Jan – Feb 2016

February 2016

Week 05 2016

16/00279/AR4 Philip Street City Centre Bath

Installation of illuminated signage for new bar business

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 neon is also objectionable, as this form of illumination can add a low quality aesthetic to the street scene.

The proposed scheme, by virtue of the means of illumination and materials, would neither preserve nor 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, B2, B4 and CP6 of the B&NES Core Strategy and saved polices; D4, BH6, BH17 and BH22 of the B&NES Local Plan.  We would therefore recommend that the application be refused.

16/00360/LBA 8 – 9 Quiet Street City Centre Bath

Internal and external works for the display of 2no non-illuminated fascia signs, 1no non-illuminated hanging sign and 1no internally illuminated static sign.

Object: The Trust objects to this application on the basis of inadequate paperwork and inappropriate signage proposals. Whilst the Trust understands that the applicant wishes to maintain a corporate brand image, we feel there is a lost opportunity here to create high quality bespoke corporate signage that will conserve and enhance the significant heritage asset within its sensitive historic setting. Firstly we would expect to see some form of Heritage Statement included in the application in order to confirm that the applicant is aware of the history and architectural significance of the host building. Secondly we would expect to see an AR application submitted with this application.

Our main concerns with the signage centre on materials of the signage and illumination of the ATM. We would always recommend that signs and fascias are hardwood timber with hand painted sign writing and it does not appear from the paperwork as if this will be the case with the proposed fascia and hanging sign (though it is difficult to ascertain in the case of the fascia what the materials of the panels and lettering are proposed to be). In terms of the illuminated ATM our in principle objection to unnecessary lighting still stands. Whilst we understand that ATM’s require some form of light near the screen for safe use, we feel that an illuminated plastic surround is a low quality and inappropriate addition to the listed building and the streetscape.

The proposed scheme, by virtue of the means of illumination and materials, would neither preserve nor enhance the special interest of the listed building, would harm the character and appearance of Conservation Area, 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,B2, B4 and CP6 of the B&NES Core Strategy and saved polices; D4, BH1, BH4, BH6, BH17, BH19 and BH22 of the B&NES Local Plan.  We would therefore recommend that the application be refused.

16/00269/FULUniversity Of Bath University Of Bath Campus Claverton

Erection of two storey research building (Use Class D1) and associated infrastructure and landscaping

Comment: The Trust comments that we wonder whether academic developments such as this proposed scheme on university land could and should contain an element of student accommodation in order to assist in easing the current critical pressure on the city of Bath in terms of student accommodation supply?

16/00399/AR – Hartwells Of Bath Newbridge Road Newbridge Bath

Display of 1no internally illuminated fascia clip and 1no internally illuminated free standing double sided pylon.

Object: The Trust objects to this application on the basis of materials, illumination, size and quantity of pylones (those that are current and the proposed new one). This site is already a garish and overly illuminated eyesore in a gateway location to the World Heritage Site and has a harmful impact on the setting of the nearby conservation area. Aluminium and acrylic are not acceptable materials that are in keeping with the Bath palette and the use of fluorescent lighting is also objectionable. 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 the nearby conservation area.  Street lighting and light spill from general internal lighting from within the building should be sufficient to illuminate signs and the forecourt.

The proposed scheme, by virtue of the means of excessive illumination and inappropriate materials, would neither preserve nor enhance the setting of the nearby conservation area and listed buildings 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, B4 and CP6 of the B&NES Core Strategy and saved polices; D2, D4, BH6, BH17 and BH22 of the B&NES Local Plan.  We would therefore recommend that the application be refused.

16/00377/AR – 40 Moorland Road Oldfield Park Bath

Display of 1no internally illuminated static fascia sign and 1no internally illuminated static hanging sign.

Object: The Trust strongly objects to this application on the basis of inappropriate materials and illumination. Whilst this road is not in a conservation area there is still a distinct character and attractive quality to this area of Victorian and Edwardian housing stock within the World Heritage site; the proposed large illuminated aluminium and acrylic signage will produce a low quality ‘tacky’ aesthetic which will harmfully impact on the streetscape.  In general the use of aluminium and acrylic is a not material that is harmonious with the overall Bath palette, we would always recommend a painted timber fascia with hand painted signage. The use of illumination is excessive and only serves to highlight the inappropriate fascia materials.

The proposed scheme, by virtue of the means of excessive illumination and inappropriate materials, would neither preserve nor enhance the setting of the nearby conservation area and listed buildings 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, B4 and CP6 of the B&NES Core Strategy and saved polices; D2, D4, BH6, BH17, BH19 and BH22 of the B&NES Local Plan.  We would therefore recommend that the application be refused.

Week 04 2016

16/00262/LBA – 11 Brunswick Street Lambridge Bath

Internal and external alterations including removal of internal partitions and new bathrooms facilities, reinstating slate roof covering and window openings.

Support: The Trust welcomes this application to restore this building and to reinstate plan form and appropriate traditional detail in the form of joinery, a new slate roof and other details. Our only concern would be the proposal to lower the window sill in the basement room to make a door opening but we assume the case officer will review this element carefully and make a judgement on whether the heritage benefits of the proposal outweigh the possible harm to historic fabric.

16/00185/FULEastern Sports Field Sports Training Village University Of Bath Campus Claverton

Erection of temporary car park for 2 years in existing sports field with surfacing, associated boundary fencing and lighting.

Object: The Trust objects to this application on the basis that there is insufficient technical data to demonstrate that the car park lighting design is in compliance with the Institute of Lighting Professionals Guidelines for the Reduction of Obtrusive Light.

Because of the AONB status of this site it is a requirement that the upward light ratio should be zero. A bollard light with zero ULR is indeed a rare thing and since we do not have a technical specification for the luminaires we cannot determine whether they comply. Similarly with the post top lanterns we would expect to see a full technical specification. It is particularly concerning that the drawing is not the result of a lighting design exercise, but clearly the isolux plot for individual luminaires have been cut and pasted onto the drawing. This is evident where 4 lines of the same lux value cross;  in practice this cannot happen since the value at that point would be the sum of the four. The applicant should either employ a professional lighting engineer or the services of the equipment manufacturer who may provide a design free of charge.  We would hope to see a proper design to properly assess this application.

Given the absence of a proper technical lighting specification demonstrating that there is no harm to the landscape setting of the World Heritage site, the AONB and the Green Belt, we consider that this application would be potentially harmful in terms of obtrusive light and sky glow, and is therefore 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, BH1 and BH22 of the B&NES Local Plan.  We would therefore recommend that the application be refused.

Week 03 2016

16/00220/FUL- The Chapel Argyle Terrace Twerton Bath

Conversion from existing offices (Class B1) to 4 No. residential maisonettes (Class C3) including roof extension and external alterations.

Object:  The Trust is always supportive of appropriate brownfield infill development to assist the housing supply deficit, and the delivery of new dwellings in this location can be viewed as welcome. In design terms, we find the proposal to bookend the Argyle Terrace will arguably enhance the streetscape however we do regard the proposals for 4no.dwellings to be an overdevelopment of the site.  Whilst this Chapel is not within the conservation area, and is not formally viewed as being locally important, it is still part of the social and communal history of Twerton’s noted non-conformist community.  Its moderate evidential and historic significance as a place of 19th century religious and community gathering (and its early 20th century role as a Medical Mission to local people) should not be dismissed lightly.  Whilst architecturally plain and humble, it is this simplicity which provides evidential value as being typical of non-conformist religious architecture   of this period.

It is clear from the proposals that although described as a conversion, the significant raising of the roof height to add an extra storey represents a complete removal of the form of the original building so that the aspects which characterise the social history of the chapel will be, to all intents and purposes, swept away. Technically it is really a proposal to substantially demolish and rebuild. No features of significance, such as the front façade, will remain in readable form.

We note that the chapel itself lies just outside the Twerton Character Area, though it demonstrates aspects of that character. It is a matter of regret that the Council does not hold and publish a list of non-designated local heritage assets; this is particularly important for the peripheral sub-settlements in the City where their heritage is less obviously protected. The Trust is uncomfortable with the near total loss of this undesignated heritage asset.  We would encourage further debate on this issue and perhaps a revisiting of the scheme to retain some readable element of the building to ensure this physical memory of Twerton’s past is not lost forever.

The proposed scheme, by virtue of its design and appearance would fail to enhance the historic and architectural interest of the undesignated heritage asset, and the listed building opposite, and would detract from the special character and setting of the nearby 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; BH1, BH6, BH7 of the B&NES Local Plan. We would therefore recommend that the application be refused.

16/00049/AR & 30 – 31 Stall Street City Centre Bath

Display of 1 no. non-illuminated sign, replacing existing non-illuminated sign

Object: The Trust has an in principle objection to the use of total window vinyls. Not only can these types of graphics have a low quality aesthetic, they deaden the window frontage with static and sometimes qaudy graphics and therefore impact up on the character and interest of the listed building. Whilst we have no objection to the image being proposed, its location dominating the entire window will harm the street scene and fail to enliven or enhance the conservation area. This image would be better placed inside the premises, perhaps on a prominent wall where it can be glimpsed and add variety to the street scene. In light of the emerging design guidance on commercial signage in the conservation area, we would urge the case officer to consult a colleague in the conservation team to gain their response to the proposed scheme.

The proposed scheme, by virtue of its design and appearance would fail to enhance the historic and architectural interest of the listed building, 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, BH2 and BH6 of the B&NES Local Plan. We would therefore recommend that the application be refused.

16/00097/LBA – 6 Barton Buildings City Centre Bath

Internal and external alterations to replace front elevation third floor and attic dormer window sashes and timber surround

Support: The Trust supports this application to reinstate traditional 6/6 paned hardwood timber sashes to the attic storey of this listed building which will enhance the character and architectural interest of the heritage asset and the overall quality of the group of buildings.

16/00165/LBA & 16/00166/AR – Joules 12 Northgate Street City Centre Bath

External alterations for the installation of a brass plaque “Interpretation Board

Support: The Trust supports the concept of an Interpretation Board relating to the very interesting and significant social and architectural history of this site. This shows a level of heritage awareness and custodianship that the Trust fully welcomes. In terms of the plaque itself, we would comment that the location of the plaque looks a little ‘lost’ on the proposed elevation and may be obscured by retail sales at Waitrose; perhaps a better and more connected location would be the area of ashlar – topped with cornice – to the far left of the shop window (as you view it from the front).

16/00123/FUL – 21 North Road Combe Down Bath

Erection of single storey extension to side and single storey porch extension to front of existing dwelling, as well as half storey roof extension and front dormer. Erection of timber veranda across rear of dwelling to ease access into garden.

Comment: The Trust comments that we are concerned about the fact the proposal to raise the roof on the front elevation will ‘unbalance’ the pair, which were designed and intended as a double semi detached composition. Whilst we are sympathetic with the applicant’s desire to extend their living space, the proposed scheme would be contrary to the overall pattern of the local area, which is generally characterised by the rhythm of 19th and 20th century architecturally harmonious semi-detached dwellings. In addition the increased height of the gabled extension is also contrary to the prevalent heights and buildings lines of the area. We would recommend that the half storey addition element is withdrawn from the application. For the same reasons of architectural harmony, the proposed porch extension is incongruous and discordant with the overall building, however this is less harmful to the character of the local area and streetscape than the roof proposals.

16/00200/FUL – 41 Rockliffe Avenue Bathwick Bath

Erection of two storey side and single storey rear extension and installation of dormer to rear. (Resubnission 15/02000/FUL).

Comment: Whilst we acknowledge the applicants changes to the proposed scheme, the Trust continues to be concerned regarding this application on the basis that, despite some design changes to the roof profile, the side extension encroaches onto the setting of the listed building Rosemont Cottage, specifically in relation to the side return area which we consider too narrow and therefore a visually uncomfortable juxtaposition. We are also concerned by the narrowing of the gap between the applicants’ 20th century property and the listed building and its impact on the character of the conservation area; the spaces between buildings of differing ages, and the glimpses between them are, from observation, a characteristic of the conservation area. We would remind the applicant of the following from the Bathwick CACA: ‘The fine balance of historic features which defines the quality of the less well-known parts of the area, as well as the well-known ones, is easily eroded by minor alterations’.

The proposed rear extension scheme appears somewhat rationalised which has improved this is aspect of the scheme.

January 2016

Week 02 2016

15/05841/FUL – 97 – 101 Walcot Street Bath BA1 5BW  

Refurbishment of the existing warehouse and construction of new building for non-food retail, light workshop, training and office use following demolition of single storey canopy.

Support: The Trust supports this scheme which aims to sensitively and appropriately repair the street scene and enhance the character of Walcot Street. The proposed new building and link appear appropriately designed and sized to respond to the special urban pattern and grain of the streetscape, and the refurbishment of the warehouse building is welcomed. Our only comments are:

  • We are unsure of the proposed use and the visual finish of ‘high performance felt’ for the roofs. As these roofs will be visible from the listed buildings to the rear of the site, our preference would be for an alternative material such as zinc be used and finished to appear similar to lead.
  • We would prefer to see a pale buff coloured render on the new building, rather than white. Whilst white references a building further down the street, we have a concern that white would be too strident in this group of buildings, especially bearing in mind the stone facade of the warehouse and the timber cladding to the link building, both of which will present a muted palette.

16/00035/FUL & 16/00036/LBA – 5 Johnstone Street Bathwick Bath

Replacement of existing garage at rear of property.

Object: The Trust has no objections to the demolition and reinstatement of a garage at this location. Our objection related to the proposed form of the roof which we feel is an alien addition at odds with the special interest and character of this backlands location which is characterised by long linear gardens with flat and unobtrusive garage structures. The form of the proposed roof structure does not reference the classical character of the overall Georgian building typology; the proposed steep hipped roof pitch would sit incongruously visible within its location, adding a ‘stand out’ pointed gable form. For this reason the roof structure would negatively alter the external aesthetics and character of this rear elevation and would not enhance the heritage assets and their setting. We would expect a new garage roof to reference classical proportions and design, perhaps with a flat lead roof, low lantern and parapet that would not stand out against the overall appearance of this part of the conservation area.  We appreciate that this may preclude the creation of a mezzanine level but we have concerns about an – in effect – two storey building in this location and the associated use issues that may arise.

The proposed scheme, by virtue of its design and appearance 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, B4, CP6 of the B&NES Core Strategy and saved polices; D2, BH2 and BH6 of the B&NES Local Plan. We would therefore recommend that the application be refused.

15/05816/FUL – 6 Hill Avenue Combe Down Bath

Erection of 1 no. detached dwelling, with proposed access from Quarry Close

Comment: The Trust comments that we have concerns about the loss of mature hedging associated with this application and we also question whether rubble stone is an appropriate material within the context of this area, which appears to be characterised by ashlar stone or similar block work.

16/00015/LBA & 34 Monmouth Street City Centre Bath

External alterations to replace existing signage boards with new one(s) to eradicate hole in centre and apply new sign writing.

Object: The Trust objects to this scheme on the basis of the proposed treatment of the shop front. Notwithstanding that with the removal and reinstatement of a hardboard fascia, we see this as an opportunity to restore a more traditional fascia to this listed building. We object to the proposed use of applied vinyl signage; we would always recommend that signs be traditionally hand painted.  We are concerned by the lack of information regarding the removal and reinstatement of paint to the frontage and would recommend that the case officer ensure that a full survey is conducted and that an appropriate method of paint removal is agreed prior to any works commencing.  We would prefer that the stone work, if in good condition is left unpainted, otherwise a lime wash applied.

The proposed scheme suffers from a lack of detail and by virtue of the proposed materials, would neither preserve nor enhance the special interest of the listed building, would fail to preserve the character and appearance of the conservation area and therefore 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, B2, B4 and CP6 of the B&NES Core Strategy and saved policy; D4, BH2, BH6, BH19 and BH22 of the B&NES Local Plan. We would therefore recommend that the application be refused.

15/05169/LBA – 11 Union Street City Centre

Internal and external alterations including new shopfront, re-decoration of walls, new fixtures and fittings to accommodate new Tiger Store.

Object: The Trust objects to this application on the basis that we do feel the house style signage for Tiger is appropriate in this historic location. The pin mounted, powder coated white letters are too large and strident and therefore detract from the special interest of the listed building and those adjacent. We feel this there is an ideal opportunity here for the business to look to a bespoke signage solution to complement and enhance their historic shop front and building facade, for example this could be hand painted signage in a less strident but equally eye catching colour. Whilst we appreciate the typeface may be part of the branding, perhaps an amended or sized down font would also help to ensure the signage does not detract from the listed building. We also object to the use of internal illumination in the internal signs which create a low quality aesthetic that is at odds with the character of this principal shopping street.

The proposed scheme, by virtue of the proposed materials and illumination, would neither preserve nor enhance the special interest of the listed building, would fail to preserve the character and appearance of the conservation area and therefore 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, B2, B4 and CP6 of the B&NES Core Strategy and saved policy; D4, BH2, BH6, BH19 and BH22 of the B&NES Local Plan. We would therefore recommend that the application be refused.

Week 01 2016

15/05782/FULBath Police Station Manvers Street Bath

Basement extension, new lift shaft, minor facade enhancements and new layout to frontage.

Comment: The Trust accepts that this scheme facilitates the imminent full occupation and use of this building which is a positive step forward, however we would not wish this scheme to prejudice a future more comprehensive redevelopment proposal for the site as part of the wider regeneration project of this area detailed in the Riverside Masterplan and the Placemaking Plan. It would be interesting to hear what Bath University views are on the potential for a more comprehensive re -development proposal for the site in view of present Placemaking proposals for the area.

15/05786/LBA & 15/05784/FUL 13 Cavendish Place

Replacement of single pane vertical sliding sash window with multi pane to front elevation and erection of an orangery to the rear extension at first floor level.

Object: The Trust objects to this application on the basis of insufficient detail and assessment of the impact of the proposed structure over the rear extension of this significant heritage asset. There is no Heritage Report or Impact Assessment to justify the ‘reinstatement’ of a structure to the extended part of the house (and it is not even acknowledged within the Design & Access statement that the building is listed). Without any historical detail, it is impossible to judge when the conservatory was added to the rear of the building, but in any case we would obviously not expect this to be an ‘original’ Georgian design element (original being a word used by the applicant).  The form of the proposed structure would in any case be harmful to the architectural and historic interest of the listed building as it does not reference the classical character of the building typology; the proposed hipped roof pitch, though following the ghost lines of the lost ‘conservatory’, would sit uncomfortably against the rear of the building, adding a pointed gable form that is alien to the classically designed elevation. For this reason the structure would negatively alter the external aesthetics and character of this rear elevation and would not enhance the heritage asset. Should a further structure be appropriate in this location, we would expect it to reference classical proportions and design, perhaps with a flat lead roof, lantern and parapet or a modest low level mansard.

The Trust also comments on a positive note that we welcome the reinstatement of traditional 9/9 and 6/6 paned sash windows though again we assume these are the correct original window arrangements as there is no historic detail to support this (and we note that there appears to be both 6/9 and 9/9 first floor windows along the street, possibly a Pinch design feature to maintain architectural balance as the buildings step up the slope).

The proposed scheme, by virtue of its design and appearance would harm the historic and architectural interest of the listed buildings, and would detract from the special character of the conservation area. 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, BH2 and BH6 of the B&NES Local Plan. We would therefore recommend that the application be refused.

15/05496/FUL & 15/05497/LBA5 Walcot Terrace Walcot Bath

Strip and reinstate roof covering using existing and making up with new natural slate and reinstate leadwork as necessary.

Comment: The Trust comments that it is very difficult to assess this application on the basis of the information provided. With works of this scale being proposed, we would expect at least a brief Heritage report incorporating a justification of the specific works and materials and an assessment of their impact on historic fabric. It is unclear from the report how the applicant proposes to deal with the chimney stacks (and why) and whether any repair works to the wooden roof trusses will be undertaken. Whilst the proposal appears to point towards a positive heritage outcome (refurbishment of the roof and chimneys) we cannot be sure that the scope of the works are necessary or appropriate due to poor justification.

15/01073/FULCafe Rouge   15 Milsom Street City Centre

Use of the public highway outside the frontage of premises for the siting of 2no tables and 4no chairs (Retrospective)

Object: Whilst the Trust understands the applicant’s desire to promote their business, we object to the proposed tables and chairs on the basis that we do not feel they are an appropriate addition to Milsom Street. To our knowledge there are no other outdoor seating arrangements permitted in Milsom Street. As a principal shopping street the pavements can be very busy and we suggest that a much wider allowance than the 2m for normal thoroughfares is applied to this application. In particular however we are concerned about the impact of this seating on the character of the street which is currently not a ‘cafe culture’ destination but more a high quality, prestige shopping street, featuring long sweeping vistas of important architectural group compositions. Seating in this area does not have precedent and would intrude upon the historic views towards Edgar Buildings and down towards the Old Bond Street Island and add general clutter to the streetscape which can cause cumulative harm.

We are also concerned that this application has taken 9 months to validate and in this time the applicant has already positioned these tables and chairs outside the restaurant.

The proposed scheme, by virtue of its location would harm the historic and architectural interest of the listed buildings, and would detract from the special character of the conservation area. 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, BH2 and BH6 of the B&NES Local Plan. We would therefore recommend that the application be refused.

Week 53 2016

15/05580/FULPark Cottage St John’s Road Bathwick

Installation of mansard slate roof structure incorporating dormer windows following the removal of existing roof, internal alterations to staircase to continue to second floor. Erection of new Garden Room annexe to main house in garden.

Objection: The Trust objects to this scheme on the basis of the incongruous roof structure which appears at odds with the simple 19th century cottage structure and with the overall character of that part of the road.  We are concerned that once built this roof will dominate the building making it appear top heavy; we feel this level of intervention to form additional accommodation constitutes over-development of this historic building which is especially prominent in the street scene. Whilst the street contains a mix of architectural styles from different centuries, we would comment that a mansard roof arrangement is a typically Georgian styled element and does not generally sit comfortably upon smaller cottage structures.

We would also comment that there is a surprising lack of detail contained within the application, in particular the absence of a Design and Access Statement. Detailed justification and assessment may have helped to understand the scheme and promote it in a more favourable light.

The proposed scheme by virtue of its design would neither preserve nor enhance the character and appearance of the conservation area, would detract from the visual amenity value of the area, and thus would detract from and harm the special qualities of the World Heritage Site. The proposal is contrary to Policies D2, D4, BH1 and BH6 of the B&NES Local Plan, B1, B4 and CP6 of the B&NES Core Strategy, the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 and Section 12 ‘Conserving and Enhancing the Historic Environment’ of the NPPF and therefore should be refused.

15/05718/FULHolburne Museum Of Art Great Pulteney Street

Re-surfacing of existing gravel drive with new gravel.

Comment: Whilst the Trust is aware of the recently approved applications for the surface treatment of the car park and rear terrace of the museum, we continue to have reservations about the colour of the approved gravel, being more grey than sand coloured when viewed in person. We would also comment that the ‘walkability of the proposed surface is not optimum and that a hoggin style surface would be more comfortable, though we understand that clay (a constituent of hoggin) could create the same problems as currently being experienced.

We are concerned that there is no listed building application for these works, as there is no more clear example of the ‘setting of a listed building’ than these sweeping paths framing the main entrance and front and side elevations of this Grade 1 heritage asset of very high significance.

15/05724/FUL & 15/05725/FUL – New House In Grounds Of Northfield House Richmond Road Beacon Hill Bath

Construction of external staircase, glazed canopies and access to bedroom.  Erection of garden shed and timber 1m fence panels over existing wall

Comment: The Trust comments that we feel the 1m trellis fence above the existing stone wall to public footpath is excessive, particularly in light of the original permission which included hedgerow planting overtopping the wall. We propose the height should be 300mm less at least to create a less intimidating footpath for users.

15/05184/LBA  – 4 Malvern Terrace Camden Road Beacon Hill Bath

Stone cleaning to front elevation.

Comment: The Trust is concerned at the lack of detail in this application. For this level of facade cleaning we would expect to see some kind of Pre-Cleaning survey detailing the level of soiling, the proposed method of cleaning and the proposed outcomes.  We would urge the Case Officer to ensure that this information is supplied prior to works beginning and that a reputable specialist contractor is engaged. We always recommend the use of gentle water cleaning methods for normal amounts of soiling and ask that the applicant is advised not to over-clean the stone but to retain a patina of age and therefore protect the stone facade from further corrosion.

15/05706/FUL – 41 North Road Combe Down

Erection of two storey side and rear extension following demolition of existing garage & workshop. Repair existing roof and install Velux windows to front and rear roof slopes

Comment: The Trust has no concerns about the principle of extending this dwelling however we have an in principle concern regarding the proposal to use larch cladding, particularly on the street elevation.  Whilst we understand the desire to delineate the old and new design elements of the dwelling, we still do not feel that timber cladding is an appropriate or sympathetic material for the modern urban environment and would recommend that different materials are proposed for this terraced cottage, such as a render in keeping with the Bath colour palette.

Week 52 2016

15/05634/AR Street Record Walcot Loop Road City Centre Bath

Proposed double sided six-sheet internally illuminated advertisement in bus shelter serving stop no.13 (Hilton Hotel) along the no.22 bus route along Walcot Street.

Object: 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. We would refute the contention that the illumination adds vibrancy to the shelter! 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.  There are also examples currently across Bath where the advertisement holder contains no advert and the light is quite blinding to passers-by.  We would draw the Case Officer’s attention to the wording in the new Conservation Area Guidance on Commercial Signage: ‘Internally illuminated signs are at odds with the historic character of the Conservation Area and will not be allowed unless there are extremely special circumstances such as late night pharmacies or to identify hospital openings’. We would assume that signage and advertising constitute very similar things and that we would expect the position on internal illumination harming the character of the Conservation Area to be the same for advertisements.

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 Conservation 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, BH1 and BH22 and should be refused.

15/05547/FULPublic Toilets Bradford Road Combe Down Bath  

Erection of first floor extension to facilitate the conversion of former public convenience into 1 no dwelling (resubmission)

Object: The Trust continues to object to this proposal on the basis that it appears to be an unchanged resubmission of a previous proposal and therefore our concerns regarding inappropriate materials and visual appearance still stand. Whilst the principle of developing this empty structure is commendable as is the desire to create a modern low carbon dwelling, we have concerns about the use of white render (a  Bath stone colour render would be more appropriate) and the use of timber cladding in an urban street scene environment.  We would question whether it is proposed to treat the timber as there are no details within the application; untreated timber and its capacity to weather and soften in colour is more acceptable than ‘gaudy’ treated timber. We also have concerns about the visual impact of solar panels on the street elevation and local amenity. We would prefer to see a scheme that took reference from the local, admittedly mixed, vernacular material and colour palette and did not introduce an alien material such as timber cladding into this urban space.

The proposed scheme by virtue of its materials and design would neither preserve nor enhance the character and appearance of the conservation area, would detract from the visual amenity value of the area, and thus would detract from and harm the special qualities of the World Heritage Site. The proposal is contrary to Policies D2, D4, BH1 and BH6 of the B&NES Local Plan, B1, B4 and CP6 of the B&NES Core Strategy, the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 and Section 12 ‘Conserving and Enhancing the Historic Environment’ of the NPPF and therefore should be refused.

15/05578/FUL & 15/05579/LBA   25 – 27 Green Park Mews Kingsmead Bath

Erection of first floor extension to existing garage/workshop to provide office accommodation and associated works

Comment: The Trust has an in principle objection to the use of timber cladding in an urban environment as this material is at odds with the visual appearance of the conservation area, which is characterised by Bath stone and its associated colour palette. We would recommend that the timber cladding element be re-thought and that Bath stone or lime render be used.

15/05640/AR Street Record Alec Ricketts Close Twerton Bath

Proposed double sided six-sheet internally illuminated advertisement in bus shelter serving stop no.10 (Wedgewood Road) along the no.5 bus route along Wedgewood Road

Object: 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. We would refute the contention that the illumination adds vibrancy to the shelter! 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.  There are also examples currently across Bath where the advertisement holder contains no advert and the light is quite blinding to passers-by.  We would draw the Case Officer’s attention to the wording in the new Conservation Area Guidance on Commercial Signage: ‘Internally illuminated signs are at odds with the historic character of the Conservation Area and will not be allowed unless there are extremely special circumstances such as late night pharmacies or to identify hospital openings’. We would assume that signage and advertising constitute very similar things and that we would expect the position on internal illumination harming the character of the Conservation Area to be the same for advertisements.

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 Conservation 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, BH1 and BH22 and should be refused.

15/03276/FULCamden Cottage 3 Bennett’s Lane Walcot

Erection of two storey rear extension and terrace following demolition of existing conservatory

Comments: Whilst the Trust understands the benefits of uPVC in terms of thermal performance, it is material which is harmful in its manufacture and disposal and it isn’t found 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 installation of timber windows, doors and conservatory. This cottage, whilst not listed, forms part of the rich Georgian housing stock in Bath, and sits in an elevated and visible position. Whilst the windows of the house are currently uPVC we do not consider this a justification to use this material for the proposed new works. When timber elements are beyond repair we would encourage the use of pressure treated timber frames with integral glazing bars, which have similar maintenance requirements and longevity as uPVC. If uPVC is to be used it should be of a design that replicates traditional 1800’s sash windows with integral glazing bars.

15/05635/ARStreet Record Windsor Bridge Road Twerton Bath

Proposed double sided six-sheet internally illuminated advertisement in bus shelter serving stop no.4 (Windsor Bridge Road) along the no.18 bus route along Windsor Bridge Road

Object: Whilst we understand the applicant’s desire to increase 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. We would refute the contention that the illumination adds vibrancy to the shelter! 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.  There are also examples currently across Bath where the advertisement holder contains no advert and the light is quite blinding to passers-by.  We would draw the Case Officer’s attention to the wording in the new Conservation Area Guidance on Commercial Signage: ‘Internally illuminated signs are at odds with the historic character of the Conservation Area and will not be allowed unless there are extremely special circumstances such as late night pharmacies or to identify hospital openings’. We would assume that signage and advertising constitute very similar things and that we would expect the position on internal illumination harming the character of the Conservation Area to be the same for advertisements.

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 Conservation 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, BH1 and BH22 and should be refused.

 

Designed by Ice House Design