Oct – Nov 2011

Weeks 41-44

11/03890/LBA – 1 Beauford Square, City Centre, Bath

Internal and external alterations to replace all steel crittal windows to the rear elevations and those overlooking the enclosed areas in addition to all single glazed aluminium units with new double-glazed aluminium framed windows to match existing style and operation, undertake minor masonry and lead repairs externally, install draft proofing to existing timber sliding sash windows and redecorate previously painted facade (at No 1-5 & 21-24 Beauford Square).

COMMENT The Trust is broadly supportive of the works proposed in this application, particularly those to improve the energy efficiency of the modern building and the draught proofing of the sash windows. However, we regret that the applicant has not included a heritage statement with this application to allow for proper assessment of the impact upon the historic character and significance of the listed building. In addition, the lack of detail on methodology or specification for the stone repairs and cleaning is also cause for concern that would need to be dealt with by appropriate Conditions.

11/04318/LBA – 9 Dunsford Place, Bathwick, Bath

Internal and external alterations for the provision of a new timber staircase from ground to basement floors.

COMMENT This application raises a number of questions about the proposed works for which a detailed answer is not provided within the supporting documentation. We are concerned by the absence of any stated methodology or information about how the paint is proposed to be removed from the exterior walls. We welcome the removal of paint from Bath Stone which will allow the material to become permeable again. However it must be removed using an appropriate method, otherwise it could damage the stone, negating any conservational benefit of removing the paint. We would expect the applicant to provide a greater detail within a method statement to ensure this is not the case.

Additionally, though the schedule of works includes the replacement of the existing boiler with a condensing boiler, this application does not make it clear whether this will necessitate a rearrangement of the piping and exhaust arrangements, as other similar works have required, and hence whether there will be any disturbance to or loss of historic fabric in the building with the installation of any pipes or exhaust flues.

We would therefore recommend that further information is submitted and/or conditions attached accordingly.

11/04127/AR – 15 Southgate Place, Bath

Display of 2no illuminated fascia signs and 2no illuminated projecting signs.

OBJECT Whilst the Trust has previously conceded that the Southgate shopping centre is able to tolerate a more unconventional design approach compared to the rest of Bath, we will continue to object to illuminated signs in the conservation area. The proposed illumination of the lettering for this sign is a completely inappropriate form of advertising in the World Heritage Site within close proximity to listed buildings. It is also disappointing to see the poor quality of materials proposed here, principally formed plastic and powder-coated metal – a higher quality of material ought to be expected in the conservation area regardless of the contemporary nature of the building.

The scale of the proposed advertisement is also at odds with the size of each fascia. As proposed, the logo occupies only a small fraction of the space, while the remainder of the fascia is blank and devoid of any visual interest. We would suggest that a design which made use of more of the fascia would help to create a more sympathetic and appealing street-scene.

The inappropriate and visually intrusive illuminated sign and materials would be harmful to the visual amenity value of the location and would neither preserve nor enhance the character of the conservation area. The proposal is considered contrary to policies D2, D4, BH1, BH6, and BH17 of the B&NES Local Plan, PPS5, and the Planning (Listed Buildings & Conservation Areas) Act 1990 and should therefore be refused.

11/03831/LBA – 38 Westgate Street, City Centre, Bath

Internal and external alteration for the installation of 1no alarm box telecommunications microcell antenna to be fixed to the facade of the front elevation of the building to be positioned at the 1st floor level and associated radio equipment to be located internally at basement level.

OBJECT The Trust has a strong objection to the proposed works to install an antenna to the primary facade of this Grade II listed building. We consider that the application is fundamentally undermined by an insufficient justification for the works proposed to this building. The applicant has given their reasons as to why this locale has been selected for the installation of a localised antenna. However, the applicant expresses a fundamental error when stating that because this area is almost exclusively listed that their rationale for selecting the facade of 38 Westgate Street is unimportant. We would expect the applicant to consider whether there were any locations available to them that did not require the loss or disturbance of historic fabric before the proposed location can be justified.

The applicant also has argued that the proposed works promotes sustainability, yet this is questionable if the proposed antenna will have a limited range. Presumably a significant number of such antennae will need to be installed to make it effective, and as such the argument that such development is sustainable comes into question. Certainly, if many more of these antennae are to be mounted there will be a cumulative impact upon the city-centre.

While we recognise the applicant has sought to conceal the antenna from view, this is ultimately not achieved by the design proposed. A ‘painted glass reinforced plastic’ alarm box is not something which could be considered sympathetic or appropriate to the special character this listed building or streetscene, and would be equally as incongruous as the antenna itself, negating the purpose of concealing it from view. The installation of the antenna to the front of the building will also necessitate the drilling of holes into the fabric of the facade. This in an inexcusable loss, particularly if this is to be a temporary installation.

This inappropriate installation would have a damaging impact on the significance of the listed building, and harm its architectural and historic value. It would detract from visual amenity value of this sensitive historic location and would neither preserve nor enhance the character of the conservation area. This application is therefore contrary to policies BH1, BH2 and BH6 of the B&NES Local Plan, PPS5, and the Planning (Listed Buildings & Conservation Areas) Act 1990 and should be refused.

11/04339/REN – Freedom House, Lower Bristol Road, Westmoreland

Renewal of application 02/01160/FUL (Demolition of Technology House, construction of 3 storey office to rear of Albert Villa, and alterations to roof of Albert Villa)

OBJECT The Trust recognises that this application proposes the same design to which we have previously objected. Though we recognise that these proposals have received LBA consent, we maintain and reiterate our objections to the development as proposed.

General comments:

The River corridor offers huge opportunities to help meet Bath’s need for sustainable new commercial development and we support the redevelopment of this site in principle, and the opportunity to enhance the river and create continued access to the river should not be missed.

The Trust is concerned about the piecemeal approach to this development. We think that it would be appropriate to have parallel listed building and planning applications for consideration at the same time.

On review of the submitted documentation it is felt that is not acceptable to submit the same basic supplementary documentation in support of this application. Since the approval of the 2002 and 2008 applications the site constraints and policy context has changed. These proposals and the impact on heritage assets, including listed buildings, conservation area and world heritage site, must now be justified and considered in accordance with the requirements of PPS5.

In addition to Grade II listed Albert Villa, the local context now includes an increased number of buildings listed for their architectural and historic interest including Brunel’s Twerton Viaduct, Station House and Skew Bridge, which were listed Grade II in 2008. The consideration of the impact on the setting of these buildings must now be taken into account by both the applicant and the LPA.

We have no objection in principal to the proposed internal works to Albert Villa or the removal of the dormer window, and the demolition of Technology House should provide the opportunity to enhance the setting of Albert Villa.

Proposed new building:

The proposed office building is of a type and on a scale that reflects existing commercial, retail and industrial buildings in the locality. Whilst low rise bulky buildings exist in this location, they are generally of low quality design. A contemporary approach to the design of new building here is accepted in principle, however we would encourage an approach that raises the standards of commercial design and sets a higher standard for the approach to development of this type.

We are concerned that the proposed massing and roof profile would be of a bulk and design that would not fit at all comfortably with the pattern of traditional and industrial buildings in this location, or complement the setting of Albert Villa. In particular the proposed large area single storey building, combined with a roof profile (sloping with turned-up-ends) which is alien and incongruous to the Bath context is inappropriate.

Whilst we would not expect materials and construction to be completely traditional in this context, the design might better reflect the industrial heritage of the location, and the use of some Bath stone would help the development harmonise with its wider setting. A metal or lead substitute roofing materials are generally acceptable however the finish should be matt/dull and not shiny in appearance. Whilst the standing seams and changes in level would provide some visual interest, the overall roof design profile could be better articulated to achieve much greater coherence with the urban grain and townscape. We would also recommend that any glazing is tinted to minimise glare, light emission and reflectivity.

Finally, we are concerned that this application does not contain enough detail to ensure the quality of the development will be of a high standard, as appropriate for the world heritage site. Details of elements which will affect the appearance of this development, such as materials, eternal finishes and landscaping, should be submitted for consideration and public consultation and rather than agreed by Condition.

The proposed extension buildings cannot be supported in their current form. The unsympathetic design and appearance would fail to make a positive contribution to Bath’s townscape and local distinctiveness, and would have a harmful impact on views across the city, and thus would detract from the setting of the City of Bath Conservation Area, and the special qualities of the Bath World Heritage site. The proposal therefore fails to comply with Policy D2, D4, BH1 and BH6 of the B&NESLocal Plan and PPS5 polices HE7.4, HE7.5 HE9.5, and HE10 and the Planning (Listed Buildings & Conservation Areas) Act 1990 and should be refused.

11/04287/TEL – Street Record, Charles Street, Bath

Installation of 1no DSLAM superfast broadband cabinet (Opposite 19B Charles St)

OBJECT BPT accepts that electronic and telephonic communication are facts of modern life and that above ground installations, such as these DSLAM cabinets, are required to support them. The Trust remains, however, concerned at the multiplicity of applications registered over the past few months for both new broadband & replacement telephone equipment cabinets, at the general lack of consideration for the setting of these cabinets and at their utilitarian nature (without information about material or precise colour). As all the cabinets are within the World Heritage Site and many are within the Conservation Area, care is needed in their siting, in order to preserve and enhance both designations.

In this case, B&NES map is obviously wrongly centred, as Openreach data indicates the DSLAM cabinet is likely to be prominent in front of Kingsmead Hs (which has very recently received consent for demolition) and, thus, harmful to the settings of nos.17-21 Charles Street & Green Park Station.

We consider that the size, appearance and siting of this DSLAM cabinet would detract from the character and setting of the conservation area and listed buildings. As such the proposal is contrary to Policies BH1 & BH2 of the B&NES Local Plan and PPS5, in particular polices HE6, HE7, HE9 & HE10, and the Planning (Listed Buildings & Conservation Areas) Act 1990 and should, therefore, be refused.

11/04283/TEL – Street Record, London Road, Walcot

Installation of 1no DSLAM Superfast Broadband Cabinet on London Road, O/S 14 Lambridge, Bath.

OBJECT BPT accepts that electronic and telephonic communication are facts of modern life and that above ground installations, such as these DSLAM cabinets, are required to support them. The Trust remains, however, concerned at the multiplicity of applications registered over the past few months for both new broadband & replacement telephone equipment cabinets, at the general lack of consideration on for the setting of these cabinets and at their utilitarian nature (without information about material or precise colour). As all the cabinets are within the World Heritage Site and many are within the Conservation Area, care is needed in their siting, in order to uphold the purposes of both designations.

In this case the DSLAM cabinet is unacceptably located adjoining entrance to Whyke House. This gateway is flanked each side by a curved, set-back low wall, already ‘decorated’ with an enlarged telecoms box, a seat for the bus stop & a litter bin; the proposed DSLAM cabinet appears to supplant the seat and would overpower the wall & set-back. Whilst the wall is not specifically mentioned in the LB entry for Whyke House, it does form part of the character of this part of the conservation area.

We consider that the size, appearance and siting of this DSLAM cabinet would detract from the character and setting of the conservation area and listed buildings. As such the proposal is contrary to Policies, BH1, and BH2 of the B&NES Local Plan and PPS5, in particular polices HE6, HE7, HE9, and HE10, and the Planning (Listed Buildings & Conservation Areas) Act 1990 and should, therefore, be refused.

11/04286/TEL – Street Record, Margaret’s Hill, Walcot

Installation of 1no. DSLAM superfast broadband cabinet, on Margaret’s Hill opposite 1 Walcot Parade.

OBJECT BPT accepts that electronic and telephonic communication are facts of modern life and that above ground installations, such as these DSLAM cabinets, are required to support them. The Trust remains, however, concerned at the multiplicity of applications registered over the past few months for both new broadband & replacement telephone equipment cabinets, at the general lack of consideration for the setting of these cabinets and at their utilitarian nature (without information about material or precise colour). As all the cabinets are within the World Heritage Site and many are within the Conservation Area, care is needed in their siting, in order to uphold the purposes of both designations.

In this case, the DSLAM cabinet occupies a prominent sloping site by Hedgemead Park railings & a telecoms box – the submitted photo shows it at an unacceptable angle (requiring a wedge insert to line up with the railings) which would make it even more obtrusive.

We consider that the size, appearance and siting of this DSLAM cabinet would detract from the character and setting of the conservation area and listed buildings. As such the proposal is contrary to Policies BH1 & BH2 of the B&NES Local Plan and PPS5, in particular polices HE6, HE7, HE9 & HE10, and the Planning (Listed Buildings & Conservation Areas) Act 1990 and should, therefore, be refused.

11/03899/LBA – 12 St James’s Parade, Bath

Internal and external alterations to repair and adapt the building as additional changing and storage facilities for the adjacent Mission Theatre and to create an internal connecting doorway between the two buildings.

SUPPORT The proposed works to the exterior look excellent. Much of the existing joinery is to be retained despite its condition which will preserve the architectural and historic interest of the listed building. Sympathetic materials are detailed in the proposal – perhaps aluminium rainwater goods are not ideal, but much better thatUPVC. Although a new door in a previously external wall is proposed, the wall is now internal, and this element of the scheme is justified in the context of bringing a sadly neglected building back into a viable use.

11/03903/AR & 11/03904/LBA – 2 York Buildings, George Street, City Centre

External alterations for installation of concealed lighting.

OBJECT The Trust will continue to object to illuminated signs in sensitive historic locations in the heart of conservation area. That illuminated advertising already existing in this location should not be considered a precedent for such installations upon this listed building. The large picture windows emit sufficient light to draw attention to the building’s use and there is little need for additional illumination. Despite its relatively discreet fitting and position the lighting itself would contribute to higher light levels and detract from both the low-luminous character of the historic townscape, and dark sky over Bath and its setting.

The inappropriate illuminated sign would be harmful to the visual amenity value of the location and would fail to reinforce local distinctiveness and would neither preserve nor enhance the character and appearance of the conservation area. The proposal is considered contrary to policies D2, D4, BH1, BH6 and BH22 of the B&NES Local Plan, PPS5, and the Planning (Listed Buildings & Conservation Areas) Act 1990 and should therefore be refused.

11/04383/FUL & 11/04384/LBA – Friends Meeting House, York Street, City Centre, Bath BA1 1NG

Internal and external alterations to include new external disabled platform lift and new entrance steps and handrails to provide ambulant disabled access at existing eastern entrance, internal alterations at eastern end of ground floor level to form a disabled access toilet and a tea point within the Meeting Room Annexe, installation of gas-fired condensing boiler in the Meeting Room Annexe and flat panel wall mounted radiators in the ground level Meeting Room and basement level Lower Meeting Room following removal of existing balanced flue gas fires and making good existing openings.

COMMENT The Trust recognises the necessity to improve access to the building. The creation of disabled access will allow this important building to continue to be used by its occupants and other members of the community. We accept that this location is sensible to avoid further loss of historic fabric and disruption to the internal plan. However, the Trust would prefer to see railings retained as a means of enclosure, as to retain more traditionally characteristic definition of the street scene, pavement line, and setting. The previously approved solution retained the railings and formed a gate on the existing line. If an alternative which retains railings and still allows disabled access is possible then this is preferred to any proposal which would introduce a new incongruous materials and a glazed door.

11/04259/FUL & 11/04260/LBA – 1 Oxford Place

Internal and external alterations for the provision of new canopy and alterations to return former terraced house to former use.

COMMENT The Trust does not wish to comment on proposed internal alterations. The Trust has no objection to a porch/canopy in principle. However we wish to state a preference for the use of lead rather than a zinc covering to the canopy. Lead is an appropriate traditional material for historic and aesthetic reasons, and it wears and weathers better.

11/04371/FUL & 11/04373/LBA – 20 Marlborough Buildings, City Centre, Bath BA1 2LY

Internal and external modifications to the third floor flat to include the relocation of double dormer, provision of new single dormer, complete parapet wall where missing and internal alterations.

COMMENT The new dormer windows if inserted should follow the original glazing bar pattern rather than 1 over 1. This would begin to restore the fenestration overall.

11/04383/FUL & 11/04384/LBA – 31 St James’s Square, Lansdown, Bath

Internal and external alterations for the erection of a new conservatory plus associated alterations.

COMMENT We note that this application seeks consent to reposition the original sash widow on the ground floor (rear) to the first floor (rear). The Trust queries this as a possible solution to retaining this significant feature, as the aperture above appears to be of a different size. The loss of this window would be of particular concern, and the removal of original windows in their original position is normally resisted. The Trust is content with the design approach to the extension but this contemporary intervention should not result in the loss or damage to the historic building fabric.

11/04397/FUL – Meadowland, 36 Bloomfield Park, Bloomfield, Bath, BA2 2BX

Erection of a double garage.

OBJECT The Trust acknowledges the care that has been put into the preparation of this application, and the range of materials selected is generally sensitive to the location (though clay tiles may be more in-keeping than slate). However, we consider that the garage would be more intrusive into the street scene that is suggested, especially since the long term health of the trees cannot be guaranteed. We are concerned that the position of the garage, which breaks forward of the existing building line would present a visually intrusive form in the streetscape, which would be at odds with the pattern and grain of the townscape. We therefore object to the proposed garage which by virtue of its inappropriate position would have a harmful impact on local townscape character, and fail to enhance the local distinctiveness of the area. The proposal in its current form is therefore contrary to B&NES Local Plan Policies D2, D4 BH1, BH6, PPS5 and the Planning (Listed Buildings & Conservation Areas) Act 1990.

11/04218/FUL – Land Adjoining 73 Marsden Road, Southdown, Bath

Erection of three terraced three bedroomed dwellings.

COMMENT The principle of development of housing in this location is supported. However, we would encourage a more appealing solution to the landscaping design, and regret the choices of materials which include artificial slate and reconstituted stone. In the interest of good design a choice of better quality materials (ie real slate and real stone) is preferred and is in the interest of upholding the special character of the city of Bath World Heritage Site.

11/04258/FUL – Street Record, Lodge Gardens, Odd Down

Provision of new bin store/‘mini recycling centre’ (MRC) and associated link pathway on existing grass area.

OBJECT BPT recognises that the recycling of waste before collection has implications for storage, especially in social housing estates, many of which are set in pleasantly mature landscaping, but which will require multiple storage units. We regret that the applications for MRCs are being submitted piecemeal, without any information about the overall disposition of units within each estate and without any indication that the individual & cumulative effect on the landscaped setting, and thus on ‘the man in the street’ rather than just users and collectors, has been considered. We would expect that, before making any individual decision, the Council would require an overall plan of each estate marked up with MRC units, as well as full details of the units, with the methods used to assess the required capacities, and the rationale for the chosen design & locations. Without such information, and the opportunity for ameliorative amendment, properly considered decisions are impossible.

This is a very obtrusive position at the entrance to a small social housing estate; in addition, it is closer & more intrusive to an adjoining private house than to its users’ properties. The MRC comprises a standard type of open enclosure, with timber fencing (unpainted vertical timber boards with open entry & a bright blue mid panel to car-parking bays – described as a ‘neutral’ colour) around 2 large & 5 small wheelie bins; the ground surface treatment is not mentioned. The space within thisMRC appears very cramped compared to other applications, but the D&A statement gives no indication of the methods used to assess the required capacity, nor the rationale for the chosen design. It is not clear from the application where bins are currently stored – the existing site plan bears no relation to photos. The MRCappears to be positioned more for the recycling operatives’ ease than for residents’ benefit or local street-scape amenity. A non-standard screened array of bins on the other side of the car-park road along the blank wall of Lodge Gardens might possibly be less unacceptable visually, if the existing bin-store area is unsuitable.

As the application site is within the World Heritage Site, care is required in the design of the unit and its disposition, in order that the purposes of that designation be upheld, as is clearly not the case here. Consequently, the application, as submitted, is contrary to B&NES local plan polices BH1, D2 and D4 and should therefore be refused.

11/04235/FUL – 67 Monksdale Road, Moorlands

Provision of new bin store/‘mini recycling centre’ associated with link pathways on existing grass area (67-97 Monksdale Road).

OBJECT BPT recognises that the recycling of waste before collection has implications for storage, especially in social housing estates, many of which are set in pleasantly mature landscaping, but which will require multiple storage units. We regret that the applications for MRCs are being submitted piecemeal, without any information about the overall disposition of units within each estate and without any indication that the individual & cumulative effect on the landscaped setting, and thus on ‘the man in the street’ rather than just users and collectors, has been considered. We would expect that, before making any individual decision, the Council would require an overall plan of each estate marked up with MRC units, as well as full details of the units, with the methods used to assess the required capacities, and the rationale for the chosen design & locations. Without such information, and the opportunity for ameliorative amendment, properly considered decisions are impossible.

This is a regrettable location, adding another lump of ‘clutter’ to that already existing in front of this block of flats, and threatening the future of a mature street tree, which is adjacent to the proposed external path (to be used by recycling operatives) and is ignored on form & drawings. The MRC is a standard type of open rectangular enclosure with timber fencing (unpainted vertical timber boards with open foot entry, ugly & insufficiently detailed double gates to road and 2 bright blue mid panels, described as a ‘neutral’ colour, on the remaining sides) around 2 large, 2 medium & 4 small wheelie bins. The ground surface treatment (for enclosure & paths) is not mentioned and useless ‘green’ strips are left between enclosures and paths. The D&A statement gives no indication of the methods used to assess the required capacity, nor the rationale for the chosen design & location. An alternative position must be considered, as the presently proposed one is deleterious to the local street scene, even if the existing white boarded enclosure (or any replacement) adjacent to 1 Poplar Close were to be removed.

As the application site is within the World Heritage Site, care is required in the design of the unit and its disposition, in order that the purposes of that designation be upheld, as is clearly not the case here. Consequently, the application, as submitted, is contrary to B&NES local plan polices BH1, D2 and D4 and should therefore be refused.

11/04290/FUL – 35 Poplar Close, Moorlands

Provision of new bin store/mini recycling centre (MRC) and associated link pathways on an existing grassed area at 35-58 Poplar Close

OBJECT BPT recognises that the recycling of waste before collection has implications for storage, especially in social housing estates, many of which are set in pleasantly mature landscaping, but which will require multiple storage units. We regret that the applications for MRCs are being submitted piecemeal, without any information about the overall disposition of units within each estate and without any indication that the individual & cumulative effect on the landscaped setting, and thus on ‘the man in the street’ rather than just users and collectors, has been considered. We would expect that, before making any individual decision, the Council would require an overall plan of each estate marked up with MRC units, as well as full details of the units, with the methods used to assess the required capacities, and the rationale for the chosen design & locations. Without such information, and the opportunity for ameliorative amendment, properly considered decisions are impossible.

The proposed MRC is regrettably positioned, this time at top of the close, a point of maximum visibility for neighbouring houses & in full sun, unshaded, behind a lower white horizontally boarded fence. It is the standard type of open enclosure with timber fencing around 2 large, 1 medium & 4 small wheelie bins, using unpainted vertical timber boards with 3 bright blue mid panels (described as a ‘neutral’ colour!) & open entrance. The ground surface treatment is missing (for enclosure & paths). The ‘feature’ blue panels seem totally inappropriate in this site, where attention needs to be deflected not attracted. Alternative less prominent sites should have been shown to have been considered before this one, harmful to the amenity of a sizeable area, was put forward. However, the D&A statement gives no indication of the methods used to assess the required capacity, nor the rationale for the chosen design & location. As the application site is within the World Heritage Site, care is required in the design of the unit and its disposition, in order that the purposes of that designation be upheld, as is clearly not the case here. Consequently, the application, as submitted, is contrary to B&NES local plan polices BH1, D2 and D4 and should therefore be refused.

11/04228/FUL – Longacre House, Snow Hill, Walcot

Provision of new bin store/‘mini recycling centre’ (MRC) on existing grass area.

OBJECT BPT recognises that the recycling of waste before collection has implications for storage, especially in social housing estates, many of which are set in pleasantly mature landscaping, but which will require multiple storage units. We regret that the applications for MRCs are being submitted piecemeal, without any information about the overall disposition of units within each estate and without any indication that the individual & cumulative effect on the landscaped setting, and thus on ‘the man in the street’ rather than just users and collectors, has been considered. We would expect that, before making any individual decision, the Council would require an overall plan of each estate marked up with MRC units, as well as full details of the units, with the methods used to assess the required capacities, and the rationale for the chosen design & locations. Without such information, and the opportunity for ameliorative amendment, properly considered decisions are impossible.

This is a small MRC compared to others so far submitted and the application will presumably soon be followed by others around the Snow Hill Estate. Although each application must be considered on its merits, the piecemeal submission of individual elements of the MRC provision for the estate, without an overall location plan and method statement, is not satisfactory & precludes proper consideration of the units.

Once again a mature ‘street tree’ has been ignored in this application – Q15 is deleted on the form, although the tree is shown on photo & existing site plan; the D&A says ‘landscaping remains the same’ but the future health of the tree must be problematical and the Tree Officers’ advice should be sought. The MRC comprises the standard type of open rectangular enclosure, here 2.6m deep, with timber fencing around 2 large wheelie bins, using untreated vertical timber boards with 3 bright blue mid panels (described as a ‘neutral’ colour) & an open gateway. Blue is an understandable choice of colour here as there are existing blue railings, but the rear panel would be masked by the tree trunk (if this can be retained as it should be). The ground surface treatment again is missing. The D&A statement gives no indication of the methods used to assess the required capacity, nor the rationale for the chosen design & location. Only 2 large containers are proposed, which seems insufficient for adequate segregation of waste, as encouraged by the Council.

This application site is in both the conservation area and the World Heritage Site. Consequently, care is required in the design of the unit and its disposition, in order that the purposes of those designations be upheld, as is clearly not the case here. Consequently, the application, as submitted, is contrary to B&NES local plan polices BH1, D2, D4 and BH6, and the, PPS5, and the Planning (Listed Buildings & Conservation Areas) Act 1990 and should therefore be refused.

11/04233/FUL – 155 Monksdale Road, Moorlands

Provision of new bin store/‘mini recycling centre’ (MRC) on existing slab (155-185 Monksdale Road).

OBJECT BPT recognises that the recycling of waste before collection has implications for storage, especially in social housing estates, many of which are set in pleasantly mature landscaping, but which will require multiple storage units. We regret that the applications for MRCs are being submitted piecemeal, without any information about the overall disposition of units within each estate and without any indication that the individual & cumulative effect on the landscaped setting, and thus on ‘the man in the street’ rather than just users and collectors, has been considered. We would expect that, before making any individual decision, the Council would require an overall plan of each estate marked up with MRC units, as well as full details of the units, with the methods used to assess the required capacities, and the rationale for the chosen design & locations. Without such information, and the opportunity for ameliorative amendment, properly considered decisions are impossible.

The MRC is logically located alongside the garage block, but as shown will involve loss of a mature silver birch tree and banking of the grassed area to accommodate the considerably extended slab. The MRC is, therefore, not ‘on existing slab’ nor will the ‘landscaping remain the same’. The unit is the standard type of open enclosure with timber fencing around 2 large, 2 medium & 4 small wheelie bins, using unpainted vertical timber boards with 2 bright blue mid panels (described as a ‘neutral’ colour) & open entrance; the ground surface treatment is unspecified. Serious consideration should be given to eliminating wasted space within enclosure & building it as a non-rectangular unit which might permit the tree to be retained. The Council’s Tree Officers should be consulted before any decision is made.

The D&A statement gives no indication of the methods used to assess the required capacity, nor the rationale for the chosen design & location. As the application site is within the World Heritage Site, care is required in the design of the unit and its disposition, in order that the purposes of that designation be upheld, as is clearly not the case here. Consequently, the application, as submitted, BH1, D2 and D4 and should therefore be refused.

11/04422/FUL – Clearbrook Farm, Midford Hill, Hinton Charterhouse, Bath & North East Somerset

Use of agricultural land as a natural burial ground (revised resubmission).

OBJECT The Trust retains its objection to the use of this agricultural land as a natural burial ground.

The character and openness of the Green Belt landscape to the environs of Bath is an important contribution to the setting of the World Heritage Site (WHS). The visual impact of structures, signs, bin stores, and car parking and infrastructure associated with this proposal would fail to maintain the openness of the countryside and would be inappropriate. The proposal is therefore in conflict with PPG2, and Local Plan Policies GB1 and GB2. This proposal will have an adverse impact on the special qualities of the wider landscape setting of the WHS, which is of Outstanding Universal Value, and is in conflict with PPS5, and Local Plan Policy BH1. You are reminded that the UNESCO World Heritage Committee’s 2009 report recommended that the State Party enhance the protection of the surrounding landscape of the WHSto prevent any future developments which could have adverse and cumulative impact on the Outstanding Universal Value of the property.

Designed by Ice House Design