Mar – Apr 2011

Weeks 10-14

11/00468/OUT – St Gregory’s Catholic College, Combe Hay Lane, Odd Down, Bath

Outline application for the erection of a sixth form building linked to St Gregory’s Catholic College and associated works (Resubmission)

OBJECT This further objection is being submitted by the Bath Preservation Trust to support and supersede our earlier holding objection. The Bath Preservation continues to OBJECT for the following reasons:

1. The planning application process;

2. Failure to comply with local and national policies for the Green Belt;

3. Design, appearance and visual impact on the Green Belt and landscape setting of the Bath World Heritage Site.

1. The application is an OUTLINE application for the development of the site. Access, Appearance, Layout and Scale are NOT reserved for subsequent approval. Landscaping is reserved for subsequent approval. We query this approach to a major development which will have a significant impact on the character of the green belt and setting of the City of Bath World Heritage Site.

As all details (other than landscaping) are to be determined under this permission aFULL planning application seems more appropriate than an outline application. This would allow for the proper assessment of all the factors which will have an effect on the development, including landscaping.

Landscaping is a vital component of any development within the Green Belt and the success of this proposal will rely heavily on the adequacy of accompanying plans for the treatment of sensitive boundary landscape and setting. We consider that landscaping details should not be reserved and full details should be submitted along with full details of all other elements of the scheme.

Secondly we do not consider that this application should be determined by delegated authority and urge the decision to be taken by the DCC for the following reasons:

1. The proposal is a departure from the B&NES local plan.

2. It is a major development which will have a significant impact on the setting of the Bath World Heritage Site and its Outstanding Universal Value.

3. The site is within the Green Belt and there should be open discussion and accountable decisions about whether or not the development complies with Green Belt policy.

4. The application relates to land in which B&NES Council is an owner (identified under Section 25. Certificate B in the planning application form) and has a financial interest. Therefore decisions about any future use ought to be transparent and accountable.

5. There are over 10 formal objections to the application, including neighbouring parish Councils, which represents a significant level of opposition.

6. There are significant objections from statutory consultees and internal consultees.

2. Failure to comply with local and national policies for the Green Belt Policy GB1 of the B&NES Local Plan states that new buildings in the green belt will only be allowed in very special circumstances. We do not consider that any very special circumstances have been demonstrated and we are not convinced by the argument that this is the only viable site. The application fails to demonstrate that a proper sequential test has been carried out and that all possible alternative sites have been considered and discounted for valid reasons.

The proposal therefore fails to comply with Policy GB1 of the B&NES Local Plan, and PPG2.

3. Design, appearance and visual impact on the Green Belt and landscape setting of World Heritage Site.

It is our view that the development of this site would have an impact on the landscape, topographical, visual and historical setting of the City of Bath World Heritage Site. Part of the reason for Bath being created was its strategic significance as a place where the Fosse Way crossed the Avon, allowing the Romans access to the south west. Good Roman road access to the town encouraged commerce and made it easier for pilgrims to reach the Temple and bathing complex. The Fosse Way entering Bath from the south along the A367 is key Roman road, and a route that is a which is identified in the B&NES World Heritage Site Setting Study a s key characteristic of importance to the historic setting of Bath as a WHS.

The Trust is concerned about design and appearance of the building, and visual impact it will have on the landscape character, setting and gateway to the World Heritage Site. If this ‘gateway’ site is to be built on it must be a development of the highest quality. Exceptional circumstances demand an exceptional building, but this does not mean that it should be showy or iconic. The green landscape should retain prominence and any building should respect and reflect the values of the World Heritage Site.

The access and parking arranged around the perimeter of the site is over prominent. The road and coach bays, and the appearance of and hard surfacing materials would be visually detrimental to the character of the Green Belt and setting of the World Heritage Site. A road side coach park is not an acceptable gateway to a World Heritage city! Whist this element of the development is to be addressed at reserved matters stage, layout and landscaping are integral to the proposal and should be taken into account alongside other design issues.

The appearance of the proposed sixth form building is bland, especially the west elevation. It is a building which would be more fitting within an industrial trading estate or office park. The proposed curtain walling does not present a human scale appropriate for a school.

The angular form, which is inspired by on-trend Libeskind, is not a form that reflects or respects the local context. We are concerned there is a real risk that such a building would date very quickly. Whist there is some limited use of Bath stone ashlar proposed it is difficult to work out how and where this is to be used. Other proposed materials including timber panelling, metal cladding, and brickwork panels which are less common to the Bath palette are overly dominant. The proposed roof is a huge and ugly slab that would benefit from better articulation.

In addition we question whether that the LPA has undertaken an adequate assessment of the impact on the City of Bath World Heritage Site and its setting. As yet there has been no assessment of the impact of the development on the OUV of the WHS (a designated heritage asset) undertaken by the LPA’s specialist staff. Nor has English Heritage or the Georgian Group provided any comments. Compliance with policies in PPS5 requires the LPA to use expert advice to inform their decision making where the need to understand the particular significance of a heritage asset and any proposed impact demands it.

The proposed building would be visually detrimental to the Green Belt, by reason of its inappropriate design and appearance and is contrary to Policy GB2 of the B&NESLocal Plan and PPG2.

The proposed building by virtue of its inappropriate design, appearance and materials would fail to make a positive contribution to the character and distinctiveness of Bath’s historic environment, and would have a harmful impact on setting of the City of Bath World Heritage site which is of Outstanding Universal Value. The proposal therefore fails to comply with Policy BH1 of the B&NES Local Plan and PPS5 polices HE7.4, HE7.5 HE9.5, and HE10.

For the reasons stated above the Bath Preservation Trust urges B&NES LPA to determine this planning application by decision of the Development Control Committee and recommends that the application be REFUSED.

11/00768/FUL – James Street West

Construction of new hotel of 107 bedrooms with ancillary bar, restaurant, guest drop-off area, disabled parking, cycle storage, enclosed service bay and plant area following demolition of all existing buildings at 4 James Steet West/1(a) and 2 Kingsmead North

COMMENT The Trust regrets that there has not been a more proactive approach to pre-application consultation in the development of proposals for the site prior to the submission of this planning application.

The Kingsmead area provides an opportunity to stitch back together the fragmented historic street pattern and building form in the part of the City, and better reveal the significance of the historic environment. The Trust regrets that the Council does not yet have a redevelopment brief for Kingsmead which considers the historic context, existing buildings, the layout of new development, the potential mix of uses, and the public realm.

Design The Trust is generally satisfied with the approach to the redevelopment of this site. At ground floor level the street scene elevation and corner restaurant use will help to enliven pedestrian activity, and the colonnade is a welcome design feature which relates well to the context.

We have some concerns about the detailing of the curtain walling, which might appear fake or stuck-on, rather than a real and functional use of glass. We would like to see full details of this glazing feature submitted ahead of determination rather than a Condition of any permission granted.

We would like to see the top floor set back further from the building edge, particularly along the eastern elevation. This would help to achieve appropriate scale at street level and better resemble a mansard roof.

Any plant to the roof must be enclosed by a well designed screen. Again the details of this should be submitted with this application rather than be dealt with by Condition.

The Trust has serious doubts about the use of Bath stone as a superficial cladding material. We have a preference for traditional construction techniques. In our view the use of Bath stone cladding risks compromise to the authenticity and integrity of the historic city and threatens the Outstanding Universal Values of the World Heritage Site. In addition we have reservations about the durability of a thin veneer of Bath stone ashlar. We must reemphasise the issues (below) we raised in response to the use of the cladding panels used in the construction of the Southgate Shopping Centre.

We are particularly concerned about the potential damage caused by weathering and spalling, the effectiveness of vertical expansion joints, the effectiveness of rainwater runoff, particularly if there is no drip detail, the use of stone veneers/cladding at this thickness, and method of fixing which creates a thin layer near the surface of the stone which is vulnerable to damage. It should be noted that in the late eighteenth century John Wood the younger (1728-1781) observed that some houses built in and around Bath were built of

“freestone barely 6” thick” and that he had been an “eye witness of rain driving not only through the joints but even the stone itself.” (J. Wood, Pottages and Habitations of the Labourer, London, 1806, P.4 ft. note b).

The proposed stone work appears reasonably well detailed. However details such as drip courses and alike will require careful execution to prevent water from staining the surface of the stone. Any use of reconstituted stone is discouraged as it will result in a differing, and poorer quality appearance and would be unacceptable in this central location in the World Heritage Site.

We also question the designed life expectancy of the building, which may be considerably less than that of a building which is of traditional construction. In the interest of the authenticity and integrity of the World Heritage Site, and the wider environment, we would encourage high quality materials and construction and a building which would have greater longevity.

11/00608/FUL – Land Between 6 And Wilmslow, Bannerdown Road, Batheaston, Bath

Erection of 3no dwellings to include 2no 2 storey terraced dwellings fronting Bannerdown road and 1no 2 storey dwelling set back into the site, including associated car parking and hard/soft landscaping

COMMENT The Trust is concerned about the bulk, massing and appearance of the single dwelling which does not appear to fit comfortably within the grain of Batheaston. Although the site is in a location which is of varied character. The extent of flat roof might be visually intrusive into important historic views from Brown’s Folly. An assessment of the impact on views should be undertaken is the LPA’s determination of this application.

11/00914/FUL – Land At Rear Of Argos, Midland Road, Twerton, Bath

Erection of part-three/part-four storey buildings to provide eight townhouses and six apartments; associated off-street car parking and amenity space

COMMENT The Trust welcomes the redevelopment of this site to provide housing within the urban area and the regeneration of an attractive riverside setting. We are generally supportive of the proposed terrace town houses. The number of storeys (3), whilst greater that the majority of surrounding traditional buildings, is considered appropriate for this riverside location. The floor to ceiling heights of the town houses appear to be generous without the buildings exceeding average heights. Materials are generally sympathetic and the contemporary design respects the scale and proportion of the local context. We query the approach to the fenestration and infill on the north elevations which would be improved by using more traditional proportions. We remain concerned about the massing and appearance of the apartment block and the proposed flat roof. We urge the developers and the architects to revisit the design of this building and explore alternative design solutions for the roof.

11/00504/FUL – Courthouse Filling Station, Upper Bristol Road, Lower Weston, Bath BA1 3DE

Construction of Class A1 convenience store and 8no. maisonettes

COMMENT The proposed design is a complete misunderstanding of the handling of an architectural idiom. The volume and scale is inappropriate and the resulting building is confused and has an awkward appearance. The extant permission implies that the LPA may reach the same decision this time around. We would encourage the LPA to engage with applicants in a review of the design as to achieve a better approach to the redevelopment of this site.

11/00720/CA – Sheppard and Son, 50 Circus Mews, City Centre, Bath BA1 2PW

Partial demolition of existing building

COMMENT The Trust does not oppose the demolition of the existing buildings on the site. However, conservation area consent should not be granted until detailed planning applications for appropriate redevelopment or alternative uses have been approved.

11/00660/FUL,27 Sion Hill, Lansdown, Bath BA1 2UN

Erection of single storey porch to side elevation (East), refurbishment of west lean-to to incorporate within the property, construction of verandah to west elevation and amendments to internal layout, replacement of velux roof lights to rear (north) roof slope with conservation style roof lights, removal of timber modern conservatory to west elevation

OBJECT The Trust encourages the LPA to work with the applicants to secure a more appropriate approach to the design of the external door and veranda. This external porch door seems wrong proportionally, and does not relate well to the existing front door. There is insufficient and detail and justification for the veranda to the west elevation. The Trust therefore is of the view that the application fails to accord with Local Plan policies BH1, BH2 and BH6 and PPS5 and should be refused in its current form.

11/00779/CA – 4 James Street West, City Centre, Bath BA1 2BT

Demolition of all existing buildings at 4 James Steet West/1(a) and 2 Kingsmead North

COMMENT The Trust does not oppose the demolition of the existing buildings on the site. However, conservation area consent should not be granted until detailed planning applications for appropriate redevelopment or alternative uses have been approved. Please refer to comments submitted in response to planning application reference 11/00768/FUL.

This installation would contribute to visual clutter that would detract from the setting of listed buildings and neither preserve or enhance the character and appearance of the conservation area. There should be a concerted effort to rationalise street clutter in this location, in line with adopted Council policy within the Public Realm and Movement Strategy. This proposal is contrary to the objectives of the PRMS and policies BH1, BH2 and BH6 of the B&NES Local Plan and PPS5 and should therefore be refused.

p{color:red}. 11/00722/LBA – Horseshoe House, 51 Sydney Buildings, Bathwick, Bath BA2 6DB

Internal and external alterations for the erection of two storey side extension (garage with bedroom over) following demolition of single storey side extension (garage), provision of single storey protruding bay following demolition of single storey protruding bay window (1901) to rear, works to repair roof, remove concrete tiles and provide additional accommodation in attic space, removal of paint to stonework to external elevations, stone repairs, repointing and removal of soiling and internal refurbishment, decorations and upgrading building services

OBJECT This application appears to be identical to the last. The Trust continues to object and our reasons are repeated.

The comprehensive Design and Access Statement accompanying these applications states that Horseshoe House is in need of repair, during the course of which the historic fabric and character of the building, and its group value, will be respected. However, the apparent primary objective, to convert a three bedroom house into a six bedroom house, will inevitably be an inherently damaging programme which contradicts any protestations of respect for a listed building. Bath Preservation Trust does not normally comment on interior work; however, the large extent of the planned alteration within the building is deprecated.

With regard to the street elevation, the existing garage extension is both ugly and inappropriate, and the intention to rebuild it is supported. The principle of making a 21st century statement is both understandable and laudable, but not if, as in this case, the design of a subservient feature is so aggressively unsympathetic that it devalues both the main structure and its group value. The deliberate asymmetry in design contradicts the classical tradition of Bath, and aluminium is a material alien to the city’s palette. The cornice and string course of the new extension do not align comfortably with those of the main house, and the window is disproportionately large. The incongruous dormer windows proposed for the roof are also completely out of scale with the building and with the Georgian norm, and therefore jar visually as well as theoretically. Loss of the original roof structure is considered unacceptable.

With regard to the garden elevation, whilst it is recognised that the existing bay is of much later date than the original build, similar bays to the houses on either side give an established cohesion to the rear view. This will be disrupted by the proposed replacement structure; as with the street elevation, here we also object to the inappropriate design and materials in the use of asymmetry and aluminium.

The proposal is therefore contrary to PPS5 and Policies BH1, BH2 and BH6 of the B&NES Local Plan and the application should be refused.

11/00372/LBA – 6 Rivers Street, City Centre

Internal and external alterations for the rebuilding of rear ground floor wc/lobby and enclosure of space beneath to form wc/lobby, formation of new opening between front and back basement rooms, unblocking of historic opening between front and back ground floor rooms, conversion of existing window in rear basement external wall to door, installation of underfloor heating in basement front room, installation of new entrance door and screen beneath front area overarch, new steps to rear basement area and alterations to retaining wall, minor alterations and repairs.

OBJECT Whilst the historic building assessment provides an adequate understanding of the significance of the building and features of interest internally there is not enough detail to reassure us that these features will be retained and restored. However, our comments and reasons for objecting relate only to external alterations as we cannot gain a proper understanding of the impact without having inspected the interior. In general we are concerned that the extent of refurbishment would be over dominant and would detract from the surviving historic fabric. Interventions should be subservient.

We object to the removal of part of rear basement wall. This is not sufficiently justified and would result in the loss of significant historic fabric. We object to the use of copper as an external cladding material and there is not enough detail about the exact colour and finish of the material. The material is alien to the palette of materials used in the construction of traditional dwellings in Bath. In our view the material would fail to enhance local distinctiveness and detract from the character of the listed building and conservation area.

We do not consider that extensive cleaning of the exterior is required. This further cleaning could be damaging to the surface of the stone. We refer to the BPT and B&NES guidance for the cleaning of Bath stone. The removal of paint and some localised cleaning of the stonework would be supported.

The proposal in its current form is contrary to local Plan Polices BH1, BH2, BH6, D4 and D2 and D4 and polices HE7.4, HE7.5 HE9.5, and HE10 of PPS5, and should therefore be refused. Should the application be approved it will be crucial to have a clear understanding of the appearance of the copper cladding. We do not think that it would be appropriate to agree the details of the colour and finish of the copper by Condition as this would exclude the public from any consultation. Should the copper be approved the Trust would be particularly interested to see the material in situ and make an assessment of the impact it would have on local townscape character, and the appearance and group value of the listed buildings.

11/00962/FUL – Rivers Street Cottage, Rivers Street Mews, City Centre

Conversion of existing garages and storage to form 5no new dwellings, extension of existing cottage into existing garage and erection of new garage with roof terrace over following demolition of large workshop/garage

OBJECT The Trust is supportive, in principle, of proposals to convert these historic mews structures to provide residential accommodation in this sustainable city centre location. However, we question whether this development ought to be car-free, or either make use of a car club or have reduced parking, given its central location and close proximity to city facilities and railway links.

The alterations proposed appear, on the whole, appropriately justified and informed by the character and significance of the existing structures. However the proposed large dormer windows which break the eaves line and introduce overly decorative entablature are considered inappropriate for a modest and subservient collection of structures. This element of the scheme is considered to detract from the character and setting of the listed buildings. Therefore on balance the Trust is minded to object to the application in its current form. The proposals would fail to accord with Policies BH1, BH2 and BH6 of the B&NES Local Plan and PPS 5 Policies HE7.5 HE9.5, and HE10 PPS5.

11/01022/FUL – John Wood House, 308 St Johns Hospital, Chapel Court, City Centre

Proposal: Replacement of single glazed sash and casement windows with slim profile double glazed sash and casement windows.

COMMENT The Trust does not object to this application to replace all existing windows which are of modern construction with new appropriately designed timber sliding sash windows, with double glazed panes.

Whilst this proposal relates to principal facades designed by John Wood, and are very important buildings contributing to the character of the Conservation Area and value world heritage site, the appearance of the windows would be generally unaltered by these proposals, and the work would not result in the loss of any significant historic fabric. It is for this reason that we do not consider that the integrity and significance of the buildings, conservation area or world heritage site would be substantially harmed. We do not consider that the look of the double glazing (glass) will have a negative effect on this part of the Conservation Area and the impact on the setting of the listed buildings would be negligible.

It should be noted that we are looking at the Chapel Court block as a whole and considering any visual impact differently as we would for say a single house within a terrace where such alteration might compromise group value.

Glazing bars should be a wide ovolo profile as appropriate for the buildings age and style. These relatively wide glazing bars would better accommodate slim profile double glazed panes, and should not suffer weakness from the weight of the glass which is a concern when fitting with more slender bars. Any spacer between the bars should be the same colour as the paintwork to the windows.

We support the applicants efforts to adapt this building in order to sustain and secure its continued occupation and use as a home for the elderly citizens of Bath. We acknowledge that these proposals fit into a range of other feasible solutions to help improve the energy efficiency and the comfort of the residents, and any permission granted should be subject to all other measures being implemented in parallel. In addition the thermal performance of double glazed windows could be further improved by the addition of shutters, and thermal blinds and curtains.

Overall we believe that the public benefits of mitigating climate change, which could be achieved by enhanced energy efficiency, outweigh any concerns about the visual appearance of the glass. The proposal therefore specifically accords with Policies HE1.1, 1.2 and 1.3 of PPS5.

10/04317/FUL – Church View, Packhorse Lane, South Stoke, Bath

Erection of 2no gable ends to south elevation, replacement of existing windows to the front with French doors opening onto a veranda, demolish existing steps to front, move existing door on east elevation and erection of cantilevered porch over and provision of larger window to side, erection of 2no. dormers to north elevation, provision of first floor window on west elevation and landscaping

OBJECT This site occupies a prominent and sensitive position in the Southstoke Conservation Area and is adjacent to the grade II* listed church.

The Trust objects to this application. The proposed increase in size, over prominent veranda and inappropriate dormer windows would be disproportionate and incongruous in the street scene, and would unbalance the appearance of this group of modest dwellings. This overdevelopment of the site would be out of proportion with the existing built form and thus would be visually detrimental to the green belt. It would have a negative effect on the appearance of the Conservation Area, and detract from the character and setting of the historic settlement.

The proposals are therefore contrary to the Exsiting Dwellings in the Green BeltSPD, Local Plan policies HG15, GB1, GB2, D2, D4, BH2 and BH6 and PPS 5 Policies HE7.5 HE9.5, and HE10 and should be refused.

The Trust is concerned that inappropriate development, which is not contained within this application and may require planning permission, has been taking place. It is evident that works undertaken at street level, which includes the addition of a small garage constructed in unsympathetic materials, have had an extremely detrimental impact on the character and appearance of the Conservation Area and the setting of the adjacent grade II* listed church. The LPA is urged to take necessary action to remedy any breach of planning control and preserve the character of the village

11/00704/FUL – 6 Abbey Churchyard, City Centre, Bath

Use of public highway outside Jacobs Coffee House for the siting of 10 no tables and 24 no chairs.

OBJECT Whilst the Trust does not object to outdoor tables and chairs in this location, the proposed change of use of the Churchyard area to provide additional seating would be contrary to Policies BH1, BH2, BH6, D2 and D4 of the Bath Local Plan and should be refused. The excessive number of tables and chairs proposed would be visually intrusive into the Churchyard setting of the Abbey and detract from the character of the street a scene and have a negative impact on the setting of other adjacent significant grade I listed buildings. Too many tables and chairs in this location would result in a cluttered appearance that neither preserve nor enhance the character and appearance of the conservation area and will have a harmful impact on the value of the World Heritage Site.

11/00839/AR – Kentucky Fried Chicken 1 – 2 Cambridge House, Henry Street, City Centre

Display of 3no externally illuminated fascia signs, 1no non-illuminated fascia sign, 1no internally illuminated hanging sign and 1no externally illuminated colonel sign to replace existing

OBJECT The Trust will continue to object to externally illuminated signs within the conservation area and in the World Heritage Site. The visually intrusive illuminated fascia signs and internally and externally illuminated hanging signs proposed would be harmful to the visual amenity value of the area 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.

11/01018/LBA, 11/01285/AR, 11/01286/LBA – Saracen’s Head, 42 Broad Street, City Centre

Internal and external alterations for the general refurbishment of internal areas with minor alterations and new external decoration scheme and lighting Display of 1no new amenity sign, 2no new double sided pictorial signs to existing gibbets illuminated by two linolites, 1no new A3 illuminated menu case, etched vinal decals and 2no fascia signs with chisel letters to replace existing signage

External alterations to remove existing signwork and replace with new.

OBJECT The listed building applications provide no justification in terms of the impact on this significant heritage asset, which is a basic and statutory requirement for heritage applications. This application should not be determined without a HIA or historic buildings assessment.

The proposed redecoration scheme is insufficiently justified and there is no evidence to suggest the colour and finishes are accurate, authentic or appropriate. In Bath it is generally acceptable for paint finishes to be matt or eggshell, rather than gloss. The use of, off white or old white is generally more acceptable than brilliant white.

The modern light fittings proposed on the Walcot Street elevation are inappropriate in design and position and detract from the character and architectural interest of the listed building. If the building is to be lit discreet fittings should be mounted in less visually intrusive positions.

The proposed illuminated amenity signs, pictorial signs and fascia signs are totally inappropriate in their design, appearance and materials. This unique listed building deserves a far more considered and sensitive approach. The Broad Street area is characterised by independent shops and the individually designed signage and decoration is of a high quality and contributes to the local distinctiveness of this street. The corporate approach to the proposed signs for the Saracen’s Head fails to equal the surrounding high standard which should be maintained, and continued so that the character of Broad Street is enhanced further. The external illumination and linolite light fittings proposed are not acceptable for listed buildings. Traditionally painted signs would be much more sympathetic and appropriate for this building, and if they are to be illuminated then the light source should be from a small discretely mounted spot light.

The proposed signage and illumination would harm the architectural and historic significance of the listed building, and would detract from on the setting of adjacent listed buildings and the Outstanding Universal Value of the World Heritage Site. They would be harmful to the visual amenity value of the area, fail to enhance local distinctiveness and would and would neither preserve nor enhance the character, appearance of the Conservation area.

The proposals are therefore contrary to, Policies D2, D4, BH1, BH6 and BH 17 (which states specifically that illuminated signs on listed buildings will not normally be permitted) 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.

11/01162/FUL – Street Record, North Parade, City Centre, Bath

Conversion of existing public telephone kiosk to form a combined public payphone and ATM

OBJECT The Trust objects to this application to convert this telephone kiosk to anATM. The kiosk is inappropriately located in a sensitive location in the heart of the World Heritage Site and its removal is far preferable to retention. The ugly utility boxes, bike stands, finger post and kiosks combine to create an unsightly and degraded area that severely detracts from the character of the conservation area and the setting of surrounding listed buildings. The reduction of visually intrusive clutter in this area is highly desirable. Retaining the box would fail to comply with thePRMS, which is now adopted policy. If telephone boxes are to be considered for such uses as ATMs then the Council should investigate the possibilities of using one of the listed red telephone boxes removed from Dorchester Street. Finding new uses for listed red boxes which have become features of historic interest in the townscape would be a far more acceptable solution if they are appropriately sited, and advertised. This planning application, by virtue of its inappropriate siting and associated advertisements fails to comply with policies D2, D4, BH1, BH2 and BH6 of the B&NES Local Plan and should therefore be refused.

11/00939/FUL, 11/00941/LBA, 11/00943/LBA/AR – 4 New Street, City Centre, Bath

Provision of new timber shopfront with glazing. Internal and external alterations to include the installation of a new hoist at the rear of the building, customer toilet and a new timber shopfront. External alterations for the provision of new projecting/hanging sign to front of building. Display of 1no non-illuminated fascia sign and 1no externally illuminated hanging sign

OBJECT The listed building applications provide no justification in terms of the impact on this significant heritage asset, which is a basic and statutory requirement for heritage applications. This application therefore fails to comply with Policy HE6.1 of PPS5 and should not be determined without a heritage impact assessment and historic buildings report.

The design of the proposed shop front is totally inappropriate. The horizontal timber boarding proposed is incongruous and an inferior quality material, which is not in the character of Bath. The horizontal emphasis and clumsy design will have a harmful impact on the composition of the facade and detract from architectural and historic significance of the listed building. New shop fronts to historic buildings, even if contemporary or modernist in design, should respect the general principles of traditional modelling. The approach to this building should make better use of traditional materials, proportions, stallrisers, pilasters and details. The proposal on its current form is contrary to Policies D2, D4, BH1, BH6 and BH 17 of the B&NESLocal Plan, Policies HE7.5 HE9.5, and HE10 of PPS5, and the Planning (Listed Buildings & Conservation Areas) Act 1990 and should therefore be refused.

The externally illuminated hanging sign proposed is inappropriate by virtue of its material, siting and illumination. The metal sign and light fitting is proposed to be fixed at a high level above the fascia where the appearance of the metal material and light would be visually intrusive and harm the architectural and historic significance of the listed building, detract from on the setting of the listed buildings and have a detrimental effect on the Outstanding Universal Value of the World Heritage Site.

A traditionally painted timber hanging sign mounted at fascia level would much more sympathetic and appropriate for this building. If this sign is to be illuminated then the light source should be from a small discretely mounted spot light.

The material and appearance of the fascia sign would also have a harmful effect. The use of timber painted signage is preferred as this material is harmonious with the traditional palette materials appropriate for listed buildings.

They proposed signs would be harmful to the visual amenity value of this part of the conservation area, fail to enhance local distinctiveness and would and would neither preserve nor enhance the character, appearance of the Conservation area. This application is therefore contrary to, Policies D2, D4, BH1, BH6 and BH 17 (which states specifically that illuminated signs on listed buildings will not normally be permitted) 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.

Designed by Ice House Design