June – July 2011

Weeks 23-26

11/02117/FUL & 11/02118/LBA – 28 New King Street, Bath

Reinstatement of original mansard roof (Resubmission)

COMMENT The Trust supports, in principle, proposals to reinstate the mansard roof and replacement windows which will restore the character and group value of the listed terrace and enhance the appearance of the conservation area. We regret that we cannot fully support this application as it fails to provide satisfactory historic evidence in support of the proposals (in accordance with planning policy, PPS5). The Trust also feels that the application should provide more information regarding the choice of materials, particularly the natural slate stated in the proposed elevations.

11/02008/FUL – Rifle Range, Sports Training Village, University Of Bath Campus, Claverton Down

Erection of 2no. timber storage sheds.

COMMENT The Trust recognises the operational requirement for these sheds, and raises no objection to this proposal provided that any potential views of (especially) the larger shed from open country are fully mitigated by planting further native tree/shrub between boundary & footpath near end of bobsleigh, and finishing the sheds either as natural timber or with tree-green stain.

11/02095/AR & 11/02096/LBA – 2 Northumberland Buildings, Wood Street, City Centre

Display of 1no. cut-out letter sign, 1no. swing sign and 1no. brass plaque.

OBJECT The Trust objects to this application because of its inappropriate and detrimental impact upon the primary facade of this listed building, and the detriment it would cause to the Conservation Area and World Heritage Site. We consider that the size of the steel-cut out lettering proposed is excessive, further the amount proposed will be overly dominant for this important and distinguishing facade. The satin finish of the steel cut-out letters is also seen as unsuitable for a listed building, and a matt or eggshell finish would be more appropriate. Furthermore, the screwing of the lettering into the wall with steel rawlplugs as proposed will cause permanent damage to the building, which should be avoided. The cut-out sign proposed is also excessive and would interrupt the street-scene and the aesthetic progression of this grade II* listed terrace. The Trust does not object to the proposed brass plaque at the front door.

The proposals are therefore contrary to, Policies D2, D4, BH1, BH2, BH6 and BH 17 of the B&NES Local Plan, Policies HE7.5 HE9.5, and HE10 of PPS5, and the Planning (Listed Buildings & Conservation Areas) Act 1990 and should be refused.

11/02024/FUL – 6 Sion Hill, Lansdown, Bath

Erection of car port (Retrospective)

OBJECT The Trust objects to this retrospective application, which as proposed and undertaken here, is of an unacceptably poor quality in design, materials, construction and finish, which will detract from the visual amenity value and architectural and townscape character of this area. The Trust takes a dim view of this breach of planning control, and this application having to be lodged retrospectively.

Given the visual prominence of this location in the City of Bath, Conservation Area, World Heritage Site and the close proximity of listed buildings, we consider that this location requires sensitively designed development. The form of the car-port, which has been built as a lean-to canopy, is particularly unsympathetic to the existing garage, and that the roof now extends from the original peak creates a slop-sided appearance. Though in its original form the garage had little historic or aesthetic value, this development transforms it from a neutral building to a negative building which detracts from its surroundings. This is compounded by the poor choice of inappropriate materials, including timber-board and cement sand render, which are not harmonious with the palette of traditional materials in the Conservation Area. No details about any proposed finishes to the timber gables and supports are detailed within the application. The visual incongruity of this structure severely detracts from the street-scene of Sion Hill, particularly as approached from the east where it will be visually intrusive.

Furthermore, although it is clear from photographs and the application that some occupation or use of the building is intended, it does not express the capacity and details of any use or changes to the existing garage structure. Hence, the Trust feels that insufficient information has been provided regarding this application, severely hampering any appraisal of these proposals.

With the above in mind, we consider that this application fails to enhance local distinctiveness; it and neither preserves nor enhances the character or appearance of the City of Bath Conservation Area; and, it would have a detrimental impact on the Outstanding Universal Value of the World Heritage Site. The proposal is therefore contrary to policies D.2, D.4, BH.1, BH.2 and BH.6 of the B&NES local plan and PPS5, and the Planning (Listed Buildings & Conservation Areas) Act 1990, and should therefore be REFUSED.

11/02170/LBA – 24 Sion Hill, Lansdown, Bath

External alterations for the repair/replacement of 6no. sliding slash windows and reintroduction of intermediate glazing bars.

COMMENT The Trust supports the principle of restoring glazing bars to this grade II listed building. The existing joinery is in a poor condition and does not contribute to the special character of the building. It is suggested that this be considered as an opportunity to install slim-line double glazing, as a measure to improve the energy efficiency of the building and contribute to the City’s carbon reduction targets. The greater weight of this double-glazing should not prevent the use of astragal glazing bars. On the other hand, heavier double-glazing pane by pane may result in the need for a slightly heavy meeting rail, but horns should be rejected as these were a Victorian innovation.

However, the Trust regrets that this application has not provided sufficient or necessary detail to consider its impact. There is little to no assessment of the heritage value of this building, or the impact of the proposed works. This is a particular concern since we have reservations about the glazing pattern proposed (12-over-12 panes), which we results in individual panes which are too small for the period of this house*. For this reason, a nine-over-nine patter of glazing would be more appropriate and cheaper to make. Had a full heritage statement been prepared, the justification for such design choices and any historical background to them would have been more apparent. We therefore feel that it would be advisable for the client / architect to ‘go back to the drawing board’. *circa 1810 – 1820.

11/02261/AR – 22 Stall Street, City Centre, Bath

Display of 1no. non-illuminated fascia sign.

OBJECT The Trust objects to this proposal for a fascia sign due to its inappropriate materials and poor quality design. We concede that the sign is more appropriately located upon the building than previously, but the choice of materials, including powder-coated aluminium / steel and acrylic lettering would not constitute an appropriate frontage to this shop, located in one of the City’s most prominent streets, within the Conservation Area and the World Heritage Site. The Trust suggests that the use of high-quality traditional or natural materials, such as timber-fascia & sign-written lettering, would help to preserve the special character of this area.

The proposed signage would be harmful to the visual amenity of the area; it would fail to enhance local distinctiveness; it would neither preserve nor enhance the character or appearance of the Conservation Area; and, it would fail to reflect the Outstanding Universal Value of the World Heritage Site.

The proposal is, therefore, contrary to, Policies D2, D4, BH1, BH6 and BH17 of the B&NES Local Plan, Policy HE7.5 of PPS5, and the Planning (Listed Buildings & Conservation Areas) Act 1990 and the application should be refused.

11/01989/FUL – “Gibbs Mews Prop Development”, Walcot Street, Bath

Erection of four dwellings (Revised proposal)

OBJECT / COMMENT The Trust recognises the need for efficient use of land in the City Centre, and accepts the principle of development on this site. However, the application detailed here does not adequately address the issues presented by this brownfield site, and presents a scheme which is inappropriate to the location.

Furthermore, the Trust considers that the Design & Access Statement for this application does not provide sufficient detail of the proposed development, nor does it explain or justify the several alterations to design details from the permitted scheme 08/00591/FUL. The required Sustainable Construction Checklist is also absent. Hence a fully considered decision regarding this application cannot be made.

Overdevelopment / Overcrowding Again, the Trust emphasises that it does not object to the principle of reasonable development upon this site; however, this application is felt to constitute over-development, with overcrowding of the site. The proposal for a terrace of three x four-bedroom dwellings and one x two-bedroom maisonette represents an overly intensive use of the site. Additionally, the decision to extend the terrace rearwards with a full ground floor extension containing wide patio doors to the houses would encroach too closely towards the houses of Chatham Row, reducing amenity and creating an uncomfortable relationship between these two terraces. That this relationship is already potentially compromised by the permitted first floor balcony to the maisonette is no reason to exacerbate it. Moreover, this application does not give sufficient attention to storage space for bicycles and for recycling & rubbish bins; standards for such storage have increased substantially since the earlier permissions, and four-bedroomed family homes require more than smaller ones. Such issues will create a cumulative effect of overcrowding at this site.

Design & Materials We welcome the stepping-down of the terrace towards the river which appears to respond to the local topography and building grain; however, the information provided in the proposal does not allow a comparison of the scale of the proposed development in relation to the surrounding buildings.

There appears to be more concern on maximising financial return from the site than creating a well integrated development which enhances its surroundings, as is required in a Conservation Area.

With regard to the materials proposed, although the Trust welcomes the use of Bath stone and slate mansard roofs, we are not satisfied that enough information has been provided regarding the detail of these materials or justification for their use in the design. In particular, a bronze finish to the proposed sash windows seems incongruous to the locale and little-to-no justification has been provided for its use. Should permission be granted, the Trust would recommend conditions requiring the use of natural slate and natural stone, the latter being diversified as indicated on the elevation drawings. In addition, the unimaginative hard landscaping, with rubble-stone garden walls, herringbone parking apron and limitation of green planting to retaining 2 existing trees, is unworthy of Bath’s World Heritage

Site status. The Trust is disappointed that, bearing in mind the extent of south-facing roof proposed (& the minor alterations now shown to the roof); no consideration appears to have been given to incorporating solar micro-generation equipment. The Trust would recommend that, if other objections to permission can be overcome, this matter should be addressed, as a contribution to the City’s carbon reduction targets. The advantage of building solar PV into the design is that it avoids a piecemeal approach with subsequent permitted development resulting in disparate and ill-matched installations across different roofs.

The Trust wishes to see the completion of the Riverside Walk. We note that a S.106 agreement was part of the previous permission and urge that, should permission be granted for this application, it too should be tied to a similar legal obligation.

In addition, should permission be granted, all PD rights must be removed in order to preserve the little amenity left to neighbouring residents.

In short, the Trust OBJECTS to this application which is contrary to policies D2, D4, BH1, BH2 & BH8 of the B&NES Local Plan, and contravenes the LPA’s guidance on Design Statements (A5.70-2 of the Local Plan). The application should therefore be REFUSED.

11/02081/FUL – Parcel 2866, Woolley Lane, Charlcombe

Construction of farm track and siting of 2 feed hoppers (retrospective)

OBJECT Bath Preservation Trust continues to object to these retrospective planning applications.

This is one of many applications attempting to cover this landowner’s breaches of planning control by applying retrospectively for permission. The circumstances and planning considerations have not changed. We see no reason why this application should not be REFUSED on exactly the same grounds.

The Swainswick Valley is located in the Green Belt and in the Cotswold AONB. It is of high landscape value and makes an important contribution to the wider landscape setting of the City of Bath World Heritage Site. An Article 4 Direction has been placed on land in the Valley in order to prevent certain agricultural works from being undertaken that would normally be permitted development, and to manage development and changes of land use in this sensitive area. We consider that the purposes of the Article 4 Direction must be upheld, and that enforcement proceedings should have been taken forward to make good the site and return it so far as possible to its original state.

In view of the sensitivity of the site we have also indicated that the appropriate way forward is for the submission of an integrated environmental impact assessment for all proposed developments on this site before any decisions are taken.

Any development taking place on the estate should then be treated as a coherent whole its impact on the designated landscapes and the setting of the World Heritage Site could be similarly considered.

Farm Track We believe it highly regrettable that Council officers appear to have stated that enforcement proceedings would not be appropriate for this farm track, as this may compromise their capacity to make an appropriate decision upholding the Article 4 direction on this site. However, there are two areas in which the LPA may wish to over-ride their officer’s previous statement. The first is that the mitigation activities (reseeding the path) anticipated by the planning officer have not taken place to a sufficient extent to render the track invisible. The second is that the current application does not show the full extent of the track and therefore cannot provide for retrospective permission for the works undertaken.

It should be noted that the track constituted significant engineering work on the site, with hardcore along the entire 1 km length of the track. The need for such a substantial track is not understood.

In summary, the visual impact of the track and its degree of engineering work is unacceptable in this very sensitive location within the Green Belt and CotswoldAONB. It is also contrary to Policy GB.2 which states that permission will not be granted for development in the Green Belt which is visually detrimental by reason of its siting, design, or materials used for its construction.

Silos

The 2 silos have been installed without planning permission and are located close to Woolley Lane; at a height of 5.4 m their tops are significantly higher than the important hedge bordering the lane. The location of these hoppers detracts from the visual amenity of the area and harms the AONB and the World Heritage Site setting. This would have been clear from photographs of the silos in situ, had the applicant provided them. At the very least, a less visible site and size should have been found, with a lesser visual impact.

Conclusion The Trust regards as perverse the applicants’ attempts to introduce innovative types of agriculture, said to demand constant attendance and consequent new buildings, into this highly protected landscape.

The Trust is outraged by the applicants’ total disregard for planning processes in place to protect the Swainswick Valley and strongly urges the Planning Authority to refuse this application and to take necessary enforcement action to remove the unauthorised mobile home which is currently on site, as recommended in its Enforcement Report, and to instigate enforcement action against the unauthorised gates, fencing, and access ramp.

The Trust continues to OBJECT to these proposals as contrary to Policies GB2, BH1, ET6 & NE2 of the B&NES Local Plan and to guidance contained within PPG2 and PPS7. The application should, therefore, be REFUSED.

Finally, the continuing absence of a coherent and consistent plan, stating the landowner’s long term intentions for this site, reinforces the need to uphold the Article 4 direction as the first priority of the LPA.

11/02089/FUL – Site of 6-8 Wells Road, Lyncombe, Bath

Erection of 1no. one bedroom and 2no. two bedroom properties following demolition of 2, 4 and 6 Wells Road.

OBJECT Further to the Trust’s comments regarding application 10/02444/OUT, we would like to submit an objection to the proposed development. As stated previously, the Trust does not object to the principle of development of dwellings on this challenging brownfield site; however, upon reviewing the details provided in this application, it is clear that the development proposed is not of a sufficient quality or standard to merit approval. In particular, it is felt that the setting of the listed terrace against which the development would abut would suffer considerably.

Poor Quality Design The proposed design of the development is of particular concern in this application. The slab-like appearance of the building is unsympathetic and unappealing, and detracts from the aesthetic enjoyment of the area. The massing of the building fails to respond to the topography of the site, and the Trust is also unconvinced that the elevations as depicted in the application accurately represent the slope of the site. The rear of the building is particularly unattractive, appearing as a bleak and un-engaging wall, which considering the rear of the site faces the main railway is a concern. Furthermore, it is disappointing that there hasn’t been more deference to the style of the existing terraces along Wells Road. The claims that the proposed terrace respects and responds to the architectural rhythm of the existing buildings are unfounded, and even a cursory glance at the elevations is enough to show how the proposed development is at odds with the existing urban fabric. Even in and of itself, the symmetry of the building appears unbalanced, with a squeezed appearance to the west-most facade.

Materials We are deeply concerned about the quality of the materials proposed which are not of appropriate quality for use in the Conservation Area and World Heritage Site, or further for an application which claims to extend a listed terrace. The proposed use of slate-effect tiles and reconstituted Bath Stone upon the external walls will contrast unfavourably with the authentic and natural materials used in the existing listed terrace, degrading the appearance of both buildings. The Trust regrets that these materials were permitted in the outline planning application, and maintains that the use of traditional materials would harmonise with the Bath palette, and help to enhance the character and appearance of the conservation area, and protect the authenticity, integrity and special quality of the World Heritage Site.

Amount of Development The Trust feels that the amount of proposed development goes beyond the capacity of the site, which we feel is part of the cause of the poor quality design seen here. The proximity of the proposed dwellings to the railway is also a concern, which will severely compromise the amenity of the new dwellings and will also become an intrusive structure visually on approach to the city by rail.

Loss of Views into Bath Currently, the site affords an attractive view into the city, including the tower of the Abbey. While the detriment caused by the loss of this view might be outweighed by the benefits of a high-quality infill development, the poor design and massing of the current proposal means that the net impact on this gateway to the city would be entirely negative.

The Trust considers that this development will neither preserve nor enhance the character of the City of Bath Conservation Area and will have a detrimental impact upon the setting of the abutting listed terrace and the Outstanding Universal Value of the World Heritage Site. It would be harmful to the visual amenity value of the area, fail to enhance local distinctiveness. This application is therefore contrary to policies BH.1, BH.2, BH.6, D.2, D.4 of the B&NES Local Plan, and Policies HE7.5 and HE9.5 of PPS5, and the Planning (Listed Buildings & Conservation Areas) Act 1990 and should be REFUSED.

11/02288/FUL & 11/02289/CA – Sydney Lawn, Sydney Road, Bathwick, Bath

Erection of 8no apartments and associated works following demolition of existing building

OBJECT The property currently located on the site has a neutral impact upon the street-scene. Given the lack of historical value and neutral aesthetic contribution of the existing building, the Trust does not object to the principle of development on this site, subject to the proposal of a suitable replacement which either preserves or enhances the character and aesthetic enjoyment of the area. This site is located in a particularly prominent area of the Bath World Heritage Site and the City of Bath Conservation Area, and so there is justifiably concern to ensure that the highest quality of design is employed in any proposed development. Development should only be permitted if this can be achieved, and it is with regret that we must object to this application, since the design is not of a sufficient quality to warrant demolition of Sydney Lawn.

Design Justification Fundamentally, the Trust does not feel that a robust justification of the design choices has been expressed in this application. The Heritage Statement and Design and Access Statement have stated that this area represents the transition between the large Georgian Terraces of Great Pulteney Street and Sydney Place and the smaller scale Italianate villas further east. On this basis the applicant has suggested that an Italianate architectural style built to a grander scale is appropriate. We firstly do not feel convinced that such an approach is appropriately justified in this location. Further, we feel that the plans and elevations of the building proposed do not sufficiently or successfully reflect these intentions, and that this proposal does not successfully evoke an Italianate style as it clearly desires to.

Poor relationship to Townscape The Trust also feels that the proposed building will have a poor relationship to the surrounding townscape, with the arrangement and composition of the facades and the overall massing of the building failing to engage with the street-scene and urban grain. The amount of proposed development here is a considerable net increase upon the existing building, though no precise figures are provided. The resulting building plays a much more prominent role in the street-scene than the existing building. The building is positioned in such a way that it terminates a key view along Sydney Place, and hence would be of greater significance to the townscape. Such prominence means that there should be a greater requirement for the building to respond to its context. As it is, the angle of the facades seems to glance the street-scene and even the view that they terminate. This is compounded by the design of the facades themselves, which have not been designed with sufficient architectural interest to engage the street-scene.

Landscaping & Trees The proposed development would also lose two mature trees on the site, including a cherry tree in a prominent location on the street-scene, and also some smaller planting to the south of the site. Though some provision for new planting has been proposed, there would be a net loss of planting and trees on the site which is regrettable.

It is disappointing that though the value and prominence of this site has been recognised that this has not fully been translated through the design.

With the above in mind, we consider that this application would fail to enhance local distinctiveness; it would neither preserve nor enhance the character or appearance of the City of Bath Conservation Area; and, it would fail to reflect the Outstanding Universal Value of the World Heritage Site. The proposal is therefore contrary to policies D.2, D.4, BH.1 and BH.6 of the B&NES local plan and PPS5, and the Planning (Listed Buildings & Conservation Areas) Act 1990, and should therefore beREFUSED.

11/02674/EFUL – The Former Bath Press Site, Lower Bristol Road, Westmoreland, Bath

Mixed-use redevelopment comprising 6,300sqm of retail (Class A1), 4,580sqm of creative work space (Class B1), 2,830sqm of offices (Class B1), 10 residential houses, car park, landscape and access (including realignment of Brook Road).

*OBJECT * Following the resubmission of this application to redevelop the Bath Press Site, the Bath Preservation Trust is compelled to object to the development, as proposed. We are disappointed that although the applicants have revised their proposals, that they have not taken the opportunity to address many of the design issues which were highlighted within application 10/03380/EFUL. As such, the Trust retains its position regarding these proposals, and urges that the applicant reconsider the issues raised below.

The Trust welcomes the intention to redevelop this important site for mixed uses. We acknowledge that the developers have made considerable efforts to seek the views of the local community, and that the proposals which have been submitted take account of aspects of the feedback from the community engagement process. On balance, however, we object to the current application on the following grounds, which are set out in greater detail below.

– Form and design of several of the new build elements

– Insufficient detail of proposed materials, lighting and landscaping, and inconsistencies between the drawings and supporting documents.

We also have a number of concerns and reservations which we would ask the Planning Department to explore during the assessment process. These are also described below.

Form and design of new build elements The height of the proposed buildings is acceptable and we welcome the developers’ decision to respect the heights of the previous buildings on the site and the surrounding buildings. We are however concerned about the mass, particularly of the retail store, the roofscape of which will be visible from a number of vantage points including Royal Victoria Park and the Approach Golf Course, and will impact on vistas across the World Heritage Site. The roofs of the retail store and the curved creative workshop building need to be much better articulated to break up the mass and improve the appearance when viewed from a distance from the upper slopes of the city. The prominent windcatchers on the retail store will not mitigate the visual impact of the very large light-coloured flat roof. A more sensitive design solution is required, for example using a dark-coloured zinc with raised seams. We acknowledge that the developers have introduced the saw-toothed roofs of the proposed office building and the buildings on the western side of the public plaza in order to improve the articulation of the roofscape, but this is not sufficient to mitigate the impact of the much larger flat roof areas in the remainder of the site.

We recognise that the decision to retain the façade of the Bath Press building, which is of local importance, has been taken in response to feedback from the local community, and that the plans which have been submitted seek to address previous criticisms by anchoring the façade more obviously into the new building behind it. However we consider that the steel frame now proposed is unnecessarily bulky and obtrusive. It is likely to detract from rather than enhance the use of the façade as a framework for public art (a use which we support). The detail of the proposed artwork should be the subject of a further planning application, so as to allow for public comment: it is too important to be left for determination through conditions. The developers might consider incorporating within the overall design some scope for temporary art installations, with a view to maintaining active public interest in the site.

The link between the foodstore and the large creative workspace building at the western end of the site appears clumsy, as does the treatment of the corners between the front and side elevations of the office building, although the lack of detail makes it difficult to make a full assessment. The large workspace building itself seems more reminiscent of a municipal building than of a purpose-built facility for the creative industries. We question the appropriateness of the metal fins on the north elevation of this building: on a south-facing façade they might serve a functional purpose, but in the proposed location they appear to be purely ‘decorative’. In our judgement they strike an alien note alongside the retained façade.

We therefore consider that the design of the development fails to comply with policies, D2, D4, BH1, BH5, BH6 of the B&NES Local Plan.

Insufficient detail The information provided falls short of what is required in a number of important respects.

In relation to landscaping, the proposals are totally inadequate for a full application. The limited information provided is spread across a number of documents, which suggests that insufficient thought has been given to this important aspect in the round. There is no specification for the aims to be achieved by the planting. There is no mention that street pits will be required for the 8 ‘street trees’ shown in the public plaza, and no discussion of the impact these pits will have on the headroom available in the basement. The planters illustrated in and around the plaza are not wide enough to contain trees, and those shown in front of the terraced houses look too narrow for successful long-term plant growth. No detail is provided for the planting of the ‘green boundary fence’ around the car-parking area for South View Road, so it is impossible to judge whether the stated aims of reducing views of the service yard and providing an acoustic barrier will be achieved. The information on hard landscaping is equally deficient. There is no discussion of how the planting and other aspects of the landscaping will be maintained.

No detail is provided in relation to lighting, apart from references to an increase in the area that will be lit and to ‘bat-friendly’ fittings. Bath is a low luminosity city and the location of this site towards the bottom of the valley means that it will be very visible after dark from the upper slopes. The lighting must be carefully designed to ensure adequate levels of light in and around the site without excessive light spill or glare when viewed from a distance.

A comprehensive set of proposals for hard and soft landscaping and lighting, together with a maintenance plan, must be published for public comment before planning permission is granted. These details are too important to be decided behind closed doors as conditions.

The Trust welcomes inclusion of housing within the site and supports the proposal for terrace form on sustainability grounds. We have no objection in this particular location to the proposal for Bath stone fronts and red brick rears. However we are concerned about the lack of detail on important aspects such as the types of windows, bricks, exposed lintels, plat band depth/recess, porches, rainwater capture etc. There are worrying inconsistencies: for example the Sustainability report mentions canopies but these are not shown elsewhere. The roofs are to incorporate solar hot water panels in the south-facing pitch, but the illustration shows PVs.

Generally, much more detail is required on materials and finishes. In particular, there appear to be some inconsistent references to ‘Bath stone’ and ‘reconstituted Bath stone’. In general the Trust opposes the use of reconstituted Bath stone in new developments. While the use of reconstituted Bath stone may be acceptable for the plinths, we would be very concerned if, for example, the intention was to use reconstituted Bath stone on any principal façade of this development.

In the absence of detailed information on these aspects, we are not satisfied that the proposals comply with , D2, D4, BH1, BH5, BH6 and BH22 of B&NES Local Plan.

Other concerns The Trust claims no special expertise on traffic and transport, but we share the widespread concerns about the impact of the proposed development on the already heavily congested Lower Bristol Road and Windsor Bridge Road. We question whether the number of parking spaces is adequate for the proposed retail and commercial uses and would not wish to see parking problems spilling out onto neighbouring streets.

However well designed the junction with Brook Road may be, it seems highly unlikely that traffic flow will be eased once the store is in place. The Trust considers that the applicants must demonstrate that they are making every effort to minimise the need for people to use private cars to access the facilities on site. In relation to the supermarket, this should include incentives for people to shop on-line, a home delivery service (similar to that operated by Waitrose) for people who prefer to select their own purchases but do not wish to carry them home, and store-provided shuttle bus services from residential areas and student campuses. Deliveries within the city should use electric or other very low emission vehicles wherever possible. We would expect to see these and other measures set out in a detailed travel plan before permission is granted. The outline travel plan submitted with the application is so general as to be virtually meaningless.

We recognise that measures will need to be out in place to prevent people from using the basement car park for long-term parking while they walk into the city centre to do other shopping. However in order to help protect the vitality of Moorland Road, the restrictions on the use of the car park should not prevent people from visiting nearby local shops as part of a trip to Tesco.

We are concerned about the impact of the excavation for the car park, in particular on the stability of the retained rear wall, and the quantities of material to be removed from site. We also wish to see the Environment Agency’s comments on the impact if any on the water table of creating this substantial underground structure.

We note the measures which are proposed to ensure that the development meets sustainability standards, but query whether the approach which is being taken is ambitious enough. For example, a redesign of the flat roof areas might offer opportunities to incorporate more ambitious energy generation and/or rainwater management.

The proposed communal recycling area for the residential element appears inadequate for the new requirement to store several different recycling and refuse containers for each house. We are not clear about the relationship between the access to the recycling area and the rear fences of Denmark Road. There could be a problem of SLOAP (space left over after planning) here.

The Bath Preservation Trust would welcome further engagement with the applicant with regard to the issues raised, and requests to be kept informed of any further changes to the development proposals.

11/02145/LBA – 3 Abbey View, Widcombe, Bath

Internal and external alterations to include stone repairs, repointing, cleaning of front elevation, enlargement of bathroom, reinstatement of lathe and plaster ceilings, removal of modern partitions and lowered ceilings and installation of wardrobes to the front bed room.

SUPPORT The Bath Preservation Trust supports this application for sensitive repairs that will enhance the special architectural interest of this listed building, the City Conservation Area and the World Heritage Site.

11/02099/LBA – Bath Spa Railway Station, Dorchester Street, Bath

Alterations to arches 36 & 37 to include replacing the approved timber rain screen with a ‘shuffle glazed’ walling system that will allow southern light into the units and provide greater street presence.

SUPPORT The Trust supports this application, which would restore to view the archways which are a distinguishing feature of this grade II* listed building. The current timber lean-to development is of a poor quality, and its removal would certainly be an enhancement to the aesthetics of the railway station’s south facade. The proposed glazing is considered to be much more sympathetic and less intrusive than the existing timber infill and would also allow greater visibility into the archways, facilitating greater enjoyment of this building. The Trust also considers that single-glazing, as proposed here, is acceptable, given the retail use of the space, provided the planners are satisfied that this will give adequate thermal performance to the building.

11/02679/LBA – Nexus Methodist Church, Nelson Place, East Walcot, Bath

Repair and stabilise existing stone vase on western pillar and replace stone vase missing from eastern pillar.

SUPPORT The Bath Preservation Trust supports this application to restore this grade II listed building. The installation of vases to the primary boundary and the proposed repair-work will help to restore the property to its original condition, and in doing so will enhance the visual amenity and special character of this listed building and the City of Bath Conservation Area.

11/02175/LBA – Jacob’s Coffee House, 6 Abbey Churchyard, City Centre, Bath

External alterations to repaint frontage of building

*COMMENT * The Trust does not object in principle to the repainting of the down pipe, fascia sign or other timberwork. However, it would be in the best interest of the listed building and the continued care and conservation of the stone if the paint were carefully removed from the masonry. The paint applied to the Bath stone ashlar is likely to be causing much damage to the surface of the stone. We would recommend that the applicant considers removing the paint in accordance with expert recommendations.

11/02493/LBA – 4 Cambridge Terrace, Widcombe, Bath

Internal and external alterations to include the provision of glazing bars to windows on front and rear elevations and internal alterations.

COMMENT No heritage statement or impact assessment has been included in support of these proposals. This application therefore lacks the essential information required to make a proper assessment of the impact on the significance of the listed building. This is particularly important to the consideration of the range of alterations proposed.

In addition it is not clear if existing window frames are to be retained and glazing bars reinstated within them, or if new windows are to be fitted, and what the significance of the effected fabric is.

The Trust supports proposals to replace concrete with pennant paving, but as well as being a ‘welcoming’ feature this ought to be justified in aesthetic and historic terms.

The use of ‘peel-away’ is accepted provided that it is undertaken by experienced contactors.

Overall the Trust does not consider that this application can be determined in its current form and encourages the LPA to obtain further information from the applicant prior to determination. Without further information this application would be contrary to PPS5 (policy HE 6.1) and should be refused.

11/02567/LBA – 5 Royal Crescent, City Centre

Internal and external alterations for the conversion of vaults to housekeepers accommodation.

COMMENTS The Trust does not normally comment on the specifics of internal alterations to private residential properties. This is because in most cases it would be difficult to make a proper assessment based on documentary evidence alone; site visits are often necessary and access to private property is limited. However, this is a grade I listed building and one of the most architecturally and historically significant set pieces in the Bath World Heritage Site. The Trust has an in principle objection to the conversion of vaults for residential uses for the following reasons.

Underground vaults, are integral to the design of many 18th and 19th century houses in Bath and as such are an important element contributing to the architectural and historic significance of listed buildings and the historic townscape.

Vaults, basements and cellars constructed in porous Bath stone may over time suffer some degree of damp, but this very much depends on the external circumstances. The London Terraced House as described by Isaac Ware P.346 refers to vaults; ‘the lower story in these common houses in London is sunk entirely underground, for which reason it is damp, unwholesome and uncomfortable’. Trying to achieve 21st Century living standards in an 18th Century below ground room is removed from conservation principles. This part of the building is best used as originally intended; ancillary facility or storage space to serve habitation within the house.

Underground vaults are not places fit for the core activities of human habitation, such as sleeping, working or relaxation, and we are not easily persuaded by any argument that seeks to justify a use that could be easily provided elsewhere within a property. The purist approach would be to retain all original finishes as vaults were never intended for occupation.

The long term maintenance of the listed building’s fabric is paramount, as is the protection of its significance by conserving its physical elements in a way that does least damage to its important qualities.

11/02519/FUL, Cambridge House, Henry Street, City Centre

Extension of north wing of building for extra office floor and installation of photovoltaic panels to south wing.

OBJECT The Bath Preservation Trust objects to this planning application for a mansard roof extension that would increase the height of the building by a further storey. At five storeys Cambridge House appears taller than the prevailing pattern of development and dominates its context. The existing building stands a storey taller than new buildings at Southgate, and the adjacent Marks & Spencer. The addition of a mansard roof extension would heighten the overbearing impact to the detriment of the character and setting of the Grade II listed terraces, Henry Street and Old Orchard Street. The proposed increase in height would result in a tall and bulky building that would impact in views across the city and would fail to make a positive contribution to local townscape character, the character and appearance of the Conservation Area or the special qualities of the World Heritage Site. These issues emphasises the need for an adopted building heights strategy for the city.

Furthermore, though the Trust is supportive of sensitive proposals to include photovoltaic micro-generation within the city where they would have limited visual impact. We are disappointed that this application has proposed them without considering their potential visual impact within the street-scene and wider views across the City and World Heritage Site.

The proposal is therefore contrary to B&NES Local Plan Policies D1, D2, BH1, BH2, BH6 and advice contained within PPS5 Planning and the Historic Environment and should be refused.

11/02373/LBA – Ask Pizza And Pasta Restaurant 1 York Buildings George Street City Centre Bath

External alterations for the display of 2no. non-illuminated fascia signs, 1no. non-illuminated hanging sign and 1no. non-illuminated menu box.

OBJECT This application seeks consent for signage comprising of raised aluminium lettering with applied vinyl. The building is listed and located within the Bath Conservation Area and World Heritage Site. The proposed materials, whilst matching those existing, are unsympathetic to the character of the listed building and townscape, and fail to harmonise with the traditional palette of material in Bath. The proposal therefore would have a harmful impact on the architectural significance of the listed building and neither preserve or enhance the character of the conservation area. The proposal fails to comply with Policy D2, D4, BH1, BH2 and BH6 of the B&NES Local Plan and PPS5, in particular polices HE7.4, HE7.5 HE9.5, and HE10, and the Planning (Listed Buildings & Conservation Areas) Act 1990 and should therefore be refused. The Trust encourages traditional approaches to signage in the Bath Conservation Area and in this instance would consider that a painted sign fascia and hanging sign would be more appropriate.

11/02569/AR – The West Gate, 38 Westgate Street, City Centre, Bath

Display of 1no non-illuminated fascia sign, 1no non-illuminated chalkboard, 1no non-illuminated entrance sign, 1no non-illuminated amenity board, 1no non-illuminated projecting sign and retain existing menu box

OBJECT This application seeks consent for signage comprising of stainless steel and painted acrylic. The building is listed and located within the Bath Conservation Area and World Heritage Site. The proposed materials, whilst matching those existing, are unsympathetic to the character of the listed building and townscape, and fail to harmonise with the traditional palette of material in Bath. The proposal therefore would have a harmful impact on the architectural significance of the listed building and neither preserve or enhance the character of the conservation area. The proposal fails to comply with Policy D2, D4, BH1, BH2 and BH6 of the B&NESLocal Plan and PPS5, in particular polices HE7.4, HE7.5 HE9.5, and HE10, and the Planning (Listed Buildings & Conservation Areas) Act 1990 and should therefore be refused. The Trust encourages traditional approaches to signage in the Bath Conservation Area and in this instance would consider that a painted sign fascia and hanging sign would be more appropriate.

11/02613/FUL, 15 Williamstowe, Combe Down, Bath

Provision of 1no. side and 1no. rear dormer.

OBJECT The Bath Preservation Trust considers that large flat roof dormers are not in the interest of good design as they fail to enhance local distinctiveness and are visually intrusive features in the townscape and World Heritage Site. This proposal seeks permission for a large flat roof dormer on a prominent side elevation and a pitched roof dormer to the front. Combined these roof extensions would dominate the building and would be visually intrusive in the roof line of the street scene. The proposal would therefore neither preserve nor enhance the character of the conservation area.

The Trust considers that this proposal is contrary to Policies BH1, BH6, D2 and D4 of the B&NES Local Plan and the Planning (Listed Buildings & Conservation Areas) Act 1990 and should be refused.

11/02522/LBR – Bailbrook House Conference And Training Centre, Eveleigh Avenue, Lower Swainswick

Renewal of application 08/00944/LBA (Internal alterations to include formation of hotel bedrooms/bathrooms, new lift, guest facilities, meeting rooms and basement restaurant. External alterations to include alterations to the appearance, removal of modern additions, replace glazed corridor and conservatory with new structures and provision of new access ramp).

OBJECT Whilst the existing conservatory may be of little historic significance, the Trust considers that whatever structure replaces it, it should be of a superior quality that complements the age and style of existing listed building. It is clear that the proposed conservatory is intended to be a clearly contrasting modern addition, however the wide set frames give the structure a bland and standard appearance. A more sympathetic structure could take greater reference from the listed building, or in contrast present a more innovative and high quality solution. The replacement balustrade proposed is insufficiently detailed to make a proper assessment of its appearance.

The proposal therefore would have a harmful impact on the architectural significance of the listed building. The proposal fails to comply with Policy D2, D4, BH1, and BH2 of the B&NES Local Plan and PPS5, in particular polices HE7.4, HE7.5 HE9.5, and HE10, and the Planning (Listed Buildings & Conservation Areas) Act 1990 and should therefore be refused.

11/02515/REN, 11/02516/LBR & 11/02516/LBR- Bailbrook House Conference And Training Centre, Eveleigh Avenue, Lower Swainswick

Renewal of application 07/03822/FUL (Erection of new hotel rooms, conference and leisure facilities, new car parking and associated works together with restoration and improvements to historic landscape)

OBJECT In general the Trust supports the principle of redeveloping the modern buildings on the site and improving the landscaped setting to the listed building. However, as there is no change to the scheme the Trust continues to object. This application for renewal presents the opportunity for reconsideration of the proposals.

On assessment of the site we consider there are four main areas of concern:

1. Protection of the setting of the listed building, and its landscape.

2. The position, massing, form, height and materials of new buildings.

3. The retention of the prominence of the historic building.

4. The visual impact on the open countryside and views.

We are pleased that the repositioning of the overflow parking will restore the landscape and enhance the setting of the west elevation. To the west the setting of the building would also be improved by the creation of the formal courtyard garden framed by the new building.

The relative heights of the new buildings appears sensitive to the height of the listed building Our principal concerns relate to the inappropriate scale, massing, and mix of materials. The combined massing of all new building proposed is not considered to sufficiently retain the prominence of the historic building within the site. The site would become, on balance overly dominated by new buildings. If this scale of development is necessary for the viability of the hotel the buildings will need to demonstrate more restraint, subservience, order and simplicity in their appearance as to retain the integrity and prominence of the historic building in the landscape.

We are not convinced that a mix of cedar cladding and Bath stone buildings helps to achieve this. In our opinion this is because the mix of materials appears to be pulling the design apart, particularly on the east elevation where each bath stone vertical element punctuates each block. We would prefer to see either a simple contemporary scheme in Bath stone with classical referencing or a contrasting subservient rural structure more harmonious with the natural landscape. The combination of materials and the set back upper floor resembles a building designed for an office function, which could sit quite comfortably in most urban settings rather than an extension to domestic building which is currently in use as a hotel.

In addition it is not clear what roofing materials are being proposed, it has been suggested that a zinc roof, with a matt rather than shiny finish could be used. We are concerned that this detail remains unclear at this stage. We would object to a metal roof, which is green in colour as the model shows. The expanse of roof in a green colour is not in the character of Bath and would not harmonise with the local palette of materials.

The Trust therefore feels that it is unable to support this application. It is our view that the proposed development would detract from the architectural and historic significance, and the setting of the grade II* listed building and would harm the special qualities of the World Heritage site particularly the visual impact on the landscape which is of such great value to the setting of the world heritage city.

The proposal fails to comply with Policy D2, D4, BH1, and BH2 of the B&NESLocal Plan and PPS5, in particular polices HE7.4, HE7.5 HE9.5, and HE10, and the Planning (Listed Buildings & Conservation Areas) Act 1990 and should therefore be refused.

11/02134/LBA – 5 Old Bond Street, City Centre

External alterations for the change of colour to woodwork, change of advertising, provision of exterior lighting and projecting hanging sign.

OBJECT The Trust will continue to object to illuminated signs and adverts on listed buildings, within the conservation area and World Heritage Site. The LED lighting on extended arms proposed would be visually intrusive fittings that would have a harmful impact on the significance of the listed building, detract from the appearance of the townscape and harm the amenity value of the area which would neither preserve nor enhance the character and appearance of the conservation area. The proposal is therefore contrary to, Policies D2, D4, BH1, BH6 and BH 17 of the B&NES Local Plan, Policies HE7.5 HE9.5, and HE10 of PPS5, and the Planning (Listed Buildings & Conservation Areas) Act 1990 and should be refused.

11/02147/TEL – Street Record, Russell Street, City Centre

Provision of a new cabinet shell to replace existing on footpath on Russell Street at the junction with Rivers Street.

OBJECT The BPT accepts that electronic and telephonic communication are facts of modern life and that above ground installations, such as these, are required to support them. The Trust is, however, concerned at the multiplicity of applications registered over the past fortnight for replacement telephone equipment cabinets, so soon after the multiplicity of applications for broad-band communications boxes, and at both the utilitarian nature of the boxes and the general lack of consideration for their setting. As all the boxes 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.

Furthermore, there are important omissions in the information provided for all applications. Thus:

• The boxes, rather larger than previously, will be of unspecified material & an unspecified shade of green; quality & colour are important in Bath & the LPA should demand compatibility with the Bath palette.

• It is impossible to tell from the drawings exactly where they will be sited, as the site/block plans are inaccurate/inadequate and cabinets are rarely sited as indicated on plans which are contradicted by photos [when decipherable].

These inadequacies in the applications should preclude any decision before receipt of clearer plans & satisfactory specification of colour/material.

This is a sensitive location in a conservation area amid important listed buildings, where there is too much street clutter already. The inadequacies of the application are compounded in this important location, and we must object unless they are addressed.

11/01931/TEL – Street Record, New King Street, Kingsmead

Provision of a new cabinet shell to replace existing O/S Percy Community Centre, New King Street.

OBJECT The present cabinet impinges on a window & the opportunity should be taken to adjust position of the cabinet. We must object unless position adjusted to respect window, plans clarified & colour/material specified satisfactorily.

The BPT accepts that electronic and telephonic communication are facts of modern life and that above ground installations, such as these, are required to support them. The Trust is, however, concerned at the multiplicity of applications registered over the past fortnight for replacement telephone equipment cabinets, so soon after the multiplicity of applications for broad-band communications boxes, and at both the utilitarian nature of the boxes and the general lack of consideration for their setting. As all the boxes 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.

Furthermore, there are important omissions in the information provided for all applications. Thus:

• The boxes, rather larger than previously, will be of unspecified material & an unspecified shade of green; quality & colour are important in Bath & the LPA should demand compatibility with the Bath palette.

• It is impossible to tell from the drawings exactly where they will be sited, as the site/block plans are inaccurate/inadequate and cabinets are rarely sited as indicated on plans which are contradicted by photos [when decipherable].

These inadequacies in the applications should preclude any decision before receipt of clearer plans & satisfactory specification of colour/material.

11/01956/TEL – Street Record, St George’s Place, Kingsmead

Provision of a new cabinet shell to replace existing O/S 7 St Georges Place

COMMENT The photograph provided is wholly inadequate, being that it is too dark and the cabinet is masked by legend.

The BPT accepts that electronic and telephonic communication are facts of modern life and that above ground installations, such as these, are required to support them. The Trust is, however, concerned at the multiplicity of applications registered over the past fortnight for replacement telephone equipment cabinets, so soon after the multiplicity of applications for broad-band communications boxes, and at both the utilitarian nature of the boxes and the general lack of consideration for their setting. As all the boxes 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.

Furthermore, there are important omissions in the information provided for all applications. Thus:

• The boxes, rather larger than previously, will be of unspecified material & an unspecified shade of green; quality & colour are important in Bath & the LPA should demand compatibility with the Bath palette.

• It is impossible to tell from the drawings exactly where they will be sited, as the site/block plans are inaccurate/inadequate and cabinets are rarely sited as indicated on plans which are contradicted by photos [when decipherable].

These inadequacies in the applications should preclude any decision before receipt of clearer plans & satisfactory specification of colour/material.

11/01934/TEL – Street Record, Lambridge Buildings, Larkhall

Provision of a new cabinet shell to replace existing O/S No.1 Lambridge Buildings.

OBJECT This is a narrow and often very busy pavement. A replacement shell on this precise site will impinge on the window and requires adjustment to the right. We object unless the position is adjusted to respect the window, the plans clarified and colour & material specified satisfactorily.

The BPT accepts that electronic and telephonic communication are facts of modern life and that above ground installations, such as these, are required to support them. The Trust is, however, concerned at the multiplicity of applications registered over the past fortnight for replacement telephone equipment cabinets, so soon after the multiplicity of applications for broad-band communications boxes, and at both the utilitarian nature of the boxes and the general lack of consideration for their setting. As all the boxes 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.

Furthermore, there are important omissions in the information provided for all applications. Thus:

• The boxes, rather larger than previously, will be of unspecified material & an unspecified shade of green; quality & colour are important in Bath & the LPA should demand compatibility with the Bath palette.

• It is impossible to tell from the drawings exactly where they will be sited, as the site/block plans are inaccurate/inadequate and cabinets are rarely sited as indicated on plans which are contradicted by photos [when decipherable].

These inadequacies in the applications should preclude any decision before receipt of clearer plans & satisfactory specification of colour/material.

11/01944/TEL – Street Record, Lower Bristol Road, Westmoreland

Provision of a new cabinet shell to replace existing opp Golden Fleece PH, Lwr Bristol Rd.

COMMENT The existing box is smaller here, so the new one will be noticeably bigger. It is on the grassed perimeter of the Herman Miller building, and therefore within the cartilage of a listed building.

The BPT accepts that electronic and telephonic communication are facts of modern life and that above ground installations, such as these, are required to support them. The Trust is, however, concerned at the multiplicity of applications registered over the past fortnight for replacement telephone equipment cabinets, so soon after the multiplicity of applications for broad-band communications boxes, and at both the utilitarian nature of the boxes and the general lack of consideration for their setting. As all the boxes 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.

Furthermore, there are important omissions in the information provided for all applications. Thus:

• The boxes, rather larger than previously, will be of unspecified material & an unspecified shade of green; quality & colour are important in Bath & the LPA should demand compatibility with the Bath palette.

• It is impossible to tell from the drawings exactly where they will be sited, as the site/block plans are inaccurate/inadequate and cabinets are rarely sited as indicated on plans which are contradicted by photos [when decipherable].

These inadequacies in the applications should preclude any decision before receipt of clearer plans & satisfactory specification of colour/material.

11/01935/TEL – Street Record, Access Road To Walcot Infants School, Walcot

Provision of a new cabinet shell to replace existing (Adj garages R/O 2-18 Cathcart Hs).

COMMENT We comment that the dimensions and appearance of the new cabinet are not provided on the relevant drawings in this application.

The BPT accepts that electronic and telephonic communication are facts of modern life and that above ground installations, such as these, are required to support them. The Trust is, however, concerned at the multiplicity of applications registered over the past fortnight for replacement telephone equipment cabinets, so soon after the multiplicity of applications for broad-band communications boxes, and at both the utilitarian nature of the boxes and the general lack of consideration for their setting. As all the boxes 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.

Furthermore, there are important omissions in the information provided for all applications. Thus:

• The boxes, rather larger than previously, will be of unspecified material & an unspecified shade of green; quality & colour are important in Bath & the LPA should demand compatibility with the Bath palette.

• It is impossible to tell from the drawings exactly where they will be sited, as the site/block plans are inaccurate/inadequate and cabinets are rarely sited as indicated on plans which are contradicted by photos [when decipherable].

These inadequacies in the applications should preclude any decision before receipt of clearer plans & satisfactory specification of colour/material.

*11/02116/TEL – Street Record Oldfield Road Oldfield Park

Provision of a new cabinet shell to replace existing outside 45 Oldfield Road

COMMENT This application has been submitted with an indecipherable photograph.

The BPT accepts that electronic and telephonic communication are facts of modern life and that above ground installations, such as these, are required to support them. The Trust is, however, concerned at the multiplicity of applications registered over the past fortnight for replacement telephone equipment cabinets, so soon after the multiplicity of applications for broad-band communications boxes, and at both the utilitarian nature of the boxes and the general lack of consideration for their setting. As all the boxes 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.

Furthermore, there are important omissions in the information provided for all applications. Thus:

• The boxes, rather larger than previously, will be of unspecified material & an unspecified shade of green; quality & colour are important in Bath & the LPA should demand compatibility with the Bath palette.

• It is impossible to tell from the drawings exactly where they will be sited, as the site/block plans are inaccurate/inadequate and cabinets are rarely sited as indicated on plans which are contradicted by photos [when decipherable].

These inadequacies in the applications should preclude any decision before receipt of clearer plans & satisfactory specification of colour/material.

11/02033/TEL – Street Record, Langdon Road, Southdown

Provision of a new cabinet shell to replace existing

OBJECT The new CCC6 cabinet appears to be twice the width of the existing which is shrouded by greenery. We object unless there can be any guarantee of avoiding potential damage to the street tree.

The BPT accepts that electronic and telephonic communication are facts of modern life and that above ground installations, such as these, are required to support them. The Trust is, however, concerned at the multiplicity of applications registered over the past fortnight for replacement telephone equipment cabinets, so soon after the multiplicity of applications for broad-band communications boxes, and at both the utilitarian nature of the boxes and the general lack of consideration for their setting. As all the boxes 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.

Furthermore, there are important omissions in the information provided for all applications. Thus:

• The boxes, rather larger than previously, will be of unspecified material & an unspecified shade of green; quality & colour are important in Bath & the LPA should demand compatibility with the Bath palette.

• It is impossible to tell from the drawings exactly where they will be sited, as the site/block plans are inaccurate/inadequate and cabinets are rarely sited as indicated on plans which are contradicted by photos [when decipherable].

These inadequacies in the applications should preclude any decision before receipt of clearer plans & satisfactory specification of colour/material.

11/01938/TEL – Street Record Bathwick Hill Bathwick

Provision of a new cabinet shell to replace existing O/S St Mary’s Church, Bathwick Hill.

COMMENT The photograph submitted, but not the plans, indicates that this cabinet is to be located in front of the hedge between the entrance and the street name.

The BPT accepts that electronic and telephonic communication are facts of modern life and that above ground installations, such as these, are required to support them. The Trust is, however, concerned at the multiplicity of applications registered over the past fortnight for replacement telephone equipment cabinets, so soon after the multiplicity of applications for broad-band communications boxes, and at both the utilitarian nature of the boxes and the general lack of consideration for their setting. As all the boxes 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.

Furthermore, there are important omissions in the information provided for all applications. Thus:

• The boxes, rather larger than previously, will be of unspecified material & an unspecified shade of green; quality & colour are important in Bath & the LPA should demand compatibility with the Bath palette.

• It is impossible to tell from the drawings exactly where they will be sited, as the site/block plans are inaccurate/inadequate and cabinets are rarely sited as indicated on plans which are contradicted by photos [when decipherable].

These inadequacies in the applications should preclude any decision before receipt of clearer plans & satisfactory specification of colour/material.

11/02285/TEL – Street Record High Street Bathampton

Provision of a new cabinet shell to replace existing at junction of High Street and Harbutts.

OBJECT The wrong photograph (Widcombe), and the wrong existing and replacement plan (Widcombe) have been submitted with this application and so it is impossible to assess the effect.

The BPT accepts that electronic and telephonic communication are facts of modern life and that above ground installations, such as these, are required to support them. The Trust is, however, concerned at the multiplicity of applications registered over the past fortnight for replacement telephone equipment cabinets, so soon after the multiplicity of applications for broad-band communications boxes, and at both the utilitarian nature of the boxes and the general lack of consideration for their setting. As all the boxes 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.

Furthermore, there are important omissions in the information provided for all applications. Thus:

• The boxes, rather larger than previously, will be of unspecified material & an unspecified shade of green; quality & colour are important in Bath & the LPA should demand compatibility with the Bath palette.

• It is impossible to tell from the drawings exactly where they will be sited, as the site/block plans are inaccurate/inadequate and cabinets are rarely sited as indicated on plans which are contradicted by photos [when decipherable].

These inadequacies in the applications should preclude any decision before receipt of clearer plans &

11/01943/TEL – Street Record Rudmore Park Newbridge

Provision of a new cabinet shell to replace existing at junction of Rudmore Park and Brassmill Lane.

COMMENT From photograph submitted, the cabinet appears to be reasonably discretely sited, but our general comment still applies.

The BPT accepts that electronic and telephonic communication are facts of modern life and that above ground installations, such as these, are required to support them. The Trust is, however, concerned at the multiplicity of applications registered over the past fortnight for replacement telephone equipment cabinets, so soon after the multiplicity of applications for broad-band communications boxes, and at both the utilitarian nature of the boxes and the general lack of consideration for their setting. As all the boxes 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.

Furthermore, there are important omissions in the information provided for all applications. Thus:

• The boxes, rather larger than previously, will be of unspecified material & an unspecified shade of green; quality & colour are important in Bath & the LPA should demand compatibility with the Bath palette.

• It is impossible to tell from the drawings exactly where they will be sited, as the site/block plans are inaccurate/inadequate and cabinets are rarely sited as indicated on plans which are contradicted by photos [when decipherable].

These inadequacies in the applications should preclude any decision before receipt of clearer plans & satisfactory specification of colour/material.

11/02144/TEL – Street Record Hillside Road Moorlands

Provision of a new cabinet shell to replace existing at junction of Hillside Road and Monksdale Rd.

OBJECT The wrong O/S map and photograph have been submitted with this application and so it is impossible to assess its effect.

The BPT accepts that electronic and telephonic communication are facts of modern life and that above ground installations, such as these, are required to support them. The Trust is, however, concerned at the multiplicity of applications registered over the past fortnight for replacement telephone equipment cabinets, so soon after the multiplicity of applications for broad-band communications boxes, and at both the utilitarian nature of the boxes and the general lack of consideration for their setting. As all the boxes 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.

Furthermore, there are important omissions in the information provided for all applications. Thus:

• The boxes, rather larger than previously, will be of unspecified material & an unspecified shade of green; quality & colour are important in Bath & the LPA should demand compatibility with the Bath palette.

• It is impossible to tell from the drawings exactly where they will be sited, as the site/block plans are inaccurate/inadequate and cabinets are rarely sited as indicated on plans which are contradicted by photos [when decipherable].

These inadequacies in the applications should preclude any decision before receipt of clearer plans &

11/01967/TEL – Street Record Englishcombe Lane Southdown

Provision of a new cabinet shell to replace existing (O/S 233 Englishcombe Lane).

OBJECT These are impossibly dark photographs, and the plans indicate cabinets to be placed within the garden. All cabinet details refer to a larger DSLAM cabinet, but not the replacement cabinet described in the application form. The Trust queries why this was registered, and suggests that it is impossible to assess the effect from the wrong information supplied.

The BPT accepts that electronic and telephonic communication are facts of modern life and that above ground installations, such as these, are required to support them. The Trust is, however, concerned at the multiplicity of applications registered over the past fortnight for replacement telephone equipment cabinets, so soon after the multiplicity of applications for broad-band communications boxes, and at both the utilitarian nature of the boxes and the general lack of consideration for their setting. As all the boxes 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.

Furthermore, there are important omissions in the information provided for all applications. Thus:

• The boxes, rather larger than previously, will be of unspecified material & an unspecified shade of green; quality & colour are important in Bath & the LPA should demand compatibility with the Bath palette.

• It is impossible to tell from the drawings exactly where they will be sited, as the site/block plans are inaccurate/inadequate and cabinets are rarely sited as indicated on plans which are contradicted by photos [when decipherable].

These inadequacies in the applications should preclude any decision before receipt of clearer plans & satisfactory specification of colour/material.

11/01957/TEL – Street Record Shophouse Road Twerton

Provision of a new cabinet shell to replace existing (Opp 59 Lansdown View, cnr Shophouse Rd).

OBJECT The wrong O/S map has been submitted here. The photograph shows existing cabinets of different shades of green apparently randomly placed at / near the edge of the grass, and not where shown on the plans.

The BPT accepts that electronic and telephonic communication are facts of modern life and that above ground installations, such as these, are required to support them. The Trust is, however, concerned at the multiplicity of applications registered over the past fortnight for replacement telephone equipment cabinets, so soon after the multiplicity of applications for broad-band communications boxes, and at both the utilitarian nature of the boxes and the general lack of consideration for their setting. As all the boxes 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.

Furthermore, there are important omissions in the information provided for all applications. Thus:

• The boxes, rather larger than previously, will be of unspecified material & an unspecified shade of green; quality & colour are important in Bath & the LPA should demand compatibility with the Bath palette.

• It is impossible to tell from the drawings exactly where they will be sited, as the site/block plans are inaccurate/inadequate and cabinets are rarely sited as indicated on plans which are contradicted by photos [when decipherable].

These inadequacies in the applications should preclude any decision before receipt of clearer plans & satisfactory specification of colour/material.

11/02284/TEL – Street Record Pulteney Gardens Widcombe

Provision of a new cabinet shell to replace existing S/O R/O 1 Pulteney Gardens.

COMMENT The wrong photograph and wrong existing and replacement plans (all Bathampton) have been submitted with this application. The Cabinets’ details show a reasonably acceptable position.

The BPT accepts that electronic and telephonic communication are facts of modern life and that above ground installations, such as these, are required to support them. The Trust is, however, concerned at the multiplicity of applications registered over the past fortnight for replacement telephone equipment cabinets, so soon after the multiplicity of applications for broad-band communications boxes, and at both the utilitarian nature of the boxes and the general lack of consideration for their setting. As all the boxes 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.

Furthermore, there are important omissions in the information provided for all applications. Thus:

• The boxes, rather larger than previously, will be of unspecified material & an unspecified shade of green; quality & colour are important in Bath & the LPA should demand compatibility with the Bath palette.

• It is impossible to tell from the drawings exactly where they will be sited, as the site/block plans are inaccurate/inadequate and cabinets are rarely sited as indicated on plans which are contradicted by photos [when decipherable].

These inadequacies in the applications should preclude any decision before receipt of clearer plans & satisfactory specification of colour/material.

Designed by Ice House Design