BATH HERITAGE WATCHDOG

Next Meeting

The next meeting will take place on Mon 11th June 2012, starting at 6:30pm in the Royal Oak.

During the evening of Thursday 17th May, the search facilities were working normally but every attempt to read individual documents failed with an error screen displayed.  Service was back to normal the following morning.

We will continue to monitor the services.  The events to date are now being recorded as an on-going diary on a dedicated page of this website.

Latest

The Packhorse - Last updated 20th May 2012.

After our item on The Packhorse last week, we were sent details of a Save the Packhorse website, so rather than Watchdog continually trying to track developments in what looks like a well organised campaign, we suggest that those interested use that website to keep up to date with developments.  However, Watchdog will raise the subject again if planning applications are raised, which the latest Chronicle article indicates would be necessary for a change of use.

"A" Boards - Last updated 20th May 2012.

In April 2012, the council introduced a new policy for controlling "A" Boards, and we have put links to the relevant documents on our Public Realm page.  In the background we did a series of surveys, before and after the introduction of the new policy, to assess its effectiveness.  This update examines the observable differences in number terms, because with a stated limit of one board per business we would have expected a reduction in numbers.

There was an overall reduction but it was insignificant, amounting to just one fewer board on a typical day, or a quarter of one percent of the boards in the central area.  But when we examined a more localised breakdown of the figures rather than the overall total there were some interesting findings:

The part of Abbey Churchyard facing York Street showed a reduction of about a quarter, but that was more than offset by the part of Abbey Churchyard between Abbey and Colonnade which almost doubled.  However, even with this large percentage increase, the Abbey Churchyard was not the most populated.

That honour went to Milsom Street which retained the highest count despite a 4% reduction in numbers.  It was closely followed by Upper Borough Walls (increased by 2% since March).  Argyle Street with Pulteney Bridge was third despite a 15% reduction and Westgate Street was fourth thanks to a 9% increase, and then came Abbey Churchyard in fifth place.

The prize for the fewest boards goes to Cheap Street, which on one of the days we surveyed had just two.  However given the width of the pavements we question whether there should have been any.  A survey of infringements of the new policy seems justified.

Bath Press - Last updated 20th May 2012.

One of the new planning applications this week is 12/01999/EFUL for the Bath Press site.  The description is very similar (though not identical) to that for 10/03380/EFUL which was withdrawn in March, just before it was considered at the DCC.

However, with 91 documents in the application set, it will be a while before we can completely evaluate what is proposed this time.  The immediate difference seen from the application summary is that this time the applicant is shown as Tesco Stores and previously the applicant was St James Investments.

The Packhorse - Last updated 13th May 2012.

Whilst Southstoke is outside the World Heritage Site boundary within which Watchdog has its primary focus, the fact that the Chronicle in its article on the Packhorse pub dates it to 1674 makes its continued existence as a pub of some heritage interest, so we are stretching our boundary.

It appears from the news item that there was only two months between the Packhorse going on the market "with vacant possession" and the latest purchase.  From the point of view of somebody intending to purchase the premises and continue to operate it as a pub, there are hoops to go through in order to become a licensee, and any fundraising would only be successful if the building was surveyed to be sufficiently sound and there was a reasonable expectation that a licence would be granted, so two months is a very short time to complete such a process and the new owner's claim that people had ample time is unconvincing.  So too is the claim that previous landlords did not put enough into maintaining the property, when maintenance would have be the responsibility of Punch Taverns, who according to investment analysts are having a lean time and would therefore be careful where they spent their money.  Raising money quickly may even be the reason why they chose to dispose of this particular pub.  Two months from advertisement to sale is surprisingly quick for a pub sale.

Also relevant is the information that the building had been sold without a licence (so effectively they sold it as a building rather than as a pub).  The local plan Policy CF7 requires permission for change of use of or modification that results in the loss of a public house must be refused unless the operation of a public house serving the local community is not viable and the premises have been effectively marketed as a public house without success (our emphasis).  By selling it vacant without a licence, Punch Taverns have deliberately not marketed it as a public house and therefore it must remain a pub until it can be proved not to be viable.  When the local residents describe it as "popular and profitable" that could be difficult.

Less obvious, but still worth exploring is the Use Class category of the premises.  If it is classed as Class A1 (g) "for the display of goods for sale" (which does seem to describe a pub), then if the new owner merely lives there it becomes a dwelling (Class C3) and if he uses it as a Chartered Surveyor's office it becomes a Business (Class B1).  If a change of use needs planning permission, the fact that the premises has not been marketed as a pub suggests that such permission should be refused.  If the action group also has clear evidence that the premises provided community space as well as being a pub, then a change of use that removes such a community facility should be refused under Policy CF1 unless the owner can show that the use is unnecessary or else he re-provides the facilities elsewhere.

All this depends on how  the council interprets its planning policies if planning applications are raised.  We will watch developments.

World Heritage - Last updated 6th May 2012.

The World Heritage Convention is 40 years old in 2012, and the UNESCO website reports numerous events around the world covering several facets of World Heritage plus some things to read, ranging from a 2-page leaflet on the role of local communities in guiding sustainable development in World Heritage Sites, to a mighty tome on Historic Urban Landscapes (of which Bath is one).

From the first document is the recognition that the custodians of World Heritage include "Local authorities working to enforce legislation and regulations".  Bath would not score highly against that measure:  extensions to listed buildings are required to be in compatible designs and materials to the host building yet the Holburne extension was approved;  the City-Wide Character Appraisal is adopted as an SPD yet there are several examples of buildings that the SPD should rule out being given approval;  there is a Western Riverside SPD yet plans that are in direct conflict with it are granted permission.  Meanwhile, Government legislation introduced the concept of Locally Important Buildings, and the Local Plan has a policy for protecting them, yet Bath has avoided implementing the policy by the simple expedient of refusing to produce a list of the buildings that fall into that category.  The UNESCO Mission to Bath reported back to the World Heritage Committee which recommended that the design for the later phases of the Western Riverside should be redesigned to be more in keeping with the Outstanding Universal Value, ideally by international competition, yet there is no indication that such a recommendation will be heeded.

Even more interesting is a quote from the second document: "Decisions taken in the planning process must be explicit, confronted one with another to verify their coherence, and referred to the aims of conservation and development which are the subject of this paper. Thereby, the urban plan guarantees a holistic vision of transformation processes that an architectural project is unable to control".  At the time when the Core Strategy is being examined, there is little evidence within it of a holistic vision.

There used to be one in the days of Bath City Council, but Avon dispensed with it and the nearest B&NES got to one was the little publicised Cullinan Plan where glass faced cubes jostled with phallic shaped towers and a series of "busometers" (as shown in this design for Green park Road), a plan which never went to public consultation but its spirit has been spotted when reading between the lines of various documents produced since.  Conservation of the Outstanding Universal Value of the World Heritage Site was not part of the brief given to Cullinan, but it should have been.

Consultation on street furniture has been similarly lacking, simply tinkering round the edges with (for example) a token consultation on bus shelters that effectively said "this is the shelter, but you can comment on the slope of the roof and the shape of the seat" rather than questioning whether it was the right type of shelter for Bath (which it isn't).  Street lighting, seating, way markers cycle stands etc have been similarly arbitrarily positioned in a style imposed, with little thought for the aesthetic impact on a World Heritage Site.

Bath is believed to have a reputation for being difficult for developers, but for a World Heritage Site noted for its homogeneity which the average developer seems to want to turn into a "High Street, Anytown" clone, that is as it should be.  The problem is that the current emphasis is on saying what is not acceptable rather than what is.  Bath City Council used to have a design guide which was not perfect but generally resulted in reasonable developments with very few horrors.  Something like that is needed again so that developers who follow the height, mass, materials, colours, style and proportions guidance encounter few obstacles in the planning process.  That doesn't mean everything has to be faux Georgian, but it does mean the end of architectural ego-trips producing wholly incongruous designs - provided of course that the council's decision makers stick to the council's own guidance, which they don't always do at the moment.

Listed Buildings and VAT - Last updated 29th April 2012.

HMRC is conducting a consultation on changing the VAT rules for listed buildings.  Under the guise of reducing anomalies, they aim to levy VAT where none was payable before, with this (probably unintended) outcome that it could be cheaper to demolish a listed building and building a replica than to restore the original.  So much for the aim of listing being to protect buildings of national importance.

When we first found this consultation it had a closing date of 4th May and we hurried to meet that date.  It was only after we had submitted our response that the closing date was extended to 18th May.  So if any reader wants to make their own comments on the proposal, there is still time.

Kingsmead House - Last updated 29th April 2012.

Despite our advice that this sensitive site deserved a design with more "Bathness" than the proposals put forward, and our observation that the council's own Building Heights Strategy ought to rule out the design proposed, and the advice from the council's own Development and Regeneration Team that the Core Strategy reserved this site for office accommodation not a hotel, the DCC was so wrapped up in the idea that hotels bring tourists that they approved the applications, mostly on the grounds that the existing building could not be refurbished for continued use as offices (the concept of demolition and building a new office building did not seem to have occurred to them).  The DCC decision was to require council officers to reach a specific S106 agreement, and then to formally issue planning permission.

That S106 agreement could be a long way off, because we have found the site offered for sale as a "Hotel Development Opportunity".  We expect potential buyers to regard the negotiations to minimise the S106 commitment (a commitment that the DCC minuted so there is very little room for negotiation) as the tipping point on whether to purchase or not, particularly when the competing hotel in James Street West, refused permission by the DCC but granted on appeal, looks set to go ahead now the fabric shop has closed down.  The disused Kingsmead House could be there for a long time yet.  Perhaps our old suggestion that it should be converted internally into student accommodation to give it a function until it is eventually demolished could be dusted off and reconsidered.

Certificate of Lawfulness - Last updated 29th April 2012.

As well as mentioning the inability to comment on 12/01457/CLPU, we looked at the details of this application.  The requirement is to install a section of engraved paving outside the Abbey identifying the end point of the Cotswold Way.  The legislation quoted says:
(1) If any person wishes to ascertain whether-
(a) any proposed use of buildings or other land; or
(b) any operations proposed to be carried out in, on, over or under land, would be lawful, he may make an application for the purpose to the local planning authority specifying the land and describing the use or operations in question.

Nothing in this section of the legislation covers what is actually intended, which is to change the land appearance by removing an existing brass plaque and installing a larger stone one for a different purpose, all in the environs of a listed building.  This needs a proper planning application, not what appears to be an attempt to avoid consultation using a clause which cannot authorise modification, only use.  If the modification takes place, it will be without planning permission and it will be an enforcement matter.  Although we cannot comment on the application, we can say here it must be refused.

The brass plaque to be removed (strictly speaking to be relocated) is interesting in its own right.  It is part of the Bath City Trail.  The CLPU documentation states:
There is currently a small brass plaque marking a point on the ‘City Trail’, a walking route around the city. This trail is now unpromoted, i.e leaflets and guides are no longer available and the route itself is not publicised in other publications and publicity.

So now we have a perfectly serviceable walking route, one that encourages people to explore Bath, taking second place to a marker for the Cotswold Way which takes walkers out of Bath.  Who thought that was a good idea?

Now take a slightly different view.  The brass plaques exist, and each is marked "City Trail" yet the leaflets and guides associated with them are no longer available.  What is the point of Bath Tourism Plus and the Tourist Information Office if they can't recognise the value of something that already exists, and why don't they make the leaflets available?  Somebody decided to discontinue them, and that somebody ought to hang their head in shame.  We did a quick straw poll (which admittedly was too few to be statistically significant) of visitors who had been in the Tourist Information Office, and the opinions expresses were less than flattering!

National Planning Policy Framework - Last updated 15th April 2012.

Government employees are banned from commenting to the press about Government policy, but no such restrictions apply to retired or former Government employees.  Two have taken advantage of this to write to the letters page of The Times.  The Times only allows access to its content on-line by subscription so we have typed the salient points from relevant letters from the printed copy.

The text of both is here.  The letter of 5th April is from a former planning inspector and it points out that despite the claims of reducing red tape, the documents made obsolete did not contain it, so it still exists.  The letter of 9 April is from a retired Parliamentary Counsel.  That letter comments on an earlier Times article which isn't available on-line (It was headlined "New planning regulation: a lawyers’ paradise?")  pointing out that the terminology in the NPPF is so vague that it is effectively meaningless.  It is reassuring that this reflects our views:  Watchdog's contribution to the public consultation pointed out that "sustainable development" was too ambiguous (and we suggested better wording); and it is typical of a Government consultation that comments from members of the ordinary public are routinely ignored as ours were.

Luckily, English Heritage have analysed the document in the context of heritage assets (listed buildings, listed parks and gardens, scheduled ancient monuments and conservation areas) and has advised that the protection previously offered to heritage assets still exists and the NPPF cannot be interpreted as undermining that protection.  We have obtained the latest statement by English Heritage which is on their website (along with a statement that PPS5 has not been withdrawn) but is reproduced here for ease of reference.  We hope that case officers and DCC Members take due note of it.

Flouting the Rules AGAIN! - Last updated 15th April 2012.

We mentioned last week that application 12/00495/FUL entitled "Bath Urban Area" was due to be considered by the DCC on 11th April despite numerous new drawings which were submitted on 2nd April and some clarifying correspondence the following day, which meant that according to the council's adopted Customer Charter which promises 14 days of consultation for changes, the application should not be determined before the 17th April.  Watchdog rushed out a comment on the revisions and expressly informed the case officer that the submission to the DCC was premature.

The case officer obviously read it, because the DCC was briefed about the contents of our objection.  What the DCC was not briefed on is the mismatch of the date when the DCC met and the earliest date that the application should be determined. Why not?

There is a bit of good news in that the items that were intended to be fixed to the historic lamp standards in the Circus will not be installed, thanks to a resounding veto by Highways on the grounds of potential damage.  There are two questions here:  why was the Historic Environment Team not equally concerned about the potential for damage;  and why are the historic lamps in the Circus not considered to be curtilage listed with the buildings that surround them?  If they had been, then a listed building consent would have been mandatory, with determination dependent on different legislation.  Perhaps the lamp standards should be listed in their own right to prevent any similar possibility of falling between the cracks in future.

The question the DCC Members should ask themselves is why both the March Meeting and the April one had applications determined that were on the agenda prematurely.

Twerton Heritage Day - Last updated 8th April 2012.

On Easter Saturday, Watchdog went along to the Bath City Football Club, armed with as much information that we could muster on the areas being featured (Twerton and Lower Weston) with a focus on former industries, wartime damage, and the Bath connections with the Titanic (which were several). The picture on the right shows one of the four tables that Watchdog covered with material to read.

The event was opened by the Mayor of Bath, and was well attended, and our material was well used.  We thank those who came along, especially those who brought their own insights into the exhibits we had on display, and those who engaged us in some very interesting conversations.

The first of these pictures is looking into the exhibition space from near the entrance.  To the left and out of shot are the exhibits of the Claverton Pumping Station and St John's Ambulance.  At the far end of the room is the Titanic display, mostly supplied by the council's Heritage Champion, with Watchdog's exhibits to the right of it.  The next exhibitor clockwise, hidden by the glare of the sun, can be seen in the right-hand photo.  There you see the Bath in Time exhibits with the council's World Heritage display beyond it and the Bath at Work display in the far corner.  To the right and out of shot is the Saltford Brass Mill display, featuring the Weston Island mill and some products produced by it.

When we spoke to the other exhibitors, they shared our view that the event had been a tremendous success, and there is considerable enthusiasm for future events covering other areas.  When these are arranged, we will advertise them here.  

Planning Policy - Last updated 8th April 2012.

On 27th March, the Government published its National Planning Policy Framework, and issued a letter to local planning authorities alerting them to that fact, and informing them that it was issued with immediate effect.  The aim of this document was to simplify planning by dispensing with a large number of pages in other Government documents, to be replaced by about 50 pages of guidance in the NPPF.

We pointed out last summer that the NPPF did not intend to repeal any legislation, merely to make obsolete the documentation that clarified the legislation enacted.  We thought it would cause more confusion than clarification, and offered that view in our consultation comments.

So it came as no surprise to us that immediately after the NPPF was issued, a "Technical Note" was rushed out.  This essentially reproduced the guidance in Planning Policy Statement 25, Minerals Planning Guidance 7 and Minerals Planning Guidance 13, three of the earlier documents declared obsolete but subsequently discovered to be indispensable.  It is only a matter of time before others follow.

Then came a letter published in The Times on 5th April from someone who introduces himself as "a former planning inspector" and therefore someone qualified to offer the criticism which followed.  The main thrust of the letter says that the NPPF "does indeed compress reams of superseded guidance into 50 pages.  However this is all advice on government policy, the non-statutory part of the framework of planning.  It has to be used in compliance with the statutory elements, the Planning Acts from 1990 onwards, often amended, other Acts, the stream of statutory instruments, rules, directions and directives and indeed case law.  These are where the much vilified red tape lies.  ...  Those hoping that this document will reduce red tape will be greatly disappointed."

We said the same thing last August, though rather less eloquently, and it is good to see a professional coming to the same conclusion as us amateurs.  So planning applicants and planning officers should take note:  the names may have changed but the legislation hasn't and the NPPF must not be interpreted as a rubber stamp with "yes" on it.  It just means that instead of the easily understood English in PPS and PPG documents that we usually quote when commenting on planning applications, we may have to revert to the legalese in the legislation itself, and hope that case officers will be suitably trained in interpreting it.

Cleveland Pools - Last updated 31st March 2012.

We have received a progress update from the Cleveland Pools Trust.  It said "After months of meetings and many hours at our computers, the Trustees have completed a Stage 1 Heritage Lottery Fund bid application which will be submitted in early April 2012. Then comes the nail-biting wait to hear if we have been successful and can enter the Development Phase when the hard work really starts! The HLF Board meets on 16/17th July to decide our fate so watch this space and the local press for the news after that."

We will keep in touch and report the outcome.  For those who want to know what the current plans are, their website contains a flyer.

Herman Miller Building - Last updated 25th March 2012.

There is a new listed building application on our New Applications page.  There is nothing particularly significant about this;  the previously granted listed building consent expired in the first week of March, and the new one seeks to renew it because both planning permission (which is still pending) and listed building consent are needed before work can start.

The extra document this time is a Condition Report dated February 2012, which if anything understates the condition we photographed at the end of March.  Round the back of the building a number of cladding panels are smashed.  According to the planning documents, these are made of asbestos cement.  Whoever broke them no doubt breathed in asbestos dust.  It is grey asbestos mixed with cement, so not the most dangerous type nor in the most concentrated form, but nevertheless exposure to it is undesirable.  So we are publishing this photograph to alert readers that the broken pieces on the ground contain asbestos and they should not disturb them.  These fragments need clearing up by those trained to do so.  Hopefully that will be soon.

Fountain Buildings - Last updated 25th March 2012.

BT applied to place one of their fibre optic broadband cabinets in Fountain Buildings, against the currently unspoilt end of the listed Alfred Street.  It went to the DCC on 14th March with a recommendation  to refuse.

The minutes of the meeting make interesting reading.  The planning documents say that BT wanted that position because otherwise they would need to install a longer duct and to dig a trench across roads to install it.  The minutes say that the DCC overrode the recommendation to refuse "for the economic prosperity of the city that superfast broadband will bring", a reason which is breathtakingly irrelevant.  There never was a risk that it would not be made available.  The choice was between refusing (as was recommended) and suffering a couple of days of nuisance while a trench was dug and the cabinet was placed in a less conspicuous position, or the spoiling of a previously pristine environs of a listed building permanently.  And by letting their overactive imagination prevail over the true facts, it is the latter which the DCC have decided the public and tourists will face, forever.  Oh dear!

Bath Press Site - Last updated 18th March 2012.

Just days before the planning application for the site went before the DCC which would be considering a recommendation for refusal, as the Chronicle reported the application (10/03380/EFUL) was withdrawn, along with the similar application (11/02674/EFUL) which was due to be considered at a Public Inquiry later this year.  Shortly afterwards the Bath Chamber of Commerce expressed its sadness at the temporary abandonment of the Bath Press scheme (our emphasis).  Unfortunately the spokesman for the Bath Chamber of Commerce appears to be recommending that any scheme, no matter how bad, is better than no scheme at all.  Whether he really takes that view or whether that is just the way the report reads we cannot tell, but we cannot support that point of view.  When St James Investments conducted their public consultations, Watchdog attended every session and put in some practical schemes for the site with a caveat that a retail supermarket was perhaps the worst possible occupier because of the location, so we do know that there are alternatives to Tesco, and so do the site owners.

Having said that, Tesco have a reputation for not giving up easily, so it is worth musing over what they might have to gain by not pursuing the current applications.  The first possibility is that they may have judged that the Public Inquiry following their appeal would result in a refusal, and then decided that the cost of fighting their corner for no long-term benefit was not worth it.  Also if a Public Inquiry refuses permission, that sets a permanent precedent on what might be unacceptable on that site, and why.  That could be a risk that Tesco was not prepared to take.

Or else they may have judged that the DCC would have refused their original application and they wanted to avoid such a decision being made.  If they put in an application following a refusal, then they have to show that they have removed the reasons for being refused (which would have included traffic concerns which they could not remove if they obtained the level of trade they desired).  By withdrawing the application they do not have to show the same degree of proof, because there is no refusal to be quoted as a precedent, which will make the preparation of any subsequent application less onerous.  Whether Tesco persevere with a supermarket there remains to be seen, but they do seem to have short-circuited some of their major potential problem areas if they do.  Similarly, if St James Investments choose to sell the site, there would be no planning precedents to be declared to potential buyers.

There are better uses for the site, and there is scope for retaining more of the current structure than just the free-standing and butchered facade that was shown in the withdrawn applications.  The remains of the original 1888 Pitman building are still behind that facade (which incidentally is the second longest classical styled facade in Bath:  only the Royal Crescent is longer), and those Victorian remains should ideally be kept as evidence of the work of Sir Isaac.  We hope that whatever happens next recognises that.

City of Bath College - Last updated 18th March 2012.

In the first link in the item above, Bath council commends its support for the City of Bath College's "Welcome building".  We remain critical of it;  its sombre dark face looks anything but welcoming, and round the side it is already showing signs of the Southgate problem, with algae growing on Bath stone because the chosen construction method was incompatible with the unique character of this natural material.  Given that the college offers a course on stone masonry, this sight we photographed is not the ideal advertisement for that course.

In Southgate the algae was sprayed with something that turned the green colour to a dirty brown, which if anything makes it look even worse.  We wait to see what the college will do with their problem.

The Olympics Come First? - Last updated 18th March 2012.

There was a planning application for public art works for the duration of the Olympics.  The planning website very clearly shows that the closing date for public consultation was 15th March.  Yet it was on the agenda for the DCC on 14th March, and they agreed to give consent.  Why did the the case officer not comply with the consultation expiry date on the planning file and withdraw the item from that DCC agenda because it was premature?  Does adhering to due planning process come second to Olympic decorations?  There would have been plenty of time to make the decision before the Olympic torch arrived without such short cuts

Bus shelters - Last updated 18th March 2012.

The public consultation on bus shelters has revealed a public preference.  Whilst given the limited alternatives offered in the consultation the outcome is sensible, we still maintain that there are more suitable, more practical and more elegant designs of shelter available and once again remind readers of our preferences for suitable Bus Shelters for Bath.

Drinking Fountains - Last updated 18th March 2012.

There appears to be a plan to install a drinking fountain in St James Rampire next month.  As this is a modern plumbed-in dispensing fountain not simple street furniture, and this location is within the environs of a number of listed buildings, we would expect to have seen a planning application and perhaps also a listed building application already;  it is cutting it very fine to complete the public consultation and get a decision published and still complete installation (assuming permission is given) next month.

Rather than modern fountains, wouldn't the money have been better spent on restoring the historic drinking fountains in the city such as Hedgemead Park and Rebecca's Fountain (which is looking neglected) which once provided the public with water?  We also wonder whether the current lack of public conveniences is an ideal partner to an abundance of fresh free drinking water.

Watchdog Website - Last updated 11th March 2012.

At our last meeting, the layout and format of this website was discussed.  Each week, more commentary is added and some obsolete entries are removed, but essentially the subject headings that we started out with persist and have expanded and now take a long time to scroll through.  The consensus was that some of the pages are getting too unwieldy, and that it was not always obvious where an occasional visitor to the website would find any particular topic of interest.  For instance if the visitor was looking for items on scaffolding, on the Transport Package, on frost damage or on the Cleveland Pools, would it be obvious that the website had such an item, and if so where would it be found?  Wouldn't it be better if this front page was headlines pointing to more comprehensive items rather than carrying the whole item itself?

It was agreed that a more concise page layout with a more intuitive set of subject headings should be the aim.  This would entail a substantial amount of planning and then rewriting, so there may be times in the weeks that follow where the updates put on-line might be minimal because much of the available time has been taken up with redesign.

The ultimate aim is a website that is much more flexible and intuitive, so bear with us until we get there.

"A" Boards - Last updated 11th March 2012.

Last November we reported that the council has decided on their policy on "A" boards, and we provided a link to the policy adopted.  A guidance leaflet has now been produced, which announces that from April 2nd the guidelines will be enforced.  How effective such enforcement will be remains to be seen.  Some of the enforcement cases Watchdog reports concerning listed buildings do not even get allocated a case number, and yet these types of offences should be more vigorously pursued than simple obstructions to pedestrians.  We can only hope that zeal for enforcing "A" board guidelines (which we do think is necessary, as our earlier item on Pavement Advertising shows) does not drain manpower away from other enforcement activities.

We still regret that the option of not permitting "A" boards at all (a policy adopted by Cambridge and York;  indeed York has just announced "zero tolerance" for offenders) was not considered appropriate in Britain's only World Heritage City.  When the success or otherwise of the latest guidelines is reviewed (and we will be making our own judgements on its success) we hope that the option of an outright ban might be reconsidered.

Shameless Plug - Last updated 11th March 2012.

After our plug for Twerton and Weston Heritage Day on 7th April which we put on-line until the event took place, we have been sent another flyer, this time for an overlapping event commemorating the bombing of Bath during WW II.  At the time the legislation identifying and protecting listed buildings did not exist, yet Bath City Council had already recognised that some buildings were more important than others and had created a Historic Buildings Register.  The Bath Blitz damaged 1,906 buildings on that register and 74 buildings used for religious purposes, so its impact on Bath's heritage was significant, and we are happy to give a plug to this event at the Museum of Bath at Work.

Listed Buildings - Last updated 4th March 2012.

English Heritage have been adding to their listed buildings database.  There are quite a lot to go through, so it may take a while to pick out the ones that might be of special interest, but so far we have spotted:

•  The building at the Stall Street end of Beau Street that was once the Horse and Jockey public house is newly listed.

•  Cedar Park Care Home in Oldfield Road, which unfortunately lost its landmark tree when it blew down in a gale last year, is nevertheless newly listed.

•  The Governor's House is now listed under its own name and under the correct address of Caledonian Road.  It has been listed since 1975 but it had been listed as "Premises occupied by Walters Engineering Ltd" in Stuart Place which made its entry hard to find.

•  The Post Office Sorting Office off Manvers Street, described as "One of very few buildings in Bath which have a deliberate architecturally ornate elevation facing the river Avon".  Unfortunately, as our photograph shows, the view from Spring Gardens Road is only possible in the winter, and the building is hidden behind foliage for most of the year.  Now that it is listed, we would like to see the tree that hides it (which is a stray rather than one that was deliberately planted) removed, to give a clear view.

•  22 Stall Street (Next Retail Ltd) which has an original shopfront designed by John Palmer and installed in 1800.

•  The Weston Public House in Newbridge Road which is listed because of its "Arts and Crafts Cotswold Vernacular style, which appears only rarely in the context of building in Bath".  English Heritage are clearly trying to preserve in Bath some architectural styles that are not Georgian.

•  The Cricket Pavilion on the Rec.  Not the club house facilities used by Bath Rugby, but the small building just inside the listed turnstiles by Pulteney Mews.  The listing entry dates it to 1895 and says "the level of survival of its interior is remarkable".

•  Also on the Rec, the President's Lounge, part of Bath Rugby Club.  Originally it was a lime kiln fed from the end of Johnstone Street, a "very unusual survival of a late-C18 lime kiln in a city centre setting" according to the listing, now used as a club house.

•  12 Northgate Street, the entrance to the former Duck Son and Pinker shop.  Both the entrance mosaic showing "MILSOMS" and the bronze "MILSOM & SON" over the entrance are specifically mentioned in the listing text.  The adjoining shop, Number 13, the former Wards the Seedsman outlet, now Sweaty Betty, has also been newly listed.

There may well be other items of interest in the latest listings, and if we find sufficient time to explore the English Heritage database, we will identify them.

Frost Damage - Last updated 4th March 2012.

Our piece on frost damage last week resulted in other photographs being sent to us.  We have added a selection of them to our News Summary page along with those we took ourselves.

Stothert and Pitt Crane - Last updated 26th February 2012.

The scaffolding around the crane has now been removed and the results of the restoration so far can be seen.  We have put a summary of the restoration process on the Public Realm page along with the latest photographs.

Legal issues - Last updated 12th February 2012.

Since the VeraCityBath Ltd case where they received a judgement that the council could not cherry-pick from the four planning applications that underpinned the Transport Package we have maintained an occasional watch on the court lists in case there is anything new concerning Bath, particularly when the latest scaled-down transport Package does effectively cherry-pick from the original Park and Ride sites.

We have just spotted a case in the High Court "Administrative Court" list, number CO/1210/2012 listed on 23 January 2012 where the defendant is Bath and North East Somerset Council.  There are no further details on-line at present so we don't yet know if this is a related case or something entirely different;  and the current court schedule shows hearings in the immediate future being cases registered in 2011, so it may be a while before a hearing for this 2012 case is scheduled.  We will keep a watch on this one in case further details become available.

Notre Dame School of Architecture - Last updated 12th February 2012.

Watchdog continues to liaise with the university, and looks forward to reporting the results of this year's student project which is in the Manvers Street area.  We found in the University website the news that the Prince of Wales has been given a Richard H. Driehaus award for Architectural Patronage.

When Watchdog visited the university last year, we also went as guests to the Richard H. Driehaus award ceremony and we know that the Driehaus Foundation promotes sustainability through traditional architecture and construction methods, so the award to the Prince of Wales and his decision to donate the cash prize to the building skills section of the Prince's Foundation is understandable, though not particularly expected.

However, our last report of the Princes Foundation was that it was in favour of building a large number of houses on the Dutchy of Cornwall green belt land at Newton Meadows, and although things have gone quiet on that development scheme lately, there is no indication that the Princes Foundation has actually withdrawn its interest in such a development, and we can only hope that the prize money is never put towards wrecking this attractive green western approach to the World Heritage Site.

Royal Crescent - Last updated 5th February 2012.

Watchdog was provided with a news bulletin on the work that has now started on Number 1A Royal Crescent, but as the content has been reported in the Chronicle, we don't need to reproduce it here.

When the restoration plans were being finalised, we were given a tour round 1A in order to properly understand the details in the planning application.  It has a fascinating history which has resulted in a complex internal layout, and we were happy to support the planning application which is sympathetic to the building and brings it back into use.

For those who might have walked past now that work has started, and are concerned about the disappearance of the historic railings, rest assured that they have been removed for their own protection, are now safely stored, and will be re-installed to their original position when it is safe to do so.

Upper Oldfield Park Flats - Last updated 5th February 2012.

We were alerted by several local residents that work has started on the site, and we checked and confirmed that the conditions that had to precede the work had been submitted and agreed.  However we noted that whilst the construction application was in time, the demolition application had time expired.  This does show the consequences of the thoughtless way the DCC ignored the Government advice not to grant permission for demolition in a Conservation Area until a satisfactory design for its replacement was available.  The DCC refused the new construction application that was with the demolition application on the grounds that its design was unacceptable, and only later was there a modified application that they considered appropriate, hence the disparity in expiry dates.  No doubt there will be another application to demolish the (sound and habitable) house in due course.  Nevertheless, at the current time there is no permission for demolition in a Conservation Area, yet the first activity seen on the site was to demolish the garage.  It gets worse.

A resident also provided us with these photographs.  The one on the left shows a hole that has just been made in the Junction Road boundary wall and we are told that heavy lorries have been seen inside the site having entered through that gap.  The picture on the right is of a typical accident in this location (the policeman in the background is standing exactly where the hole has been made).  We were asked (probably tongue in cheek) if we would like photos of all the future accidents involving vehicles using the newly made hole in the wall.

Yet we sat through and took notes in the DCC meeting that discussed the application for development which they subsequently approved.  One thing that was specifically recognised by the Committee was that using the existing Junction Road entrance just round a blind bend was an accident waiting to happen, and they asked for a condition banning its use except for emergency vehicles.  This became Condition 9 in the Decision Notice.  Then a different case officer dealt with the conditions application and approved a construction method statement among the submitted documents, thus allowing an access on Junction Road just along from the one which Condition 9 said could not be used, thus overriding all the safeguards that the DCC had attempted to build into the permission.

We have to ask:  When were case officers given the authority to override the intentions of the DCC?  Because that effectively is what has happened.  When the DCC barred the use of an existing entrance for safety reasons, they would not have imagined anybody being daft enough to permit another one being made alongside it.  We think that if conditions are imposed by the DCC, case officers dealing with the subsequent conditions applications should as a minimum get the approval of the DCC Chairman before permitting the conditions application.  Alternatively, the public should be allowed to comment on conditions applications to bring to the case officer's attention anything considered unacceptable in the associated documents.  The current system clearly has insufficient safeguards.

Meanwhile, the construction methods need to be revised on Health and Safety grounds;  cars colliding with lorries or heavy plant tend to result in fatalities.

Scaffolding - Last updated 29th January 2012.

Scaffolding has been erected outside 7-8 Cheap Street by Maple Scaffolding, and the workmen were seen drilling new holes in the stone facade to anchor it.  Some Decision Notices either remind the applicant that a further Listed Building application would be needed if it is intended to drill into the facade, or else add a condition requiring agreement on scaffolding fixings.  Unfortunately the Decision Notice for this application (11/04581/LBA) did neither.  Drilling a listed building without consent is an offence, but no amount of pursuit of the offenders can un-drill a series of holes.

Not every heritage facade is sound enough to provide firm anchorage, and this is especially true in the area within the old city walls where the Georgians sometimes put a new facade on an older building.  We hope case officers take this issue seriously, before a scaffolding collapses with part of a facade still attached to it rather than afterwards.

Station Vaults - Last updated 29th January 2012.

Those who remember the artists impression of the station area shown in the Chronicle (the one with the sun shining from the north!) might like to see the reality of what the vaults look like behind the ramp.  It looks very much how we expected it to look, but it will be a nasty shock to those who were so full of the shiny images in their heads that they dismissed the warnings of those who had researched the history of the station.  We have put our assessment of the latest situation on our Southgate page.

Core Strategy Examination - Last updated 22nd January 2012.

The Core Strategy Examination has begun (and all the supporting information is available on the council website) and as it progresses the programme is being modified in the light of events.  For ease of reference we have extracted the most recent programme (Issue 5 dated 19 Jan) of what will happen when.

Speed Limits - Last updated 22nd January 2012.

According to the Chronicle, councillors are thinking about whether and where 20mph limits might be appropriate in Bath.  Normally, traffic measures are outside Watchdog's remit and we make no comment, and in this instance we make no comment on the desirability or otherwise from a traffic point of view.  But according to the Department for Transport guidelines, unlike the current 30mph speed limit which is considered to be legally enforceable throughout the city once signs showing where the limit commences are in place, a 20mph limit is "non-standard" and as such the area thus limited not only needs start and end points but also needs regular reminders ("Repeater signs") at intervals to be enforceable.  In a World Heritage City with a desire to de-clutter the street views, we ask councillors to bear in mind the visual impact of all these extra signs and the possibility that popular photographic viewpoints and scenes might be marred by them, when they do discuss if and where additional speed restrictions could be appropriate.

The Rec - Last updated 15th January 2012.

Anyone listening to Saturday's commentary on BBC Radio Bristol covering the Bath Rugby match will have heard that the club is confident in getting the Charity Commission's permission soon for its expansion plans.

It is not likely to be that simple.  In their Order to the Trustees dated 20 July 2007, the Charity Commission included the obligation:
"The Commission directs that: ... BANES continue to resolve issues arising from the current and future uses of the Rec, to ensure that the Rec is managed properly as the property of the Charity for the benefit of the public now and in the future and satisfy the Commission that BANES has discharged its legal duties and responsibilities as trustee of the Charity".
Notice the constraint is "for the benefit of the public", and is not for the benefit of the occupants of the Rec.  To reach a private agreement with the rugby club in the face of their clearly documented position would be a complete U Turn.  It would also require the terms of the Trust to be varied, and to do that the Charity Commission must hold a public consultation on the proposed change.  They have not yet done so.

Even if in spite of everything, the Charity Commission reaches an agreement in favour of Bath Rugby, the conveyance of the land in trust to the council included covenants on the future use, and the High Court has considered those covenants and has found them valid as part of the ruling that the land should be held in trust.  Therefore the courts can force the council to uphold the covenants, regardless of whether the Charity Commission would be prepared to countenance change.  So don't believe everything you hear on the radio.

As Others See Us - Last updated 15th January 2012.

Now and again we notice observations by visitors to Bath, commenting on their experience.  In the past we have put them on the front page here.  But what the visitors see tends to be in the public realm, so we have put the latest one, spotted in an architecture journal, along with the ones we reported before, in a new section on our Public Realm page.  The subject of the latest one is Southgate.

Watchdog Annual Report - Last updated 8th January 2012.

As is our custom at each New Year, we have once again reviewed Watchdog activities for the previous year and have put together an Annual Report.

Planning Appeals - Last updated 8th January 2012.

As we expected, the appeal against the refusal for the Premier Inns Hotel in James Street West succeeded, and the decision to allow a hotel on the Kingsmead House site was noted by the appeal Inspector and added weight to the appellant's case.  The appellant was also awarded costs on the grounds that the local planning authority should have given a detailed justification for each reason for refusal in their submission to the appeal but they failed to do so.  This was just sloppiness, and has cost the taxpayers money.

The other notable appeal is for the Bath Press site.  Because the location is above a trigger size, the decision has been called in by the Secretary of State, and the appeal Inspector will now only advise the SofS rather than make the decision.  Whether this is a good thing or a bad thing remains to be seen.

The Shrubbery - Last updated 8th January 2012.

Also in the December DCC was an agenda item to determine whether the stonework on this development was an acceptable colour.  Given that the DCC refused the original traditional style of building put forward and then approved a resubmission for a contemporary design using reconstituted stone, some variation from the colour and texture of natural stone was inevitable.

The materials to be used were subject to a condition, and our examination of the condition discharge suggests that although the applicant provided photographs taken outdoors on-site and made the offer of viewing samples on-site, the officer's decision was made on the photographs, since there is no mention in the report of a site visit.  And that is probably where the process went wrong.  All council offices are lit by low energy lighting and the spectrum this produces is biased towards the shorter wavelengths so that greens and blues are emphasised and reds and yellows are subdued.  The human brain compensates:  it knows that white paper is to be seen as white and adjusts accordingly, so these colour casts are not noticed.  But having judged a photographed colour under artificial light, it was inevitable that daylight which emphasises yellow would show the colour of the stone rather differently.  The lesson to be learned is that judgements on the acceptability of subtle colours should always be made in natural daylight.

Whilst the view expressed at the December DCC meeting was that the Shrubbery is an important walkway (and we agree wholeheartedly with that), it is a pity that the same concern was not taken into consideration by the same Committee when permission was granted for contemporary materials to be used.  We don't blame the applicant, who tried a traditional approach and had it refused and was advised to take a contemporary approach in a pre-application consultation, we blame the decision makers who have realised too late what it would look like.  We said in our objection that "we feel the proposal will be more visually dominant than envisaged", so the Committee cannot say they were not warned.  Their decision not to take enforcement action was correct in the circumstances.

Gammon Plant Hire Site - Last updated 31st December 2011.

At the last DCC of 2011, the members of the Committee ignored their own planning officers, the advice of English Heritage, a petition by over 230 local residents and our reminder that the development does not meet the expectations of the council's own adopted SPD called the Bath City-wide Character Appraisal which defines what is appropriate for the area;  and the applications for the site were voted to be approved.  The Officers' advice to refuse was sound, being aligned to the planning legislation that the Committee members ought to have studied and understood, and for that reason Watchdog did not think it necessary to attend the meeting.  Thus we did not hear what happened at first hand and the minutes give no real clues to how such a perverse outcome arose.

On the council website is a description of the council's Petitions Scheme.  We cannot reconcile the actions of the Ward Councillors with this scheme description and expectations.

Of particular significance was the reference in the minutes to both Ward Councillors, Cherry Beath and Roger Symonds, speaking in favour of the development.  The wisdom of this despite the local residents' petition against the development remains to be seen.  Voters have long memories and bear grudges.  We are reminded of what happened to Elgar Jenkins after he ignored the wishes of his Ward and went ahead with the traffic scheme around Sydney Gardens that turned out to be as ill-advised as his constituents forecast.

In the case of Cherry Beath who holds the Heritage portfolio yet was happy to encourage the destruction of part of Combe Down's village heritage against the advice of English Heritage, we can only suggest that she takes time to reflect whether she has the depth of perception that such a role requires.

In September 2010 we noted that one of the "Earth From The Air" exhibits was of farmland growing biofuels.  Beneath it was the text "Recent studies have discovered that it [biofuel] produces much more intense greenhouse gas emissions than fossil fuels".  If it is still considered an asset to use it, when was this research proved wrong?
Also, the sales brochures for solar panels suggest a declining generation level after 10 years and a usable life of around 40 years, so what will offset biofuel after that?

As far as the myth of "zero carbon" is concerned, the clearing of the site and manufacture of the materials for the replacement, shipping them to site and the build process will have a carbon footprint that the replacement buildings will not have a lifetime long enough to repay, even if they can capture enough energy to balance what the future residents use (which looks unlikely, given that manufacturing and delivering biomass fuel to a site at the top of a hill and then setting fire to it can only be cancelled out by the savings from solar panels leaving virtually nothing to offset household appliances).  Indeed the existing buildings, converted and properly maintained, will have a longer residual life than the buildings proposed and a far lower carbon footprint as a result.  Reuse is always more sustainable than new construction, and is often cheaper.

This simple logic seems to have escaped the nine committee members who voted in favour.  And when the buildings are finished and the impact of the development is clear for all to see, we hope that those nine will go along and talk to the local residents, to discover whether or not residents agree with their decision that the development "in the context of a mixed area, would not be harmful to the Conservation Area or the setting of nearby listed buildings".  Judging from the decision they made, few of the DCC members know or understand the area, and such a visit would be an opportunity for the nine who rejected their Officers' sound advice to learn from their mistakes.

Herman Miller Building - Last updated 11th December 2011.

In November we reported that planning permission for this building was stalled because the council wanted more as an S106 commitment than the owners thought was justified, and we argued that the council should back down because the building is visibly deteriorating and permission needs to be given quickly to halt the decline of this listed building.

Recently we were contacted with a report that the roof appears to be gradually collapsing and that when it rains a waterfall now flows over the Fieldings Road end.  We went along with a camera, but unfortunately by the time we got there the flow had stopped.  Nevertheless we took photographs and these clearly show that the roof is sagging in two places (the pictures are in the Lower Bristol Road (Lidl) section of the News Summary page.  Because the main reason why the building was listed is because of the method of supporting the roof, this deterioration makes granting permission while it is still repairable time critical.

Houses in Multiple Occupation - Last updated 11th December 2011.

According to the Chronicle, a feasibility study is being commissioned into ways to limit the number of HMOs in an area.  We have no objection in principle to such a study, but we hope that the guidelines for the study are a little more precise than the press item.  For instance, does the 100 metre radius have to encompass the entire plot of a building or is is included if any part of it is in range?  Some clarity is needed to avoid "islands" of HMOs 110 metres apart;  and perhaps 100 metres is too small a radius if that is the risk.

Our main concern though it that it should distinguish between houses that have their original plan form and houses where the internal walls have been altered.  The former is a house that is shared, in that if it was not in multiple occupation it could be a family residence or house-shared by permanent residents.  The latter by contrast will have been amended internally to be occupied by those happy with a small private room with common utility spaces, and as such is no longer fit for family occupation, being primarily designed for occupation by students or other short-term residents.  It is this latter category that we think should need to apply for a retrospective change of use to the newly introduced Use Class C4 because they will need further modification to turn them back into a regular Class C3 dwelling house.  A third case is where a resident owner has a building large enough to take in several lodgers or perhaps a small family, and it is a moot point whether they would actually do so if it meant having their own residence reclassified as a HMO, with all the administrative overheads that entails.  In this last case, there should be scope for exemptions in the case of owner occupiers in buildings that have not had the plan form changed.  It is important not to prevent accommodation sharing of the type that would be the norm in areas which do not have a university.  The  study must not over-simplify its recommendations.

The concept of a study is welcomed, but we ask that the results are offered for public comment before any final decision is made.

Railway Heritage Trust - Last updated 11th December 2011.

In July 2010 we published an item on the restoration of the Skew Bridge arches on our Brunel page which was partially funded by the Railway Heritage Trust.  The Trust has now released its annual report newsletter and they have featured this activity on Page 21, though they use the name Churchill Arches.  This newsletter is in an odd format, and blind readers will find that their screen-reader will not interpret it.  We will try to reproduce it in a more convenient format in a later update.

Bath Press Building - Last updated 4th December 2011.

St James Investments, on behalf of Tesco, raised two almost identical planning applications for the Bath Press building, 10/03380/EFUL in August 2010 and 11/02674/EFUL in June 2011.  On 14th November they raised an appeal on the second one claiming that the council had not made a decision quickly enough.  Yet on the 9th November they submitted revised drawings, which the council has to allow the public to comment on for at least 14 days so the earliest possible date that a decision could be made would be 24th November, 10 days after the appeal was raised.  This looks very much like gamesmanship, and no doubt the council will be offered the withdrawal of the appeal if the first application is granted permission.  We can only hope that the council don't go along with it.

There is a danger though that St James Investments, on behalf of Tesco, will claim in their appeal that the objections raised so far are invalid because they don't take into account the latest drawings.  It is important therefore that those who lodged an objection against put in a supplementary objection saying that the revised drawings don't change the opinions expressed earlier (if that is your view).  This will have to be sent to the Appeal Inspector, so quote the appeal reference APP/F0114/A/11/2164551/NWF as the subject of an e-mail and send it to teamp3@pins.gsi.gov.uk as soon as possible.

We note that the council has reported the existence of the update documents to the Planning Inspector and is waiting for the Inspector's advice on what to do next.

Station Goods Lift - Last updated 4th December 2011.

We have had out attention drawn to the permission given to application 11/02753/LBA, and to the mismatch between the officer's report and the legislation and English Heritage advice.  We therefore did some research and have placed an analysis of the anomalies on our Southgate page.  We concluded that English Heritage would be fully justified in calling the decision in.

Sainsbury's - Last updated 27th November 2011.

For those who were unable to attend the public consultation events, Sainsbury's have put online most of what they exhibited (follow the links on the side of that screen in sequence) and there is an on-line form on that website for comments.

We have now been informed that part of the exhibition is now in the foyer of the Green Park store along with comments forms and a box to put them in, so those who prefer not to use on-line facilities still have an opportunity to examine the proposals and comment on them.  We understand that this exhibition will eventually move to the Odd Down store, but we haven't been told a date for that.

Flood Compensation - Last updated 27th November 2011.

One of the things we heard mentioned at the Sainsbury's exhibition was that the council had announced a floodwater storage scheme.  We reported last week that we had found the press release on the council website, but not a document detailing exactly what the proposals are.  Now we have found the proposals, except that they are not at this stage proposals.  The paper we found is based on the Flood Risk Management Strategy which tested various flood risk management options and concluded that there is no strategic solution to reducing peak flow through Bath which is either technically or economically viable. As a result the Strategy proposes the provision of compensatory storage upstream combined with on site flood defences, whereby new development must provide storage to offset the volume of water that would be displaced in a flood event by the defences on site.

Consequently, what the press release described as proposals is actually a study (Bath Compensatory Storage Study) to identify appropriate locations and capacity needed upstream, and is merely a feasibility study which recommends "that the three sites are now discussed further with Bath and North East Somerset Council and the Environment Agency in order to determine whether the sites, at this stage, are considered suitable for further investigation".  So now we know that the focus of the Core Strategy on the river corridor is based on facilities that are merely possibilities that might be worth further investigation.  It remains to be seen whether the Inspector examining the Core Strategy considers this assumption unsound, as we do.

Some old records of Bath refer to "Swan Island" which was gradually built from the deposition of silt consequent on the eddies created by Old Bridge.  When the bridge was removed the island gradually disappeared.

There is thus a real basis for our concerns about the impact of changing Frank Greenhalgh's design.

We can save the time and money on further investigation.  The idea that storage is the solution was dismissed as ineffective by Frank Greenhalgh who provided a proven effective solution based on improving the speed of flow, and the current shape of the river including the current sheet piling was designed to that end.  The odd scattered pieces of local storage to be introduced by the strategy will create eddies which will slow down the flow and therefore increase the risk of flooding upstream of the eddies.   A slower flow would also deposit silt, because the Avon carries a lot of it, thereby reducing the flow capacity upstream of any local storage in any future flood events.  The most effective means of reducing the risk of a serious flood remains increasing the capacity of the river by dredging to make it deeper, yet that idea doesn't get a mention in the latest press release, and was not part of the Terms of Reference for the report now published.

What happens next if the facts do actually get in the way of the Core Strategy's ivory tower thinking remains to be seen.

Victoria Bridge - Last updated 20th November 2011.

After last week's item (retained below in case anyone hasn't yet seen it) asking why it was unsafe to use the footpath but not the river, there was a development.  HTV News announced on Monday 14th that the river was closed to traffic as well.  The news item is available in the ITV Player service at the time this item is being written.  There was a more detailed news report on BBC Points West the following day, but the BBC website only carried it for one day so it is no longer viewable on-line.  On 16th November the council issued a further press release which explains the position in more detail.

[13/11/11]  A council press release announces the closure of the towpath under Victoria Bridge for safety reasons. It says "until further notice" but suggests that the north towpath would be reopened reasonably soon.  It does leave unanswered the question how a Grade II* listed bridge (which puts in in the top 5% of listed structures of importance to the nation) could be allowed to get into such a state of dilapidation that not only will it not take the weight of a pedestrian walking on the top if it, but it is too dangerous to allow anyone to walk underneath it as well.  All this while in council ownership.  Penny pinching went too far and the cost of repairs is likely to show that it was false economy.

If the bridge was so unsafe that it was closed before work on the Western Riverside started, was it wise to allow the earth that had supported the sides of the pier on that side to be dug away as these pictures show?

Other questions remain unanswered.  If the bridge is unsafe to walk on, was it wise to add the weight of the hoardings to it, and subject it to the sideways pressure of the wind against the hoardings (upper picture)?  The hoardings have now been removed (see lower picture taken this week) but they remained in place for a considerable time.

Powlett Court - Last updated 13th November 2011.

After our item last week on the consultation, we are grateful for the communication we received informing us that there is a notice of the consultation at each end of the footpath, that the narrowest point across measures only 7 feet 4 inches (which converts to 2.24 metres), and providing us with a photograph taken along the footpath.  We have added the picture to our Powlett Court part of our summary page.

Know Your Flood Risk - Last updated 13th November 2011.

Rather belatedly, we have discovered that the Environment Agency announced on their Facebook page that their annual "Know your flood risk" week was 7th to 11th November.  Watchdog doesn't have a Facebook presence, but we are providing the link for readers who do.  We also discovered that there is a description of events and an Environment Agency blog page, and although the events advertised are passed, the remainder of the events site is interesting to browse.

For completeness, there are two documents that are interesting to read, one being an overview advice to home owners at risk from flooding, and the other being detailed advice.  (Both of these are slow to load and too big for a dial-up connection).

Among the information we researched was a warning about home insurance.  Effectively it warns that new dwellings constructed on a flood plain or in an area that has flooded in the last 75 years could be uninsurable from 2013.  The photo of the Lower Bristol Road in 1968 is well within the 75 year window, and very close to the Western Riverside.  Given that the council's core strategy is to concentrate more development in Bath on the river corridor (with an attempt to make this policy sound plausible by proposing a totally ineffective upstream scheme which would at best delay a flood event by about 30 minutes), this document makes essential reading.  If a property cannot be insured, nobody will offer a mortgage to buy it.

Other Village Greens - Last updated 13th November 2011.

After our short item on the Newbridge Village Green last week, we received a communication from Response2Route informing us of the outcome of the other applications for Rudmore Park and Kaynton Mead.  Unlike the Newbridge application, neither of these resulted in a recommendation that they should be registered as village greens.  The reports recognised that there was sufficient evidence that they had been used as village greens for more than the 20 years needed to qualify.  The reason for refusal was a legal technicality.  Because of the rather curious wording in the Act, it was necessary to not only prove that the land had been used as a village green, but also that the landowner had no expectation that it should be put to that use.  It is that second point that caused the refusal.

The council is due to meet in the coming months to decide what to do about the Inspector's reports recommending refusal, because the Inspector's opinion is advisory only.  We strongly suggest that because the land has been used as a village green and the Inspector accepted that evidence, and the only reason the inspector recommended refusal was because there was also evidence that the council as landowner expected it to be so used, the appropriate course of action would be to adopt both areas of land as village greens and formalise what has been an informal arrangement for more than 20 years.

Newbridge Village Green - Last updated 6th November 2011.

We recently reported that on Tuesday 25th October 2011 a decision was made by the council to accept the recommendation for a Village Green at Newbridge; and that the Newbridge Matters website has the full story.

Soon afterwards we were informed that because Village Green status permanently protects the land (some of which is a Site of Special Natural Interest) from any aspirations to extend the Park and Ride site over it, there is no longer a need to argue in the the High Court that the Secretary of State cannot overlook the illegality of that planning decision.  Consequently, Case Number CO/1787/2011, due to be heard on 29 November, would be withdrawn.

Kingsmead House - Last updated 30th October 2011.

Unsurprisingly, because of the way the disadvantages were underplayed in the Committee Report, the DCC approved the plans for a hotel on the Kingsmead House site.  The full article we wrote at the time is too long to leave on the front page so we have moved it to the Kingsmead House section of the summary page.

Consultations - Last updated 23rd October 2011.

Whether by thoughtlessness or as a deliberate ploy aiming to reduce the public input, the cut-off dates for commenting on the draft National Planning Policy Framework and the B&NES proposed changes to the draft Core Strategy were only four days apart.  Part of the council's amendments were claimed to be to reflect the draft National Planning Policy Framework, so that national documents had to be studied and understood first, and that set was over 60 pages of proposals, backed by well over 150 supporting pages in a number of other documents.

The draft National Planning Policy Framework claimed to be necessary because there were too many different policy documents at present, and they were contradictory in places.  The framework, when we studied it, was a smaller document, but still contradictory.  It also, in places, proposed actions which when the relevant legislation was studied, was clearly unlawful.  Despite this, the proposed amendments to the Core Strategy included alignment with some Framework policies which will have to be changed because they are undeliverable.  This may be the result of poor drafting, but we were required to comment on what was stated, not on what we think might have been intended.

Watchdog rose to the challenge and did succeed in responding to both consultations by the deadlines.  We have put the comments we made on-line for a short while, but website space restrictions prevent us leaving them there permanently.  So for a few weeks only, you can read our comments on the draft National Planning Policy Framework and the Update to the Core Strategy.

Heritage At Risk - Last updated 23rd October 2011.

On 18 August, English Heritage released an updated (and now searchable on-line) 2011 Heritage at Risk Register and on 19 October they announced the results of their Industrial Heritage at Risk project.  Among their findings was that the percentage of listed industrial buildings at risk is three times greater than the national average for listed buildings at risk.  With Churchill House unnecessarily replaced by a busometer, the Newark Works only just saved in spite of the council's wish to see it destroyed by the Dyson Academy scheme, and with the Bath Press building due to be wrecked by the Tesco scheme, this statistic is very believable.

Amongst the local heritage assets extending beyond the B&NES boundary, the GWR and the Kennet and Avon Canal are both of concern to English Heritage;  and more locally, the Victoria Bridge and the Cleveland Baths are specifically mentioned.  The fact that both of these deteriorated while in council ownership is not the best outcome of this stewardship.  The English Heritage website provides a link to the Maintain Our Heritage website alongside a quote which we commend to B&NES:
While regular maintenance may not be glamorous, it is essential and of course common sense: appropriate, regular maintenance (helps) avoid costly, wasteful and unnecessary later repairs.  Victoria Bridge and the Cleveland Baths are proof of this.

Enforcement advice to Local Authorities has also been updated by English Heritage;  but the lack of visible results to the enforcement cases that Watchdog has raised so far does not instil confidence that this advice will be followed.

Listed Building Decision - Last updated 23rd October 2011.

After an item about heritage at risk, it is an opportune time to mention that the other risk to heritage is from bad planning decisions.  We don't often comment on decisions because once permission is given there is usually nothing to be gained.  But in this case the situation can be rescued.

We refer to Application 11/03474/LBA for 9 Terrace Walk, where the case officer's Delegated Report contains the comment "The applicant has ensured that the fascia is traditionally hand-painted and has not simply attached a vinyl or similarly inappropriate material sign over the timber fascia as has occurred in the past"  This is flatly contradicted by one Watchdog member who brought this decision to our attention with the information that they had stood and watched the vinyl lettering being stuck on, and wondered how the case officer could think it was hand painted.  (The application documentation is ambiguous about the materials, so it could be an error of interpretation rather than observation).

We mention it here because the associated application 11/03005/AR is still awaiting a decision and we hope that its case officer insists on a hand painted sign.   On 23rd November, the second application was approved, with the case officer simply quoting the erroneous statement that the Conservation Officer made to assess the impact on the historic environment with no comment on its accuracy (or lack of it).  The consent was predictable, but that does not make it right.

Bath Spa Station - Last updated 18th September 2011.

Our item last week was rather long to retain on the front page so we have moved it to our Southgate page.

We have supplemented that with our research into the regulations and guidance that should apply, and have found a major flaw in the DfT guidelines, in that they do not cover the circumstances where changes make a situation worse rather than better.  Luckily such eventualities are caught by other extant legislation which should prevent the ramp being demolished.  We understand that First still have control of the ramp, and our advice to them is to reopen the ramp permanently rather than fight a legal challenge which we don't think they can win.

Bike In Bath - Last updated 18th September 2011.

Prompted by a Chronicle news item, we went along to one of the new Bike In Bath stands to see for ourselves.  It didn't look as bad as we had feared, but nor did it look like we expected.  We have put our picture and our opinions on our Public Realm page.

Cleveland Pools - Last updated 11th September 2011.

As part of the Heritage Open Days attractions, the Cleveland Pools were once again open to the public, and we went along to re-acquaint ourselves of this rare Grade II* listed asset.  We were disappointed in the state that the council (who own it) have allowed this cultural asset to deteriorate into.  The fact that negotiations are in hand for regeneration is no excuse for neglecting the historic fabric so that restoration becomes more difficult and more expensive.

To illustrate the problems we have put a photo montage on our Cleveland Pools entry on our News Summary page.

A Tale Of Two Cities - Last updated 4th September 2011.

Watchdog keeps an eye out for news from other World Heritage Sites and other UK historic cities which might also be relevant to Bath.  Our attention was drawn to two news items in the York local press this week.

The first concerns street clutter, and describes the comparisons that were made between York and the tourist destination of Bruges in Belgium.  If you read the article and substitute Bath for York, it is apparent that Bath also has the same problems, only in spades!

The second one is a direct contrast between the two cities.  York has invested money into building cycle ramps to give cyclists easy access to the railway station, whilst Bath seems hell bent on removing just such a facility in Bath.  Judging from the objections by the disabled and other campaigners to the undue haste in which an irreparable decision is intended to be made, Bath has not only got it wrong but is determined to be seen to get it wrong.  Lifts do break down (indeed the new one already has) and no assessment period which doesn't include a medical emergency on the platform, a Bank Holiday rush, the end of a University term, an important Rugby Match, and a commuter peak, all without the lift in operation, can be said to meet the Disability Discrimination Act or the Health and Safety legislation.  We also think that a test should be made to see what happens when a family with a pram and two bulging suitcases tries to catch a train which has just arrived on the platform and is disgorging a large number of commuters, and so each wants to use a narrow doorway in opposite directions.  Without the ramp, we don't think the station is fit for purpose, and an unholy rush to get approval before anyone realises that should not be used to cover up the deficiencies in the plans.  Unfortunately, once the ramp is removed, no subsequent replacement can restore the Grade II* heritage asset once it is destroyed.  And according to the Government guidelines, damage to a Grade II* asset should be "wholly exceptional".

It is time to revoke the planning permission that would allow demolition of the ramp.  Nothing planned to replace it is wholly exceptional, and a Judicial Review on those grounds should succeed.

Dorchester Street - Last updated 4th September 2011.

There have been a recent news item on traffic problems in Dorchester Street which follows on a similar report a year earlier.  We have put our view on the issue on our Southgate page, with the conclusion that everyone should be grateful for the current situation because as the remainder of the Southgate plans mature, things will get even worse.

Potential Conflict of Interests - Last updated 28th August 2011.

Amongst the documents on the planning applications we examined, we found correspondence from the council to the applicant drawing attention to a council service called Model Delivery Contract.  We recognise that there are advantages from identifying problem areas ahead of submitting a planning application and trying to deal with them at that stage.  Unfortunately, the offer we found was made after an application had matured and had been lodged, and the context in which the offer was made was "to try to overcome any potential reasons for refusing permission".  Taking money to achieve this, and then refusing permission because it does not meet planning policies would put the council in a very difficult position;  but the only other interpretation of such an offer is that for a fee, permission would be granted (and implied in that is that the application would be pre-determined regardless of planning policies).  What makes that particular instance worrying is that the plans as submitted very clearly do not meet extant planning policies, hence our concern over a potential conflict of interests.

PPS1 is very clear that planning processes should remain at arm's length from the applicants:  "Local planning authorities should not attempt to impose architectural styles or particular tastes. It is, however, proper to seek to promote or reinforce local distinctiveness."  There is an adopted SPD (The Bath City-wide Character Appraisal) identifying local distinctiveness, so the reinforcement already exists.  However, once an application has reached the stage of awaiting determination, the only way then to emphasise local distinctiveness without attempting to impose architectural styles is to refuse permission with enough information to guide the design of any subsequent scheme.

Also in PPS1 it says "Community involvement is vitally important to planning", and preliminary discussions between applicants and planners do not give the community a voice at the stage when they might have the greatest influence.  If the applicant has paid for advice that said "do this", they are not going to give weight to subsequent public comments that say "do that".

While on the subject of planning, we spotted a completely different application where the Case Officer had requested advice from the Historic Environment Team and the Highways officer, both of which replied with very strong (and we think valid) objections.  Yet the Case Officer in the Delegated Report dismissed the experts' objections out of hand and granted permission.  We have to wonder how that was allowed to happen.

National Planning Policy Framework - Last updated 21st August 2011.

On 25th July 2011 the Government published its draft National Planning Policy Framework along with a Consultation Document and announced its consultation will end on 17 October 2011.

Members have reported that those visiting National Trust properties recently have had their attention drawn to a plea by the National Trust for support in fighting the clauses in the Framework document that put preservation of listed and historic buildings and Green Belt secondary to economic growth as far as planning decisions are concerned.  Our initial read of the Framework document indicates that the National Trust is right in their interpretation.  We therefore encourage everybody to read the National Trust's concerns and use the link on that page to their petition.  For anybody who wants to take a more active role in getting getting the draft policy changed (which includes but is not necessarily limited to seeking others to sign the petition), the National Trust also has a How you can help page.

Included in that page is advice to submit individual comments to the Framework document, and that is also our advice.  You can submit individual comments and also sign the petition if you wish, but to do not undermine the integrity of the petition by signing it more than once.

Mayor's Guides - Last updated 21st August 2011.

The services of the Mayor's Guides are a major asset to Bath, and what they do is often unsung.  So we unashamedly give a plug to their latest contribution, a walking guide to Bath, particularly when the proceeds from the sales go to a good cause.

Former Labour Exchange - Last updated 14th August 2011.

In April 2010 we reported that there was a threat to the former Labour Exchange building on the corner of Milk Street and James Street West which is the only remaining building in Bath to show the type of damage that was inflicted in the blitz and the  "Make do and Mend" ethos of WWII that made the ruin reusable;  and for that reason it was listed, and the listing text describes its appearance as "remarkable".

It is currently occupied by the Genesis Trust, a charity that has brought the building into use with the utmost respect for its listed character, but had been denied a lease to use it with security of tenure, which suggested to us at the time that there might be other plans for the building.  And so it proved when a Cabinet meeting decided that this building was the preferred location for a proposed "wet house".  That meeting ignored the fact that this building cannot be made suitable for any residential use without destroying the reason why it was listed.  Cllr Pritchard, the spokesman at the time, made no forecast of what would happen to the Genesis Trust once evicted, or to those that the Genesis Trust was assisting.  To us it seemed bizarre that a charity which sets out to help the disadvantaged in society should be targeted to be evicted to make way for a charity aiming to help a different group of disadvantaged in society.

After the series of broadcasts of "The Forgotten Blitz" on the "Yesterday" channel between 11th and 14th August, during which Nick Knowles was filmed in Bath and shown examining this building, interest in it is likely to increase.

The issue now seems to be resolved, because according to the Chronicle report the misguided plans for this building have been scrapped.  What we would like to see now is that the Genesis Trust, who have demonstrated such care in preserving the character of this listed building, should be granted a long lease so that they can continue to do so alongside their charitable work.

"A" boards - Last updated 31st July 2011.

April 2011 saw a lively debate in the newspapers with arguments both for and against "A" boards.  We added a section on this subject to our Public Realm page in May, pointing out that they appear to be unlawful in that they contravene an 1847 Act of Parliament.

We have recently received an e-mail from a reader of this website, pointing out that in Cambridgeshire, such advertising is banned completely.  It is reassuring to discover that at least one local authority does not turn a blind eye to what we believe is unlawful advertising.  We have reproduced the Cambridgeshire Policy in full for all to read, and we urge B&NES to introduce something similar, starting with Stall Street.

Cambridgeshire also has a policy on tourist signage which isn't directly relevant to B&NES but it makes interesting reading.

Public Realm - Last updated 31st July 2011.

We have previously expressed our concern about the impression that would be given by the unpleasant staining on the wayfinders (the picture is of the Green Park Station one), and by the child's playgroup style cycle racks.

A new concern has now been added to our Public Realm page, that of the Electric Cycle Racks which have recently been installed.

Bath Press - Last updated 24th July 2011.

As a member of SAVE, Watchdog receives their newsletters.  In their most recent one there was (unprompted by us) an item on the Bath Press which we have put on our web page on that subject.

Also in the SAVE newsletter and on-line is the news of a decision by the Court of Appeal that the Secretary of State's guidance that demolitions outside a Conservation Area are permitted development is unlawful because it fails to comply with EC Directive 85/337/EC.  This decision means that all demolitions now need an Environmental Impact Statement to be prepared by the Applicant and considered by the Local Planning Authority and then determined as a planning application.  The court ordered the Secretary of State to amend his instructions.  We think that the council needs to recognise this ruling immediately, and not wait for the updated guidance from the Secretary of State.

Woolley Valley - Last updated 24th July 2011.

Another campaign that Watchdog has been monitoring though not taking an active part in, is the campaign by the Save Woolley Valley Action Group to preserve and restore the character of the valley.  The latest news is that the Action Group have convinced the High Court that there are sufficient doubts about the legality of the way that the council have dealt with what is happening in the valley that it has granted permission for a full Judicial Review.  Furthermore, the High Court has accepted the argument that the case should be heard urgently.  Fuller details are in the SWVAG newsletter.

On 23rd July Watchdog took part in a public meeting on industrial heritage, at which the English Heritage representative said that his organisation was now viewing with concern and alarm the rapid loss of Britain's industrial heritage, particularly when it is unlisted.  They asked that unlisted industrial heritage under threat should be brought to their attention.  In the case of the Bath Press, we did that as part of the event!

Canal Restoration - Last updated 17th July 2011.

Watchdog reported last week their invitation to the Opening Celebration after the restoration of the Pump House Chimney and two iron bridges, and promised a photo montage.  That is now complete and we have created a new page for it.

James St West Hotel - Last updated 10th July 2011.

The Chronicle reports that planning permission was refused for the hotel, and that Premier Inns intends to appeal.  We don't imagine the appeal will succeed, because this is a particularly impractical position for a hotel which will not only have to have guests arriving by road, but will also have to expect delivery and service vehicles to get there, all along one of the most well-used narrow roads in central Bath.

The obvious answer is for Premier Inns to come to an arrangement with the developers of Green Park House, which already has planning permission for a hotel, and is seeking an operator for the hotel in order to commence building.  Such a solution is likely to be quicker for Premier Inns than a lengthy appeal which might be unsuccessful, and it would go some way towards alleviating the concerns about an over-supply of hotel rooms if all the current plans come to fruition.

Warmer Bath - Last updated 10th July 2011.

When the Bath Preservation Trust and the Centre for Sustainable Energy jointly started to examine how historic buildings could contribute to the vision of a Low Carbon Bath, Watchdog attended the workshops to discuss options and preferences and those ideas were taken forward along with the the results of public consultations.  The approach and development of the final advice can be found in the Low Carbon Bath section of the Bath Preservation Trust website.

On 4th July, the final document was launched.  It can be obtained from the Bath Preservation Trust in printed form, or as a download from the Centre for Sustainable Energy website.

Not everything in the document is formal council policy, but we understand that discussions are ongoing with the aim of making it so.

The Recreation Ground - Last updated 3rd July 2011.

According to The Chronicle the consultation exercise resulted in a substantial majority in favour of allowing the expansion of the Rugby facilities.  This is as unsurprising as it is irrelevant.  As we reported in our own piece on The Rec, neither the Trustees nor the Charity Commission are likely to win against a legal challenge enforce the existing covenants on the land;  and the results of a flawed consultation do not replace the obligation on the Trustees to act in good faith as charity trustees.

The Abbey Churchyard - Last updated 3rd July 2011.

We were sent some photographs of barriers erected in the Abbey Churchyard on Thursday, some of which we show in our Bath Abbey section of our Public Realm page.

We explain in that item what the barriers were for, but positioned as they were outside the Abbey and around the Roman Baths, we would have liked to have seen something looking a bit less utilitarian.

Street Clutter - Last updated 12th June 2011.

We reported last week that we had added a Little Southgate section to our Public Realm page, and this week we have also added a Cycle Racks section to explore the issues around the design and locations.

What is particularly disappointing is that someone had such a limited understanding of the character of Bath that they couldn't see why these cycle racks shouldn't be bought, and yet they were in a position of sufficient authority that the purchase went ahead.  Did nobody stop to consider what message this latest style of rack (variously described to us as "crude", "stupid looking", and "designed by work experience trainee welders" amongst other less printable descriptions) conveyed about the stewardship of a World Heritage Site?

The final comment on clutter this week came from a Planning Inspector who refused an appeal for putting tables and chairs outside the Thai by the Weir.  If only the case officer who permitted Jacobs to intrusively harm the character of listed buildings in the Abbey Churchyard had shown the same level of insight.  Even more interesting is the Inspector's view that nearby "A" Boards made the idea of tables and chairs even less acceptable.  Now look at our photo and see how Jacobs have used just such an "A" Board to block the natural route for pedestrians through the colonnade.  The Jacobs barrier in the distance (beyond the person seated in the blue top) was not part of the planning permission either.  One day perhaps, case officers will realise that tables and chairs and associated detritus are never limited to just the area the planning permission says they will occupy, and any conditions to that effect are never enforced.  If in doubt, say No:  the evidence is that Planning Inspectors will uphold that decision.

The Chronicle - Last updated 12th June 2011.

The Chronicle has redesigned its website and many of the links we quote no longer work.  We will try to update our links in due course, but a quick check of a few of them has shown that some of the articles have disappeared and for those that remain, finding them will not be a quick or easy thing to do.  Please be patient.

Notre Dame School of Architecture - Last updated 5th May 2011.

On Bank Holiday Monday, 30th May and twice the next day (the 31st May) Notre Dame University presented their latest project, designing a masterplan for the Kingsmead area of Bath.  All sessions were well attended.  The full presentation consisted of about 100 slides which took about an hour to show and talk about, so we can only report a summary of events on our Notre Dame Page.

The Recreation Ground - Last updated 29th May 2011.

The Recreation Ground has new Trustees.  The Chronicle has announced that Cllrs David Dixon, Tim Ball  and Nathan Hartley have taken over from Cllrs Chris Watt, David Hawkins and Vic Pritchard, the trustees under the previous administration.

Last week we gave a reminder that if anybody hasn't yet commented on the "consultation" of the Recreation Ground, there is only until the 10th June to do so.

Since then we have been researching, and have unearthed so much information that it deserves its own section of the website.  So everything discovered so far is now on the News Summary page, in a section called The Rec.  We encourage the new Trustees to read it.

Street Clutter - Last updated 22nd May 2011.

On a number of occasions in the past Watchdog has commented on street clutter.  So when somebody completely unconnected with Watchdog eloquently expresses their personal experiences of street clutter in a letter to the Western Daily Press, we thought it important to bring attention to it.  That day's readers' letters were not on-line at the time this website item was prepared so we have reproduced the text on our Public Realm page.

Local Elections - Last updated 8th May 2011.

Watchdog is a non-political organisation, and is therefore happy to offer its unreserved congratulations to all the successful candidates, regardless of party, and our best wishes for the future to those we have dealt with in the past who are no longer councillors.

The summary in the Chronicle provides what they think will be the points of interest in the results;  and the council website provides the full list of results, including (if you click on the individual ward names) the number of votes cast.

The interesting thing in this year's results is that no party has an overall majority.  Judging from the statements published before the election (and other press coverage too numerous to list here), only one party was in favour of the BRT.  We can only hope that dropping the BRT is a decision made early, to save the council taxpayers the cost of fighting the Compulsory Purchase Orders, of fighting the Village Green applications, and the cost of all the carriageway engineering works that will be necessary to allow the giant BRT buses to negotiate the ordinary city streets.  A lot of other things that the public would welcome can be done with the millions thus saved. It had a budget of £17.8 Million according to this article and although some of that will have been committed already, there must be some left unspent that could be reallocated.

We understand that every prospective councillor received a letter from VeraCityBath explaining the facts about the Transport Package (as opposed to the spin that is more usually quoted), so each of the elected councillors should be properly informed for the discussions to follow.  The letter is on the VeraCityBath website but it is not easy to read there, so we have converted it into a more easily read format for those who want to read it.

Transport Package - Last updated 10th April 2011.

Alongside a reminder that the public inquiry into the Newbridge Village Green begins on 11th April at 10:30am in the Guildhall in Bath (and is expected to last for four days), Watchdog has had its attention brought to one news item on the Response2Route website, and the link to a copy of correspondence sent to the DfT.

One criticism in that letter is particularly telling:  "B&NES council have never carried out a like-for-like comparison between the BRT and its alternatives. This should have been done at the beginning of the project. Without it, there is no data to back up the claim that it is the best option."  Watchdog representatives sat through all the DCC meetings which discussed the Transport Package, and can confirm that according to the notes taken at the time, no discussion of possible alternatives was allowed at any of them.  Nor, to the best of our knowledge, has anybody checked whether the historic vaults along the BRT route in the centre of Bath could continuously support the weight of the BRT buses.  Judging by the obvious road damage in that part of Green Park Road alongside the Avon Street car park where the current (rather smaller) bendy buses wait at bus stops, this is not a trivial question.  Unless the entire route is demonstratively capable of running the service, it is unlikely that the Compulsory Purchase Orders for just part of it will be granted at a Public Inquiry.

Great Western Railway - Last updated 10th April 2011.

We were contacted by the Brislington Community Archaeology Project to inform us that one of their projects was the GWR and that they had taken an interest in our bid to add the GWR to the Tentative List of World Heritage Sites.  We have added them to our Links page and recommend that those interested in the GWR read their news item which adds new snippets to our knowledge of the line.

As previously reported, our bid for the GWR was unsuccessful.  According to the DCMS evaluation panel, the GWR was not sufficient on its own, but might in future be combined with other heritage railway assets, yet BCAP have a link to a UNESCO web page which describes the GWR as the most complete railway of its age in the world.  It does pose the question how the same railway can be viewed so differently when measured against the same criteria!  We have added a link to the evaluation report to our Brunel's GWR page.

New Appeal Court Ruling On Demolitions - Last updated 3rd April 2011.

"Any proposed demolition which is considered to have significant effects on the environment will be subject to the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) process. The Court of Appeal ruled unlawful most of the Secretary of State’s 'Demolition Direction' which exempts demolition from planning control".  The full details of this ruling can be read on the SAVE Website.

Case Officers should take note of this element of Case Law for all future planning applications involving demolition..

Petitions - Last updated 13th March 2011.

Whilst hunting through the council website researching another item, we found that the council had adopted a petitions scheme.

We welcome the formalisation of what constitutes a petition and how it should be handled.  The response to most petition types appears to be to refer the subject to the Overview and Scrutiny Panel, which can only recommend to the council executive members to have another look at something;  they have no real power of their own.

Thus although the scheme is a step forward from what went before, a petition under the new arrangements is likely to be ultimately as unsuccessful as they have been in the past.  If the council actually took notice of petitions, Culverhay School would not be closing, the Transport Package would not include the Rapid Transit route and Churchill House, saved by 11,000 signatures on a petition, would stand proudly at the end of the bus station instead of the busometer.

Bath Spa University - Last updated 13th February 2011.

From a Press Release dated 10 February which the Chronicle managed to put on-line that day, was the news that on the following two days (Friday and Saturday) Bath Spa University would be mounting a public consultation on its plans for more student accommodation on campus.  Such short notice is a joke!  Were the University hoping that nobody apart from the students and their families would actually attend?  A proper consultation is one giving enough notice that the public have time to make arrangements to get there, not something that can best be described as going through the motions.

There are details on the University website, but that is no substitute for speaking to the University staff and their architects.  The supporting material that can be downloaded is on that website but it is huge (members with a dial-up connection should allow up to 4 hours to retrieve it).  We think that the University should repeat the event, with more effective and more timely advertising next time.

PPS5 clarification - Last updated 6th February 2011.

In April last year, planning permission was refused for covering in the light well and waterproofing the vaults in a listed building in Lower Camden Place.  The applicant appealed, and Watchdog submitted some supplementary information clarifying what the planning guidelines expect in order to grant permission, and how both the application documents and the appeal documents fell short of this.  We have now received notification of the Inspector's decision:  the appeal was dismissed.  Of particular interest was the observation on the vaults:  "I saw that the vaults are damp and suffer from organic growth and salts, but this is inevitable given their location below the road.  Moreover, this was probably always a feature of vaults which may have been used for coal storage".

Other property owners concerned about mild to medium damp in their vaults should take comfort from this:  it is considered normal.

Planning Applications - Last updated 6th February 2011.

We are getting increasingly concerned by the number of occasions when a planning decision is made quoting revised drawings that the public has not had time to consider and comment on.  The most recent example was for 22 Milsom Street which was granted planning permission on 4 February and that permission letter refers to "Plans 004 and 006 date stamped 4th February 2010".  (This is clearly a misprint because the application form is dated November 2010 so any replacement drawings have to be after that date, which would be February 2011). When we have queried the timescale for revised drawings in the past when we have been notified of them, we have been assured that we would have 14 days to comment on them, so why did that not happen for this application? We did some research.

We found on the council website the reference to 14 days in a document called Statement of Community Involvement.  We found in there:  "4.24 Comments on planning applications must be made within a minimum of 21 days (for first consultation) and 14 days for re-consultation".  In the Preface The Cabinet Member responsible says "This document sets new standards for Bath & North East Somerset Council - we now have an obligation to meet these".  So there it is in print:  we are entitled to a minimum of 14 days when revised drawings are submitted (and that means 14 days from the date they go on-line because that is the only method of reading them now), and this is an adopted council obligation.

The planning permission letter was signed by the Development Manager, Planning and Transport Development, so this is the the person ultimately responsible for denying us our entitled consultation time, which the council is obliged to provide.  So there was a lack of due care on this occasion, and it must not happen again.  We will be watching.