Aug- Sep 2014

2014 Weeks 33-36

12 August – 9 September

Week 33

14/03204/FUL – The Ferns, Deadmill Lane, Lower Swainswick, Bath BA1 8DE

Conversion of garage/workshop outbuilding to self-contained dwelling with associated alterations

Comment: Redevelopment within the existing building envelope is more sympathetic and would maintain the character of the Green Belt setting. If this application is to be permitted we recommend withdrawal of PD rights to ensure retention of character.

14/03426/LBA – 4 Victoria Buildings, Twerton, Bath  BA2 3EH.

External alterations for the removal of existing sign, repaint existing fascia and apply new sign.

Object: We object to this proposal as the materials proposed are unsuitable for a listed building within the World Heritage Site.  The materials would not improve the appearance of the principal elevation of the building and therefore not enhance the character of street scene.  We appreciate the applicant’s desire to update the front of their premises; however more appropriate materials should be used.  Plastic and vinyl is not in keeping with the traditional palette of materials which is prevalent across the city. We would suggest that the fascia board should be timber with a hand painted sign, or individual mounted metal lettering would be much more appropriate.

The proposed scheme, by virtual of the materials would be detrimental to the listed building and the street scene and contrary to the Planning (Listed Building and Conservation Areas) Act 1990, Section 12 (Conserving and enhancing the historic environment) of the NPPF, policies; B1, B2, B4 and CP6 of the B&NES Core Strategy and saved policies; D2, D4 and BH19 from the B&NES local plan.   We would therefore ask that the application be refused.

14/03413/FUL – Starbucks, 13-14 High Street, Bath BA1 5AQ.

Use of public highway in front of Starbucks, 13-14 High Street, for the siting of 4 no. tables, 11 no. chairs and 9 no. barriers.

Object: Whilst we understand the desire of a commercial enterprise to expand its seating capacity, we object to the visual and physical intrusion that the proposal would bring to the historic environment and the setting of key heritage assets within the World Heritage Site and the conservation area, namely the Guildhall and the Abbey.

The width of the existing pedestrian area would be diminished by the introduction of chairs, tables and barriers, and frequently restricted by passengers at the adjacent bus stops.  The proposed scheme would therefore introduce features that would potentially hinder the progress of pedestrians, and therefore impact negatively on their experience of the historic environment.

It is generally taken that the setting of a heritage asset is the surroundings in which it is experienced, and as the street forms the setting of two significant and prominent designated heritage assets, any negative impact on the setting of these and other designated assets will harm the significance of the listed buildings.  The proposal would also detract visually from the character and appearance of the location by introducing clutter and non-traditional elements and materials to the conservation area, within the wider World Heritage Site.  As the application is contrary to the Planning (Listed Building and Conservation Areas) Act 1990, Section 12 (Conserving and enhancing the historic environment) of the NPPF, policies; B1, B2, B4 and CP6 of the B&NES Core Strategy and saved policies; D2, D4, BH2, BH6 and S7, we would recommended that the application be refused.

Week 34

14/01490/FUL – Public Toilets, Parade Gardens, Grand Parade, Bath.

External alterations to existing public convenience (Sui Generis)

Object: As the proposed structure is in a prominent position within a very busy registered park – a heritage asset of high significance, we would expect that the design is appropriate for such a location.  The proposed scheme presents a door to the principal elevation which is not in-line with the centre of the lintel; this failure to respect the symmetry is not appropriate for the proposed structure and does not therefore enhance the character of the registered park.

The proposed scheme, by virtual of its design would be detrimental to the registered park and contrary to; Section 12 (Conserving and enhancing the historic environment) of the NPPF, policies; B1, B2, B4 of the B&NES Core Strategy and saved policies; D2, D4, BH6 and BH9 from the B&NES local plan.   We would therefore ask that the application be refused.

14/03465/FUL – Carisbrooke, Bathampton Lane, Bathampton

Erection of new house following the demolition of an existing 20th century house

Object:  Whilst we appreciate that the existing house may not be of the most appropriate appearance in this context, in our view it’s traditional form and pitched roof presents a more acceptable design than this proposal. The proposed new dwelling by virtue of the inappropriate zinc cladding materials, bulk and massing would fail to enhance the local distinctiveness of the village scene, would harm the setting and significance of the grade II listed buildings on Bathampton Lane, would have a detrimental impact on views of the Conservation Area, and would neither preserve nor enhance the to the character and appearance of the conservation area.

Furthermore the development as proposed would introduce a visually intrusive structure not in keeping with the location which would detract from the view of the historic townscape from the Green Belt and harm the setting of the World Heritage Site.

The proposed scheme,is therefore  contrary to the Planning (Listed Building and Conservation Areas) Act 1990, Sections 7, 9 and 2, of the NPPF, policies; B1, B4 and CP6 of the B&NES Core Strategy and saved policies; D4 and BH6 from the B&NES local plan.   We would therefore recommend that the application be refused.

14/03493/LBA – Flat 2, 1 Marlborough Buildings, Bath.

Internal and external alterations for the reconfiguration of layout of ground floor flat.

Comment: Should the application be granted consent, we would recommend that the flue is of a suitable muted colour and appropriate material, which respects the traditional palette of the city.

 

14/03500/FUL – 23 Southcot Place, Lyncombe, Bath.

Erection of a rear extension, rear dormer window and garden building. (Resubmission).

Object:  We recognise that the applicant has made an effort to address local concerns about this development, however we maintain our position as per the initial application for this scheme, as the proposal has not changed sufficiently to overcome our objection.

Southcot Place is a 1970’s terrace has been sensitively designed with the appearance of a ‘Georgian’ terrace on the hillside to fit comfortably into its setting and from both elevations it relates well to the built character and topographical character of the conservation area. Whilst there is some evidence alterations the terrace has retained the general form and appearance as it were originally designed. The flat roof dormer proposed, despite its reduction in size, would be an incongruous  development, by virtue of its height, design, size and position and visibility. The large flat roof dormer window is not in the interest of good design and would have a detrimental impact on the design of the whole terrace. Being visible from the public realm this feature would have a negative effect on the surrounding townscape and neither preserve nor enhance the character of the conservation area.

Furthermore the unsympathetic and design and form would detract from the significance and setting of adjacent listed buildings. The roof extension would set a worrying precedent in this terrace especially as clearly visible from public realm (Lyncombe Hill). The other houses have placed veluxes in order to render roof space usable which is more sympathetic in the very shallow-pitched roof.

The proposed inappropriate development is considered contrary to S16 and S72 of the Planning (Listed Buildings & Conservation Areas) Act 1990, Section 12 ‘Conserving & Enhancing the Historic Environment’ of the NPPF, policies B1, B4 and CP6 of B&NES Core Strategy, and Local Plan Policies D2, D4, BH1, BH2, BH.6 and should therefore be refused.

Week 35

14/03197/AR & 14/03242/LBA – 24 New Bond Street.

Display of 1no non-illuminated fascia sign, 1no non-illuminated projecting sign and change of colour to shopfront.

Object: We object to this proposal as the materials and form proposed are unsuitable for a listed building within the World Heritage Site.  The materials would not improve the appearance of the principal elevation of the building and therefore not enhance the character of the street scene.  We appreciate the applicant’s desire to change the front of their premises; however more appropriate materials should be used.  In addition the projecting sign is not a common form in New Bond Street and would introduce an alien feature that would potentially harm views along the street; especially if it set a precedent with shops vying with each other to advertise in this manner.  We would suggest that the fascia sign be hand painted and that the background finish be in a more traditional colour.

The proposed scheme, by virtual of the materials and form would be detrimental to the listed building, and visual amenity value of the area and neither preserve nor and enhance the character and appearance of the Conservation Area, and contrary to the Planning (Listed Building and Conservation Areas) Act 1990, Section 12 (Conserving and enhancing the historic environment) of the NPPF, policies; B1, B2, B4 and CP6 of the B&NES Core Strategy and saved policies; D2, D4 and BH19 from the B&NES local plan.   We would therefore recommend that the application be refused.

14/03516/LBA & 14/03521/AR – Working Links, 25 Monmouth Street.

External alterations to include display of fascia sign, internal vinyl window graphics and alteration of shop colour. (Regularisation)

Object: We object to this proposal as the vinyl materials proposed are unsuitable for a listed building within the World Heritage Site.  The window graphics would add clutter and not improve the appearance of the principal elevation of the building and therefore not enhance the character of street scene.  We appreciate the applicant’s desire to change the appearance of their signage; however more appropriate materials should be used.  Vinyl is not in keeping with the traditional palette of materials which is prevalent across the city and we would suggest that the fascia board should have a hand painted sign, which would be more appropriate.

The proposed scheme, by virtual of the materials would be detrimental to the listed building and visual amenity value of the area and neither preserve nor and enhance the character and appearance of the Conservation Area and contrary to the Planning (Listed Building and Conservation Areas) Act 1990, Section 12 (Conserving and enhancing the historic environment) of the NPPF, policies; B1, B2, B4 and CP6 of the B&NES Core Strategy and saved policies; D2, D4 and BH19 from the B&NES local plan.   We would therefore ask that the application be refused.

14/03523/FUL – 18 Brookleaze Buildings, Larkhall, Bath.

Erection of single storey outbuilding following demolition of existing garage.

Comment: We would question whether LBC is required, as the demolition and proposed scheme is to take place within the curtilage of a listed building.  In addition the height of the proposal, which is not in keeping with that of the existing structures on Salisbury Road, will impact on views to the rear of the listed property at 18 Brookleaze Buildings and adjacent buildings.

Week 36

14/03385/CLEU – 14 Northumberland Place.  Bath.

Change of use of the public highway for the siting of 2 tables and 8 chairs. (Cert. of lawfulness for existing use).

Comment: This change of use is acceptable providing that it is strictly restricted to the amounts stated, as any more furniture would create visual clutter and therefore harm the amenity of the street scene and setting of listed buildings.

14/03522/AR – Clinton Cards, 27-28 Stall Street.  Bath.

Installation of 1no. non-illuminated fascia sign.

Object: We object to this retrospective proposal as the use of PVC is unsuitable for a listed building within the World Heritage Site and conservation area.  The material would not improve the appearance of the principal elevation of the building and therefore not enhance the character of the street scene.  We appreciate the applicant’s desire to change the front of their premises; however more appropriate materials should be used.  We would suggest that the fascia sign be hand painted and that the background finish be in a more traditional colour, drawing on the prevalent historic palette of the city.

The proposed scheme, by virtue of the material would be detrimental to the listed building, and visual amenity value of the area and neither preserve nor and enhance the character and appearance of the Conservation Area, and be contrary to the Planning (Listed Building and Conservation Areas) Act 1990, Section 12 (Conserving and enhancing the historic environment) of the NPPF, policies; B1, B2, B4 and CP6 of the B&NES Core Strategy and saved policies; D2, D4 and BH19 from the B&NES local plan.   We would therefore recommend that the application be refused.

In addition, we consider that the work – which has already been undertaken prior to consent – is in breach of Planning and Listed Building Control, and we would therefore request that you undertake an investigation and pursue necessary enforcement action.

14/03598/LBA – 5 Beaufort Place, Lambridge, Bath.

External alterations for the relocation of boiler flue.

Comment: Should the application be granted consent, we would recommend that the flue is of a suitable muted colour to harmonise with the stonework and appropriate material, which respects the traditional palette of the city.

14/03663/LBA – Flat 3 Ormonde House, 28 Sion Hill, Lansdown, Bath.

External works for the replacement of 4no. sash windows with glazed doors and installation of glazed balustrade to parapet walls of the balcony.

Object: We object to this proposal as the evidence provided in the documents supporting the application is inadequate to allow an informed appraisal of the scheme.  The Heritage Statement is very poor as it provides very little detail on the significance of the designated heritage asset and no sound justification for the proposed work.  There is no Heritage Impact Assessment, suggesting a lack of consideration of how the proposal would impact on the listed building and the wider historic environment.

The proposed scheme by virtue of the omission of comprehensive supporting evidence has the potential to harm the fabric and significance of a listed building within the World Heritage Site and the conservation area.  As the proposal would – based on the evidence presented – neither preserve nor enhance the character and appearance of the designated heritage assets and is contrary to paragraph 128 of the NPPF (2012) and NPPG – Conserving and enhancing the historic environment (2014), we would recommend that the application be refused.

14/03695/FUL – 5 Lansdown Heights, Lansdown, Bath.

Erection of single storey rear extension and chimney flue.

Comment: Should the application be granted consent, we would recommend that the flue is of a suitable muted colour and appropriate material, which respects the traditional palette of the city.

14/03526/AR – 4 Victoria Buildings, Twerton, Bath.

Display of 1no. non-illuminated sign

Object: We object to this proposal as the materials proposed are unsuitable for a listed building within the World Heritage Site.  The materials would not improve the appearance of the principal elevation of the building and therefore not enhance the character of street scene.  We appreciate the applicant’s desire to update the front of their premises; however more appropriate materials should be used.  Plastic and vinyl is not in keeping with the traditional palette of materials which is prevalent across the city. We would suggest that the fascia board should be timber with a hand painted sign, or individual mounted metal lettering would be much more appropriate.

The proposed scheme, by virtue of the materials would be detrimental to the listed building, and visual amenity value of the area and neither preserve nor and enhance the character of the street scene and contrary to the Planning (Listed Building and Conservation Areas) Act 1990, Section 12 (Conserving and enhancing the historic environment) of the NPPF, policies; B1, B2, B4 and CP6 of the B&NES Core Strategy and saved policies; D2, D4 and BH19 from the B&NES local plan.   We would therefore ask that the application be refused.  

Designed by Ice House Design