Oct – Nov 2014

23 October – 27 November

Week 41

14/04092/LBA – 36 – 37 Milsom Street City Centre

Internal and external alterations for the change of use of the ground floor to retail (Class A1), alterations to shop front and associated internal alterations.

Object:  We object to this proposal, as certain elements will harm the significance of this listed building.  The cutting down of the windows on the street elevation and the introduction of plain plate glass is unacceptable.  This approach detracts from the Georgian fenestration, proportions and aesthetic, which prevails in this significant setting.  This proposed work would destroy the coherence and balance of the elevation, harming the significance of the building and undermining the historic character of the street.

 

The proposed hanging sign is over-sized and is in a location where such signs are not currently prevalent.  We would suggest that the applicant should reduce the size of the sign and that it is hand-painted in a colour and finish that is in keeping with the traditional palette of the city.

 

The proposed scheme, by virtue of the works to the windows at the street elevation, would harm the significance of the designated heritage asset and would be detrimental to the setting of the conservation area – in this significant central location – and the visual amenity value of the area, and neither preserve nor and enhance the character and appearance of the World Heritage Site.  The scheme would be contrary to the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas Act) 1990, Section 12 of the National Planning Policy Framework, Core Strategy policies DW1, B1, B2, B4 & CP6 and Saved Local Plan policies, D4, BH2 & BH6.  We would therefore recommend that the application be refused.

 

 

14/04196/FUL & 14/04197/LBA – The Highgrove Shop 38 Milsom Street City Centre

 

Re-glazing and addition of new glazing bars to existing front facade windows at 1st and 2nd floor levels, addition of fanlight to rear door at ground level, and internal works.

 

Support:  We welcome this application as it proposes to re-instate glazing bars in a manner which will significantly improve the fenestration and aesthetics of this listed building and restore its Georgian appearance.  This will not only enhance the significance of the building but add to the amenity value of the wider street scene, in this prominent area of the city centre.

 

 

 

 

14/04272/LBA & 14/04278/FUL – The Cowshed 5 Bladud Buildings City Centre

Internal and external alterations to 19th Century shop front and new signage; provision of ventilation equipment on front and rear flat roofs. (Regularisation)

Object:  We object to these proposals as they are detrimental to the appearance of a listed building in the World Heritage Site and conservation area, sited at a prominent gateway location to the city centre.  The proposed siting of the artificial box hedging on the front elevation detracts from the appearance of the building and if the quality of the hedging is lacking then the a/c unit that it is trying to hide will cause further detriment to the appearance.  As for the a/c unit to the rear elevation, this interrupts one window; which harms the appearance of the building by disrupting the symmetry of the fenestration.  No specific details have been made available concerning signage materials, so we would be moved to object in case materials that are not in keeping with the traditional palette of the city are to be used.  We would hope and suggest, that timber signs are used and that they are hand-painted.

The proposed scheme, by virtue of the artificial box hedging and the placement of a/c units 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 elements of the work – which have already been undertaken prior to consent – are in breach of Planning and Listed Building Control, and we would therefore request that you undertake an investigation and pursue necessary enforcement action, and that any retrospective application for unauthorised works be refused.

 

 

14/04354/EOUT – Former Ministry of Defence Foxhill Premises Bradford Road Combe Down

Outline Planning Permission for up to 700 dwellings, up to 500 sqm retail (Use Class A1, A2, A3, A4, A5) up to 1,000 sqm employment (Use Class B1), up to 3,500 sqm community/education (Use Class D1), single form entry primary school, open space and all associated infrastructure.

 

Object: The Trust commends the project team for their approach to the redevelopment of the site and the efforts which have been made to engage residents and stakeholders. Design workshops and consultation events have been attended by representatives of the Bath Preservation Trust and meetings have taken place between BPT and the development team.

 

By far the most significant part of these plans is the provision of 700 new homes and their integration both with the existing Foxhill site and the rest of the city. We welcome the provision of a range of housing on the site and a mix of uses to sustain the community. We particularly welcome a provision for affordable homes and affordable family lifetime homes (with gardens) in this sustainable, well connected brown-field site within the city.

In principle we welcome the type of housing and character areas.

However, BPT regretfully objects to this outline planning application for the reasons stated below;

Building heights

We are very concerned about the visual impact of 6 storey buildings in long views of the Bath skyline, and in the localised townscape context.

 

The tallest buildings (5-6 storey crescents around open space) are nearest to the northern boundary and the skyline. This is excessively tall for buildings in this location.  The landscape analysis we have seen suggests that topography and distance from the edge of the site allows visibility of these buildings above the tree line from the north. The evident visible appearance of the buildings (including illumination) above the green skyline would have an adverse impact on the character and aesthetic value of the precious landscape setting to the City of Bath World Heritage Site.

 

From within the site we have yet to see any assessment to show that current distant views northward (e.g. to Beckford’s Tower) from the higher parts within the site will remain? Or be blocked? Similarly, any edge reinforcement planting will need to be sensitive to long distance views out and in. These issues need to be resolved by means of verified views from within the site as soon as possible in order to refine the layout and massing.

 

We acknowledge that many residential terraces in Bath are in fact 6-storeys. However one storey, the basement, is below ground. We do not however consider that the 6-storey terraces in the upper town and central areas of Bath are an appropriate height or architectural reference for this area of the city which has a very different character. The ‘grand terrace’ approach is further confused by the reference to the use of materials harmonious with the Combe Down area –here the textures and finishes used in the construction of more humble buildings are very different in appearance.

 

Furthermore, Bath Building Heights Strategy (September 2010) refers to the appropriate height for Zone 5 as 2-storey with

  •  ‘One additional setback storey generally acceptable’;
  • ‘One additional storey could be acceptable where it aids legibility, for example local centres, creates better enclosure or provides regeneration benefits and does not intrude into views onto the plateaux by exceeding the height of the tree cover.’

 

We are particularly concerned about the scale of 6-storey buildings within the immediate context. Whist we appreciate that the site falls where these buildings are positioned, we remain concerned about the inter-relationship of the height and massing of the 6 storey buildings with the surrounding development which would be more domestic in scale. The height of the terrace, particularly at the back, would present an uncomfortable jump in scale from lower to higher storey height and risks having an over bearing impact on the surrounding development and public spaces.

 

The height of the ‘gateway’ buildings is not consistent with the uniformity of the 2-storey, or less, buildings along Bradford Road.  We presume that the design is being informed by reference to the tall, 2-storey unlisted public house across the road.  All the nearby listed buildings are smaller, and it seems that very generous floor-ceiling heights are being proposed which makes the 3-storeys taller than necessary.

 

Public Transport

We encourage all stakeholders in the Bradford Road area to develop a collective approach to linking public transport between Ralph Allen School, St Martin’s Hospital, and Bath University, as well as improving services to the city centre, so as to reduce the necessity for individual car use.

Permeability

We are keen for the site to make better links to the Bath Sky Line Walk and we would encourage further dialogue with the National Trust.

Sustainability

We regret the absence of any provision for “innovative housing such as self build or zero carbon (code level 5 or 6) [which] should be provided and represent at least 10% of the total housing stock”(quoting the Draft Concept Statement)

Pope’s Walk

We see that improvements are proposed. While these are no doubt necessary to allow safe access by additional users, we would urge that strong efforts are made to retain as far as possible its present arcadian character.

Design & Access Statement

We note that of this useful document only the parameters form part of the outline application for Mulberry Park. If permission is to be granted, we would recommend that any future planning applications should be informed by its overall principles & strategies, apart from those we have commented on above.

 

14/04034/FUL – 19 Park Street Lansdown

Erection of 2no. mews flats and 4no. garages at the rear of 19 Park Street.

Comment: Whilst we have no specific comments on this proposal, we would expect the application to be supported by a heritage statement to ensure that all aspects of the historic environment have been considered.  This is particularly important given the historic townscape setting of the proposal site.

14/03962/LBA – Tile and Flooring Centre 1 Mile End London Road Walcot      

External alterations for the removal of chimney stack from the east side of the building, repairs to birds mouth joints at the foot of the rafters of the south elevation

Object: We appreciate the applicant’s desire to prevent water ingress into the property; however we do not believe the removal of a prominent architectural feature which contributes to the character of the building, is an appropriate solution for a listed building, and therefore object to the proposal.

The building is located on a gateway route to and from the city, within the World Heritage Site and conservation area.  It contributes to the historic environment in the location and is a distinctive Victorian feature, in an area dominated and bisected by the London Road.  Before the demolition of this element of the designated building is considered, we would expect that the retention of this feature be fully explored and pursued where feasible.  With regard to listed buildings, conservation through regular maintenance and repair is the standard solution to structural issues and this should be the case in the proposed scheme.  Flashings and pointing repairs are not major works and the scale in this instance appears minor.  Access is seemingly not a major issue given the adjacent flat roof.  Repair and subsequent maintenance is the solution, rather than the partial demolition of a listed building.

We are concerned that the significance of this building and an appropriate conservation approach has not been adequately considered, given the poor quality of the heritage statement which formed part of the application.  The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) requires applicants to describe the significance of any heritage assets affected, and in this instance this requirement has not been fulfilled.  There is an inadequate justification that the stack requires removal and it should be clearly demonstrated that repair is ineffective before any demolition is given approval.

The proposed scheme, by virtue of the proposed removal of the chimney stack would substantially harm the significance of the listed building, detract from the visual amenity value of the historic area and neither preserve nor and enhance the character and appearance of the World Heritage Site or Conservation Area. The proposal is therefore contrary to the Planning (Listed Building and Conservation Areas) Act 1990, Section 12 (Conserving and enhancing the historic environment) of the NPPF, policies; B1, B4 and CP6 of the B&NES Core Strategy and saved policies; D2, D4, BH2, BH3, BH6, BH7 and BH19 from the B&NES local plan.   We would therefore recommend that the application be refused.  

Week 42

14/04037/AR – Hair Zone 56 Southgate Street

Display of 2no. internally illuminated fascia signs, 1no. non-illuminated hanging sign, 2no. laminated cards,  2no. vinyl signs and 4no.canvas signs.

Object:  Whilst we accept the applicant’s desire to advertise their business, the proposed materials and illumination are not suitable for a site within the World Heritage Site and conservation area, and therefore we object to the proposed scheme.

Illuminated signs are a common element used to promote commercial premises, but this should not constitute a precedent for a low illuminated city like Bath.  Street lighting in the proximity should provide ample light for signage to be clearly seen.  The proposed materials of vinyl, perspex and aluminium are not in keeping with the traditional palette of materials that are prevalent across the city, and we would recommend that signage is constructed from timber and hand-painted, as fitting for the conservation area and World Heritage Site.

The proposed scheme, by virtue of the materials and illumination, would neither preserve nor and enhance the character and appearance of the World Heritage Site and conservation area and be detrimental to the visual amenity of the street scene. The scheme would be contrary to 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 polices; D4 and BH17 of the B&NES Local Plan.  We would therefore recommend that the application be refused.

For clarification, we understand that the proposal site is Unit 56 Southgate (10 Southgate Street), rather than No. 56 Southgate Street, and our considerations have been based on such.

 

14/04189/FUL – Abbey Hotel 1 North Parade City Centre

Change of use of public highway for the sitting of 12 tables and 48 chairs with planters and parasols (Retrospective) (Resubmission)

Comment:  If consent is to be granted for this application, we would ask that the amount permitted is strictly adhered to, and that compliance and any conditions attached are monitored, and enforced where necessary, to ensure that the historic setting and public amenity of the area, particularly the spacious pavement, is retained.

 

14/04616/LBA – 10 Broad Street City Centre

External alterations for the installation of security gate.

Object:  Whilst we fully appreciate the applicant’s desire to ensure that the property is secured, we consider that the design response is inappropriate. The proposed design of the security gates is alien to the aesthetic of the building and the period in which it was designed and built, and therefore would harm the appearance and significance of the designated heritage asset.  Detriment to the appearance of building will, of course, have a negative impact on the visual amenity of the street scene, in an historic street located within the World Heritage Site and conservation area.  We would suggest that the applicant considers seeking a design solution that is much more in line with the historic design of the building in order to prevent harm to the significance of the listed building.

The proposed scheme, by virtue of the design of the security gate, would harm the significance of the designated heritage asset in this significant central location. It would be detrimental to the setting of the conservation area and the visual amenity value of the area, and would neither preserve nor enhance the character and appearance of the World Heritage Site.  The scheme would be contrary to the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas Act) 1990, Section 12 of the National Planning Policy Framework, Core Strategy policies B1, B2, B4 & CP6 and Saved Local Plan policies, D4, BH2 & BH6.  We would therefore recommend that the application be refused.

 

14/04373/FUL – 8 Lime Grove Gardens Bathwick

Erection of a single storey extension providing kitchen and a new second floor dormer

 

Comment:  We appreciate that the height of the ridge line of the property is below the level of the Kennet & Avon canal, and that existing views from the canal of the site are minimal due to planting. However, we would recommend that the LPA ensures that the setting of the canal and listed properties in Sydney Buildings would not be harmed by this proposal.

 

Week 43

14/04273/LBA – The UK Makery Ltd 146 Walcot Street

External alterations for the refurbishment of shop front

Comment: We would recommend that the applicant is encouraged to support the application with recognition of the special significance of the listed building and its setting.  This would ensure that the proposal respects both the importance of the building and the street scene.

We believe that exterior colour choices ought to be selected to reflect the age and style of the building, and the character of the Walcot Street area. We consider that there are more sympathetic heritage colours than those which have been proposed.

We would urge the LPA and the applicant to review the colour and agree a more suitable finish.

14/04456/AR & 14/04540/LBA – 22 – 24 Union Passage City Centre

Display of 1no. raised acrylic fascia sign and 1 no. hand painted hanging sign (Retrospective).

Object: We object to this proposal, as the use of acrylic is unsuitable for a listed building in the World Heritage Site and conservation area.  The material would not improve the appearance of the building and therefore not enhance the character of the street scene.  We appreciate the applicant’s desire to promote their business; however a more appropriate material should be used.  We would suggest that the fascia sign be of wholly hand painted timber, drawing on the historic palette of the city.

The proposed scheme, by virtue of the proposed material, would be detrimental to the character and the visual amenity value of the conservation area, and neither preserve nor and enhance the character and appearance of the World Heritage Site.  The scheme would be contrary to the Planning (Listed Building and Conservation Areas) Act 1990, Section 12 (Conserving and enhancing the historic environment) of the National Planning Policy Framework, policies; B1, B4 and CP6 of the B&NES Core Strategy and polices; D4 and BH2, BH6 and BH17 of the B&NES Saved Local Plan. It would also fall short of the guidelines published by B&NES Council in the Bath Shop fronts Guidelines for Design and Conservation. We would therefore recommend that the application be refused.

14/04457/AR & 14/04541/LBA – 10 St James’s Parade Bath

Display of 1 no. non illuminated fascia sign.

Object:  We object to this proposal, as the use of acrylic is unsuitable for a listed building in the World Heritage Site and conservation area.  The material would not improve the appearance of the building and therefore not enhance the character of the street scene.  We appreciate the applicant’s desire to promote their business; however a more appropriate material should be used.  We would suggest that the lettering to the fascia be wholly hand painted, drawing on the historic palette of the city.

The proposed scheme, by virtue of the proposed material, would be detrimental to the character and the visual amenity value of the conservation area, and neither preserve nor and enhance the character and appearance of the World Heritage Site.  The scheme would be contrary to the Planning (Listed Building and Conservation Areas) Act 1990, Section 12 (Conserving and enhancing the historic environment) of the National Planning Policy Framework, policies; B1, B4 and CP6 of the B&NES Core Strategy and polices; D4 and BH2, BH6 and BH17 of the B&NES Saved Local Plan.  It would also fall short of the guidelines published by B&NES Council in the Bath Shop fronts Guidelines for Design and Conservation. We would therefore recommend that the application be refused.

14/02907/LBA – 14 Cheap Street City Centre

External works to change the decoration of building. (Regularisation).

Object:  We object to this retrospective scheme, as the use of acrylic lettering to the Cheap Street elevation is unsuitable for a listed building in the World Heritage Site and conservation area.  Also the boarding over glazing bar details in the top lights, detracts from the character of the window and therefore the significance of the listed building.   The exterior colour choices ought to be selected to reflect the age and style of the building and the character and setting of the Abbey, in this central and highly visited location.  We also consider that there are more sympathetic heritage colours than that which has been used.

The scheme, by virtue of the material, colour choice and works to the window, is detrimental to the character and the visual amenity value of the conservation area, and neither preserves nor and enhances the character and appearance of the World Heritage Site.  The scheme is contrary to the Planning (Listed Building and Conservation Areas) Act 1990, Section 12 (Conserving and enhancing the historic environment) of the National Planning Policy Framework, policies; B1, B4 and CP6 of the B&NES Core Strategy and polices; D4 and BH2, BH6 and BH17 of the B&NES Saved Local Plan.  We would therefore recommend that the application be refused.

14/04537/AR – Whitestuff Ltd 7 New Bond Street City Centre.

Display of 1 no. non-illuminated fascia sign, to include the repainting of the existing fascia and addition of decorative moulding.

Comment:  We would recommend that all the exterior wood work has an egg-shell finish rather than gloss, as this would be more in keeping with the historic palette of the city, and be more suitable for a building in a prominent location within the World Heritage Site and conservation area.

14/04381/AR – Co-operative Retail Services Ltd, The Scala, Shaftesbury Road Oldfield Park.

Display of 5 no. internally illuminated aluminium fascia signs and 11 no. non-illuminated aluminium panel wall-mounted signs.

Object:  Whilst we appreciate the applicant’s desire to promote their commercial interests, we will maintain our position in objecting to illuminated signs in the World Heritage Site.  Many commercial premises have illuminated signs but these should not be a precedent for a low illuminated city like Bath.  Overhead street lighting and light spill from general internal lighting should be sufficient to allow advertising signage to be seen.  The amount of proposed illuminated signs is in our opinion certainly far too much.   Also the proposed use of aluminium is not in keeping with the historic and traditional material palette of the city.

The proposed scheme, by virtue of the illuminated signs and material, would be detrimental to the visual amenity value of the area, and neither preserve nor and enhance the character and appearance of the World Heritage Site.  The scheme would be contrary to Section 12 (Conserving and enhancing the historic environment) of the NPPF, policies; B1, B4 and CP6 of the B&NES Core Strategy and polices; D4 and BH 17 of the B&NES Saved Local Plan. We would therefore recommend that the application be refused.

14/04485/AR – Bath Honda Prior Park Road Widcombe.

Display of non illuminated fascia sign, free standing entrance sign and welcome sign.

Object: We object to this proposal, as the use of aluminium and vinyl is unsuitable for a listed building in the World Heritage Site and conservation area.  The material would not improve the appearance of the building nor its curtilage, and therefore not enhance the character of the street scene.  We appreciate the applicant’s desire to promote their business; however a more appropriate material should be used.  We would suggest that hand painted timber, drawing on the historic palette of the city, would be more suitable.

The proposed scheme, by virtue of the proposed materials, would be detrimental to the character and the visual amenity value of the conservation area, and neither preserve nor and enhance the character and appearance of the World Heritage Site.  The scheme would be contrary to the Planning (Listed Building and Conservation Areas) Act 1990, Section 12 (Conserving and enhancing the historic environment) of the National Planning Policy Framework, policies; B1, B4 and CP6 of the B&NES Core Strategy and polices; D4 and BH2, BH6 and BH17 of the B&NES Saved Local Plan.  We would therefore recommend that the application be refused.

14/04728/FUL – Transport Depot, Brougham Hayes, Westmoreland

Redevelopment of the former transport depot site and the erection of 104 bedspaces of purpose built student accommodation (sui generis) and associated communal and ancillary facilities, following demolition of existing building.

 

Object:  In our previous submissions concerning proposed schemes for the site the Trust did not object to the principle of the redevelopment of this site for housing, though we did express concerns with regard to elements of the design proposals.  The extant application however causes us to object as regards both elements of design and the proposed use as student accommodation.

 

Use as student accommodation

 

We are particularly concerned that this proposal would be an addition to an oversupply of student housing, which would potentially use a brown field site within the city centre. A report obtained from B&NES planning policy team concludes that there is a forecast shortfall in deliverable supply of student housing to 2021 of only 203 bed spaces.  This contrasts with the following additional planning applications:

  • Green Park – 461 bed spaces;
  • James Street West – 250 (min) bed space;
  • Site of Old Gas Works, Upper Bristol Road – 404 bed spaces;
  • Hartwells, Upper Bristol Road  – 194 + 70 beds paces; (at present withdrawn)

 

This would suggest a massive overprovision when one compares applications against need. The key issue here is that in the provision of student housing will prevent much needed affordable housing being developed on this and other brown field sites.

The development of this site for student accommodation would not make any provision towards much needed affordable housing, nor any contribution to local community facilities.

 

Overall Design

 

Given the location of the proposal site, at busy cross-roads on a gate-way route to the wider city and within the World Heritage Site and conservation area, we are concerned that the general design and appearance is unacceptable for the following reasons.

Height and Massing

The massing of the proposed building and the extent of the flat roof is particularly inappropriate and unresponsive to the location, dominating and reducing the visual significance of the historic form of the Victorian terrace to the west of the proposal site.  The maximum height of the building certainly fails to respect the scale of the local townscape and the two projecting blocks to the western facade, also fail to respect the height of the historic terrace which it directly faces.  The intrusive and over-bearing nature of the height and massing of the proposed scheme will have a severely negative effect on the terraced cottages, their setting and local townscape amenity.  This will harm their significance as non designated heritage assets and the visual amenity of the street scene, and be detrimental to this part of the World Heritage Site and conservation area.

Fenestration

The proposed scheme presents an increase in the amount of glazed areas, which is a form not generally associated with dwellings, especially when considering the prevalent form of dwellings in the immediate area.  We are concerned that this amount of glazing may require infilling with opaque panels, this design approach would be visually detrimental.

Materials

We have concerns that the materials as outlined in the proposal are not suitable for the location, in terms of responding to the materials used in the main historic form of building in the immediate vicinity, nor taking into account the traditional palette of the wider city, encompassed in the World Heritage Site.

Reference to the proposed type of stone is vague and therefore gives rise to concern.  We would hope that any stone used is natural Bath Stone rather than a reconstituted form, to continue and match the prevalent building material of the city.  Neither zinc coloured metal cladding nor render, are drawn from the traditional types of material used across the city and would not enhance the visual amenity of the proposed building.

Conclusion

Given the above, we consider that the proposed scheme would fail to respond to the local context, would fail to reinforce local distinctiveness and would detract from the visual amenity value of the area

The proposal would detract from the special qualities of the World Heritage Site and would neither preserve nor enhance the character and appearance of the Conservation Area. If approved the scheme would add to the overprovision of student accommodation in the city at the expense of affordable housing.  The proposal is contrary to the Planning (Listed Building and Conservation Areas) Act 1990, Section 12 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), Polices DW1 and B1 of the B&NES Core Strategy and saved policies D2, D4 and BH6 of the local plan.  We therefore recommend that the application be refused.

 

14/04408/REG13 – Waterfront House, 211 Lower Bristol Road, Westmoreland, Bath, Bath and North East Somerset, BA2 3DQ

Internal and external works to Waterfront House and its environments as part of Bath Quays Waterside flood mitigation project to include windows and ground floor doors replacement and raising of wall levels.

Object: Whilst we support the intention to protect these buildings from flooding we do not consider that the design approach proposed respects the character and significance of the listed building.  The windows proposed appear “off the peg” and do not fit the shape of the window aperture or the arched window head. The existing windows follow the curve of the window head. The proposed windows are pointed and this detracts from the design of the window, and will harm the appearance of the building.

The scheme would therefore be contrary to the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas Act) 1990, Section 12 of the National Planning Policy Framework, Core Strategy policies B1, B2, B4 & CP6 and Saved Local Plan policies, D4, BH2 & BH6.  We would therefore recommend that the application be refused in its current form.

14/04442/REG13  – Camden Mill, 230 Lower Bristol Road, Westmoreland, Bath, Bath And North East Somerset, BA2 3DQ

Internal and external works to Camden Mill and its environments as part of Bath Quays Waterside flood mitigation project to include replacement of windows and doors and raising of river wall level

Object: Whilst we support the intention to protect these buildings from flooding we do not consider that the design approach proposed respects the character and significance of the listed building.  The windows proposed appear “off the peg” and do not fit the shape of the window aperture or the arched window head. The existing windows follow the curve of the window head. The proposed windows are pointed and this detracts from the design of the window, and will harm the appearance of the building.

The scheme would therefore be contrary to the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas Act) 1990, Section 12 of the National Planning Policy Framework, Core Strategy policies B1, B2, B4 & CP6 and Saved Local Plan policies, D4, BH2 & BH6.  We would therefore recommend that the application be refused in its current form.

 

14/04445/REG13 – The Bayer Building, 210 – 211 Lower Bristol Road, Westmoreland, Bath, Bath & North East Somerset, BA2 3DQ

Internal and external works to the Bayer Building and its environments as part of Bath Quays Waterside flood mitigation project to include the replacement of windows and balcony balustrades, installation of internal flood-proof screens and flood gates, strengthening of existing masonry and construction of new flood wall to Newarks Works Yard.

Object : BPT supports the principle of protecting the site from flooding. However, it is obvious that the primary focus of these proposals is on flood defence measures rather than heritage value, or the viable future of the buildings. Furthermore we consider that the documentation submitted in support of this proposal is insufficient to allow for a proper assessment of the impact on the significance of the heritage assets.

The group of buildings including Newark Works, and the Foundry (an undesignated heritage asset) create an enclosed yard. We are particularly concerned about the proposed flood defence wall which is positioned through this internal space.  The heights of this proposed flood defence differ, from 1.25m for the flood gate, through 1.6m to 2m – this may be to do with the terrain, but there are no elevation drawings to judge. There should also be elevation drawings showing the varying river levels.

We are particularly concerned that the proposed wall would have a detrimental impact on the appearance and setting of these buildings. Furthermore by cutting through and dividing the site it would compromise the visual relationship of the buildings, and compromise the functional relationship and use of the buildings as a group in any future adaptation and reuse. The Foundry building ought to be recognised as an undesignated heritage asset and the impact of the proposals given proper consideration. The proposed location of the wall divides the site and isolates this locally important building which should stay connected to the significant industrial buildings surrounding it. This connection will help to strengthen and better reveal the significance of this asset.

We support the suggestion made by English Heritage that the location of the proposed wall should be reconsidered to take full account of the significance of the whole site. However this recommendation follows from a general view of the site and without the correct information to help them in their assessment in detail. We refer to the detailed appraisal of the whole site undertaken by Varian Tye which clearly demonstrates that the significance of the site has been underestimated.  We are in agreement with Varian that a more detailed analysis clearly leads one to the conclusion that other alternatives also need to be investigated, such as flip up barriers, which have a number of advantages over tall walls.

We therefore remain to be convinced that the wall proposed is the most appropriate solution. We are concerned that the construction of the wall will detract from and cause harm to the setting and group value of the buildings on site, and historic foundry yard, not just the principal Grade II listed building and therefore urge you to investigate other alternatives for flood control.

This application should not be approved in its current form. The proposed wall would cause substantial harm to the heritage assets and would be contrary to S16 and S72 of the Planning (Listed Buildings & Conservation Areas) Act 1990, the NPPF – Section 12 “Conserving and Enhancing the Historic Environment, and relevant policies of the Core Strategy and the Bath and North East Somerset Local Plan and should therefore be refused.

 

14/04547/FUL – 43 Upper Oldfield Park, Oldfield Park, Bath, Bath And North East Somerset, BA2 3LB

Erection of 14no. residential apartments with parking and shared grounds (Revised Proposal) (Retrospective).

Object: This planning application for the retention of the development as built must not be approved. Retrospective permission gives entirely the wrong message that developers can build what they like in the city without any regard to the designations and planning policies that are in place to protect the heritage value of Bath. The applicants have previously attempted to obtain permission for a building of this size, width and depth, which was deemed to have a detrimental effect on the townscape and character of the conservation area and refused. These same grounds for refusal therefore remain applicable.

The proposed development, by reason of its inappropriate size and design would be harmful to the character and appearance of this part of the Conservation Area and World Heritage Site.

The built scheme would therefore be contrary to the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas Act) 1990, Section 12 of the National Planning Policy Framework, Core Strategy policies B1, B4 & CP6 and Saved Local Plan policies, D4, BH2 & BH6.  We would therefore recommend that the application be refused in its current form and that the Council takes necessary action to remedy this breach of the planning control.

Week 44

14/04662/LBA – 3 Brock Street, City Centre

External alterations to include replacement of san parts of timber box sash windows, with sashes with Georgian bars.

Support: We welcome the reinstatement of glazing bars, which will enhance the character and appearance of the listed building, located in the World Heritage Site and conservation area.

14/04726/LBA – 3 Store, 23 Union Street, City Centre

Internal and external alterations to include the repair and replacement of rotten timber sash windows and external architraves/cover mouldings. Cleaning down roof covering and replacing tiles and ridge where necessary. Repairs to the copper lined parapet gutter and flashings. Replacing distorted gutters and downpipes. Repointing chimneys and coping stones. Removal of redundant AC roof plant. Installaltion of new felt roof covering, replacement leadwork and cleaning down the lightwell. Internal and external redecoration. Internal ceiling and wall plaster replacement. Provision of structural support to the basement.

Comment:  We recommend that approval for the proposed scheme should not be granted, until a comprehensive schedule of works, including details of exterior decoration is submitted.  We also suggest that exterior colour choices should be selected to reflect the age and style of the building, and the setting and character of the conservation area.

14/04676/FUL – Tenby Lodge, Sion Hill, Lansdown

To remove a 2 meter portion of wall adjoining the main driveway entrance into the property and extending the existing automatic gates to fill this space.

Comment:  We appreciate the applicant’s wish to make access to their property easier. However, we do regret the loss of a section of the wall. The continuous wall is an attractive feature of the street scene and contributes positively to the character of the conservation area.

 

14/04496/FUL – Linear View, 4A Vernon Park, Twerton

Erection of 1no three storey attached town house.

Object: The proposal presents a scheme that would be an over-development of the site, as the proposed development would take up a significant proportion of the compact site and coupled with the elevation of the site; this presents an over-bearing scheme which would harm the visual amenity of the street scene.  The rear dormer window is certainly over-sized and is a poor-design response for a site within the World Heritage Site; given these points we object to the proposal.

We understand the applicant’s desire to utilise the site and would recommend that a better use of the site would be to construct a smaller dwelling with a maximum of 2 bedrooms, or to build the development as per the extant permission.

The proposed scheme by virtue of the over-development of the site and the inappropriate design would not enhance or preserve the visual amenity of the street scene in with the World Heritage site, and be contrary to policy CP6 of the B&NES Core Strategy and saved polices D2 and D4 of the B&NES Local Plan.  We would therefore recommend that the application be refused.

Week 45

14/04791/LBA – 5 Henry Street, City Centre

Internal and external alterations to reinstate the property back to its original use as a single dwelling, to include restoration works and reinstating some of the architectural features of the building.

Comment:  We welcome and support this proposed scheme as it intends to reinstate the property back to its original function as a single dwelling.  We would support good quality repair and restoration, with a considered approach to appropriate historic materials and finishes, in keeping with the traditional palette of the city.  Appropriate work will ensure that the appearance and character of the listed building will be enhanced.

14/04574/FUL – Lifestyle Medical Beauty Clinic 10 Chapel Row City Centre 

Change of use from massage clinic (Use Class D1) to 1no. dwelling house (Use Class C3).

Comment:  We have no objection in principle to the proposal; however this is a listed building, unacknowledged by the applicant in the documentation, so listed building consent will be required, as stated by a Senior Conservation Officer from the Local Planning Authority.

The documents supporting the application do not indicate how the existing modern shop windows and glazed door will be treated.  Assuming that the intention will be to replace the current windows and glazed door, we would recommend that the design response is informed by sound historic research of the property/area and that new fenestration is wholly in keeping with the age and period of the building in terms of design, materials and finish.  The correct approach will enhance the character and appearance of the listed building and the wider street scene, at an entrance location to one of the most significant architectural compositions in the city.

14/04815/LBA – 5 Brookleaze Buildings Larkhall      

External alterations to provide replacement entrance door and windows.

Comment: We welcome and support the proposal as it intends to provide a positive restoration of the historic appearance of the building.  Such an approach using traditional materials and finishes, in keeping with the period of the construction of the building and the prevalent traditional palette of the city, will enhance the character and appearance of the listed building and the street scene.

 

 

14/04721/FUL – 1 Claremont Terrace, Camden Road, Beacon Hill

Erection of single storey rear extension following demolition of existing extension and change of shop front layout to create a separate access for the flat above.

Object: We appreciate the applicant’s desire to create a separate access to the first floor dwelling; however the proposed scheme presents an elevation fronting the street, which is not in keeping with the existing terrace.  The design response should be informed by the properties in the terrace where historic and traditional forms have been retained in the shop fronts, and doors; seemingly accessing dwellings.

The proposal, which fails to specify the appropriate design and materials of the shop front, is not in keeping with the traditional and period form of elements of the terrace of commercial premises, in this busy local centre, and is therefore detrimental to the visual amenity of the general street scene, in a location in the World Heritage Site and conservation area.  The proposed scheme is contrary Section 12 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), policies B1, B4 and CP6 of the B&NES Core Strategy and saved policies D4, BH6, BH19 and BH20 of the B&NES Local Plan.  It would also fall short of the guidelines published by B&NES Council in the Bath Shop fronts Guidelines for Design and Conservation. We would therefore recommend that the application be refused.

14/04811/FUL – 27 Ivy Avenue Southdown

Conversion of attic into bedroom to include installation of rear dormer, reroof sun room with insulated flat roof and rooflights and other associated works.

Object: The scheme is a poor-design response for a site within the World Heritage Site; given these points we object to the proposal. This application presents a scheme that would set an undesirable precedent in the area which would harm the visual amenity of the street scene.  The flat roofed dormer is higher than the existing ridge and this would be detrimental to the traditional form of the building.  The single ply membrane construction would not be in keeping with the traditional types of materials used to construct the property in question and those in the area.

The proposed scheme by virtue of the detrimental impact on the street scene and the inappropriate design would not enhance or preserve the visual amenity of the street scene in with the World Heritage site, and be contrary to policy CP6 of the B&NES Core Strategy and saved polices D2 and D4 of the B&NES Local Plan.  We would therefore recommend that the application be refused.

14/04744/LBA – Westfield Lodge, Westfield Road, Lower Weston

Erection of stone retaining wall following demolition existing wall.

Comment:  We recommend that it is ensured that the existing historic stone is used to re-construct the wall facing the street, and that the retaining wall is faced on both sides with natural Bath stone, to be in keeping with the traditional historic material prevalent across the city.  The use of Bath stone will ensure that the character and historic integrity of the boundary of the site is retained.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Designed by Ice House Design