Jan – Feb 2014

2014 Weeks 4-7

14 January – 14 February 2014

Week 4

13/05016/LBA – 12 The Circus, City Centre, Bath  BA1 2ES

External alterations to replace tarmac in courtyard with pennant flags

SUPPORT Bath Preservation Trust is pleased that the applicant has reconsidered the replacement of rear basement windows and removed this element of the proposed works from the application. As per our original representation on the application, the Trust is pleased by the proposals to remove the inappropriate tarmac surfacing from the rear courtyard. Pennant stone is the appropriate material to replace the tarmac, and as such this application should be given consent as it constitutes a considered and sensitive approach and an enhancement to the setting of this historically important listed building.

 

13/05386/LBA – 5 Bladud Buildings, City Centre

Internal and external alterations to include the removal of masonry infill to existing window and replacement of damaged cill and broken lintel with reclaimed ashlar to match (retrospective).

COMMENT Whilst we regret that the work has been undertaken prior to the submission of an application the Bath Preservation Trust welcomes the sensitive reinstatement of a sash window which is justified by the submitted evidence and will enhance the architectural and historic interest of the building.

 

13/05476/FUL – The Huntsman Inn, 1 Terrace Walk, City Centre

Use of section of payment abutting frontage of Huntsman Public House to allow siting of external furniture.

COMMENT The design of the proposed furniture looks better than the existing unauthorised furniture, however we are concerned that the proposed chairs appear difficult to move and store, and the license requires nightly removal. The Trust would welcome an overall scheme for this large and important paved area.  Furthermore a design guide or SPD for outdoor seating in Bath, which corresponds with the Public Realm and Movement Strategy and ‘Pattern Book’ for Bath is encouraged.

 

13/05480/AR – The Huntsman Inn, 1 Terrace Walk, City Centre

Display of banners enclosing pavement licensed area in conjunction with planters

OBJECT Insufficient detail of the material, colour and appearance of the banners has been submitted. As such the Trust is unable to make a proper assessment of the impact on visual amenity and character of the area. The application in its current form fails to comply with Local Plan Policies BH2, BH6, BH17 and BH19, the Planning (Listed Buildings & Conservation Areas) Act 1990 and Section 12 Conserving & Enhancing the Historic Environment of the NPPF and should be refused.

 

13/05503/LBA – Nicholas Wylde Goldsmith Ltd, 12 Northumberland Place, Bath BA1 5AR

External alterations to signage

COMMENT Bath Preservation Trust has no objection in principle to these works, however, it is felt that the application is lacking the detail required to make an informed assessment of the proposals. More information is needed with regards to the materials and methods of fixing proposed.

 

14/00050/LBA – Warehouse   5 New Bond Street, City Centre

External alterations for new signage to the shop front

SUPPORT Bath Preservation Trust strongly supports this application as the scheme is sensitive, non-illuminated and traditionally sign painted. These considered efforts to preserve and enhance the conservation area in this sensitive location are to be welcomed and it is hoped that, if approved and well implemented, the approach will encourage similar sensitive schemes in the Conservation Area.

 

14/00059/AR – Pizza Express 1-3 Barton Street, City Centre

1 set of non illuminated fascia text and non illuminated orbiting feature line and 1 no. externally illuminated projection sign

OBJECT The Trust objects to illuminated signs on listed buildings and within the Conservation area and in the World Heritage Site. While the illumination itself is enough to be of detriment to the visual amenity of the area, the signs, by virtue of the materials, colour, amount and position are incongruous. Steel lettering and applied vinyl materials are insensitive and inappropriate for use upon a listed building and are not in the traditional palette of Bath. The excessive amount of additions to the shop frontage will add to the visual clutter of the street scene and as this building is situated next to the Grade II* listed Beau Nash House, directly opposite listed buildings and is in close proximity to the Grade II* listed Theatre Royal, this advertising application should seek to preserve or enhance the special historic interest and visual amenity of the locality, not detract from it.

The application therefore fails to comply with Local Plan Policies BH2, BH6, BH17 and BH19, the Planning (Listed Buildings & Conservation Areas) Act 1990 and Section 12 Conserving & Enhancing the Historic Environment of the NPPF and should be refused.

 

14/00115/AR & 14/00116/LBA – Jazz Cafe, 1 Kingsmead Street, City Centre, Bath BA1 2AA

Installation of permanent awning with company logo

COMMENT  The Trust regrets that the existing awning, for which this application seeks permission to retain, was not erected in accordance with the application granted consent in 2011. Given the extant permission the Trusts comments relate to the detail of the awning which is in place. We are not convinced that the red colour and the large bold lettering are at all sympathetic to the special interest of this significant listed building and we encourage a softer approach, a more subtle colour and smaller lettering is preferred.

 

13/05248/AR – Kwik Fit, 4 Mile End, London Road, Walcot, Bath BA1 6PT

Display of 2no. replacement Fascia signs with led strip internally illuminated. Display of 1no. logo sign applied to fascia. Display of 1no. replacement wall mounted non illuminated sign. Display of 1no. reception sign with externally illuminated down lighter. Display of 1no. replacement free standing internally illuminated forecourt sign.

COMMENT The Trust welcomes the installation of fascia signs which will tidy up existing scattered signs, however we are concerned about the amount and level of illumination proposed which may detract from the visual amenity of the townscape. We question the necessity of the wall mounted sign – this repeats information sited elsewhere and just adds clutter.

 

Week 5

14/00254/FUL – Bath Spa University, Sion Road, Lansdown, Bath

Erection of 2 No. three dimensional cube shaped signs supported on steel pedestals, name engravings on existing gate piers, following removal of the existing sign and plinth. Provision of two footpaths with accompanying low level bollard lighting

OBJECT Bath Preservation Trust questions the suitability of the proposed illuminated cube signs in this location. The Trust appreciates the effort in proposing  signage which is are rather more sculptural than everyday functional signage which could in itself be considered as a piece of design – such works would usually only be granted temporary planning permission.

The setting for these illuminated cubes is one of park land with listed buildings and the AONB in the locality. As a result this part of the conservation area has a rural and traditional character and the concern is that the bulky cube signs are of an urban contemporary character. This juxtaposition could lead to an uncomfortable and regretful aesthetic to this otherwise verdant and relatively untouched street scene. We therefore we question the appropriateness of the proposals. That the cubes will be illuminated adds heavily to this concern; if the officer is minded to grant permission a condition on the hours of illumination should be applied in the interest of both visual and residential amenity.

This application also lacks detail relating to the carved lettering in the gate posts. There is no scale drawing to illustrate the positioning of the lettering, or the font to be used.  Furthermore the age of these gate posts is not given, and the significance of them is not understood.  Whilst the application gives examples of traditional precedent, the application does not show that the incised lettering will be a traditional font rather than the University’s branding – to which we would object.   A well informed assessment of this proposal cannot therefore be made.  More information is needed with regards to the proposed lettering and this should be sought prior to determination and not by way of Condition.

By virtue of the inappropriate materials, illumination, and the lack of detail within the application the proposals are contrary to Section 11 ‘Conserving and Enhancing the Historic Environment’ of the NPPF and local plan policies BH.1, BH.6, BH.17, D.2 and D.4 and should be REFUSED.

 

14/00255/AR – Bath Spa University, Sion Road, Lansdown, Bath

Erection of 2 No. three dimensional cube shaped signs supported on steel pedestals, name engravings on existing gate piers, following removal of the existing sign and plinth

OBJECT Bath Preservation Trust questions the suitability of the proposed illuminated cube signs in this location. The Trust appreciates the effort in proposing  signage which is are rather more sculptural than everyday functional signage which could in itself be considered as a piece of design – such works would usually only be granted temporary planning permission.

The setting for these illuminated cubes is one of park land with listed buildings and the AONB in the locality. As a result this part of the conservation area has a rural and traditional character and the concern is that the bulky cube signs are of an urban contemporary character. This juxtaposition could lead to an uncomfortable and regretful aesthetic to this otherwise verdant and relatively untouched street scene. We therefore we question the appropriateness of the proposals. That the cubes will be illuminated adds heavily to this concern; if the officer is minded to grant permission a condition on the hours of illumination should be applied in the interest of both visual and residential amenity.

This application also lacks detail relating to the carved lettering in the gate posts. There is no scale drawing to illustrate the positioning of the lettering, or the font to be used.  Furthermore the age of these gate posts is not given, and the significance of them is not understood.  Whilst the application gives examples of traditional precedent, the application does not show that the incised lettering will be a traditional font rather than the University’s branding – to which we would object.   A well informed assessment of this proposal cannot therefore be made.  More information is needed with regards to the proposed lettering and this should be sought prior to determination and not by way of Condition.

By virtue of the inappropriate materials, illumination, and the lack of detail within the application the proposals are contrary to Section 11 ‘Conserving and Enhancing the Historic Environment’ of the NPPF and local plan policies BH.1, BH.6, BH.17, D.2 and D.4 and should be REFUSED.

 

13/05589/FUL – 43 Belgrave Crescent, Walcot, Bath BA1 5JU

Erection of two storey dwelling following the demolition of existing garage

OBJECT The part of the City of Bath Conservation Area to which this application relates is characterised by dense terraces which rise up the hillsides and occupy prominent positions overlooking the city and its landscape setting.  Whist the architecture here predominately dates from the late 18th early 19th century there is a noticeable presence of ‘infill’ development from the 20th century which fits into the existing historic street pattern. The Trust has stated a clear view that Bath’s ‘brown field’, previously developed urban sites should be developed to provide much needed housing in the city. This site is currently occupied by an unsightly flat roofed garage, and thus is considered a ‘brownfield’ site.  Removing or replacing this building ugly building creates an opportunity for enhancement. We therefore raise no objection to the principle of a building on the site, provided it is of a high quality, and high standard of design, as appropriate for this sensitive historic context.

Having assisted the Council in the preparation of the Bath World Heritage Site Setting SPD we are highly aware of the issues surrounding historic views and Bath’s landscape setting. We acknowledge that a section of openness, and view would be interrupted at pavement level along Belgrave Crescent, however, as long as the building is of an appropriate size and height, and visual ‘gaps’ are maintained between buildings, the view across Bath and its significant attributes would continue to be read and appreciated from both the public and private realm.  Because of the steep topography historic viewpoints would not be adversely affected by a two storey house on this site.

Our objection more specifically relates to the impact of the proposed building on the street scene and on the setting of listed buildings, particularly Gays House.  First and foremost the quality of this planning application is just not good enough to demonstrate a high standard of design and construction, as is necessary for a building in this context. There isn’t enough detail in the drawings and the supporting documentation is insufficient. We are not convinced that the photomontages ‘cut and paste’ is an accurate depiction of the proposed building. We would expect a much more considered proposal and standard of application for a new house located between listed buildings.

In respect of the design and appearance, the proposed building appears too deep in its plan form, by comparison with the terrace and seems overly bulky. The orientation of the hipped roof and ridge seems wrong, and fails to harmonize with existing buildings.  The building doesn’t relate comfortably to the street scene and detracts from the rhythm of the historic street pattern.

Whilst the green credentials of the building are commended, there seems to be a much stronger emphasis on energy saving measures than there is on design and appearance which is equally important. We would encourage the use of solar slates in this location as to harmonise with the character of the surrounding natural slate roofscapes.

The building by virtue of its inappropriate design, form,  massing and lack of detail would fail to enhance the local distinctiveness, would neither preserve nor enhance the character of the conservation area and would detract from the setting of the adjacent listed building, and is therefore contrary to Local Plan Policies, D2, D4, BH1, BH2, and BH6, Section 72 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990, Sections 7 and 12 of the National Planning Policy Framework, and National Planning Policy Guidance.

 

14/00310/LBA – 12 Wellington Buildings, replacement of front porch

Erection of single storey porch to front of property following demolition of existing front porch.

OBJECT Whilst it is clear that the existing porch constructed in 1987 is of no architectural merit, Bath Preservation Trust objects to this application on the grounds that the proposal for its replacement is more of an extension than a porch which will enclose and obscure one of the historic window openings. The proposals would result in an unacceptable impact on the fenestration and would unbalance the appearance of the building. This is a humble building and any proposed works to it should retain its special character and also be subservient to the building. The drawings illustrate that the new porch will over-dominate the principal elevation of the building, altering its character and proportions to an unacceptable degree. Therefore, this application is considered contrary to Section 12 ‘Conserving and Enhancing the Historic Environment’ of the NPPF and Local Plan polices BH.2 and BH.6 and should be REFUSED.

 

Week 6

14/00271/LBA – Goldsmiths, 19 Union Street, City Centre

Internal and external alterations to make good and redecorate both shop fronts, change the

colour of shop front, redecorate interior of the store, installation of new plasterboard and MF stud wall and a plasterboard and MF suspended ceiling.

COMMENT The proposals put forward in this application are largely agreeable, however, the Trust would prefer that a matt or eggshell paint be used on the exterior of the shop front, which is more in-keeping with the character of the Conservation Area. A high gloss finish is considered inappropriate for a building of this age and style.

 

14/00286/FUL & 14/00287/LBA – 19 Park Street, Lansdown, Bath  BA1 2TE

Internal and external alterations for creation of 1no. bedroom flat and 1no. studio flat to include removal of timber stud partitions, formation of new lobby, opening access to kitchen with associated works; replacement of concrete block walls with natural bath stone ashlar and provision of new gate and railings

COMMENT Overall the proposals put forward by this application appear sensitive to the special interest of the listed building. The new full-height sash window to replace the existing door will be an improvement and the new handrails to the rear steps along with the new railings and Bath stone store walls will contribute to a better aesthetic. However, the application is lacking adequate detail to be certain that these works will be an enhancement. Each element of the proposed work needs more detail and more accurate drawings in support.

 

14/00082/LBA – 6 Walcot Buildings, Walcot, Bath BA1 6AD

External work to steam clean and repoint stonework to front elevation. Sign to be covered in plastic to preserve.

COMMENT The heavy soiling particularly under the cornice is likely to be causing damage to the stonework beneath, therefore the Bath Preservation Trust has no objection to the intention to clean the stonework here. Unfortunately this application does not adequately detail any of the specifics pertaining to the cleaning, leaving the Trust with some reservations.

More detail about the exact cleaning system is required in order to make a proper assessment of the appropriateness of the methods to be used.  A pre-cleaning survey should be carried out to inform the cause and type of soiling and the most appropriate method of cleaning. It should also detail the areas to be cleaned and provide more detail about the protection of the existing sign during the works.  A small patch to test of the method used should be carried out to the approval of the officer prior to any determination.

 

14/00239/FUL & 14/00240/LBA – 7A Clarence Street, Walcot, Bath BA1 5NS

External and external alterations for the installation of combi boiler with flue to rear elevation

COMMENT In the interest of preserving the architectural and historic interest of the listed building the proposed flue should be painted in a Bath stone colour to match the wall.

 

14/00328/AR – Kia Motors, Red Bridge House, Lower Bristol Road, Westmoreland, Bath

Provision of 2no illuminated fascia signs and 1no illuminated projecting sign

OBJECT This application has been incorrectly registered to the wrong address as illustrated by the location plan and the description of what is proposed is incorrect and misleading; the application form states that 2 internally illuminated fascia signs and three internally illuminated freestanding signs are proposed.

While the amount of illumination is, in itself, enough to be of detriment to the visual amenity of the area, the signs, by virtue of the materials, colour, amount and position are incongruous. Acrylic materials are not sensitive or appropriate, oppose the traditional palette of Bath and should be avoided within the setting of the historic and locally significant Bath Press site. It is clear that as proposed the excessive number of additions to the garage frontage will serve only too add to the visual clutter of the street scene. The application therefore fails to comply with Local Plan Policies BH.17 and BH.19 and Section 12 Conserving & Enhancing the Historic Environment of the NPPF and should be refused.

 

14/00305/FUL & 14/00306/LBA – 10 Beaufort Mews, Lambridge, Bath BA1 6QF

Conversion of coach house to create 1no. dwelling with erection of single storey rear garden extension and associated works.

OBJECT The Trust welcomes the principal of the residential conversion of this listed coach house, which will help secure the upkeep, repair and long term survival of this small yet highly significant historic building.  We recognise that there has previously been a glass house structure attached to the garden elevation and whilst the removal of this structure better reveals the architectural interest of this facade, a similar light touch and transparent structure is also justified.    Our objection specifically relates to the design and elevational treatment of the garden ‘pod’ type structure proposed. We consider this to be overly fussy with the use of materials and design features that are not justified by precedent. We object to the use of concrete, and the use of vertical timber slats which are alien to the traditional Bath. We are not convinced that the appearance of the flat roof is sensitive to the setting.  We would encourage a more unified and harmonious structure.

We consider that the current proposal, by virtue of its inappropriate design, materials and detailing, would be harmful to the architectural and historic interest of the mews building and would detract from the setting of the listed buildings at Beaufort Mews and Beaufort Place. This is therefore contrary to Local Plan Policies BH1, BH2, and BH6, Section 16 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990, Sections 7 and 12 of the National Planning Policy Framework, and National Planning Policy Guidance and should be REFUSED.

 

Week 7

14/00365/AR   & 14/00521/LBA – 6 Lower Borough Walls, City Centre, Bath BA1 1Q

Provision of 2no fascia signs and 1no hanging sign

COMMENT Bath Preservation welcomes the revised drawings for these proposals. The intention to traditionally sign paint the fascia is sympathetic to the listed building and the wider conservation area and should be commended.

 

Green Park Hostel Unoccupied, Green Park House Unoccupied, Green Park Road, City Centre, Bath BA1 1XF

Erection of a 461-bed purpose-built student accommodation (sui generis) and Cafe (use class A3) together with associated common facilities and on-site management facilities, vehicle parking spaces, covered cycle spaces, enclosed refuse/recycling store and associated plant; and associated soft and hard landscaping following demolition of Green Park House and Ernest Ireland House.

COMMENT Bath Preservation Trust welcomes this application and supports the demolition of the existing buildings on the site. We consider that these proposals are an improvement on the permitted scheme for the site, and whilst the density of the accommodation seems overly intense, it is likely to create a better use for the site than the combined hotel and office accommodation of the last application. We believe however there are weaknesses to the current design especially in regard of the cantilevered rotunda, the caf?? and the landscaping which preclude our full support. On a general point we question the longevity of this building use and would like to see the design go further in terms of identifying the adaptability of the blocks should the student accommodation not be required in the future.

In terms of the design concept we are pleased to see that the fenestration and architectural proportions take their lead from that of the classical Georgian facade and we welcome that the classical precedent is maintained by the various architectural details such as the cornice, rustication, and in particular the window surrounds and pediments; details often omitted by developers which can leave a facade feeling bland. That being said, the success of a classical idiom will rely very heavily on accurate detailing and execution. The use of traditional methods of construction will be essential to the quality of this approach. It is our opinion that the glazing of the common room should be extended into the porch of the rotunda so as to ground it, as currently the cantilever reads uncomfortably as a continuation of the ground floor elevation.

The Trust is pleased to see that the front elevation has been designed so as to have an active frontage with students able to use the doors onto Green Park, and the cafe should also provide an active use. Whilst we appreciate that the cafe was included in the design at the request of the urban design team, we feel that the cafe usage has not been given enough consideration. As proposed the cafe appears as a self-contained pod with very little relationship to the building and not enough thought has been give to its design. For example, it seems prudent that the cafe should have access to the shared refuse area in the basement of the student accommodation as this would mitigate the need to provide access for servicing to the cafe from the road. No information is given on details like ventilation, toilets, or treatment of the space. Again it would seem prudent that students could access the cafe from within the complex and not by the single on street entrance and indeed we are concerned that a single access/egress point is not sufficient. Whilst signage for the cafe should be subject to a separate application and not agreed by condition, suitable positions for advertising should be indicated at this stage.

Landscape settings to buildings and pockets of open space are attractive characteristics of Bath. Whist the site clearly benefits from the setting of Green Park the Trust feels that the development of this site could do more to improve the public realm and help to strengthen the sense of place. We are concerned that there is no clear design approach to the landscaping within the courtyard and at the rear of the site and that the neo-Georgian building sits uncomfortably within the current design of those spaces. This secondary treatment towards the landscape proposals will have an impact on the success of the space in terms of amenity and setting of the built elements. It is thought that the outdoor space may be inadequate for use even by a small proportion of the building’s occupants and that the provision of space for refuse/recycling collection is also inadequate. A more realistic design for what will actually exist on the site as well as a more satisfactory solution toward the competing demands for outdoor space should be included in this application and should be clarified prior to any permission and not designed up by way of condition.

Lastly, we feel more consideration should have been given the impeding regeneration of this area of the city. It is unfortunate that this proposal comes ahead of the masterplan for the Enterprise Zone and Bath Quays Waterside area as, if collaboration had occurred, this could have allowed the site to occupy a different, less constricted footprint and have provided an opportunity to connect the Green Park area better to the city.

 

14/00425/LBA – 18 Somerset Place, Lansdown, Bath BA1 5AD

Internal and external alterations to remove basement partition, installation of furniture, doors, new waste pipe connection and boiler flue externally.

COMMENT In the interest of preserving and enhancing the architectural and historic significance of the listed building and the character of the conservation area the proposed flue should be painted in a Bath stone colour to match the wall, and the new pipe work ought to be cast iron.

 

14/00426/AR – 24 New Bond Street, City Centre, Bath BA1 1BA

Display of 1no non-illuminated vinyl logo.

OBJECT A traditionally painted timber sign is the appropriate approach for this listed building and is encouraged.  The proposal by virtue of inappropriate vinyl material harm the architectural and historic significance of the listed building, and would neither preserve nor enhance the character of the Conservation Area, and would detract from the visual amenity value of this location.

This application is therefore contrary to Local Plan Policies BH1, BH2, and BH6, the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990, Section 12 of the National Planning Policy Framework, and National Planning Policy Guidance.

 

14/00475/LBA – Tile And Flooring Centre, 1 Mile End, London Road, Walcot, Bath BA1 6PT

External alterations for the change of signage on shop front. (Regularisation).

OBJECT The Trust regrets that this application is made in retrospect. A traditionally painted timber sign is the appropriate approach for a listed building and is encouraged. The supporting documentation fails to give accurate details regarding the listed building and its context.  We condone that an unconsidered approach has been taken.  The proposal by virtue of inappropriate plastic facia material harms the architectural and historic significance of the listed building, and neither preserves nor enhances the character of the Conservation Area.  This application is therefore contrary to Local Plan Policies BH1, BH2, and BH6, the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990, Section 12 of the National Planning Policy Framework, and National Planning Policy Guidance.  The opportunity to further enhance the character of London Road should be pursued and the LPA is encouraged to take steps, and enforcement action if necessary to ensure that inappropriate signage is replaced.

 

13/05430/FUL & 14/0043/LBA – 28 Trafalgar Road, Upper Weston, Bath BA1 4EW

Installation of rear dormer window for the conversion of attic space into a bedroom

OBJECT This application fails to provide sufficient information to make a proper assessment of the impact of the proposal. The Design and Access statement and Heritage Assessment are inadequate and do not provide sufficient detail to justify the proposal in terms of its appearance, as appropriate for  the Conservation Area, or the impact on the historic significance of the listed building. As required by national planning policy.  This application should not have been registered by the LPA.

The Trust objects to the proposed French doors and balcony, because these are uncharacteristic features at this level and intrusive into the historic roof profile and fabric. Such an intervention would harm the architectural and historic significance of the listed building, and would neither preserve nor enhance the character of the Conservation Area. The application is therefore contrary to Local Plan Policies D2, D4, BH1 and BH2, Sections 16 and 72 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990, Section 12 of the National Planning Policy Framework, and National Planning Policy Guidance, and should be refused.

Designed by Ice House Design