Feb – Mar 2015

10 February – 10 March

Week 07

15/00239/FUL &15/00240/LBA –  25 Daniel Street Bathwick

Internal and external alterations to include erection of single storey glazed rear extension including formation of doorway opening to replace window, enlargement of existing extension and replacement windows.

Object:  The proposal to remove the historic ground floor window is unacceptable as this would represent a loss of significant historic fabric from a designated heritage asset.  Whilst emphasis could be placed on the significance of the front elevation over that of the rear elevation, the statutory listing of a building applies to the whole and gives no weight to any one element, whether referred to in the list entry or not.  The window subject to proposed demolition represents a component of the historic fenestration of multi-pane (six-over-six) sash windows, the removal of this element will harm the aesthetic, architectural and heritage value of the asset. The proposed scheme could be considered as a minor change to the building in the context of other historic adaptations to the property and adjacent properties, but the significance of the listed building will be harmed as will the significance of the immediate designated heritage assets, within the conservation area and World Heritage Site.

The proposed scheme by virtue of the demolition of significant historic fabric would substantially harm the significance of the designated heritage asset and this would be contrary to the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas Act) 1990, Section 12 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), policies DW1, B1, B4 and CP6 of the B&NES Core Strategy and saved polices D4, BH2 and BH6 of the B&NES Local Plan.  We would therefore recommend that the application be refused.

15/00431/LBA &15/00432/AR – 1 Victoria Buildings Twerton

Internal and external alterations to include installation of 2 No internal roller shutters to the ground floor shop window and external advertising signage. (regularisation)/ Display of 2 No. external non illuminated fascia boards (regularisation)

Object: We object to this proposal as the materials proposed are unsuitable for a listed building within the World Heritage Site.  The materials would not improve the appearance of the building and therefore not enhance the character and visual amenity of the street scene.  We appreciate the applicant’s desire to update their commercial premises; however more appropriate materials should be used.  Perspex is not in keeping with the traditional palette of materials which is prevalent across the city, and the bright white and orange colour scheme is alien to the historic colour palette of the city. We would suggest that signage on the fascia board should be hand painted sign and that more traditional colours are used. The fixing of bike stands introduces unnecessary harm to the fabric of the listed building and associated bicycles would clutter the appearance of the building and street-scene.

The proposed scheme, by virtue of the materials would harm the significance of the  listed building, and would be detrimental to the visual amenity value of this part of the Bath World Heritage Site and therefore 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 (NPPF), policies; DW1, B1, B4 and CP6 of the B&NES Core Strategy and saved policies;  D4, BH2, BH19 and BH20  from the B&NES local plan.   We would therefore ask that the application be refused.

15/00436/FUL – 11 Triangle East, Oldfield Park, Bath

Installation of rear dormer and conversion of loft.

Object: The proposal presents a scheme that fails to respond to the local context and will detract from the attractive quality of a group of buildings, an essential component contributing to the harmonious qualities of Bath’s built environment.  Whilst the building is not a designated heritage asset, this form of historic terraced housing in this area of the World Heritage Site, defines a period of expansion in the housing stock of the city, and the building and terrace of which it is part, is a good example of the historic design for this building type.  Whilst the proposed extension is at the rear of the property it will be viewed from other properties.  The design response is overbearing for the size of the property and distorts the traditional roof-line.  Other examples of dormers in the proximity are of smaller proportions.

The proposed scheme, by virtue of scale and design would be detrimental to the visual amenity value of the area, fails to enhance or reinforce local distinctiveness, and therefore contrary to Section 7 (Requiring good design) of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), policies B1and CP6 of the B&NES Core Strategy and saved policies, D2 and D4 of from the B&NES Local Plan.  We would therefore ask that the application be refused.

Week 08

15/00429/LBA – Octagon Hall 25 Milsom Place City Centre

Internal alterations to refurbish and refit The Octagon Chapel as a Burger Lobster restaurant.

Object: Whilst we object to the proposed scheme, we do welcome the principal of the building being used as a restaurant after a substantial period with no fixed use, as redundant historic buildings often become neglected and their fabric degraded.  We do however have reservations that the building may not be suitable to the usual aesthetic of the restaurant chain.  The following is our current position based upon the information provided via the planning application and supporting documents.  Our views would be better informed by a site visit and we may revise our position after a visit.

We are very concerned that the application is not sufficiently support by documents that reflect the significance of the designated heritage asset (Grade II*).  This failure may point to an overall lack of engagement with the historic nature and significance of the building.  The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) is clear in that local planning authorities (LPA) require applicants to describe the significance of affected heritage assets, and that the level of detail should be proportionate to the assets’ importance (NPPF: paragraph 128).  Given the significance of the building – only 5.5% of listed buildings are listed at Grade II* – the applicant has clearly failed to provide the required level of detail to the LPA and given this we question why the application was validated?    For a comprehensive consideration of the application to be carried out we would expect that it would be supported by a; photographic survey, a Heritage Impact Assessment, an Historic Building Report – which should inform a Heritage Statement – and a full set of drawings of the internal elevations.  Unfortunately all of these documents are lacking from the application and therefore this does not allow us, or any party, to undertake a comprehensive review of the scheme.

The absence of fundamental documentation fails to provide justification for work to the designated heritage asset and the lack of detail raises questions and doubts over what harm may be caused to the historic fabric and form of the building.  Our concerns include, but are not limited to, what harm may be caused to the fabric by elements introduced at the corners of the main internal space, and there is no reference to extract ducts related to the kitchen area.  The scheme proposes two staircases but there is a lack of evidence and justification as to why these solutions for access have been arrived at, in the context of damage to the fabric of the building.

Given the absence of sufficient information we are moved to object to the proposed scheme as it may harm the fabric and significance of a Grade II* listed building in the conservation area and World Heritage Site.  We do hope that through a site visit and consultation with B&NES officers that we can gain a full appreciation of the proposal; however based on the present lack of information we would recommend that the application be refused.

15/00503/AR – 4 Princes Buildings City Centre         

Display of 2 no. externally illuminated fascia signs, 1 no. externally illuminated awning signage, 1 no. internally illuminated menu box, 1 no. internally illuminated lantern, window signage, portable pavement sign and miscellaneous external branding associated with restaurant.

Object: We object to this proposal as it aims to introduce unnecessary lighting and elements that will detract from the appearance and character of the listed building and the street-scene.  The proposed illuminated features are not necessary in this central location, where light from various sources including street lighting is adequate to illuminate the premises and proposed signage.  Bath is a low-level illuminated city and this proposed scheme will be detrimental to light levels.  The swan neck lighting is out of keeping with the historic form of the building and the wider street scene.  The pavement sign adds clutter to the street scene [especially if planning application 14/05730/FUL is approved] and is harmful to the character and appearance, and therefore the visual amenity of the site in the conservation area and World Heritage Site.  We appreciate the applicant’s desire to promote their commercial premises but this should be done in a more restrained manner which respects the significance of the historic environment.

The proposed scheme, by virtue of certain forms and illumination, would neither preserve nor and enhance the character and appearance of a listed building, the World Heritage Site or the conservation area and be detrimental to the visual amenity of the street scene. 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 (NPPF), policies; B1, B4 and CP6 of the B&NES Core Strategy and saved policies; D2, D4, BH2 and BH6 of the B&NES Local Plan.  We would therefore recommend that the application be refused.

15/00584/AR& 15/00599/LBA – 8 Bartlett Street City Centre           

Display of 1no non-illuminated sign.

Comment: We welcome the retention and re-use of the historic gantry, and the intention to use traditional forms and methods in conserving the structure.  If the work is carried out and finished appropriately, the conserved gantry will enhance the street-scene. We recommend that suitable conditions are is attached to any consent to ensure that appropriate methods, finishes and colouring are used.

15/00657/AR – Kingsmead Leisure Complex 5 – 10 James Street West City Centre

Display of 1 no. internally illuminated fascia sign, 2 no. internally illuminated hanging signs and 2 no. internally illuminated exterior totems.

Object: We object to the proposal as it will introduce a totally unacceptable level of illumination to a street in the World Heritage Site and conservation area.  Whilst we appreciate the applicant’s desire to advertise their commercial premises, the extant consent as per application 12/05578/AR, represents sufficient illuminated advertising for the site.  In addition light from other sources such as overhead street lighting, provides more than adequate illumination for the premises.  Bath is a low-level illuminated city and this proposed scheme will be detrimental to light levels.  The proposed level of illumination will harm the character and appearance, and therefore the visual amenity of the street scene.

The proposed scheme, by virtue of illumination, would neither preserve nor and enhance the character and appearance of the World Heritage Site or the 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 National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), policies; B1, B4 and CP6 of the B&NES Core Strategy and saved policies; D2, D4, BH6 and BH17 of the B&NES Local Plan.  We would therefore recommend that the application be refused.

15/00581/AR &15/00582/LBA – Larkhall Inn St Saviour’s Road Larkhall 

Display of externally illuminated lettering sign, 4No. externally illuminated bullnose gable boards, 2 non-illuminated chalkboard signs, 1No lantern and 4No led floodlights.

Object: We object to this proposal as it aims to introduce unnecessary lighting and inappropriate materials at a level that will detract from the appearance and character of the listed building and the street-scene.  The proposed illuminated features are not necessary in this location, where light from various sources including street lighting and internal light-spill is adequate to illuminate the premises and proposed signage.  Bath is a low-level illuminated city and this proposed scheme will be detrimental to light levels.  The aluminium proposed for the signage is not in keeping with the traditional palette of materials prevalent across the city.  We would recommend that hand-painted timber signage be used as this would be more suitable for a listed building in the conservation area and World Heritage Site.  The amount of signage and lighting presents unnecessary harm to the fabric of the listed building.  The proposed scheme will harm the significance of the designated heritage asset and harm its character and appearance, and therefore the visual amenity of the street scene.

The proposed scheme, by virtue of illumination and materials would neither preserve nor and enhance the character and appearance of the designated heritage asset or the World Heritage Site or the conservation area, and be detrimental to the visual amenity of the street scene. 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 (NPPF), policies; B1, B4 and CP6 of the B&NES Core Strategy and saved policies; D2, D4, BH2, BH6 and BH17 of the B&NES Local Plan.  We would therefore recommend that the application be refused.

15/00527/FUL – Meriden Granville Road Lansdown

Erection of 4no dwellings.

Object: Whilst we accept the need for housing across the city, we object to this application as the proposed building heights are too great for the proposal site, it will present built forms of too much bulk and will introduce sources of light that will harm views of the urban fringe from the green belt and from the designated heritage asset, Beckford’s Tower (Grade I).  The previous form of development along Granville Road was of single storey dwellings toward the road-side of plots, the proposed scheme aims to overdevelop the site with dwellings at the front and back of the plot.  The design is not of a suitable quality for Bath where architectural innovation is significant.  The proposed materials are of types that are not in keeping with the traditional forms prevalent across the city, and the numerous types present an over-bearing design response.

The proposed scheme, by virtue of height, bulk, design, overdevelopment and harm to the setting of the conservation area and to views to and from the green belt and a designated heritage asset, would neither preserve nor and enhance the character and appearance of the designated heritage asset or the World Heritage Site and be detrimental to the visual amenity of the area. 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 (NPPF), policies; B1, B4 and CP6 of the B&NES Core Strategy and saved policies; D2, D4 and BH2 B&NES Local Plan.  We would therefore recommend that the application be refused.

Week 09

15/00536/LBA &15/00537/AR – Pret A Manger 2 Stall Street City Centre Bath

Display of 1no non-illuminated rounded sign, with stainless steel letters and acrylic faces.

Object: Whilst we appreciate the applicant’s desire to advertise their commercial premises, we object to this application as it proposes the use of materials that are not suitable for a listed building, at a prominent location in the conservation area and World Heritage Site.  Aluminium, polished stainless letters and acrylic are materials that are not in keeping with the traditional palette of materials prevalent across the city.  We would suggest that a hand-painted timber sign would be a more suitable form of signage.

The proposed scheme, by virtue of the materials, would harm the significance of the listed building, neither preserve nor and enhance the character and appearance of the conservation area and be detrimental to the visual amenity of the street scene. 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 (NPPF), policies; B1, B4 and CP6 of the B&NES Core Strategy and saved policies; D2, D4, BH2, BH6 and BH17 of the B&NES Local Plan.  We would therefore recommend that the application be refused.

15/00647/FUL &15/00648/LBA – 9 Bathwick Hill Bathwick

Refurbishment of existing summer pavilion and conversion of existing garage to additional accommodation. Reinstate 5 meters of boundary wall to match existing, and create off street access and parking to the side of the property.

Object: The creation of a new access lower down the hill, from both the existing vehicular access and the central pedestrian access, will cause unnecessary harm to the fabric of the historic boundary wall and will diminish the aesthetic and functional prominence of the central gateway to the property.  The creation of off street parking as proposed will be detrimental to the immediate setting of the listed building and therefore harm the significance of the asset.  The accompanying documentation to the application provides no robust justification for the scheme therefore the need to conserve the listed building and its setting outweighs the proposal.  We consider that the current parking situation is the most suitable solution for the parking of vehicles.

The proposed scheme by virtue of harm to the fabric and significance of a listed building and its setting, would neither preserve nor and enhance the character and of the conservation area, would be detrimental to the visual amenity of the street scene and detract from the special qualities 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 (NPPF), policies; B1, B4 and CP6 of the B&NES Core Strategy and saved policies; D2, D4, BH2 and BH6.  We would therefore recommend that the application be refused.

15/00701/LBA – 1 – 3 James Street West City Centre

Internal and external alterations to include partial demolition of existing building with retention of external facade and selected internal walls. Selective capping of retained walls. Provision of new reinforced concrete structure constructed behind retained facade to provide commercial ground floor use with cluster apartments of student accommodation above. New glazed infill to corner of James Street West and Kingsmead North.   Provision of replacement windows and doors to retained facade.

Object: Whilst we certainly appreciate that the applicant has reduced the height of the proposed building, we consider that the proposed scheme presents a retrograde step as regards the conjoining of the proposed new build to that of the existing significant fabric.  The previous proposal saw the junction of the new and historic fabric being cleared delineated by a glazed area.  This made very apparent the two separate components and would have ensured that the historic portion was legible and therefore retained its significance.  The extant proposal presents a design response where this distinction is certainly not as clear and would therefore harm the significance of the designate heritage asset.  We appreciate the reduction in height, however the fenestration, proportions and floor to ceiling height is of concern as the appearance is rather bulky.

We maintain our position of concern regarding the provision of student housing.  We are particularly concerned about an oversupply of student housing which would potentially use up brown field sites within the city. 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 planning applications:

 

• Green Park – 461 bed spaces;

• James Street West – 250 (min) bed space;

• Transport Depot, Brougham Hayes – 103 bed spaces;

• Site of Old Gas Works, Upper Bristol Road – 404 bed spaces;

• Hartwells, Upper Bristol Road  – 194 + 70 beds spaces;

 

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 proposed scheme by virtue of design would harm the significance of the listed building, would neither preserve nor and enhance the character and appearance of the conservation area, would be detrimental to the visual amenity of the street scene, and detract from the special qualities of the Worlds 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 (NPPF), policies; B1, B4, B5 and CP6 of the B&NES Core Strategy and saved policies; D2, D4, BH2 and BH6.  We would therefore recommend that the application be refused.

Week 10

14/05786/REG13 – Street Record Pulteney Bridge City Centre

External alterations for the maintenance and repair works to the Grand Parade Balustrades.

Comment: We welcome the proposed scheme as it aims to conserve the historic features.  We are however concerned that the application is not supported by a full specification/schedule of works. We would consider detailed information is necessary at this stage and available to the public prior to the determination of the application, rather than dealt with by Condition.

15/00826/FUL – 71 Shakespeare Avenue Bear Flat

Provision of loft conversion including L-shaped, flat-roof dormer.

Object:  The proposal presents a scheme that fails to respond to the local context and will detract from the attractive quality of a group of buildings, an essential component contributing to the harmonious qualities of Bath’s built environment.  Whilst the building is not a designated heritage asset, this form of traditionalhousing in the conservation area and the World Heritage Site, defines a period of expansion in the housing stock of the city, and the building and terrace of which it is part, is a good example of the historic design for this building type.  Whilst the proposed extension is at the rear of the property it will be viewed from other properties.The design response is overbearing for the size of the property and distorts the traditional roof-line.

The proposed scheme, by virtue of scale and design,will be detrimental to the visual amenity of the street scene,  would neither preserve nor and enhance the character and appearance of the conservation area and detract from the special qualities of the World Heritage Site, and, and is therefore contrary to Section 7 (Requiring good design) and Section 12 (Conserving and enhancing the historic environment) of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), policies B1, B4 and CP6 of the B&NES Core Strategy and saved policies, D2, D4 and BH6 from the B&NES Local Plan.  We would therefore ask that the application be refused.

15/00827/FUL – 24 Thornbank Place, Westmoreland, Bath.

Erection of single storey rear extension and installation of window in principal elevation.

Object: The proposal presents a scheme that fails to respond to the local context and will detract from the attractive quality of a group of buildings, an essential component contributing to the harmonious qualities of Bath’s built environment.  Whilst the building is not a designated heritage asset, this form of traditional housing in the conservation area and the World Heritage Site, defines a period of expansion in the housing stock of the city, and the building and terrace of which it is part, is a good example of the historic design for this building type.  The introduction of an additional window to the principal elevation will harm the character and appearance of the building and therefore the wider street-scene, in a terrace where the original historic form is generally retained throughout.  The historic fenestration is well persevered and the unnecessary insertion of an extra window will disrupt the pattern.

The proposed scheme by virtue of scale and design, will be detrimental to the visual amenity of the street scene,  would neither preserve nor and enhance the character and appearance of the conservation area and detract from the special qualities of the World Heritage Site, and is therefore contrary to Section 7 (Requiring good design) and Section 12 (Conserving and enhancing the historic environment) of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), policies B1, B4 and CP6 of the B&NES Core Strategy and saved policies, D2, D4 and BH6 from the B&NES Local Plan.  We would therefore ask that the application be refused.

Our objection is limited to the proposed installation of a window in the principal elevation and is restricted due to the fact that the only document available is the planning application.  This lack of sufficient supporting information not only limits our consideration of the scheme but that of other interested parties.  We continue to question why applications without adequate supporting documentation are being validated?

 

Designed by Ice House Design