Erection of 5 residential units for student or healthcare worker accommodation and associated works.
Our Response

Object: The Trust objects to this scheme on the basis of the principle of development of this site. Given that the applicant is bound by the duty to complete the landscape plan and planting as per the Condition attached to 14/04547/FUL, we believe that this should be followed through. The secession of the piece of garden to the rear of this large villa is unacceptable and the proposals amount to overdevelopment of the plot with jarring new buildings which will impact harmfully on both the local street scene and the conservation area. This area is characterised by large villas with spacious green garden settings, proportionate to the scale of residential development, and whilst there are rear garages and other backland and mews structures, none take the form of a terrace of bland identical buildings which fails to respond to or reinforce its local context. There can be no comparison with the visual interest and homogeneity of the adjacent Edwardian terraces which are non-designated heritage assets and are worthy of inclusion in an impact assessment. In any case the loss of a green landscaped area which would provide the appropriate and much needed setting and counterfoil for the large villa is an important consideration; it is vital to maintain the character of the conservation area via the retention of local distinctive elements such as large garden plots.
Aside from the principle of development, It is clear that if the scheme is for student units, then it should be refused on the basis that the units as HMO’s they will fail the Stage 1 and Stage 2 test of the current HMO Article 4 Direction as they are in an area of over 10% density. If it is for healthcare workers, then the lack of parking which is crucial for shift workers has not been provided and therefore the scheme should also be refused. There are various other highways, transport and access issues which are not within our remit to discuss but which are covered by other respondees.
Therefore, not only has this scheme a number of fundamental flaws, not least the issue of principle of development itself, and the fact of overdevelopment, but it is also harmful to the conservation area in terms of its design, massing, form and materials (particularly the dominance of zinc which would intrude incongruously upon the streetscene). It would also fail to provide sufficient residential amenity space for the occupants of number 43 Upper Oldfield Park.
On the basis of overdevelopment of a garden plot that contributes to distinct local character this proposal would neither preserve nor enhance the character and appearance of the conservation area and is not worthy of new development in the WHS. The scheme is contrary to the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 and fails to comply with Section 16 (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; CP6, D2, D3, D5, D7, B4, ST7 & HE1 of the B&NES Placemaking Plan. For this reason we object to this application and recommend that the scheme is refused.

Application Number: 18/02330/FUL
Application Date: 16/08/2018
Closing Date: 16/08/2018
Address: Charters 43 Upper Oldfield Park Oldfield Park
Our Submission Status: