Jan – Feb 2015

2015 Weeks 02-06

1 January – 10 February

Week 02

14/05775/LBA – 8 St James’s Square Lansdown

External alterations for the replacement of windows at ground, first and second floor level

Support: We welcome this proposal to reinstate windows of a form and materials contemporary with the period when the building was constructed.  This will enhance the appearance and character of the building, and the historic square of which it forms part.

14/05682/AR – Boathouse Restaurant Newbridge Road, Newbridge

Display of 1no. additional sign to the existing single post sign, 1no. replacement illuminated “V” sign, 1no. replacement directional sign on posts & re-positioning of 1no. existing sign on posts.

Object: Whilst we appreciate the applicant’s desire to promote their commercial premises, we object to elements of the proposal that are unsuitable to this gateway location to the World Heritage Site.  The use of aluminium and vinyl is not fitting for this location on a principal route into the city.  Hand-painted timber signs would be much more suitable reflecting the traditional prevalent materials of the city.  We continue to maintain our position of objection to illuminated signs, as Bath is a low-illumination city.  The proposed signs should be adequately visible via illumination from other sources of light such as street-lighting.

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 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 policy; D4 of the B&NES Local Plan.  We would therefore recommend that the application be refused.

14/05710/LBA & 14/05711/AR – Mcdonalds Weston Lock Retail Park Lower Bristol Road Westmoreland

External works for the installation of 2no “golden arch” fascia signs.

Object: We object to the proposed scheme, as the application and supporting documents do not provide sufficient information to enable us to undertake an informed consideration of the proposal, one which will impact on the fabric and significance of a designated heritage asset within the World Heritage Site.

The application states that the proposed signs will be ‘composite’; this description does not adequately define what material is to be used.  If metal is to be used as the material for the signs then the application should clearly state this.  The application and supporting documents do not refer to any method of fixing the signs to the fabric of the listed building, and therefore no conclusion as to the level of harm that will occur can be drawn.  Given the lack of detail we will assume that the proposal will harm the fabric and significance of the designated heritage asset, in order that our objection may be considered valid and therefore protect the building from inappropriate work.

The proposed scheme, by virtue of the materials and fixing method, would neither preserve nor and enhance the character and appearance of the World Heritage Site 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, D4, BH2 and BH17 of the B&NES Local Plan.  We would therefore recommend that the application be refused.

 

Week 03

14/05673/LBA – 15 Green Street City Centre

Internal and external alterations including the relaying of existing clay tile roof coverings, including flashings and gutters, renewal of flat roof, rebuilding of part of main chimney stack, replacement drainage pipes on rear elevation, blocking up of small rear window, provision of steel supports to decayed oak floor beams in the basement, provision of additional ventilation in basement and relaying defective length of underground drainage.

Comment:  In order that a full assessment of the impact of the proposed scheme on the fabric and significance of the building can be undertaken, the application should be supported by a specification of the works.

14/05407/ODCOU – Ministry Of Defence Warminster Road Bathwick

Prior approval request for change of use from office buildings (Class B1a) to 154 no. dwellings (Class C3).

Comment:  Whilst we are aware that the applicant is only required to submit certain supporting information as a minimum for this form of application, the lack of adequate information, including a design and access statement, makes undertaking a comprehensive review of the proposal difficult.  We cannot make a judgment on the proposed scheme with the information currently available; however if more supporting material were to be provided we would make a more considered response.

The proposal as submitted is contrary to B&NES Concept Statement for the Warminster Road Site (2012), and this should be given significant weight in the decision making for this application.

14/05793/FUL – Prop Car Park North West of Campus University of Bath Campus Claverton Down

Construction of new surface level car park with associated access road and landscaping works. (Resubmission)

Object:  Whilst we note that that applicant has proposed some elements that may lessen the impact of the proposed scheme, we maintain our position of objection to the principle of the proposed development.

Whilst we appreciate the applicant’s desire to have a greater parking provision we believe that the alternatives to this edge of campus site have not been adequately considered and tested. It creates a built overspill beyond the line of the existing developed campus which will result in irreversible loss of tree cover and habitat and lead to the potential to see this area in future as ‘built’ and therefore vulnerable to future development. This proposal would be inappropriate development that would harm the special character of the City and its landscape setting.  The proposed scheme would have an adverse impact on the site’s features that make it of special scientific interest, and harm the setting of the Cotswold AONB and the Scheduled Ancient Monument (SAM) that abuts the proposal site.  In the interest of maintaining the Outstanding Universal Value (OUV) of the World Heritage Site (WHS) and its landscape setting, an appropriate solution here would be to make an existing car park 2 storeys.

We endorse the detailed critique set out by Simon Barnes in his filed objection and urge the LPA to consider carefully the points made in that analysis.

For the reasons stated above, this proposal is contrary to B&NES Core Strategy Policies DW1, B1, B4, CP6, CP7, B&NES Saved Local Plan Policies SR.1A, SR.9, and Sections 4 ‘Promoting Sustainable Transport’, 11 ‘Conserving and Enhancing the Natural Environment’ and 12 ‘Conserving and Enhancing the Historic Environment’ of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), and should therefore be refused.

14/05567/FUL & 14/05568/LBA – 23 Royal Crescent City Centre

Replace existing flat roof and lantern light to summer house with slated pitched roof (Revised proposal).

Object: We object to this scheme as it proposes elements of design, that are not in keeping with the character of the grade I listed building situated in the World Heritage Site and conservation area, in the nationally and internationally renowned  Royal Crescent.

The proposal presents a roofscape of a cluttered appearance which would be overbearing and inappropriate in the setting of grade I listed buildings, and therefore would harm the significance of the designated heritage assets.  We find the approved scheme more satisfactory, in that it is more restrained, as is fitting for the site.  The flanking flat roofs make the building more subservient in the setting of the listed buildings.  The existing structure seemingly built within the last ten years, was designed to a form that would respect the setting of the surrounding listed buildings, so proposals to significantly increase the height of the building will harm the setting of the designated heritage assets.

We commented on the approved scheme that, “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 [be] visible from Marlborough Buildings (pavement level). We would therefore welcome a reduction in size”.

The proposed scheme by virtue of the inappropriate design would not enhance or preserve the appearance and character of the designated heritage asset and would harm its significance.  This would be contrary to 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.

14/05520/FUL – 12 Upper East Hayes Walcot

Adding a dormer window and velux window to existing roof.

Comment: There is a considerable lack of appropriate supporting information to allow a considered appraisal of this scheme.  We question why it was validated given the inadequate supporting information?

 

Week 04

14/05512/FUL & 14/05513/LBA – 7 Bladud Buildings City Centre

Conversion of flat roof to rear of building into a roof garden.

Comment:  If this proposal is permitted it should be subject to the following conditions:

  1. That the use of the roof garden is restricted to set time periods and that these are adhered to, in order to safeguard the amenity of the listed building, residents, and the historic environment.
  2. That light levels are controlled by condition to a suitable level and that these are adhered to, in order to safeguard the amenity of the listed building, residents, and the historic environment.

14/05730/FUL – 4 Princes Buildings City Centre

Use of public highway to allow external pavement seating

Object: We object to the proposal as the information provided is inadequate to undertake a considered appraisal of the scheme.  The supporting Planning Statement only provides approximations of the number of ‘seats’ and provides no information as regards to the quantities of tables and ‘feature planters’.  Without actual figures we are unable to make a sound judgement of the application and therefore object to the proposal in order to safeguard the setting of the listed building and the visual amenity of the building and the wider street-scene in the World Heritage Site and conservation area.

The proposed scheme, by virtue of a potentially excessive amount of furniture, 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.

14/05827/VAR – Recreation Ground Pulteney Mews Bathwick

Variation of condition 2 attached to planning permission 14/02158/FUL (Retention and/or replacement of, and extensions to, the existing temporary spectator stands along the north, west and eastern sides of the retained playing field, (as approved under planning permission references 09/01319/FUL, 10/01609/FUL, 10/01608/FUL, 10/01611/FUL), provision of new hospitality boxes to either side of the retained south stand, new control room, and associated works and ancillary facilities comprising toilets and food and bar facilities (temporary application for period of up to two years)

Comment:  If permission is granted for the application, it should be ensured that condition 1 of permitted application 14/02158/FUL is strictly adhered to.

14/05854/VAR – 20 Manvers Street Bath

Variation of condition 6 (plans list) of application 11/04063/FUL (Erection of extension at the fourth and fifth floor levels, external alterations and revisions to existing entrance onto Manvers Street)

Comment: We appreciate the applicant’s desire to improve the ground floor access to their premises, as an element of this application; however we are concerned that specific details of the treatment of the pavement/building junction are lacking.  This issue should be resolved before any consent is granted and not left to condition.

14/05870/LBA – Bath Spa Railway Station Dorchester Street Bath

Internal and external alterations to include installation of new waterproof lining, partitions, doors and ceilings to Arch 42 following the removal of existing rooms and timber structure. Replacement of signage at platform level and display of new signage to South Entrance.

Support:  We welcome this application. Repairs will ensure the structural integrity of the arch, and the signage is generally of a design that will strengthen local distinctiveness and enhance the character and appearance of the designated heritage asset, and gateway to the city and World Heritage Site.  However we recommend that prior to any approval the following amendments are sought;

  1. The sign on the transom should be removed as this is considered to add to clutter.
  2. The white on black should be replaced with a white on brown sign.
  3. The paper sign on the door ought to be replaced with a decal.

14/05859/AR – Ministry of Defence, Ensleigh, Granville Road, Lansdown

Display of 2 no. non-illuminated v-shaped panel signs.

Object: We appreciate the applicant’s desire to advertise their commercial enterprise; however this proposal together with the approved application 14/05626/AR, would introduce a quantity of unnecessary signage in this location, detracting from the visual amenity of the street scene at this key gateway route to the city and World Heritage Site.  We would suggest that one sign would be sufficient for the proposed scheme and this would lessen the harm to the visual amenity.

The proposed scheme, by virtue of excessive signage, would be detrimental to the visual amenity of the street scene. The scheme would be contrary to policy CP6 of the B&NES Core Strategy and saved policies; D2, D4, and BH17 of the B&NES Local Plan.  We would therefore recommend that the application be refused.

14/05688/FUL – 77 Lorne Road, Westmoreland

Erection of 8 no. residential units and erection of commercial/office space

Support:  The existing site has various incongruous elements and the proposed scheme will bring a more harmonious design response to this site and the wider street scene.  The scheme will introduce active frontages, as opposed to significant blank wall space, as per the existing south-east elevation which would enhance and enliven the street scene.  The proposed roof-lines will add elements of uniformity, yet retain visual interest.  Overall the proposed development will improve this site, which in respective parts is situated on a key city route and in a major residential area of the city. We therefore welcome the proposed development and support approval of this planning application.

 

Week 05

15/00139/AR & 15/00140/LBA – Curo The Maltings River Place Twerton

Display of 1 no. externally illuminated disc shaped fascia sign

Object: Whilst we appreciate the applicant’s desire to advertise their commercial premises, the proposed scheme is not suitable for the setting of the designated heritage asset, The Maltings Depository  (Grade II) listed; located in the City of Bath conservation area and World Heritage Site.

The illumination of the sign is unnecessary, as other light sources in and around the proposal site will provide suitable levels of light.  Bath is a low-illumination city and the introduction of unwarranted sources of light is detrimental this status.  The proposed materials are not in keeping with the traditional palette of the city or the listed building adjacent.  We would suggest that the design for any signage should draw upon the brushed steel lettering on the western elevation of the Maltings Depository or be of traditionally hand-painted timber.

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 or conservation area and be detrimental to the visual amenity of the street scene. The scheme would be contrary to the Planning (Listed Buildings 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; D4, BH2, BH6 and BH17 of the B&NES Local Plan.  We would therefore recommend that the application be refused.

15/00101/LBA – Cancer Research UK 28 Westgate Street City Centre

External alterations to include removal of paint finish to stone surface at first floor front elevation; replacement of missing stone sections to cornicing details to front elevation; repairs and cleaning of stonework; re-bed of loose parapet stones at roof level; repairs to roof and timber sash window; clean roof slate, parapet gutters; redecorate all external joinery and metal work; undertake re-pointing to open friable mortar joints to elevation and chimney.

Support: We support this proposal which will conserve and enhance a designated heritage asset.  The work will ensure the physical integrity of this historic property, and repairs, cleaning and redecoration will also improve the appearance and character of the building.  The proposed scheme will not only be beneficial for the property; the work to improve the appearance of the building will also enhance the visual amenity of the street scene, located in the conservation area and World Heritage Site.

 

Week 06

15/00204/LBA – The Stables  Midford Castle Access Road to Midford Castle Midford

Internal and external alterations for the restoration and renovation of existing stable block to include upgrading heating, plumbing, electrics and insulation of building. The replacement of fibre cement roof tiles on rear roof slope with Welsh slate tiles. Rationalisation of contemporary window openings and windows. Removal of modern partitions on West side (left side) of first floor and replacement with new insulated partitions.  External stone repairs and structural repairs throughout.

Comment: We welcome the proposed scheme to carry out work to enhance the physical integrity, character and appearance of the grade II* building, part of the significant historic environment at Midford Castle.   It has been suggested that some of the proposed work has already been carried out and therefore elements of the scheme are retrospective.  If this is the case, then we hope that the work has caused no harm to the significance of the designated heritage asset. Given the significance of the Midford Castle site, we would suggest that a comprehensive conservation management plan, and/or Heritage Partnership Agreement (including the historic landscape/garden) is drawn up for the site, to inform all future proposals.

In addition, a member of the public has informed us that potentially,other work has been carried out at the Midford Castle site that may not have consent.We would expect B&NES officers to investigate and take action where necessary in relation to un-consented work, and encourage the submission of listed building applications to remedy any breach that may have occurred.

15/00318/FUL – Villa Rosa Cambridge Terrace Widcombe

Erection of first floor side extension. Alteration to existing driveway.

Comment:  The proposed extension, by virtue of design, would not be sufficiently subservient to the principal section of the existing building, and the proposed roof-line does not respect that of the principal section.  In addition the use of shingles is not in keeping with the roofing material of the main building or the buildings of Cambridge Terrace.

The proposed scheme presents a design response which would be rather incongruous in the street scene. The mass and height does not respect the principal building and would introduce a new element which may be detrimental to the setting and therefore the experience of the neighbouring listed buildings. We would therefore encourage roof profiles and materials which harmonise with the context. The design response ought to better reflect the setting of listed buildings and the character and appearance of the conservation area and World Heritage Site.

15/00075/LBA – 2 George St, Bathwick

Internal and external works for the installation of flue to the rear elevation and new gas boiler in ground floor utility room following removal of flue at front of property.

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

15/00321/LBA – 5 Brookleaze Buildings Larkhall

External alterations to front elevation. To include replacement of metal casement windows with timber box sash windows

Support: We welcome and support the proposal, as it intends to provide a positive return to 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 improve the aesthetic value and architectural interest of the listed building and the street scene.  The scheme will unify the appearance of the terrace of houses and in turn enhance the character and appearance of theconservation area. 

15/00272/FUL – Pizza Hut (UK) Ltd 1 – 3 Westgate Buildings, Bath

Installation of new windows and entrance door to replace existing windows and entrance door at Pizza Hut restaurant.

Comment:  We are concerned that the Design and Access Statement makes no reference to the conservation area or the relevant section of the Bath City-wide Character Appraisal (2005).  This suggests that an appropriate consideration of the historic environment has not been undertaken to inform the proposal.

15/00356/FUL-148 London Road West, Lower Swainswick, Bath

Erection of dwelling and alterations and extensions to 148 and 148A London Road West.

Comment: We consider that the proposal will have a detrimental impact on the verdant aspect of the conservation area, especially when considered with similar schemes in the immediate area.  The cumulative effect of infill dwellings in this location will only increase the level of harm to the character and appearance of the conservation area and its setting, defined by pasture and trees in the area of the proposal site.  This form of development also has a harmful cumulative effect on the grain of the conservation area.  The historic form of development is linear along London Road, this proposal in conjunction with other schemes in the area, is detrimental to the form; where there has been a building fronting the road with an undeveloped plot to the rear.  If this scheme is approved it will only add to the precedent of infill development in this section of the conservation area.

 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Designed by Ice House Design