layout with bedroom at the rear and front room to living/kitchen area and a new front door.

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.

17/00853/ARNisbets 1 – 3 James Street West City Centre Bath

Display of non-illuminated new fascia panel advertisement, non-illuminated projecting sign and window vinyl’s to 1-3 ground floor James Street West, Bath

Object: The proposed signage is excessive and invasive into the street scene, as well as being harmful to the host building with its important retained facade. The proposed use of aluminium and the strident colours all contribute to the harmful impact of the signs. The applicant should take a bespoke approach to their signage in Bath and produce smaller signs in appropriate materials. The corner sign is particularly incongruous and intrusive and should be dropped from proposals. A sign inserted over the central door would be acceptable but we would prefer to see a handpainted timber sign to this elevation. We also object to the hanging sign which is unnecessary and of poor quality materials not in keeping with the Bath palette. Importantly the application is unclear as to how the current WWII plaque would be incorporated alongside the proposed history board.

We suggest the applicant returns to the drawing board with a copy of the Guidance for Commercial Signage in the Conservation Area for use as advice.

The proposed scheme by virtue of its proportion, materials and colour 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 D2, D4, BH1, BH6 and BH17 of the B&NES Local Plan. We would therefore recommend the application be withdrawn or refused

17/01123/LBATheatre Royal Sawclose City Centre Bath

External alterations for the addition of a new downpipe to the main entrance canopy

Comment: Having reviewed this application we question whether the proposed additional drainpipe should be a Bath stone colour rather than white given its prominent location on the Grade II* building, or whether this is an opportunity to fit a traditional styled cast metal downpipe and hopper with a heritage lead grey appearance in both location

 

Designed by Ice House Design