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.
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:
Designed by Ice House Design