- Application Number
- 18/00651/FUL
- Application Date
- 07/04/2018
- Closing Date
- 07/04/2018
- Address
- Unit 2 Lymore Gardens Twerton
- Status
Erection of 4no. two bedroom homes, 2no. studio apartments, 4no. one bedroom apartments and associated parking following the demolition of Unit 2, Lymore Gardens.
Our Response
Object: The Trust continues to object to the demolition of this local non-designated heritage asset. The loss of the historic light industrial use was justified, in 16/04261/FUL, on the basis that the building would be retained and converted.
This scheme seeks the demolition of the building, in line with previous application 17/03771/FUL (now withdrawn). Additionally 17/03771/FUL sought the provision of 7 dwellings. This scheme seeks the provision of 10 dwellings which the Trust considers to be overdevelopment of the site. The use of Bath stone on a site that has an historic and distinctive red brick character is also unacceptable and incongruous.
We continue to recommend that demolition should be resisted unless the case officer is certain and can demonstrate, without reference to the former application as a precedent, that the replacement scheme brings sufficient benefits to the local community and sufficient enhancement to the streetscape and local character to outweigh the loss and the undoubted harm.
The proposed scheme by virtue of the proposed demolition of the non-designated heritage asset and the overdevelopment of the site is contrary to Section 12 (Conserving & Enhancing the Historic Environment) of the NPPF, policy B1, CP6 and B4 of the B&NES Core Strategy and policies DW1, SD1, CP6, D1, D2, D3, D5, and HE1 Placemaking Plan and should be refused.
This scheme seeks the demolition of the building, in line with previous application 17/03771/FUL (now withdrawn). Additionally 17/03771/FUL sought the provision of 7 dwellings. This scheme seeks the provision of 10 dwellings which the Trust considers to be overdevelopment of the site. The use of Bath stone on a site that has an historic and distinctive red brick character is also unacceptable and incongruous.
We continue to recommend that demolition should be resisted unless the case officer is certain and can demonstrate, without reference to the former application as a precedent, that the replacement scheme brings sufficient benefits to the local community and sufficient enhancement to the streetscape and local character to outweigh the loss and the undoubted harm.
The proposed scheme by virtue of the proposed demolition of the non-designated heritage asset and the overdevelopment of the site is contrary to Section 12 (Conserving & Enhancing the Historic Environment) of the NPPF, policy B1, CP6 and B4 of the B&NES Core Strategy and policies DW1, SD1, CP6, D1, D2, D3, D5, and HE1 Placemaking Plan and should be refused.