Week 49 2016
16/05504/OUT – 34 – 35 Lower Bristol Road Westmoreland Bath
Erection of two buildings to provide residential accommodation for students (up to 204 bedrooms) with ancillary accommodation and facilities and external courtyards, alterations to existing pedestrian and vehicular access, and associated infrastructure following demolition of existing building.
Comment: There are two key issues relating to this development; the principle of proposed use and the design considerations. We OBJECT to the principle of use (student accommodation) and would like to comment favourably on the design elements.
The Trust feels strongly that this site would be a prime location for residential accommodation, preferably low cost and aimed at young professionals and key workers (to take account of the site constraints). We question the need for further dedicated student accommodation in a key city centre site, especially given the urgent requirement for further city centre housing supply in Bath to support projected regeneration employment growth. We also understand that many of the new student bed spaces that are being or have been built in Bath recently are actually not relieving student HMO housing pressures in the suburbs due to the fact that that they are prohibitively expensive to the normal student and therefore only cater for postgraduate or foreign students who can afford the high rental charges.
We strongly urge the case officer to consider the above issue relating to how accessible (or not) this proposed scheme will be financially to the average student and also to consider whether a mixed student/young professional co-living scheme could be a solution to the issues of exclusive use. In any case as always should the case officer be minded to permit the sui generis use, we would recommend that the scheme has built-in sustainability with constructional flex in order to be able to become studio apartments or similar should the market for student accommodation decrease. We would also urge consideration of the issues of student car parking which may impact the streets in the wider location even with a ban on students bringing their cars to Bath.
Architecture & Design
The Trust is supportive of the overall architectural design for the site which appears grounded, strong and connected, both in form and materiality, to its location. The semi–industrial bonded warehouse aesthetic is clearly felt in the design of the buildings and the articulated roof forms, and the interest and detail provided by the varied brickwork and the oxidised metal cladding and roofing work well together and appear to sit comfortably in the streetscape. The open flow into the internal courtyard and main entrance building works well and is highly visible from the street elevation, giving the development a strong focal point. We question whether the blank ground floor elevation on the Lower Bristol Road (which is hard-up to the roadside) should be more enlivened and active through the use of glazing to internal social spaces or even through a mixed use to include local services provision for the residents of South Quays and nearby (e.g local supermarket, cafe etc).
The application appears to have a well detailed schedule of materials included, and we commend this as the visual success of the scheme will depend on the tonal values and quality of the bricks to be used, as well as their long term weathering performance and quality of pointing. These details should always be determined as part of the application and not left to Condition. We would always recommend sample panels are provided (on-site if possible) to assess their actual appearance in-situ.
16/05802/AR – 3 Trim Bridge City Centre Bath
Display of 1no. non illuminated Fascia sign, 1no. externally illuminated Hanging sign and 1no. non illuminated sandwich board.
Comment: The application is confusing in that some information is missing in terms of what is actually being proposed. The fascia is apparently metal and timber; we would always recommend a traditionally sign written timber fascia or with simple high quality pin mounted lettering. We would also recommend that the hanging sign is made of timber not metal. The level of luminance of the external lighting is not detailed in the application and this should be requested as this is an historic street and any external illumination should be subtle and low level. The applicant should be reminded of their responsibilities in relation to lawful A-Board placement and that if the pavement is too narrow, the A-Board should be omitted from the application.
16/05340/FUL – 25 Upper East Hayes Walcot Bath
Erection of 4no. 3 bedroom town houses, following the demolition of an existing bungalow
Comment: The Trust finds this application inadequate in terms of the ability to judge the impact of this proposed scheme on the setting of the very nearby listed buildings (28 Hayes Mount and Hayes Mount Cottage). These buildings are somewhat dismissed in the D & A and no assessment of visual impact on their setting is provided. In addition there are no 3D or contextual street images to help understand the appearance and scale of these townhouses in relation to the surrounding townscape, especially given the sloping nature of the site. The Trust has no objection to the principle of redevelopment of this site, but we believe for a development of this size a more robust set of contextual images and assessment should be supplied in order to be able to fully judge the scheme in-situ.
16/05755/FUL & 16/05756/LBA 7 Frankley Buildings Fairfield Park Bath
Erection of first floor extension over single storey rear addition
Comment: Without the benefit of a site visit, the Trust finds it difficult to fully understand the impact of the proposed scheme on the listed building. However in our view the proposed first floor extension introduces a further intervention to the rear of the building that is a step too far and impacts on the ability to legibly read the rear facade of the building. The drawings appear to show a small flat roofed first floor extension, then two consecutive pitched roofs stepping down in height to the rear of the property. There is very little meaningful heritage assessment or impact assessment in the D & A therefore it is difficult to understand the age or historic value of the kitchen and bathroom extension currently in-situ but if these are of 20th century origin we suggest that the hotch potch nature of the roof profile should be rationalised so that the first floor extension (if deemed acceptable) forms one section of the extension (perhaps on the footprint of the ground floor kitchen room not smaller than it), and then a single pitched roof forms the roof over the rest (i.e the utility and bathroom). This would keep the rear extension to a simpler two roofed arrangement rather than the currently proposed three (not including of course the roof to the glass extension!).
16/05779/LBA & 16/05780/FUL – 18 Denmark Road Twerton Bath
Demolition of the single storey rear extension and replacement with 1 and 2 storey rear extension
Comment: The Trust has not concerns regarding this scheme beyond the recommendation that recon stone ashlar blocks are not permitted due to their appearance and poor weathering performance, and that the case officer insists on either natural stone ashlar or on a Bath stone coloured high quality render.
16/05856/AR – Scout Headquarters 7 Grove Street Bathwick
Display of 1no. non illuminated hanging sign
Comment: We would recommend that the hanging sign is painted hardwood timber not PVC with the logo and lettering traditionally sign written.
16/05520/FUL – 57 Warminster Road Bathampton
Addition of first floor and raising of roof to create two storey dwelling, two storey side and rear infill extension, erection of front porch and erection of triple garage with terrace above following demolition of existing garage.
Object: The Trust has no objection to the principle of refurbishing and extending this bungalow. However the proposed design is out of context with the relatively homogenous character of this suburban street and is therefore unsympathetic and incongruous. The front (north) elevation would present an uncompromisingly hard face to the street and the roof articulation is at odds with the prevailing pattern of roofscape of this area, which includes pitched roofs and gables. We also have concerns regarding the appropriateness of the use of timber cladding in a suburban environment, and this material if permitted will need to be detailed carefully in terms of type, colour, weathering performance and application.
We suggest that the applicant is requested to revise the design of the dwelling to take design references from the grain and character of the surrounding area. We have no problem with a contemporary approach to this scheme, but the forms and design idioms used need to have some grounding in order to harmonise and complement the suburban streetscape.
The proposed scheme, by virtue of design and materials, would neither preserve nor enhance the character and appearance of the local area, and would harm the amenity of the streetscape. The scheme would be contrary to the NPPF Section 7 paras 56, 57,64 (Requiring Good Design) and policies; B1, B4 and CP6 of the B&NES Core Strategy and saved polices; D4, BH1 of the B&NES Local Plan. We would therefore recommend that the application be amended or refused.
Week 48 2016
16/05642/FUL & 16/05643/LBA – 14 Union Street City Centre Bath
Conversion of existing ancillary retail upper floors to form 4 No. flats; erection of a roof extension to form 1 No. flat; associated works including a new shop front to No.14; replacement upper storey windows; and new external door and railings to the Union Passage elevation
Object: The Trust is very concerned regarding the proposal to insert a visible roof terrace on a principle side elevation of a listed building. The addition of a new mansard roof appears acceptable subject to, in our view, some further work on the profile of the gable end and the addition of an appropriately detailed ashlar chimney stack. However the roof terrace to Union Passage is entirely unacceptable as it significantly affects the visual appearance and therefore the special architectural interest of the listed building. It will be visually intrusive in sensitive long views up the street. Whilst the roofscape of Bath is diverse, it tends to retain a historic character when faced towards principle streets, and the juxtaposition of a traditional mansard roof form interrupted by a modern roof terrace will be incongruous and harmful to the historic setting. Such a precedent would also risk harming the traditional roofscape of the Georgian city.
In addition the information relating to the shopfront is inadequate, as it does not provide any detailed drawings or assessment of the heritage value of the existing shopfront. The current unusual H.Samuel picture frame stone shopfront is, in our view, worthy of retention as a 20th century part of the story and should be included for assessment in the Historic Report.
It is our view that the proposed roof terrace would harm the special interest of the listed building, it would neither preserve nor enhance the character and appearance of the Conservation Area, would be detrimental to the visual amenity of the street scene, and would detract from the special qualities of the World Heritage Site. The scheme is 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, BH2, BH4, BH6, BH19 and BH20 of the B&NES Local Plan. We would therefore recommend that the application be refused.
16/05645/AR – 9 Southgate Street Bath
Display of internally illuminated 2 no static fascia signs, 2 no projecting signs and 3 no non illuminated window decal signage.
Object: The application is incomplete in that it does not detail the luminance levels proposed for the halo effect lettering. In any case the Trust does not support internally illuminated signage and it is contrary to the SPD Guidance on Commercial Signage in the Conservation Area. Whilst we understand that Southgate has its own particular shopping townscape character, it is still within the Bath conservation area and the use of illumination should be controlled and subservient to the character of the historic city. We would prefer to see a traditional timber fascia to this shop front though the use of pin mounted lettering is acceptable. If illumination is felt to be needed we would recommend a subtle amount of external illumination.
In addition the application shows a much altered shopfront to that contained in the previous change of use application 16/01872/FUL and wonder whether planning permission has been granted for this change?
The proposed scheme, by virtue of illumination and materials, would neither preserve nor enhance 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, BH6, BH19 and BH22 of the B&NES Local Plan. We would therefore recommend that the application be refused.
16/05481/AR – Jelf Group 1 Crescent Office Park Clarks Way Odd Down Bath
Erection of 2no illuminated free standing signs and 1no non illuminated free standing sign
Object: The Trust objects to this signage on the basis of inappropriate illumination and materials. The signage appears to be composed of an aluminium material and we would recommend that a more appropriate material would be timber. But our main concern lies in the proposed internal illumination which is gives a low quality appearance. We would recommend that if illumination is considered necessary that the signs be subtly externally lit.
The proposed scheme, by virtue of illumination and materials, would 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; D4, BH1, BH6, BH17, and BH22 of the B&NES Local Plan. We would therefore recommend that the application be refused.
16/05632/FUL & 16/05633/LBA – Cleveland Baths, Cleveland Row Hampton Row Bathwick Bath
Restoration of historic open-air public swimming pool and associated facilities
Support: The Trust supports these proposals to restore this important historic and community asset and to bring it back to active public use. We congratulate the Cleveland Pools Trust on their committed and sustained efforts to reach this stage in the project. It is inevitable that with such an ambitious project there are challenges in conserving the fabric of the asset but these are, in our view, outweighed by the public benefits and the fact that the overall significance of the asset will be enhanced and better revealed to the public at large. We are confident to leave the finer details of conservation versus modernisation to the case officer, though we do question the loss of the staircase in the main cottage as this stair was and is a key part of the way the cottage has been used historically – ideally we would wish to see a solution that retains the historic arrangement. We understand that historic interpretation and education of the history of the site will be highly visible and accessible to the public on-site and we encourage this.
16/05029/AR – Unit 1 Proposed Development Site between Lidl and Waterside Court Lower Bristol Road Westmoreland Bath
Erection of 2no internally illuminated box signs to front and side elevations and 1no internally illuminated, double sided totem sign.
Object: The Trust objects to this application on the basis of inappropriate materials, signage placement and illumination. The various applications relating to this site are becoming confusing, and it is clear that the listed building cannot sustain – without harm -the amount of signage that 5 different businesses will want to place on its elevations and in its setting. The Carpetright signage is not acceptable in terms of its appearance and internal illumination, and especially in the placement of signs on two principal elevations of the building and on the proposed totem (to which we have also objected) all of which will cumulatively clutter and intrude upon the building and its setting.
We suggest that all parties (including the all new tenants of Unit 1, the owner, the LPA and other stakeholders) meet to discuss the best signage outcome for the building, one which will provide a consistent and clutter-free signage master plan but also relies on the principle signage being an externally lit totem style structure (style tbc) to avoid cumulative clutter on the elevations.
The proposed scheme, by virtue of placement, illumination and materials, would harm the special interest of the listed building, would be detrimental to the character and 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; D4, BH1, BH2, BH17, and BH22 of the B&NES Local Plan. We would therefore recommend that the application be refused.
Week 47 2016
16/05521/FUL & 16/05522/LBA – Packhorse Inn Old School Hill South Stoke Bath
Repair and renovation of existing pub building and erection of a single storey extension to accommodate a new kitchen and stores area
Support: Following a site visit and review of the application details the Trust is pleased to support this application to repair and regenerate this very special old building. We acknowledge and accept the need for the pub to be a viable commercial business and that this brings particular challenges to the scheme. The level of proposed conservation work to the fabric of the building appears to outweigh the perceived harm from interventions such as the installation of the dumb waiter. We would support the case officer’s proposals for significant historic fabric to be repaired or restored like for like with traditional materials and craftsmanship (such as reclaimed stone, lathe & plaster) and for this work to be carried out where possible by conservation specialist builders. We are unsure as to what is proposed for the two old entrance doors but we would strongly recommend that they are repaired and conserved in –situ as they appear fully functional. The uncovering and restoration of the original fireplace and surround in the parlour is also supported.
We support a legible modern addition in the form of the kitchen extension, as this will restore the first floor rooms to their original proportions and allow for an appropriately equipped and modelled modern kitchen to fulfil the food offering which will be a key part of the business. The external materials for this extension are contemporary and will be easily read as such, providing a utilitarian and functional appearance that is contextually appropriate to the tradition of rural buildings in the surrounding rural area. We agree that the appearance and weathering performance of the metal roof will need careful consideration and samples should be handled and placed in situ to assess their visual impact against the historic elevation and the setting of the pub. We are pleased to learn that the blockwork in the basement is to be removed and a conservation grade membrane system installed to preserve the historic stone walls and aid their ability to breathe. We would recommend that care is taken to ensure the flooring in this area is an appropriate material to complement the function of the membrane and accommodate the underground water issues.
We agree with the Parish Council observations that the detail of external metal work and external lighting will need careful consideration, not least to be able to assess the impact of lighting on the surrounding rural village conservation area.
16/05538/LBA – Old Royal Oak St Ann’s Place Kingsmead Bath
Internal alterations to provide second floor pod-style bathrooms and bunk beds, replacement of the boiler and flue and installation of a wired fire alarm (Retrospective)
COMMENT: The Trust sincerely regrets the fact that these works were undertaken without permission or advice. Whilst the pods and bathrooms may be freestanding, the installation of services and such like and the structural bed fixings to wall may well have damaged historic fabric. This is a room of significant proportions and the pods will have harmed the ability to read this room as a whole. Additionally the external flue is an eyesore placed awkwardly in a highly visible location and should be replaced or painted in a recessive Bath stone colour. The surrounding hole should be filled with a lime mortar and/or rubblestone to repair the obvious damage done.
16/05598/AR – The Co-operative 2 – 3 Larkhall Buildings St Saviour’s Road Larkhall Bath
Display of 1no. internally illuminated Fascia sign. 1no. internally illuminated hanging sign. 7no. non illuminated wall mounted aluminium panels. 1no. non illuminated post mounted aluminium panel.
Comment: Whilst we consider the proposed changes to be an improvement on the garish colour and associated impact of the current signage, we regret that the Co op have not considered a traditional bespoke approach to signage in Bath and are not proposing hand sign painted wooden fascias or pin mounted lettering on wooden fascias. This aside, as we understand this is a Bath-wide rebranding exercise for Co op, we have a concern regarding the internal illumination proposed which is contrary to the provisions of the Guidance on Commercial Signage and Tables/Chairs in the Conservation Area. We would prefer to see a modest amount of external illumination, if any at all, and/or for the case officer to be satisfied that the lighting proposed is low level and sympathetic to the character of the surrounding historic streetscape and conservation area.
16/05457/LBA – Crown & Anchor 44 High Street Upper Weston Bath
Internal and external alterations to repaint the front elevation, alter floor position in unit 5 and install new skirting profiles different to those previously approved
Comment: The Trust would prefer to see the listed building returned to its original unpainted rubble stone and dressed stone appearance as proposed in the initial application. In addition we question the efficacy of painting a breathable paint layer over the current painted surface. It is not clear whether the existing paint layers are impermeable and whether they are causing any problems to the fabric of the building in terms of damp and water ingress. If they are the paint layers should be removed by a specialist contractor. If not, then the proposed repainting is considered acceptable if the case officer is happy with the retention of the painted facade.
Week 46 2016
16/05348/REG03 & 16/05349/REG13 – Bath Quays Bridge Green Park Road City Centre Bath
Demolition of existing building (Boiler House) and two (2) no. associated arches and provision of new bridge crossing of the river Avon for pedestrian and cycle use, including new public realm on the North and South river banks, landscaping, a new river wall and links to the existing highway network.
Comment: The Trust supports a new river connection in this key strategic location and we approve of the winning design which is a lightweight, organic structure that we see as responsive to its setting and an appropriate sculptural addition to the Bath Quays Waterside. We question the loss of several of the arches which do contribute to the sense of place of South Quays and are part of the historic character and story of the site. We would like to see further work undertaken to ascertain whether a larger number of the arches can be retained as part of the south bank landing.
The metal piling and concrete capping does not preserve or enhance the existing river wall, the setting of heritage assets on the site and to the east of the site (Bayer Building), nor the setting of the Conservation Area. Metal piling with concrete capping appears to be proposed for the entire length of the southern bank which will mean it will also replace the historic stone river bank wall and dock overhang adjacent to the former foundry yard at the western end of the site. The current absence of metal piling with concrete capping reinforces the unique local identity and character of this important historic industrial area of Bath and its relationship with the river and reinforces its sense of place. In this respect the cumulative harm of inappropriate works to traditional river bank details should not be underestimated.
If metal piling and concrete capping has to be used for new river walls we suggest it then needs to be faced with a natural stone wall to reinforce local character and distinctiveness.
16/05360/EVAR Former Ministry Of Defence Ensleigh Granville Road Lansdown Bath
Variation of condition 30 (plans list) of application 14/01853/EFUL (Full planning permission sought for the erection of 181 residential units (Use Class C3), a neighbourhood retail store of up to 267 sqm GIA (Use Class A1), associated highways works, infrastructure and public open space. Outline planning permission sought for a 72 unit Extra Care Facility (Use Class C3).)
We note that this application seeks permission to amend the outline consent for the Extra Care Facility and proposes a building with a segmented form, presented a series of “villas”. We note that the application seeks to increase the height of the three storey buildings on part of the site from 10.7m to 11.3m, with a lantern (tower) rising to 13m. The building height reduces two storeys 9m maximum as it extends to the NW of the site.
We recognise that the application seeks permission for the parameters of the development and is subject to further detailed planning permission. The Trust has been presented with evolving designs for comments. We are broadly supportive of the revised massing, layout and design. We are particularly pleased to see that the massing has been broken up, and feel that the articulation of park frontage is a successful solution that helps to reduce the bulk. The belvedere feature helps to strengthen local distinctiveness, but we would like the opportunity to comment further on this element of the design as it develops further. We would like to see this take a simple contemporary form rather than a historicised design.
We appreciate a design approach which recognises the semi-rural setting, and seeks to reduce the visual impact by placing two-storey rubble stone buildings on the northern edge of the site. We draw attention to the mews style buildings which are characteristic of the Lansdown area of Bath, in particular those located at Upper Lansdown Mews as a design cue for this element of the scheme.
We welcome the use of natural Bath stone in this location and would strongly encourage the use of natural slate on all pitched roofs.
16/05448/FUL & 16/05450/LBA – Cavendish House, Somerset Lane Lansdown
Internal and external alterations to convert the building back to residential use including new window and rooflight openings, replace internal walls, raise the height of the boundary wall, erect a balcony structure and a covered parking roof, provide solar shading to the large south facing windows, addition of a swimming pool and associated access, landscaping and parking
Comment: We regret that this application is to be considered separately to the other half of the property owned by different people but managed by the same architects. Our primary concern regarding the proposals centre around the impact of the appearance of the south and east elevations on the setting of the Grade I listed crescent. Without the benefit of a site visit to understand the contours of the land and the aspect of the building in relation to the crescent, we cannot comment meaningfully about this issue. We are concerned that the proposal for balconies on the southern elevation will introduce an increased element of human activity and overlooking that will change the character of this back land location, though again without the benefit of a site visit or a contextual image or drawing it is difficult to say how visible these additions (and the proposed swimming pool) would be.
16/05508/FUL & 16/05509/LBA – 18 Upper Camden Place Walcot Bath
Installation of proposed mansard roof and associated dormer windows to front and rear elevations
Object: The Trust objects to this application on the basis of overdevelopment of the listed building and subsequent harm to its special historic and architectural interest. Whilst we are sympathetic to the owners’ desire to increase living space, the level of change proposed constitutes substantial harm which is not outweighed by public benefit. This dwelling is part of an early 19th century terrace which steps down on the slope. Whilst we recognise there have been changes to roof profiles further up the terrace this dwelling is part of small group of buildings with a rhythmic and intended parapet low roof profile. The proposed changes will completely interrupt this roofline, tower above it (in particular the chimneys and gable ends) have an overbearing and incongruous impact and substantially change the character of this section of the terrace. As a result of the changes there would be substantial upper floor internal fabric interventions and loss of legible historic plan form which will again impact on the significance of the listed building.
The proposed scheme, by virtue of position, size, design and and loss of fabric, would harm the significance of the listed building, would neither preserve nor enhance the character and appearance of Conservation Area, 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; D4, BH2, BH6 of the B&NES Local Plan. We would therefore recommend that the application be amended or refused.
16/05397/AR – Co-Operative Retail Services Ltd 11 Wellsway Bath
Display of 3no. internally illuminated Fascia Sign, 1no. non-illuminated Fascia Sign, 1no. internally illuminated hanging sign and 1no. non-illuminated wall mounted aluminium panel.
Comment: Whilst we consider the proposed changes to be an improvement on the garish colour and associated impact of the current signage, we regret that the Co op have not considered a traditional bespoke approach to signage in Bath and are not proposing hand sign painted wooden fascia’s. This aside, as we understand this is a Bath-wide rebranding exercise for Co op, we have a concern regarding the internal illumination proposed which is contrary to the provisions of the Guidance on Commercial Signage and Tables/Chairs in the Conservation Area. We would prefer to see a modest amount of external illumination, if any all, and/or for the case officer to be satisfied that the lighting proposed is low level and sympathetic to the character of the surrounding streetscape.
Week 44 2016
16/05221/LBA – Belushi Bar St Christopher’s Inn 9 Green Street City Centre Bath
External alterations for the display of 2no. non-illuminated painted fascia signs and 2no non-illuminated hanging signs, following removal of existing signage. Paint existing ground floor window frames in cream to contrast with the signage.
Comment: The Trust supports this application on the basis that a traditionally sign-written wooden fascia is an appropriate treatment for signage on a listed building, within the conservation area and the World Heritage Site. We agree with Bath Heritage Watchdog that the repetitive sub-signage is excessive and should be reduced. We hope that with this proposal some conservation repair work to the elevation of the listed building will also occur. There is a tradition of hanging signs both in Green Street and Broad Street (and of course are normal to see with public houses) and therefore we also have no concerns regarding this part of the application.
16/05290/FUL – 3 Lilliput Court City Centre Bath
Erection of external canopy.
Comment: The Trust has concerns regarding the impact of this canopy structure on the setting of the listed building and the important historic street scene. It is slightly difficult to imagine the structure in-situ but it will probably completely ‘take over’ this small courtyard and intrude upon the elevations of the adjacent buildings in a way that will have a look of more permanency than the current arrangement and affect the ability to appreciate these historic elevations. We would urge the case officer to consult with the conservation planning team for their views on this and to consider the overall sensitive context of the proposal, and the impact on signage.
We would recommend that any permission granted in temporary so that the impact, condition and necessity of the awning can be reassessed.
16/05305/LBA & 16/05304/FUL – 1 Chapel Row City Centre Bath
Internal and external alterations for the creation of a new dwelling with an entrance off Princes Street, within the structure of 1 Chapel Row, utilising an unused basement, part office ground floor and new first floor extension.
Object: The Trust objects to this scheme on the basis of inadequate assessment and information. For a project proposing to alter the streetscape in this highly significant historic location, and to alter the appearance and setting of a Grade II listed building by John Wood the Elder, we would expect to see a Heritage report examining the historical development of the buildings, a Heritage Impact Assessment and further more detailed drawings to show the proposed new building in 3D and in context within Chapel Row and Princes Street, as well as information on how the building will appear when glimpsed from Queen Square. We also disagree with the assessment that the building has medium historic and evidential value; we would assert that the building has high historic and evidential value, being a part of the group ensemble of Queen Square (albeit Chapel Row is a ‘side street’), the first Palladian buildings in Bath, built by the noted architect. That they are ‘low status’ buildings is not relevant as they still hold high value in terms of their ability to recount historical and evidential stories and their connections to an important time and personality in Bath’s history. In addition we have concerns regarding the design and placement of the entrance door to the new dwelling, its proximity to the historic doorway is awkward and intrusive and detracts from the significance of the historic door.
As it stands at the moment the impact of the proposals contained within the application cannot be properly assessed due to lack of information and therefore is contrary to the NPPF which clearly states that when assessing planning applications the level of detail contained in the application should be proportionate to the asset’s significance. This is further detailed in para 132 of the NPPF regarding the impact of development and how significance can be lost or harmed through alteration of the asset or development within its setting. We recommend the application is withdrawn or placed on hold until further information is submitted.
16/05255/FUL – 69 Frome Road Odd Down Bath
Erection of 1no. dwelling in existing garden.
Comment: We find the information and assessment submitted with this application to be inadequate to fully understand the impact of the proposal on the local streetscape. In particular there is no information on trees or landscaping and no contextual views to judge how the scheme will sit on its plot. It appears to be an awkward long thin site, with a building ‘shoehorned’ in. Given it is adjacent to an exceptionally busy junction we would expect to details regarding safe access/ingress and traffic noise mitigation. We urge the case officer to request more detailed drawings and an improved Design and Access Statement in order to fully understand the proposal and its potential impacts in an important gateway location to the World Heritage City.
16/05272/LBA – Unit 1 Proposed Development Site Between Lidl And Waterside Court Lower Bristol Road Westmoreland Bath
External work to display signage to front and side elevations
Comment: The Trust has been in discussion with the case officer regarding this and other related applications regarding this unit. Our concerns lie in the lack of a ‘joined-up’ approach to the signage on this listed building. We understand that three different businesses will occupy this part of the building, and we understand the need for signage to attract and inform customers. However there runs the risk of excessive and intrusive signage on each elevation which will have a harmful impact on the special architectural interest of the listed building; namely the ability to appreciate the Mero spaceframe roof. We see the opportunity for the roadside totem (recently submitted as a planning application) to form the main part of the signage for the businesses within the business park. Therefore we would urge the case officer to refuse the Carpetright signage at very least on the street elevation and to bring all the parties together in a discussion about the best way forward for both the necessary advertising of the businesses, the preservation of the special interest of the listed building and the retention of the character and appearance of the local streetscape.
Week 43 2016
16/05035/FUL – 21 North Road Combe Down Bath
Erection of a double storey extension to side, a single storey porch extension to front of existing dwelling, a timber veranda across rear of dwelling and installation of veluxrooflights (Resubmission).
Comment: The Trust regrets the proposal to ‘unbalance’ the proportions of this semi-detached pair with the side extension, though we recognise this is a revision of a previous application. Our main concern however is the proposal for a timber cladding to the side extension. We do not regard timber cladding as a suitable material in a suburban environment such as this, particularly on the front elevation of a building on a prominent main road. It is not part of the classic Bath materials palette and would have an incongruous appearance contrary to the character of this area. We would suggest the use of Bath stone cladding or high quality Bath stone coloured render to enable the extension to harmonise with the host building.
16/05148/LBA – 9 Lower Camden Place Walcot Bath
Internal and external alterations to include the removal of WC located in undercroft, forming a new WC at basement level, converting remaining basement into a utility space, renewal of services and measures to increase ventilation to basement floor, replacement of modern external door and fixed casement window to basement.
Comment: As usual the Trust comments that the boiler flue and extract vents proposed should be in a recessive grey or cream colour to blend in with the Bath stone facade; rather than black which will intrude upon the elevation.
16/05094/FUL – Beechen Cliff School Kipling Avenue Bear Flat
Extend bank southwards using existing on site spoil heap to create wider playing field.
Comment: The Trust finds the current information relating to these proposals to be inadequate to make a proper assessment of the impact. Of particular note is the fact that these fields are an important visual part of the landscape in the World Heritage site. We are concerned at the absence of any information on the impact of this intervention on long views into the site. The Planning Statement merely states that the strip of green grass in views will be maintained but not if there will be any visible changes from the current way the fields appear (this could be solved by the provision of 3D contextual views – from Wellsway and Greenway Lane – of the new bank and the associated fields). In addition we would expect to see more detailed information on quantities involved, time scale, method statement and a final landscaping plan. We also find it hard to believe that the works will be achieved with on-site arisings and would recommend that calculations should be supplied for this.
Whilst we do not usually comment on neighbour amenity issues, the lack of information also impairs the ability to assess the impact of the new bank on the neighbouring properties below and particularly the setting of the listed Greenway Lodge.
The applicant should be required to submit additional information in support of this application. We would welcome the opportunity to comment on this application when such information is available.
Week 42 2016
16/04942/AR – 26 Stall Street City Centre Bath
Display of 1no. externally illuminated Fascia Sign & 1no. Hanging Sign.
The Trust objects to this application on the basis of illumination, hanging sign and fascia materials. Bath is a low illuminated heritage city, and we question the possible impact of the proposed external illumination on the special interest of the listed building and the character of the conservation area. Instead of white pin mounted foamex letters we would prefer to see traditional hand painted signage on a wooden fascia board, this would give the signage a more high quality appearance in keeping with the character of the World Heritage Site, especially given that this is a prime shop front. We also object to the provision of a hanging sign as there is very little precedent for this in Stall Street, parts of which are a highly significant ‘set piece’ architectural group. Such a sign would intrude upon and clutter the principle elevation of the listed building, and would do the same in long views up and down the important street. We strongly urge this harmful element to be removed from the application.
We are also concerned to note the absence of a listed building application for the works to the shop front, and we object to the proposed changes to install a door in the existing window opening. No historical report of heritage impact assessment has been provided to detail the significance of the shop front, its age or its history, nor the impact of the proposed new door opening on the overall architectural significance of the listed building.
The proposed scheme, by virtue of illumination and materials, harms the significance of the listed building, would neither preserve nor enhance the character and appearance of Conservation Area, would 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, BH6, BH19 and BH22 of the B&NES Local Plan. We would therefore recommend that the application be refused.
Designed by Ice House Design