Week 45 2017
17/05206/FUL and 17/05207/LBA – Belushi Bar St Christopher’s Inn 9 Green Street
Replacement of existing windows with new timber framed double glazed
Comment: The Trust is concerned with quality of the Design and Access and Heritage statement attached to this application. A lack of a detailed heritage assessment means that the applicant has not researched or understood the history of this building and how it has changed over time nor have they accurately assessed the impact the proposed changes may have on the character of the historic streetscape or the special historic and/or architectural interest of the listed building.
It appears that the window configuration has changed over time from a long shop window arrangement to the installation of Georgian style fenestration. The Trust has no preference over either style given both have been seen historically but would like see either to retention of the existing configuration or a scheme that more closely matches the early 20th century configuration with the low stall risers. Impact on the townscape character will be the key consideration.
The Trust would also like to see the installation of slim line glazing over the proposed double glazing and more attention paid to the joinery detailing with the submission of proper joinery profiles.
17/05221/LBA – 15-17 High Street, Bath
External alterations for the removal of a number of fixtures and fittings
Comment: As described by the Cover Letter the application seeks to remove a number of fixtures and fittings to restore the building to its original use. Item 30 in the Scope of Works states that the propose works would
‘ensure that the whole building inside and out is clear of all Bank’s debris, loose Fixtures, Fittings & Equipment, including fire extinguishers and supporting grounds and all signage, swept through and left clean and tidy’.
These ‘Fittings and equipment’ should extend to the external ATM’s . Their removal, as well the detailed craftsman work required to make good the stonework has not been addressed in this application and are crucial to return the elevation to an uncluttered original state.
17/05242/FUL – The Beacon, Richmond Place Beacon Hill Bath
Erection of three-storey dwelling following demolition of existing three-storey dwelling.
Object: The Trust welcomes contemporary architecture in the historic environment however in the case of The Beacon, its prominent hillside location is of concern. Whilst the proposed building is not significantly taller, due to it scale, form and massing it would appear as much more prominent feature on the ridge line, especially when viewed from the valley floor (such as the canal) which has not been assessed in the LVIA. The proposed building has a south elevation that presents a large rectangular upper storey with a large area of glass which will reflect the sun and draw attention to the building during the day and increase the level of light spill at night on what is currently a dark wood ridge.
The consented felling of trees attached to applications 16/02830/TCA and 16/02910/TPO is also likely further increase the visual and landscape impact of the proposed dwelling. This impact has not been properly considered within the application’s LVIA.
In its current form the application does not give adequate assurance that this new dwelling will not be visually harmful to the setting of the WHS and this valued, largely undeveloped, wooded hillside overlooking the city. As it stands we are concerned that this proposal is contrary to Section 12 (Conserving and enhancing the historic environment) of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), policies; B1, B4 and CP6 of the B&NES Core Strategy and policies; DW1, B1,B4, HE1, NE2 and NE6 of the B&NES Placemaking Plan. For this reason we object to this application and urge the case officer to seek further clarification on landscape and views impact.
17/05217/FUL – North Range Walcot Yard Walcot Street Bath .
Redevelopment of existing north range building to create 9no. dwellings.
Comment: In previous iterations the Trust has summited comments raising concerns over the continued loss of artisan and industrial elements in favour of residential development at Walcot Yard. In response to this most recent application the Trust’s views on this matter have not changed.
Secondly the Trust would also like to bring to the attention of the officer the lack of Property History attached to this application given the site’s planning history.
17/04558/REG03 – Odd Down Sports Pavilion Chelwood Drive Odd Down Bath BA2 2PR
Installation of lighting in sport centre car park
Comment: Given the sites prominent hillside location the Trust would envisage that the light spill would have an intrusive impact on not only the neighbouring properties but the setting of the WHS and the Conservation Area.
We urge the case officer to be entirely satisfied that there will be minimal light pollution impact on the dark skyline ridge overlooking the city. There are also discrepancies between drawing SSE-QL158 A and the LVIA which give two different tilt angles, the former at 5˚and latter at 0˚which may have an impact on accuracy of the light spill calculation carried out by the applicant. Hours of operation of this facility will need to be strictly conditioned.
Guidance provided by the Institution of Lighting Professionals (ILP) suggests luminaires installed at 0˚uplift will, in addition to reducing sky glow, also help to minimise visual intrusion with the open landscape.
17/05264/FUL – Broomwood Bathwick Hill Bathwick
Side extension to the west and a glazed bay to the south as well as internal remodelling of an existing detached house.
Comment: The Trust would like to bring to the attention of the officer that drawing no. 394 – P201 as listed on the Drawing Issue Sheet is missing from the application. It would appear that missing drawing would contain detailing of the South and West elevations. As result it’s impossible to accurately assess the potential visual impact on the setting of the WHS and Conservation Area.
17/04427/FUL – 81 Bay Tree Road Fairfield Park
Provision of dropped kerb, to include removal of walling (Retrospective).
Object : The frontages of these semi-detached properties are set back above tiered gardens and this is part of the established and distinct character of this area. This application would result in increased hard landscaping and therefore a detrimental change to the character of this section of the road and it would not help to heed precedents set in surrounding streets and properties. The proposal is contrary to Section 12 (Conserving and enhancing the historic environment) of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), policies; DW1, B1, B4 and CP6 of the B&NES Core Strategy and saved polices; and policies; DW1, B1, B4 and HE1 of the B&NES Placemaking Plan.
The retrospective nature of this application is also regrettable. For this reason along with those stated above we object to this application.
Week 44 2017
17/05142/AR – Jones Bootmaker 19 Cheap Street City Centre Bath
Display of repaired and repainted shopfront, replacement non-illuminated vinyl signs and hanging sign
Comment: Whilst the Trust does not object to the overall scheme we would encourage the use of a more traditional material over the vinyl lettering proposed. The use of pin mounted lettering is acceptable but vinyl is a low quality material that should be resisted in the WHS.
17/05177/FUL – 22 Livingstone Road Oldfield Park Bath
Change of use from dwelling house (Use Class C3) to House of Multiple Occupation (Use Class C4) (Retrospective).
Comment: In light of the adoption of the revised HMO SPD this application fails Criterion 2 stage 1 and a Criteria 2 Stage 2 assessment will need to be undertaken.
17/05175/FUL – 5 Highland Terrace Twerton Bath
Change of use from residential (C3) to a HMO (C4) (Retrospective)
Comment: In light of the adoption of the revised HMO SPD this application fails Criterion 1. Approval of the application would result in No. 4 Highland Terrace being ‘sandwiched’ between two HMO’s and would be contrary to the SPD.
17/05176/FUL – 18 Vernon Terrace Twerton Bath.
Change of use from dwelling house (Use Class C3) to House of Multiple Occupation (Use Class C4) (Retrospective)
Comment: In light of the adoption of the revised HMO SPD this application fails Criterion 2 stage 1 and a Criteria 2 Stage 2 assessment will need to be undertaken.
17/05178/FUL – 38 South View Road Twerton Bath
Change of use from dwelling house (Use Class C3) to House of Multiple Occupation (Use Class C4) (Retrospective)
Comment: In light of the adoption of the revised HMO SPD this application fails Criterion 1. Approval of the application would result in No.37 South View Road being ‘sandwiched’ between two HMO’s contrary to the SPD.
17/04382/AR – Empty Premises 124A High Street Upper Weston Bath
Display of 1no. illuminated fascia sign, 1no. non-illuminated hanging sign, and signs stuck to the inside of the shop windows.
Comment: The Trust supports the revitalisation of this building and does not object to the overall scheme. Our primary concern is that the proposed internal vinyls would clutter and devalue the streetscape and that along with the illumination of the fascia board would be detrimental to the visual amenity of the street scene and would detract from the special qualities of the WHS and the character of the conservation area.
17/05195/FUL – 59 Lorne Road Westmoreland Bath
Proposed Loft Conversion with Rear Dormer
Comment: Whilst precedents have been set either side of this property, the Trust takes the view that oversize dormers, that take over the whole roof space, interrupt the roofline, dominate the roof slope and represent overdevelopment of this modest terraced dwelling
Week 43 2017
17/03857/LBA – 11 Edward Street Bathwick Bath
External alterations for the removal of paint from stub piers and entrance porch, repair of exposed stonework, re-lettering of the house designation, repair of the existing lamp standards, re-installation of lanterns and glass bowls and an associated LED light source.
Support: The Trust is impressed at the level of detail regarding this application, in particular the desire to reinstate the overthrow lamps and the attention to detail in the ironworks and repairs. We are pleased to support this sensitive and beneficial conservation scheme.
17/04498/FUL & 17/04499/AR & 17/04500/LBA – 21 – 22 Union Street City Centre Bath
Refresh of existing shop fronts, installation of 1 no. ATM and minor re-reinforcement of the existing ground floor structure.
Object: The Trust sees this as a scheme where bespoke signage would be an appropriate response for this business to use within the WHS. We object to the materials proposed and the use of internally illuminated lettering, both of which will harm the special interest of the listed building. The use of pin mounted lettering is acceptable but the acrylic finish is not, it gives a low quality aesthetic which is at odds with a shop front in the heart of the historic city. The use of internal illumination is unacceptable and should not be agreed, we are unsure why the applicant thought it would be acceptable given the clear guidance given in the Commercial Signage in the Conservation Area Guidance SPD. Bath’s historic streets are low-illuminated and should remain that way. We assume the ATM will be lit at night for use by the public and this should be adequate in terms of shop front lighting. In this instance we would like to see hand painted signage on this attractive shopfront. We can accept the use of vinyl for one window only but we have concerns regarding the extent of blanking out on the rear elevation which will produce a dull and lifeless frontage which will exacerbate the sense of oppression in the back lane.
The proposed scheme by virtue of its materials and illumination would harm the architectural significance of the heritage asset, would neither preserve nor enhance the character and appearance of the conservation area, would be detrimental to the visual amenity of the street scene and would detract from the special qualities of the WHS. The scheme would be contrary to Section 12 (Conserving and Enhancing the Historic Environment) of the NPPF, policies B1, B2, B4, and CP6 of the B&NES Core Strategy and policies CP6, D.2, D4, HE1,D.8, D.9, B.4, B.2 of the Placemaking Plan. We would therefore recommend the application be withdrawn or refused.
17/04613/FUL – Bridgwater House 2 Terrace Walk City Centre Bath
Change of use of section of pavement abutting frontage of Bridgwater House to allow siting of external tables and chairs.
Comment: No justification has been provided for these tables and chairs. Whilst we acknowledge that the area is already cluttered with street furniture and therefore it would be difficult to refuse more, we do see this sensitive historic area becoming more unsightly and compromised as more street furniture is installed. Our primary concern is the style of furniture which would look incongruous in the street scene and would be difficult to move in and out of Bridgewater House daily.
17/04960/AR & 17/04961/LBA – 7 St James’s Parade Bath
Display of 1no non illuminated business name fascia sign and 1no non-illuminated hanging sign
Comment: We would very much prefer to see a traditional hand written sign on the fascia as vinyl is a low quality material that should be resisted in the WHS. We also question the addition of the hanging sign given the special architectural interest of this terrace of Georgian assets. Hanging signs are not really seen in the street and those that are there (seemingly unauthorised) clutter both the facades of the assets and the streetscene and impact on the ability to appreciate the fine portico doorways and the overall group composition. In any case should a hanging sign be permitted it should be timber and also traditionally sign written.
17/04989/LBA – 33 Milsom Street City Centre Bath
Repair collapsed ceilings. Completely re-lath second floor ceiling and lime plaster. Partial re-lath first floor ceiling and lime plaster
Support: We support the intention to repair this heritage asset with traditional lathe and plaster materials and techniques.
17/05016/LBA – 26 Stall Street City Centre Bath
Internal alterations to dividing walls and rear access, shop fit interior for use as a coffee shop, make good and redecorate the shopfront, addition of a non illuminated projecting sign and hand paint existing fascia sign with Caffe Nero logo
Comment: The Trust welcomes the hand painted approach to the signage and comment that this shows how national businesses can amend their corporate brand to be bespoke and appropriate to context. We question whether the fascia board will be replaced as currently it appears to be a metallic tray, and it should be a timber fascia. We also question the need and justification for a hanging sign, given that the street is largely devoid of projecting signage and would recommend that this element of the application is withdrawn.
17/04904/LBA– 32 Sydney Buildings Bathwick Bath
External alterations to remove the existing paint from the exterior walls of the building both on the front and rear elevations and return to bath stone.
Support: The Trust supports the general intention to remove the paint layers from this heritage asset and to return the facade to natural stone which is beneficial to the historic fabric (stone) and will better reveal and enhance the architectural significance of the building and the homogeneity of the group composition.
17/05062/FUL – 148 London Road West Lower Swainswick Bath
Erection of 4no. dwellings following demolition of 2no. existing run down dwellings.
Comment: Our first impression of these buildings are that they will appear quite dominant in the streetscape and we assume that the case officer will be satisfied as to their visual impact on the character and appearance of the conservation area. We find the drawings to be confusing, particular relating to how the parking and access will actually work. Our main concern however is the poor design approach that gives a faux Georgian frontage and a contemporary rear elevation. We would always prefer to see authentic design that delivers an overall architectural composition in a particular style. In this location a contemporary approach taking cues from local context, forms and character would in our opinion be the most appropriate.
17/05123/AR – Shaw Trust 36 Moorland Road Oldfield Park Bath
Display of 1x internally illuminated fascia and 1x internally illuminated projecting sign.
Object: The Trust objects strongly to this application on the grounds of colour, materials, illumination and impact on the distinct character of this largely Victorian/Edwardian suburban area. The Subway branding is brash, loud and low quality and will have a detrimental impact on the streetscene. The applicant should consider a bespoke approach appropriate to the WHS. The use of aluminium and vinyl and the strong green colour should be resisted or toned down in some way, as should the illumination; subtle external illumination could be acceptable. Projecting signs are generally absent from this local shopping street and should also be resisted on the basis that it adds to the streetscape clutter which devalues the quality of the area.
The proposed scheme by virtue of its materials and illumination would neither preserve nor enhance the character and appearance of the area, would be detrimental to the visual amenity of the street scene and would detract from the special qualities of the WHS. The scheme would be contrary to Section 12 (Conserving and Enhancing the Historic Environment) of the NPPF, policies B1, B4, and CP6 of the B&NES Core Strategy and policies CP6, D.2, HE1,D.8, D.9, B.4, of the Placemaking Plan. We would therefore recommend the application be withdrawn or refused.
17/05052/FUL – 36 Moorland Road Oldfield Park Bath
Construction of timber frame roof between existing double toilet block and single toilet block located at rear of property, waterproof flat roof with membrane skin. Replace existing felt roof. Installation of UPVC between toilet block and UPVC grille. Locate air conditioning and cold room condensers. Replace shopfront with x4 Bi-folding window and door.
Object: The Trust strongly objects to the proposed loss of the attractive and elegant curved older shopfront; its loss would have a detrimental impact on the character of this area and diminish the visible connections to the history of this local shopping street. There is no justification for its removal beyond commercial interests. We strongly urge the case officer to instruct the applicant to rethink this element of the proposal. The shop will still work perfectly well with the current window arrangement.
The proposed scheme is contrary to the SPG Bath Shop Fronts Guidance and would neither preserve nor enhance the character and appearance of the area, would be detrimental to the visual amenity of the street scene and would detract from the special qualities of the WHS. The scheme would be contrary to Section 12 (Conserving and Enhancing the Historic Environment) of the NPPF, policies B1, B4, and CP6 of the B&NES Core Strategy and policies CP6, D.2, HE1, B.4, of the Placemaking Plan. We would therefore recommend the application be withdrawn or refused.
17/04987/AR & 17/04986/FUL
Former Gulf Riverside Service Station Lower Bristol Road Twerton
Change of use of vacant forecourt for tyre and vehicle sales. Display of 11no. non illuminated signs and 1no. Flag.
Comment: We note no details have been submitted regarding the tyre and vehicle sales area and how this may impact visually on the street scene.
In terms of the AR application, we consider the amount of signage to be excessive and therefore harmful to the special qualities of the WHS. This is a gateway location to the city and the plethora of yellow signs along with the current site structures currently constitute an eyesore; we would suggest they are rationalised.
Week 41 2017
17/04733/FUL & 17/04734/LBA – 4 George Street City Centre Bath
Installation of retractable awning.
Object: The Trust objects to this application on the basis that the current signage is unacceptable and that the provision of an awning is both unjustified and would set an unwelcome precedent: this side of George Street contains some individual and attractive traditional style shop fronts unencumbered by awnings. In our view the awning as presented would look awkward and sit top heavy against the shop front and would impact negatively on the listed building by intruding upon the elevation and cluttering the overall streetscene. The apparently ‘travelling’ fascia board affixed to the awning is also an unacceptable proposal.
The new signage is also objectionable and not fit for a shop in the historic centre of the WHS. The fascia appears to be either fixed on vinyl or painted a high gloss with vinyl lettering and both this and the strident blue colour are inappropriate; the fascia should be in a muted heritage colour (such as the rest of the shop front) with the signage traditionally signwritten. The new signage also appears to be unauthorised and we hope that the LPA will take appropriate action to ensure that an application is submitted for this element.
The proposed scheme is contrary to the policy guidance contained in the SPD Guidance on Commercial Signage in the Conservation Area and would neither preserve nor enhance the special interest of the listed building, would harm the character and appearance of Conservation Area, be detrimental to the visual amenity of the street scene, and would detract from the special qualities of the World Heritage Site. The scheme would be contrary to Section 12 (Conserving and enhancing the historic environment) of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), policies; B1,B2, B4 and CP6 of the B&NES Core Strategy and policies CP6, D.2, D.4, HE1 and D.9 of the Placemaking Plan. We would therefore recommend that the application be refused.
17/04634/FUL – 32 Audley Avenue Lower Weston Bath
Erection of single storey extensions to side and rear and erection of single storey shed/outbuilding.
Comment: There is a particular mid 20th century semi-detached character to this cul-de-sac and the proposed extensions appear to sit uncomfortably with this character of paired rhythmic building forms. Whilst we have no objection to the extension of these properties, this proposal appear disordered, providing jumbled elevations and roof forms and a strange plan form that looks to be overdevelopment of both the plot and the building. These buildings were built in a neat rectangular block style and we would suggest that any additions respect the simple shaping of the original dwellings, rather than ‘fanning out’ from the current extension.
17/04220/FUL & 17/0221/LBA – The Beaufort 1 Beaufort West Lambridge
Conversion of existing restaurant and residential space into 7no flats involving removal and replacement of some internal walls, new first floor bathroom extension and partial replacement and extension of existing single-storey flat-roofed building to rear courtyard
Comment: Without the benefit of a site visit and more accessible (e.g 3D) elevational detail within the drawings, the Trust cannot comment in detail on this application other than to say we have no concerns regarding the proposed works to this building providing the case officer is satisfied that the possible issue regarding CF.7 is resolved and that the Conservation Officer consulted upon the case (who will no doubt have a site visit) is satisfied that the historic and architectural significance of the listed building is retained and if possible enhanced.
17/04693/FUL – 20 Old Newbridge Hill Newbridge
Demolish existing garage and rear balcony, rebuild garage to include extension to the rear. Remove existing front porch and replace with two storey extension. Replace and resize existing windows to front elevation. Replace existing rear elevation windows with new french doors. Reconfigure lower ground floor layout. Revise existing driveway access and create second drive access in boundary wall.
Comment: Part of the character of this road is provided by Bath rubble stone boundary walls seen along much of the road. In our view the somewhat awkward ‘semi-circular drive in/out’ proposal contained in this application should be resisted on the basis that the loss of most of the boundary wall would result in a failure to retain local character and distinctiveness provided by local walling and would therefore be harmful to the streetscene.
Week 40 2018
17/04675/AR– 9 – 10 Trim Street Bath
Display of externally illuminated temporary decorative scaffold shroud screen advertisement during scaffolding and works to the building for a period of 12 month.
Comment: The Trust has long been concerned regarding the impact of one colour scaffolding shrouds on the WHS, especially when works take a long time. Therefore the idea to shroud this building for a year is supported but only if the shroud can project images of the building underneath and NOT an advertisement of the scale proposed in the current application as this is harmful to the visual amenity of the streetscene and does not enhance the character of the conservation area, not to mention the creation of a dangerous precedent. We realise that the provision of advertising is probably the driver for the bespoke shroud, therefore we hope some satisfactory compromise can be reached whereby the building can be shrouded in this innovative and beneficial way but without the harmful giant advert element.
17/04646/FUL– Upper Lodge Kelston Road Kelston Bath
Demolition of existing dwelling house and associated outbuildings to be replaced by a new two storey dwelling house and enclosure for existing swimming pool.
Object: The Trust objects to this scheme on the basis that there is inadequate assessment of the value of the current attractive vernacular buildings and the justification for their loss. Using the Know Your Place site it is clear that these buildings have existed since the second half of the 19th century and it is likely that they formed outbuildings, stables and lodge for Cleeve Hill House or possibly even Kelston Knoll. Therefore there is an historic group value to these buildings and they can arguably be labelled non-designated heritage assets which are afforded protection under the NPPF Section 12 and PMP Policy NE.1. These old buildings make a positive contribution to the rural streetscene and the landscape character and quality in this area as well as being part of the story of this small estate on the outskirts of Bath. Their loss without due diligence and assessment would be regrettable.
Therefore we recommend that the applicant is required to produce an historic buildings report incorporating a significance statement which informs and is juxtaposed against a justification for the loss of these buildings. With this information a more informed view of the planning judgement can be taken. We also urge the case officer to involve the historic environment team in their decision-making process for this application.
In terms of the new building, we acknowledge its position lower down will mean that it will probably not intrude into important views of this hillside, though we question what impact the extensive glazing will have in night views in terms of light spillage and in day views in term of solar glare. We would also remark that whilst we have no objection to the creative use of contemporary materials, the extent of the use of grey zinc roofing is problematic and does not take reference from the local context or palette, this should be broken up via the use of a more natural rural material.
17/04512/RES – Unregistered Farm Shop And Cafe Castle Farm Midford Road Midford Bath
Approval of all reserved matters with regard to outline application 15/03325/OUT for the erection of an agricultural workers dwelling.
Object: The Trust continues to object to this application on the basis of the height of the building which still appears excessive and could possibly intrude visually into the AONB and Green Belt. We would prefer to see a lower building on the site or at least the provision of some form of contextual imaging to show how this building will sit within the sensitive surrounding landscape and how visible it will be. The Trust regards this application to be deficient in terms of the amount of drawn detail, which is not acceptable in a reserved matters application, especially in relation to new building in the Green Belt and the sensitivity of this location in terms of landscape and visual considerations. In particular the lack of detail on materials is concerning and we would urge the case officer to insist that a full materials schedule is submitted prior to determination. In our view the building should be faced with natural Bath rubblestone with Bath stone detailing including lintels; this will allow it to reference local built character and to harmonise with its rural setting.
In our view, the proposed scheme due to its height and materials would harm the AONB and Green Belt and the character of the nearby conservation area. It would therefore be contrary to Section 7 of the NPPF (Requiring Good Design) and Placemaking Plan policies GB.1 (it will be visually detrimental to the Green Belt by reason of its siting, design and materials and NE2 and policies B4 and CP8 of the Core Strategy. We would therefore recommend that the application be refused.
17/04520/LBA & 17/04523/AR– 1 – 3 James Street West City Centre
External alterations for the display of 2no externally illuminated business name and logo signs set in fanlight above entrance doors and addition of an externally illuminated hanging sculpture.
Comment: The Trust welcomes the efforts made by the applicant to amend their proposals to a thoughtful bespoke scheme and ordinarily we would support the installation of a bespoke quirky sculptural sign however we agree with other respondents that this building is somewhat unique in terms of its historic significance as a place of commemoration. For that reason we would prefer to see a small timber projecting or hanging sign fixed to the metal fascia on the curve (i.e the new element of the building). We have no concerns regarding the over door signage as we acknowledge that the business must be able to advertise their existence to passers-by. Given the high position of the current interpretation plaque which we understand was placed there for very sensible reasons, we suggest that Nisbets consider some more accessible interpretation regarding the history of the building placed inside the building near the entrance.
17/04280/FUL – 92 London Road West Lower Swainswick
Erection of 4no. residential dwellings following demolition of existing outbuilding and partial demolition, extension and conversion of existing dwelling to form garages; parking and ancillary development
Comment: We find the drawings supplied with this application to be inadequate to properly examine the impact of this scheme on the streetscene and adjacent terrace. The street elevation gives no detailed view of how this scheme will look within the wider context; the image appears to suggest the ridge height of these buildings will be higher than the terrace and this may have a harmful impact on the character of this area. Given the scale of the development, we believe 3D renderings of the scheme should be supplied as well as proper street and river side context elevations that include the surrounding built and natural forms. This will allow for a more informative application to assist with the proper assessment of impact within the planning judgement.
17/02311/FUL – Ensleigh Cottage, Granville Road
Redevelopment of site involving the demolition of existing garage building and the erection of three apartments with undercroft parking and pool building
Object: The Trust continues to object to this application on the basis that the applicant still has not examined the landscape impact of their scheme by the provision of LVIA’s and we are still concerned that the bulk and massing of this development is excessive and therefore constitutes over development of this plot. The overall impact of this large building on the visual amenity of the surrounding landscape, the setting of the WHS, AONB and GB is no doubt harmful but the only way to assess the extent of this harm is via the provision of verified views into the site from vantage points from the east and south. We welcome the revision in height but the remaining tower intrudes into the roofscape and negates the work done to reduce the roof height. In our view the development of the ridge so far does not justify further urbanisation of the skyline via the construction of further large built form, it is actually the opposite: the clearly harmful cumulative urbanisation of the ridge should be mitigated by the refusal of further development which would add to and exacerbate the harm already wrought to the green hillside setting of the WHS and the beauty of the open landscape.
The proposed scheme, by virtue of form, massing and overdevelopment of the plot would be visually harmful to the visual amenities of the surrounding landscape setting, Green Belt and AONB, and would detract from the special qualities of the WHS. The scheme would be contrary to the Section 12 (Conserving and Enhancing the Historic Environment) of the NPPF, policies B1, B2, B4, and CP6 of the B&NES Core Strategy and saved policies GB.2, NE.1, NE.2, NE.3 of the B&NES Local Plan. It is also contrary to policies CP6, D.1, D.2, D.3, D.5, NE2, NE2A, CP8, GB1 of the Placemaking Plan. We would therefore recommend the application be withdrawn or refused.
Week 39 2017
17/04452/FUL – 17 Pulteney Road Bathwick Bath
Demolition of existing entrance porch and conservatory and erection of a new side extension at ground and basement levels.
Comment: Whilst we understand the applicant’s desire to enlarge and rationalise the entrance arrangements for this villa, we do regard it as a non-designated heritage asset and feel that it is a real shame to lose the rather grand gabled entrance porch which forms a part of the architectural history of the building. In addition, though there are no details of its date or history, the charm of the idiosyncratic curved greenhouse is also a sad loss. Both these features form part of the history of this distinguished piece of Victorian architecture; sweeping it away would be to the detriment of the 19th century story of the World Heritage site and the (over) development of the villa does not in our view justify the proposal. We hope the case officer will liaise with the Historic Environment team regarding their thoughts on the proposal.
17/04521/AR– Zizzi 9 Sawclose City Centre Bath
Display of internally illuminated fascia text and non illuminated fascia text.
Object: As the Sawclose and Casino public realm is built out and finalised it is extremely important that the character of the outdoor seating areas is closely managed and planned. In this case we find the larger Zizzi sign acceptable but not the smaller acrylic lettering, which should be a better quality material such as metal or timber. We have an in principle objection to internal illumination in the historic core of the city but recognise that some form of subtle illumination of the main sign is probably justified. The plethora of branding on the jumbrellas and planters should be rationalised so that there is less signage clutter in this area. We would suggest, as per the Giggling Squid, that there is small ‘Zizzi’ lettering on the jumbrella valances (not the large branding proposed on the jumbrella slopes) and that the branding is omitted from the planters. This sensitive historic area could cumulatively become visually disordered if signage was permitted on every piece of furniture (see Vino Vino and The Oven for an example of low quality public realm created by signage). In particular we refer to Policy D.9 regarding taking opportunities to reduce signage and to D.10 regarding enhancing the public realm.
The noted parts of the proposed signage by virtue of its amount and siting would be harmful to the setting of significant nearby designated heritage assets, would neither preserve nor enhance the character and appearance of the conservation area, would be detrimental to the visual amenity of the street scene and would detract from the special qualities of the WHS. The scheme would be contrary to Section 12 (Conserving and Enhancing the Historic Environment) of the NPPF, policies B1, B2, B4, and CP6 of the B&NES Core Strategy and policies CP6, D.2, HE1, D.9,D.10, B.2 of the Placemaking Plan. We would therefore recommend the application be amended in-line with our proposals or refused.
17/04583/FUL – Southgate Development Southgate Street Bath
Erection of public realm additions comprising a pocket park and feature landscaping, feature seating, lighting, sculpture and way finding incorporating Hostile Vehicle Management measures including anti-ram bollards and duck and cover installations in Brunel Square
Comment: The Trust has reviewed the plans for ‘The Place’ and we have no concerns regarding the proposals. We understand the rationale for added security measures in Brunel Square but would remark that we cannot see how the bollards will protect from a hostile vehicle, given that there are entry points into the square from all along Dorchester Street involving a few steps which would be easy to navigate in a car or van. Regarding the bollards to both Southgate and Brunel Square we feel the design of these should be closely reviewed to ensure that they are of the appropriate quality and appearance, and to ensure uniformity across Bath and to accord closely with the Streetscape Manual/Bath Pattern Book. We refer specifically to guidance on page 73 of the Pattern Book, and the Street Pattern Book Design Guide 2012.. As we have suggested before this new gateway space to the WHS gives an excellent opportunity for some ‘stand out’ signposting and WHS/Brunel Railway interpretation displays.
17/04402/FUL – 144 Locksbrook Road Newbridge Bath
Provision of a rear dormer to an existing loft conversion
Comment: On review of these plans we consider the proposed dormer to be too large for the roof of this terraced cottage, it overtakes the entire roof slope. We would recommend the width of the dormer be reduced so as to be less top heavy on the dwelling.
17/04532/FUL – 68 Cedric Road Lower Weston
Loft conversion with side and rear dormer windows.
Comment: In our view the proposed side dormer should be reduced below ridge height so that there is a step down. There are many examples of dormers in the street but none that extend the roof ridge; this unbalances the semi detached pair and creates a roofscape effect that is at odds with local character, impacting negatively on the street scene. We recommend the plans be slightly amended.
17/04347/FUL – 82 Lower Oldfield Park Oldfield Park
Replacement of existing doors and windows to double glazed white uPVC.
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. We support the desire to increase energy efficiency through the introduction of appropriate double glazing but not with uPVC. uPVC 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’s attractive Victorian and Edwardian suburbs. Whilst there may be local precedent for uPVC we do not see this as justification for the change to this substantial building. 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. It is now possible to buy timber-framed double glazed units even from the volume suppliers and so we do not think availability can be a reason.
The proposed windows would fail to preserve or enhance the character and appearance of the conservation area, and therefore the special qualities of the WHS. It would be contrary to Section 12 of the NPPF, policies B1, B4 and CP6 of the Core Strategy and policies CP6, D.1, D.2 and HE1 of the Placemaking Plan.
Week 38 2017
17/03317/AR – 14 New Bond Street City Centre Bath
Display of 3no. non illuminated Fascia signs.
Comment: Given the prominent position of this shop within a premier shopping street in the World Heritage Site, we object to the use of acrylic lettering and would recommend that the signage is either pin mounted metal or similar high quality material, or traditionally sign written.
17/04327/VAR – Lansdown Court Lansdown Road Charlcombe Bath
Variation of condition 3 of application 15/02250/FUL granted on 29.06.2016
Comment: The Trust shares the concern of the Parish Council that this variation of condition represents more than a minor variation to plans and further over-develops this site. The extension to the main house and the conversion of the garage units results in an increase in quantum of development that may be inappropriate development in the Green Belt and we hope that the case officer will be vigorous in their assessment of this. In addition the issue of where the displaced car parking and increased car parking needs (from annex) will be placed has not been addressed in the application.
17/04350/LBA – Bath War Memorial Royal Avenue City Centre Bath
Stone cleaning and minor repairs to include re-pointing of grade II listed war memorial
Comment: We welcome the cleaning and repair of this monument but we question the approach not to tackle the structural issues resulting from the vegetation behind the curved wall; surely to save further more serious issues happening in the future this problem should be dealt with now, the vegetation removed and the wall stabilised.
17/04082/LBA – Second Floor 9 Lansdown Place West Lansdown Bath
Installation of new boiler flue on west elevation.
Comment: This flue is to be placed in a highly visible position on a prominent elevation and we strongly urge the case officer to insist that the flue itself is a recessive colour such as cream so as to blend in with the Bath stone elevation and not to intrude upon it (as black would do).
17/03803/LBA – 27 Walcot Buildings Walcot Bath
External alterations to repaint the shop front white with a blue boarder (Regularisation)
Comment: In our view the blue border of the shop front is garish and inappropriate and the applicant should be instructed to paint the entire frontage white. We would also remark the examples used to justify the shop front painting are very poor and the applicant should be provided with a copy of the Guidance for Commercial Signage and Tables/Chairs in the Conservation Area for information and guidance on what is deemed appropriate within the World Heritage Site.
17/04381/FUL – Empty Premises 124A High Street Upper Weston
Change of Use from Shops (Use Class A1) to Cafe (Use Class A3) to include display of fascia, window and hanging signs.
Comment: this application is incorrect in that it does not make clear that it is seeking to include alterations to the shop front from the permitted scheme 08/04510/FUL; albeit those alterations are beneficial as the current proposed shop front is a more appropriate design given the traditional pilasters and panelled risers. In our view the window vinyls are inappropriate and clutter the facade unnecessarily. The vertical timber cladding is also not acceptable and should be replaced with joinery, rendered or painted.
17/04265/FUL& 17/04266/LBA – Belvoir Castle 32 – 33 Victoria Buildings Westmoreland Bath
Provision of a new skittle alley, a new community room, provision of new accessible toilets, refurbishment of the public house and the demolition of the existing skittle alley to in order provide 10 no. studio apartments at the Belvoir Castle, Bath.
Object: The Trust usually welcomes contemporary architecture in the historic environment but in this case we feel that the additions to this old building are a step too far and do not complement or enhance the significance of the asset or those adjacent in Park View. The old 19th century skittle alley is an integral part of the history of this pub and thus has historic and communal value; its loss is not a decision to be taken lightly. Whilst sensitive redevelopment of the building for small units is not resisted by us, we feel that any additions to it should be more subservient to and respectful of the building as it currently stands and that the addition of large box forms essentially on top constitutes overdevelopment of the site. The boxes themselves sit heavily upon and do not relate well to the heritage asset, and over-dominate it with their bulk, massing and the overhanging element. In addition they must surely sit intrusively within the views from and into the listed terrace Park View and therefore harm its setting. The generic contemporary urban architecture does not appear to take any design cues or references from the heritage asset or the local townscape character which includes 18th and 19th century buildings as well industrial and ecclesiastical architecture. We do not think that proximity to the BWR means that site context can be ignored in favour of complete departure from local townscape personality.
We question the justification for providing this level of development on the site ostensibly to finance a community room and sustain the viability of the pub. In this high density residential location the pub should be able to attract customers, especially as BWR is built out and a large new community moves in. A more heritage focussed response could include the provision of a community room within the ground floor of the old skittle alley, which has provided a community hub for many decades now, and one storey development of units above that relates well to and reflects local form, pattern and grain .
The proposed scheme by virtue of its design, height and massing would be harmful to designated and non-designated heritage assets and their setting, would neither preserve nor enhance the character and appearance of the conservation area, would be detrimental to the visual amenity of the street scene and would detract from the special qualities of the WHS. The scheme would be contrary to Section 12 (Conserving and Enhancing the Historic Environment) of the NPPF, policies B1, B4, and CP6 of the B&NES Core Strategy and policies CP6, D.1, D.2, D.5, D.7, HE1 of the Placemaking Plan. We would therefore recommend the application be withdrawn or refused.
Week 37 2017
17/04206/LBA & 17/04205/FUL – 16 Union Street City Centre Bath
Addition of new timber shopfront to replace existing, replacement of 2no. upper floor windows and installation of bird netting to rooftop.
Comment: We find the proposals broadly acceptable but we have a concern regarding the gull netting which looks to be highly visible and intrusive on the roofscape of the building, sitting quite high on a framed structure and also white in colour. We wonder whether a less intrusive arrangement for bird prevention can be devised, perhaps in a more recessive colour than white. We trust that the case officer will ensure that this element of the application is not harmful to the special interest of the listed building the local roofscape pattern or to medium/long views within the WHS.
17/04257/FUL& 17/04258/LBA – Slug And Lettuce 5 – 6 Edgar Buildings City Centre
Erection of new bench seating at the rear and internal refurbishment and redecoration works.
Comment: We note that there are no details or drawings (beyond a plan) included which show the tables and chairs proposed for the front elevation. It is not clear whether the current in-situ furniture is to be used or whether new outdoor furniture is proposed. There are no elevation views or images to show how this furniture will impact on the setting of listed buildings and the streetscene in this principle and important location within the WHS. In particular we would expect to see more detail in terms of proposed colour, material and size. Whilst we accept the principle of some outdoor seating here, we see the application as lacking in the appropriate amount of detail to be able to properly assess this element of the proposals.
17/04286/REG03 – 117 Newbridge Hill Newbridge Bath
Change of use from office space (use class B1) to 6no apartments (use class C3), alterations to roof and associated hard and soft landscaping.
Comment: The Trust really hopes that B&NES as property owner can lead by example and NOT install uPVC windows in this attractive non-designated asset located within a distinct 19th century character area. No details exist of what new windows are proposed (except they are due to be replaced) but we recommend pressure treated hardwood which has the same performance properties as uPVC.
17/04315/FUL – 8 Marlborough Buildings City Centre
Removal of steel and timber access bridge giving access to rear garden at basement level. Replacement with structural glass bridge and extending across rear of property to form seating area. Revisions to adjacent garden. (Flat 5, 8 Marlborough Buildings).
Comment: Whilst we have no objection to a contemporary and legible addition to the listed building, and one which will increase the enjoyment of its use, we question whether this plan is actually achievable without undue harm to historic fabric in terms of the steel fixings and semi-structural intervention work needed to achieve the glass deck area?
17/02456/LBA – 11 Lansdown Place East
Internal alterations to a Grade II listed building involving the removal of an internal wall (Regularisation)
Object: The Trust objects strongly to this proposal which we understand was undertaken despite the express refusal of the conservation officer. The arched niche is a special and distinct original feature of houses in this location, and is part of its special architectural and historic significance. Its loss is unacceptable and it should be reinstated to enable the historic plan form and feature to remain legible and intact as originally designed. The fact that the applicant alleges the materials of the niche are modern is not relevant; the plasterboard and skim found could well have been the result of repairs from bomb damage in WWII which hit this street badly.
The proposed removal of this distinctive original feature would harm the significance of the listed building and is contrary to Section 12 (Conserving and enhancing the historic environment) of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), policies; B1, CP6 of the B&NES Core Strategy and HE1 of the Placemaking Plan. We would therefore recommend that the application be refused and the applicant be required to reinstate the wall, preferably in lathe and lime plaster.
Designed by Ice House Design