Jul – Aug 2014

2014 Weeks 28-32

8 July – 12 August 2014

Week 28 –

14/01772/REG03 & 14/01773/REG13 – Colonnade Beneath Street, Grand Parade, City Centre, Bath, Bath And North East Somerset, BA2 4AN

Change of use of vault and under croft spaces below Grand Parade to restaurants and ancillary facilities (A3), with works to allow pedestrian access to Boat Stall Lane and The Colonnade and to facilitate access to Slippery Lane. Alteration of the public highway, the creation of pedestrian space, the realignment of bus and service parking capacity along Grand Parade and towards Orange Grove, provision of a new loading bay, and construction of vertical pedestrian and service receptions.

OBJECT

BPT is supportive in principle of opening up the colonnade to the public and bringing a use back to this dormant space. Generally the scheme proposed is not without some benefit to the amenity and aesthetic value of the location and setting, although it has disadvantages. There has been very little public consultation and we consider that there are currently a number of unresolved issues, relating to the use, design, access, and phasing, which are set out in detail below.  Our objection is based on the fact that we consider a number of issues insufficiently resolved for the granting of planning permission and we would review this objection in light of any subsequent changes to the scheme.

Change of Use

We are not convinced that the economic justification for restaurant use (of the vaults & undercroft) has been made, especially as the location will necessarily impose limitations on management and future alterations/expansion. We suggest that, perhaps, some alternative uses, such as gallery spaces and workshops, privately rented and/or associated with Victoria Art Gallery and with internal access thereto, could be more suitable to the setting, and more valuable to the community, even if not so financially tempting.

It is clearly regrettable that this proposal is in advance of any master-plan for the wider area, which includes the markets and Victoria Art Gallery.

Phasing and Access

We consider that B&NES Council are premature with these plans and that, for the scheme to be viable and of real public benefit, pedestrian access through to Parade Gardens should be established first. Public gain should come before commercial interests, and business would be more likely to follow naturally if a through route were established.

We are concerned that the vertical access buildings/pods will appear exclusive, with pedestrians not easily knowing that they can (and should) enter what looks like a private commercial space.

Whilst we would like to see the colonnades opened up for public use, we feel the main access should come from Parade Gardens and link to Boatstall Lane, with potential to link to the VAG and possibly Slippery Lane.

The degree of public access needs clarification and permanency before any planning permission is given.

As submitted, the drawings of the undercroft do not preclude passage along the colonnade from the North access building to the South end (to view Parade Gardens) and up via the South access or Boatstall Lane. However, the management plans may limit it. The Design and Access statement indicates (p.13) that daytime public access will be encouraged between the North access and Boatstall Lane, but that the southern end outside the undercroft may be wholly controlled by operator. Shutting off the southern part of colonnade from any potential Parade Gardens link should be avoided.

Public access to Boatstall Lane and the East gate is welcome, however its character must not be compromised; also, the impact assessment has not given adequate consideration to competing uses of the lane (including legal rights of Empire residents).

Drawings show a potential link to Slippery lane. However we have concerns that, if overly ‘improved’ to meet health and safety standards for public access, its character will be obliterated. Details of improvements ought to be given, or at least a serious sketch scheme requested, bearing in mind the different controlling interests.

Design issues and setting

We recognise that this scheme has been carefully designed within the parameters set by the applicant. It involves less damage to historic fabric than might be assumed and, potentially, could provide considerable benefit to council (landlords) and residents (access to an iconic part of Bath).

At road level the North and South vertical access buildings appear quite neat in themselves, but when combined with the bus shelter, posts and bins, etc they do constitute visual clutter in the foreground of Pulteney Bridge. The impact on the setting of Pulteney Bridge is regrettable and is only acceptable because it is substantially reversible and supports bringing the undercroft into use.

The roof of the North access building, as shown, covers half the width of staircase rather than over-sailing the whole width, to avoid rain and bird droppings on users; unfortunately, the extra width could potentially intrude into the view of the North side of Pulteney Bridge. In any case, because the full view of Pulteney Bridge from almost everywhere on Grade Parade, except from near the balustrade, will be restricted by the North access pod, it is imperative that clear views are retained along its length. Thus, the position and roof width of this access pod will be crucial.

The ‘ventilation’ drawing states that the vent will pass through the roof of the south pod, but this is not shown on ‘reception building’ elevations or roof structure drawing. These details are very important because of the lightness of the roof structure. Clarification is needed before any planning permission is given.

The access buildings will undoubtedly require advertising material for the vaults/undercrofts’ tenants, probably involving brand names/logos, menus and lighting. If signage is not designed in, and strictly adhered to, it could destroy the scheme and be detrimental to the visual amenity of the immediate location, the river and the wider conservation area.

We are not convinced that all collateral damage (physical and visual) has been envisaged and obviated. In this sensitive area, it is especially important to avoid so-common subsequent applications for excrescences or relaxations said to be commercially necessary.

We are concerned about the effect of light spill on the riverside setting, from the glazed staircase and windows (especially of the Southern unit) as well as from the access buildings on views from the East bank of river, especially at night.

The proposed lighting scheme seems to be sensitive, but maximum levels of light for restaurants (said to be low) and all advertising requires clarification and assurance of permanency before any planning permission is given.

Transport

Grand Parade is said to be an area of low traffic density for the central city, so that extra traffic (servicing vehicles/taxis) will not cause problems. However, these vehicles have to come from somewhere and may exacerbate congestion en route to Grand Parade.

Cycle parking is said to be provided near South access building. However this is not shown on the ‘hard surfacing’ drawing with other similar items and surely should be of the Bath (UPR/PRMS) pattern. The provision of cycle stands (or not) and use of UPR items/surfaces throughout Grand Parade level requires clarification & assurance of permanency before any planning permission is given.

An additional bus shelter for city tour buses (by their stop) has been referred to but is not shown on ‘hard surfacing’ drawing. The precise position (if to be provided) requires clarification before any planning permission is given.

Waste

We note that all waste from the restaurants is proposed to be transported via the generously sized lifts in the pods, but suspect that operators will seek to use Boatstall Lane to avoid this. The storage and collection of waste needs clarification and details of permanency before any planning permission is given. In any case, avoidance of replication of current unsatisfactory situation in Milson Street needs to be ensured.

In short, the application should not be determined in its current format. All of the factors listed above should be address and clarified, before any decision is made.

14/02763/LBA – 12 Northgate Street, City Centre, Bath, BA1 5AS

Cleaning of the stone surround to shop front.

COMMENT On the whole Bath Preservation Trust finds the works proposed within this application to be positive. However, whilst the stone cleaning is justified as evidenced by the carbon soiling from the previous signage in the photographs, we are concerned by the intention to use the TORC system to clean the fascia and jamb sections. This method of cleaning is highly abrasive causing pitting of the surface and enlarges the pores of the stone allowing it to become stained more quickly. It produces an ‘over clean’ aesthetic removing the patina of age and giving a white appearance to the stone which will harshly contrast with the rest of the building. We suggest that the cleaning is localised using a less invasive method outlined in the B&NES and BPT Cleaning Bath Stone technical guidance, in conjunction with the mortar matching in which will blend the original stonework with the repairs and improve the appearance of the listed building.

14/02715/FUL – Prop Car Park North West Of Campus, University Of Bath Campus, Claverton Down, Bath,

Construction of a new surface level car park with 169 spaces and access road at the north western end of the Claverton Down Campus.

OBJECT The application seeks consent to build a temporary car parking area on the perimeter of the site. Whilst we appreciate the university’s desire to have a greater parking provision than is currently provided during the development of 10 West and 4 East South, this proposal would be inappropriate development that would harm the special character of the City and its landscape setting.

The proposed access and car park would have an adverse impact on the site’s features that make it of special scientific interest and the reduction of the bridleway network will result in the loss of a public amenity, a biodiversity resource and a green travel route, harming the strategic green infrastructure network of the district. Also, the shared space road layout would cause conflict between users and compromise the safety of non-motorists in particularly. Priority should always be given to non-motorists.

In the interest of maintaining the special qualities of the WHS and its landscape setting, an appropriate solution here would be to make an existing car park 2 storeys for the duration of the development.

For the reasons stated above, this proposal is contrary to Core Strategy Policies DW1, B1, B4, CP6, CP7, ‘Saved’ Local Plan Policies SR.1A, SR.9,  and Sections 4 ‘Promoting Sustainable Transport’ and 11 ‘Conserving and Enhancing the Natural Environment’ of the NPPF and should therefore be REFUSED.

14/02558/FUL – Applegate Stables, Shockerwick Lane, Bathford, Bath, BA1 7LQ

Erection 1no two bed dwelling, new stables, and retention of shepherd hut

OBJECT The Trust objects to land in the Green Belt and AONB being used for inappropriate development, especially in the absence of ‘very special circumstances’.

Paragraph 88, Section 9 ‘Protecting Green Belt Land’ of the NPPF states that ‘When considering any planning application, local planning authorities should ensure that substantial weight is given to any harm to the Green Belt. ‘Very special circumstances’ will not exist unless the potential harm to the Green Belt by reason of inappropriateness, and any other harm, is clearly outweighted by other considerations.’

We do not consider that this proposal for horse stables and a dwelling for their supervision in the Green Belt is made with exceptional or meritable circumstances and there is no obvious public benefit to outweigh the harm of the proposals. Furthermore, the style and use of the new buildings are not named in the exempt development types as outlined in Paragraph 89, Section 9 of the NPPF.

This would introduce a new dwelling beyond the Housing Development Boundary and would result in an unsustainable form of development. If permitted this would introduce a new building onto an elevated site which would be harmful to the openness and rural nature of the Bybrook Valley and have a detrimental effect on the visual character of the area, contrary to the Village Design Statement (p56).

This inappropriate development would cause adversely affect the AONB and harm the openness and character of the Green Belt. It is, therefore, contrary to Core Strategy Policy CP8, ‘Saved’ Local Plan Policy NE.2 and Section 9 ‘Protecting Green Belt Land’ of the NPPF and should be refused.

14/02762/FUL – Stoneleigh Lodge, Lansdown Road, Lansdown, Bath, Bath And North East Somerset, BA1 5TJ

Demolition of a 1980`s conservatory, and a bay window, and erection of a larger rear bay window and a two storey side extension

COMMENT The Trust does not object to the principle of development on this site, or the demolition of the existing conservatory, which is not historically significant. However, we believe the proposed extension would result in an overdevelopment of the site which would be uncharacteristic and visually detrimental. We would ask the case officer to revisit this scale of the proposal.

Week 29

14/02766/FUL & 14/02767/LBA – 17 Catharine Place, City Centre, Bath, Bath And North East Somerset, BA1 2PS

Conversion of 3no. flats to 1no. dwelling and 1no. basement flat, provision of a lead flat roof with lantern light to replace existing roof and replacement of windows to lower ground, second and third floors. (Resubmission)

SUPPORT Bath Preservation Trust welcomes the proposed works to convert this historic and listed building into a townhouse and a flat. In our view, the revised design is if anything an improvement over its predecessor and the amendments present marginal changes dealt with in a sensitive manner.  The bifold doors and lantern roof are relatively unobtrusive and the rationalisation of the soil pipes on the rear elevation is an improvement. In particular, the new sash fenestrations to the front elevation will replace modern windows, improving the coherence of the terrace.

 

14/02864/FUL – Building Adjacent To 25, James Street West, City Centre, Bath,

Demolition of existing vacant workshop buildings (26-28a James Street West). Erection of 2no (4-bed) three-storey terraced houses with integral garages and 2no (3-bed) two-storey terraced houses.

OBJECT We note that this application is an amendment and resubmission of a previous application (13/02942/FUL) which we commented on. Whilst we are generally supportive of a scheme which proposes to remove the existing buildings on the site, which are in a poor state of repair, and would potentially assist in enhancing the appearance of this part of the conservation area.  However, we do have serious concerns about elements of the proposal.

Design and appearance

The design reflects very little ‘Bathness’ in its appearance, it seems alien to the character of the street and hardly seems designed intentionally for this site.

The fenestration fails to approximate that of the rest of the north side of the street and creates an overall discordant appearance. French windows opening on to balconies over this constantly busy urban thoroughfare seem perverse. The strong horizontal emphasis of the flat roofs jars with the character of the existing townscape. We repeat our previous concern about the appropriateness of a low stone wall dividing walls to the front elevation.

Height

The height and central position would dominate the northern section of the street, which is formed primarily of eighteenth and nineteenth century buildings with later additions. Any new introduction to this road should be equal or ideally subservient to the prevalent style and height. The proposed building would be overbearing and detract from the various, yet harmonious forms of the structures on the north side of the road, and have a detrimental impact on the setting of these listed buildings.

Materials

We do not accept that parallels can be drawn between the use of through coloured render for the rear elevations, and the coursed rubble at the rear of New King Street. Natural slate should be used for roofs and coursed rubble to match existing is preferred.

Conclusion

We maintain the position that the proposed development is incongruous, and neither preserves nor enhances the character of the conservation area and would result in harm to the OUV of the World Heritage Site.

This application therefore fails to comply with B&NES Local Plan Policies BH2, BH6, BH7, D2 and D4, and Core Strategy Policies B2 and B4.

The proposed development fails to protect, conserve or enhance nationally and locally important cultural and heritage assets, and would neither nor sustain or enhance the significance of the city’s heritage assets as is required by Core Strategy policies DW1 and B1, respectively.

This application is contrary to the Planning (Listed Buildings & Conservation Areas Act) 1990, Section 12 ‘Conserving and Enhancing the Historic Environment’ of the NPPF and should be REFUSED.

 

14/02885/FUL – 23 Royal Crescent, City Centre, Bath, Bath And North East Somerset, BA1 2LT

Replace existing flat roof and lantern light to summer house with slated pitched roof. (Amendment to previously approved scheme 02/00589/FUL)

COMMENT We regret that no historic statement has been prepared in support of this application. This Grade I listed building is a heritage asset of the highest significance and the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) states that proportionally appropriate heritage statements and impact assessments are a required.  Presumably ‘the orangery’ is not curtilage listed, however it would be helpful to know its date of construction at least. The existing roof obviously needs renewing. Whilst a pitched roof is probably appropriate in theory, and fits with other similar roofs in the locality, the roof shown looks rather oversized for the scale of the orangery. We are particularly concerned that the structure may visible from Marlborough Buildings (pavement level). We would therefore welcome a reduction in size.

 

14/02888/FUL – 5 Richmond Road, Beacon Hill, Bath, Bath And North East Somerset, BA1 5TU

Replacement and re-proportioning of all openings to the front/road and rear elevation, re-rendering of all elevations, construction of new boundary/gate to the road, installation of glazed french doors to the rear opening onto the existing deck and rooflight added to the master ensuite.

OBJECT Bath Preservation Trust objects to this development due to the resulting unbalanced appearance. No attempt has been made to make the building legible with its surroundings. The proposed fenestrations do not sit comfortably on the building.  The dimensions of the windows have little relationship to the proportions of the elevations.  The fenestrations on the front elevation in particular do not follow any order and the size and pattern is irregular. The Trust’s reservations about the fenestrations are further compounded by the lack of supporting documentation. Unfortunately without a Design and Access Statement for consideration, we cannot assess and understand the design process and factors influencing the application.

The current scheme would negatively impact on the street scene and does not represent an opportunity to enhance the local distinctiveness of the World Heritage Site. The application therefore fails to comply with Core Strategy Policies B1, B4, CP6, ‘Saved’ Local Plan Policies D2, D4, and Section 7 ‘Requiring Good Design’ of the NPPF and should be refused.

 

Week 30

14/01489/FUL – Public Toilets Henrietta Park, Henrietta Road, Bathwick, Bath, Bath And North East Somerset, BA2 6LU

External alterations to existing public convenience (Sui Generis)

OBJECT Bath Preservation Trust objects to the proposals presented in this application on design grounds. As proposed, the new layout does not make efficient use of the space and reduces the toilet provision in Henrietta Park. The existing toilet provision is a necessary amenity of the park and ought to be retained and/or increased. We feel an internal symmetrical design using the entire existing plan layout would make better use of the space.  Furthermore, the scheme is insufficiently detailed, which does not allow for the proper appraisal of impact of these proposals. For example, the drawings are incorrectly labelled and there are no materials specified. For the reasons stated above, this proposal would introduce an incongruous design that would detract from the visual amenity value of the Park, would neither preserve nor enhance the character and appearance of the Conservation Area and would be detrimental to the special qualities of the World Heritage Site. The proposals are contrary to Core Strategy Policies B1 and B4, ‘Saved’ Local Plan Policies BH6, D2 and D4, the Planning (Listed Buildings & Conservation Areas) Act 1990 and Sections 7 ‘Requiring good design’ and 12 ‘Conserving and enhancing the historic environment’ of the NPPF and should therefore be refused.

 

14/02284/FUL & 14/02285/AR – The Bertinet Bakery, 1 New Bond Street Place, City Centre, Bath, BA1 1BH

Repainting of shop front and display of new shop signage

OBJECT Whilst repainting the shopfront mid grey is acceptable, we object to applying vinyl materials upon this shopfront. Vinyl is not a sensitive or appropriate material quality of material for a listed building in a prominent city-centre location at the heart of the Conservation Area. We are disappointed to see that the applicant has not sought to use traditional sign writing on the existing timber fascia, which would be a much more appropriate approach for this listed building. The proposal is contrary to the Planning (Listed Buildings & Conservation Areas) Act 1990, Section 12 ‘Conserving and Enhancing the Historic Environment’ of the NPPF, Core Strategy Policy B4 and ‘Saved’ Local Plan Policies BH2 and BH17 and should therefore be refused.

 

14/02937/FUL & 14/02938/LBA – 34 Stall Street, City Centre, Bath, BA1 1QG

Alteration to shop front; new rear access; internal and external alterations to enable occupation of ground and basement level by a single retail occupier; 8 No. residential units through change of use of 1st and 2nd floors, and erection of a new 3rd floor attic level, and associated internal and external works.

COMMENT Bath Preservation Trust welcomes the residential use above the shop and the sympathetic enlarging of the roof improves and continues the adjacent roofline of 35-36 Stall Street. Tidying up the roofline will have a beneficial effect on street level views, especially from York Street and Upper Stall Street. However, detailed drawings of any proposed alterations to the shopfront need to be submitted in support of the application to ensure a thorough assessment of the impact of the proposals.

 

14/02955/FUL – Public Toilets, Charlotte Street Car Park, City Centre, Bath

External alterations to existing public convenience (Sui Generis)

COMMENT The approach to this building is very poor quality.  Proposed new doors are to be inserted with no consideration to the symmetry of the building.  The arrangement of doors fights with the overall composition of the building. The current proposal would have a harmful impact on visual amenity value and the character and appearance of the conservation area. We encourage the applicant to review and improve this proposal.

 

Week 31

14/03087/AR – Blathwayt Arms, Lansdown Road, Charlcombe, Bath, Bath And North East Somerset, BA1 9BT

Display of 2no non-illumiated amenity signs to attach to the existing post mounted pictorial sign and one positioned on the perimeter.

OBJECT Bath Preservation Trust has no in principal objection to post mounted signs for this pub, however we must object to their proposed materials. Gel coated fibreglass and applied vinyl materials are not sensitive or appropriate as they oppose the traditional palette of Bath. We would encourage traditionally painted signs. The Trust objects to those proposals unless appropriate materials can be proposed. As presented, this application would be detrimental to the rural greenbelt, the Cotswolds AONB and the Bath World Heritage Site setting. This application is contrary to Core Strategy policy B4 , ‘Saved’ Local Plan policies GB2, NE1, NE2, BH17 and Section 7 ‘Requiring good design’ of the NPPF and should be refused.

 

14/03332/FUL – Greenwood, Beechwood Road, Combe Down, Bath, Bath And North East Somerset, BA2 5JS

Erection of front boundary fence and gates. (Retrospective).

COMMENT Whilst we appreciate the applicants concerns over the security of their property, we believe that the introduction of a solid timber fence, to be fixed above the existing stonewall, will harm the dominant green character of the street frontages of the road.  We note the intention to remove the timber fence once the newly planted beech hedge has reached the height of the fence, but we would suggest that the introduction of a quick growing species of vegetation and the erection of suitable gates will offer enhanced security whilst retaining the existing character of the street scene.

 

14/02971/FUL – Former Gardens Opposite Walmsley Terrace, Snow Hill, Walcot, Bath, Bath And North East Somerset

Erection of 1no four bed dwelling.

COMMENT In principle we see no reason why sensitive development should not be supported on this site. The Trust has a policy of supporting small windfall development on vacant sites within the urban area in order to minimise the need for housing on the Green Belt.  We recognise that efforts have been made to modify the proposal  and the lowered position and amended design of the proposed house will have less of an impact on the setting of the surrounding listed buildings. We welcome these changes, and the omission of the timber cladding material.  However, we maintain concern about the profile of the building which would be visually intrusive into the views and setting of Highbury Terrace. We therefore recommend that the design is reviewed.  If approved we the type of planting and management of maintained of the green roof must be secured by a Condition.

 

14/02980/FUL – 24 Brougham Hayes, Westmoreland, Bath, Bath And North East Somerset, BA2 3QU

Demolition of outrigger and garage to number 25, construction of new outrigger to number 25, construction of new rear extension to number 24 & 25, external insulation and render to rear of numbers 24 & 25, construction of front boundary wall to number 25.

OBJECT We object to the proposal as it presents an overdevelopment of the site.  The extension of the existing buildings would lead to a building footprint that will take up the majority of the site; the limited external areas will be paved and principally used for car parking, therefore leaving very limited amenity space for residents.  The lack of a garden may add to water run-off and subsequent occurrences of flooding.

Whilst the dwellings are currently HMOs and the proposal will increase the capacity across the 2 properties, we would consider that any increase would be contrary to the aim of B&NES; to control the number of HMOs to ensure a suitable balance in the mix of housing across the city.

This proposal would harm the character of the area; physically, by the loss of garden spaces, and socially by increasing the HMO capacity.  If approved, we would be fearful of the case setting a detrimental precedent in the proximity.  In light of the comments above and as the proposed development is contrary to the following policies; Section 12 ‘Conserving & Enhancing the Historic Environment’ of the NPPF, Core Strategy policies DW1, B4, CP6 & CP10, Saved Local Plan Polices D2 & D4, and would be detrimental to the special qualities of the World Heritage Site; the proposal should be refused.

 

Week 32

14/02969/LBA – 9 Oxford Row, City Centre, Bath, Bath And North East Somerset, BA1 2QW

Internal alterations to include amendments to bathroom and kitchen location and installation of new boiler and flue.

COMMENT Bath Preservation Trust is supportive in principle of measures to improve the energy efficiency of historic buildings. Repositioning the boiler flue in the valley of the mansard roof and replacing the existing stack with a slate vent tile will preserve and enhance the architectural and historic interest of the listed building. Should this application be approved, the Trust would recommend that the flue itself is muted colour of black or dark grey to match the roof.

 

14/03212/AR – Street Record, Milton Avenue, Bear Flat, Bath, Bath And North East Somerset

Display of 3no. six sheet internally illuminated advertisement cabinets in bus shelters serving the Kipling Avenue (Northbound)

OBJECT While we understand the applicant’s desire to increase their revenue through advertising, we will continue to object to illuminated signs in the Conservation Area and World Heritage Site. Many city bus shelters have illuminated advertisements but these should not be a precedent for a low illuminated city like Bath. The overhead lights will emit sufficient light to draw attention to the advertisements and there is little need for additional illumination.

We regret the undue commercialisation of the public realm, especially by commercial agencies as opposed to local-interest information. We have concerns that the absence of information about the content of such advertisements is becoming a precedent. As such, we feel that a condition for local interest content only ought to be sought.

These proposals should have come in as two separate applications because the proposals are in differing locations and for very different shelters. Also, this application only covers the advert element. The replacement shelters should be subject to separate reg03 applications and not agreed by condition.

The inappropriate and visually intrusive illuminated signs would be detrimental to the special qualities of the World Heritage Site and will neither preserve nor enhance the character of the Conservation Area. The proposal is contrary to the Planning (Listed Building & Conservation Areas) Act 1990, Section 12 ‘Conserving and Enhancing the Historic Environment’ of the NPPF, Core Strategy Policy B4, and ‘Saved’ Local Plan Policies D2, D4, BH6 and BH17 and should be refused.

 

14/03222/LBA – Pumpkin Platform 2, Bath Spa Railway Station, Dorchester Street, Bath, BA1 1SU

Internal and external alterations to include the installation of new internally illuminated projecting sign to replace existing and repainting of entrance door, windows and window  boxes.

OBJECT The proposed externally illuminated sign is inappropriate and would be visually intrusive. By virtue of its size, position, materials and illumination would detract from the character and significance of the listed Station would be detrimental to the special qualities of the World Heritage Site and will neither preserve nor enhance the character of the Conservation Area. We would encourage a sensitive and bespoke approach to signage, a ‘heritage option’ that is more sympathetic to the character of the Station and takes into account the intention to change the signage at the station to better reflect the special qualities of the World Heritage Site, and relates aesthetically to the appearance of the Station and new signage. Tiny Crouch, World Heritage Site Manager at B&NES Council has details of the new signage for the Station platforms.

The current proposal is contrary to the Planning (Listed Building & Conservation Areas) Act 1990, Section 12 ‘Conserving and Enhancing the Historic Environment’ of the NPPF, Core Strategy Policy B1, B2, B4, and ‘Saved’ Local Plan Policies BH2, BH6 and BH17 and should be refused.

 

14/03122/FUL – Public Toilets Sydney Gardens, Sydney Place, Bathwick, Bath, Bath And North East Somerset, BA2 6NF

External alterations to existing public convenience (Sui Generis)

OBJECT The existing toilet provision is a necessary amenity of Sydney Gardens and ought to be retained. The design and appearance of this building is an important consideration given that it is sited within a registered park and garden forming the setting to a Grade I listed building. Despite amendments to the design the proposed alterations are wholly unsympathetic and utilitarian which will STILL destroy the symmetry of modest little ‘lodge’ on its front elevation and sides. The lack of attention to detail is still objectionable. The materials and finishes for ‘joinery’ are unspecified. For the reasons stated above this proposal fails to respond to the local context or enhance the character of Bath and is contrary to Core Strategy Policies B1 and B2, and Saved Local Plan policies BH1, BH2, BH6, BH9, D2, D4,  Sections 7 and 12, Conserving & Enhancing the Historic Environment of the NPPF and the Planning (Listed Buildings & Conservation Areas) Act 1990, and should therefore be REFUSED.

 14/03180/FUL & 14/03181/LBA – Cleveland House, Sydney Road, Bathwick, Bath, BA2 6NR

Internal alterations and external alterations to include the erection of a single storey side extension and first floor terrace, following the demolition of existing single storey extension.

COMMENT On balance we found that the previously approved application, which was revised in response to objections from both BPT and the Georgian Group, presented a scheme which minimised harm to the heritage asset and wider conservation area while at the same time ensuring the use of this building for the future.

This revised application now seeks permission for an upper level garden and balustrade which was omitted from the approved application.

We do not object in principle to the proposed extension. The use of dressed natural Bath Stone Ashalr in construction must be secured by Condition.

Again, we reserve judgement on the suitability of a roof terrace on the side this building, though it is felt to be somewhat inappropriate. Perhaps the appearance of the roof terrace could be managed by Condition or covenant to restrict the placement of potted trees, parasols and drying washing, which would amount to visual clutter and detract from the listed building.

Lastly, we still have some concern over the use of one of the blind windows as a stone door to provide access to the roof terrace. Our reservations are founded in an understanding that the blind windows are a feature of the original design and ought to be retained. This intervention therefore disrupts the historic design of this elevation and results in a loss of historic fabric. A stone clad access door would be somewhat unauthentic. If accepted this door must be clad in natural Bath stone and this material must be secured by Condition.  We would ask for any examples where this approach has been used successfully to be submitted in support of this application. We are particularly concerned about durability and potential damage which may lead to a degraded appearance over time.  We would be interested to know what alternative access arrangement could be provided if this intervention proved unacceptable and unfeasible?

14/03055/FUL & 14/03056/LBA – 3B Upper Lambridge Street, Lambridge, Bath, Bath And North East Somerset, BA1 6RY

Change of use of commercial premises to form 2no. Dwellings

COMMENT The Trust would regret the loss of this established use which contributes to the mix of uses within the village centre. Whilst the design and access statement suggests that the does not contribute to retail vitality, the variation in uses in the local area and the presence of artisan trades arguably contributes to defining the character of the place, and makes a positive contribution to the character of this part of the conservation area.  If a change of use is to be accepted we would hope that it would be for a more beneficial and higher quality scheme than this proposal.

Designed by Ice House Design