Sep – Oct 2016

October 2016

Week 41 2016

16/04323/LBA – The Curfew 11 Cleveland Place West Walcot Bath

External alterations to replace illuminated and non-illuminated signs to the exterior of the building.

Object: The Trust objects to this application on the basis of inappropriate fascia materials and excessive illumination. We opposed to the use of aluminium as a fascia board and would suggest that the fascia is a traditional wooden version with handpainted signage or individually cut pin mounted metal lettering. Whilst understanding that public houses have a justification for some external lighting, the 4.no trough lights and the further 4 lanterns represents overkill and would therefore be harmful to the special interest of listed building and the local street scene (already well lit by street lighting). We regret the loss of the pictorial image on the hanging sign.

The proposed scheme, by virtue of illumination and materials, harm the significance of the listed building g, 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.

16/04826/FUL & 16/04827/LBA – Fitzroy House 55 – 59 Great Pulteney Street Bathwick

Internal and external alterations to Include: reinstatement of area steps to No. 55 & addition of area steps to the East side of No.59 and associated alterations to railings and installation of gate; enlarge window openings at sub-basement level to Nos. 55,56 & 59 with associated reinstatement of light wells at basement level; add stone/glass balustrade to roof terrace of No.57; fit new entrance door and side screens to rear entrance to No.59. Conversion and refurbishment of property to create 29 no. residential apartments

Comment: We recently undertook a visit with the agent to gain a better understanding of the building and the impact of the proposed alterations. The Trust is always keen to conduct site visits as this provides much more information with which to be able to properly assess the proposals.

We are broadly supportive of the proposed scheme and the stated intention to achieve conservation benefits where possible. In particular we support the removal of late 20th century additions such as stud walling and other interventions and the plan to restore some original plan form to some parts of the houses. We note and commend the decorative detail audit and where possible we strongly recommend the further uncovering of historic detailing.  We wonder whether any provision has been made to investigate the possible removal of the lowered ceilings in those flats with principal rooms in order to uncover any existing historic cornice or ceiling roses?  We note that there are possibly original floor boards in some areas of the site and we would urge the case officer to ensure these are conserved.

We regret that the application lacks any provision for improving the thermal performance of the building. We notice that the building has shutters throughout that are not in a good state of repair and in working order. We would like to see these repaired and brought back into use especially where secondary glazing is being removed.

We object to the proposed studio flat use of the attractive large garden room; as a highly legible surviving remnant of the original architectural design of the house, we cannot accept an intervention on the scale proposed. Even if the mezzanine is lightweight and reversible, it still dramatically alters the proportions of the room and the ability to view and appreciate its overall architectural qualities. There would need to be some studwork to provide the lobby area which would in part subdivide the room. A large proportion of the special value of this room stems from the very large picture windows and a mezzanine would cut through these and be highly intrusive.  We would suggest that this room be conserved and left as is as a communal resource; for example it could be hired out for uses which benefit residents such as leisure activities or clubs.

We have no objection in principle regarding the provision of a stone staircase and entrance gate to the front elevation; as always our proviso is the necessity for high quality traditional materials and craftsmanship on a like for like basis. At the rear we have a concern about the installation of ventilation terminals and would firstly say that these should be situated as unobtrusively as possible on side walls (and preferably not within historic fabric) and secondly that these terminals should be a recessive grey or cream colour so that they do not stand out on the Bath stone facade.

On a final note we would expect to see a Heritage Impact Report for a project of this scale, which would assist in understanding the overall survival of historic fabric and the level of impact proposed for each room and/or detail – this could also assist in understanding where there is a positive impact on the fabric which better reveals the overall significance of the asset.

16/04836/LBA – 11 Lansdown Place East Lansdown Bath

Internal and external alterations to replace external doors, install extractor fans, create a new bathroom at basement level, remove a partition wall, block up 2no internal doorways, repair the roof covering, floors and ceilings

Comment: The Trust is keen to understand the impact of the proposed works to the ground floor rooms. The applicant states that the wall between kitchen and sitting room is non-original and would like to ‘knock through’ between the two rooms. We would suggest that further justification (and perhaps further historic information) is requested on this element, as the removal of this wall, whether original or of later construction, would result in the possible loss of historic plan form. We understand that most of the houses in the terrace have retained the original division between the ground floor rooms. If the applicant can justify this intervention (for example, perhaps by providing proof that there were doors originally) this would help assess this element of the scheme.

The trap door approach to the cellar is worrying in respect of the necessary ventilation of this area and its maintenance. We also note the existence of the historic well and pump in the front vaults and would expect these to be conserved and left as is (with regular maintenance inspections).

As always we comment that any new ventilation terminals should be placed in a sympathetic location and should be a recessive grey or cream colour to blend in with and not intrude upon the Bath stone facade.

16/04878/FUL & 16/04879/LBA 21 Victoria Buildings Westmoreland Bath

Erection of new extension following demolition of existing rear extension, replacement of aluminium windows with timber and revisions to the internal layout.

Support: We welcome the proposal to replace the front elevation metal windows with hardwood timber sash windows. The reinstatement of traditional sash windows will help to enhance the architectural interest of the listed building and will have a positive impact on the character of the surrounding Conservation Area.

16/04861/FUL – Kennet House Sydney Road Bathwick

Erection of single storey rear and side extension and a two storey garage following demolition of existing. Replace timber fence with stone wall.

Comment: Whilst there may be scope for a modest extension here, we are particularly concerned about the height, position and design of the extension as proposed. The position of the new extension is too far forward against the original building, especially at first floor level. We consider that the gabled section as proposed diminishes the architectural significance of the original composition of the listed building, and compromises the decorated gable end and the chimney stacks which form part of the interest of the building. We have similar concerns relating to the arched recessed door to the front as this visually competes with the main entrance.  We feel that the extension should harmonise both architecturally and in materiality with the listed building but should not ‘compete’ decoratively or architecturally with it therefore it should be plainer and more legible as a sympathetic modern addition.

Week 40 2016

16/04845/DLPAO & 16/04823/LBA Bath Spa Railway Station Dorchester Street Bath

Prior approval for platform widening and associated works in connection with the electrification of the Great Western Main Line (Bath Spa Railway Station MLN1 106M 71Ch)

Comments: The Trust is broadly supportive of the proposed platform works and the chosen method to widen the platform, in particular we support the use of a reversible, lightweight and mainly non-interventionist solution which will also ensure that the important platform canopy is unaltered.  The choice of the arrangement for the black brick cladding (either for English bond or stacked) for the platform riser is important and we suggest that sample panels are placed in situ so that the visual appearance of both can be assessed within its setting before a decision is made by the case officer.

We are concerned that this application is not comprehensive or accompanied by similar applications for the further works proposed around the station, namely the Skew Bridge, St James’ Bridge and Viaduct, as we see these as a group composition. There is a risk with the processing of ad hoc proposals that the lack of ability to review a whole suite of works means that cumulative harm to the overall group significance could be underestimated.

We regret that the proposed signage for the station platforms does not include the logo for the World Heritage Site. BPT and the World Heritage Steering Group has been working with NR and B&NES for some time on the design for new signage which includes the logo, and  etched decals of the logo to be applied to the modern glazed doors. We would urge the LPA to encourage the applicant to submit these details as part of this DLPAO, and would like to be kept informed if any supplementary information is submitted.

16/04704/FUL& 16/04705/LBA – 159 Church Road Combe Down Bath

Partial demolition of rear extension and side extension, removal of internal walls and doors. Erection of new walls, doors and carport, reinstatement of balcony to front elevation.

COMMENT: The Trust welcomes the works to rationalise and reverse some of the 20th century additions to this attractive villa.  However we are concerned at the proposal to add a car port adjacent to and directly abutting the front elevation.  Part of the character and significance of this building is the classical symmetrical frontage. Adding an intrusive addition that sits flush to the main elevation would have a harmful impact on the architectural interest of the listed building and the ability to appreciate the intended design and classical proportions of the front elevation. At the very least the car port should be set quite far back from the front wall of the building or better still left out of the application. We would also urge the case officer to insist upon the use of natural Bath ashlar rather than recon stone on the rear structures.

16/04717/FUL – 12 Claremont Road Larkhall Bath

Erection of 1no. detached dwelling with detached garage to the rear of No.12 Claremont Road and provision of new garage to existing dwelling (Resubmission)

Object: The Trust is concerned that this new build could substantially increase the presence of a built form on this site and also its impact on this section of the conservation area, the setting of other buildings and local green space. However it has been difficult to assess the extent and type of impact this building may have due to the lack of adequate detailed information, including a contextual street elevation. The application makes no assessment of the particular character of the conservation area in this location, nor the impact of the development on the nearby currently undeveloped garden belt, and the non-designated heritage assets such as Eastville Terrace and the larger villas on Claremont Road.

We would urge the case officer to insist upon the submission of further contextual assessment that should adequately justify the proposal and show how harm to local character and distinctiveness has been mitigated. We would also comment that given development has already occurred on this site in the form of garages, a more appropriate and less intrusive style of building would be one storey.

Due to the absence of information to be able to adequately assess and justify this scheme and its potential impacts on the surrounding environment, the proposal is currently 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 BH6 and should be placed on hold until further information is received.

Week 38 and 39 2016

16/04392/FUL – 39 Milsom Street City Centre Bath

Use of the public highway for the siting of 5no tables, 10no chairs and 2no planters.

Object: The Trust has strong concerns about the placement of tables and chairs in front of this significant historic asset. Milsom Street is an historic premier shopping street and this shopping function gives it a specific local character and distinctiveness; that of vitality and animation derived from high quality shop frontages and the swift movements of shoppers up and down the street. We understand that areas of the city area are appropriate for a  ‘cafe culture’ atmosphere but we do not support any move towards this in Milsom Street as this is at odds with the urban grain of the street.  The tables and chairs would clutter and intrude upon the principal elevation of this Grade II* listed building, and particularly have a harmful impact on the ability to appreciate the finely decorated and rusticated bow frontage and the overall composition of Somersetshire Buildings. The furniture would also intrude into the public realm in this busy pedestrian area where the public wait for the park and ride buses.  But in particular tables and chairs in this highly visible location would intrude upon and detract from the sweeping views up and down the street that provide an uninterrupted panorama of the harmonious and elegant Georgian streetscape.

The proposed scheme, by virtue of the proposed tables and chairs, would detract from the special historic and architectural interest of the designated heritage asset and nearby listed buildings, would neither preserve nor enhance the character and appearance of the conservation area and detract from the special qualities of the World Heritage site. It would also detract from the visual amenity value of this important public realm. 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; BH2, BH6, D4, of the B&NES Local Plan. We would therefore recommend that the application be refused.

16/04604/LBA – 5 Nelson Place East Walcot Bath

Proposed removal of defective render and repairs to stonework

Comment: The Trust is very concerned to see that the applicant proposes to cover the exposed ground floor stone work with a clear impermeable sealant. This approach negates the conservation benefits of the proposed lime mortar repairs. After removal of cement render, the stonework should be left as is to ‘breathe’, perhaps with a protective lime wash, as this is the most effective way to ensure the building materials function as they should do, and prevent water ingress.

16/04525/AR – Development Site Between Lidl And Waterside Court Lower Bristol Road Westmoreland

Installation of 6m High Illuminated Totem

Object: The Trust objects to this application on the basis of the excessive height and illumination of this totem and its intrusion into and cluttering of the local street scene. We also question the necessity of the sign given there are only 4 units in this ‘retail park’ and there is also signage relating to Pets at Home and Lidl sites very close by, therefore running the risk of cluttering and devaluing the public realm in this area. The totem is located practically underneath a street light and so we question the need for any illumination. We find that 580cd/m is a high level of luminance and this level of light again will intrude into the local street scene.

Should the case officer be minded to permit we would recommend that attention is paid to the already permitted signage on and near the adjacent listed building and consider the impact of these numerous signs AND the pylon signage on the character of the local area and the listed building. At the very least the totem height and size should be reduced. The proposed scheme by virtue of illumination would have a harmful impact on the architectural interest of the listed building and to the visual amenity value of the local area. The proposal is contrary to, Section 12 ‘Conserving and Enhancing the Historic Environment’ of the NPPF, B&NES Core Strategy polices; B1, B4 and CP6, and ‘Saved’ Local Plan Policies D2, D4, BH2, BH17 and BH22 and should be refused.

16/04552/FUL – Northgate House Upper Borough Walls City Centre

Erection of new entrance on northern elevation with replacement of all existing windows following removal of existing entrance

Object: We are concerned that the proposed re-fenestration only covers around half of the windows and there is not a ‘whole building’ approach to the works. We have no concerns with the proposed new windows and agree that a recessive grey window scheme will modernise and smarten the appearance of this highly visible city centre building.  The proximity to the setting of extremely important heritage assets such as the Abbey means that any works to the elevations of this building should ensure that there are no harmful impacts on the visual amenity value of the area.  The proposal will mean that the building will have half new and half old windows of different colourings and transom arrangements.  This will detract from the appearance of the building and make it appear poorly designed, disordered and confused, especially given the blank modernity of the facades. As such the scheme as it stands would be harmful to the character and appearance of the local area and the setting of heritage assets. We urge the case officer to seek to achieve a whole building solution.

The proposed scheme, by virtue of its appearance, would have an adverse impact on the setting of nearby listed buildings, would neither preserve nor enhance the character and appearance of the conservation area and would therefore harm the visual amenity value of this part of 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, BH1, BH6 of the B&NES Local Plan. We would therefore recommend that the application in its current form be refused.

Week 37 2016

16/04380/FUL – 2A Rivers Street Place City Centre Bath

Provision of replacement windows to front elevation.

Object: The Trust objects to this proposal on the basis that uPVC is not an acceptable material for use within the conservation area and World Heritage Site.  It is not sustainable in its manufacture or disposal and it produces a low quality aesthetic that is at odds with the traditional character of timber fenestration in the city. Whilst we understand the desire for longevity in terms of the performance of the windows and their easy maintenance, there are other materials that could provide this performance whilst also respecting the tradition of timber windows in Bath.  For example pressure treated hardwood timber windows have similar properties to uPVC but maintain an appearance that is in harmony with the local context.

The proposed scheme, by virtue of the proposed materials, would harm the special historic and architectural interest of the non-designated heritage asset and nearby listed buildings, would neither preserve nor enhance the character and appearance of the conservation area and detract from the special qualities of 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, BH1, BH6 of the B&NES Local Plan. We would therefore recommend that the application be refused.

16/03885/LBA – Great Dell Drive Through Royal Victoria Park Lower Weston Bath  

External alterations for the cleaning and re-lettering of the Shakespeare Monument

Comment: The Trust is uncomfortable with the idea of re-chiselling the lettering on this monument, though we understand the need to ensure the monument is legible as the wording is one of the main reasons for its existence.  If the case officer is minded to permit, we suggest perhaps that controlled cleaning of the monument should occur first, by sample panels, then after that it would be clear to what extent there needs to be re cutting of letters and any re-pointing in lime mortar required.  The condition of the stonework needs to be borne in mind, if friable the proposal to re-cut would not appear a good idea. We would also suggest that sample panels of re-cutting are also agreed.

16/04352/AR – The Co-operative Widcombe Wharf Widcombe Hill Widcombe

Display of 1no. internally illuminated hanging sign, 1no. non illuminated hanging sign and 3no.vinyl signs

Object: The Trust objects to this application on the basis of the proposed illumination and materials. We do not regard aluminium composite or bright window vinyls as appropriate signage materials within a sensitive historic high street within the World Heritage site. We would always recommend that national companies adopt a bespoke approach to signage in the Bath, given the special qualities of the city.  We would recommend that the hanging signs are hand painted timber and that the use of wooden signpainted fascias over the shop entrance would improve the appearance of the business. We do not see the need for any external illumination as the hanging sign in question is located underneath a street lamp.

The proposed scheme, by virtue of the proposed materials and illumination would detract from the special historic and architectural interest and setting of nearby listed buildings (including the setting of the adjacent White Hart pub), would neither preserve nor enhance the special character and appearance of the conservation area and therefore harm the visual amenity value of this part of the World Heritage site. The scheme would be contrary to the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas Act) 1990, Section 12 (Conserving and enhancing the historic environment) of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), policies; B1, B2, B4, CP6 of the B&NES Core Strategy and saved polices; D2, BH1, BH6, BH17, BH19 of the B&NES Local Plan. We would therefore recommend that the application be refused.

16/04496/FUL – Land At Rear Of 2 To 4 Long Acre London Road Walcot Bath

Erection of 3 no. dwellings and associated works

Object: The Trust objects to this proposed scheme on the grounds of overdevelopment of this backland plot.  Whilst we support the delivery of housing on brownfield infill sites within Bath, this scheme appears to subsume the site and leave no memory of the historic gardens that give a strong communal significance to the site. The delivery of ideally one dwelling, possibly two, would ease the impression of a ‘shoehorned’ scheme that overtakes this small plot and juts it up closely to neighbouring properties (who it appears rightly have a number of neighbour amenity concerns). In this respect the building does not respond to its local context nor enhance local distinctiveness. The lack any open space would result in poor residential amenity for its future occupants. We have no concerns regarding a high quality contemporary design nor the proposed materials though we would always recommend that timber cladding be of a wood species that weathers to a silver grey in keeping with the Bath palette.

The proposed scheme, by virtue of over development, and loss of gardens, would harm the visual amenity value of the townscape, have an adverse impact on the setting of nearby listed buildings of architectural and historic significance, and would neither preserve nor enhance the character and appearance of the conservation area and detract from the special qualities of 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; D4, BH6, of the B&NES Local Plan. We would therefore recommend that the application be refused.

16/04524/AR – Cake Cafe 2 Southgate Street Bath

Display of 1no. externally illuminated fascia sign and 1no. externally illuminated projecting sign, replacing existing from previous retail unit within Southgate Street to new retail unit.

Object: The Trust objects to this scheme on the basis of the intensity of illumination. The initial extant permitted illumination for the previous site in Southgate was 80cd/m halo lit for the fascia sign, and 300cd/m for projecting sign. The proposal now is for 1000cd/m fascia & 750cd/m projecting. This increase in intensity can only be harmful to the character and appearance of the conservation area. We accept that the character of the Southgate scheme is different to that of the historic shopping areas of Bath, however this level of luminance can only result in garish overkill that will produce a low quality aesthetic. This would be at odds with the spirit of the Southgate Guidance for Shopfront Design which strives to ensure that centre remains a ‘high quality retail experience’ with an ‘outstanding environment’. We strong recommend that the lighting intensity is decreased substantially.

The proposed scheme, by virtue of the level of illumination would have an adverse impact in the high visual amenity value of the area, and harm the character and appearance of this part of the conservation area and detract from the special qualities of 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; BH1, BH6, BH19 and BH22 of the B&NES Local Plan. We would therefore recommend that the application be refused.

 

September 2016

Week 36 2016

16/04224/AR & 16/04225/LBA – Saracen’s Head 42 Broad Street City Centre Bath

Display of 2 no. externally illuminated fascia signs, 2 no. history boards, 2 no. internally illuminated display cases, 1 no. door plaque, 5 no. chalk boards, 2 no. externally illuminated hanging signs, 3 no. lanterns and 2 no. window vinyls.

Object: The Trust objects to this application on the basis of inappropriate materials, excessive illumination and a general concern regarding the impact of cumulative clutter on this significant listed building. Our concerns are as follows:

  • Fascias – we object to the use of aluminium and glass as these are not appropriate fascia materials within Bath. We would recommend that wooden fascia’s are traditionally hand painted and sign written; an approach that would work well with the special historic interest of the listed building.
  • We question the proposal to use brass cills and wonder how this will impact visually on the elevation and current fabric of the building?
  • Illumination: in general the amount of illumination appears excessive. Whilst we accept that some form of external illumination is acceptable for a public house, the abundance of internal and external illumination should be toned down somewhat to mitigate the low quality effect.
  • We question whether the current lanterns need replacing with the etched glass brass versions? The current black lantern on the Broad Street elevation appears to harmonise with the listed building in both colour and style so we question its loss.
  • Clutter – we find the proposals for a large amount of blackboards and attached signage to be excessive, this includes the provision of history boards which could easily be placed within the pub or in the entrance vestibule area. This low quality clutter intrudes upon the principle elevations and therefore harms special historic and architectural interest of the listed building.The proposed scheme, by virtue of the means of illumination and materials, would harm the significance of the listed building , 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, BH4, BH6, BH17 and BH22 of the B&NES Local Plan.  We would therefore recommend that the application be refused.Erection of replacement and refurbished illuminated and non illuminated signs to the exterior of the building.The proposed scheme, by virtue of illumination and materials, harm the significance of the listed building g, would 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.Non illuminated aluminium fascia panels with fabricated aluminium Specsavers POD and flat aluminium letters reading Opticians & Audiologists. Fabricated wooden non illuminated projection sign with vinyl decoration and steel bracket.The proposed scheme, by virtue of 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 and BH19 of the B&NES Local Plan.  We would therefore recommend that the application be refused.Erection of 115 No. bed spaces of purpose built student accommodation (sui generis) and associated communal and ancillary facilitiesThe Trust strongly believes that this site, due to its location and long term potential, would suit residential units for key workers and young professionals. We are, as usual, very concerned at the proposed use of city centre land for the provision of student accommodation over the wider responsibility for the provision of much needed housing supply.16/04159/FUL – Baskervilles Gymnastics & Fitness Englishcombe Court Englishcombe Lane SouthdownComment: The Trust is concerned that there is no detailed Landscaping Plan accompanying this application. We accept that the applicant has indicated in the Design and Access Statement that they wish to provide additional landscaping but given the importance of this green space to the local area and in long views into and from the site, we would expect that a formal plan should include details of landscape and mitigation measures to shield the new parking area. We would also expect that the proposed extension could be used to take the opportunity to review the materials for this building and perhaps introduce some contemporary materials (such as high quality timber cladding) to soften the semi-industrial appearance of the building.16/04166/LBA – 6 Caroline Place Walcot BathComment: As always the Trust recommends that the boiler flue is supplied in a cream or recessive grey colour in order for this external addition to blend in with the Bath stone elevation.Internal and external alterations to convert care home into 1no flat and 1no townhouseWeek 34 2016Use of the public highway for the siting of 6no tables and 24no chairs to the front elevation.The proposed scheme, by virtue of its appearance and number would harm the special historic and architectural interest of the listed buildings, and would detract from the special character and appearance of the conservation area and therefore the World Heritage site. The scheme would be contrary to the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas Act) 1990, Section 12 (Conserving and enhancing the historic environment) of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), policies; B1,B2, B4, CP6 of the B&NES Core Strategy and saved polices; D2, BH1, BH2, BH6 of the B&NES Local Plan. We would therefore recommend that the application be refused.Internal alterations and external decorations and repairs16/03946/AR & 16/03947/LBA – 12 Union Street City Centre Bath Objection: The Trust would recommend that the applicant is encouraged to sign paint the wooden fascia rather than reface it in aluminium which is not an appropriate fascia material in Bath and the WHS. We would also comment that there is a proposal to install an awning for which there are no details. Such an addition could cause harm to the listed building and its fabric and should be properly detailed and justified in the application. We object to the proposed use of window vinyls which constitutes advertising overkill and would clutter and therefore harm the elevation of the listed building. As usual we always recommend that national companies adopt a thoughtful and bespoke approach to shopfronts and signage in Bath.16/04055/FUL& 16/04056/LBA – 7 Bathwick Hill Bathwick Bath Comment:  The Trust has no ‘in principle’ concerns about a contemporary replacement to the extension to this listed building, especially as we feel that the glazing may give the extension a ‘lighter touch’ transparency in daylight that will assist in allowing it blend with the host building in the important long views to the site. We have concerns regarding the size proposed, and wonder whether the extension should significantly break with the back building line of this villa so far out from the rear wall. It is not easy to assess the impact of the extension within long views from the Bath skyline, Beechen Cliff or other viewpoints and we strongly urge the case officer to request a landscape visual impact assessment from the applicants. This could take the form of images of the villa taken from these vantage points; the visibility of the current conservatory being a marker for the minimum amount of visibility of the proposed extension.We also have concerns as to the appearance of the proposed ‘brise soleil’ in practice, close to and in long views into the site, as it will be quite a large expanse of – possibly reflective – metal. As it faces south/south west this is a significant consideration. Without the benefit of a site visit and sample materials it is difficult for us to judge this element and assume that the case officer will spend some time considering its impact. We also note the way the brise soleil extends over the rear façade of the original villa and consider it may be appropriate to confine it to the rear and side facades of the extension rather than including this return against the main house.  We have no concerns regarding the removal of the porch and we support the plans to upgrade the two storey extension and add a roof as this will enhance the special interest of the listed building.16/04114/AR – Villa Magdala Hotel Henrietta Road BathwickComment: Whilst the Trust understands the need to direct visitors to their establishment, we have an in principle objection to the use of internal illumination for signage. We trust that the case officer will review the impact of this signage on the character of the local area and the adjacent buildings to ensure that the proposed signage does no harm.Exterior alterations to attach a metal plaqueThe proposed scheme, by virtue of the proposed position would harm the special 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, BH1, BH2, BH6 of the B&NES Local Plan.  We would therefore recommend that the application be refused.16/03968/LBA – 36 – 37 Milsom Street City Centre Bath Object: The Trust has considered this application carefully and we have concluded that we cannot understand why the applicant does not wish to enact the extant permission to lower the cills of the windows on the street elevation. We have reached the conclusion that we cannot see a public benefit to the proposed work to create a doorway in this highly significant frontage, and nor is there, in our opinion a pressing commercial need. If the cills are lowered, the stonework below restored to a rusticated ashlar blockwork and the fanlight revealed to provide extra light and visibility, we see this as sufficient to achieve the ‘opening up’ of the shop required by the applicant. Whilst we understand that over time works have altered the original arrangement of this overall frontage, and the approved scheme maintains the composition of the façade as it were originally designed, albeit with lowered cills. We cannot support further change that will impact on the special architectural interest of this listed building.  It is minor incremental change such as this which over time and cumulatively can result in loss of significance.16/03971/AR – Pt First Second & Third Floors Beazer House Lower Bristol Road Westmoreland Bath Object: The Trust objects to the illumination of the logo and the proposed strident colour of the fascia. Bath is a low illuminated city and illuminated signage produces a low quality aesthetic that is potentially harmful to the character and appearance of the local area. The proposed scheme will provide a garish, stand out statement that is inappropriate within the WHS, close to the city centre and it would impact on nearby listed buildings. We also regret the loss of the Beazer House name which provides an historic 20th century reference.
  • The proposed scheme, by virtue of its appearance and illumination would harm the visual amenity value of the area, harm the special architectural interest and setting of nearby listed buildings, and would detract from the OUV of 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 and BH22 of the B&NES Local Plan. We would therefore recommend that the application be refused.
  • Change of fascia frontage from “Beazer House” to internally illuminated L&C logo and installation of 2no direction signposts on grass to front of building
  • The insertion of a door into the facade of this significant listed building would harm the special architectural interest of the building and the overall group composition, would fail to preserve or enhance this part of the Bath Conservation Area, and could contribute to cumulative harm to the OUV of the WHS. It is therefore contrary to the Planning (Listed Building and Conservation Areas) Act 1990, Section 12 (Conserving and enhancing the historic environment) of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), policies; and saved policy BH.1 and BH.2 B&NES Local Plan.  We would therefore recommend that the application be refused.
  • Internal and external alterations to replace window with double doors on front elevation and amend existing opening to entrance doors
  • Week 33 2016
  • Objection; The Trust objects to this application on the basis that were are concerned about the cumulative effect of numerous wall plaques across Bath. This particular one appears to be awkwardly placed high on the facade and we are also concerned regarding the harm to historic fabric from the fixings. We believe wall plaques clutter and intrude upon the principle elevations of buildings and this is certainly the case with this application. We would suggest at the very least that a better location is sought for this proposed plaque, perhaps placed near the recently permitted internal plaque.
  • 16/04104/LBA – Green  Park Station Green Park Road City Centre
  • Display of 1no.internally illuminated freestanding box sign
  • We note that extensive paintwork and render have been applied to the whole villa and do not recollect a LBA for this or the bronzing treatment to the stone nameplate on the front façade
  • Of particular concern is the issue of light spill from the heavily glazed extension in winter and at night time and again we recommend that this issue is fully examined by the case officer, and light spill mitigation in the form of film coating to the glazing or other appropriate technology or solution is considered.
  • Erection of single storey rear extension and internal and external alterations.
  • The proposed scheme, by virtue of the proposed aluminium fascia, awning and window vinyls would harm the special historic and architectural interest of the listed buildings, and would detract from the special character and appearance of the conservation area and therefore the World Heritage site. The scheme would be contrary to the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas Act) 1990, Section 12 (Conserving and enhancing the historic environment) of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), policies; B1,B2, B4, CP6 of the B&NES Core Strategy and saved polices; D2, BH1, BH2, BH6, BH17, BH19 of the B&NES Local Plan. We would therefore recommend that the application be refused.
  • Display of non illuminated fascia signs, window vinyl brand graphics and 1no non illuminated projecting sign
  • Comment: The Trust is concerned regarding the lack of detail contained in this application. This is a significant listed building of particular note for its pre-Georgian age and appearance. We would expect any proposals to repair or clean the stonework to be accompanied by a full specification of works by a reputable conservation stone cleaning contractor. We would expect the same for the proposed repair works to the windows. There is little information on what is proposed externally except for notes on the elevation drawing and we would urge the case officer to ensure that the exact details of the works are specified in greater detail to ensure that there is no harm to the special architectural and historic interest of the listed building or its fabric.
  • 16/03828/LBA – Saracen’s Head 42 Broad Street City Centre Bath
  • Objection: The Trust feels that the number of tables and chairs requested here is excessive, given the location of the business and its high visibility within a street scene largely uncluttered by furniture. We are also concerned about the impact of this furniture on the setting of the highly significant North Parade group composition and question whether listed building consent should not also be sought by the applicant so that a proper judgement of heritage impact can be considered. We understand the applicant’s desire to have some seating outside but question whether this type of low quality seating is appropriate for this area characterised by elegant Georgian terraces and formal gardens and on a main gateway junction to the city centre.
  • 15/01751/FUL – Lambrettas Bar & Bistro 8 North Parade City Centre Bath
  • Comment: The Trust would recommend as always that the air grilles and boiler flues that are proposed are supplied in a recessive grey or cream colour in order to blend with the Bath stone elevation. Black is a harsh stand out colour which clutters and therefore harms special interest of the facade. We also question whether the historic paint finishes of the ground floor front elevation are oil based, therefore impermeable and harmful to the fabric of the listed building?  If they are, it would be good to see these works to the building include the removal of this damaging paint.  If the stone beneath is in good condition it can be left as is, and if not, a breathable lime wash layer could be added to harmonise the appearance of the stone.  We trust that the case officer will assess this element and make their own judgement as to any appropriate action.
  • 16/04080/LBA – Park Street Home For The Elderly 10 Park Street Lansdown
  • Internal and external alterations to reposition boiler flue
  • Week 35 2016
  • Erection of single storey rear and side extension and provision of car parking to front of building.
  • Should the case officer be minded to permit this scheme, we assume that flexibility for conversion (given the current proposal for studio style units) will be built into the scheme so that it may be converted to residential should the need for student accommodation not be forthcoming. In terms of the current design proposals we find the design, scale, height and materials of the scheme to be broadly acceptable.
  • Comment: The Trust wishes to comment on the principle of use of this site. We have read the Planning Statement and the justification for the change from a mixed residential scheme (for which there is extant planning permission 13/04217/OUT) to student accommodation scheme. Whilst we accept that there are restrictions on the site relating to its proximity to the land waste depot and to Argos, we would suggest that in the longer term the entire area will be redeveloped (as per the BWR Masterplan) and therefore the current issues surrounding marketability of residential units are of a short term nature. The site is directly opposite and easily accessible from and to Bath’s largest new residential area with the provision of associated residential infrastructure and services available with the Riverside enclave. The site is also very close to two well known pubs, the Royal Victoria Park and the adjacent Upper Bristol Road residential areas area. Therefore we have some trouble in accepting the argument that only student accommodation would ‘work’ in this location.
  • 16/04273/FUL – Land At Rear Of Argos Midland Road Westmoreland Bath  
  • Object: The Trust objects to this application on the basis of inappropriate materials. The use of aluminium fascia panels and vinyl decoration is not an acceptable set of materials appropriate for the City of Bath Conservation Area and World Heritage Site and it would be far preferable to see a traditional wooden fascia either sign painted or with good quality pin mounted lettering.  We always encourage large corporate businesses to adopt a bespoke approach to signage in Bath.
  • 16/04251/AR – Specsavers Opticians 17 – 18 Westgate Street City Centre Bath
  • Object: The Trust objects to this application on the basis of inappropriate fascia materials and excessive illumination. We opposed to the use of aluminium as a fascia board and would suggest that the fascia is a traditional wooden version with handpainted signage or individually cut pin mounted metal lettering. Whilst understanding that public houses have a justification for some external lighting, the 4.no trough lights and the further 4 lanterns represents overkill and would therefore be harmful to the special interest of listed building and the local street scene (already well lit by street lighting). We regret the loss of the pictorial image on the hanging sign.
  • 16/04226/AR – The Curfew 11 Cleveland Place West Walcot Bath
  • The Trust accepts that the signage needs of a tied public house are a little different to a retail business, however we would suggest that ‘less is more’ and a high quality bespoke approach would be appropriate for a pub within the core of the historic centre of the World Heritage Site.

Designed by Ice House Design