Annual Review
The year 2011
At this start of a new year, as well as looking forward to the year ahead, it is opportune to report what we did during the previous year. Our records show the following:
Activities
Planning
We examined briefly virtually all planning applications within or just outside the World Heritage Site boundary, and decided on which ones should be studied in more depth. As a result:
Watchdog studied 546 planning applications in total. Of these:
We submitted General Comments for 92
We submitted Objections for 289
We submitted Support Comments for 53
We examined but then chose not to comment on 100
After we had commented, 52 of the applications were withdrawn by the applicant and 6 were withdrawn by the case officer because the planning application was was not necessary.
Appeals. Where the applicant appealed against the council's planning decision, we noted 19 appeals where we had commented on the application, and for 5 of these we submitted additional information to the Appeal Inspector where we thought it appropriate to supplement our original comment in the light of the grounds for appeal.
We believe that all of our comments appeared on the council's on-line planning service, though on a few occasions we provided an additional copy of our comments when they had not gone on-line within our review period.
The staff reductions in the Planning Department were made on the assumption that the number of applications would be reduced. Our statistics show that the number of cases has remained fairly constant and similar to the previous year's increased number, so the reductions were made on a false assumption and that assumption continues to be false. The staffing levels should therefore be reviewed: planning is a statutory duty and not an optional service. It cannot be cost effective to continue to use consultant case officers to cover resource shortfalls.
Whilst we appreciate that the choice to make planning applications available to the public only as on-line documents was primarily a money saving initiative, our monitoring of the service has shown that as the only source of access to planning documents it is not fit for purpose: its reliability isn't good enough, documents sometimes go on the wrong file or are wrongly described, and there are too many instances where documents do not get onto the system quick enough, and in a few cases some documents do not get on at all. During the later part of 2011 the original system was replaced, and whilst the new system has the benefit of retrieving planning documents slightly quicker than the old one it has two significant new drawbacks: It prevents comments being submitted beyond a deadline arbitrarily imposed on a calculated date basis, even though case officers would readily accept comments after that date; and the search for properties by address is nowhere near as good as it used to be. Inconsistencies can be found where the Status on the summary shows "Pending Decision" yet on the same screen a decision is recorded and a Decision notice is lodged with the documents. The display of map information by default rather than on request has caused concern for those with limited speed or with a data volume cap on their connection. We still have doubts about the legality of the change because a Local Authority does not have the right to unilaterally change their Statement of Community Involvement (see our press release), and we fully expect the next formal audit of council services to recognise that.
Enforcements
We reported 13 cases to the council's Enforcement team.
Only 8 were allocated case numbers; no explanation was given why the other 5 were not.
Of the 8, we received 5 responses. All said that it was not expedient to enforce the cases we had raised.
The problem with finding things "not expedient" is that there is now a general expectation that enforcement action is unlikely, and there seems to be no fear of being caught. We are seeing a gradually increasing number of changes being made, either without an application being raised at all, or before a planning application is raised to retrospectively grant permission. If such permission is refused, no action appears to be taken to ensure that the rejected change is reversed. It brings the planning system into disrepute.
Website
Thanks to an upgrade by our website host this year, we are now provided with a breakdown of traffic to and from our website to supplement the "bandwidth used" figure that used to be provided. From these new statistics we now know that:
• The most popular months for viewing our website are May and June, with February and October close behind. July and November were the quietest. However there is not a great deal of monthly variation (see chart).
• On average, 125 pages are viewed each day.
• Traffic volumes are fairly constant from 5am to 5pm each day (UK time). Our quietest hours are 10pm and 2am which are only a tenth of the daytime hourly volume.
• 31% of our website viewers are overseas, including China, Eire, France, Germany, Japan, Norway, Singapore and USA (the 8 most frequent overseas visitors in alphabetical order).
• 53% of our website visitors know the address and don't use a search engine to find us.
The entire website in round numbers now consists of 50 pages containing 900 pictures occupying 40Mb on our server.
Other highlights
Two items that we watched from the sidelines came to a conclusion after the Local Elections which changed the character of the council. The first was the announcement that the BRT route was to be dropped from the council's transport plans. We had long argued that the type of bus being proposed would be totally unsuitable for central Bath where historic vaults designed for horse and cart traffic would be unable to support such monsters for long. The second announcement was the decision not to oppose the Planning Inspector's recommendation that the land beside the Newbridge Park and Ride should be adopted as a Village Green. What a refreshing change from the entrenched stubbornness of the previous administration!
When the Stothert and Pitt steam crane was due in Bath in July, we were invited to watch and record its installation. Despite it being a gloomy wet day, we were delighted to go along, and observed an installation that proved trickier than had been anticipated, but was ultimately successful. After the event we provided a DVD of our video footage and a set of still photographs to Crest Nicholson and the council's Heritage Champion, and provided a summary on our website. Since then one of Watchdog's Committee has been taking an active part in the preservation activities.
A similar invitation was received in July to take part in the British Waterways Opening Ceremony on the completion of the restoration of the Pump House chimney and two footbridges over the Kennet and Avon canal. We had a chance to talk to the restorers and learn some of the tricks of their trade, and to take a photo record which we put on our website. The results speak for themselves; the restorations are stunning.
After taking an active part in supporting the students and professors from the University of Notre Dame in Indiana during their visit to Bath in 2009, we have continued our contacts with the School of Architecture in that University, and when we were invited by them to send a representative to the University in March 2011, a member of the committee was able to travel there, take part in the scheduled colloquium and review the students' work, and discuss ideas for future Bath based projects. Later, in May 2011 the Professor and most of the students visited Bath to exhibit and discuss their masterplan for the Kingsmead area. We featured both of these events on our website at the appropriate times. At the end of 2011 we were asked by Notre Dame to provide maps, photographs and background information on the Manvers Street area, their 2012 student project. We will be providing our usual level of support to this new intake of students.
In September, we were invited to exhibit at the Twerton Heritage Day event, and we prepared a display focusing on Twerton's industrial heritage. This was well received, and we were pleasantly surprised at just how much interest there was in what we showed. We were also delighted with the number of people who came to us with photographs, memorabilia and cuttings that we had never seen before, and with the background information they told us about them. One thing that this event showed is that the general public have a real interest in the history and heritage of Bath that goes far wider than just the Roman and Georgian periods which are what is normally "officially" promoted, and we hope that the Cabinet Member for Sustainable Development takes heed. This was a wonderful event, and we hope that it is repeated.
Future concerns
Planning legislation requires the loss of the station ramp to be permitted only if exceptional benefits result, and they don't. Now that the permission to demolish has expired, the council is doing nothing to protect the ramp; yet it should. Hence our choice of the word "contempt".
One disappointment in 2011 was the announcement in March of the new Tentative List of World Heritage Sites which did not include the Great Western Railway. We said at the time that we were sceptical of the reasons for rejecting our World Heritage bid; and nothing has changed our view since, that heritage comes a long way behind other Government policies, despite legislation being supposedly more important than ministerial desire. Our fear is that if electrification comes through Bath, scant regard will be paid to the fact that many of the railway structures through Bath are listed; and if any get in the way of the cheapest option, they will be sacrificed rather than spend a bit more to preserve them. And given the contempt the council decision makers have shown and continue to show towards Brunel's Grade II* listed ramp at Bath Spa station, we fear that Major Projects and/or the DCC will simply rubber stamp Network Rail's wishes, whatever they are and no matter how destructive they might be.
The condition of Victoria Bridge is a real concern. Despite the claims in the council's summary that the deterioration of the bridge was sudden and not the result of neglect, there were obvious signs of neglect in the sheer amount of vegetation growing out of the stonework, and our photographic records show that it had all been left untouched for a number of years, with the roots weakening the stonework for all that time. Dredge used the Victoria Bridge as his advertisements for other bridge requirements he wished to be contracted for to the same design, and Victoria Bridge was deliberately over-engineered to be impressively strong (much stronger than the similar Bridge of Oich). There has to be a reason why something that was designed to be impressively strong and had stood for 175 years should suddenly be so unsafe that boats had to be banned from going underneath it. Because nobody has explained why it had suddenly gone wrong, there has to be a concern that repairs might not address the real cause.
The Bath Press development started with a number of consultation meetings, and Watchdog attended every exhibition and every workshop. It looked as though this might be a rare occasion where the developer sought and actually heeded public opinion. Alas that optimism was short-lived. When the planning application was submitted, the architect chosen had no history of designing anything in the character of Bath, and apart from retaining the chimney from Pitman's Phonetic Institute (see picture), the original building on the site, the input that Watchdog offered was mostly ignored. Then a second planning application was raised that was very similar, and it became almost impossible to decide which was intended to be built or which application drawings were amended on. Given that elsewhere Tesco has successfully adapted treasured old buildings to make their new stores, the disrespect shown to Bath with the plans for effectively destroying the Bath Press building is difficult to understand and impossible to accept after all the consultation (which proved to be bogus).
Although it has stopped hitting the headlines, we do not believe that the ambitions that Bath Rugby have for the Rec have been shelved. The council spent a significant amount of public funds trying to convince a court that they owned the Rec and could do with it as they pleased, only to be told by the High Court that they only hold it in trust, and they had to register it with the Charity Commission. Despite this, and the covenants attached to the land, the council and the Rugby Club are still making public statements incompatible with the conditions conveyed with the land, and the council has put policies regarding Bath Rugby into the Core Strategy that we believe are unlawful. Unless the Trustees start to enforce the covenant in the manner that the 2002 court ruling interpreted it, we fear that more public funds, now scarce, will be wasted reaching another very similar High Court ruling.
Watchdog has attended all but one of the events organised by Sainsbury's to discuss their future plans, but we still have residual concerns over what might happen to Green Park Station. The station building is well used by businesses, and the train shed could be better used than having much of it devoted to parking.
The Farmer's Market thrives there, but for much of the remainder of the week traders are becoming more scarce, and we believe that the decision by Sainsbury's to remove the concession that the traders could park all day in their car park is the start point of that decline. But our real concern is that signs, electrical equipment and long-term sheds appear in the listed structure without listed building consent; indeed without even submitting applications for consent. The sign pictured here, which appeared to remind people that Green Park Station is a listed building was well meant, but it was screwed to the listed wall without listed building consent. That past history doesn't give us confidence that the listed structures will be treated appropriately in any future plans.
Watchdog commented at length on the National Planning Policy Framework because despite all the reassurances from various politicians, it is what the document said not their loose interpretations of it that would become law. We found ambiguities and contradictions which would make it a legal minefield, and submitted a substantial report drawing attention to every one of them. We finished our report with the sentence "The Framework needs a major overhaul, and a second consultation afterwards, before it can come anywhere near to being described as fit for purpose" which summarised our opinion succinctly. A lot of our detailed criticisms have been echoed by other organisations, most notably by the National Trust who organised a petition against the Framework, but other powerful opposition appears in the national press from time to time. The only voices in favour of this ill-considered document are the developers who relish the idea of effectively destroying all the controls that have prevented them doing what they please in the past. There are recent suggestions in the national press that the Government might be forced to redraft it. This might then isolate some parts of the Core Strategy which align with the current Framework.
As the Core Strategy once adopted will guide council policy for the next 20 years or so we have serious concerns at the current timetable which seems geared to the Core Strategy being finalised before the national policy which is supposed to guide it is enshrined in law. We submitted a large number of criticisms of the Core Strategy, and a few more on the subsequent amendment, and we can only hope that the Inspector takes heed of them.
Annual Review
The year 2010
At this start of a new year, as well as looking forward to the year ahead, it is opportune to report what we did during the previous year. Our records show the following:
Activities
Planning
We examined briefly virtually all planning applications within or just outside the World Heritage Site boundary, and decided on which ones should be studied in more depth. As a result:
Watchdog studied 546 planning applications in total. Of these:
We submitted General Comments for 76
We submitted Objections for 358
We submitted Support Comments for 54
We examined but then chose not to comment on 58
After we had commented, 39 of the applications were withdrawn (either by the applicant or by the case officer because permission was not needed) and so no decision was made.
Where the applicant appealed against the council's planning decision, we submitted additional information to the Appeal Inspector on those occasions where we thought it appropriate, but we have not maintained a count of these.
We believe that all of our comments appeared on the council's on-line planning service, though on a few occasions when we commented on revised drawings the decision was made and the public comments disappeared from view before we managed to confirm that they had gone on-line.
We were properly notified of the planning decision that was made in all but 21 cases. This 21 is over 4% of the notifications we should have received, which compares unfavourably with the just under 2% the previous year.
The staff reductions in the Planning Department were made on the assumption that the number of applications would be reduced. Our statistics show that the number of cases has in fact increased compared with the previous year, so the reductions were made on a false assumption. The staffing levels should therefore be reviewed as a matter of urgency: planning is a statutory duty and not an optional service. It cannot be cost effective to continue to use consultant case officers to cover resource shortfalls.
Whilst we appreciate that the choice to make planning applications available to the public only as on-line documents was primarily a money saving initiative, our monitoring of the service has shown that as the only source of access to planning documents it is not fit for purpose. Having said that, it is likely that the cost of bringing bought-in software to a state where it is robust enough to be the sole source of information is likely to exceed all the savings from discontinuing paper files. We also have doubts about the legality of the change because a Local Authority does not have the right to unilaterally change their Statement of Community Involvement (see our press release), and we fully expect the next formal audit of council services to recognise that.
Enforcements
38 cases were reported to the council's Enforcement team.
All but 2 of these were allocated case numbers. 18 cases were subsequently closed by the officer, and 10 produced no response.
There were 2 cases where the work was reversed, and 1 case where unauthorised signage was eventually removed.
2 Retrospective Applications were raised attempting to rationalise the work that had already taken place, but both were refused so the works remain unauthorised and Enforcement action remains outstanding.
Enforcement cases are different from planning applications in that we report where we think that something is wrong, usually based on what can be seen from the public streets, and Enforcement Officers (who have a right of entry where we do not) check whether or not unauthorised work has actually taken place. We have concerns about a couple of cases where the officer replied that the work was covered by a planning consent, yet examination of the planning applications revealed that this was not true. However we also recognise that enforcement action can sometimes take a long time, so it would be unfair to comment on the outcome until a case is closed.
Other highlights
We have continued to work with Network Rail to establish a programme of routine maintenance to keep under control the invasive weeds endangering the listed railway assets through Bath, and the worst of the infestations were cleared. We also expressed our concern about the condition of the Twerton Station building, and although we did not reach agreement on a full restoration we were pleased to see the Listed Building application to repair the structure sufficiently to make it weatherproof, and the consent for the work just before Christmas.
Charlton Court opened for student residents in September. We were pleased to see how the small styling features that we discussed with the architects resulted in a contemporary building that sat so comfortably with the listed Charlton Buildings that it was built astride.
We objected to the proposal to change the colour of the ceramic on the Holburne extension and were both surprised and disappointed to discover that the DCC was prepared to revoke their previous condition that the colour had to be in the palette of Bath stone. It remains to be seen what it looks like in the summer, but our concerns that the replacement colour would look gloomy in the dim light of winter has proved to be true now that the external panels are all in position.
During the year we successfully demonstrated to English Heritage that two railway bridges were Brunel originals, and they were newly listed. Nevertheless, in the absence of any intention by English Heritage to promote anything for the new Tentative List of World Heritage Sites, Watchdog prepared the submission for Brunel's Great Western Railway. By the end of the year, we had learned that our submission had successfully made the short list for further consideration.
Our other major success was to co-ordinate the contributions of the council's Property Services, Network Rail and the Railway Heritage Trust to achieve the restoration of the Skew Bridge Arches.
We attended the public exhibition of options for safety fencing to protect the line through Sydney Gardens and although we maintain an "in principle" objection to such fencing on the grounds that the need has not been properly established, we continue to liaise with the interested parties so that if fencing is ultimately installed, we can influence the design and location so that they do the minimum visual damage to the gardens.
Future concerns
Our other concern is the timing of the Core Strategy, and we are disappointed that the consultation spans Christmas and New Year when there are many other distractions and demands on people's time. Once adopted it will guide council policy for the next 20 years or so. We maintain that there has to be some recognition that because it is the only World Heritage Site in Britain that is an entire city, some sensible exemptions from the current Governments "one size fits all" policies must be made, and we can only hope that the council has the wisdom and courage to argue that point.
Annual Review
The year 2009
At this start of a new year, as well as looking forward to the year ahead, it is opportune to report what we did during the previous year. Our records show the following:
Activities
Planning
We examined briefly virtually all planning applications within or just outside the World Heritage Site boundary, and decided on which ones should be studied in more depth. As a result:
Watchdog commented on 437 planning applications in total. Of these:
We submitted General Comments for 84
We submitted Objections for 301
We submitted Support Comments for 52
Where the applicant appealed against the council's planning decision, we submitted additional information to the Appeal Inspector on those occasions where we thought it appropriate, but we have not maintained a count of these.
All but 7 of our comments appeared on the council's on-line planning service.
We were properly notified of the planning decision that was made in all but 8 cases.
Thus although the council's performance fell short of ideal, the failure rate as a percentage over a 12 month period is not considered exceptional.
Enforcements
148 cases were reported to the council's Enforcement team.
All but 15 of these were allocated case numbers and were followed up.
Enforcement cases are different from planning applications in that we report where we think that something is wrong, usually based on what can be seen from the public streets, and Enforcement Officers (who have a right of entry where we do not) check whether or not unauthorised work has actually taken place. We also recognise that enforcement action can sometimes take a long time, so it would be unfair to comment on the outcome just based on one year's figures.
Other highlights
Although not directly involved in the work of the architectural students from University of Notre Dame Summer School 2009, we were honoured to be invited to review the early drafts, to discuss with the students their design assumptions; and to advise them of important sight lines, heritage viewpoints, Government guidelines on flood risks and building density, and Local Plan policies.
For those who did not get to the public exhibition at the end of the Summer School, some of the designs and drawings are now on-line. Those with dial-up connections should limit themselves to the "Gallery" link from that page. The other links lead to large downloads, only practical via broadband.
During the year, we have met some architects and some planning applicants at their invitation, to discuss designs. In most cases we were able to agree on variations to the designs that still met the design brief, but allowed the resulting scheme to sit more comfortably into its surroundings, so we regard this as time well spent. We also appreciate the occasions when we have suggested improvements as part of our comments on planning applications and those suggestions appear in whole or in part in the ultimate planning decision.
We were concerned to see the quantity of invasive weeds damaging the listed Brunel features of the railway through Bath, and alerted Network Rail to the damage they were doing to the structures. As a result, weed clearance and essential repairs has taken place near Twerton Station and on the viaduct near Churchill Bridge, and we were informed that a programme of other such work is in hand (as funding permits) for the remainder of the listed assets.
We attended the public exhibition of options for safety fencing to protect the line through Sydney Gardens from trespassers, and we did not like any of the alternatives on show. So we responded to the challenge of the exhibitor to suggest something that would be acceptable by preparing four other options of our own. These we copied to Network Rail and to the council's Parks and Historic Environment groups, and we understand that they are the basis for ongoing negotiations.
Future concerns
Having read in the Chronicle of the possible redundancies in the planning department we were surprised and disappointed to see how many of the applications we commented on last year had the applications handled by external (consultant) case officers. In most of these cases we think that the consultant misunderstood the character of Bath and came to a decision that was an incorrect interpretation of Local Plan policies. Given that the council spokesman to the Chronicle claimed that the planning load was 22% lower than in previous years, we can see no justification for putting so many applications to outside consultants because either the in-house staff had 22% spare capacity and could undertake the work, or else false figures are being quoted.
We are astonished that after the "at risk" letters had been sent out we have so far noticed (at least) two new planning applications which have been allocated to a consultant Case Officer. We have to wonder whether the timing of such an insensitive decision indicates a hidden agenda. And we wonder too how many of the current staff "at risk" could remain at their desks if all use consultant planners were discontinued.
From our point of view, during the year we have seen a gradual increase in background knowledge of Bath in the Case Officer reports produced by the in-house staff, particularly some of those in the Historic Environment team, and it seems to be sheer folly to risk the loss of this hard won expertise until after the effect of discontinuing the use of outside consultants has been tried and evaluated. Listed building conservation and alteration guidelines are not just about shapes and sizes, but also methods, materials, colours and finishes, and these vary with time and the preferences of the architect of the original building. We agree with Kirsten Elliott's quote in the newspaper article that there is no such thing as a "straightforward" listed building application, and whoever formulated the council's view that general planning case officers are sufficiently skilled to evaluate the nuances of listed building applications has allowed wishful thinking to supersede common sense.
Even with specialist staff evaluating the applications there have been a small number of bizarre planning decisions during the year, so how many more would there be if such staff become too overworked to conduct a proper evaluation, or even worse, had the decisions taken out of their hands? The government guidance in PPG15 is very clear: "Once lost, listed buildings cannot be replaced; and they can be robbed of their special interest as surely by unsuitable alteration as by outright demolition". The same document warns against favouring short term gains influencing decisions which future generations would wish had been made differently.
Planning services are supplied as a statutory obligation, and the public has a right to expect properly trained staff with the necessary local knowledge to deal with planning decisions. If there are to be cuts, then those with the best or rarest skills and knowledge should be considered last in the queue.
Our other concern is the timing of the Core Strategy. Once adopted it will guide council policy for the next 20 years or so. How much of it will be incompatible with future Government policy after the next general election, we wonder. There has to be some recognition that because it is the only World Heritage Site in Britain that is an entire city, some sensible exemptions from the current Governments "one size fits all" policies must be made, and we can only hope that the council has the wisdom and courage to argue that point.