BATH HERITAGE WATCHDOG

 

Quick News  (Updated 4 April 2008)

Quick Finder   (Follow links for more information)

Pending Applications & Last Update	Closed Applications
All Saints  [16/3/08]	Claverton Street  [22/6/08]
Bathwick Hill  [5/10/08]	Coronation Avenue  [24/8/08]
Bathwick Street  [1/6/08]	Lyncombe Vale Road  [28/9/08]
Brougham Hayes  [27/7/08]	Moravian Church  [24/8/08]
Church Street, Weston  [17/8/08]	New Bond Street  [27/7/08]
Gloucester Road  [28/9/08]	Old Orchard  [5/10/08]
Hampton Row  [1/6/08]	Phillips Auction House (Old King St) Penthouse  [17/8/08]
Lower Bristol Road  [7/9/08]	Prior Park Road  [27/7/08]
New Bond Street  [7/9/08]	Shaftesbury Road   [29/6/08]
Phillips Auction House (Old King St) Restaurant  [27/7/08]	St George's Place   [3/8/08]
Prior Park Road  [21/9/08]	Thornbank Place  [25/5/08]
Rockery Tea Gardens  [21/9/08]	The Oval  [15/6/08]
Somerset Buildings  [5/10/08]	Tyndale, Bathford   [5/10/08]
St Mark's Road   [24/8/08]	Westleigh Farm  [22/6/08]
Thornbank Place  [17/8/08]	Wellsway  [10/8/08]
Wells Road  [4/5/08]	Westgate Buildings  [7/9/08]
Advertising Signs  [24/8/08]	Advertising Signs  [24/8/08]

Application Details

Wells Road

There was a planning application 08/01096/FUL for a modern prefabricated building in the currently derelict land behind 54 Wells Road.  While researching this one, we found two other planning applications 07/01129/LBA and 07/01132/FUL to build an extension on the back of 54 Wells Road and convert it into 8 flats, which have now been granted permission.

Now the reason given for the extension on the listed 54 Wells Road was to stabilise the building because it is showing signs of structural decay.  So we wonder about the wisdom of inflicting on it the inevitable vibration from the machinery necessary to build something at the bottom of its garden.

We think the prefabricated building will look alien in this location, where Bath stone (either real or imitation) is the norm, and we wonder about the wisdom of a house on a site so cramped that there are only inches from a boundary wall, which will make maintenance impossible, yet provide a space where seeds dropped by birds or blown in the wind can germinate into trees or brambles which will be impossible to grub out.  There are other impracticalities too.   How the emergency services are expected to deal with any resident's emergency is not explained.  How the rubbish and recycling collections are meant to collect and where from is not explained. How any resident is going to unload furniture to move in is not explained. We shall be objecting to the prefabricated building, and invite you to do the same either online or in writing to the planning office.

Go back to top index

Phillips Auction House

Restaurant

There is a planning application 08/01335/FUL for the conversion of Phillips Auction House into a licensed restaurant.  We are happy with the principle of reusing this currently disused building as a restaurant, but we were concerned about the loss of the section of the Magna Carta that currently adorns the side wall. However, when we contacted the architects, they were adamant that no part of the current text will be kept.

Contrary to the applicant's claim that this has no special significance, it appears in several publications and guide books with a recommendation to tourists to view it, and a few Bath holiday accommodation websites list it as a local attraction.

It is also on the route of guided walks, and after we alerted the Mayor's Guides to the potential loss of this attraction, we received an e-mail back to say that the text was something their tourists took a great interest in and it often provoked a lively discussion.
[5/7/08]  A second Guide also e-mailed a similar sentiment.
[20/7/08]  And a third Mayors Guide has asked for its retention.

It is not unusual to find unguided tourists seeking out this location because of such publicity, to the benefit of the other businesses in what is in reality an insignificant side street. The new use for this building would no doubt also benefit from this increased footfall.

We accept that it is impractical to retain the entire text given the currently proposed redesign of the building, but unless some of the text remains, we urge that you object to this application because it would be contrary to Local Plan Policy BH.1. To remove an attraction that is widely publicised, from a location that tourists visit purely because of that publicity, is most certainly harmful to the setting of the World Heritage Site. There is room on the newly designed side wall to retain a small number of lines of text and that is the minimum that the applicant should do to avoid invalidating the guides to Bath.  You can object on-line or in writing to Trimbridge House.

Go back to top index

Hampton Row

[21/9/08]  On 3rd September 2008 a new Listed Building planning application was lodged, which appears to align with the recent update to the full application.  There should be a Historical Survey with a Listed Building application, but none has been provided.

The layout remains unacceptable.  The listing for Hampton Row specifically shows that the terrace was in matched pairs of buildings, yet an odd one (Number 15) is being added to the end of the terrace to spoil this symmetric pairs pattern.  There is still a Number 16 built immediately behind the out-of-place Number 15, so close to it that it must be refused for over-development of the site, because the separation between the two buildings is so small that there will be virtually no light in the lower floors of Number 15 at the back.

Having met the developer and discussed with him what is wrong with the plans he originally put forward, we are disappointed that he has persevered with a scheme that conflicts with so many planning policies.

We would like the derelict buildings restored and brought back into use, and having met the developer we have confidence that he understands what is involved in that, but we will be objecting to this application because the additional buildings proposed would have a detrimental impact on the environs of listed buildings.  There are acceptable solutions for the site.  This is not one of them.

[24/8/08]  On 18th August, a new Design and Access Statement appeared on the planning file.  We cannot find any associated Listed Building application.  Despite what we considered to be a constructive discussion with the applicant (see the June entry below) the replacement Design and Access Statement is identical to the original one except for some additional pages explaining why the request from the council's Environmental Health Officer for a full 24-hour noise survey would not be complied with.  We are content to leave the discussion on whether the noise estimates provided in place of survey results are satisfactory to the council officers, but we are very disappointed that our suggestions on the changes to the layout have been ignored so far.

[1/6/08]  This week, Watchdog met the applicant of the Hampton Row plans, so that we could each gain a better understanding of the other's position.  We were astonished to learn that discussions with the council had been going on for nine years before the planning applications were raised,  and during that time, much conflicting advice had been offered.  It became clear to us that the applicant was under no illusions about the scale of the restoration work, and was still struggling with contradictory advice from different members of the council on what was likely to gain planning permission.

We were encouraged by the fact that apart from the condition of the end wall, currently propped up by scaffolding (and which the applicant expected to rebuild), the outside shell and party walls showed no particular evidence of structural weakness.  (The scaffolding across the front and back appears to be in case it is needed rather than because it is needed).  We concluded that the terrace was indeed restorable, and given the intermittent and relatively brief duration of noise from the railway, it should be possible to include adequate sound insulation, and therefore a reasonable quality of life for the residents.

We were also able to put across our reservations about the plans as currently submitted, and especially our concerns that the English Heritage listing placed great emphasis on the terrace being in symmetrical pairs with blind windows on the party walls, and the proposal to add a single building to the end would destroy this rhythm.  We pointed out that the plans showed an access path leading around the east end and behind this additional building, so it would be possible to relocate this building further east, placing the path between the end of the listed terrace and the additional building.  This is compatible with the post-war street directories which showed that after the listed terrace there was an unnumbered "Railway Cottage" in roughly that position.  The plot is a Brownfield site, so we saw no conflict with planning policies when making this adjustment to the layout.  Provided this additional structure was in similar materials to, but visually subservient to the listed terrace it should be acceptable.  The applicant thought that such an adjustment wouldn't cause him any insurmountable problems either.

We chose not to get involved in the debate about whether the final result should be houses or flats or a mixture of both.  The old directories show that even before the war, at least two of these buildings were divided into flats, so there is a precedent for a mixture at least.  So apart from pointing out that the price of flats was falling far faster than the price of houses at the moment, we left it to the applicant to do the arithmetic and decide what mix of accommodation would give him an adequate enough return on investment to make the restoration worthwhile.  It would be perverse if Watchdog took a position on the internal layout that prevented the restoration of the whole terrace.

We left the applicant to discuss the issues raised with his architect.  We shall wait and see what happens next, but we expect replacement drawings will be lodged.

Previously

[4/4/08]  The listed building application has been withdrawn, with confirmation of this appearing on the council website on 4th April.  We assume that the full application will also be withdrawn, but two weeks later, that still has not happened and we wonder why.  We think that this decision to withdraw is appropriate, because the paperwork wasn't adequate, but would like to urge the developer to consider raising replacement applications once they have done some proper research.  Watchdog would like to see these derelict buildings restored, and would be happy to meet the developer to discuss any revised plans before they are formally submitted.

[23/2/08]  Hampton Row is a residential street where the end properties have been derelict for a considerable length of time. Application 07/03825/FUL covers the new construction and 08/00386/LBA (which judging from its rather later number was an afterthought) requests Listed Building consent. Whilst Watchdog would like to see these bricked up and graffiti covered properties restored, these planning applications are so poorly presented that they are unsupportable in their current form.

The new construction application refers to renovating 12 to 14 and 16 and rebuilding number 15, yet the listed building application seeks to renovate and add extensions to numbers 12 to 15 and rebuild number 16.  The applications should match, but they don't.

Our researches into the archives shows that there never was a number 16, so it can neither be restored nor rebuilt.  The entire row was listed in 1972, and at that time, the listing entry clearly states "A terrace of fourteen houses of circa 1816 attributed to the architect John Pinch". When the listing text describes it as a terrace "designed in symmetrical pairs", it is not possible to have a terrace of pairs with an odd number of properties.  The application paperwork makes it clear that what they refer to as number 16 is in the grounds behind the terrace, so what they refer to as number 15 could not physically be part of Hampton Row, though it is feasible that one property might have been divided, creating a need for an additional number.

 [29/2/08]  We have examined the street directories for various years between 1900, before the station was opened, and 1972 which is the latest year for which the street directory was produced in that form.  The end house in the terrace has at various times in its history been numbered 14, 15 or 16.  Most recently it was 14, but there was a considerable period when there was no number 13, the addresses going straight from 12 to 14, leaving the end house with the number 15.  (Perhaps the resident was superstitious).

Some directories show Hampton Row addresses on the other side of the footbridge over the railway, whilst others show the same residents names living in properties listed as either Grosvenor Bridge Road or "over Grosvenor Bridge", or (occasionally) Walton Cottages or Cremorne Gardens (this section of a 1930s map shows how Hampton Row used to connect to Grosvenor Bridge Road).  It is unlikely that the residents actually moved, but rather the definition of which street name applied to their dwellings changed.

So to clarify what buildings are involved in these plans, it is important to realise that what the applicant refers to as number 15 is the space beyond the end derelict house, and not the current building.  Residential addresses quoted in the directories after the end of the now derelict terrace are located in the Grosvenor area and not in Hampton Row, and a walk along the footpaths reveals that they no longer exist.

The listed building application should have a historical survey to provide the evidence for restoration, but there is none.  Instead, there is a guess that the ruins in the garden of (the assumed) number 15 might have been living accommodation, which is then used as an excuse for creating a two storey building there.  Yet history shows that Hampton Row stopped where it did because it abutted the canal bank, until Brunel built the railway and moved the canal sufficiently to run his railway between Hampton Row and the realigned canal. There was a railway halt (Hampton Row Halt) constructed at the end of Hampton Row in 1907 which closed in 1917, and it is just as likely that the ruin could have been a store (or even a public toilet) associated with that. Similarly, whatever was constructed where number 15 is claimed to be needs to be established before a dwelling is assumed: it might simply have been the boundary wall of the platform. Certainly the location that is shown on the drawings as number 15 would have been railway station property and not part of Hampton Row itself.  Unless and until the function of these ruins is established, and proper evidence of its original appearance is supplied, creating dwellings in that location additional to John Pinch's terrace looks like opportunism, and the committee is against it.  It would ruin the setting of a listed building, and would therefore harm its environs.

So there is a lot wrong with the assumptions in this set of planning applications, and until the plans actually reflect what is supposed to be there, the committee will continue to object to the  new construction application until it too is withdrawn (it can't actually proceed now that the listed building one has been withdrawn). If we can find relevant information in the archives, the applicants could too, if they took the trouble to look.  Just because the current derelict state is undesirable is no excuse for shoddy research and opportunist over-development.

Go back to top index

Bathwick Street

  [1/6/08]  On 2nd May, revised drawings were lodged, improving the design and layout of the rear windows and the car park entrance, and making some minor improvements to the detailing on the front.  We are happy with these changes.  However, the fact that new drawings have been lodged means that if you commented before 2nd May, your views might not count unless you comment again.  You can use this link to comment online, or submit your comments in writing to the case officer at the planning office.

[16/3/08]  Application 07/03669/CA seeks conservation area consent to demolish three detached houses: Byways, Cleve and Linden (pictured right).  Application 07/03670/FUL is the application to replace them with a short 4 storey terrace sympathetic to the other buildings along Bathwick Street, subdivided internally into 2 bedroom and 3 bedroom apartments with parking in the basement and grounds.

Whilst there is nothing wrong with the houses to be demolished, the proximity of the new development that replaced Gibbs Garage emphasises the difference in height, and the plans for the replacement, although not as tall as the Gibbs block, has much more presence in the street and although different from its neighbours it has enough similarities that it blends in. It is rather like Kingsmead Square, where the buildings are of different styles and heights, but they cohere.

So although it seems a pity to demolish perfectly sound houses, the replacement provides a welcome change to the general tendency to pack in as many one bedroom flats as possible into a development, and here we have family sized units with two or three bedrooms and more parking spaces than there are flats. The number of units is below the threshold where "affordable housing" has to be included, but it is not a particularly large site.

The design is not perfect. Each ground floor tall rear window should ideally be two windows, separated by a stone course to echo the proportions of the floors above, and the building could ideally sit a little lower in the site so that fewer steps are needed to reach the entrances.  But these defects are not enough to spoil the effect, and the nice touches like the pediments over the first floor windows above the entrances (pictured above right), and the detailing of the Henrietta street elevation (pictured left) remove any suggestion of a utilitarian design.  The committee supports this development, and if you wish to add your own comments to the planning applications you can use these links to comment online on each of the conservation area and new construction applications, or submit your comments in writing to the planning office.

Go back to top index

St Marks Road - Appeal Raised

The Appeal

The appeal has been raised on the grounds that the conversion of the property would be in accordance with local, national and regional planning policies.  These are the same grounds as the previous appeal in 2006, which the Planning Inspector refused.  And we think that it does not comply with Local Planning Policies BH2, BH4, BH6, D2, NE14, T24, and T26 and National guidelines in PPG15, so this appeal looks like opportunism rather than a serious objection to the planning refusal.

We will be having a close look at the appeal documents during the next week, but at first glance there are a number of answers in the questionnaire which appear to be inaccurate, including the address: the Coach House should be Number 20A.

[24/8/08]  An appeal reference has now been communicated, it is APP/F0114/A/08/2080589/WF, and the Case Officer has been named as Jacqui King. However, nothing more than the record of the appeal has appeared on the Planning Inspectorate website yet, but you can use the link provided to make a submission.  As much of the documentation that is currently available is on the council's planning file with Document Types starting with the word "Appeal".  These documents make it clear that the appeal will be decided on written submissions only.  Three copies must be supplied for anything sent by post, but one copy is sufficient if sent by e-mail or the Planning Inspectorate website comment facility.  Ideally comments should be submitted by 4th September, but anything received by 25th September should be taken into account.

The Planning Application

Application 08/01423/FUL described as Old Coach House, 20A St Marks Road was a resubmission of an earlier application 06/03269/FUL, which was refused by the council, and rejected again when it was taken to appeal. The documentation provided for this latest attempt was hopelessly inadequate.

It took several requests and finally a formal complaint (from somebody in St Marks Road) to obtain some of the the absent documentation, and the case officer supplied it to the complainant on 23rd June and made the planning decision on 27th June without the additional document being made available for public comment.

The decision to refuse permission, is in our view correct.  However, it was premature in the light of additional documents being provided, and the reason for rejection can best be described as the bare minimum:  The proposed use of non-opening and obscured glazing in the upper floor windows on the front elevation of the building would provide a poor standard of amenity for the occupiers of the proposed dwelling.  Yet there were many other reasons why it should have been refused, see box right.

There were also several errors in the report.  It says it has been established that the application building is not curtilage listed.  But the Conservation officer declined to comment, and as we describe below, it has only been established that the Coach House is not within the curtilage of Number 20; we maintain that it nevertheless has listed walls as part of its structure.  It says openings have been formed at ground floor level in the north elevation to enable it to be used for parking vehicles. Yet the building is called The Coach House, so it is self-evident that those openings were there when it was first built (and we have a copy of a local history study which proves it).  It says the most recent use was as a builders yard, which would have provided a level of employment use, yet our information from the long-term residents of St Marks Road shows that it never provided employment, only storage.

The report says (correctly) that parking on-site should avoid the need for on-street parking.  What it doesn't say though is that this is what the Appeal Inspector said about the earlier application which was refused on appeal:  As there would be no room to turn a vehicle on-site they would have to reverse into or off of the road, albeit towards the head of the cul-de-sac.  Notwithstanding that there is no objection from the highway authority I consider that the proposal would have a detrimental impact on highway safety contrary to the objectives of LP Policy T25 and ELP Policy T.24.  This application shows its layout of the parking to be identical to the earlier planning application and therefore the same objection must apply.

The report says (correctly) that the upper windows would have an unacceptable overlooking impact on the neighbouring houses if they were clear glass.  It omits to say that because of the slope of the land, the ground floor windows would also have an unacceptable overlooking impact, and they are clear glass.

So the right decision was made, but it was so badly argued that it gave the impression of being a reluctant refusal.  Out of 23 objections, only the "principle grounds" were picked out, and none were upheld.

The Earlier Applications

Originally, 06/03269/FUL was (correctly in our view) accompanied by 06/03265/LBA to gain listed building consent (which was subsequently not pursued).  However, there is no specific listing entry for the Coach House (probably because it is out of sight, so nobody thought of it) but we maintain that it is curtilage listed.  The Senior Conservation Officer claims that it is not curtilage listed because it was in different ownership at the time Number 20 was listed, but given that it is only accessible through gates that are specifically part of the listing entry for number 20, and that the Grade II listed walls of Numbers 18 and 22 form the east and west sides of the Coach House, how can it not be curtilage listed?  You cannot possibly have a building where two walls are listed and the other two are not.  We maintain that it is a listed building and must have an accompanying Listed Building Application with the new application.

The committee opposes this, considering it to be an inappropriate development, overpowering to the neighbours (it is only 4 metres away from the living space of Number 19) and its illuminated windows would be too prominent because of the slope of the land.  There is on-site parking, but as the planning inspector pointed out, insufficient room to turn, requiring either reversing in or reversing out, both of which would be dangerous given the number of children that pass the entrance to and from St Marks Church.  There is also also a Planning Policy (BH4) which prevents change of use from the current Class B2 if there is a realistic prospect of continuing that use.  One of our members tried to buy the building to continue the B2 use, but was refused by the owners (probably because they thought they could make more profit selling it as a dwelling); nevertheless it proves that the change of use is not permitted because B2 use is viable.

Go back to top index

Thornbank Place

[17/8/08]  This application is the second for this site.  The previous planning application was refused on the grounds that the scale of the building would be harmful to the Conservation Area and the amenities of the surrounding residents, and the location has issues with noise from the railway and a history of land instability, neither of which had been addressed.  The new application claims to have addresses the reasons why the previous application was rejected.  We are not convinced.

A noise report has been provided.  It is dated December 2003, which means it has not taken any account of any noise emanating from the nearby Maple House which was built after that date, and nor does it take any account of any reflected noise off this building adding to the noise received directly.

A geological report dated 2008 has been supplied, but it is clear from the details provided that it contains no new research and very little data that is even slightly relevant to this particular plot of land.  Although the Design and Access Statement claims it is relevant, there are no boreholes or test pits mentioned that cover the location where this development would be, and no investigations anywhere in the area since Maple House was built.  Thus the obvious damage to the front retaining wall of the site and the pavement in front of it from land movement during the construction of Maple House is not mentioned.  Yet according to Thornbank Place residents, when Maple House was being constructed, the construction plant caused land stability problems, with cracks appearing in the ground around and subsidence damage to nearby garages.  There is no mention of the fact that this particular site is shown in the wartime records as the location of a direct hit from a wartime bomb [26th April 1942 at 5:00am], which would almost certainly have caused cracks and fissures in the underlying rock.

It is also worth noting that this particular plot of land is shown on the 1902 Ordnance Survey maps (see extract on right, the rough area of the plot is marked in blue) as an area within the school grounds that was not built on, so this never was a residential site.  If this site is developed, there is a real risk of further structural damage to the residences nearby, and if so the residents of the existing and new buildings may have future problems with obtaining insurance cover.  They are entitled to object on health and safety grounds if they feel that they are at risk from further subsidence.  We think the Geological Report fails to address the land stability of the site in question, and therefore it is not worth the paper it is printed on.

The planning application leaves a lot to be desired too.  The floor plans showing which rooms are where do not produce a rear elevation as shown in the elevation drawings.  The walls and windows are not right.  Whatever would be built if planning permission were granted, would have to be pulled down again because it cannot possibly match all the drawings, and Enforcement could find at least one drawing which would be at variance with what was erected.  We would support them in this.

The Design and Access Statement claims that the design is traditionally proportioned, but nothing in that part of the conservation area is rendered, and no other building has two gable ends to the rear (or to the front).  In fact the buildings are an uncharacteristic design, and the aim of the planning application appears to be to use as much of the site as possible.  And with an almost blank wall facing Maple House, it will tower over those living in the lower stories of that building.  Looking at it from planning policy point of view, if these buildings had been built first, permission to build Maple House so close would not have been granted because of lack of amenity, so why should it be acceptable the other way round?  Certainly, if the Ordnance Survey evidence is that this plot had not been built on, the construction of dwellings there would remove the open aspect amenity that a number of dwellings in Thornbank Place have always enjoyed.  We also think that having been unused land for so long, a wildlife survey of the site would be appropriate.  Whilst it is Government policy to reuse brownfield sites wherever possible, it does not support over-development, and the site of the former school has already been effectively utilised.

We will object to this development, and recommend that others do too, either on-line or in writing to the planning office.

Go back to top index

 

Somerset Buildings

[5/10/08]  This application is to demolish the current TR Hayes building in front of Hedgemead Park and to replace it with a larger two storey building.  The entire existing building is to be demolished. As this is within a Conservation Area we are assuming that CAC will be necessary, though no application has appeared so far.  The resulting building will be a showroom for products, but nothing will be sold from there, so there are no concerns about delivery traffic, or customer parking which will continue to be provided by the shop on the opposite side of the road.

The design of the new building is in keeping with the surroundings, and apart from some concerns about the central gully of the roof being likely to block with leaves and therefore there should be an access hatch to the roof to enable easy clearance, but none is proposed, Watchdog has no real concerns about the appearance of the building.

But we are concerned about the construction.  The proposed building is sited within the environs of Hedgemead Park which is on English Heritage's Register of Historic Parks & Gardens.  The rear boundary of the site meets the boundary of the Grade II listed Gloster Villas.

The site was the location of  Gloucester Inn, which occupied this site from 1792, and by the mid 1800s a brewery had been constructed behind, including the vaults which are still in existence.  In 1876 organ builder James Clark became the owner of the Gloucester Inn and conducted his organ building business from the site until 1894.  The records show that organ builders Griffen & Stroud had their premises behind from 1895, and the continuity of dates suggests that they continued in James Clark's building. That building was over the original brewery vaults.

The Gloucester Inn burnt down on Sunday 1st December 1901 and was subsequently demolished. The organ factory survived but was seriously damaged by water.  A new building (a car showroom) was built on the site of the Gloucester Inn, but there are no records of what happened to the organ factory, though its (presumably derelict) walls were still showing on the 1936 maps.

We believe that the historic vaults and the north western boundary wall, and its features, should be retained and incorporated into the plans. They are the only remaining historical part of the site, which has a long history, besides Gloster Villas, and represent a large piece of Walcot's history.  We are also concerned about the stability of the site if the vaults are removed.  They are substantially built, and that solidity might explain why the Gloucester Inn and Gloster Villas survived the landslips that destroyed the surrounding buildings.  It should be possible to construct on the top of the vaults, as the organ factory did, and with suitable waterproofing, the brewery vaults could perhaps be usable space.

Comments can be made on-line or in writing to Trimbridge House.

Go back to top index

Lower Bristol Road - Old Herman Miller Building

[7/9/08]  This application is to refurbish the Grade II listed former Herman Miller Building (originally built for Bath Cabinet Makers) in readiness for a change to retail use.

The principles being put forward are sound:  to preserve the structure and interior materials as far as possible whilst changing the exterior to replace the asbestos panels, the single glazed windows and the much repaired flat roof, adding considerably more thermal insulation in the process.  Watchdog supports these changes.  Other parts of the application are vague - roof lights are required and pyramid shapes are being considered.  We would hope that the roof lighting does not protrude above the roof because as a single storey building it would be highly visible.  Likewise a silver coloured exterior is being considered, and we would hope that something rather nearer the current colour is eventually chosen.

We will be studying the rest of the drawings ready for a further update later.

Go back to top index

Church Street, Upper Weston

[17/8/08]  This application is for the erection of four flats following demolition of four existing flats, Numbers 17 to 20.  This is an awkward site, bisected by a public right of way which tunnels through the existing flats, and the proposed design is a sensible approach.  The intention is to create four one-bed units of social housing.

The application proposes to place two mirror image buildings each containing two flats, either side of the public footpath, with the first floor side windows looking over that footpath.

We cannot understand why the rear elevation (pictured right), which faces north-east so would get very little sun, has been provided with such small windows, when the front elevation (pictured left) is well equipped with large windows to enjoy the midday sun.  We also wonder what the tiny squares alongside the entrance doors represent.  Are these glass bricks rather than windows?  We suggest that the rear elevation part of the design should be reconsidered, because apart from that, the concept looks like one we would wish to support.

And in case anyone is puzzled about why the front elevation is so much taller than the rear one, it is because the site is on a steep slope.  The footpath climbs steps below and above this site (and the steps can just be seen to the right of the front elevation (pictured left). In order for the rear to be at ground level, the front has to be raised on a plinth.

Go back to top index

All Saints

There is a planning application  07/03080/FUL which seeks to make a few (mainly cosmetic) changes to the planning approval already given (06/02426/FUL) for a modern dwelling on the site of the old All Saints Church, in full view of the Grade I listed Lansdown Crescent.  The original planning approval was controversial, because it was approved in spite of the conservation policies in the Local Plan.  That local plan has now been superseded and the new one carries similar policies. These changes make the original bad decision no better or no worse - it will still look inappropriate for the location.  There could be a possible ulterior motive though, in that the original planning approval will lapse if work does not start within a 3 year deadline, and this application, if approved, would reset the time out deadline.  For that reason alone, it is worth objecting to this, either on-line or in writing to the planning office. But the site includes an established badger route, so the lack of an environmental survey makes this application incomplete. As this is submitted as a full application and not as a variation on the previous approval, it is legitimate to object to the entire building, and certainly to the risk to a protected species that the construction would pose. A new Site Notice has been put up at the end of October, so comments made by 20 November will be taken into account.

Go back to top index

Bathwick Hill

[5/10/08]  On 1st October the listed building application was refused on the grounds that the proposed building would be harmful to the historic setting and the environs of several listed structures.

There is no decision yet on the full application.  Nor is there any news yet on any decision by DCMS whether the gardens are to be listed.

[7/9/08]  There is a planning application  08/03006/FUL and an associated Listed Building application 08/03007/LBA for the construction of a modern 2-storey dwelling in the grounds of Oakwood, high up on Bathwick Hill.  Oakwood (originally known as Smallcombe Villa and later as Smallcombe Grove) is a large early 19th century Italianate style villa and garden situated at the top of Bathwick Hill.

Believed to have been designed by the architect Henry Goodridge, the house was built for the Bath landscape artist Benjamin Barker (see box right) who selected a dramatic wooded site for his new home because he was familiar with the area and knew the slopes and springs that would underpin his planned garden masterpiece.

The planning documents describe how the grounds today survive very much as they were laid out, and make the point that the gardens are now divided and in two separate ownerships.  Nevertheless, only a small fence separates the two parts, and the part that does not belong to Oakwood is also virtually original.  The Gardener’s Cottage and the Coach House survive in the other part of the garden.  Together, the two parts show the form and character of many of the 19th century gardens associated with the large urban villas of Bath, and the fact that this is now a rare surviving example of the type, and this particular one was created by a famous landscape artist, makes it particularly important.

It was typical of these gardens that they were regarded as an art form and included formal classical elements, such as the viewing terrace with balustrade wall, and the fountain in a symmetrical basin alongside features of an informal style, with irregularly shaped lawns and pools, curved paths, uneven topography, and specimen trees and shrubs.  Oakwood has all these, with the fountain fed by a natural spring that then runs into a chain of four pools.  Some of the garden features are separately listed.

As well as the house being listed, four features in the garden are separately Grade II listed (a bridge, a fountain, a garden bed and terraces and steps), the last of which is immediately in front of the location chosen for the proposed building, which is pictured (right) and looks like a school sports hall rather than a proper addition to a listed building.  In true "art-form garden" fashion, the main house is not intended to dominate the setting, but was designed and positioned to be just one feature of the overall composition.  The addition of another building, particularly one so inappropriate in appearance and location for the picturesque landscape, add something that should not be there.  It is akin to painting a conspicuous wart on the face of the Mona Lisa, or a bendy-bus in the middle of Barker's "Landscape with figures and cattle" in the box above!

Watchdog contacted English Heritage and discovered that because the gardens are so unspoilt, English Heritage is currently considering adding them to their Grade II Historic Parks and Gardens list, though they emphasised that the final decision rests with DCMS acting for the Secretary of State and they would not forecast the final decision.  Whether intentionally or by coincidence, these planning applications have been lodged between English Heritage starting investigating the listing of the grounds and the upgrading the building to Grade II* and the final decision being made by DCMS.  Until that decision is made it would be inappropriate to pre-empt it by determining these planning applications.

Watchdog considers that these applications should be refused permission as the building would be constructed in materials inappropriate for its location, would be damaging to the environs of the listed building, and could potentially destroy the integrity of a Grade II Historic Parks and Gardens if DCMS choose to add it to their list.  We recommend that objections should be made to the Full Application, either on-line using these links or in writing to the Planning Office.

Go back to top index

Prior Park Road

There is a new set of planning applications for Number 69 Prior Park Road, to demolish an existing single storey extension and replace it with a two-storey one.  Applications 08/03231/LBA is for listed building consent, and application 08/03230/FUL is for the new construction.  (These follow the refused Applications 08/01898/LBA is for listed building consent, and application 08/01897/FUL is for the new construction) which are described in the "Decisions Made" section below.

We have no reservations about the removal of the existing extension, but need to study the plans carefully before making our comments.  First impressions are that the earlier design that was refused suited the building better than that now proposed, and we need to understand why we think that before making our comments

Comments to the case officers can be made on-line to the Listed Building and Full Application, or in writing to Trimbridge House.

Go back to top index

New Bond Street

There is a new planning application for Number 20 New Bond Street , the former Thomas Cook establishment, now taken over by Champneys.  Application 08/03079/FUL replaces the earlier withdrawn application 08/01425/FUL for the installation of air conditioning condensers.

However, the air conditioning condensers have already been installed, so this should really be a retrospective application.  Also the previous application was withdrawn because no acoustic report was available, yet this replacement was submitted without one.  In its current state it must not be approved, so please object either on-line or in writing to the planning office.

Go back to top index

Rockery Tea Gardens

The Rockery Tea Gardens have been unoccupied for a while, and now there is a planning application 08/03370/FUL for building two houses and 9 apartments after demolishing the existing buildings.  We need to study the documents, which only appeared on 17 September before reaching a view, but first impressions are that the design of the three apartment blocks are out of character, both in size and design compared to the other buildings in the area.

They also seem to be very close to the neighbouring residences which are of much more conventional appearance, and this picture is what those neighbours would look out on.  It is a mess of different colours, finishes and shapes.

Comments can be made either on-line or in writing to the planning office.

Go back to top index

Harvester, Gloucester Road

The former Harvester restaurant (right) closed some time ago, and there is now a planning application 08/03454/CA to demolish the existing buildings in preparation for planning application 08/03473/FUL, a development of 68 flats (23 of one bedroom, 39 of two bedroom and 6 of three bedroom) in four blocks.

One of the conditions for granting demolition consent in a Conservation Area is either that the building is not capable of repair, or the replacement makes at least as much contribution to the character of the conservation area as the building to be lost.  We need to study the documents, which only appeared on 15 September, before reaching a final view, but first impressions are that the existing building is not beyond repair (it was only built in 1990), and the replacements do not make a positive contribution to the character of the area.

And as is customary in planning applications, the things that the applicant hopes that nobody will notice are not mentioned, in this case the fact that this location is highly visible from Little Solsbury Hill, which is a listed Ancient Monument and a popular viewpoint for photographers.  The picture right is of one of the blocks showing the face that would be seen from there.  The existing building (pictured above right showing the same face) and everything beyond it in that line of sight is of conventional detailing.  Although some of it is fairly modern, it is also quite conventional with buildings in rows under pitched roofs, and many with private garden spaces.  By contrast, the replacements for the Harvester building are blocky, flat topped and have bits protruding in various directions.  They do not justify the demolition of the existing building according to the criteria in Local Plan Policy BH7.  Sustainable buildings can be conventional in external appearance, and anything that relies on planting for concealment is a wrong design in a Conservation Area.  This is not a location for architects to propose unconventional designs!

It is also worth noting that a previous application to demolish was refused, and refused again on appeal, and the reason for refusal was that the site is regarded as transitional between rural and urban, and one characteristic of such areas is that the buildings are dispersed with significant areas of open space.  The previous applications were refused permission because the density proposed was too great for this location, and this application should fail for exactly the same reason.

Although outside Watchdog's remit (because we do not normally comment on the interior of an unlisted building) we wonder what happened to the Government's housing target for more family residences?  Families generally want three bedrooms and a private play space for their children.  Only 6 out of the 68 flats proposed are three bedrooms, and there are no private play spaces.  Given that the Southgate accommodation and the Western Riverside are both predominately one and two bedroom apartments, it looks as though Bath will miss its family accommodation target by a very large margin if every other development also favours small units.

Comments can be made either on-line to both the Demolition Application and the New Construction oneor in writing to the planning office.

Go back to top index

Brougham Hayes

There is a new planning application to demolish the transport depot in Brougham Hayes and replace it with a what is described as four-storey office block, but actually it is five storeys because the plant room stands above the roof.  Application 08/02199/FUL includes a document to report on a public consultation exercise last December where 7 people turned up, and on that basis the applicants assumed that those living nearby had no strong views.  We conducted our own survey among the neighbours and nobody we spoke to was aware that there had been a consultation, though two of the objection comments lodged referred to attending the consultation.

Our main criticism is the sheer size of the building proposed.  The ground floor will be half a metre above the current ground level, and then there are four floors of offices and a plant room.  Compare that with the height of the listed buildings along Brougham Hayes, where the height from pavement to eaves is roughly the same as the height from street to the top of the proposed second row (ie first floor) windows.   None of the drawings show a figure for the height to the top of the plant room, but a measurement with a ruler suggests that it is somewhere near two and a half times the height of the top of the Brougham Hayes roofs.  It is significant that the applicants asked the planning office for an opinion on a four storey building before submitting the planning application, and then have proposed one that is effectively five stories.  We cannot understand why four stories was ever considered acceptable either, when the Streetscape Manual emphasises the need to maintain local distinctiveness, and the City Wide Character Appraisal SPD describes the area thus: The area has relatively few landmarks as there is such a consistency in the built form. ... The consistency of building form extends to heights and most are two storeys without basements or habitable attics.  We cannot see how the planning office advice quoted is consistent with the council's own planning documentation, which ought to take precedence.

Because the offices have a flat roof, there is no relief from a massive cubic appearance from the end view, whereas the existing building has a conventionally shaped pitched roof which draws the eye to the eaves rather than the ridge of the roof for the impression of its height.  The image on the right is the view from the Lower Bristol Road.  The tree in this artist's impression is huge: the widest part of the tree is at roughly the height of the Brougham Hayes residences.  So this proposal places a large number of windows opposite existing dwellings, ideally placed to look down and into their rooms.  It is constructed in a style that would significantly harm the environs of listed buildings, and in a scale that is uncharacteristic of this street scene.  Again, the local distinctiveness, important enough to have the nearby residences listed by English Heritage, is not preserved.

The other anomaly is that the flood risk assessment calculates the target 100-year flood level to be 19.04 metres whereas other planning applications along the floodplain have used a figure of 19.3 metres.  We have alerted the Environment Agency to this anomaly, particularly when in 1968 the depot flooded, and according to someone living in the area at the time, the limit of that floodwater was approximately where the Lorne Road junction now is.  We also note that because there is already a planning consent (for a public house/restaurant) the applicants have deemed that there is no requirement for a sequential test.  This is incorrect:  the earlier planning consent was granted before PPS25 was issued, and PPS25 makes it clear that it is to be applied to all planning permissions granted after its date of publication.  PPS25 also requires downstream compensation for displaced floodwater caused by new developments, and this application does not do that.

[27/7/08]  We met with the applicants on 22nd July and discussed with them opportunities for modifying the design so that it would be comfortable in its location.  If that meeting results in revised drawings we will look at them and consider our position.  But until then Watchdog is strongly of the view that this application fails to meet central Government guidelines and a number of Local Plan policies and it should be refused permission.  You can object on-line or in writing to the case officer at the planning office.

Go back to top index

Advertising Signs & Shop Fronts

We have been watching what happens to applications for shop fronts and advertising signs, and there is very little consistency. On the one hand we have some application for signs (eg for The Bathstore in Rosewell Court) properly analysed against council policies, yet on the other hand we have signs (eg the Tesco signs on Bathwick Hill) approved in an unspoilt location where it is virtually surrounded by listed buildings in spite of the the Conservation Officer stating unequivocally that the signs proposed were inappropriate, and even worse, an application for an inappropriate style of shop front in Southgate Street approved on the grounds that there are other inappropriate shop fronts nearby.  How standards can be improved when this logic is applied by some Case Officers (despite the council having a shop fronts guide) is not obvious.

We believe that the council should produce a Supplementary Planning Document on permissible City Centre signage and then apply it consistently.

These are the pending applications for shop fronts and signs that we take a view on.

Shaftesbury Road - Scala

This application 08/03066/AR is for new signs around the Co-operative Scala in Oldfield Park, after the previous application (08/01975/AR) was refused permission.

There is a minor anomaly on the drawings, where the descriptions of some signs identify the special attention that will be given to the word "Food", but the sign itself doesn't contain that word.

The good news is that the bright green signs on the main building are now a more subdued blue on a white background similar to the current ones. The bad news is that there are now 11 signs where previously there were only 9, and although the text on the drawings suggest that the sign facing the rear of the houses in Arlington Road is not illuminated, the drawing itself shows that the light sensor is still to be fitted, and a power supply is to be mounted on the outside of the building which can be connected to illuminate any sign.  This has all the hallmarks of an intention to illuminate the sign at a later date, perhaps without applying for further permission to do so.  The other bad news is that the sign on the front of the building is still planned to be internally illuminated.

The really bad news is one of the new signs is a giant totem in the original bright green colour, twice as tall as a pedestrian (ie 3.5 metres or 11ft 5in), internally illuminated, and placed beside the Arlington Road gate where it will big enough to interfere with the view of the drivers of the delivery lorries that use that gate, and it will prevent customers in cars who use that as an exit gate from seeing pedestrians about to walk past on the pavement outside.  That sign is an accident waiting to happen.  Watchdog objects to both the totem sign and the plans to illuminate signs, and recommends that as many objections as possible are made, either on-line or in writing to the planning office.

Go back to top index

Decisions have been made

The entries for permissions granted will be removed three months after the date of decision in order to keep this page to a reasonable size.  Entries for permissions refused will now be kept for six months, because that is the time limit for appeals against refusals.  A full record will be retained in the Applications section, listed under "Completed" or "Withdrawn" as appropriate.

Prior Park Road      [Remove 23 January 2009]

There is a set of planning applications for Number 69 Prior Park Road, to demolish an existing single storey extension and replace it with a three-storey one.  Application 08/01898/LBA is for listed building consent, and application 08/01897/FUL is for the new construction.

We have no reservations about the removal of the existing extension, but consider that the replacement is going to conceal too much of the historic fabric on what is an attractive listed building.  Also the detailing fails to reflect the size and shape of the remainder of the elevation that isn't being concealed.

We believe that it is possible to add an extension that will complement the building, but this current plan isn't it.  We objected accordingly.  Afterwards, we met the applicant and discussed the problems with the design proposed

[13/7/08]  Since then we have seen some revised drawings which address all of our earlier concerns, so if these drawings are lodged on the planning applications, we will be able to recommend acceptance instead.

[26/7/08]  On 21 July.2008 the revised drawings were submitted.  The very next day, the Listed Building Case Officer refused planning permission, mostly on the grounds that the extension would be too tall, but also after making an assumption which we know was wrong because we had discussed this issue with the applicant and would have included the information in our comments, if only there had been time to comment before the decision was made.  On 23 July the Case Officer for the new construction also refused permission, and again we knew something that might have affected the decision but didn't have the opportunity to submit our comments.  This was yet another example of foreclosing the opportunities to comment, and a particularly frustrating one because we had a lot more to say than was in the e-mail that we sent to the applicant.  The Government guidelines emphasise the expectation that public consultation should take place, and it is unacceptable that such guidelines should be ignored.

Go back to top index

Phillips Auction House - Penthouse      [Remove 13 February 2009]

[27/7/08]  Another planning application 08/02211/FUL has been lodged, this time for the construction of a penthouse apartment.  It looks like a sea captain's bridge on a cross-channel ferry.  The applicant describes it as:  Curved walls rather than straight ones, a strong element of glass in the roof lights, glass blocks, balcony guardrails, etc and in the lantern light over the staircase. This lightness is repeated in the glass block staircase access to the roof of the existing building. The light appearance is further secured by the use of a white rendered finish and a neutral grey colour for the railings and frames.

At a time when UNESCO has announced it is having a close look at Bath, to assess whether the Universal Value of the World Heritage Site is likely to be compromised, this application couldn't have got the style more wrong if they had tried.  The materials are not only highly reflective but foreign to the local palette, where the predominant roof form is pitched or mansard with dormers and tiled or slated roofs.  Also, the design style is at odds with the frontage of the existing building and also the surrounding listed buildings many by Wood.  It is entirely possible to design a roofscape that harmonises with and echoes its surroundings, and doesn't look glaringly out of place when looking down from viewpoints such as Beechen Cliff.  We don't object to the concept of a second floor flat, but this design is unacceptable.

[17/8/08]  On 13 August, this application was refused on the grounds that it would be obtrusive and in an inappropriate design for the location.  Absolutely!  We couldn't have put it better ourselves.

Go back to top index

Moravian Chapel      [Remove 18 November 2008]

This application, still rather misleadingly called 88 Coronation Avenue, is for a block of flats behind the former Moravian Chapel in Coronation Avenue.

[17/8/08]  On 15th and 18th August, revised drawings were lodged on the planning website.  Before any member of the public had a chance to look at these, the case officer granted permission.  This is completely contrary to the Government guidelines that emphasise the importance of proper consultation with the public.

Despite the fact that the building is so distinctive that it can be seen from Lansdown, it is considered acceptable to have an extension in completely different materials blocking some of the distinctive features.  As the Case Officer said "It is considered that the proposals do respond now to the local context in terms of appearance, materials, siting, spacing and layout".  Also "Some aspects of poor design and layout relating to the existing church hall are responded to in the amended proposals, which it is considered will not adversely affect the character of this part of the World Heritage site".

As far as we are concerned, this is yet another case officer who has no idea what the area looks like, who has been fooled by some fairly cosmetic changes to a design into thinking they make a significant difference, and doesn't understand the World Heritage Site.  We shall add this to our list of bad planning decisions to bring to the attention of the UNESCO mission and let them decide whether it affects this part of the World Heritage Site. We doubt that they will agree with the Case Officer.

[20/7/08]  On 10 July, revised drawings were lodged.  According to the correspondence accompanying them, the changes are:
  •  area of lead flat roof added to link to reduce impact of link structure
  •  fixed planters added to terraces of units 1, 2 and 5 to restrict overlooking
  •  clarification of boundary arrangements to unit 7
  •  description added for opaque panels within openings on west elevation.

Watchdog maintains its objections to this scheme, despite the revisions.  There is a risk that the planning department could ignore all public comments that were submitted before 10 July, so if you want your opinion to count, you must make your comments again, either on-line or in writing to the Planning Office.

Earlier comments

The application is wrong on many levels: it assumes ownership of a strip of land that is in fact a public right of way, so that space cannot be used for car parking.  The materials chosen are wrong for the location, because unusually for Bath, the chapel is red brick.  The design destroys the character of the building because windows are too crowded.  And by accident or design, the applicants have conducted their bat survey at the time of year when the bats are hibernating, so those although the survey explains the difference between the types of location chosen for winter and summer roosts, the survey shone a torch in summer roost locations in the winter and concluded that few bats use them. Such conclusions are unacceptable without a summer survey. The committee opposes this, considering it to be an inappropriate development, overpowering to the neighbours and too prominent because of the slope of the land, and completely out of keeping with its surroundings. You are invited to object, either on-line or in writing to the Planning Office.
The previous application was withdrawn on 25 January 2008.

Go back to top index

Westgate Buildings      [Remove 4 December 2008]

[21/9/08]  After the decision was made, a number of consultation documents were made available on-line, from Highways, Urban Design, Heritage, Environment Protection, Environmental Health and Archaeology.  Some of that expert opinion would have encouraged further public comments, if only the premature decision had not pre-empted that possibility.  Watchdog will lodge a formal complaint about how this decision was made.

[7/9/08]  On 3rd September 2008 planning permission was granted, based on some revised drawings dated 27th August 2008.  The revisions took some of Watchdog's suggestions to the architects on board and enhanced the rear (James Street West) elevation a bit by improving the alignment of the height of the elevation with the building next door.  But the overall effect is still not good, with a complete absence of glazing bars on the windows which are taller than the original plans but not quite tall enough to look right, and giving them the "burnt out" look compared with the detailing of the neighbouring properties, two of which are listed; and there is a general blandness of the facade which some small amounts of detailing could improve considerably.  We would have said this, both on the planning file and to the architects, had the case officer not determined the applications prematurely without meeting the Government guidelines on public consultation.  This is unacceptable.

The case officer has taken the view that because the existing rear of the Cork & Bottle looks awful, anything else is an improvement.  This sort of "lowest common denominator" thinking is a slippery slope that destroys all attempts at lifting the tone of an area when redevelopments are proposed.  As we said, the difference between good and bad in this instance was just a matter of details, not a major redesign, and we think the standard aimed for ought to be "good enough" not "better than awful".  Unfortunately, we now have lost the opportunity for a "good enough" design because the case officer was too impatient to allow further public comment.  Very disappointing.

[27/7/08]  Planning application 08/02020/FUL is for an extension behind 11-12 Westgate Buildings (The Cork and Bottle public house).

It was originally accompanied by application 08/02030/CA which applied to demolish the existing structures at the rear, but this was withdrawn by the planning office who deemed it unnecessary in the light of a recent House of Lords ruling.  Numbers 13 and 14 Westgate buildings are Grade II listed, but the public house is a post-war reconstruction after bomb damage, and is not listed.

The plans seek to extend the rear of the building to align with the James Street West building line.  Watchdog has no objection to the principle of extending to the rear, but considered that the drawings submitted showed a structure that took no architectural cues from its neighbours.  So Watchdog has made contact with the architects, and has suggested how the rear elevation could be more sympathetic to its neighbours.

Go back to top index

New Bond Street      [Remove 27 December 2008]

There is a set of planning applications for Number 20 New Bond Street , the former Thomas Cook establishment, now taken over by Champneys.  Application 08/00948/AR (already refused) was for illuminated signs, application 08/01194/LBA is for Listed Building consent for all the alterations, application 08/01219/FUL is for the change of use from retail to a health and beauty salon including the alterations covered by the listed building application, application 08/01425/FUL is for the installation of air conditioning condensers, although the drawings also show new partition walls and an existing doorway blocked up.

We welcome the plans to restore and refurbish the inside of what has become rather a dilapidated building, but our first impressions are that it is not as complete as the paperwork suggests.  One of the drawings shows a vent in a front window, which we object to.  The drawings show false ceilings which cover rather than restore the original damage, and it looks as though the work has started ahead of planning decisions, which means that  it has been uncontrolled and we can't be sure whether it matches what the planning applications show.

[27/7/08]  On 11th July 2008, Listed Building Consent was given.  The conditions associated with the consent include one that seems to cover our reservations: "The works to repair/restore the existing cornices shall be carefully undertaken in plaster to replicate existing detail. The existing lath and plaster ceilings shall be retained, and where in need of repair, they shall be repaired in the traditional manner with lath and plaster."  We hope that this will ensure that all the damaged ceilings will be restored, including those that will be hidden by the false ceiling where the planning application did not comment on repairs to the original ceiling above it. We must now trust that Building Control checks that no short-cuts are taken.

On 15th July, new drawings were lodged on application 08/01219/FUL which will require those who have submitted public comments to refresh their comments if they wish to.  The changes appear to be detailed clarifications rather than redesigns, and Watchdog does not object to them.  On 1st August 2008, this application for the internal alterationa=s associated with the change of use was approved.

The application for the installation of air conditioners was withdrawn after the Case Officer noticed that there was no accompanying Noise Assessment and wisely assumed that there would be a noise nuisance to neighbours unless the applicant could show otherwise.

Go back to top index

Wellsway 2      [Remove 1 February 2009]

The Decision

[3/8/08]  On 1st August 2008 this planning application was refused because of its scale, its design, its relationship to its neighbours and the failure to consider its transport and parking impact.  We think the Case Officer was spot on, and if the applicant appeals we will actively support the planning decision.

The Details

Application 07/03489/FUL is for a block of flats on the site of the Oldfield Park Motors site at the top of Wellsway, after demolishing the Oldfield Park Motors garage.

[4/5/08]  Revised drawings have been lodged.  The covering letter claims that removing the top floor reduces the number of units to 9 to agree with the application form.  Unfortunately, the drawing showing the 10th flat has not been withdrawn, the Design and Access Statement still says 10 units.  It still has no architectural echoes of the listed buildings alongside or the houses opposite that are in a conservation area.

The original appearance

The revised appearance

[3/2/08] The documents lodged on-line at the moment are incomplete and contradictory (variously showing 9, 10 or 11 flats), and in spite of several comments bringing this to the attention of the Planning Office, no attempt appears to have been made to obtain further information. We wonder if this indicates an intention by the Planning Office to approve this application regardless of inadequacy of the documentation. If they do, they will be approving the largest building, containing 11 flats.

The rough sketch provided in the planning application may be all that is ever provided, despite the fact that it does not provide the level of information that is required for an application in a Conservation Area - or is it?  Alder King have written claiming that it is now outside the Conservation Area, in spite of the paragraph in the Design and Access Statement that says it is inside.  We advise getting your objection in quickly.  You may comment on-line or in writing to the planning office.

Go back to top index

Old Orchard       [Remove 5 January 2009]

[5/10/08]  On 1st October, planning permission was granted.  Here we have an example of a planning inspector, fully aware of the character of the area and the Bath City-Wide Character Appraisal which has been adopted as a Supplementary Planning Document, imposing a condition that there should continue to be a workshop use on the site, and a case officer, who should know better, ignoring it on the grounds that the number of people employed matters more than the council's conservation area policies.  We regard this as a bad decision.

[8/6/08]  Some additional drawings and documents have been raised, mostly concerned with flood risk.  None of these reduce our reasons for objecting, so we will be continuing to do so.

Application 08/01040/FUL is to vary the previous planning application on this site(06/02086/FUL) which was granted on appeal.  One condition of granting the appeal and allowing two dwellings to be built was that workshop use must be retained on this site in addition to these dwellings.  This application enlarges the houses and removes the workshop use, substituting a Health Clinic and Martial Arts centre instead.  Effectively, the conditions for allowing the appeal have been ignored.  We objected because of this.

As an aside, somebody who went to look at the site has let us know that there is Japanese Knotweed growing there.  There are specific Government guidelines on how to deal with this pest, and we will be checking to make sure they are followed.

Go back to top index

Tyndale, Bathford       [Remove 30 December 2008]

[5/10/08]  On 30th September 2008, planning permission was granted.  The only reservations the case officer had was whether mature trees would be put at risk because of building work near the root systems, and whether the parking provision was correct, and both of these have been controlled by conditions.  We think this was a sound decision, and are happy with it.

[24/8/08]  This application is to convert a former council nursing home (now disused because the regulations governing accommodation changed in 2001 and this building did not meet the new standards) into a privately run nursing home that does meet modern standards.

Unusually for this type of development, the applicants are not intending to demolish and rebuild, but to add to the current building, re-roof it, reconfigure the internal layout and replace the reconstructed Bath stone exterior with real ashlar.  This brings the building more into the style and character of its surroundings than the current building, and because it is based on the existing building, the mature trees on the site are mostly (but not quite entirely) retained.

By converting the current single pitch roof to a mansard, an additional floor is added with only a very small increase in overall height.  This increase in accommodation allows an additional 8 bedrooms within the same basic building footprint, but more importantly allows all bedrooms to be provided with an ensuite bathroom, and to fully meet the latest accommodation standards.

Watchdog supports this application on the grounds of
•  sustainability, because using the existing building structure is far more environmentally friendly than demolition and a new build
•  environment, because all but one of the substantial trees are preserved (and a demolition and new construction would have almost certainly done serious damage to their root systems)
•  character, because the new stone facing will weather to the same finish as its neighbours. Although not itself in a Conservarion Area, the buildings around it are, so this is important.

Our only reservation is the use of cedar cladding on the basement wall.  Behind that cladding will be Bath stone, which needs no such covering, and none of the neighbouring properties have such cladding so it will stick out as inappropriate.  So we support all the planning application except this one feature, and ask the applicant to delete it.

Go back to top index

Westleigh Farm       [Remove 17 December 2008]

[22/6/08]  Following a well argued recommendation by the case officer to reject this planning application, the Development Control Committee did just that on 11 June 2008, on the grounds of impact on the green belt, the prominence on the rural landscape, the damage to the views of the Cotswold Area of Natural Beauty and the way it would detract from the views of the Scheduled Ancient Monument of Solsbury Hill Fort.  Well done everybody!.

If the past history of planning applications for this site is any guide, an appeal is likely.  If there is, Watchdog will be backing this council decision all the way through the appeal process.

The application sought to replace an existing house and surrounding buildings (see picture) used for vehicle repair spraying and storage according to its Established Use Certificate (but also as a scrapyard according to the Design and Access statement) with a large 3-section dwelling plus a combined guest suite and garage plus a games room and indoor pool.
Even from a distance (picture left), it looks like a typical farm.  The permitted industrial use does not detract from what most observers would regard as rural charm.
The previous application for which there are no on-line documents) failed to gain planning permission and the subsequent appeal also failed, because it would have an impact on the Green Belt, an adverse effect on the rural character of the Area Of Outstanding Natural Beauty and be wrong for the setting of a Scheduled Ancient Monument (Little Solsbury Hill), and according to the Planning Inspector that this issue outweighs other considerations.  We think that the same arguments apply to this latest application.

It is true that the existing buildings are not especially attractive (and interestingly the arrangement of buildings on that Established Use Certificate dated 1980 does not match the layout in the modern aerial photograph above), but they are fairly typical of what is seen in the rural landscape.  The picture left could be anywhere in southern England, except for the people in the foreground who are on the footpath to the Little Solsbury hill fort.  This shows how prominent and sensitive the location is.

The proposed buildings apparently draw their design cues from buildings in the US, Peru, Canada and China, but not Somerset.  The proposed roofs will either be standing seam zinc or sedum, above stained timber boarding (dark green or brown), and ochre render together with large areas of glass.  The main frontage will see "a wide landscape and include Bath itself" according to the applicant, conveniently overlooking the face that if this building can see most of Bath, then most of Bath can see it.  Only a rural style will fit in  this location, and this means rectangular structures with conventional sloping roofs, elevations where there is comparatively little glass compared to stone, and a ridge height that does not hide the edge of the hill fort from any viewing position.  The key words in the previous refusal were that any new development should not have a "greater visual impact" than the existing buildings.

The policy for developments in a green belt is that any new dwelling should not be larger than the dwelling it replaces.  The dwelling it replaces is the red roofed building in the picture showing the Little Solsbury footpath.  All the rest are outbuildings, which according to PPG2, don't count towards the size of the dwelling.  PPG2 also states that there is a presumption against inappropriate development.  Local Planning Authorities and Planning Inspectors do not have to justify refusing planning permission unless the applicant can demonstrate "very special circumstances" for granting permission, that outweigh the level of inappropriateness.  This application does not do that; and the offer of a few public parking spaces and the removal of outbuildings and scrap metal are not special circumstances, since they could be done without erecting a new building.  Local Plan Policy HG14 prevents developments which have a materially greater impact, or which damage the rural character.  The higgledy-piggledy mix of materials, shapes and sizes planned cannot, by any stretch of the imagination, be said to maintain the rural character.

We feel that another Carbuncle Award nomination has been presented to us, one with an excellent chance of winning, except that none of the planning policies or Government guidelines would allow permission to be granted for this.

Go back to top index

Lyncombe Vale Road      [Remove 15 March 2009]

[28/9/08]  On 15th September 2008, planning permission was refused.  Whilst the extension of the main house caused no adverse comment, the materials used for the garage were considered unacceptable for something in close proximity to the listed building opposite, and out of character for that part of the Conservation Area; and because its location and the proposed installation of decking prevented vehicles entering the site in forward gear and having room to turn round so that it also leaves the site in forward gear, the refusal was also on the grounds of highway safety.  To Watchdog, this seems to be a very sound decision.

[17/8/08]  Planning application 08/02679/FUL is for what is described as a coach house, but in reality is a garage with a workroom above in place of an existing garage and carport.  The plans also include removing a porch and conservatory from the house in order to build a two-storey extension.

The parent building is fairly recent and built of reconstructed Bath stone and the proposed extension (apart from the balustrade) is designed to be sympathetic with it.  All the structures nearby are built of either natural stone or reconstructed stone.  Yet the proposed garage is shown as cedar clad, against the advice of the planning office that it should be in matching stone to complement the house.  We think that the cladding makes it looks like a hugely oversized garden shed, and believe the advice from the planning office should have been heeded if it was to fit it into its local context.

We are also concerned that the applicant proposes to continue the existing practice of reversing out of the site, when the repositioning of the garage could have made it possible to turn round on site and drive out forwards.  We would expect Highways Department to comment on that, and we will concentrate on the design issues.

We object on the grounds of unsuitable materials, and invite you to do the same either online or in writing to the planning office.

Go back to top index

The Oval      [Remove 9 December 2008]

Application 08/01155/FUL was for the erection of pair of semi-detached dwellings in the garden of 133 The Oval.  A previous application 06/00788/FUL for this site was rejected by the Planning Office and rejected by a Planning Inspector on appeal, yet this is a larger development than the earlier failed application. The site proposed for the new buildings is part of the garden of a two-storey semi-detached house. The garden is wedge shaped tapering away from the side of the house to the east, enclosed by a low stone wall and occupies a prominent corner position. There is a single car detached garage linked to the house by a screen wall with fence panels. The application proposed that the existing garage is to be demolished without replacement, and it is almost impossible to park in The Oval already.   We thought this was an over-development of the site and it makes inadequate arrangements for parking, and we objected on those grounds

On 9th June 2008, the case officer refused planning permission on the grounds of over-development in an inappropriate style, overlooking of neighbours, and traffic concerns.   We are happy with that decision; it was spot on.

Go back to top index

Thornbank Place      [Remove 23 November 2008]

[25/5/08]  On 23 May 2008, the planning application was refused on the grounds that the scale of the building would be harmful to the Conservation Area and the amenities of the surrounding residents, and the location has issues with noise from the railway and a history of land instability, neither of which had been addressed.  We congratulate the case officer on thorough research and a comprehensive report, leading to a very sensible decision.

Details of the Application

Thornbank Place, the location for planning application 08/01165/FUL is not a well known address:  it lies just off Lower Oldfield Park, and between Wells Road, just beyond the old school buildings (now converted into residences) and the railway lines.  It is in a Conservation Area and the existing buildings are Victorian terraces in natural Bath Stone.  Numbers 25 to 28 Thornbank Place are directly opposite.  Below this particular building plot are the recently erected University of Bath buildings in imitation Bath Stone, and the car parking for them.

The houses opposite will see something completely alien for the area.  The proposed roof is zinc instead of tiles or slate, the windows have aluminium frames instead of wood, with metal cladding instead of stonework on the upper floor, and the walls are coloured render, not even imitation Bath stone.  However, imitation Bath stone is being used for the coping, and natural ashlar for the window surrounds.  Once the property has weathered for a few years the colours of the different finishes will be different and the frontage will look a piebald mess.

This site is also highly visible from the trains travelling between Bath and Bristol.  This second picture below is what will greet travellers out of the train window. Again they will be looking at the same mix of materials, but in an even more uncharacteristic arrangement for Bath dwellings.

The choice of materials is very poor for a development in Bath in a Conservation Area where Bath stone predominates and nothing is rendered. The choice of metal cladding for the roof and parts of the elevation is industrial in style and again not in keeping with the surrounding conservation area. The design on each elevation is poor proportionally and not in keeping with the local vernacular.  (These two pictures are the south and north elevations; the east and west elevations are also in the planning application, and they look really industrial). This site is prominently visible from both many other parts of Bath as well as from the railway that the Government has recommended for World Heritage status.

This is an inappropriate and out of scale design for the site and with bits and pieces sticking out from what would traditionally be flat end terrace sides, it will look horribly cluttered.  In fact, it is an over-development shoehorned into the steeply sloping plot. Because of the slope it will tower over even the University's Maple House, giving views into their upper windows, so there are loss of privacy issues too.

It is also worth mentioning that when Maple House was being constructed, the construction plant caused land stability problems, with cracks appearing in the ground around and subsidence damage to nearby garages. If this site is developed, there is a real risk of further structural damage (the site is empty now because of a direct hit from a wartime bomb, which would almost certainly have caused cracks and fissures in the underlying rock), and if so the residents of the existing and new buildings may have future problems with obtaining insurance cover.  They are entitled to object on health and safety grounds if they feel that they are at risk from further subsidence.

Go back to top index

St George's Place      [Remove 6 November 2008]

 [17/8/08]  On 6th August, the Development Control Committee, despite the officer's report which recommended refusal,  decided by 6 votes to 5 with one abstention that they would permit this development.  The minutes have become available in draft, and we can see that the motion to overturn the Case Officer's recommendation to refuse permission was made by Brian Webber because he was convinced that a development of this scale would not be harmful to the amenities of nearby residents; and this view was seconded by Martin Veal.  Another four councillors also disregarded the future environmental impact of local residents driving to the alternative shops, and condemned the residents in basement accommodation in Nelson Place West to a permanent reduction in the amount of natural light they can enjoy.  Was it mere coincidence that the vote split along party lines?

These councillors might like to reflect that if the St Georges Place buildings were built and in use, and a planning application was then raised to convert the basements of Nelson Place West into residential accommodation, would they be happy to grant that permission knowing that the basements would not meet the expectations in the Local Plan because they would get very little natural light and some would look out at a bin store at close quarters?  No?  Then why did you permit?

[3/8/08] The Case Officer's report advises refusal on the grounds of over-development and the overbearing impact on the nearby dwellings, which we entirely support.  But the report accepts the applicant's argument that the loss of an A1 retail location is acceptable because their research suggests that there are sufficient retail alternatives nearby, which we dispute.  Obviously the multiples would not want this location because their other outlets are nearby and they would not want to compete with themselves.  But there is a high proportion of residents in this area who are infirm and would have difficulty walking to and from the alternative shops, particularly when returning laden.  The previous convenience store was well used, and was closed following a company take-over.  It is our view that an independent could operate a viable business from the application location, and the loss of an A1 retail premises should not be given consent.

We hope that the Development Control Committee follows the Case Officer's advice and rejects this application.  There is already an extant permission for this site, so there is no reason to suppose that the site would remain derelict.

[8/6/08]  A Noise Assessment Report has appeared among the planning documents.  It shows that this development is in Category C, which means that planning permission should normally be refused, but in exceptional circumstances it can be given provided adequate protection from noise is provided.  It will be interesting to see what Environmental Health advise.

From a practical point of view though, there are numerous residences along the Upper Bristol Road which all experience the same noise levels, so we would expect that they would be used as a precedent for saying that this location can be used for dwellings.  We still object to the loss of the shop and the reduced light levels in Nelson Place West (see below).

[4/4/08]  There was a planning application 07/03006/FUL for the old Smile Store location in St George's Place, which was withdrawn on 20th December 2007.  A replacement planning application 08/00761/FUL has now been submitted. This addresses the objections from the previous application that the proposed Number 4 Nile Street was too tall at 3 stories, and it is now reduced to two.  However, the building next to it, on the corner of Nile Street is too tall, and is likely to reduce the light levels in Nelson Place West behind it, giving an unacceptable loss of amenity.  The architectural style is well designed for the location (except that the window configuration of two over two panes is completely wrong).  However, the new planning application perseveres with a wish to include an office space, and the committee is still of the view that there is a greater need for a convenience store in this location than there is for an office space.  There is already an extant planning permission for the site, 05/01596/FUL, granted 1 March 2007, which includes a retail shop, so it is not unreasonable to ask for that element to be carried forward.

We shall be objecting to the loss of the shop, and if you wish to make your own comments, you can do so either online or in writing to the planning office.

Go back to top index

Claverton Street      [Remove 11 December 2008]

[3/2/08] On 11th June 2008 this application was refused on the grounds of exposure to noise and air pollution, and because the lack of amenities for residents.  We think that was a sound decision.  

The case officer's report omitted one major consideration though.  The Highways Officer naively assumed that a few "No Loading" markings would cure all the traffic risks associated with this location, forgetting that buildings under construction usually have a safety zone around them for public safety, so that for the duration of the building works, pedestrians would be guided round the site into a partitioned off section of road, with all the traffic chaos that would bring.  Given that this road is always busy and is the preferred route for Heavy Goods Vehicles travelling east to west, the potential for a serious accident is ever present.

This decision does throw into sharp relief the approval of the demolition in a Conservation Area  (see below), which is now shown to be inappropriate because PPG15 states that demolition should only be approved if the replacement make at least an equal contribution to the Conservation Area.

Application 07/03255/FUL was to replace the disused public conveniences in Claverton Street with a one bedroomed house. Although the applicant has opted for an architectural style that is fairly benign for the location, the location is unsuitable for a dwelling. The Acoustic Report shows a noise level that most would consider unacceptable, and its location on a main road close to a pedestrian crossing is likely to cause traffic chaos when a removals van stops to move in the resident's furniture. Deliveries of parcels or mail order goods would also require dangerous parking.  So the committee recommended objecting to this application.  Ideally the committee would like to see the disused public conveniences reopened.

There was an associated application 07/03257/CA for Conservation Area consent to demolish the current toilet block.  We have no argument with the case officer's assessment that the building has no architectural merit, nor the assessment that the application for a replacement has at least as good an external appearance.

[3/2/08] But normally, the rules for demolishing an unlisted building in a Conservation Area are that a condition is placed on the demolition that it cannot take place until planning permission is given for a replacement and a contract is let to build it, but in this case the condition issued allows demolition provided "details of the temporary treatment" of the site are approved by the Planning Office.  Clearly the council is so desperate to avoid requests to reopen the building as toilets that they are prepared to ignore the Conservation Area legislation, and make special arrangements that exclude any opportunity for public comment.

To make matters worse, the council's Environmental Health Officer has examined the acoustic report and has concluded that the report shows that noise levels at that location exceed what is permissible for a dwelling (any dwelling), so it is possible that if the toilet block is demolished, the site will be permanently derelict.

Go back to top index

Shaftesbury Road      [Remove 2 December 2008]

This application 08/01673/FUL is to convert the retail outlet at Number 29A (the old Kitchens Shop just round the corner from Moorland Road) into a tanning salon and hairdressers. It was in conjunction with a second application 08/01612/AR is for illuminated signs which was refused on 30 June 2008.

The documents for the FUL planning application were late getting on-line, but they are there now.  They apply for a change of use from the current retail (A1) use to a tanning salon and hairdressers.  Planning Policy S.1 defines the Moorland Road area as a District Shopping Centre, so it is in that context that this application must be considered.  So when Policy S.5 forbids the loss of A1 use in shopping centres, and Policy S.2  insists that any retail development must integrate into the existing pattern of the centre, attempting to remove a shopping use and adding yet another hairdressers to the four already trading in the area alongside a tanning salon, this application is unacceptable.  The illuminated signs are incompatible with the style of the area too.
[22/6/08]  We notice that both the the Ward councillors have objected on the grounds of unbalancing the Moorland Road shops mix.  Clearly this is a matter of widespread concern.

[7/9/08]  Nevertheless, on 2 September, the case officer ignored all these concerns and grated permission.  The conditions attached to the permission allow the tanning salon to operate for 9 hours on Sundays and for 3 hours all other days when the proposed hairdressers is closed, so it is unlikely that anybody will be checking that underage customers have parental consent.  We think this was a decision contrary to council policy, but as there is no appeal process against bad decisions to permit, we can only hope that trade turns out to be insufficient and a proper shop wants to take over the premises next.

Go back to top index

Advertising Signs & Shop Fronts

We have been watching what happens to applications for shop fronts and advertising signs, and these are the ones where a decision has been made.

29A Shaftesbury Road      Remove 30 December 2008.

This application 08/01612/AR was for illuminated signs to be installed on the front of the old Kitchens Shop just round the corner from Moorland Road.  It was in conjunction with a second application 08/01673/FUL to convert the retail outlet into a tanning salon and hairdressers.

[6/7/08]  On 30 June 2008, the case officer refused permission on the grounds of the detrimental visual impact, a decision which we consider to be absolutely correct.

Shaftesbury Road      Remove 1 February 2009.

[13/7/08]  This application 08/01975/AR is for new signs around the Co-operative Scala in Oldfield Park, in place of their current blue wording on a white background. The application identifies nine signs, some of which would be internally illuminated, including the one on the art deco frontage of the former cinema.

The purpose of some of these signs is not obvious:  the one identified as "Sign G" indicates the way to the goods entrance to vehicles entering the car park from Shaftesbury Road, yet this entrance is too narrow and leads to a sharp bend making it impossible for goods vehicles to use it, and goods vehicles enter the site through the Arlington Ro