November – December 2013
______________________________________________________________________
13/03716/FUL – 6 Bladud Buildings, City Centre, Bath BA1 5LS
Use of pavement for the siting of tables and chairs.
OBJECT Whilst BPT does not object to outdoor tables and chairs in principle, however, the residential nature of the street and the late hours kept by this club change the position. Additional street furniture for this busy club would increase noise and activity especially in the evenings, creating a serious noise nuisance for the many nearby residential buildings. Furthermore, no information has been provided on the appearance or number of tables and chairs which, if approved whilst unknown could set an undesirable precedent. This alone should result in refusal. Too many chairs and tables in this location would result in a cluttered appearance that neither preserve nor enhance the character and appearance of the conservation area and would have a harmful impact on the value of the World Heritage Site.
Overall, we believe this application should not be approved until more precise information is provided so as to allow a proper assessment of the proposals. Therefore, the proposal in its current form is therefore contrary to Local Plan Policies BH.1, BH.2, BH.6, D.2 and D.4, the Planning (Listed Buildings & Conservation Areas) Act 1990 and Section 12 ‘Conserving & Enhancing the Historic Environment’ of the NPPF and should be refused.
______________________________________________________________________
13/03978/AR & 13/03976/FUL – Vacant Premises 1 Southgate Street Bath BA1 1AQ
Change of use from retail Class A1 to Class A2 including alterations to shop front and Installation of ATM. Display of 1no. internally illuminated fascia sign and 1no. internally illuminated projecting sign. (At Kiosk 5, 1 Southgate Street, Bath)
OBJECT The design of the proposed shop front is inappropriate in the context of the Conservation area. The teal blue/green power coated aluminium fascia and projecting sign are incongruous and inferior quality materials, which are not in the character of Bath. The proposed colours of teal blue/green, white and bronze will have a harmful impact on the composition of the façade and adjacent units, and the proposed illumination of the lettering for this sign is constitutes an inappropriate form of advertising within the conservation area.
Beyond these points we do not feel able to assess the proposals and their impact as this application is insufficiently detailed. For example, there is insufficient detail on the ATM and no materials are specified on the drawings. New shop fronts, even if contemporary or modernist in design, should respect the general principles of traditional modelling. The approach to this building should make better use of traditional materials, proportions, pilasters and details.
The proposed shopfront, by virtue of its illumination, design, materials and colour neither preserves nor enhances the character and appearance of the Conservation area. The proposal is contrary to Local Plan Policies BH.6, the Planning (Listed Buildings & Conservation Areas) Act 1990 and Section 12 ‘Conserving & Enhancing the Historic Environment’ of the NPPF and should be refused.
______________________________________________________________________
13/04044/AR – Garfunkels, Orange Grove, City Centre, Bath BA1 1LP
Display of 1no internally-illuminated fascia sign
OBJECT BPT objects to illuminated signs on listed buildings and within the Conservation area and in the World Heritage Site. While the amount of illumination is, in itself, enough to be of detriment to the visual amenity of the area, the signs, by virtue of the materials and colour are incongruous. This signage scheme is not sensitive or appropriate upon a unique listed building, in such a prominent area. Steel and acrylic materials are not sensitive or appropriate and do not reflect the traditional palette of Bath. Signage should seek to respect the architectural qualities and character of Bath through the use of traditionally painted timber signs which would be much more sympathetic and appropriate for this historic building.
We also regret that the proposed development at this site is already underway which is not clear in the application. Unauthorised works to a listed building are a criminal offence and should be condemned.
The application therefore fails to comply with Local Plan Policies BH.2, BH.6 and BH.17, the Planning (Listed Buildings & Conservation Areas) Act 1990 and Section 12 ‘Conserving & Enhancing the Historic Environment’ of the NPPF and should be refused.
______________________________________________________________________
13/04103/FUL & 13/04104/LBA – 11 Bridge Street, City Centre, Bath BA2 4AS
Internal and external alterations to facilitate fit-out of proposed restaurant.
COMMENT BPT welcomes the reuse of this building which is currently a missed opportunity within Bath. The plans for the ground floor are reasonable, although aluminium framing for the shop front, and attached illuminated lettering for the sign are not appropriate. The addition of illumination to this site and within the conservation area is inappropriate and should be removed from the application. The materials for the shopfront and the signage should be traditional and preferably sign painted due to the sensitive location of this building within the world heritage site. Lastly, in relation to the signage elements, the proposed illuminated hanging sign which will be visible from Bridge Street, whilst understandable due to the commercial intent of the works, is not acceptable in this sensitive location at the entrance to Pulteney Bridge.
We consider it a shame that a more attractive proposal could not be put forward for the 17th century Slippery Lane buildings and that the configuration couldn’t accommodate a better solution, such as customer seating. We do however; appreciate that any other proposed use may well have had a more detrimental impact. To mitigate the use of this area as ancillary facilities, we consider it important that, the history of the building should be well interpreted so as to inform users of its significance.
______________________________________________________________________
13/04131/AR – Blathwayt Arms, Lansdown Road, Charlcombe, Bath BA1 9BT
Retention of signage & lighting.
OBJECT The signage scheme proposed in this application constitutes wholly insensitive and aggressive over advertisement within the green belt. As this work has already been carried out this is clear to see when using Lansdown Road. Signage items numbers 2 and 4 are too large, overly dominant within the landscape and severely harm the visual amenity of the area by blocking the long views from the road down to the racecourse and beyond. This will be exacerbated at night by virtue of the proposed illumination. This application should be viewed within the context that Lansdown Road is a green gateway into Bath and these signs do nothing to enhance or preserve this location.
We also deplore the triangular signage which is proposed in the beer garden. The intention for this to be raised over 5ft so as to be viewed from the racecourse and from the Cotswold Way, as stated in the signage details, is far removed from any principles to preserve the green character of the green belt and absolutely should not be granted permission.
Lastly, this application does not propose a ’retention’ of signage and lighting as described; rather it seeks to replace signage and lighting. Furthermore, this work has already been carried out without planning permission, therefore, the application should have been registered as retrospective.
By virtue of the considerable harm to the greenbelt caused by these overly large and dominant signs, this application is contrary to Paragraph 67 relating to outdoor advertisements in Section 7 ‘Requiring good Design’ of the NPPF and to local plan policies GB.1 GB.2, and should be REFUSED.
______________________________________________________________________
13/04097/FUL & 13/04098/LBA – Gays Cottage, Gay’s Hill, Walcot, Bath BA1 5JN
Erection of a single storey extension on front elevation.
COMMENT BPT welcomes that there is no loss of historic fabric within these proposals and commends the light touch of the proposed extension against the listed building which responds well to the issue of modern design or pastiche heavy building.
Whilst we consider the timber frame and glazing to be less intrusive than a large masonry structure, we are disappointed with the intention to place kitchen units up against the glazing. This somewhat defeats the ‘light touch approach’ as the function of the space as proposed negates the contemporary approach.
______________________________________________________________________
13/04221/LBA – 1–4 New Bond Street, City Centre, Bath BA1 1BE
External alterations for new signage to be installed to New Bond Street / Northgate Street elevation and Barton Court. New storefront pull door handle to be installed to storefront entrance doors implemented under consent 13/01336/LBA
OBJECT BPT applauds the applicant for omitting any illumination from their proposals, however, must object to the fascia mounted projecting sign. This design does not sit comfortably on the listed building and a traditionally sign painted, timber hanging sign would be far more appropriate for the location. If the officer is minded to consent we would urge that they ask for this element of the proposals to be revisited. Whilst we appreciate that this sign is likely of a house style, this building is within the historic heart of the conservation area and world heritage site, where only one other historic, traditional timber hanging sign is sited, therefore it is only appropriate that this applicant be asked to follow this precedent. Linked to this, the steel and brass materials proposed for the projecting sign are deemed inappropriate for the setting and harmful to the visual amenity of the street scene.
Due to the inappropriate projecting sign this application is thought to contravene Section 12 ‘Conserving and Enhancing the Historic Environment’ of the NPPF and Local Plan policies BH.2, BH.6 and BH.17 and should be REFUSED.
______________________________________________________________________
13/03497/LBA – 26 Queen Square, City Centre, Bath, BA1 2HX
External alterations for the display of 2no. small company plaques.
OBJECT This is a poor quality application which provides insufficient analysis of the listed building to make an informed assessment of whether or not this is an appropriate scheme for the building. No demonstrable understanding of the buildings significance as part of the first architectural set piece of Bath is displayed and no assessment of the impact of the proposals is made. BPT is aware that there is an unfortunate precedent for these plaques in Queen Square, but as a result the vast majority the doorcases are already disfigured and irrevocably damaged by the repetitive replacement of name plates due to change of tenant, or house-style of existing tenants. This accretion of signage within the square should not be used as justification and should not give way to default consent on the grounds of precedent; it should in fact serve as deterrent to allow more. As it stands, there are no existing signs to this side neither of the ground floor door, nor to the basement door, and as such this application which seeks to damage historic fabric merely for the benefit corporate branding should not be given consent. The materials proposed are inappropriate, but this is less important than the damage which will be caused by attachment, of which no apparent awareness is expressed.
Lastly, the drawings contained within the application fail to depict the rustication of the stonework which renders making an informed judgement on the position of the sign impossible; the sign should not traverse the bands of rustication. Again this lack of detail shows a lack of understanding or care for this G1 listed building.
This application, by virtue of the lack of justification, inappropriate materials, historical information and useable drawings is considered detrimental to the listed building, the visual amenity of Queen Square and of the conservation area and as such is contrary to Section 12 ‘Conserving and Enhancing the Historic Environment’ of the NPPF and local plan policies BH.2, BH.6 AND BH.17 and should be REFUSED.
______________________________________________________________________
13/03908/REG03 – St Saviours Junior School, Brookleaze Place, Avondale Buildings, Larkhall, Bath BA1 6RB
Erection of new 5 class room extension following demolition of existing school buildings
OBJECT BPT is disappointed at this rather pedestrian effort to develop more accommodation for this growing school. Whilst this design is an improvement on the existing, we consider it a mannered design, due to the extensive glazing of the North East façade and the bland palette of materials used. In particular we feel that the Bath Stone coloured render is a poor choice of material as, as has been demonstrated by other developments across the city, attempts to replicate the colour of Bath stone invariably fail. There have been successful school developments elsewhere in B&NES and we question why these proposals are so lacking in commendable design. Batheaston Primary School’s recent extension is one such case, where the design manages to be both contemporary and vernacular, which we feel could and should be achieved on this site. The flat roof in particular is thought to be detrimental to the amenity of the local area and we would suggest that a pitched roof would be more in keeping with the locality whilst still providing the same volume.
As it stands, this design makes no attempt to sit comfortably within the conservation area and makes no attempt at subservience to the much more architecturally rich buildings which surround the site. As a result this application is thought to be contrary to Section 12 ‘Conserving and Enhancing the Historic Environment’ and Local Plan policies D.2, D.4 and BH.6
______________________________________________________________________
13/04170/LBA – 29 Grosvenor Place, Lambridge, Bath, BA1 6BA
Internal and external works to entrance hall of basement flat.
SUPPORT The Bath Preservation is fully supportive of these proposals to restore and reinstate the sash windows and repair damaged fabric. Replacing the existing entrance hall window, which is of modern construction with a new appropriate designed timber sliding sash window, constitutes a marked improvement. Overall, the sensitive repairs will enhance the special architectural interest of the listed building and improve the appearance of the property that in turn will enhance the character and appearance of the City Conservation Area.
______________________________________________________________________
13/04217/OUT – Land at Rear of Argos, Midland Rd, Twerton, Bath
Erection of 8no town houses and six apartments in three and four storey buildings, associated off-street parking and amenity space and relaying of access (Outline with some matters reserved)
OBJECT BPT has no in principle objection to development on this site, indeed we welcome the development of a brown field site within the city which will add to housing stock and regenerate an attractive riverside setting. However, we hold several serious concerns about the scheme as it stands which can be delineated as follows:
Principle of Design
We disagree with the applicant that this development should follow the BWR design guide. Whilst this site abuts the BWR boundary it also sits within the conservation area and within the world heritage site. The BWR design guide is superseded in terms of policy by the protection afforded to the conservation area; the proposed buildings should take their cues from the buildings of architectural merit in the locality and seek to achieve a similar quality thereby enhancing and diversifying the conservation area. Furthermore, this site sits in a prominent position along the river corridor and next to an important crossing of the river Avon and as such calls for a subservient and successful design. Unfortunately the scheme has followed the BWR design guide to the extent that it will not sit comfortably within the conservation area.
Apartment Block
The context visualisations make it apparent that this building has been designed to reference the now out of date designs for B5, B16 and B25 of BWR. This shows quite clearly that the argument for following the BWR design guide is flawed and illustrates that, as previously stated in the rejection of the earlier scheme, these proposals are premature when considered against BWR. The ‘H’ shaped arches to the river front façade are particularly inappropriate in relation to the new designs for the landmark BWR buildings. We do appreciate the difficulty in developing opposite the emerging Studio Egret West scheme. However it is essential that any permission granted in such close proximity should sit comfortably with the ‘object’ buildings B5 and B16.We remain concerned about the massing and appearance of the apartment block. From many view points in the locality the apartment block will eclipse views of the Bridge. This Bridge is being encroached on and overshadowed by buildings on both sides of the river which will change the character of this part of the conservation area irreversibly. The design of the apartment block therefore needs much more careful consideration.
Terrace Block
We are generally supportive of the proposed terrace town houses, however, there appears to be little cohesion with the apartment block. The number of storeys (3), whilst greater that the majority of surrounding traditional buildings, is considered appropriate for this riverside location. The floor to ceiling heights of the townhouses appear to be generous without the buildings exceeding average heights which is commendable.
Materials
Materials are generally sympathetic, though we state a preference for natural slate and natural Bath stone on all elevations. We are concerned that if future residents of these buildings wished to add solar PVs to their roofs, they would look incongruous against the red pantiles, an issue that natural slate would partially overcome. Lastly, a condition should be attached to any permission to ensure the proper maintenance of the green wall.
By virtue of the harm to the setting of Midland Bridge and the consequential negative impact on the conservation area and world heritage site and due to the misguided decision to follow the outdated BWR design, this application is considered contrary to Section 12 ‘Conserving and Enhancing the Conservation Areas’ of the NPPF and local plan policies D.2, D.4 and BH.6 and should be REFUSED
______________________________________________________________________
13/04185/LBA & 13/04235/FUL – Hope House, The Royal High School, Lansdown Road, Lansdown, Bath BA1 5ES
Residential development for the erection of 57 no. dwellings, including the conversion of Hope House, and associated infrastructure and parking following demolition of existing school buildings.
COMMENT Overall, BPT welcomes these proposals which respect the nature of the site they are to inhabit and gives a renewed use to Hope House. However we have some reservations about the lower block.
Upper site
We are happy with the scale of development on the upper site, reserving its concerns for a few details that we believe would make the scheme more comfortable in the setting. We appreciate that the blocks seek not to be too intrusive above the wall to Lansdown Road, however, this loss of height has lead to some regrettable aesthetics. The windows to a number of elevations are square rather than the Georgian rectangular which adds to the sense of the buildings being too short and top heavy. This is particularly true of the ground floor windows of Blocks A, B and E. This might be mitigated by a lower pitched roof or a higher parapet to these elevations.
Our main reservation is that Block C does not successfully achieve the aesthetic it has tried to. The palace front requires the building to appear symmetrical but the lower element with the bay window knocks the symmetry and as a result the building is overbearing and clumsy. Either the lower level element should be removed or the desire for the palatial forgotten and the roofline stepped down to meet the lower level.
Lastly, as a note on detail, where there is a curved elevation, the joinery should follow that curve rather than recessing plane joinery into the curve which would result in an unauthentic and clumsy finish.
Hope House
BPT feels strongly that Hope House should be left to stand alone and that the glass link to Block E should be omitted from the proposals. The link is in the wrong idiom and is not contemporary enough to sit in pleasing contrast with Hope House.
With regards to the conversion of Hope House itself there is a lack of detail concerning the new windows. The existing windows are to be replaced with double glazing and traditional glazing bar patterns, but it was hard to find the relevant information about the existing windows, and whether the openings are to be altered. The application does not specify if the double glazing is to slimline, which it ought to be. Linked to this, the mouldings for the joinery look reasonable, although rather early for the date of the building, particularly the glazing bar profiles. We would ask that this is clarified before any permission.
Lower Site
We have no objection in principle to a light touch contemporary approach on this portion of the site, indeed we believe it to be the correct treatment of the area, however we do find some of the proposals to be objectionable. We take particular issue with the choice to employ Cotswold Stone rubble in horizontal courses on the facades of this building since we consider this material to be incongruous to the local vernacular. As this site sits within the conservation area and in proximity to numerous buildings of architectural interest and significance which are rendered in natural Bath Stone this inappropriate use of materials should be revisited by the applicant and a more suitable solution found. The the characteristic Cotswold thin lines of stone coursing at Cavendish Lodge nearby is incongruous for Bath and should not be used as a precedent.
We are concerned about the views onto the flat roof of the contemporary terrace from the surrounding area. Without any visualisations of how this fits into the landscape it is hard to judge and we ask that this element is detailed before any permission.
Lastly. we feel that an opportunity has been missed to landscape in a path from the upper site through the lower site and down to the city as this is the most likely cut through for potential residents and feel the mass of the terrace will deter people from using this route.
If these proposals had come in as two separate applications we would have been minded to object to the proposals on this portion of the site until such a time as better detail was provided.
______________________________________________________________________
13/04231/LBA – 1 Winifreds Dale Cavendish Road, Lansdown, Bath BA1 2UD
External alterations to facilitate the installation of outdoor swimming pool with associated works
OBJECT BPT objects to this application on the grounds that the application is lacking clarity. The heritage statement is inadequate and does not make any mention of an assessment or analysis of how the proposals will impact the listed building or its setting and is impossible to judge and should be refused in its current format. In addition, though we understand this reference is to be withdrawn, there is no mention of what the stone cleaning Specification document pertains to and therefore, no consent should be given until this is clarified.
This application is contrary to Section 12 ‘Conserving and Enhancing the Historic Environment’ of the NPPF and local plan policy BH.2
______________________________________________________________________
13/04176/FUL – Flat 2 10 Oxford Row, City Centre, Bath
Conversion of a two bedroom maisonette into 2 one bedroom flats
SUPPORT Whilst we do not usually comment on internal works we would like to express our support for the sensitive and considered approach being taken to the development of this listed building. The insertion of an internal stair would have indeed caused a loss of historic fabric; however, this solution is a far happier one which also adds positively to the housing stock in Bath.
______________________________________________________________________
13/04257/LBA – Britannia Building Society, 30 Milsom Street, City Centre, Bath BA1 1DG
External alterations for the display of 1no.non-illuminated sign written fascia sign
SUPPORT BPT is pleased to see that the applicant has taken our previous comments on board and removed the illumination from the signage scheme as was first proposed. We also commend the proposal to now traditionally sign paint the timber fascia as this both enhances the visual amenity of the street scene and minimises the damage to the historic frontage. This application contributes positively to the conservation area and we hope that this will set a positive precedent that can be highlighted to other commercial bodies undertaking re-branding to their premises.
One point of concern is that whist the revised drawing now shows sign-writing and omits illumination, the application form has not been amended. We trust, however, that this will be corrected prior to determination.
Please note that having considered the revised plans for the related advertising application 13/03967/AR, our objection no longer stands and would echo this representation of support if still open for comments.
______________________________________________________________________
13/04311/FUL & 13/04312/LBA – 23 Queen Square, City Centre, Bath BA1 2HX
Conversion of existing offices to form new single residential townhouse. Change of use of existing offices at basement, ground, first and second floors to residential and retention of existing residential use at third floor as a guest flat.
SUPPORT BPT is warmly supportive of these plans and is pleased to see a townhouse in Queen Square being returned to its original residential purpose. Furthermore, we are impressed by the quality of the works proposed, in that the changes are minimal and have been carefully considered and detailed. We also find the proposals for the new wedding doors to be appropriate and admirable.
______________________________________________________________________
13/04408/FUL & 13/04409/LBA – Former Herman Miller Premises, Lower Bristol Road, Westmoreland, Bath BA2 3ER
Internal and external alterations for the change of use of the western part of the building from B2 use to an A1 foodstore
COMMENT BPT is pleased to see this application come forward and hopes to see the future of this deteriorating listed building secured through the viable use that this application goes some way to achieving. Our only concern is the proposed hoarding between the building and the river-path railings; presumably any permission for this should be temporary until the rest of the building is occupied, as this building should be seen as whole from river-path. This element if permitted should be strictly time limited by way of condition.
______________________________________________________________________
13/04278/FUL & 13/04279/LBA – Beau Nash, 23 Milsom Street, City centre, Bath BA1 1DE
Installation of extract and ventilation equipment at first floor level
COMMENT BPT is pleased that disruption to the historic fabric of this listed building is being consciously kept to a minimum. The extraction system proposed seems large, however, presumably this is considered necessary for running the kitchen. Whilst we appreciate that it is necessary to take fumes and therefore annoyance away from the neighbouring buildings and businesses, the chimney proposed will certainly be visible from particular areas along the raised George Street pavement. As such the material of the chimney should be specified in the application so as to allow a full assessment of the impact of the works. This material needs to be clarified before permission and not by way of condition.
______________________________________________________________________
13/04491/FUL – Street Record, Kingston Parade, City Centre, Bath, Bath and North East Somerset
Use of area for the installation of 10 triangular structures for the display of 30 images and text (resubmission)
COMMENT The cultural value of open air exhibitions is recognised and BPT is generally supportive of these temporary installations in appropriate parts of the city. However, we are concerned about the permanence of such exhibitions, especially in this location, which are becoming a regular feature in the city. We would welcome a policy in line with both the objectives of the Public Realm and Movement Strategy (PRMS) and cultural strategy, which would ensure a design approach appropriate for Bath and prevent an over dominance of such installations, giving the streetscape breathing space from clutter and allowing for enhanced legibility and therefore a greater experience, understanding and appreciation of the built historic environment.
The proposed exhibition would have a visual and physical impact on the setting and significance of the Abbey and adjacent listed buildings, the character and appearance of the Conservation Area, and the Outstanding Universal Values of the World Heritage Site. In our view the positioning of a large number of exhibition stands in the location proposed would have a harmful effect on the significance of these heritage assets. It is our view that they would detract from the ambience of Abbey Church Yard, and impinge on important townscape vistas and spatial sequences.
The Church Yard is an important and well used urban space within the city and the exhibition would reduce the opportunity for informal sitting and entertainment in this area. The PRMS recognises Abbey Church Yard as a destination space, which it is in its own right. There are other parts of the city, such as Southgate, which have yet to be recognised as such and could benefit from the cultural stimulus and animation that the exhibition would provide.
______________________________________________________________________
13/04381/LBA – 5 Brunswick Street, Lambridge, Bath BA1 6PQ
Internal and external alterations for the replacement of existing front and rear bedroom sash windows with new sash windows to match existing, replacement of rear closet wing bedroom modern casement window with single glazed traditional style sash window, new conservation grade roof light to bathroom, replacement of non-original concrete composite roof tiles with slate tiles, 2no. new double glazed timber framed sash windows, with applied timber moulding and pelmet (to conceal gutter) to rear conservatory, new single glazed painted timber framed French doors to rear closet wing.
COMMENT BPT commends this application and the proposals it intends. The repair of the ground floor window gives confidence that the first floor windows really do require replacement, and the glazing bar details are clearly drawn. The windows and doors in the later extension and conservatory are more appropriate in design than the existing, and the materials proposed are considered appropriate. Natural slates to replace concrete tiles will also be an improvement; the proposed roof light will not affect historic fabric, and if it is below sight level as stated, will not detract from the appearance of the building and will add to its viability as a family dwelling.
______________________________________________________________________
13/04250/LBA & 13/04281/AR – Charlie Crown, 4 Upper Borough Walls, City Centre, Bath BA1 1RG
Display of 1no non illuminated facia sign, 1no non illuminated hanging sign and 1no non illuminated hanging of picture frame with brand name in shop window
OBJECT We are pleased that this omits any illumination, however, we must object to the hanging sign. The materials proposed are unsuitable for a listed building and a shopfront in the conservation area, and contrary to B&NES shopfront guidance. The works, by virtue of the use of inappropriate materials are considered to be detrimental to the special architectural and historic interest of the listed building, the setting of adjacent listed buildings and the conservation area. This application therefore, fails to comply with the Planning (Listed Buildings & Conservation Areas) Act 1990, Section 12 ‘Conserving & Enhancing the Historic Environment’ of the NPPF and Local Plan Policies BH2, BH6 and BH17 and should be REFUSED.
______________________________________________________________________
13/04367/AR & 13/04368/LBA – Whittard of Chelsea, 10 Stall Street, City Centre, Bath BA1 1QE
Internal and external alterations including alterations to shopfront and internal redecoration
OBJECT BPT will continue to object to illuminated signs within the conservation area and in the World Heritage Site. The downlighters are deemed unnecessary, especially given the street light almost immediately above emits sufficient light to draw attention to the building’s use and there is little need for additional illumination. Despite its relatively discreet fitting and position, the lighting itself would contribute to higher light levels and detract from both the low-luminous character of the historic townscape, and dark sky over Bath and its setting. The inappropriate illuminated sign would be harmful to the visual amenity value of the location and would fail to reinforce local distinctiveness and would neither preserve nor enhance the character and appearance of the conservation area. Additionally, we would expect a clear rationalisation of why new lettering has been chosen over the option of readjusting the existing ‘tea’ and ‘coffee’ text. The proposal is contrary to the Planning (Listed Buildings & Conservation Areas) Act 1990, Section 12 ‘Conserving & Enhancing the Historic Environment’ of the NPPF and Local Plan Policies BH2, BH6 and BH17 and should be REFUSED.
______________________________________________________________________
13/04370/AR – Roman Baths Kitchen, 11-12 Abbey Church Yard, City Centre, Bath BA1 1LY
Display of 2 No A frames with menu options, external banners & posts around seating area with the restaurant name displayed (regularisation).
OBJECT Given the amount of advertising already existing in front of this building, these additions into the streetscape contribute to a further visual (and physical) intrusion by this one business. We regret that yet again a B&NES owned property is applying retrospectively for planning permission. The existing notice board posts obviate the need for A-boards. That A-boards are deemed necessary displays the inefficiency of the proposed scheme. A-boards serve only to add visual and physical clutter and reduce the visual amenity of the conservation area and World Heritage Site. Should the local authority be minded to approve this application, the A-boards should be conditioned to allotted positions. The proposal is contrary to the Planning (Listed Buildings & Conservation Areas) Act 1990, Section 12 ‘Conserving & Enhancing the Historic Environment’ of the NPPF and Local Plan Policies BH1, BH2 and BH6 and should be REFUSED.
______________________________________________________________________
13/04508/AR – New Look, 11 Southgate Street, Bath BA1 1AQ
Display of 3no internally illuminated pod signs
OBJECT Whilst BPT has previously conceded that the Southgate shopping centre is able to tolerate a more contemporary design approach compared to the rest of the conservation area, we will continue to object to illuminated signs in the conservation area. Illumination is a completely inappropriate form of advertising in the World Heritage site. It is also disappointing to see the poor quality of material proposed here, all acrylic – a higher quality of material ought to be expected in the conservation area regardless of the contemporary age of the building.
The inappropriate and visually intrusive illuminated sign will neither preserve nor enhance the character of the conservation area. The proposal is considered contrary to the Planning (Listed Buildings & Conservation Areas) Act 1990, Section 12 ‘Conserving and Enhancing the Historic Environment’ of the NPPF and Local Plan Policies D2, D4, BH1, BH6, BH17 and BH19 and should be REFUSED.
______________________________________________________________________
13/04739/REGO3 – Odd Down Playing Field, Bloomfield Rd, Bloomfield, Bath
Provision of an artificial grass pitch bordered by 4.5m high steel mesh fencing and provision of sports lighting
OBJECT BPT objects to this application on the grounds of a lack of evidence that this development will not have a negative impact on the setting and character of the world heritage site. The design and access statement dismisses any impact on the world heritage site by suggesting the development is suitable as it appears as a sports facility on a designated playing field site. Whilst we appreciate that an all weather pitch fits with the use of the site, this does not constitute and adequate assessment or mitigation of the impact of these proposals, nor is it a sufficient response to the potential impacts of the fencing and in particular the lighting on the world heritage site.
The ‘Green Generation’ luminaires proposed are a particular concern. This is the same method of lighting used at Beechen Cliff School, and yet many attempts have since been made to mitigate their impact on the skyline and for the benefit of severely affected neighbours. This begs the question why Property Services are proposing to use this same luminaire on this sensitive hill top location. Despite the apparent compliance with the ILP Guidance note GN01, the potential for damaging forward glare is severe with the type of luminaire proposed. The hours of use proposed are such that come winter it is highly likely that the impact on residents in the locality and on the ‘dark sky’ character of the world heritage site will be severe.
We are also consider that in combination with the cycle track and intended new changing rooms intended in the next phase of development, that these proposals will contribute to an overly segmented and urbanised sports field. It may well be that there is only limited impact and that this is outweighed by other benefits, but this needs to be properly assessed and better clarity given on the phasing aspect of the development.
In summary, this site sits within the World heritage Site and needs to be treated accordingly. The application is considered unacceptable in its current format due to the lack of clarity, impact assessment and the potentially aggressive illumination and as such is considered contrary to Section 8 ‘Promoting Healthy Communities’ and Section 12’Conserving and Enhancing the historic Environment’ of the NPPF as well as local plan policies SC.4 SC.5 BH.1
______________________________________________________________________
13/04036/FUL & 13/04037/LBA – 5 Macaulay Buildings, Widcombe, Bath BA2 6AS
External alterations for the reinstatement of railings and gates to the frontages and dividing party walls of nos. 5 and 6 Macaulay Buildings and the restoration of the stone pillar at no.6 Macaulay Buildings
SUPPORT BPT would like to support this well intended and well justified application to reinstate the railings to the frontages and party walls of these houses. It will improve the appearance of these elegant houses and will provide an authentic aesthetic to the street scene. The method of filling is also to be commended.
______________________________________________________________________
13/04517/LBA – 11 Trim Street, Bath BA1 1HB
External alterations to include stone cleaning and repair to all exposed elevations facing Upper Borough Walls and Trim Street, remove all obscured glass and window mounted extract fans from existing windows and re-glaze with clear glass, repairs and refurbishment to all sash windows, installation of a draught proofing system, removal of redundant SVP and making good to stonework, addition of lead flashing to top of cornice.
COMMENT On the whole, BPT finds the works proposed within this application to be positive. However, whilst the stone cleaning is justified as evidenced by the localised spalling on some of the elevations, we are concerned by the intention to use Peelaway 1 followed by the Doff system for the removal of paint from wall surfaces and cill sections. The Doff system is highly abrasive and we believe this may constitute an over treatment if preceded by the Peelaway 1 system. As the application makes no mention of the intention to patch test these methods to assess their success it is not sufficiently illustrated that unnecessary harm to the stonework will be avoided.
______________________________________________________________________
13/04572/LBA – Crystal Palace, 10 – 11 Abbey Green, City Centre, BathBA1 1NW
External alterations to include stripping of existing paint finishes from external elevations, repointing and redecoration in limewash. (Regularisation)
OBJECT BPT deplores the fact that these works have already been completed. Unauthorised works to a listed building are a criminal offence and should be condemned. This application should be denoted as retrospective and we would ask the LPA to begin enforcement against the application. If no enforcement is pursued this will set a harmful precedent across the Conservation Area and World Heritage Site of Bath as it is unacceptable to undertake works to a listed building without consent. The listing process allows for the appropriate management of change and if ignored serves only to highlight the deficiency of the applicant’s understanding of the sensitive approach required as custodians of a listed building.
We welcome the removal of paint from the masonry. Paint is extremely damaging to Bath Stone. Blistering and peeling paint becomes detrimental to the aesthetics of the building and the health of the stonework. Removing the existing paint will enable the stone to be returned to its original appearance, and enable the fabric to breath and moisture to pass through.
There is some confusion as to the finish. The method statement states the use of Kiems mineral paint and tinted limewash. We object to repainting the stonework and would prefer the use of limewash, the colour of which would normally be provided under condition. This is clearly now not applicable.
We are concerned with the colour. Yellow is inappropriate colour for elevations of traditional listed Bath stone buildings in the Conservation Area. In Bath, it is generally acceptable for paint finishes to be matt or eggshell.
The proposal therefore has a harmful impact on the architectural significance of the listed building and neither preserves or enhances the character of the Conservation Area. The proposal fails to comply with Planning (Listed Buildings & Conservation Areas) Act 1990, Section 12 ‘Conserving & Enhancing the Historic Environment’ of the NPPF and Local Plan Policies D2, D4, BH1, BH2 and BH6 and should be refused.
______________________________________________________________________
13/04575/LBA – The Huntsman Inn, 1 Terrace Walk, City Centre, Bath BA1 1LJ
External alterations to include stripping of existing paint finishes from external elevations, repointing and redecoration in limewash.
OBJECT BPT deplores the fact that these works have already been completed. Unauthorised works to a listed building are a criminal offence and should be condemned. This application should be denoted as retrospective and we would ask the LPA to begin enforcement against the application. If no enforcement is pursued this will set a harmful precedent across the Conservation Area and World Heritage Site of Bath as it is unacceptable to undertake works to a listed building without consent. The listing process allows for the appropriate management of change and if ignored serves only to highlight the deficiency of the applicant’s understanding of the sensitive approach required as custodians of a listed building.
We welcome the removal of paint from the masonry. Paint is extremely damaging to Bath Stone. Blistering and peeling paint becomes detrimental to the aesthetics of the building and the health of the stonework. Removing the existing paint will enable the stone to be returned to its original appearance, and enable the fabric to breath and moisture to pass through. However, we regret that an opportunity has not been taken to enhance this building by the removal of the paint from the upper levels of the building.
There is some confusion as to the finish. The method statement states the use of Kiems mineral paint and tinted limewash. We object to repainting the stonework and would prefer the use of limewash, the colour of which would normally be provided under condition. This is clearly now not applicable.
We are concerned with the colour. Certain colours are inappropriate for elevations of traditional listed Bath stone buildings in the Conservation Area. In Bath, it is generally acceptable for paint finishes to be matt or eggshell.
The proposal therefore has a harmful impact on the architectural significance of the listed building and neither preserves or enhances the character of the Conservation Area. The proposal fails to comply with Planning (Listed Buildings & Conservation Areas) Act 1990, Section 12 ‘Conserving & Enhancing the Historic Environment’ of the NPPF and Local Plan Policies D2, D4, BH1, BH2 and BH6 and should be refused.
______________________________________________________________________
13/04622/FUL – Cleveland House, Sydney Road, Bathwick, Bath BA2 6NR
Change of use from B1 offices to C3 residential, including restoration and extension to the house, provision of terrace at first floor level, demolition of existing additions to Cleveland House.
OBJECT (Holding comment) In the first instance the Committee had serious concerns about the quality and detail of the drawings and whether it was possible to make a decision based on the drawings as submitted or certainly as readable on the planning portal. Also we were not convinced by the rubble stone proposal for the exterior extension if our reading of the drawings was correct in placing this on the front elevation. We understand the desire for the extension to appear subservient but give the rusticated ground floor of the main house this could be achieved by plain ashlar; there is no precedent for rubble in this area on front elevations, and it is unclear from the drawings how such rubble would be presented. BPT is particularly concerned that narrow horizontally coursed rubble should not be used in Bath elevations.
In considering the LBA we would want to see more details on the stone door and the nature of any railing or dressing of the roof terrace.
______________________________________________________________________
13/04621/FUL - Bath Orthodontics, Waterside Court, Sydney Road, Bathwick, Bath BA2 6NR
Erection of Upper Floor Extension for Consulting Rooms with new drive through-under following demolition of existing flat roofed drive-through
OBJECT While we understand this proposal to be related, BPT is frustrated at the quality of the drawings as they appear on the planning portal. They are so unclear that no informed assessment of the proposals can be made. As the intention is to create a frontage of a classical style, the details of the design should be clear in order that the proposed proportions and architectural details can be communicated. Furthermore, as this building abuts a listed building of particular local significance and architectural significance, any proposals that will effect its setting need to be well considered before any determination of their appropriateness can be made. As we such do not feel we can make any real comment of this application at present.
One concern that arose out of the reading of the application is the intention to use a seamless roof membrane. As this roof will be seen from the roof terrace of Cleveland House and from the surrounding hills, and as the building is in a sensitive location within the conservation area this roof should be seamed with a material of a more traditional appearance.
Due to the inability to read any of the detail of the proposed changes to this building this application does not comply with local plan policies D.2 and D.4 and should be refused.
______________________________________________________________________
13/04571/LBA – Private Garden, Lark Place, Upper Bristol Road, Lower Weston, Bath
Alteration to include the re-location and re-paint of the Mile Marker.
OBJECT The applicant has erroneously asserted that BPT supported the previous application, whereas we deliberately made a ‘comment’ rather than a ‘support’ submission at least in part because of the situation regarding the mile marker. Our comments on this were as follows:
We do, however, regret the intention to move the Guildhall milestone so far from its current position. Whilst we understand that the marker may have to be moved, it ought to be re-installed far closer to where it sits currently.
We feel strongly that this development must be tightly conditioned in terms of materials including sample panels and that more attention must be given to the related highway proposals as per the highways consultation response if permission is to be given.
The application has also implied that the marker has already been moved, but supporting evidence is circumstantial in terms of location in that the marker could have been removed for protection but replaced, albeit not very well, in the same location. No evidence in the form of distance measurement has been made.
As such the works, by virtue of the relocation of a listed feature is considered to be detrimental to the and historic interest and character of the listed asset and adjacent listed buildings contrary to Section 12 ‘Conserving & Enhancing the Historic Environment’ of the NPPF and Local Plan Policies BH2 and BH6 and should be REFUSED.
______________________________________________________________________
13/04582/AR & 13/04583/LBA – 30 Charles Street, Bath BA1 1HU
Proposed external advertisement to existing sign boarding and fitting of awning.(Retrospective)
OBJECT BPT deplores the tendency of firms to commence work and then seek approval. Where listed buildings are concerned, this means unauthorised and irreversible damage to the fabric. The vast majority of the work is retrospective. Such unsolicited work threatens our remaining historic fabric and undermines the efforts of Bath and North East Somerset Council to protect our built heritage.
With regards to the signage, we object to the fascia signs since the acrylic, Perspex and plastic lettering does not constitute an appropriate frontage to this shop located on a prominent corner opposite Holy Trinity Church, within the Conservation Area and the World Heritage Site.
Signage should respect the architectural qualities and character of Bath, and be made from high-quality traditional or natural materials, such as timber-fascia and sign-written lettering. The proposal is therefore contrary to Planning (Listed Buildings & Conservation Areas) Act 1990, Section 12 ‘Conserving & Enhancing the Historic Environment’ of the NPPF and Local Plan Policies BH2, BH6, BH17 and BH19 and should be refused.
______________________________________________________________________
13/04567/FUL – 128 Ringswell Gardens, Lambridge, Bath BA1 6BW
Erection of 2no. dwellings, following the demolition of an existing building (Revised resubmission).
COMMENT BPT holds some concern over the scale of this development and considers it a potential overdevelopment; however it is clearly desirable to regenerate this plot. The materials to be used will be important in mitigating any harm the setting of the listed buildings and as such we would ask that they are secured prior to determination rather than by way of condition; it should be specified that natural Bath Stone and natural slate be used.
______________________________________________________________________
13/04588/FUL & 13/04589/LBA – 5 Walcot Terrace, Walcot, Bath BA1 6AB
Replacement of sash windows on 1st and 2nd floor flats by 6 panel Georgian
COMMENT BPT deems this application insufficient and lacking in enough information to assess the impact of the proposals. No information is given as to the current state of the sash windows and the justification for reinstating the 6/6 panel form to only two of the 5 windows on the principle façade of the building is not explored. Whilst the Victorian sashes are not original to the façade of this terrace it would seem preferable that unless all the sashes could be returned to their original form, that these replacement windows should be in the Victorian style as the façade of the building would at least remain unified. It may well be that the applicant intends to replace the other windows as and when it is required, however, if this is the case it should be expressed in the design and access statement. It is also worth reminding the applicant that whilst Victorian sashes are not original to the building, they too are a part of the buildings history and in a unified collection could be considered to be less detrimental to the legibility of the building when compared to the elevation as proposed
______________________________________________________________________
13/04340/AR – Street Record, Midford Road, Odd Down, Bath
Display of internally illuminated poster cabinets of proposed advertisements in bus shelter serving the No.13 Foxhill-Bathford Route; to be located along Midford Road.
COMMENT BPT regrets the undue commercialisation of the public realm within the World Heritage Site. We hope that if this application is to be permitted B&NES will do its utmost to control design and content so as to as to minimise impact on the visual amenity of the streetscape, and on the AONB and the Wansdyke Scheduled Ancient Monument.
______________________________________________________________________
13/04338/AR – Street Record, Lansdown Road, Lansdown, Bath, Bath And North East Somerset
Display of proposed six sheet internally illuminated advertisements in bus shelters serving the No.2 Foxhill-Lansdown Route; to be located along Lansdown Road at: Stop No.27 (St Stephen’s Church) and Stop No.37 (Hamilton House)
COMMENT BPT regrets the undue commercialisation of the public realm within the world heritage site. We hope that We hope that if this application is to be permitted B&NES will do its utmost to control design and content so as to minimise impact on the visual amenity of the streetscape.
______________________________________________________________________
13/04339/AR - Street Record, Newton Road, Twerton, Bath,
Display of internally illuminated poster cabinets of proposed advertisements in bus shelters serving the No.5 Whiteway-Southgate Route; to be located along Newton Road, High Street (Twerton) and Lower Bristol Road at: Stop No.21 (Walwyn Close), Stop No.22 (Walwyn Close), Stop No.24 (Twerton Parade) and Stop No.30 (Bellotts Road).
COMMENT BPT regrets the undue commercialisation of the public realm within the world heritage site. We hope that if this application is to be permitted B&NES will do its utmost to control design and content so as to minimise impact on the visual amenity of the streetscape.
______________________________________________________________________
13/04341/AR – Street Record, Crown Road, Upper Weston, Bath
Display of internally illuminated poster cabinets of proposed advertisements in bus shelters serving the No.14 Upper Weston-Odd Down Route; to be located along High Street (Weston), Crown Road and Newbridge Hill at: Stop No.7 (Crown and Anchor), Stop No.8 (Crown and Anchor), Stop No.9 (Crown Road) and Stop No.18 (Chelsea Road).
COMMENT BPT regrets the undue commercialisation of the public realm within the world heritage site. We hope that if this application is to be permitted B&NES will do its utmost to control design and content so as to minimise impact on the visual amenity of the streetscape.
______________________________________________________________________
13/04758/LBA – Street Record, Dafford Street, Larkhall, Bath
External alterations to include replacement of front and rear doors for 5, 6, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 14, 17, 25, 31, 32, 33 and 34 Dafford Street.
COMMENT BPT understands the desire of the applicant to have permission in place for the works to the upgrading works to their housing stock on the whole of Dafford Street and understand that this is a ‘contingency’ application depending on the condition of individual properties.
We support the works proposed and the intention to repair before replacement is considered. However, we would ask that if permission is granted, the application is conditioned so that individual doors cannot be removed without officer approval. Each door should have a conservation report made for officer assessment prior to approval for reassurance that the doors to be replaced are beyond repair.
______________________________________________________________________
13/04979/FUL & 13/04980/LBA – Springfield Villa, Lansdown Road, Lansdown, Bath BA1 5RB
Installation of swimming pool to read situated under existing terrace, new railings to front boundary and to terrace and steps into garden
OBJECT The works proposed constitute an overdevelopment on a charming rear elevation of a listed building. The design is far too dominant over the listed building and will damage the legibility of the elevation and throw it off balance. Given the extent of the grounds of this property it is surely possible to install a domestic scale swimming pool elsewhere in the grounds in a way that does not impact either physically or visually on the listed building.
BPT is also of the opinion that the industrial scale and design of the bi-fold windows is not sensitive to the delicate adjacent ironwork and joinery of the listed building.
The underpinning is a considerable undertaking and without a structural engineer’s report within the application it is hard to determine the extent of the works and whether they will constitute harm to the whole. Underpinning this building for any reason other than to make conservation-led repairs is removed from conservation principles and is a considerable and unnecessary intervention into a historic building.
We support in principle the reinstatement of the railings although it is not clear why the Holburne’s railings have been selected as the model for the railings as their style is much too early for the house in question. We would therefore propose that more research needs to be done to find a railing style comparable and compatible with the age of Springfield itself.
This application, by virtue of the complete over development to the rear of a listed building and due to the potential harm of underpinning the building is contrary to NPPF Section 12 ‘Conserving and Enhancing the Historic Environment’ and local plan policies D2, D4 and BH2 and should be REFUSED.
______________________________________________________________________
13/04683/FUL – Radway Service Station, 482 Wellsway, Bath BA2 2UB
Demolition of the existing Radway Service Station at 482 Wellsway and dwelling house at 2 Oolite Road to provide five small-scale student cluster flats. (Resubmission)
OBJECT BPT believes that although the new submission has attempted to take into account our former objection about the height and mass of the building we still feel that the third floor constitutes overdevelopment of the site and renders the block overbearing in comparison with the the surrounding terraces. The design as is proposed is overbearing and the massing too great which will have a detrimental effect on the visual amenity of the local street scene.
As mentioned before we do not welcome the demolition of 2 Oolite Road as this historic cottage certainly enhances local distinctiveness and diversity in a way that the proposed development will not.
Due to the proposed massing and the potential overdevelopment of this site this application contrary to Local Plan policies D.2 and D.4 and should be REFUSED.
______________________________________________________________________
13/04637/FUL – Former Gardens Opposite Walmsley Terrace, Snow Hill, Walcot, Bath
Erection of two new dwellings
OBJECT In principle, BPT has a policy of supporting small windfall development on vacant sites within the urban area in order to minimise the need for housing on the Green Belt.
This site is in the conservation area and overlooked by listed buildings and has topographical challenges. It is currently under-maintained and at best visually neutral. In principle there appears therefore to be no reason why sensitive development should not be considered on this site, although we are concerned that there is inadequate information about the history of development and former uses of the site.
Although the proposals have considered some of the sensitivities of the site, we have reservations about a number of aspects of the design, in particular relating to the bulk and roof plan:
a) The square top floor and the overlooking and streetscape issues would be improved by a mansard style roof with natural hung slate.
b) The ‘green’ roof is dependent on continual maintenance and we have significant reservations about these within an overlooked part of the conservation area.
c) The timber cladding is not a traditional material in the conservation area and an alternative material or an entirely ashlar appearance should be considered.
d) We consider that two dwellings (as opposed to one) may constitute overdevelopment of the site even if the principle of development is agreed.
13/04720/LBA – 6 Prior Park Buildings, Widcombe, Bath BA2 4NP
External work to facilitate replacement fanlight to front door and removal of paint from lower section of front elevation.
SUPPORT This works proposed by this application are warmly supported by BPT. The intended works are admirable, measured and well justified. The removal of the paint from the stone will make a positive difference to the health of the historic fabric and alleviate any issues with rising damp. The fanlight as already installed in number 5 is attractive and appropriate and will enhance the listed building.
______________________________________________________________________
13/04784/FUL & 13/04785/LBA – First Floor, 11 St James’s Parade, Bath BA1 1UL
Replacement of 1no sash windows with a pair of doors and new railings to the side wall at the rear of the property.
OBJECT BPT recognises the desire to facilitate access onto the external roof as the only outside space for this flat and does not object to this in principle.
Our problems arise because there is no adequate information about the existing window and whether or not it is original: and also we are concerned that the substantially wider central division caused by French doors considerable alters the appearance of the window opening. We would suggest that a full sliding sash (of there is space to achieve this) or possibly a single door opening would prevent this alteration to the appearance.
______________________________________________________________________
13/04862/AR – Tony And Guy Hairdressing Salon, 31 Southgate Street, Bath BA1 1TP
Install 1x trough lit fascia, 1x internally illuminated projection sign and 1x flat aluminium plate to cover previous tenants signage stains on brickwork
OBJECT BPT objects to illuminated signs within the Conservation area and in the World Heritage Site. The sign would, by virtue of its materials (aluminium lettering on painted ply fascia, vinyl on lettering and projecting acrylic logo on aluminium support frame) and illumination by trough lighting be visually intrusive, and would detract from the visual amenity value of the area. The proposals are unsympathetic and would neither preserve nor enhance the character and appearance of the conservation area. The proposal is therefore, contrary to the Planning (Listed Buildings & Conservation Areas) Act 1990, Section 12 ‘Conserving & Enhancing the Historic Environment’ of the NPPF and Local Plan Policies BH6 and BH17 and should be refused.
______________________________________________________________________
13/04806/FUL & 13/04807/LBA – Rosenberg House, Westgate Buildings, City Centre, Bath
Internal and external alterations and repairs to listed building to provide 15 no. apartments (alms houses) and associated facilities. Works to include additional and replacement windows, permanent external access ramp and associated landscaping, and changes to the internal layout of the building.
COMMENT BPT understands the need to upgrade the accommodation within Rosenberg House to provide accessible apartments and can see the merit in completing the external works, including the ramp. We are concerned, however, about the treatment to the roofs. On the pitched roof the new slate should be natural slate, not artificial; the intention to use an inferior material is regrettable and an opportunity missed to enhance the conservation area. We would ask the the officer insists on the use of natural slate as artificial slate should not be used within the conservation area. To the flat roof of Chandos building the proposal is to replace the degraded roof with a bituminous/single ply membrane. Again this is not a commendable approach as this material will be incongruous when viewed from the skyline as it does not reflect the palette of Bath. The roof should be a seamed covering in a material of a traditional appearance.
______________________________________________________________________
13/04922/FUL & 13/04923/LBA – 18 Rivers Street, City Centre, Bath BA1 2QA
Reconstruction of front steps, removal of front basement extension, reinstate front window, repairs to basement, alterations to services, fire detections and repairs
SUPPORT This application is to be highly commended for its quality in particular the heritage statement which was an interesting and informative read. All of the works proposed are hugely beneficial and a light touch. The works to the basement will return it to a habitable condition through addressing the damp issues and removing the 20th century accretions is a positive proposal. The return to the original plan form on the upper floors and the conservation repairs to the historic plasterwork and joinery are also admirable proposals.
______________________________________________________________________
13/04924/FUL & 13/04925/LBA – Lonsdale, Sydney Road, Bathwick, Bath, Bath And North East Somerset, BA2 6NT
Erection of single storey garden room replacing existing structure. (Resubmission)
COMMENT BPT is pleased to see that this application seeks to nullify some of the concerns raised in the comment we submitted on the now withdrawn application for the same site. Reducing the scale and retaining the ground floor window without alteration are certainly improvements. In spite of these revised designs, we still consider that the design stills bears little relation to the original architecture of the host building.
______________________________________________________________________
13/04721/AR – Starbucks Unit 1, Westpoint, Avon Street, City Centre, Bath BA1 1UN
Display of externally illuminated projected sign.
OBJECT BPT will continue to object to illuminated signs within the Conservation area and in the World Heritage Site. The signs, by virtue of the materials and illumination would cause harm to the visual amenity value of the area and would neither preserve nor enhance the character and appearance of the Conservation area. The application therefore fails to comply with D2, D4, BH1, BH6 and BH17, the Planning (Listed Buildings & Conservation Areas) Act 1990 and Section 12 ‘Conserving & Enhancing the Historic Environment’ of the NPPF and should be refused.
______________________________________________________________________
13/04786/FUL – Spar Shop Courthouse Filling Station, Upper Bristol Road, Lower Weston, Bath BA1 3DE
Installation of automatic teller machine and secure room door
COMMENT BPT regrets that the information contained within this application falls short of what is required ito make an informed assessment of the proposals. The elevations are too small to show the appearance of the ATM and it is unclear whether the lamp above the ATM will be a PIR lamp. Condition 18 of the base permission requires specific permission for any exterior lighting but the lamp is not mentioned here.
______________________________________________________________________
13/04920/LBA – 3 Dafford Street, Larkhall, Bath BA1 6SW
External alterations for replacement windows to front and rear elevations of No. 3 together with No’s 6,7,8,9,10,11,12,14,17,23,25,31,32,33 and 34 Dafford Street.
SUPPORT This application should be permitted as the applicant is seeking to reinstate a traditional appearance to their considerable housing stock within the street, which constitutes a considerable improvement on the street scene. Not only will the new timber sashes enhance the conservation area, they are an intervention which will make these buildings far more sustainable. The slim profile double glazing to the front elevation is considered appropriate as it is not replacing original sash windows and will secure a higher efficiency for these buildings for a long time to come if properly maintained. Whilst we are apprehensive to support double glazing on listed buildings, as this only proposed on the rear elevation, replacing inappropriate and poor quality windows which will better the standard of living for residents and allow them to heat their homes in a more sustainable manner the justification for their installation is endorsed by BPT.
______________________________________________________________________
13/04856/LBA – 29 Walcot Buildings, Walcot, Bath
External alterations to include repairs and redecoration of the existing shopfront.
SUPPORT BPT is pleased to see an application seeking to repair and restore this charming and unique shopfront come forward. We would ask that before permission is granted a colour swatch be submitted of the paint intended for the redecoration of the shop front and that a document specifying the stone cleaning method be submitted to the case officer for consideration.
We are particularly pleased that this work is taking place on a shopfront on the London Road as we have participated in projects to try and improve the area. We note that this work is funded by a grant for such works, but we are worried about the time restrictions placed on the applicants. Not only is listed building consent a process that needs time, the works proposed would benefit from being carried out in warmer, less damp weather. The lime render will likely suffer for being applied at this time of year and will take longer to dry and may even fail if environmental conditions are particularly bad when works commence. In this case we would ask that the grant body consider this and consider that this work, in enhancing the London Road, a prominent entry to the World Heritage Site, is of such a beneficial level that it be more lenient with the timescales for delivery of the work.
______________________________________________________________________
13/04893/LBA - St. Winifred’s Well Cottage, Winifred’s Lane, Lansdown, Bath
Internal and external alterations to convert second floor bathroom back to a bedroom, add new shower room to that floor. Replace existing conservatory with utility room, demolish out buildings to allow structural glass conservatory adjacent to the kitchen. Replace central cast relief tableau with a carved stone version.
OBJECT BPT objects on the principle that this listed building is a very charming small dwelling and should be left as such.
This is a humble building and any proposed works to it should retain that character and also be subservient to the building; An entirely glass connection does fit alongside the vernacular of this building. The glass connection will not be ‘ethereal’ as suggested, and the drawings serve to make this clear. The tall wall between the glass connection and the outbuilding renders the light touch meaningless, an issue further compounded by the design of the outbuilding which is pedestrian and an ‘off-the peg’ approach.
What we find most objectionable is that the new buildings obscure almost half of ground floor elevation, including the sash window and in doing so the proposals will unbalance the symmetry of the façade. This is also the case as regards to the small dormer window tucked in between the two existing dormers and adding clutter to the roof pitch. Since the proposed dormer is for a bathroom for which artificial light would suffice, there is no justification for this alteration.
The incongruous proposals will severely damage the architectural interest of this building as by its nature and name this building is a cottage and should not be manipulated into being anything else. By virtue of the inappropriate and overbearing design of the extensions and due to the unnecessary dormer window addition t the roof this application is contrary to section 12 ‘Conserving and Enhancing the Conservation Area’ of the NPPF and local plan policies D.2, D.4 and BH.2 and should be refused.
______________________________________________________________________
13/04883/AR – Tesco Stores Ltd, 12 – 20 High Street, Upper Weston, Bath BA1 4BX
Display of 1no internally-illuminated fascia sign, 2no non-illuminated fascia signs, 1no internally-illuminated hanging sign, 1no non-illuminated banner sign and 1no non-illuminated free standing car parking sign.
OBJECT BPT will continue to object to illuminated signs within the Conservation area and in the World Heritage Site. While the amount of illumination is, in itself, enough to be of detriment to the visual amenity of the area, the signs, by virtue of the materials, amount and position are incongruous. Aluminium and Perspex materials are not sensitive or appropriate as they oppose the traditional palette of Bath. The excessive number of additions to the side and rear of the shop will be visually intrusive and add to the clutter in the street scene. We also feel that these signs are entirely unnecessary (except the directional signs) because the existing sign on the front of the building serves to alert approaching potential customers. The application therefore fails to comply with Local Plan Policies D2, D4, BH1, BH6 and BH17 of the B&NES Local Plan, the Planning (Listed Buildings & Conservation Areas) Act 1990 and Section 12 ‘Conserving and Enhancing the Historic Environment’ of the NPPF and should be refused.
______________________________________________________________________
13/04709/FUL & 13/04716/LBA – 3 Millbrook Place, Widcombe, Bath BA2 4JY
Replacement of 2 x uPVC windows to Flat 1 with wooden sash windows and replacement 1x communal 10 pane glazed wooden front door with 6 pane glazed wooden door to Flat 1 & Flat 2, 3 Millbrook Place
SUPPORT BPT supports the external alterations proposed. Reinstating the traditional sash windows to the second floor following the removal of modern casement windows will improve the architectural interest of the building, and the reason for replacing the door, which is of little historic significance, is a valid one.
______________________________________________________________________
13/05055/TPO – Ministry Of Defence Ensleigh, Granville Road, Lansdown, Bath
Fell 45 trees
COMMENT BPT does not usually comment on TPO applications, but in this case the number of trees involved & the importance of the ‘gateway’ site prompt our representation.
We understand that the extensive TPO (covering these & many more trees) was served as a safety measure and that few of the trees are actually valuable in themselves, being mainly young/semi-mature amenity species. We also understand that the majority of trees in the application will be affected by the removal of service runs when the MoD vacate much of their site, a few by demolition activities and three by the new security fence. Also that all the remaining trees on/contiguous to the site (presumably excluding the retained MoD land) are to have an approved protection framework in place from the start of demolition to the end of development phases 1 & 2.
We welcome the retention of almost all the trees within & outwith the site boundary along Lansdown Road, but recognise that as these are mainly in Phase 3 of the development, there may be another application in the future. Also, perhaps an extra tree on the roadside verge W of the general site entrance may be required to be felled early to allow for adequate sight lines.
The trees along the RHS games field boundary (NW) are particularly important in longer views and will require careful treatment/monitoring throughout the development process. Much of the northern boundary to the countryside is merely a chain-link fence, consequently the smaller trees/hedge at the NE corner are important in ‘grounding’ the site as viewed from the public footpath to Charlcombe Grove, & Colliers Lane. The loss of all of Zone 2 would be regrettable, especially the hedge & the best tree (69?), which, if removal is really necessary, should be replaced as soon as possible.
We note that the majority of the affected trees on the site are lower value specimens (C1-2) and that no category A trees are to go. We are generally content with this, although the two B1 trees (29 & 69 both Sorbus of ‘good form’) might warrant reconsideration. The imposition of a condition requiring replanting of at least the boundary trees within a set period (3-4years), rather than on completion of the development, would be welcomed as a means of better integrating the scheme with its surroundings. We would also wish to see the safeguarding of all existing mature hedges around the site.