Mar – Apr 2015

 

10 March – April 2015 (Weeks 11-15)

Week 11

15/00299/AR & 15/00771/REG13 – 10 Dorchester Street Bath

External works to 10 – 16 Dorchester Street and 13 – 15 Manvers Street for the refurbishment of shop fronts including removal of paint from stonework, redecorations of shop fronts and entrance doors and new fascia signage.

Support: We support this scheme as it will enhance not only the character and appearance of the listed building, but also the visual amenity of the street-scene, at this gateway location to the World Heritage Site and conservation area. Appropriate work to reinstate the historic appearance of this designated heritage asset is welcomed and we would encourage and recommend this approach to all historic buildings across the city, where necessary. The only reservation that we have is the proposed use of satin finish paint, where egg-shell may be more appropriate.

15/00774/AR – 9 – 11 St Lawrence Street City Centre

Display of 1 no. internally illuminated fascia sign and 1 no. internally illuminated hanging sign at unit SU5.

Object: Whilst we appreciate the applicant’s desire to advertise their premises, we continue to resist the unnecessary use of illuminated signs. Bath is a low-illuminated city, so this form of advertising will add to light levels in the World Heritage Site and conservation area. Street lighting and light spill from general internal lighting should be sufficient to illuminate signs and shop fronts. The proposed use of aluminium is objectionable, as it is not a material in keeping with the traditional palette of the city and we would recommend hand-painted timber signs be used.

The proposed scheme, by virtue of the means of illumination and materials, would neither preserve nor and enhance the character and appearance of conservation area and be detrimental to the visual amenity of the street scene, and would detract from the special qualities of the World Heritage Site. The scheme would be contrary to Section 12 (Conserving and enhancing the historic environment) of the National Planning Policy Framework(NPPF), policies; B1 and CP6 of the B&NES Core Strategy and saved polices; D4, BH6 and BH17 of the B&NES Local Plan. We would therefore recommend that the application be refused.

15/00741/MRES – Fosseway Environment Park Fosseway Englishcombe (Fullers Earth)

Approval of Reserved Matters in relation to application 14/00839/EMINW for the proposed erection of residual waste facility including a materials recovery facility, anaerobic digestion plant, reception building, weighbridge, outdoor storage areas and other ancillary development.

Bath Preservation Trust is concerned that there are a number of ambiguities remaining concerning the landscaping, usage level and scope of the site applied for, which could result in continuing degradation and failure to improve visual amenity of this approach to the Bath World Heritage Site.

The recent High Court decision accepted Gazelle’s argument that the existing waste recycling uses could continue on the site, as well as a new Residual Waste facility. However, this does not negate the need to see the whole suite as in need of appropriate landscaping as set out in the Joint Waste Core Strategy to ensure that the uses on the site minimise harm to the Green belt, the ANOB and the setting of the World heritage Site.

In addition Gazelle’s representative stated before the planning Inspector last year that they would withdraw their appeal against enforcement on this site if they won the High Court action. We are unaware that this has taken place and this leaves an ambiguous enforcement position on the site.

A planning consent can be an expedient way to resolve enforcement issues but if the intention were to regularise the planning position through this application we would expect the reserved matters application to:

  • Cover the WHOLE site, not just the Residual Waste facility area
  • Identify exactly which of the existing uses were to remain on the formerly developed part of the site;
  • Set out a plan for bring back into use and or repairing and developing the derelict buildings on the site;
  • Identify a comprehensive landscaping solution for the whole site (the current details are only for part of the site and are insufficiently detail e.g. site plan saying ‘hedging tbc’);
  • Set out how the new application was going to rectify all the previous issues identified in the enforcement notices;
  • Identify the uses across the whole site in order to ensure there was compliance with conditions 7 and 8 of decision 14/00839/EMINW.

 

Until all these issues are made clear this planning application should be withdrawn or refused.

The current proposed scheme will be detrimental to the character and openness of the Green Belt and would harm the special qualities and setting of the World Heritage Site. The proposal would therefore 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 DW1, B1, B4 and CP6 CP8, of the B&NES Core Strategy, and saved polices BH2, GB2, NE1, NE2, of the B&NES Local Plan. We would therefore recommend that the application be refused.

In the light of the breaches of planning control and enforcement action being considered by the DCC on the 8th April we reserve the right to make a supplementary submission to this planning application.

15/00955/FUL – Cleveland Row, Hampton Row,Bathwick

Erection of a pontoon with access steps on the River Avon and bank at Cleveland Pools

Support: We support this proposal as it presents a scheme that will greatly improveaccess and connectivity between Cleveland Pools and the river. The scheme will enhance the significance of the designated heritage asset (Grade II*) by improving the amenity and therefore experience of the site by reinstating a historic link with the river.

Week 12

15/01076/FUL &15/01077/LBA – Horseshoe House 51 Sydney Buildings Bathwick

Erection of two storey side extension following demolition of existing single storey side garage

The Trust’s objection to this proposed design solution remains. We would strongly encourage the applicant to work with the Conservation Officer to develop a solution that is acceptable to all.

We recognise that the development of Sydney Buildings is piecemeal, and that is reflected in the character of the street, and indeed part of its charm. However this is perhaps all the more reason to be careful that a new introduction fits gently into the overall pattern and retains the historic ambience of the street scene.

We acknowledge points the applicant has made about not disguising the new work, and the importance of good modern architecture in an historic setting – this philosophy is obviously valid, as is the observation that Sydney Buildings is hardly symmetrical.

However, the proposed extension is small and as such it should not be making a statement. The extension should not only be subservient to the host building in size, it should be respectful of its history and architectural proportions.

The proposed extension is unsympathetic, in terms of the use of aluminium materials and in its proportions. While proportions do not necessarily need to be symmetrical they create balance within the overall design. The placing of the window off-centre does not achieve, or maintain this sense of balance. There is also no acknowledgement of the existing horizontal lines of either the host building or the adjacent house to the west, but instead, an emphatic introduction of new, unrelated horizontal lines, which in themselves create a very pastiche appearance. An astylar approach, using classical proportions, could create a simple, modern look which would be more sympathetic. The rear elevation is simpler, which is in its favour, but again, the horizontals in materials with regard to aluminium could line up better.

The proposal presents a scheme that fails to respond to the local context and will detract from the group value and setting of listed buildings, an essential component contributing to the harmonious qualities of the Bath conservation area and World Heritage Site.

The proposed scheme, by virtue of its design and appearance, will harm the significance and setting of the listed building, would 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. This proposal 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, BH2, BH6 from the B&NES Local Plan. We would therefore ask that the application be refused.

Week 13

15/01171/AR – Pizza Hut (Uk) Ltd – 13 Westgate Buildings – City Centre

Display of 4 no. internally illuminated fascia signs, 2 no. non-illuminated fascia signs, 1 no. internally illuminated display case and 6 no. non-illuminated other signs.

Display of 1 no. internally illuminated fascia sign and 1 no. internally illuminated hanging sign at unit SU5.

Object: Whilst we appreciate the applicant’s desire to advertise their premises, we continue to resist the unnecessary use of illuminated signs. Bath is a low-illuminated city, so this form of advertising will add to light levels in the World Heritage Site and conservation area. Street lighting and light spill from general internal lighting from within the building should be sufficient to illuminate signs and shop fronts. The proposed use of copper is objectionable, as it is not a material in keeping with the traditional palette of the city and we would recommend hand-painted signs be used.

The proposed scheme, by virtue of the means of illumination and materials, would neither preserve nor and enhance the character and appearance of conservation area and be detrimental to the visual amenity of the street scene, and would detract from the special qualities of the World Heritage Site. The scheme would be contrary to Section 12 (Conserving and enhancing the historic environment) of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), policies; B1 and CP6 of the B&NES Core Strategy and saved polices; D4, BH6 and BH17 of the B&NES Local Plan. We would therefore recommend that the application be refused.

 

15/01204/LBA &15/01205/AR -15 Milsom Street, City Centre

Display of 1 no. internally illuminated hanging sign and new covering to awning.

Object: We object to this proposal as the projecting sign would harm the architectural and aesthetic significance of the listed building and the setting of other designated heritage assets. In addition this proposal concerns a principle historic street in the heart of the conservation area and World Heritage Site. A projecting sign would detract from the architectural composition of the facade and the street scene views along this highly significant street. The sign would not improve the appearance of the principal elevation of the building and therefore not enhance the character of the street scene. We appreciate the applicants desire to advertise their premises but feel the use of steel bracketing, the position, projection and illumination of this proposed sign is inappropriate and would damage the compositional group value, historic views and overall setting of Milsom Street.

The proposed scheme, by virtual of the materials and form 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 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.

15/01212/AR – The Vaults 1 – 2 Bartlett Street City Centre

Display of 1 no. non-illuminated fascia sign.

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. The use of acrylic is a material that is 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.

 

15/01322/FUL &15/01323/LBA – Bathwick Grange Bathwick Hill Bathwick

Internal and external alterations for the refurbishment of Coach House and conversion to habitable accommodation ancillary to main dwelling.

Object: Whilst the Trust has no objection to the refurbishment of the Coach House, however the proposed refurbishment of the damp vaulted areas for habitation is contrary to our published Vaults Statement, in which we recommend that these spaces are not converted for residential uses. Trying to achieve 21st century living standards in an 18th century below ground room is removed from conservation principles. In this case, the historic use of these vaults and the Coach House itself was for the accommodation of horses and their equipment. Therefore this part of the building is best used for ancillary facilities or storage space to serve the habitable areas of the property, as originally intended.

We also object to the use of the tanking proposed as part of remedial works. We do not support the use of impermeable materials which do not allow the permeable traditional building fabric to breathe, therefore causing problems of moisture displacement and trapping. We feel these are short term solutions to spaces which should remain as originally intended.

The proposed scheme, by virtue of the materials and methods, would harm the significance of the listed building, The application 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 (NPPF), policies; B1 of the B&NES Core Strategy and saved policy BH1, BH2 of the B&NES Local Plan. We would therefore recommend that the application be refused.

15/01168/FUL – The Lodge 1 London Road West Lower Swainswick

Erection of two storey side extension.

Object: We remain strongly opposed to the proposed extension which is the subject of this planning application. We have no in principle objection to an extension of this dwelling, however the design proposed is wholly inappropriate against the existing building and in this sensitive location. We note that this application is the third submission by the applicant but that this scheme retains worrying similarities to the previous applications, and continues to include issues of scale and design that we are opposed to.
Whilst the building is not listed it ought to be treated as an undesignated heritage asset. It is a charming little Italianate style lodge in a very prominent position at the entry to Bath. The significance of this building is in its indication of the existence of a larger house beyond.
Whilst there is a 1930’s extension existing, the largely unaltered form of the Lodge should be preserved so as to maintain this architectural indication. The size of the proposed extension continues to completely over-dominate the petit character of The Lodge. Any extension to this building should be much more subservient and respect the massing, scale, form and original use of the existing lodge. As it stands this proposal produces a bulky merged building which overshadows the delicate and charming form of the original villa.

In terms of appearance the Italianate style has been completely ignored. In particular the South East elevation fails to harmonise with the existing building and severely detracts from its architectural composition. The glazed doors to this section are overly large and incongruous and entirely inappropriate. We note the revised scheme is also nearer and therefore impacting on the Alice Park boundary.
The proposed extension is unacceptable both in terms of size, design and appearance and would neither preserve nor enhance the character of the Conservation Area and will do nothing to strengthen local distinctiveness. The proposal is contrary to Section 12 (Conserving and enhancing the historic environment) of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), policies; B1 and CP6 of the B&NES Core Strategy and saved polices; D2, D4, BH6 of the B&NES Local Plan. We would therefore recommend that the application be refused.

15/01248/FUL – Ground Floor 121 Lower Oldfield Park Oldfield Park

Construction of new vehicular access and hardstanding. Removal of stone boundary wall and replace with folding wrought iron gates. (Ground Floor Flat, 121 Lower Oldfield Park) (Resubmission)

Comment: The Trust notes that this application is a resubmission of a previous application which was refused on the grounds of unacceptable loss of boundary walling and front garden detrimentally affecting the character and appearance of the locality. We note that this loss is still proposed but with the addition of black wrought iron tri fold gates. The Trust comments that the addition of wrought iron work does not mitigate the harm to the front garden wall and would not beneficially affect the character and appearance of the locality.

15/01199/FUL – Basement Parade Park Hotel, 8-10 North Parade

Erection of a glazed lift to the rear of North Parade, to serve existing levels.

Object: The Trust objects to this application on the grounds that there is a lack of supporting information and detail, including a detailed Statement of Significance and Heritage Impact Assessment. Further detail is particularly important due to the very high significance of this building as part of John Wood’s Grand Parade range of the 1740’s (Grade I designation) and the probable substantial harm to historic fabric that this scheme would necessitate. An external lift shaft would also have significant and intrusive impact on the setting and views of the local area (albeit the rear of the Parade) and in this scheme the proposed top of the glass lift shaft would sit awkwardly against the present roof line, and therefore impact negatively on the roofscape of this highly significant historic central area. There is also no detail of any alternatives having been considered for this scheme, nor an analysis of the comparative levels of harm to the building of each possible option.

By virtue of the lack of justification for the proposed works (as required by the NPPF), and the resulting harm to the fabric and significance of the heritage asset, and visually intrusive design these proposals are considered to be detrimental to the special architectural and historic interest of the listed building and therefore contrary to S16 and S72 of the Planning (Listed Buildings & Conservation Areas) Act 1990, Section 12 ‘Conserving & Enhancing the Historic Environment of the NPPF, policies; B1 and CP6 of the B&NES Core Strategy and saved polices; D2, D4, BH6 of the B&NES Local Plan. We would therefore recommend that the application be refused.

 

15/01219/FUL &15/01220/LBA – 1 Wood Street City Centre

Internal and external alterations to facilitate conversion of first, second and third floors from office units to 5 no. self-contained apartments at 1 & 2 Wood St

Comment: The Trust comments that there is a lack of supporting information and detail, including a detailed Statement of Significance and Heritage Impact Assessment on this application. Further detail is particularly important due to the very high significance of this building which forms part of the early work of John Wood the Elder. Despite bomb damage the building retains significant historic features and has Grade 1 designation. For this reason the Trust would ask for further detail to be submitted as is proportionate to the very high significance of this heritage asset and per the requirements set out in the NPPG; ‘In determining applications, local planning authorities should require an applicant to describe the significance of any heritage assets affected, including any contribution made by their setting. The level of detail should be proportionate to the assets’ importance and no more than is sufficient to understand the potential impact of the proposal on their significance.’

Week 14

14/04772/FUL – Crystals UK Ltd 13 Northumberland Place Bath

Provision of a retractable, manually operated plain white awning to shopfront.

Object: the Trust accepts that an awning may be required to protect customers from rain or sun but objects on the basis that the awning is not designed as an integral part of the shop front and we are concerned that it will appear clumsy and visually incongruous. In addition the awning brackets and arms appear heavily mechanised. On this basis it does not enhance or preserve the heritage asset. The positioning of the awning will mask the architectural detailing of the shop front, the listed building and the wider street scene. Therefore it is considered that the awnings and their bulky modern mechanisms would negatively impact the visual amenity of the street and result an unacceptable visual and physical harm in a narrow street that already suffers from excessive street clutter. The commercial justification is not enough to offset the harm to the heritage asset and its significant setting in the heart of the World Heritage Site and Conservation Area. The proposed colour of the awning and fixings should also conform to the traditional colour palette of the city and be an off-white shade.

The proposed scheme ould 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.

15/01070/FUL – 15/01071/LBA – Pratts Hotel 4 – 8 South Parade City Centre (Grade I)

Erection of rear extensions and alterations and refurbishment of existing Pratts and Halcyon Hotels, South Parade, 6 Duke Street, rear of 4 Century House and 6 Pierrepont Street to create 1 no. hotel.Object: The Trust is broadly supportive of this application which appears to be a sensitive and consultative refurbishment of this historically important range, which provides a number of welcome enhancements. In particular the Trust is supportive of the reinstatement of the balustrade, rooflines and historic internal features. However the Trust has decided to object on the basis of the ‘overdevelopment’ of the vault areas, in particular we feel that the proposed subdivisions are inappropriately high. The Trust has an established position on the conservation of vaults as historic damp spaces to be preserved and not developed. This is in line with the Council’s position on vaults which seeks to conserve the significance of vaults with sensitive repair and minimal intervention. In this instance we understand the need for a small number of these spaces to be utilised by the hotel, but object to the number of vaults being developed, and the method (including removal of pavements and concrete treatments to the vaults). The work on the vaults will cause substantial harm to the historic fabric of these significant spaces within a Grade I listed heritage asset, and will also cause harm, both to the paving order and the actual material above the vaults when it is removed and replaced. We also have concerns as to the provision of drainage and structural breathability in a tanking system that utilises concrete. Indeed any tanking system would be potentially harmful to the character and architectural interest of the walls and floor. We feel there is insufficient detail or justification for the vault works and would welcome further detail and discussion on this matter. In addition we also have concerns about the use of excessive signage on the hotel facade, and note that there is little detail provided on this matter.

The proposed scheme, by virtue of overdevelopment and construction methods within the vaults would harm the significance of the listed building,. The element of 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; BH2 and BH6 of the B&NES Local Plan. We would therefore recommend that the application be refused.

14/05661/AR – Street Record Trossachs Drive Bathwick

Display of 4 no. 3-section panel signs following removal of existing road signs. Signs to be erected on the A36 at Trossachs Drive before Sydney Gardens, the A4 opposite Alice Park, Twerton Fork and the corner of Lansdown Road and Granville Road.

Bath Preservation Trust, as a member of the World Heritage Site Steering Group, have been hoping to see new, simplified street signs brought forward at bath’s entry points for some years. It is an action with the World Heritage Site Management Plan to address the current tired and over-elaborate signage, which in its current form does not reflect the quality and elegance of the city itself.

The World Heritage Site Enhancement Fund, a partnership with the Council, BPT and the Steering Group, commissioned outline designs through the Public Realm and Movement Strategy team. These however stalled as the PRMS work lost its impetus and staffing within the Council.

While impatient to see new signs we do not consider these signs acceptable for a number of reasons:

1) The design is pedestrian, with an ill-proportioned ‘classical’ pediment and a dull set of lettering beneath. It is neither accurately referencing the past nor creatively and inventively pointing to the future.

2) The sponsor’s identity is disporportionately large, and should be time limited by condition. While supportive of Iron Art’s work this represents ‘free advertising’, far outweighing any cost contribution to the signs themselves. Other World Heritage Site welcomes are not branded by a commercial sponsor (eg Avebury, Edinburgh)

3) The Bath signage bears no relation to the PRMS font or the Bath Tourism font and there seems no ‘whole Bath’ identity for the project

4) The Council’s logo sits uncomfortably within the design

5) The Unesco logo looks flattened and inaccurate

6) The drawings (elevation and section) do not correspond with each other

7) Th signs neither conserve nor demonstrably enhance the World Heritage Site or conservation area.

 

We are also concerned that heritage partners such as ourselves have not been involved in the development of designs for these signs. We question whether it is appropriate for them to be determined during ‘purdah’ when there can be no political accountability for the decision on something which affects all residents and 4m visitors to Bath. This leaves us with no alternative than to OBJECT on grounds of the scheme being 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,BH6 and BH17 of the B&NES Local Plan. We would therefore recommend that the application be refused.

 

15/01001/AR – Co-Operative Retail Services Ltd Upper Bloomfield Road Odd Down

Re-arrangement of layout of the existing fascia panel and replacement of internal lighting unit with LED internal lighting. Fitting of LED internal lighting unit to one other existing sign.

Object: Whilst we accept the applicant’s desire to advertise their business, the proposed illumination of the fascia is 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 current in-situ materials of acrylic 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.

15/01361/AR – Street Record Kelso Place Lower Weston

Display of six sheet internally illuminated advertisement in bus shelters serving stops along Upper Bristol Road, including The Weston, (Eastbound) and Park Lane (Eastbound).

Whilst we understand the applicant’s desire to increase their revenue through advertising, we will continue to object to illuminated signs in the city and its environs, which form the World Heritage Site, a conservation area and the setting of these designated areas respectively. Many bus shelters have illuminated advertisements but these should not be a precedent for a low illuminated city like Bath. Secondary sources of light in the proposed location will emit sufficient light for the advertisements to be seen, such as the ‘courtesy light’, and there is little need for additional illumination. In addition we would comment on the excessive luminosity and glare of these internal lights that cannot be dimmed or turned off when out of date advertisements are in place.

We regret the undue commercialisation of the public realm, especially by commercial agencies as opposed to local-interest information. We have concerns that the absence of information about the content of such advertisements is becoming a precedent. As such, we feel that a condition for local interest content only ought to be sought. We would also comment that often the content of these advertisements are often out of date and are therefore redundant and serve no purpose, at the same time wasting energy.

The proposed scheme by virtue of material, appearance, illumination and form would be harmful to the visual amenity value of the area, and neither preserve nor and enhance the character and appearance of the World Heritage Site. The proposal is contrary to, Section 12 ‘Conserving and Enhancing the Historic Environment’ of the NPPF, B&NES Core Strategy polices; B1, B4 and CP6 , and ‘Saved’ Local Plan Policies D2 and D4, and should be refused.

15/01364/AR – Street Record Pines Way Westmoreland

Display of six sheet internally illuminated advertisement in bus shelters serving stops along Lower Bristol Road, near St James Cemetery (Route 5, Stop 37).

Whilst we understand the applicant’s desire to increase their revenue through advertising, we will continue to object to illuminated signs in the city and its environs, which form the World Heritage Site, a conservation area and the setting of these designated areas respectively. Many bus shelters have illuminated advertisements but these should not be a precedent for a low illuminated city like Bath. Secondary sources of light in the proposed location will emit sufficient light for the advertisements to be seen, such as the ‘courtesy light’, and there is little need for additional illumination. In addition we would comment on the excessive luminosity and glare of these internal lights. In addition we would comment on the excessive luminosity and glare of these internal lights that cannot be dimmed or turned off when out of date advertisements are in place.

We regret the undue commercialisation of the public realm, especially by commercial agencies as opposed to local-interest information. We have concerns that the absence of information about the content of such advertisements is becoming a precedent. As such, we feel that a condition for local interest content only ought to be sought. We would also comment that often the content of these advertisements are often out of date and are therefore redundant and serve no purpose, at the same time wasting energy.

The proposed scheme by virtue of material, appearance, illumination and form would be harmful to the visual amenity value of the area, and neither preserve nor and enhance the character and appearance of the World Heritage Site. The proposal is contrary to, Section 12 ‘Conserving and Enhancing the Historic Environment’ of the NPPF, B&NES Core Strategy polices; B1, B4 and CP6 , and ‘Saved’ Local Plan Policies D2 and D4, and should be refused.

Designed by Ice House Design