Week 23 2016
16/02543/AR – A Plan Insurance 7 George Street City Centre Bath
Installation of 1no Fascia sign and 1no Projecting sign
Object: The Trust objects to this application on the basis of inappropriate materials. The use of aluminium with applied vinyl lettering as a fascia covering and hanging sign is unacceptable on a listed building within the World Heritage site. We would recommend that the business retain its wood fascia and that the signage lettering be hand painted. Aluminium is a low quality material that is not in keeping with the character of the conservation area and would potentially harm the architectural interest of the listed building. We assume that the applicant will be submitting an application for listed building consent?
The proposed signage materials would neither preserve nor enhance the special architectural interest of the listed building, would harm the character and appearance of Conservation Area, and would detract from the special qualities of the World Heritage Site. Therefore the proposal 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, B2, B4 and CP6 of the B&NES Core Strategy and saved polices; D4, BH1, BH4, BH6, BH17 of the B&NES Local Plan. We would therefore recommend that these elements are removed from the application otherwise the application should be refused.
16/02808/FUL & 16/02809/LBA – 11 Dunsford Place Bathwick Bath
Installation of rear dormer following removal of existing rooflight and reopening of lower ground floor doorway to front elevation
Comment: The Trust’s only comment is that we feel that the rear elevation might appear more balanced if the proposed dormer was placed centrally on the roofscape rather than slightly off centre.
16/02483/LBA – 3 Belvedere Villas Lansdown Road City Centre Bath
Exterior alterations to provide 2no. rooflights and timber decking to roof.
Object: The Trust objects to this application in that the submission papers are completely inadequate. There is no Heritage Statement, Design and Access, nor any brief assessment of the impact of the works on the listed building. There are also no scale drawings of the proposed rooflights. We recommend this application is withdrawn or deferred until the applicant can provide the required additional paperwork as detailed on the B&NES Listed Building Consent Checklist.
16/02516/LBA – 13 Belvedere Lansdown Bath
Internal alterations to replace a gas supply pipe in the vault and connect it to the gas mains in the street
Comment: The Trust would recommend that any works to the historic vaults structures be sympathetic and non harmful to the integrity of the historic fabric and that any holes created are suitably repaired with bath stone or a stiff stone dust lime mortar and pointed with a lime mortar. The insertion of utilities into and through vaults is one of the reasons many vaults now suffer from water ingress therefore we urge the applicant to ensure that the utility contractor’s work is mindful of this.
16/02527/FUL – Banglo 44 Lower Bristol Road Westmoreland Bath
Demolition of existing building and construction of new restaurant, 16 micro-apartments and associated works
Comment: The Trust welcomes the development of this site with an innovative contemporary structure. We do however question the relationship between this building and the adjacent Green Park Tavern which should be regarded as a non-designated heritage asset and whether further work should be done to provide a contextual visualisation of this relationship so that impact on the tavern can be assessed.
The Trust is not opposed to the introduction of new materials to Bath however we do feel that care must be taken to ensure these materials both perform and weather well, and that they blend with the Bath palette in the long term. We would question the long term performance of the Equitone panels and whether the absence of provision for rainwater run-off would result in staining and other issues. The use of Kebony cladding is interesting, however we are unsure as to whether the silver grey colour it becomes would be appropriate within the Bath palette and whether the need for regular maintenance would compromise its visual finish. We would urge the case officer to place a Condition for a full samples panel on site, and also to be satisfied prior to determining the application that these materials are of high enough quality for the World Heritage site and can stand the test of time. On balance we would prefer to see some more natural materials on this site, such as perhaps larch and zinc cladding, to allow this building to blend more naturally with its context.
We would not wish to see this site become yet another student block and would also urge the Case Officer to Condition that the use of the site is specified in the long term as housing for young professional and key workers.
16/02582/AR – 5 – 6 Seven Dials Sawclose City Centre
Display of 4no. banner signs
Object: The Trust objects strongly to this application on the basis of the impact of these banners on the setting of nearby listed buildings and the character and appearance of the conservation area. We understand the site is in private ownership however we question the issue of whether the pavement bollards, whilst on private land, have not been permitted via a planning application. In terms of the enclosure banners, these provide an unwelcome sense of enclosure, solidity and exclusivity which is at odds with the character of this public space (especially given the overall plans for a high quality new public realm in the Sawclose area). In addition the banners clutter and intrude onto the street scene and neither preserve nor enhance the special interest of the adjacent listed buildings. The Trust has no objections to a vibrant cafe culture quality to this public realm, however we object to the lack of openness and the ‘funereal’ low quality aesthetic that these plastic banners create. These banners specifically harm the character and appearance of the conservation area and as such they are contrary to the B&NES Design Guidance policy ‘Commercial Signage & Tables and Chairs in the Conservation Area’
We would also question whether listed building consent should be sought for these banners given they intrude into, and impact on the setting of the Theatre Royal; an important listed building.
The proposed scheme, by virtue of its appearance and materials would fail to enhance the historic and architectural interest of nearby listed buildings, and would detract from the special character and appearance of the conservation area and therefore the World Heritage site. 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, B2, B4, CP6 of the B&NES Core Strategy and saved polices; D2, D4, BH4, BH6, and BH17 of the B&NES Local Plan. We would therefore recommend that the application be refused.
Week 22 2016
16/02496/LBA – Lloyds Tsb Bank Plc 16 Lower Borough Walls City Centre Bath
External and internal alterations to remove external signage, external ATMs and filling of apertures and the re-division of property to form two separate units.
Comment: The Trust welcomes the repair of the facade and the removal of bank accretions, however we would comment that a better approach to the repair of the ATM holes would be for the window in this location to be reinstated to match the window adjacent. This arrangement can be seen in older images of this building and would return a welcome symmetry to the elevation.
16/02345/FUL– Site Of Two Proposed Residential Blocks University Of Bath Campus Claverton Down Bath
Erection of 2no. student accommodation blocks providing 293 student bedrooms, amenity space, car parking, cycling provision, landscaping and associated external works.
Comment: The Trust welcomes the development on appropriately sited land of on-campus accommodation to ease the pressure on city centre sites. We have no major concerns regarding the proposed design of the blocks except for the long term performance of the proposed metal and porcelain cladding.
Our primary comments regarding the application centre on the impact of the new scheme on the setting of the World Heritage Site. The University has set a precedent for development on the skyline of Bath and also in terms of the height of buildings within the campus. Our concern lies in the lack of contextual images of the site in long views. Whilst there are a number of viewpoints submitted within the application, these do not include any outlines or contextual graphics to show where the proposed buildings would sit within the viewpoint and how high they would reach over the tree line. In particular we would expect to see landscape visual impact assessments for the long views from Beechen Cliff and the viewpoints which are acknowledged to be impacted by the development, namely Quarry Road and Sham Castle Field. We also expect to see a 3D graphic of the overall University Campus with the proposed blocks included, in particular this would be useful to understand how the buildings would relate, in scale and height, to the newly constructed 10 West block and other new development on campus.
In addition, whilst the use of punched metal cladding provides an interesting visual experience close to, we question the impact of light spill from this element and whether it would have any impact again in long views into the site. It is not clear from the technical lighting assessment (which appears to contain analysis of external luminaires) as to whether this element has been assessed.
16/02353/FUL & 16/02354/LBA – Francis Hotel 6 – 11 Queen Square City Centre
Erection of 4 storey extension to provide 21no additional guest bedrooms and store room
Comment: The Trust welcomes the proposed scheme which will fill an unsightly gap and helps repair the streetscape in this highly significant location. The proposed design is acceptable and the articulated roofscape does provide enhancement to the architectural rhythm of the street. The use of high quality Bath stone ashlar with fine mortar joints is obviously a pre requisite condition in this location.
16/02408/AR & 16/02409/LBA – The Locksbrook Inn 103 Locksbrook Road Newbridge Bath
Erection of replacement signage and lighting.
Comment: The Trust welcomes the proposals to replace the signage with hand painted wooden signage in appropriate colours that blend with the Bath palette. It is difficult to understand from the application as to where the proposed lighting is located and how it will impact on the listed building. We understand the necessity for lighting in this suburban riverside location however we would recommend that the case officer focuses on this element to ensure the lighting is muted and appropriately located in order to protect the appearance of the listed building and the character of the conservation area.
8 Hanover Street Walcot Bath – 15/05461/LBA
Internal and external alterations to replace existing wooden french doors with uPVCfrench doors. (Retrospective)
Comment: The Trust regrets the retrospective nature of this work and the fact that the applicant has chosen to install uPVC doors in his listed building. This material is harmful in its manufacture and disposal and is not a material in the traditional palette of materials in Bath. We regret the cumulative loss of traditional timber sashes and doors in Bath and suggest a more thoughtful conservation-focused approach would be the refurbishment and draught proofing of the original doors. When timber frames are beyond repair we would encourage the use of pressure treated timber frames with double glazing, which have similar maintenance requirements, thermal performance and longevity as uPVC but are visually more authentic.
16/02520/FUL – 27 Rockliffe Avenue Bathwick Bath
Erection of 4 storey, 5no bedroom dwelling following demolition of existing property
Comment: The Trust is not opposed to high quality modern design however in this case we are concerned that the proposed dwelling is too aggressive and striking in its modernity, design and scale and that this results in it being significantly at odds with the overall character of the conservation area. Whilst the area has a mixed architectural character, the newer buildings have tended to blend in via the use of a stepping back treatment and/or local vernacular materials that have ensured that they retain some connection with the local area. This is a piece of architecture designed to stand out, and whilst this may be appropriate in some brownfield locations, it is clearly so contrary and incongruous to the local character that this can only result in detriment to that character (and community).
We would suggest that the proposal would benefit from a steeper pitched roof which could be achieved by a lower eaves line. We would also suggest that the street elevation may benefit from being broken down, perhaps by the use of different materials or by architectural detailing to emulate a gable end, to decrease the assertiveness of this large blank facade on the streetscape.
In particular we are concerned by the proposal to use a stone coloured brick as seen at Richmond Lodge. We note that the Richmond Lodge scheme is 1 storey and is shielded by hedging; therefore the visual impact is lessened. The visual appearance of this type of brick (being thinner and shinier than traditional red and buff brick) is alien to the local palette of materials and we would suggest that in order to lessen the visual effect of that Bath stone ashlar with fine jointing is used for the street elevation, with the more creative and out of context materials reserved for the rear elevation (though of course the impact of this must be considered in the context of the views from the river). We would also suggest that bronze colour windows is again at odds with the materials/colour palette of the area.
We would also recommend that the proposal for car parking in the front garden would represent further erosion of the character of garden frontages in this area and would also result in a hard blank quality to the overall frontage landscape which would exacerbate the hard blank dominance of the front elevation.
We would suggest the applicant revisits how this building may be built in a modern design but with more sympathy and sensitivity to the local area and to retain a connection to the ‘essential atmosphere’ of Bathwick that is detailed in the area character appraisal.
16/02380/FUL – 6 Northumberland Place Bath BA1
Use of public highway for the siting of tables and chairs
Comment: The Trust has no objection in principle to the proposal, but the layout shown in the drawing (occupying 2.4m of 4.6m overall width of passage) will interrupt pedestrian flow in this busy ‘cut through’ (especially as many tables/chairs are already allowed on the opposite side of the passage) and will impede 2no. doorways. We suggest that rather than 3no.tables with 4no.chairs each, there should be 3no.smaller tables with 7-8no.chairs maximum, to occupy depth of not more than 1.5m from shop front. We have noticed that though 1no of the North-side establishments allow free pedestrian passage, 2 of the establishments have encroached to half way into the passage so that if this new site is allowed pedestrian traffic would be wholly prevented. We suggest this issue is examined and where needed enforcement action is taken before further street clutter is permitted in this area.
Week 21 2016
16/02196/LBA – Ground Floor 39 Green Park Kingsmead Bath
External alterations for temporary removal of railings and the stone replaced or re pointed where necessary and repairs to railings.
Comment: The Trust welcomes the applicant’s intention to repair and improve the failing historic railings and stone work at the front of their listed building. However we cannot see any reference to the use of lime mortar to set and point the new like-for-like Bath stone work. These works must be completed in an appropriate lime mortar mix. We object to the proposed use of plastic stone repair as detailed in the schedule of works as this is an unacceptable material to use with historic Bath stone, we would recommend that failed sections of stone are removed and new sections pieced in with lime mortar or the railing base replaced wholesale. Should patching sections be small then a lime mortar mix with Bath stone aggregate could be used.
16/02364/REG13 – 1 Royal Crescent City Centre Bath
Recording and lifting of existing Caithness and Pennant stone cobbles and existing failed concrete substrate to area of highway fronting No 1 Royal Crescent Bath. Reforming of new concrete substrate and relaying of cobbles along original lines replacing defection stones with salvaged and or new stones are required
Comment: The Trust welcomes these proposed works to repair rectify the poor condition of the carriageway fronting No.1 Royal Crescent. The Design and Access Statement provides excellent detail on the background and technical issues surrounding the relaying of this section of road and we accept the arguments for the appropriate use of a concrete sub base. We would stress the importance of matching the existing configuration of setts via the use of photographic and drawn records and the re-use of all existing setts in good condition.
Our primary concern regarding the proposed works is the proposed timing of actual construction of summer 2016. As has already been communicated to B&NES by Caroline Kay, the summer season is very busy for No.1 Royal Crescent and as a charity we rely on this seasonal income spike. The use of large wooden hoardings that would block out views of this part of the Crescent would be unacceptable, both from a business and heritage point of view, and we would expect that barriers around the work should be agreed in advance to offer no impediment, visual or literal, to visitors wishing to visit No.1 and to passers-by who would normally be spontaneously attracted into the museum as they visited the local area. We would request that works were scheduled to take place in a slower tourist period such as late September/October and that the works compound be situated in Gravel Walk with any cutting of stone to take place at the top of the park rather than on the roadway – as was the case when the Crescent was built.
We would also request that an interpretation board be produced by B&NES (with copy provided by the Trust) that would detail the history of the cobbles on the Crescent and why they need to be replaced and how, to inform the public of the historic background and the works. Advertisement of the museum on any barriers would also be necessary to ensure that visitors know we remain open and accessible during the works. We would welcome further consultation and discussion on how the museum admissions may not be disadvantaged by these works, perhaps via the use of Conditions.
16/02230/FUL – 10 Lymore Gardens Twerton Bath
Change of use from a 4 bed dwelling (use class C3) to a 4 bed house of multiple occupation (HMO) (Use class C4)
Comment: The Trust comments on this proposal that the application site lies in an area which fails the stage 1 test (has over 25% concentration of HMO’s) and as such should Lymore Gardens fail the stage 2 Test this application would be contrary to the Article 4 Direction covering Bath and the adopted HMO SPD.
16/02348/FUL – 18 Eden Terrace Larkhall
Loft conversion to produce a bedroom and en suite with dormer to front and removal of front wall to create new off street parking and small patio area
Comment: The Trust questions the design and proposed position of the dormer window, as it is off centre and not centrally over the windows, which appears at odds with the overall symmetry of the terrace. We also question the appropriateness of the proposal, the first of its kind in this terrace, to create a parking space in the front garden. This would result in the loss of historic boundary walling and create a precedent that would impact on the character and appearance of this 19th century terrace and the Larkhall Place streetscape.
Week 20 2016
16/02104/AR – 57 – 59 Walcot Street Bath BA1 5BN
Identification of business operation and building number, hand painted on principal elevation (Retrospective).
Comment: The Trust regrets the retrospective nature of this application. Our primary concern centres round the lack of consultation and regard for the historic environment that the completed works represent. The painting of two undesignated heritage assets in matt black in the centre of the World Heritage Site without due regard for, and assessment of, the impact of this striking amount of paint and its colour on the character and appearance of the area is to be regretted. Whilst we accept the arguments that this is an area of mixed artisan and industrial building types and that creative approaches can be tolerated in this area, the solid block of black paint is still visually dominant in the overall street scene and this is possibly harmful to adjacent listed assets and the special qualities of the World Heritage site. The layering of paint is also a concern in that if the paint applied is impermeable and not breathable, this and previous layers could cause problems for the historic stone fabric beneath.
With regards to the signage, we welcome the use of hand painted signage. We would prefer to see the Hair and Beauty sign located on the fascia, as others have also indicated.
We hope that the issue of listing status on the B&NES administrative system will be resolved – the building is not listed, but by virtue of nearby listed assets there is a planning constraint noted on the system (which marks the building as listed). Such a planning constraint should also be a material consideration in the determination of this application.
16/02205/FUL – Henrietta Mews Garage Ltd Henrietta Mews Bathwick Bath
Erection of three mews houses and garages following demolition of eight existing garages
Support: The Trust supports the application for 3 mews houses on this site. The classical styling, authentic materials and appropriate scale and height all serve to provide an enhancement to the character and appearance of this important historical back-land area.
16/02214/AR – Vacant Shop 49 Southgate Street Bath
Display of 1no internally-illuminated fascia sign and 1no internally-illuminated projecting sign (Resubmission).
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 location within the conservation area and World Heritage Site. The use of aluminium and perspex are not materials that are appropriate within the natural palette of Bath. Hand-painted timber signs would be much more suitable reflecting the traditional prevalent materials and character of the city. We continue to maintain our position of objection to illuminated signs, as Bath is a low-illumination city and as such we object to the proposed illuminations. The proposed signs should be adequately visible via illumination from other sources of light such as street-lighting, especially as Southgate is a well illuminated shopping area. 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, B2, B4 and CP6 of the B&NES Core Strategy and saved policy; D4, BH6, BH19 and BH22 of the B&NES Local Plan. We would therefore recommend that the application be refused.
16/02357/LBA – 4 Oxford Row, Bath
Conversion of existing basement to form a self-contained one bedroom flat
Comment: The proposed ventilation terminal and flue should be a recessive grey or cream colour to blend in with Bath stone rather than the proposed black.
16/02271/FUL – St Mary’s Roman Catholic Church Julian Road Lansdown Bath
Erection of new doorway steps and re-opening of blocked doorway to create fire exit
Comment: The Trust notes that much of this proposed work has been completed. We have no concerns regarding the proposal which appears to be well examined and justified, however we comment on the appropriateness of installing painted cast iron railings (to match the boundary railings of the site) rather than the steel which is proposed.
16/02134/FUL – 1 Bloomfield Road Bloomfield
Installation of external wall insulation
Comment: We are unsure as to where the external insulation is to be applied. The application form notes that it is to be applied to an extension (old) however in general the application is confusing and the drawings do not note the location of the proposed works. If the insulation is to be applied to concrete block work we are satisfied this would be appropriate. However if it is to be applied over 19th century Bath ashlar stone we would have significant concerns over the appropriateness of this treatment, both visually and in relation to the preservation of historic fabric.
We are also concerned that the applicant is proposing to replace timber windows with uPVC and would comment that whilst the Trust understands the benefits of uPVC in terms of thermal performance, it is a material which is harmful in its manufacture and disposal and is not a material in the traditional palette of materials in Bath. We regret the cumulative loss of traditional Victorian/Edwardian timber sashes in Bath’s suburbs and suggest a more thoughtful conservation-focused approach would be the refurbishment and draught proofing of the original casements. When timber windows are beyond repair we would encourage the use of pressure treated timber frames with double glazing, which have similar maintenance requirements, thermal performance and longevity as uPVC.
Week 19 2016
16/02098/AR – Cooperative Group Ltd 30 Milsom Street City Centre Bath
Display of 1 no. externallly illuminated projecting sign.
Object: The Trust strongly objects to this application and in addition requests that the applicant should be requested to apply for listed building consent for the proposed signage, for which we would expect to see a Heritage Statement containing an impact assessment on the potential harm of the proposed sign on the architectural and historic interest and fabric of the listed building. The proposed sign is totally unacceptable and inappropriate in Milsom Street where there are few hanging signs and those that do exist are either historic or at fascia level. The proposed sign would clutter and harm the significant architectural composition of both the listed building and the group composition of which it is a part. It would also clutter and break up important views up and down this important street. New fixings would also provide unacceptable harm to the historic Bath stone facade. We draw attention to the guidelines contained in the emerging conservation area policy document Commercial Signage and Tables & Chairs on the Highway which specifically notes that new hanging signs are not appropriate and will not be permitted in Milsom Street.
The Trust is always strongly opposed to illumination of signage as Bath is a low illuminated city where excessive lighting is harmful to the listed buildings and the character and appearance of the World Heritage site.
The proposed scheme, by virtue of its position, appearance and illumination would harm the special historic and architectural interest of the listed buildings, and would detract from the special character and appearance of the conservation area and therefore the World Heritage site. 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,B2, B4, CP6 of the B&NES Core Strategy and saved polices; D2, BH1, BH2, BH6, BH17, BH19 and BH22 of the B&NES Local Plan. We would therefore recommend that the application be refused.
16/02117/LBA – 15 Old Bond Street City Centre Bath
Internal and external alterations to install new lettering to fascia and repainting of shop front, and non-structural amendments to interior retail fit out.
Support: The Trust supports this application on the basis that the applicant has amended their proposal from pin mounted aluminium lettering to hand painted sign writing. The Trust welcomes this as traditional hand painted signage is appropriate and preferable within the World Heritage City.
15/01356/FUL – Percy Community Centre New King Street Kingsmead Bath
Refurbishment of the Percy Community Centre including demolition of a detached prefabricated building and construction of a new sports hall.
Object: We welcome proposals to refurbish, expand and revitalise this site for the community. This site is entirely suitable for redevelopment and we would welcome an improved contemporary design. We find the modernity of the proposal acceptable in the sense that it is a highly readable modern intervention in the historic street scene.
The scale and some design elements of the scheme appear appropriate, and we welcome the ambition to repair the broken building line in New King Street. However, we do not feel that this context; which is characterised by a very narrow road width, a repetitive rhythm of facades, and historic residential buildings; can comfortably accommodate such a bold statement.
Our main concern centres on the proposed materials, which in this particular residential location are a radical contrast with the general palette of colour and materials in Bath. We accept that modern design often calls for a modern approach to materiality, and we welcome a creative approach to this, however we feel some of the proposed materials and their colours are at odds with and just too far from the tonal palette of Bath. We would welcome a revisit of elements of the proposal, in particular the materials, and recognise the need for materials which can still provide the second skin energy efficiency performance.
In terms of the glazing on the New King Street elevation we are concerned that the cumulative effect of the visual contrast, glare and light spill would dominate the street scene and harm the setting of nearby listed buildings and the character and appearance of the local residential area. We feel that some sort of visibly transparent layer or outer skin of the building is a good approach to providing visual contrast – this could be glass that reflects Bath stone or transparent glass shows the colour of stone through it, or another type of skin. We do not consider the use of opaque or coloured glass (as used in the Bath bus station rotunda) is at all appropriate. The glazed elevation of Thermae Bath Spa works well because this site is hemmed in and the glass reflects the appearance and colour of the surrounding Bath stone.
With regards to the sports hall element, we are concerned about the bulk of the building on Monmouth Place, and would encourage better articulation of this façade. We welcome the retention of the historic school facade remnant and would like to see proposals included to repair and repoint this wall where needed. The proposed use of concrete panels is worrying and it is difficult to ascertain the proposed colour of this element. It looks to be a patinated green copper colour and if this is the case we could not support this approach in this part of the Conservation Area. We have recently seen that dark grey/lead colour metal works well as a contrast (Twerton Mill), and perforated metals or fins could be considered if they are an appropriate colour.
The Cumberland Row ‘hub’ building combines zinc with glazing in a well proportioned design; given its set back location and that it is less visible in the public realm and overall street scene we find this part of the proposal to be acceptable.
On balance the Trust objects to the proposed development, which in its current form fails to respect or reinforce local character. The proposed scheme, by virtue of its design, appearance and materials would harm the setting of the listed buildings, and would detract from the special character and appearance of the conservation area and special qualities of the World Heritage site. The application is therefore 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, B2, B4, CP6 of the B&NES Core Strategy and saved polices; D2, BH1, BH2, BH6, of the B&NES Local Plan. We would welcome further input into design review.
16/02027/LBA – 3 Lansdown Place West Lansdown Bath
Modification of existing external staircase to basement, provision of new lower ground floor external door, replacement of modern glazed rooflight above stairwell and reinstatement of multi-paned windows to ground and first floors.
Comment: The Trust welcomes this application to reinstate traditional multi paned timber sash windows to the first and second floor of this listed building as this will integrate and harmonise the overall composition of the front elevation given the fact that the third floor windows are multi paned and that the overall street scene is predominantly multi paned.
Week 18 2016
16/01213/AR & 16/01217/LBA Oasis Stores Ltd 2 Cheap Street City Centre
Display of 3no.externally illuminated facia signs and 1no.externally illuminated hanging sign to replace existing signage
Objection: The Trust objects to this application on the basis of the proposed illumination of the signage and the materials. The Trust is opposed to illuminated signage on the basis that Bath is a low illuminated city and illuminated signage produces a low quality aesthetic that is potentially harmful to the character and appearance of the listed building and the conservation area. We note that the proposed new LED lighting will be brighter than the current arrangement and therefore there could be associated issues regarding unwanted glare and excessive glow. We also object to the use of foamex, perspex and vinyl as these are not appropriate materials for a fascia treatment in Bath; we would recommend a hand painted timber fascia with traditional sign writing. We always recommend that national businesses adopt a thoughtful bespoke approach to signage in Bath.
The proposed scheme, by virtue of its appearance and illumination would fail to enhance the historic and architectural interest of the listed buildings, and would detract from the special character and appearance of the conservation area and therefore the World Heritage site. 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,B2, B4, CP6 of the B&NES Core Strategy and saved polices; D2, BH2, BH6, BH17, BH19 and BH22 of the B&NES Local Plan. We would therefore recommend that the application be refused.
16/01925/VAR – Ministry Of Defence Warminster Road Bathwick
Variation of Condition 33 attached to 14/02272/EFUL (Erection of 204 no. dwellings with 2 no. accesses from Warminster Road, vehicular parking; open space; landscaping (including tree removal); pumping station; and associated engineering works, following demolition of existing buildings).
Comment: The Trust has reviewed the proposed changes and has a comment in relation to the current block of flats BF5: the addition of a storey in the roof and the reduction in height is welcome and helps to reduce the perceived height and bulk of the building, and design changes assist in making it appear less imposing and monumental. However we still feel the compositional design elements of the facade are too elaborate and we strongly question the use of Dutch/Baroque styling to dormers and windows and feel that this is inappropriate and out of context for Bath.
Week 17 2016
16/01742/FUL – Bath & Sports Leisure Centre North Parade Road Bathwick Bath
Erection of new cycle storage to front entrance, new canopy over entrance, new glazing to sports hall, replacement of roof mounted plant, provision of external staircase and other external alterations
COMMENT: The Trust finds the lack of detail in this application to be worrying as it is difficult to assess the impact of the proposed external changes to the building. There is no Design & Access Statement submitted with the application and we find that there is also very little information on the proposed external materials (for example the colour of the polycarbonate entrance canopy). We also note the notional height of the unspecified plant compound which appears to rise well above the current roof height and would comment that more information should be submitted on this element on the basis that intrusive roof plant will be very visible in views across and down onto the site (including from the Abbey tower, National Trust land above Bathwick and views across from Grand Parade) could be potentially harmful in views to and over the site given its sensitive location in the heart of the World Heritage City. Plant should preferably be designed into the building to avoid ‘miscellaneous’ roof plant.
16/01830/LBA – 25 Upper Camden Place Walcot Bath
External alterations to remove cement render on face of property and replace with traditional lime render
Support: The Trust supports this well detailed application to remove damaging cement render to the listed building and reinstate a breathable lime plaster which is a best practice conservation treatment and will preserve and enhance the historic fabric of the asset.
16/01796/AR – 3 Wellsway Bath
Display of 1no externally-illuminated fascia sign and 1no internally illuminated projecting sign.
Objection: The Trust objects to this application on the basis of the proposed illumination of the signage and the fascia materials. The Trust is opposed to illuminated signage on the basis that Bath is a low illuminated city and illuminated signage produces a low quality aesthetic that is potentially harmful to the character and appearance of the conservation area. We also object to the use of an aluminium fascia tray as this is not an appropriate material for a fascia treatment in Bath; we would recommend a hand painted timber (as existing) fascia with traditional sign writing. We always recommend that national businesses adopt a thoughtful bespoke approach to signage in Bath.
The proposed scheme, by virtue of its appearance and illumination would fail to enhance the historic and architectural interest of nearby listed buildings, and would detract from the special character and appearance of the conservation area and therefore the World Heritage site. 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, CP6 of the B&NES Core Strategy and saved polices; D2, BH6, BH19 and BH22 of the B&NES Local Plan. We would therefore recommend that the application be refused.
16/01731/LBA – 18 Bedford Street Walcot Bath
Internal and external refurbishment including installation of window boxes and redecorating rear elevation render.
Object: The Trust objects to the insertion of ironwork for window boxes as these would harm the historic fabric of the listed building and clutter the facade. The water run-off from regular watering would also cause long term damage to the stone below each window.
We would also comment that whilst we understand the cost implications we would recommend that the rear elevation is stripped of damaging cement render and a breathable lime plaster and/or lime based based paint is applied to all areas including cills and surrounds, as this would preserve and enhance the health of the historic building fabric.
The proposed iron window box holders would neither preserve nor enhance the special architectural interest of the listed building and its historic fabric. This would therefore 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; CP6 of the B&NES Core Strategy and saved policy BH2 of the B&NES Local Plan. We would therefore recommend that this element of the application be refused.
16/01868/AR – Lidl Fieldings Road Twerton Bath
Display of 1no illuminated static pylon sign.
Object: The Trust objects to this application on the basis of the excessive size and proposed illumination of the pylon sign and the fact that the applicant has failed to make any reference to the fact that the building is listed and therefore the application requires some assessment of the impact of this signage on the architectural interest of this industrial building. The Trust is opposed to internally illuminated signage on the basis that Bath is a low illuminated city and internally illuminated signage produces a low quality aesthetic that is potentially harmful to the character and appearance of the building and the local area. We always recommend that national businesses adopt a thoughtful bespoke approach to signage in Bath.
Should the case officer be minded to permit we would recommend that attention is paid to the already permitted 2.no illuminated signage on the building and consider the impact of these AND the pylon signage on the character of the local area and the listed building.
The proposed scheme by virtue of illumination would be harmful to the architectural interest of the listed building and to the visual amenity of the local area. 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, D4, BH2, BH17 and BH22 and should be refused.
Week 16 2016
16/01469/FUL & 16/01470/LBA– Arlington House Bath Street City Centre Bath
Replacement of dilapidated single glazed sash windows with new double glazed units in new rebated sashes, all fitted into existing box frames.
Comment: The Trust is concerned that there is a lack of sufficient information in this application. In the pre-application discussions it was made clear that a Heritage Statement and Impact Assessment would be necessary as this is a Grade I listed building and as such is highly significant. Given the extent of the proposed works to the windows and the potential impact on the architectural interest of the listed building, we would expect to see more detailed information on the current and historic windows and justification in the Heritage Statement (proportionate to the significance of the asset) of the proposed replacement works, in particular the current proposal to double glaze the windows as this element requires careful thought on appropriateness and impact.
In addition we note in the application form that it is proposed to conduct some stone repair and cleaning and of the facade but there is no detail at all on where, how and why. Any proposal for stone cleaning must be accompanied by a full stone cleaning survey by a specialist contractor and a full schedule of works and cleaning methods submitted with the application.
16/01680/FUL & 16/01681/LBA – 39 Milsom Street City Centre Bath
Change of use from Bank (Class A2 use) to restaurant (Class A3 use) with associated internal and external alterations.
Object: The Trust welcomes the overall application and the proposed change of use; in particular those elements of the internal works that will conserve and better reveal the grand internal decorations and floor plans of this highly significant building. We think that the new usage offers an opportunity for decluttering and restoring elegance and simplicity to an important Grade II* facade. For that reason we object to the proposed external signage as cumulatively it would harm the special architectural and historic interest of the listed building. We offer the following observations:
The proposed external blind, external signage illumination and window box elements of this otherwise acceptable application would neither preserve nor enhance the special architectural interest of the listed building, would harm the character and appearance of Conservation Area, and would detract from the special qualities of the World Heritage Site. Therefore this element of the scheme would be contrary to 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, B2, B4 and CP6 of the B&NES Core Strategy and saved polices; D4, BH1, BH4, BH6, BH17 and BH22 of the B&NES Local Plan. We would therefore recommend that these elements are removed from the application otherwise the application should be refused or a split decision issued.
16/01609/FUL – Castle Farm Barn Midford Road Midford Bath
Change of use of agricultural barns to a flexible commercial use comprising farm shop and cafe.
Object: The Trust is concerned that the establishment of a busy farm shop and cafe as distinct from ‘farm gate’ sales constitutes creeping development of this site that will result in a higher demand for car parking and associated infrastructure. The need for additional commercial infrastructure will constitute further intervention in the Green Belt which will include visual landscape harm to the AONB and WHS setting. For this reason the Trust supports the position of South Stoke PC and objects to this application.
Designed by Ice House Design