Jan – Feb 2017

February 2017

Week 05 2017

17/00400/AR – 30 – 31 Stall Street City Centre Bath

Erection of 2no. internally illuminated “Digital Flanks” with integrated LCD screens 1m inside shopfront windows and replacement of cityscape vinyl on Beau Street elevation.

Object: BPT sees the proposed ‘flanks’ as overly garish and intrusive into the streetscape within the conservation area and World Heritage Site. Whilst we are aware these are placed inside the windows, we still do believe that businesses in Bath have a responsibility to consider the impact of their advertising on the sensitive and historic public realm and the particular character of the conservation area. To all intents and purposes these flanks are illuminated advertisements, and we wonder whether there would be any control over their display at night and how they would look flashing with images and brightly lit within the low illuminated streetscape?

The proposed scheme by virtue of location and illumination 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.

17/00144/FUL – Street Record Kingsmead Square City Centre Bath

Use of public highway for the provision of tables and chairs.

Comment: The Trust can see the benefits of a continental style square in Bath that becomes an outdoor eating destination; bringing vitality and positive use to the square and better revealing the heritage asset to the general public who would be able to sit and enjoy its ambience. That said, we have a number of concerns about how this idea would work in practice.  This is not to say we are opposed to the scheme but that we see careful management and planning conditions to be a crucial factor in ensuring the success of the scheme and its ability to enhance the public realm in this area. Our observations are as follows:

  • In our view there are a few too many tables and chairs for the area and would like to see this reduced a little.
  • In particular the diagonal south west- north east pedestrian desire line should be respected and left clear.
  • We do not see the recently submitted design and management guide to be sufficiently detailed to properly manage the scheme; obviously the SPD Guidance of Signage and Tables/Chairs in the Conservation Area will be the guiding policy to refer to regarding this scheme
  • Finer details such as how the tables and chairs would be managed, stored and brought inside every night should be firmly conditioned and then monitored/enforced
  • Would businesses need food service stations and how would these look and where would they be placed?
  • Presumably a number of businesses would take up sections within the seating plan; the type of table and chair would need to be uniform or at least approved each time by the planning officer (though standardisation of the furniture could help reduce the feeling of clutter)
  • Refuse management plans for the timely removal of rubbish from tables and bins, gull/pigeon deterrents and general unwanted associated clutter (and leaf matter from the tree) would need to be strictly adhered to to ensure the square did not acquire a low quality character
  • Presumably each business would want to advertise their particular section and this would need separate AR planning applications; we would strongly resist any form of advertising on banners and indeed any form of hard barrier enclosure that would further clutter the square.
  • Finally we suggest that if minded to permit, the permission is only granted for two years; in that time the impacts and success or otherwise of the scheme can be properly trialled and assessed.17/00177/LBA – 2 Quiet Street City Centre Bath Comment: BPT regrets the retrospective nature of this application and also the strident orange colour of the shop frontage, which is discordant and jarring in this historic streetscape within the heart of the World Heritage Site. The actual awning appears to be acceptable, though we did not have an opportunity to view it when open. We would question the awning provides the solar shading given as the reason for it being installed, as the window is very tall and the awning appears from the simple drawings to be quite short.17/00267/LBA – King Edward’s School Broad Street City Centre Bath   Object: The Trust strongly objects to the retrospective nature of this application especially given that the applicant has already made planning applications in respect of the building and is aware of its architectural and historic significance. We are seriously concerned about this building which we see as an important heritage asset in Bath and one which is currently at risk. We also object to the use of the name King Edward’s Tavern as this may be the name of the business which will occupy the building, but it is not the name of the building, which should and will remain King Edward’s School as this is an integral part of the significant historical value of the asset.Week 03 2017 Installation of an internally illuminated lightbox located on the existing ‘signage zone’ on a canopy housing the Absurd Bird logo, an A3 sized lightbox housing a menu and logo is situated on the exterior hoarding and existing glazing (window and doors) to have vinyl lettering applied at a height of 1800mm AFFL with lettering to be no larger than 200mm high17/00086/FUL – Soho Coffee Company  26 Upper Borough Walls City Centre Bath Object: This section of Union Street is devoid of outdoor dining and we question the principle of outside tables and chairs should be established here, given the sweeping views up and down the historic street and the extremely heavy footfall along it.   The problems that this precedent would cause are only too clear when trying to negotiate the next section down the street (where Pret a Manger etc are situated) which is highly cluttered with various cafe furniture and street traders, and which  detracts from the character of the public realm a , with is regrettable given its proximity to the Pump Rooms and the Abbey and harmful to the street vista and special qualities of the WHS. The grain and pedestrian movement within of this section of the street does not lend itself to developing a cafe culture ‘feel’ and we think this type of outdoor amenity should be retained in established open areas such as Kingsmead Square. We would recommend the case officer consult the Historic Environment team for their advice on the impact of this proposal on the special architectural interest of this street and the listed buildings fronting it. Installation of new entrance doors, redecoration of shopfront frames and entrance columns, replacement of existing light fitting either side of entrance and of existing signage with new in line with new retailer’s branding guidelines, installation of 1No Halo illuminated Fascia sign, 2No non illuminated fascia signs and installation of 2No internally illuminated bus stop (flag) signs17/00137/FUL – 1 Victoria Place Combe Down Bath Comment: BPT see this rebuild as an opportunity to enhance this artisan cottage with a more sympathetic extension than current. The proposals for a new box like addition do not really achieve this and the design could, we feel, be more complimentary and harmonious to the host building.Week 01 2017Interior and exterior alterations for the refurbishment of the storeThe 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, BH2, BH6, BH19 and BH22 of the B&NES Local Plan.  We would therefore recommend that the application be refused.Installation of two staff information displays.17/00055/AR – Rohan Designs Ltd   16 Union Passage City Centre Bath Comment: BPT welcomes the improvements to the shop front in the removal of the perspex fascia and the proposal to use the wooden fascia for simple and clutter free signage. We do however object to the proposed materials of the projecting sign (acrylic and aluminium) as we would prefer to see this sign in timber with pin mounted lettering (as per the fascia). Whilst we have no objection to pin mounted lettering we would always recommend that these are some form of metal rather than acrylic as this gives a higher quality appearance to the shop front, the building and to the business itself.Conversion of existing basement flat into 2no. flats, replacement of conservatory at ground floor level, and internal and external alterations to the listed property.Without the benefit of an internal inspection on-site, we cannot comment meaningfully on the internal proposals other than to say that we assume that the appropriate amount of research has been conducted on the cabinetry and scallop niches on the ground floor? Even if these are not original Pinch but later 19th century additions displaying the interior fashions of the time, then there is a strong argument for their retention to understand the historical development of the building. We understand that such cabinetry and niche work was in fashion in Bath in the second half of the 19th century. For more information the case officer is welcome to contact the Trust and consult our architectural historian.Installation of internally illuminated letters ‘Crisp Cowley’ to fasciaThis proposal is contrary to the Local Plan policies BH17 and BH19 and we recommend that the illumination element is removed from the proposal.Erection of single storey and partial 2 storey extension following demolition of existing conservatory and associated internal alterations17/00053/LBA  & 17/00063/DLPAO – Skew Bridge Rossiter Road Widcombe BathComment:  BPT has a number of comments to make on this application. We appreciate both being involved in the stakeholder workshops for the NR electrification, and we commend the detail of the Historic Report. We have a number of observations to make on this proposal, as follows:
  • Extension of Skew Bridge, and associated works required as part of the Electrification of the Great Western Main Line
  • Comment: BPT questions the proposed materials for this extension and urges the case officer to establish that they are fully satisfied that through colour render and single ply membrane are the most appropriate and high quality materials for this scheme within sensitive canalside location in the World Heritage site.
  • 17/00038/FUL – 22 Sydney Buildings Bathwick
  • Object: BPT objects to the proposed illumination of the lettering. It is not clear whether this is a box sign or illuminated letters, though either way, given the lack of other shop frontages in BWR, the illumination will intrude upon the adjacent high quality urban space and the general low illuminated streetscape in this area and be detrimental to visual amenity.
  • – Crisp Cowley (bath) Limited 1 Western Terrace Victoria Bridge Road Westmoreland Bath
  • Comment: Whilst we commend the applicant on a detailed and considered application, where it is apparent that some conservation benefits will be achieved, BPT has serious concerns regarding the proposed use of the vaults as a very small apartment. Whilst we do not usually comment on amenity issues, we cannot support the proposed use of the vaults as a habitable space. Not only is this contrary to best practices approaches to the use of vaults, but it also cannot be a healthy and appropriate place to live. In our view this constitutes overdevelopment of the listed building. Vaults were traditionally storage and service spaces, and in the modern world, the use of vaults for storage, laundry or bathing can be justified on the basis that there is some connection to their past use as ancillary areas to the main house. Whilst we support the appropriate repair and ventilation of the historic fabric of the vaults, and to some extent the re-partitioning, we strongly oppose their occupation as a home as this impacts the legibility of the plan form of the house and therefore does in fact devalue its historic significance.
  • 16/06220/FUL & 16/06221/LBA – 8 Raby Place Bathwick Bath
  • Display of non-illuminated replacement signage to existing shopfront
  • COMMENT: BPT has concerns regarding the cumulative impact of these displays on the Grade II* platform elevations. These elevations are already extremely cluttered with service runs, signage and attached street furniture, therefore we would assert that this provides a strong reason not to incrementally add to this harmful clutter, especially as their insertions would cause actual harm to historic fabric. As suggested by Historic England, we wonder whether this staff information can be better provided on handheld wireless devices or in internal staff areas. In our view, the proposed displays would cause harm to the high significance of the historic platforms (already harmed by the current multiple ad hoc accretions) and further work should be done to ascertain whether a different, less harmful solution can be found that will fulfil the important need to inform staff.
  • 16/06224/LBA – Bath Spa Railway Station Dorchester Street Bath
  • Object: The Trust objects to this application on the basis of excessive signage and internal illumination.  This is an attractive traditional shop front, albeit altered over time.  Our concerns centre on the excessive amount of wording over the shop front, apparently to be applied in vinyl, all of which clutter and intrude upon the shop front and therefore the listed building. It is unclear what is being proposed for the fascia (printed aluminium board?) but we would recommend that the wooden fascia board is retained with hand painted wording. The use of vinyl and aluminium is unacceptable and discordant with the traditionally detailed shop front and the listed building.   The proposed central circular illuminated sign is also low quality and the illumination is unnecessary and inappropriate.  Given the aesthetic value of this particular shop front in the WHS, the applicant has missed an opportunity to create a high quality response to signage that respects the building and gives a distinguished look to compliment the architectural detail of the frontage.
  • 16/05961/LBA – West Cornwall Pasty Co 4 – 4A Burton Street City Centre
  • We do not feel that cedar cladding is an appropriate material for this suburban area within Bath, there is no precedent in the immediate vicinity and wood cladding gives a rustic rural appearance that is at odds with the established palette of this mixed character neighbourhood. We would suggest at best Bath stone ashlar to the front elevation, or a high quality through colour render in a Bath stone colour.
  • Erection of two storey and single storey side extensions following demolition of existing single storey side extension. Cedar cladding to front elevation
  • Comment: BPT would have objected to the superseded plans. p We have noted the revisions to the scheme relating to illumination (removed) and materials requested by the case officer and we can confirm we now have no major concerns.. We would note to the case officer however we have images of the damage to stone work made by the previous business (in particular stone scarring where the hanging sign was situated) and would ask that the current tenant 1. Ensure this does not occur with their insertion of lettering/hanging sign into the stone, and 2. That if possible sympathetic stone or lime mortar repairs can be made to ensure this building does not over time become incrementally and harmfully pockmarked.
  • 17/00091/FUL & 17/00092/AR 24 – 26 Union Street City Centre Bath
  • 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.
  • Use of highway for the placing of 6 tables and 12 chairs in association with ground floor coffee shop.
  • Comment: Whilst we understand that planning considerations regarding signage can be somewhat different in Southgate given the distinct retail character of the area, we do feel that this application goes a little too far. We acknowledge the location down a side street but we feel there is an excessive amount of illumination, street furniture and general clutter that is ultimately harmful to the visual amenity of this area. We feel a more modest simple form of enclosure with less enclosure furniture and planting could benefit both the business and Southgate. The addition of light globe columns in addition to the amount of external lighting on the fascia is again excessive. It is worth noting that whilst Southgate is a little ‘different’ from the character of the surrounding historic city it is still within the conservation area and therefore subject to the policy considerations in the Guidance on Commercial Signage and Tables/Chairs in the Highway.
  • 16/06168/AR – Absurd Bird 20 St Lawrence Street City Centre Bath
  • We would very much appreciate an update on the applicant’s plans for the building given the sparse nature of any building work or development since planning permission was granted in 2013. The fact this building is lying vacant and without active use is a great shame for Bath.
  • External alterations to include the removal of and closing in of a modern doorway located in the Courtyard South Boundary wall of King Edward’s Tavern (formerly King Edward’s School). (Retrospective).
  • We also note that we can see no AR applications for this business but it appears to have a large amount of the previously mentioned strident orange colouring on the shopfront and fascia and a large oddly proportioned hanging sign, all of which should be considered within a formal advertising regulations application, we assume this is being requested by B&NES?
  • External alterations to fix Victorian style awning to front of shop
  • Week 04 2017
  • We recognise that the imminent arrival of new rolling stock places a time pressure on these works. We regret, however that this means we are still considering separate applications for individual works to structures along the line through Bath without yet knowing the treatment of the line as a whole through the City and therefore are in danger of underestimating or misinterpreting cumulative harm.
  • We recognise that the new central column adds to the development of the bridge as a further development of the 1870s interventions.  The cutwater is perhaps the most significant element of the remaining fabric as it relates to Brunel’s original designed bridge. We therefore support any proposal which minimises intervention to the cutwater.
  • We note that the new platform projects ahead of the south west abutment parapet, a historic feature also noted in the HS as forming part of the Brunel’s original designed bridge. At the south eastern end the junction seems to have been handled is much better as the platform sits behind the projecting stone parapet to the abutment, and we wonder if more finesse can be brought to the south west end.
  • the use of a concrete upstand to the base of the new glass balustrade to the platform is also of concern. The platform will project over the existing bridge and therefore the concrete upstand will be seen on the southern elevation. We suggest a more sympathetic material than concrete be used.
  • In order to conserve and enhance a heritage asset we believe that the works should include essential maintenance works required to the bridge; for example the painting of all the metalwork to the bridge and repairs to historic stonework. It appears appropriate that whilst any scaffold and safety equipment is in situ for the works to the bridge, the opportunity is also taken to undertake the conservation maintenance and repair works required.16/06072/LBA – 5 Nelson Place WestObject: BPT objects to the proposals for a chemical injection damp proof course and associated cementitious render.  These processes and materials are entirely inappropriate treatments for the traditional building materials of a Georgian building, all of which need to ‘breathe’ in order to function properly.  The proposed solution will only trap moisture and exacerbate and spread the damp problems, especially in association with impermeable paint and therefore they are harmful to the building fabric. If tanking is thought to be necessary (following investigation of where the damp is accessing the wall and whether some remedial repair work could solve the issue) then we would recommend the installation of a conservation compliant tanking system such as the Delta membrane system, which drains excess moisture and ventilates the building fabric; allowing it to breathe and function normally. A limecrete or similar floor treatment would complement the conservation tanking system, as would a finish of breathable ime plaster to the rest of the room. January 201716/06131/LBA – 15 Kingsmead Square City Centre Comment: Whilst we understand that the applicant wishes to make their business stand out, we object to the proposed internal illumination of the mounted lettering and the externally mounted fascia lights; this represents lighting overkill and is potentially harmful to the listed building and the sensitive historic location within the conservation area and the WHS. We have no objection to the provision of an awning and on balance the proposal for a bi-fold shop frontage to this business is justified, especially given the informal, cafe culture, continental character of the square and the understanding (from the D & A) that the current shop front has no historical value.16/06188/FUL – Hinton Garage Bath Ltd Hinton Garage Albion Place Kingsmead Comment: The Trust commented favourably on the last set of revisions for this scheme. We have reviewed this resubmitted proposal and acknowledge that the changes to the roof height and the design work done to recess the dormers on the riverside block is successful in lessening the visual impact and prominence of the roofscape. The changes constitute a minor improvement to the scheme. In our view, and especially bearing in mind the very tall developments close to the river in BWR, the height of the building is acceptable; it preserves the setting of nearby heritage assets and would not potentially adversely impact on local character or the special qualities of the WHS.For the avoidance of doubt, as there is some ambiguity in the consultation statements in the Design & Access statement; BPT has not been consulted on this new iteration or the last set of revisions to this scheme.16/06167/FUL – Main House Bath Spa University Campus Newton St. Loe Bath Comment: The Trust welcomes the proposal to remove parking from the front elevation of the house, and the proposed buff coloured bonded surface, both of which will enhance the setting of the important listed building. We are concerned that there is proposed a greater proportion of hard landscaping to grass and that this unbalances the overall harmony of the Palladian building within its setting and introduces a discordant element to the frontage. We would recommend that the elliptical area of grass is enlarged so as to provide a more balanced hard to soft landscape ratio. This is particularly relevant given that the historic development of the house has seen hard landscaping gradually encroach into the setting of the building (from the original modest drive seen in the 1789 map by Pryce) and this proposal sees even more green space lost to hard surfaces. Enlargement of the lawn would allow for better legibility of the original landscaped appearance of the front of the house and therefore assist in maintaining its significance.Erection of 2 storey office building following demolition of existing former WC Block.We would be unlikely to object to the creation of office workspace in a modest and simple one storey building in the style and materials being proposed. However this two storey office is a massive overdevelopment of a ‘found’ site and we believe that we should have been consulted on works that will potentially impact harmfully on an historic and important burial ground behind.16/05815/LBA – 11 Duke Street City Centre Bath Support: Without the benefit of a site visit, we are unable to form a judgement on the internal proposals and cannot comment on these. The Trust supports this application on the basis that the proposal to reinstate the early 19th century window sash arrangements (utilising the existing window sash boxes) has been well justified in a thorough Heritage report and will reinforce and enhance the special architectural interest of the listed building. The proposals for reinstatement of the 1740 arrangement for the basement windows (where evidence of the 1740’s wide ovolu glazing bars exists) is also supported on the basis that this will assist in the legibility and ability to understand the original historic window arrangement.Erection of single storey side and rear extensions, 2 bedroom penthouse roof accommodation with roof terrace and alterations to existing front facade including new bay window and porch canopy.   Erection of single storey rear extension and installation of rear dormer.Week 50 2017 Erection of 3no non-illuminated primary fascia signs, 2no non-illuminated secondary fascia signs and 2no non-illuminated hanging signsOur main concern centres on the proposal to fit blue vinyl to the upper floor windows as this would undoubtedly impact harmfully on the character and special architectural interest if the listed buildings. We hope this element will be taken out of any permitted scheme. We would also request that any ‘seasonal vinyls’in the main display windows are designed to be subtle and respectful of the listed building.External alterations including the erection of a sunroom to the rear elevation and detached garden room, alterations to the garage and the addition of a front dormer window on the third floor to match existing. Internal alteration to existing WC at the rear of the ground floor with the removal of a wall and introduction of a door within an existing opening16/05894/FUL – 7 Henrietta Villas, BathwickComment: The Trust is broadly supportive of this application to sympathetically extend this important non-designated asset. We do however find the drawings to be a little inadequate to be able to properly judge the nature and extent of change, particularly to internal fabric.  We assume that a site visit by the case officer will enable greater understanding of the plans.Internal and external alterations to replace existing double entrance doors with 2no single pedestrian doors and change of use of second and third floors from retail (use class A1) to office space (use class B1).The overall appearance of the fascia is cluttered by wording and further consideration should be given to the door arrangement; preferably a better traditionally detailed set of hardwood timber doors (one being a proper front door to the upper floors) should be installed as this would enhance the appearance of the listed building and still allow the applicant to realise their plans for the upper floors of the building.16/05908/FUL & 16/05909/LBA – Widcombe House, Church Lane Object: The Trust objects to this application on the basis of inadequate information and justification.  Widcombe House is a listed building of special interest and the application provides very scant information on the proposals, with no Heritage Report, no justification or heritage impact assessment and no contextual drawings of the ‘winter garden’ in situ and within the setting of the listed building. It is impossible with the information provided to properly assess the proposal or its impact on the significance of the listed building and its setting. Display of 1no. non-illuminated Fascia sign on concrete slab made from glazed vandal proof tiles on street crossing. It will say ‘Welcome to Wonderful Widcombe. Meet, Eat, Drink and Shop.’
  • Comment: The Trust is supportive of this advertisement for the businesses of Widcombe. We do however question the use of glass tiles and wonder whether handpainted lettering may be a better solution? Glass tiles may have a reflective and possibly garish appearance which could deteriorate quickly in this heavily used main road and therefore could develop a low quality appearance. Good quality matt painted signage is reversible and easily maintained/updated and reflects the artisan character of the area and the tradition of signpainting in Bath.
  • 16/05232/AR – Street Record, Rossiter Roadside, Widcombe, Bath
  • As the application currently stands it is contrary to the NPPF paras 128 and 132 which state that applicants should be required to describe the significance of the heritage asset and that the level of detail should be proportionate to the asset’s importance. In para 132 the policy states that conservation of the asset is given great weight and any impact or harm to significance by development of the asset or its setting should require clear assessment and justification. On this basis it should be refused or withdrawn until further details are provided.
  • Erection of a winter garden
  • The current signage proposals are potentially harmful to the special architectural interest of the listed building and the overall historic street scene and 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, BH2, BH6, BH19 of the B&NES Local Plan. We would therefore recommend that the application be refused.
  • Object: The Trust objects to this on the basis of inappropriate materials and the hanging sign. We do not support the use of applied vinyl as a fascia signage material as it is not appropriate within the World Heritage Site. In this case the fascia should be hand painted with the corporate branding.  We assume that the colour is not as strident as it appears on the application drawings?  We also object to the hanging sign which should not be aluminium but wood and should not be affixed to the elevation of the listed building due to the damage to historic fabric that this will cause.  If anywhere, it should be affixed to the fascia, though we would remark that there has been some damage to the nearby Subway sign by large vehicles turning so perhaps this element of the application should be omitted.
  • 16/05911/FUL & 16/05913AR – 10 Westgate Street, Bath
  • External alterations including the erection of a sunroom to the rear elevation and detached garden room, alterations to the garage and the addition of a front dormer window on the third floor to match existing. Internal alteration to existing WC at the rear of the ground floor with the removal of a wall and introduction of a door within an existing opening
  • Comment: The Trust has no concerns regarding the proposed rear garden scheme, however we object to the proposal to introduce a further dormer window on the front elevation as this will unbalance the currently symmetrical Georgian façade and fenestration and would therefore impact harmfully on the special architectural interest of the listed building and fail to retain or enhance its significance.
  • 16/05885/LBA & 16/05894/FUL – 6 Rivers Street, Bath
  • Comment: The Trust finds the proposals for this shop front to be broadly acceptable, though we regret that the applicant has not adopted a bespoke signage approach to this listed building in the World Heritage Site. It appears that the hanging signs are mounted on the Northumberland Place and Union Passage elevations and will not project at all into Union Street; if this is the case this is acceptable as Union street is largely devoid of hanging signs (which would clutter and intrude upon the principal elevations and the overall homogenous character of the street scene), but they are prevalent in the narrower passages and are part of ‘alleyway’ character. We would also recommend a matt finish to the painted wooden fascias.
  • 16/05836/AR & 16/05889/LBA –16 Westgate Street, Bath
  • Comment: We agree with the Conservation Officer’s assessment that the local area is largely devoid of box dormers and that if permitted this scheme would introduce an intrusive and highly visible architectural feature into the local roofscape; thus setting a worrying precedent which could cumulatively harm local character and distinctiveness.
  • 16/06073/FUL – 21 Brunswick Street Lambridge
  • Comment: Given the increase in height of the roof and the significant changes to the roof profile (from tile pitched roof to monopitch with balcony etc) we recommend that the case officer requests further information in the form of long view and street view visuals in order to be able to assess and understand the degree of impact of the scheme in longer views and how the essentially new building sits and is assimilated within the street scene.
  • 16/06058/FUL & 6 Cleveland Walk Bathwick
  • Internal and external alterations to install new kitchen, toilet and bathroom with associated drainage and plumbing and installation of bar divided sashes within the existing front window frames
  • Week 51 2017
  • Object: The Trust objects to this application on the basis that it constitutes overdevelopment of the site. For clarity, we are the owners of the Southcot Burial Ground to the rear of the proposed scheme and we have not been consulted about this application. We are concerned about the scale of the proposed scheme and the two storey heights, which while sloping down and not overtopping the wall, still appear to overtop the historic wall on the front elevation which gives an awkward visual relationship with it. Not only that but we question how the health of the wall will be maintained in terms of the adjacent drainage channels (from the roof sloping down to the wall) and the associated up close building works which will presumably include insertion of foundations and possible fixing insertions into the wall etc.  There is simply not enough information to inform us of how the building will be constructed and how the wall and views of the open burial ground will be protected and its significance unharmed. We are also concerned at how access to Southcot Burial ground could be easily gained from the roof of the two storey building.
  • 16/06062/FUL – Closed Public Toilets Claverton Street Widcombe Bath
  • Removal of parking along frontage of Main House, creation of shared space, modifications to lawns, new pavement, relocation of existing pedestrian crossing, adjustments to parking demarcation, new and additional lighting columns, improved access to library buildings, adjustment of drainage and widening of an existing footpath.
  • Week 52 2017
  • We continue to support the repair of the streetscape in the Upper Bristol Road, and have no concerns regarding the design or height of this block (revised in May 2016), notwithstanding our earlier comments about the detail and quality of materials.
  • Demolition of the former Hinton Garage Showroom and Workshop and erection of an Assisted Living Development comprising apartments and integrated communal and support facilities; landscaped resident’s gardens; staff areas; basement residents car and bicycle parking; refuse storage and associated infrastructure and services. (Resubmission of application 15/05367/FUL).
  • We are pleased to see that the proposed materials are timber, and would urge the case officer to ensure that they are satisfied that the detail of both the awning, its mechanism and the shop front arrangement is high quality and appropriately detailed for this location as well as causing minimal harm to historic fabric in terms of fixings etc. We do however object to the abundance of vinyl and general signage proposed, this includes the ‘fussy’ decorated awning with the white border (which should be black as in the Bristol example) and the window vinyls, all of which represent an excessive amount of signage clutter which would intrude upon both the building and the overall street scene. We assume any plans to place tables and chairs outside the property will be requested in a further planning application.
  • External alterations for a new shop front
  • Week 53 2017
  • The harmful proposal for tanking this basement room is contrary to Section 12 (Conserving and enhancing the historic environment) of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), and Local Plan policy BH2. We would therefore recommend that this element of the application be refused.
  • Conversion of an existing basement store into an additional bedroom and bathroom including the installation of damp proofing.
  • The listed building and DLPAO applications submitted by NR for Bath Spa and Skew Bridge, and future applications intended for the electrification of the line through Bath, includes important and detailed historic research on the structures impacted. This presents the opportunity for the local authority to take forward with NR and other interested parties a strategy for the wider interpretation of the above structures and the GWR line through Bath for the benefit of the public and visitors to Bath. We believe the opportunity should not be lost to better interpret the GWR in the context of its perhaps most significant investment since construction.

Designed by Ice House Design