Dec 2012-Jan 2013

18th December 2012 – 12th January 2013

Week 50 (2012) to Week 2  (2013)

Comments submitted January 2013

12/05334/LBA – Cafe Au Lait, 12 Dorchester Street, Bath

External alterations for the reinstatement of 2no. awnings over shop front.

OBJECT The proposed blinds would be visually and physically intrusive into the facade – whilst there appears to be evidence (damage to stone work) of an awning here in the past, the appropriateness of reinstating an awning is not sufficiently justified. The design of the shop front does not allow for an awning and box mechanism to be set within the facade, positioning it on the cornice interrupts the architectural detailing. Bolting it onto the stonework is unacceptable and harmful to the appearance of the facade and the architectural significance of the listed building. The proposal is therefore contrary to the Planning (Listed Buildings & Conservation Areas) Act 1990, Section 12 ‘Conserving & Enhancing the Historic Environment of the NPPF and Local Plan Policies BH2, BH6 and BH17 and should be refused.

12/05338/FUL – Graze, 9 Brunel Square, Bath

Installation of rooftop plant including screening.

COMMENT This a very visible site, especially when viewed from Beechen Cliff. The design of plant work should have been dealt with before Graze opened not as ‘bolt on’ and this retrospective approach is regrettable.

12/05399/LBA – Basement, 1 Spencer’s Belle Vue, Lansdown, Bath

Internal and external alterations to include renovation and alterations to fenestration.

COMMENT In accordance with Warmer Bath (our published guidance for the energy efficiency of traditional buildings), which states that “Bath Preservation Trust supports the replacement of windows with timber slim profile double glazing in listed buildings in Bath except for significant historic windows on principal facades” the Trust promotes the use of slim-line double glazing to replace non-historic sash windows, and potentially as alternative to secondary glazing in the chapel (subject to understanding the significance of the existing). This could also provide an opportunity to reintroduce appropriate and consistent glazing bar profiles and window design.

12/04992/FUL 15 Kensington Place, Walcot, Bath

Erection of garage block on land rear of 15 and 16 Kensington Place.

OBJECT BPT raise no objection in principle to small garage developments of the bottom of these long garden plots. However, development should not interrupt/dissect these historic liner plots. Cutting the gardens horizontally at this point disrupts the historic garden setting to Kensington Place. Houses of this height and scale deserve a proportionate setting which should be retained. Approval of this development would set an extremely undesirable precedent for similar developments that would individually and collectively have a harmful impact on the character and setting of Kensington Place. The proposal by virtue of its inappropriate siting is detrimental to the significance and setting and contrary to the Planning (Listed Buildings & Conservation Areas) Act 1990, Section 12 ‘Conserving & Enhancing the Historic Environment of the NPPF and Local Plan Policies BH1, BH2 and BH6 and should therefore be refused.

12/05254/LBA – 9 Marlborough Buildings, Bath

First floor flat windows

COMMENT In accordance with Warmer Bath (our published guidance for the energy efficiency of traditional buildings), which states that “Bath Preservation Trust supports the replacement of windows with timber slim profile double glazing in listed buildings in Bath except for significant historic windows on principal facades” the Trust promotes the use of slim-line double glazing to replace non-historic sash windows, and potentially as alternative to secondary glazing in the chapel (subject to understanding the significance of the existing). This could also provide an opportunity to reintroduce appropriate and consistent glazing bar profiles and window design.

12/05254/LBA – Street Record, The Corridor, City Centre

Reconfiguration of shop units 5-10 in The Corridor to enlarge usable retail area and join units together and display of new signage, lighting and decorations.

COMMENT The general approach to the proposed signage indicates careful thought. We would like some assurance that the presence of hanging signs will negate the need for ‘A’ boards. The cleaning and refurbishing of both facades is good in principle, however repainting should be avoided and the High Street elevation should only require isolated spot cleaning. The coloured films and lighting proposed within the Corridor would not be as appropriate for the Union Street or High Street elevations. We do feel that the design of the fascia signs needs some fine tuning. Perhaps the amount of signs which say the “The Corridor” ought to be reduced to avoid an overly commercial presence, and the design of the fascia sign could be better without any sub text at all, as this appears too cluttered. We welcome the inclusion of an interpretation panel and would be happy to have an input into the information displayed. We eagerly await the return of the Grecian female statues to the plinths within The Corridor which are being restored with assistance from the World Heritage Enhancement Fund, that will further enhance the historic interest of this historic arcade.

12/05311/AR & 12/05413/LBA – Duck Son & Pinker, 12 Northgate Street

Display of 1no. non-illuminated fascia sign, 1no. non-illuminated hanging sign and 1no. Non-illuminated bronze lettering within glazing panel

SUPPORT We welcome this approach to the fascia sign which interestingly is in the same style, rather than the Joules corporate style. The signs are to be affixed to an established shop front advertisement fascia, dating from the early 20th century; the proposed individual letters follow the existing precedent. We would encourage the reuse of earlier fixing positions. Although the hanging sign is in the corporate style, is to be of timber, hand sign written, and is not proposed to be illuminated which is visually appropriate in this context.

12/05400/AR & 12/05401/LBA Bluecoat House, Sawclose, City Centre

Display of 1no non-illuminated fascia sign, 1no externally-illuminated projecting sign and 1no internally-illuminated menu box (Resubmission)

OBJECT This proposal is a great improvement on the last scheme. However, we remain concerned about the number of fixings and the impact on the stone, these should be kept to a minimum. The illumination of the hanging sign is better avoided. There is a street light that provides enough light for the building and signs to be seen. The Trust therefore maintains an objection to the illuminated sign.

The Trust will continue to object to illuminated signs within the conservation area and in the World Heritage Site. The sign would by virtue of its means of illumination would be visually intrusive, would neither preserve nor enhance the character and appearance of the conservation area and would detract from the visual amenity value of the area. The proposal is therefore contrary to Policies, D2, D4, BH1, BH6 and BH 17 of the B&NES Local Plan, the Planning (Listed Buildings & Conservation Areas) Act 1990, Section 12 ‘Conserving & Enhancing the Historic Environment of the NPPF and Local Plan Policies BH1, BH2 and BH6 and should therefore be refused.

12/05316/FUL – 76 Combe Park, Lower Weston, Bath

Provision of a driveway/hardstanding area and gateway to replace existing fence.

OBJECT B&NES Council resolved to impose an Article 4 Direction the Conservation Area withdrawing permitted development rights to demolish walls and fences abutting a highway. The fence along the street frontage contributes to the street scene and its presence defines the edge of the front gardens. The removal of the fence is considered discordant with the character of the boundary treatments in this area. The loss of the large part of the front garden to hard-standing would also fail to either preserve or enhance the character of the conservation area as required by Local Plan Policy BH.6 (Development within or affecting Conservation Areas). The proposal is therefore contrary to Policy BH6 of the B&NES Local Plan, the Planning (Listed Buildings & Conservation Areas) Act 1990, Section 12 ‘Conserving & Enhancing the Historic Environment of the NPPF and Local Plan Policies BH1, BH2 and BH6 and should therefore be refused.

12/05458/REM – Field Parcel 3029, Packhorse Lane, South Stoke, Bath

Removal of conditions 1 and 2 of application 07/03727/FUL (Erection of temporary hay barn and stable (Retrospective)

OBJECT The permanent retention of the stabling would be an inappropriate development that would have a detrimental impact on the character of the open countryside, the greenbelt and ANOB. The temporary permission exists to protect the special character of the open landscape. Temporary consent should therefore be retained. Should this permission be extended it must be subject to a Condition to ensure that when the stabling use ceases the land is returned to its natural state.

Permanent permission would be contrary to policies GB1, BG2, NE2, D2, D4 of the B&NES Local Plan, and Section 11 of the NPPF.

12/05575/LBA – 4 Park Street, Lansdown, Bath, Bath and North East Somerset

External works to remove existing entrance structure to under-ground water storage chamber and reinstate a coursed ashlar rear boundary wall, including to replace and extend existing metal lightwell railings

COMMENT Most of rear garden walls in this street are rubble (not ashlar), Bath stone walls (especially ashlar) on slopes traditionally follow slope from ground up so a horizontal top looks wrong. Simple pillars (at end & on turn) and coping-stones would finish the wall appropriately, especially if ashlar. Full and precise details of the construction of the boundary wall ought to be submitted in support of this planning application – including construction details and a detailed specification. The detail in the D&A and plans is insufficient. This should not be agreed by Condition and further information should be submitted in support of this application.

12/05409/LBA – Garden Flat, 5 Nelson Place East, Walcot, Bath, Bath and North East Somerset

Internal alterations to layout, windows and doors.

OBJECT The Design and Access Statement supporting this application is inadequate, there is no historic research to back up the supposition that door and window openings are not original. Therefore the impact on the significance of the listed building is not properly understood. The proposed window insertion to the front elevation seems acceptable, but the door should simply be closed up and not permanently blocked, historic fabric should be retained and this intervention should allow for reversibility. The exchange of door and window to the rear elevation is not acceptable, due to loss of historic fabric and plan; with regard to justification, the room could still function as a living room/kitchen without this alteration.

We do not feel that this proposals sufficiently justifies the loss of significant historic fabric or otherwise. The proposal is therefore contrary to Policy BH2 and BH6 of the B&NES Local Plan, the Planning (Listed Buildings & Conservation Areas) Act 1990, Section 12 ‘Conserving & Enhancing the Historic Environment of the NPPF and Local Plan Policies BH1, BH2 and BH6 and should therefore be refused.

12/05417/LBA – 4 George Street, City Centre

Internal and external alterations including structural repairs, reinstatement of basement use, installation of roof mounted external condenser equipment at rear of property and new signage

COMMENT With regard to the signage, traditional sign writing on the timber fascia are preferred to individual stainless steel letters, which are inappropriate in design and material. The hanging sign should also be sign written rather than acrylic film. The proposed bracket for the hanging sign is overly ornate, and very different in style from the existing bracket and those on the surrounding buildings. Use of the existing bracket would be preferable, and would also prevent further damage to the stonework of the building.

12/05171/OUT – Bathway House, 144 London Road West, Lower Swainswick, Bath, BA1 7DD

Erection of 1no. dwelling.

OBJECT The Trust objects to the proposal for a dwelling on this plot. The decision to extend the driveway to the south-east to serve the proposed dwelling would part the annex from Bathway House, creating an uncomfortable relationship between the two buildings. Furthermore, the Trust feels that insufficient information has been provided regarding this application, severely hampering any proper appraisal of these proposals. The information falls short of what is required on a number of important aspects.

–          The section sketch does not indicate the relationship with the 1.5 storey to-be-converted barn and it is unclear if the site includes the barn’s garden store;

–          Q17 indicates bedrooms but the quantity is unknown;

–          The landscape drawing is missing;

–          The wording of the Design and Access Statement is sketchy, without reference to designations;

–          There is no additional car parking from the existing (let alone proposed barn conversion);

–          Demolition would result in the loss of walls and an ash tree;

–          The access drawing is imprecise, with no indication of vision splays.

The proposal in its current form is considered inappropriate development in the greenbelt, contrary to policies D2, D4, GB1, GB2, BH1 and BH6 of the B&NES Local Plan, the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 and Section 12 ‘Conserving and Enhancing the Historic Environment’ and Section 9 ‘Protecting Green Belt land’ of the NPPF and should be refused unless further information is submitted in support of the proposals.

12/05442/FUL & 12/05451/AR – 4 Southgate Street, Bath BA1 1AQ

Installation of new shop front including 2no. ATM’s, new automatic glazed entrance doors and 1no. security camera, and the installation of 4no. new Condenser Units at 4 and 5 Southgate Street.

OBJECT The Trust will continue to object to illuminated signs within the conservation area and in the World Heritage Site. The proposed signage by virtue of its illumination, size and position, in particular the projecting sign which is just off-centre of a window, would be visually intrusive, would neither preserve nor enhance the character and appearance of the conservation area and would detract from the visual amenity value of the area. Similarly, it does not appear that an appropriate design approach has been properly considered. Unfortunately, the key to numbers on the ‘proposed drawing’ is not included and form Q9 refers to this. Without this information, a proper assessment of the impact of the proposals cannot be made. The proposal is contrary to Policies, D2, D4, BH1, BH6 and BH17 of the B&NES Local Plan, the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 and Section 12 ‘Conserving and Enhancing the Historic Environment’ of the NPPF and therefore should be refused.

12/05578/AR – Odeon Cinema Kingsmead Leisure Complex, 5 – 10 James Street West, City Centre, Bath, Bath And North East Somerset, BA1 2BX

Display of 6no internally-illuminated fascia signs, 3no non-illuminated fascia signs, 4no internally-illuminated projecting signs and 2no internally-illuminated menu signs.

OBJECT The Bath Preservation Trust welcomes the overall signage strategy but there is too much illumination. It is not necessary for there to be any illuminated signage on the facade as the street is well lit. Whilst the materials are appropriate for this building, we consider that the amount of proposed signage is excessive.  We would like to be assured that when the refit is complete, the various A-boards will be permanently removed. The proposed signage, by virtue of its illumination and the amount, would neither preserve nor enhance the character and appearance of the conservation area and would detract from the visual amenity value of the area. The proposal is contrary to policies, D2, D4, BH1, BH6 and BH 17 of the B&NES Local Plan, the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 and Section 12 ‘Conserving and Enhancing the Historic Environment’ of the NPPF and therefore should be refused.

12/05438/AR – 86 Lower Bristol Road, Westmoreland, Bath, Bath And North East Somerset, BA2 3BQ

Display of non-illuminated board on wall in front of shop (Regularisation).

OBJECT The Trust deplores the tendency of firms to erect signs and then seek approval. However, we understand that this application is seeking to remedy a breach. Whilst the notice board obviates the need for A-boards and maintenance of the cemetery’s hedge, the signage detracts from the character, visual amenity value and special qualities of the World Heritage Site. The banner is unnecessarily garish and its removal would certainly be an enhancement to the character of the conservation area. The application is therefore contrary to policies D2, D4, BH1, BH2 and BH17 of the B&NES Local Plan, the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 and Section 12 ‘Conserving and Enhancing the Historic Environment’ of the NPPF and should be refused.

12/05547/FUL – 4 Cleveland Place West, Walcot, Bath, Bath And North East Somerset, BA1 5DG

Erection of a three bedroom dwelling with associated hard and soft landscaping.

OBJECT The Trust does not consider that development on this site, on the riverbank and within such proximity to Cleveland Bridge is acceptable in principle. Whilst we appreciate the applicant’s efforts to illustrate how the building would fit within the context of the river, we feel that this relies too heavily on the existence of trees and vegetation, which are seasonal and not permanent features of the historic townscape. We have assessed the impact on the setting of the Bridge and it is felt that without the screening and height provided by vegetation, the position, mass and height of the building would be visually intrusive and therefore harmful to the prominence and significance of this important listed Bridge. Furthermore we have serious concerns about development breaking forward of the building line and pattern of historic development, which in this location is set back from the riverbank. We consider that the presence of a ‘green corridor’ along the riverbank is an important characteristic of the river, and feature of the Bath Conservation Area, which ought to be maintained as such. This green corridor provides a backdrop to Cleveland Bridge and maintains it’s important riverbank setting. The application is therefore in the Trust’s view, contrary to policies D2, D4, BH1, BH2 and BH6 of the B&NES Local Plan, the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 and Section 12 ‘Conserving and Enhancing the Historic Environment’ of the NPPF and should be refused.

 

Designed by Ice House Design