Quick News (Updated 4 April 2008)
Quick Finder (Follow links for more information)
| Pending Applications & Last Update | Closed Applications |
| All Saints [16/3/08] | Englishcombe Lane [19/4/09] |
| Bathwick Street [1/6/08] | Green Street [19/4/09] |
| Beau Street [8/3/09] | Park and Rides [22/11/09] |
| Green Park [20/12/09] | Rockery Tea Gardens [8/11/09] |
| Lower Bristol Road (Lidl) [18/7/10] | Stall Street [10/5/09] |
| Old Orchard [7/6/09] | Thornbank Place [22/11/09] |
| Somerset Buildings [5/10/08] | Wells Road [10/5/09] |
| Walcot Street Cornmarket [26/4/09] | Moorland Road [1/8/10] |
| Advertising Signs [26/10/08] |
| Current News | Past News |
| Theatre Royal [22/8/10] | Success Stories |
| Public Realm |
Application Details
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 That local plan has now been superseded and the new one carries similar policies.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 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
Beau Street
[27/9/09] By September, new growth had reached a significant size. The picture on the right shows that high level weeds have grown as well as ground level ones.
The picture on the left is a close-up of the main cluster of weeds below the first floor doorway. This is mostly Buddleia, which has particularly strong roots that can penetrate gaps between or across stones. As the shrub matures, the roots expand, and would be capable of prizing apart the stones they are growing from.
It is important therefore that these weeds are removed as soon as possible. This is still a listed building even though it is in the process of development, and the site owner has an obligation to protect the historic fabric that the plans for the development show is to be retained.
[17/5/09] In March, Watchdog reported the invasive weeds that could affect the structure of the listed Gainsborough building if they were allowed to get established. We were particularly concerned about the Buddleia which grows roots strong enough to prise apart stone and the fact that where it was growing were originally internal walls, so that stone would not have been weathered to as hard a surface as external walls.
We are pleased to report that after we brought the risks to the attention of others, including SAVE, of which Watchdog is a member, workmen have been seen removing the weeds. So we are saying thank you with some before and after photographs (though the pedestrian barriers are now in slightly different positions so it was not possible to take the recent ones from exactly the same viewpoint, but we have done our best).
March |
May |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
*
Credit where credit is due, we are delighted with the improvement of the May pictures compared with the March ones.
Unfortunately it doesn't cover all the areas of concern. The problems with the leaking rainwater goods pictured left and right are still outstanding, and both of these must be causing internal problems due to damp penetration.
But our biggest concern is the face that no construction work is currently taking place. Tourists are already confronted by a partially completed Southgate of they arrive by bus or train, but at least they can see that it is work in progress and men and machines are hard at work. The Gainsborough site is just a little further away, but being located opposite the Thermae Spa it is going to be seen by many of them. And unfortunately, it looks like a derelict site: no plant, very few workmen (just one occasionally putting weeds in a skip when we last looked). It is currently not an asset to the World Heritage Site.
Meanwhile, there is a proposal to connect Bellots Hospital to the Gainsborough Building (application 09/00283/FUL), which omits all reference to how such a link can be made without shoring and underpinning the gaps that would be made in the foundations of both buildings, and without any assessment of how such an excavation might affect the flow of the hot springs which reach the surface only a few feet away from where deep holes would be dug. Despite the incomplete documentation, the Case Officer approved the plans, and we can only assume that what we read in the drawings and what he imagined in his head when he wrote his report are vastly different. Certainly we can find no evidence to back up his assumptions.
Given how little progress this developer seems to have made so far to complete the work on the Grade II listed Gainsborough Building, we really fear for the survival of Bellot's Hospital in its current habitable state if planning permission is granted with so many questions unanswered; and we certainly have no desire to see a risky excavation that might disrupt the supply of hot water to the Thermae Spa. The Springs Foundation need to study these plans very, very carefully.
[15/2/09] Watchdog has met the developer, Trevor Osborne, and has been reassured that the delay to the work was unavoidable and the development should resume soon. We have been keeping a photographic eye on things though, and the difference five months has made is very marked:
The stonework that was facing into the building is growing a very similar algae to the Southgate shops. A former stonemason informed us that Bath Stone, when cut properly, encourages any penetrating water to migrate towards the outside of the building, where what does not run off evaporates. Internal stonework does not have to be cut so accurately because it doesn't face the weather.
So the internally facing stone now exposed to the weather during the extended gap between demolition and reconstruction appears to be getting waterlogged, which is permitting algal growth. Even if there is good reason why the development cannot proceed yet, we urge the developer to protect any inward facing stonework from further attack from the weather: waterlogged Bath stone becomes friable in time.
We also wonder about the similarities with Southgate. Could it be that the knowledge built up over centuries by the local stonemasons of the correct bias for cutting Bath Stone to make it weather resistant, has not been communicated to the Italian company preparing the cladding for Southgate?
Go back to top index
Green Park
This section has grown too large for a summary page, and has been moved to its own Green Park page.
Go back to top index
Belushi, Formerly St Christopher Inn - No.9 Green Street
[22/3/09] On 16th March 2008, application 09/00090/LBA was refused permission. This means that the retrospective application to change the building colour fails along with the proposal for external lighting. The change of colour therefore once more becomes an enforcement issue, see the Enforcement page.
[25/1/09] On 12th January 2008 two more (retrospective) applications were lodged, described as "External alterations for the redecoration of fascia and facade at ground level to two elevations including replacement lighting to fascia signs and new signage ". The swan-neck lighting is to be replaced by trough lighting. There is still no sign of any planning applications to cover the internal alterations that were made without planning permission.
The two planning applications: 09/00090/LBA for listed building consent and 09/00089/FUL for planning permission have been raised for retrospective permission for the external changes made, although the documentation points out that the trough lights proposed are new
The colours chosen are not from the palette normally enforced for listed buildings in the central area. The trough lighting is unnecessary because this whole area is one of low luminance.
The Listed Building application has no historical survey, which would make the evaluation of the changes very much easier.
Go back to top index
Lidl, Formerly Herman Miller Building - Lower Bristol Road
New 2010 Planning Application
[18/7/10] On 16 December 2009 (close enough to 2010 to almost qualify for our heading), an application 09/04842/COND was lodged to obtain clearance for some of the conditions attached to planning permission 09/00047/LBA. The conditions addressed were samples of external cladding and roof materials, details of doors and all glazing, and details of external ventilation. Those conditions where sufficient detail was provided were signed off. These included the choice by the applicant to remove the rooflights from the plans. The conditions on subdividing the internal space and the ventilation of the subdivided units remain outstanding.
On 21 June 2010 a further planning application 10/02688/FUL was lodged. This is similar to 09/02140/FUL which is still pending a decision. The main difference is that the latest application asks for change of use for the entire building (divided into four sub-units) from Industrial Use to Retail Use, whereas it's predecessor only applied for change of use of that part of the building that would be occupied by Lidl.
This apparently is the main cause of the hold-up. For reasons which we have been unable to establish, the site is in joint ownership, with Lidl and Acornford (Hampshire) Ltd each owning part. Whilst all the planning obstacles from the council's viewpoint had been addressed and permission could be given subject to a satisfactory S106 agreement, and Lidl was prepared to enter into that S106 agreement, Acornford (Hampshire) Ltd were not if it meant that they would be left with their part of the building still retained for Industrial Use. The snag was that one unit with a change of use was permitted within the planning regulations in operation in 2009, but four units with a change of use turned the building into a retail park that could not be permitted.
The solution to this impasse was the issue, in December 2009, of PPS4 ("Planning for Sustainable Economic Growth") which gave Local Planning Authorities more flexibility to agree development plans with an economically beneficial outcome. Under its terms, a new retail park can be permitted if can be shown that spare capacity in other retail centres is unsuitable. Whilst there are spare units in Southgate and there are retail units vacant in the city centre where the occupants have transferred to Southgate, none of them are ideally suited to bulky goods. So this latest application places Lidl alongside three bulky goods retail units, which should now be able to be granted permission with a universally acceptable S106 agreement.
We have no particular concerns over the change of use. The problem with the latest application is that it reuses some of the earlier drawings, and as a result it does not match the final designs given Listed Building consent. As presented, it cannot be given permission because of this conflict. If it is subsequently amended to align with the Listed Building consent, we could support it; but as currently specified it is too intrusive into the fabric of the listed building, and we would object to any attempt to modify the Listed Building consent to match the newly presented application.
Over a year ago a Conservation Officer expressed his concern: "I remind you that the building is listed, is a building at risk because of its poor condition and that an economic use needs to be found for the building which will ensure it is conserved". That is our concern too, and we hope that revisions to align the plans are made quickly so that planning permission can finally be given.
New 2009 Planning Applications
[12/7/09] On 16th June 2009 two new planning application were submitted, 09/02146/LBA and 09/02140/FUL. We were surprised to see another Listed Building application when Listed Building Consent had already been obtained, but a week after it was submitted it was withdrawn as "submitted in error" so Lidl must have belatedly realised this. We have also noticed a news item in the Chronicle about the new application.
We have now examined the surviving planning application, and from our point of view there are things wrong with it (mainly things carried forward from the earlier application, that we didn't like then) which if amended would allow us to give the scheme our wholehearted support. But we think that the reasons given by the case officer for refusal last time, even those that we believed were spurious, appear to have been adequately addressed for permission to be granted this time.
Rather than submit plans for converting the whole building, this latest application concentrates on just the section of the building that would house the Lidl retail space. This leaves them free to propose uses for the remaining floor area after the shop has begun trading.
The areas that concern us and we would like to see addressed are:
Lighting - we believe that the lighting proposed is too high at 8 metres (and we would have liked the specification in English!).
Fencing - A knee high timber fence is visually intrusive yet will be ineffective as a barrier and likely to attract vandalism.
Cycling - We think the cycle store is in the wrong place, being visually intrusive yet too isolated to have adequate security.
None of these are serious enough to lodge objections to the plans, but they interfere with our desire to give full support despite our concern that this is a listed building at risk. We hope that the applicants either submit amendments to the relevant drawings or agree to conditions to address these shortfalls.
The public are welcome to offer their own comments, either on-line or in writing to the planning office.
Previous Planning Permission Refused
[19/4/09] On 9th April 2009 the planning application was refused. When this was reported in the Chronicle it provoked a lot of public comment, but very few examined the planning policies or the Case Officer's reasons for refusal.
Unusually for a Case Officer's report, the planning history included not only the site applications, but those in the general area. Those relevant to the site make no distinction between the ones made before the building was listed (4 May 2007) and those made afterwards, but the distinction between whether the site can be reused or the building itself can be reused is relevant. As far as the applications for the general area are concerned, they show that there have been mixed use plans including industrial use, residential, offices, and student accommodation, and this application for retail. Policy GDS1 identifies this area for mixed use including small scale local needs shopping, which to us looks entirely consistent with dividing the building into smaller units, one of which would supply groceries to the students at Waterside Court and the soon-to-be-opened Charlton Court. The granting of change of use permission to Palomco Ltd to become a retail outlet also sets a precedent for the area that the Planning Inspector would almost certainly take into account in the event of an appeal.
The key to why we think the planning application could not be approved is the objection from the Environment Agency. The fact that the planning paperwork does not provide sufficient information to satisfy the EA is clear grounds for refusal, because if an attempt was made to grant permission, the EA would almost certainly have the application called in for a Public Inquiry. That does not mean that the site cannot be made to satisfy the EA (we believe it can), only that the applicants have not provided the level of detail that PPS25 requires.
The Business Development officer criticises the applications for not preserving any of the space for industrial use, but in making that judgement has clearly overlooked the fact that the Bath Press site - all five acres of it - has become vacant since the Local Plan was adopted, so the area has a clear surfeit of industrial potential and the Herman Miller building is a drop in the ocean in comparison. Further down the road, the Newark Works buildings are also vacant and available now that the Dyson plans have been withdrawn. If the Business Development officer's words have been correctly reported, the Herman Miller building is "a modern building" yet Herman Miller vacated it because unlike modern buildings it has headroom that is too low for modern industrial equipment (and it is listed because of the roof structure, so the headroom cannot be changed). However, we cannot read the full text of these comments because they have not been made available on the Public Access website.
The Planning Policy advice (which again isn't available on the Public Access website (are we detecting a pattern here?) claims that the plans conflict with Local Plan Policy S4. We disagree. Positioned just along the road from many hundreds of students, all of which are banned from using a car by the terms of use of that accommodation, we cannot see how the clauses in Policy S4 "there is a demonstrable quantitative and qualitative need for the development" and "in all cases, the site is or will be accessible by a choice of means of transport (especially public transport, walking and cycling)" can be said not to be satisfied. We accept though that some conditions on what type of retail is acceptable might be appropriate. As for the suggestion that this site could affect the viability of Southgate, when the potential customers would otherwise use Green Park (and thus cycle three times as far along the pavement!), Twerton High Street, Moorland Road or Chelsea Road, we can only assume that the current retail downturn has created a panic that has stolen the capability for logical thought.
The Urban Design advice is that the entrances are in the wrong place, which rather overlooks the fact that this is a listed building, and therefore should suffer the minimum intervention. You can't just stick doors in willy nilly just because the pedestrian flow is not ideal. And if pedestrians can't walk past parked cars to get to the entrance, then the Scala in Oldfield Park has equally poor desire lines. It does good business though, and nobody has been injured in their car park. We also find it odd that when the Highways Officer says that the parking provision is under-provided, but by an amount that is acceptable, the Case Officer has a reason for refusal that the parking dominates the public realm. It is a listed building on an existing site, so the space for parking is already there, marked out, (and currently occupied by Travellers!), so that really is a given rather than something that is negotiable.
So we conclude that the planning refusal was right, but we only support three reasons:
• that the level of detail provided is insufficient to be certain that the historic form and interest of the building is retained as required by Policy BH2.(Watchdog has discussed the plans with Lidl and accepts their verbal assurances that the policy is met, but the documentation does not prove it)
• that the adequacy of the flood risk mitigation measures has not been demonstrated to the extent needed by Policy NE13;
• that there is insufficient information provided on waste management to satisfy Policy WM4.
If Lidl resubmits its planning application addressing those areas, we are fairly confident that if permission is refused again, that the Planning Inspector handling Lidl's appeal will overrule any objections based on Policies GDS1 and S4. We also think that the Conservation Officer's report has a quote that is worth repeating: "If you have any planning reservations regarding the change in use of the building I remind you that the building is listed, is a building at risk because of its poor condition and that an economic use needs to be found for the building which will ensure it is conserved". We also think that the longer the building is left unoccupied, the higher the risk that vandals might break in and do damage to the listed structure.
Listed Building Consent
[15/3/09] On 4th March 2009 Listed Building consent was granted for application 09/00047/LBA subject to the case officer seeing and approving materials samples, and large scale drawings of the replacement windows and internal partitions. We would like to see the rooflights given a lower profile that was seen in the sketches at the public exhibition, and we had some reservations about the panel colour which was described as "silver" in the exhibition sketches, but we liked the idea of the partition walls being glazed above the level of the current bottom of the external windows as described to us at the public exhibition, so these conditions to clarify and permit the exact details seem very sensible. We are content to leave the final decisions on what should be installed to the case officer.
It is unlikely that a decision on the Full Application will be reached until the remaining information requested by the Environment Agency has been supplied.
The First Applications
[29/2/09] On 19th and 25th February 2009 Lidl put on a public exhibition, which showed their plans and artist's impressions for the listed Herman Miller building, as well as displaying some of their product range for visitors to the exhibition to compare prices, and others to sample.
The Listing
The building is listed because "it is the first building in Britain to use the Mero space frame technology" and also because it is an early example of pre-fabricated patent glazing. It describes the space frame as an external steel frame and steel tubes at 45 degrees to the horizontal joined by spherical connectors forming a repeated bay arrangement, each 48 feet square. It describes the windows as "clerestory patent glazing with silver anodised aluminium frames". (From a practical point of view, the space frame allows a large area of roof space without supporting columns taking up floor space, and it allows light from the windows to penetrate through it.)
The rest of the structure is not considered important, which solves a lot of problems because the neoprene and asbestos they are made of are both now banned products for new buildings .
Unusually for a conversion of a listed building, Lidl has submitted three planning applications:
• 08/02903/LBA for the refurbishment of the former Herman Miller Building on the Lower Bristol Road, in preparation for retail use. This was granted listed building consent on 26th September 2008. This application is to repair the exterior which has been vandalised while the building was unoccupied, to repair the roof which is leaking in places, and in the process, improve thermal insulation and the amount of natural light inside. The plans also included internal walls to subdivide the interior into three self-contained units. There were conditions attached to the permission for separate approvals to be given for replacement materials, and more detailed drawings.
• 09/00045/FUL for a change of use from industrial to retail, the retail being a food store plus other non-food retail. The plans add some boundary fencing and cycle parking, and amend the earlier designs by reducing the rooflight profiles and making alterations to the access doors, partly in the interests of traffic safety and partly to meet current regulations for disabled access and fire safety. An additional internal partition has been added and the others relocated to make four units instead of the three originally given permission.
• 09/00047/LBA for listed building consent for the changes in the FUL application above.
Watchdog is cautiously optimistic about Lidl's plans for this listed building, because it is apparent that Lidl have some sympathy with it. We accept that some things have to be done regardless of the building's status, such as the removal of asbestos. But some of the details are missing from the plans, so we are unable to assess the actual impact of such things as power, lighting and fire protection services. And we hope to influence some of the other issues such as colour scheme and skylight design either by discussion with Lidl or by commenting on the plans in sufficient detail to influence the conditions imposed if planning permission is granted. Our position, which we reached before attending the exhibition, is here.
At the exhibition we clarified a few details. We were told that there was some scope for flexibility about the style and profile of the rooflights provided the planning officers did not object, and that the company is currently in discussion with the planning officers about suitable colours, so the descriptions in the planning documents might be altered. We were told that the internal partitions separating the units would be similar in style to those around the perimeter, with blockwork up to the level of the bottom of the windows and glazing above to give a view of the spaceframe. We were told that the replacements for the asbestos panels would be in the same size and location as the ones removed, but high performance thermal insulation would be fitted between them and the internal blockwork wall. We were told that some thermal insulation would be placed under the replacement roofing but the position of the roof surface would be unchanged. We were told that the floor area of the Lidl store space would be 1200 square metres, which to them makes it a standard medium sized store.
We suggested that somewhere in the store they should place an information board explaining the significance of the building. We also suggested that the size and design of the boundary fencing meant that it would not be very durable, and that they should consider alternatives. These ideas seemed to be well received, but we recognise that the company's priority is to secure planning permission in order to open the store as soon as possible, so suggestions from us or anybody else that were not supported by the planning officers would not be pursued.
Go back to top index
Old Orchard
[22/11/09] On 20 November 2009 planning application 09/03997/NMA was withdrawn. No reason for this action was given.
[8/11/09] A new planning application 09/03997/NMA has been raised (NMA stands for Non-Material Amendment). It claims to be some minor revisions to bring the permission granted for 08/01040/FUL in line with the Listed Building application 09/01816/LBA. Only it doesn't!
The drawing on the left was given planning approval in 2008. The drawing on the right is from the supposedly Non-Material Amendment.
Obviously there is a material difference because a block of the listed wall is now being shown as removed.
There is no mention of this partial demolition in the Listed Building application.
Now look at the drawing on the left. It is from the supposedly Non-Material Amendment. Again there is a block removed from the listed wall, and the vertical wall of the proposed building aligns with the mid-point of the listed wall.
The drawing on the right is a detail from the Listed Building application, and it shows the wall of the building set back from the the listed wall and separated from it by cavity drain tanking. There is certainly no match between the left hand and right hand pictures.
To further confuse the issue, the supposedly Non-Material Amendment shows a office building against the shorter length of listed wall. The Listed building application shows no such structure. We haven't reproduced the drawings here, but this discrepancy is plain to see in the planning applications.
[7/6/09] A new planning application 09/01816/LBA has been raised. It was (according to the council's website information) validated on the day it was received. It is a pity that insufficient care was taken examining it, because there are errors and inaccuracies in the application which render it invalid. The question Do the proposed works include alterations to a listed building? is answered No yet the drawings show that flashing will be inserted into the wall and the design and access statement makes it clear that there are proposals to remove and reverse the coping stones on a wall that the applicants obviously accept is listed because they have raised a Listed Building application.
They refer to it as "curtilage listed" as though that is a lower grade of listing, but the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act makes no reference to such a category: Section 1-(1)(5)(a) of the act make it clear that this wall is a listed building. The applicant has also claimed in Certificate B that the owner of the listed wall is Old Orchard (Bath) Management Ltd but then they quote the wrong business address for them. The Design and Access Statement refers to the wall as being of recent construction, yet it is clearly marked on the 1902 map that Watchdog examined; we haven't checked anything earlier so we can't suggest its actual age, but even 1902 isn't "recent" by any stretch of the imagination. The cottages side of the wall (pictured) has been recently maintained, but the other side (which is difficult to photograph because of intervening vegetation) clearly shows its considerable age.
So the planning application is inaccurate and therefore invalid and should be cancelled or withdrawn, but in case the Case Officer does not examine it in the detail we have, we will also be objecting. As far as what is planned is concerned, there is no obvious difference between this application and 09/00941/LBA which was withdrawn, and both of the listed building applications show a different roof plan and ground floor plan from that given permission in 08/01040/FUL, so we wonder whether the applicants are trying to sneak in some design amendments in the hope that nobody will notice. Clearly they don't realise that if the drawings don't match, they will have enforcement problems whatever they build because one or other of the planning applications will show that the structure erected is wrong.
While we were comparing documents, we looked again at the set that led to the granting of permission for 08/01040/FUL. We cannot blame the case officer for not considering the impact the development might have on the listed wall, because having sought the advice of a Heritage Officer, the only advice given was that the development would not harm the Conservation Area. We believe that was wrong advice, but again we recognise that the case officer was not in a position to challenge the advice given. But when we looked thorough the complete set of documentation, we find that there is a warning from a local resident that the wall is listed, so when the Heritage Officer failed to comment on the impact of the development on the listed structure, we have no way of knowing whether this was a deliberate dereliction of duty in order to get the carbuncle in the Conservation Area approved, or whether it was just slipshod negligence. Either way, the blame for the current confusion rests jointly with the applicant of 08/01040/FUL when they assumed without checking that they owned half the party wall, and the Heritage Officer who should have alerted them to the fact that it wasn't just any wall but a listed structure, but failed to do so.
All our concerns at the earlier application remain: that without a proper historic survey, the relationship between the (historic, not recent) wall and the existing workshop buildings cannot be established and that the removal of the steel beam could remove the support the wall currently enjoys; that the insertion of lead flashing will cause catastrophic frost damage to the listed structure; and that the tanking of one side to the depth proposed will ultimately cause the wall to waterlog and collapse, at which point, demolition of the new Stoneworks buildings might be necessary in order to rebuild the wall. Without such a survey, any decision other than refusal of permission could be pursued as maladministration by the owners of the wall when the inevitable damage to the wall results.
[31/5/09] Watchdog has been supplied with copies of recent correspondence. One set claimed that the papers required by law for any proposals affecting a party wall had not been properly prepared nor served. This correspondence was swiftly followed by the withdrawal of planning application 09/00941/LBA on 18th May 2009.
The second set of correspondence covers the attempts by Old Orchard (Bath) Management Ltd to establish the status of the wall between the Old Orchard car park and the Stoneworks development site. A meeting with the Historic Environment Team has been requested, with a view to agreeing the age and status of the party wall, but no arrangements for a meeting have yet been made. Watchdog's opinion is that there is sufficient evidence that the wall meets all the criteria for "Curtilage Listed" according to the definition in PPG15, for such an agreement to be reached.
[5/4/09] Not content with obtaining planning permission for buildings completely unsuited for this part of the conservation area, the developer of the Stoneworks site now wants to make changes to the listed wall separating the site from the Old Orchard parking area. The planning documents for 09/00941/LBA pretend that they are taking action that will be beneficial to the wall, but that is not the case.
Amongst the information provided is a sketch showing the coping stone on the top of the wall reversed so that the slope faces towards Old Orchard, thus throwing far more water in that direction that the current arrangements. No assessment of whether the current drainage could cope with the extra water was made, nor whether any excess of the current drainage capacity could affect the wall foundations or the Old Orchard listed dwellings.
Even worse is the plan to embed lead flashing into the coping stone, entering vertically. One thing that lead flashing should never do is make a vertical entry, because water can penetrate alongside and if it freezes, it will gradually crack the coping stone. So this arrangement is guaranteed to damage the wall, it is only a matter of how long that takes.
There is some doubt about the removal of the steel beam into the existing building too. The explanation is that the beam allows the wall to support the existing building, but looking at the angle of that beam, it is far more likely that the beam is supporting the wall. That wall is a retaining wall for the car park, and the car park surface is far higher than the corresponding surface on the other side, and a beam at that angle would prevent the pressure from the car park side causing the wall to fall.
We think that the planning application proposes a development that will ultimately cause the destruction of the listed wall. The developer has been too greedy, using as much of the land as possible, right up to the wall, and their architect, enthusiastic about modern materials and building techniques, seems to have little understanding about how Bath stone behaves as a structural material. Put the two together and you have a recipe for disaster.
We can only hope that the case officer recognises this.
Go back to top index
Rockery Tea Gardens
[8/11/09] Despite a number of objections from current and past local councillors who represent or live in the area, on 28th October the DCC voted unanimously to permit this eyesore, which will now be granted permission once the Case Officer has reached an S106 agreement. Once again, out-of-city councillors have favoured an out-of-city developer above the concerns of local residents and their elected representatives. Once again, housing targets and a mistaken idea of what constitutes sustainability has triumphed over preserving the character of a Conservation area.
Not only have the owners of the site got their planning permission, but the council by so doing has agreed to remove some much valued on-street parking, to the detriment of local residents. Currently the parked cars slow down traffic, so in future crossing the road to go to and from Rainbow Woods is going to be more dangerous.
The sad thing is that if the buildings had been designed and constructed to match the methods typical of the area instead of all the modern gimmickry, the buildings would not only be almost as environmentally friendly on a day to day basis, they would last at least four times as long, with a resultant much lower total carbon footprint. The sedum roof is not a fit and forget feature and nor is cedar cladding. These are high maintenance features which will probably be allowed to deteriorate over time. Another bad decision that we shall take "I told you so" photographs of when it is built.
The sadder thing is that the National Trust wanted to buy the site and turn it into an information centre, a refreshments area and a transport interchange and car park for the Bath Skyline Walk, Rainbow Woods, and Prior Park Gardens. We have a letter from the National Trust informing us that they approached the site owners along these lines but the owners of the site had refused to discuss anything with the National Trust because they hoped to secure planning permission for housing. Refusal of permission (and we believe that a refusal on the grounds of over-development on a transitional site between urban and rural, plus a desire to maintain the character of the Conservation Area, would have been upheld on appeal) would have kept the National Trust's ambitions alive.
[6/9/09] New drawings have been lodged at the end of August 2009, which change the appearance and location of the garages. The aim seems to be to improve the view of the site from the outside, and as far as the garages are concerned, it is a slight improvement. What it doesn't do though is alter the appearance of the dwellings, which still look completely wrong for that location.
However, it has been known for a case officer to ignore earlier comments after new drawings have been submitted. We don't know whether that would happen for this planning application, but to be absolutely safe we recommend that anybody who has previously commented on this application should comment again, to eliminate all risk. Comments can be made either on-line or in writing to the planning office.
[21/9/08]
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
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
Walcot Street Cornmarket
As much as we would like to see the Cornmarket restored and given a new lease of life, we have some serious concerns about the application 09/01138/FUL which has just been submitted. Despite all the future ideas described in The Chronicle, the application is for a much smaller scheme.
According to the documentation submitted, a decision is requested on a change of use for the building, with information on the work to be undertaken on the building and the use to which it is to be put to be provided at a later date. This is a very odd sequence of events.
The use classes applied for are very wide in scope:
A3 - for the supply of food to be consumed on the premises, or hot food to be consumed off the premises.
B1 - for offices other than those where services are provided for visiting members of the public or for research and development or for any industrial process suitable for a residential area. Although the application form has shown "Not Applicable" for light industrial use, the category B1 automatically includes it unless specifically excluded by conditions.
D1 - for any use not including residential use, which can include health services, childcare, schools, museums, churches and the like. Effectively this covers anything the public might attend except shops, offices, houses and hotels.
In effect, the planning application requests to use the building for anything except residential and retail. It does this in advance of any information on how the fragile building will be stabilised and restored, how the inside might need to be sub-divided, and what it is actually going to be used for. It is like asking your bank manager for a loan on the understanding that you will tell him at a later date what you want it for, and the application must be refused for reasons of insufficient information. In the unlikely event that permission is granted, the current state of the building will prevent it from being used for anything, so the application is not only premature, it is pointless until a Listed Building application has been granted consent and the work it describes is completed.
Also, the documentation is inadequate. There is a separate (and much older) listed structure ("Riverside Building" in the English Heritage records) which is located alongside and partially below the Cornmarket. Without a proper historic survey, it is impossible to tell whether the applicants know that it is there, and whether the change of use might have any impact on it, but its absence from the list of neighbouring properties suggests that its presence will come as a surprise. The Planning Statement mentions underpinning, which might be problematic if such work would damage the Riverside Building or affect its stability.
Our restoration advisors estimate that the cost of stabilising and restoring the Cornmarket from its current state is very likely to exceed the market value of the building once it is restored. There is also a real risk that when restoration work starts, the building might collapse completely, so any restoration work permitted has to be on condition that the eventual outcome must be the building restored as was within a finite defined time, regardless of any discoveries or eventualities during the work. This means that anybody taking on the restoration has to have sufficient funds to complete the work and have a long term plan to gain an income from the restored building sufficient to eventually recover their expenditure. The alternative, that somebody would donate the excess cost just for the pleasure of seeing the building restored is possible, but is considered highly unlikely in the current financial climate. We are therefore rather concerned about the comment in the Planning Statement "once viable uses have been established" which suggests that there are no long term plans and the restoration would be taken as something of a gamble.
We therefore examined the application form in detail to see whether there are any clues about intentions, and whether the applicants have any track record indicating any probable outcome. And that is when we spotted a number of very worrying anomalies.
The applicants are listed as Sires Property of Bailbrook Lane. A check with Companies House reveals that Sires Property Development Ltd of Bailbrook Lane was dissolved on 28 August 2006. There is a company called Sires Property Development Ltd of Brunswick Square, Bristol which came into being on 27 March 2009. Neither of these have lodged accounts, or even a description of company activities, with Companies House. The applicant may be a bona fides business, but there is no publicly filed evidence that they have the resources necessary for the scale of expenditure that the Cornmarket is going to demand of them.
Further down the Application Form it states that advice was sought from a council officer on 5 March 2009. That planning officer was named as the case officer the first time Watchdog examined the planning application, but at the time of writing this, the case officer has been changed to another. This leads us to speculate on why the box describing the pre-application advice received is left blank. Did the officer really offer no advice? Or was the advice unwelcome as far as the applicant was concerned and they chose not to reveal it while requesting a different case officer in the hope of securing a different interpretation of planning policy when the application is evaluated?
The date the pre-application advice was sought is also worrying. It is two and a half years after the first Sires Property was wound up, and three weeks before the second one came into existence. So who actually asked for pre-application advice on 5 March?
The other anomaly on the form is that the owner of the site is B&NES, which is correct, but if the planning authority wishes to make a site visit then it has to apply to the applicant. Why does B&NES need to ask the applicant to visit a property that B&NES owns? Has the local authority surrendered the keys already? If they have, then has the council ensured that they have no residual Health and Safety responsibility if the applicant enters the building?
And under what arrangements were the keys handed over? As we explain above, there is a second listed structure (pictured right) in the vicinity of the Cornmarket which will make the stabilisation very tricky, there is no profit to be made from a quick sale after restoration, and the applicants are not known to have sufficient assets to complete the repairs when they openly state that they have no firm plans for securing a long term income from the building to offset their expenditure. So we wonder: has the council taken a massive gamble with the future of the Cornmarket, and what other bids did they discard? And if there were other bids, why was there no public consultation?
There is so much that is odd about this planning application that Watchdog believes that the council has a conflict of interest, being both the owner of the property and the planning authority. There are too many oddities about this application for us to be convinced that due process was correctly followed. It is evident therefore that the application should be refused, or else the decision should be made by the Secretary of State and not by the case officer or the DCC.
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.
Englishcombe Inn Remove 28 March 2010.
A planning application 08/04773/FUL was submitted, which sought to convert and extend the public house into a care home. The developer invited the public to a consultation meeting on 24th February 2009, and Watchdog went along. It was clear at that meeting that there was support for the notion of keeping the building as a pub, but unfortunately, those with that point of view so dominated the discussion that nothing else could be discussed.
This was particularly disappointing. Whilst Watchdog would be happy to see the building continue as a public house, the possibility that permission could be granted for the conversion and extension had to be faced, and we would have wanted to influence the design in that event.
So we were very grateful to have been invited to a smaller meeting, attended by a few immediate neighbours, the developer and the architects, which gave everybody the opportunity to express their concerns and explore solutions. The neighbours were concerned about the extension dominating their views and blocking their sunlight. The developer was concerned to keep the amount of accommodation proposed for financial viability. Watchdog considered the Inn to be a landmark building and therefore locally important, and thought that the proposed wing extensions (pictured) overwhelmed it.
Out of the ensuing discussion came some proposals for changes that retained the same amount of accommodation, but did so with a design that restored most of the views and sunlight to the neighbours and created extensions to the locally important building that were subordinate to it. Hopefully the architects will submit revised drawings fairly quickly.
Then the outcome will be in the hands of the case officer, so that if the retention of a public house is considered to be the most important issue, planning permission will be refused. But if the conversion of a pub to a nursing home is considered to be the important issue, at least the design should be more sensitive to the host building and much more acceptable to the neighbours than the original plans. We found the architects sympathetic to the neighbours concerns and prepared to be flexible about how the 40 bedrooms and staff accommodation could be provided, so we are optimistic that the drawings, when revised, will represent the best compromise we could achieve.
[5/4/09] On 23 March, revised drawings were lodged. Apart from the alteration to the height of the boundary wall and the installation of a trellis, all the changes discussed with the residents (and Watchdog) are reflected in the new drawings.
Above are the revised front and back elevations.
[19/4/09] On 7th April 2009, planning permission was refused on the grounds that the plans were a visually cramped overdevelopment, that the parking arrangements on the site were unacceptable and that it would harm the amenities of the neighbouring property to the east.
On 15 June 2009, a revised application was lodged. As before, the applicant provided a public meeting for neighbours and interested parties to voice their opinions, and they took notice of the feedback. (This is a model of how public consultations should be conducted. If only more developers behaved like this!)
Watchdog went along and thought that the comments made on the previous design had all been accommodated. We supported it, as did the Ward Councillor.
On 28th September, planning permission was granted, with a number of conditions relating to ecology and highway safety, none of which seem onerous.
Go back to top index
Belushi, Formerly St Christopher Inn - No.9 Green Street [Remove 17 October 2009 or when Enforcement Action is complete, whichever takes longest]
[19/4/09] On 12 January 2009, Belushi's raised a retrospective planning application for the redecoration of the shopfront and the introduction of trough lighting, in response to the Enforcement Officer complaining that they had done so without permission. On 17th April, planning permission was refused on the grounds that it was inappropriate for the listed building. Enforcement action should now be resumed.
[28/12/08] On 17th and 18th December 2008 respectively, the full application and the listed building application were both refused. The swan-neck lighting (pictured right), which is a style particularly identified as always inappropriate in the council's Shopfronts Guide, were rejected as harmful to both the listed building and the Conservation Area.
[16/11/08] Two planning applications: 08/04001/LBA for listed building consent and 08/04000/FUL for planning permission have been raised for retrospective permission for the changes made.
This Listed Building shop front has been repainted. New Fascias have been installed. New signs have been installed. New swan-neck lighting has been added to the outside, with visible wiring strung along the outside of the building. The historic balustrades have been covered in gloss paint.
According to the applicant, the brass swan-neck illumination was fitted by a previous owner about two years before. But take a look at the photograph on the right, which was taken in September 2008 and it is apparent that the lighting was installed after that date. For lying in the documentation, this application should be instantly rejected.
The colours chosen are not from the palette normally enforced for listed buildings in the central area. The swan-neck lighting is specifically mentioned in the council's Shopfront Guide as unacceptable in any circumstances, as is visible wiring; illuminated signs are listed as usually unacceptable.
The Listed Building application has no historical survey, which would have shown what was originally in place, which would make the evaluation of the changes very much easier.
Go back to top index
Wells Road at rear of 54-56 [Remove 22 October 2009]
[10/5/09] On 22 April 2009, planning permission was refused. The reasons given were sound: that the size of the building would be an over-development of the site leaving very little outdoor amenity space; that the building would be overhung by trees that were important in the views of the area and worthy of Tree Protection Orders, reducing natural light to unacceptable levels; that the building would overlook its neighbours in an unacceptable manner.
Interestingly though, there was no mention of the other drawbacks: that providing electricity, water and sewage services to the site would damage the root area of the valuable trees; that the design of the building would be alien to the conservation area and affect the environs of a listed building; that the lack of vehicular access would make the attendance by emergency vehicles to anybody living there impossible, and that anybody moving in would have to have their furniture carried in from far away, and rubbish collection would also entail a long walk.
We also believe that any attempt to build in this location would cause additional structural damage to the listed 54 Wells Road, because although there is planning permission to stabilise the building and add a rear extension, the owners of the building are trying to sell it with that planning permission, rather than build what they have planning permission for.
[4/5/08] 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 objected to the prefabricated building for all these reasons.
Go back to top index
Stall Street [Remove 5 December 2009]
On 5 June 2009, permission was granted for tables and chairs for a three year period (until 2012), but not for the barriers. The barriers have now been removed.
The outside tables and chairs which Prêt à Manger place outside No.2 were given planning permission, subject to strict conditions about placement. Those conditions were rarely adhered to and barriers which did not have planning permission were also erected (see picture), leading to enforcement action, which is still pending.
However a new planning application 09/01291/FUL has been lodged, which will freeze any enforcement action until a planning decision is made. The main thrust of this application is to change the hours when the tables and chairs can be in place.
We think the paperwork submitted is inconsistent. The furniture schedule shows only tables and chairs and nothing else. The furniture layout drawing shows the same layout of tables and chairs as the previous application, but that is the layout which has not been followed in the past (see the details on the Enforcement page) despite it being a condition of the planning permission granted, so why should we believe it will be followed in the future. The furniture layout drawing also shows the location of seat barriers, but these barriers do not appear on the furniture schedule. Finally, in the Management Plan it says that at the end of the day tables, chairs barriers and parasols will be put away, yet there are no parasols on the furniture schedule nor on the furniture layout drawing (and we have not noticed parasols being used in the past). With such inconsistencies, it is impossible to judge what permission, if granted, would be giving permission for.
We have watched the way the existing permission has been flouted, the way the promises in the management plan have been broken, and we have seen the inconvenience that pedestrians (particularly parents with push chairs) experience navigating round the obstructions on this corner, and we are objecting to this application.
Go back to top index
Thornbank Place [Remove 18 May 2010]
[21/11/09] On 18th November, this application was considered by the DCC. Despite the Case Officer's recommendation to permit (which we took issue with at the time because some key issues had been omitted from the report), the committee members voted to refuse permission. The refusal was for a number of reasons: overlooking of neighbours, overdevelopment of the site, inappropriate design and inappropriate materials. We think this was a sound decision.
[18/10/09] On 14th October, some additional drawings were lodged. The drawings add some clarifications, but make no improvements to the unacceptable designs that were proposed.
And although recycling is normally a good thing, reusing the geological report showing survey data from 1997 and text dated 2008 from previous planning application for this site is of no benefit. It still contains no new research and very little data that is even slightly relevant to this particular plot of land. 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. Indeed, it must be considered invalidated by the land stability problems experienced during the construction of Maple House. 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, and it will do nothing to reassure the nearby residents that the developer understands the risks that this new development will pose to their houses. Indeed, other than going through the motions of presenting a geological survey, this document provides no information of any value whatever.
There have been occasions in the past where a case officer (not this one) has assumed that revised drawings supersede original comments, so for the avoidance of doubt, objectors should examine the new documents and make it clear whether their comments originally lodged are affected by them. Comments on revised drawings normally have to be submitted within 14 days of the date the drawings were added to the plans.
[6/9/09] It is back! And as we have come to expect of repeated applications for an unsuitable development, each time it comes back it is with sketchier information in an attempt to reduce the scope for objections.
So we don't even get proper architectural drawings this time, only freehand child-style watercolour sketches with the ugliest bits disguised by cartoon style foliage. On the grounds of lack of proper information, this application should not have been validated.
However we notice that the rich foliage that separated this site from the Maple House car park has all been cut down (we would guess to save the need for an ecological survey) yet one of those trees seems to be in this sketch. It is well known locally that this area of shrubs and trees was alive with birds and insects and was a bat feeding ground before it was cut down, so we think there should still be an ecological survey of the damage that was done to this habitat when it was cut down; and if the person authorising it and those who wreaked this destruction can be identified, we think they should be prosecuted under the bat protection legislation.
As far as the planning application is concerned, let us repeat the things we said before: that this plot was never previously built on, it was a school playground; that the surrounding dwellings (apart from Maple House) are Victorian rather than Edwardian (so the Design and Access Statement even gets that wrong); that the land is unstable, both from the direct hit from a wartime bomb that would have cracked the rock underneath and from the vibration from the plant building Maple House that cause so much subsidence that the road had to be closed while the land was stabilised. Since those repairs, there has obviously been further movement because the repaired wall, right in front of there the new buildings are to be built, has cracked again (see picture, right). Yet the planning application carries no land stability proposals, so it fails to meet Local Plan Policy ES14.
Then on to the new things. There are large areas of glass facing in all directions above the street level, and windows facing sideways so this gives an overlooking problem to Maple House and the houses that are round the corner in Thornbank Place. There are three bathrooms for three bedrooms, so even if the applicant doesn't say so, this are clearly being designed as houses of multiple occupation, in which case one parking space per property is insufficient in a residential area where the available parking is over-subscribed.
The sustainability claims are exaggerated. The claim that the building is oriented to maximise solar gain cannot be true for a building where almost the entire south face is subterranean. It is also difficult to see how any significant amounts of grey water can be harvested when there is so little roof area to collect it and nothing in the design drawings to show where and how it is to be stored.
The entry to the private parking for these properties would remove an area of single yellow line, depriving the residents of the street with the amenity of parking after 6pm. The use of render, particularly on the north face is inappropriate to an area that is wholly natural Bath Stone (Thornbank Place) or wholly reconstructed Bath Stone (Maple House), and render facing north will discolour very quickly. This is a "quick profit, I don't want to live there" development that if built will age very quickly if it doesn't crumble from subsidence (because the rock beneath this plot is bomb damaged by HE 186/1 according to the wartime records, and so will not anchor piles).
The flat roof will be ideal for nesting seagulls which are already a problem in Oldfield Park, and the balconies at the back show no respect for the buildings old and new which will surround this location. Even using the awful documentation provided, this design is unacceptable, failing Local Plan Policies D2, D4, BH6, BH15, ES2, ES14. If the shrubbery to the north of the site had not been cut down already, it would have failed Local Plan Policy NE10, so the act of cutting them down in advance of lodging the application should also be deemed to fail NE10.
Finally, when Maple House was granted planning permission, it was on condition that no further development would be permitted on the site (which included the car park and this plot). So on those grounds alone permission for this development is not possible (unless perhaps it is accompanied by an application to demolish Maple House). Otherwise, in the council's own judgement, this area would be over-developed.
[5/10/08] On 20 January 2009, permission was refused on the grounds that because of the proximity of other buildings and the mass and bulk of the proposed new build it would be overbearing. The style was also considered to have a detrimental impact on the Conservation Area. We think this assessment is accurate, and the decision sound.
[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 (we think it was a playground), 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.
Go back to top index
Moorland Road - Going, Going, Gone
When it was discovered that there were aspirations to demolish Oldfield Park's "Tin Tabernacle", some of the local residents tried to get it listed on the grounds that it was the last remaining one of its type within the World Heritage boundary. English Heritage acknowledged that it was of local importance, but declined to list it because they didn't consider it to be of national importance.
On 14 June 2007, outline permission 07/00287/OUT was granted for the demolition of the Oldfield
Park "Institute Building" and its replacement with a 4-bedroomed house.
The planning application was an outline one, contrary to the Local Plan in force at the time that said outline applications for developments in a conservation area are not acceptable. The DCC nevertheless ignored its own planning policy and approved it, yet gave no reason in the minutes why they did so, despite the agenda explaining that it was before the Committee because it was controversial.
The permission granted was with conditions, the first of which said the permission would time expire after three years unless development had begun. Three years later, almost to the day, demolition started, presumably in an attempt to prevent this time expiry, so that the property could be marketed as a plot with planning permission.
These pictures were taken during the demolition. No attempt seems to have been made to recover or recycle anything. The "Alleygator" gate on the left of the photograph below, installed at the council's expense, has been rendered ineffective by the removal of the building alongside it. It is an interesting question who becomes responsible for restoring the security that the gate should be giving to the neighbouring properties.
Finally (pictured right), nothing was left except a cleared and levelled plot of land, put up for auction as a building plot with planning permission. The auction catalogue didn't mention that the planning permission is only in outline, it didn't mention that the presence of a large sewer pipe under the plot makes building on this site problematical, and it certainly didn't mention that the planning permission had associated conditions that do not seem to have been met, making the demolition an enforcement issue.
The conditions that were imposed include:
• Approval of the details of the landscaping of the site shall be obtained from the Local Planning Authority in writing before any development is commenced.
• No development shall commence until samples of the materials to be used in the construction of the external surfaces, including roofs, have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.
• No development shall take place until a construction method statement has been submitted, to include details of storage of plant and materials and access arrangements for the gated footpath to the south of the site.
We can find no record of any of these conditions being satisfied. Therefore any development was forbidden and the demolition should not have taken place. The conditions were not met before the three year limit expired, and therefore despite the unauthorised demolition, development cannot be said to have started. We believe that trying to sell the site with planning permission is at best a statement that cannot be accepted at face value without checking.
Go back to top index
Success Stories
[18/4/10] - Bath Festivals Box Office
This one is not our success, but worthy of a mention because of the outcome.
In the Western Daily Press of 12 April was a letter from Keith Davis thanking the council for its prompt action, pointing out that within four days of his article in that newspaper commenting on the state of the Festivals Box Office building a contractor was on site and made a big improvement.
We contacted Mr Davis for information on exactly what work has been done, and he provided us with a set of photographs which we reproduce here ("Before" on the right, "During" and "After" below). And we add our own "well done" to his.
[28/2/10] - St. James Cemetery
As part of ongoing work to find structures worthy of listing, we took a look at the listing description for St James' Cemetery and discovered that the important northern boundary wall was not listed. According to the wartime records, although the cemetery itself received some bomb damage, apart from losing its railings for the war effort, that wall was mostly undamaged and could be considered original. However, an examination of the legislation left the question of whether it was curtilage listed as part of a cemetery containing listed structures (the Chapel, and the Lodge and Gateway, pictured here, were separately listed in 1975) was inconclusive, so we decided to ask English Heritage to clarify the situation.
A Watchdog member carried out some research and satisfied that the wall was commensurate with the construction of the entire cemetery complex, applied to English Heritage for the existing entry to be extended. We have now received the good news that English Heritage agreed with our research and has included the wall with the listing entry for the gatehouse and lodge at Grade II.
The English Heritage report states:- The northern boundary wall for Widcombe, Lyncombe & St James' Cemetery is attached to both sides of the Grade II listed entrance lodge and gateway. The buildings and the wall are of a high architectural quality and craftsmanship and were designed in an elaborate French Gothic style similar to the Grade II listed cemetery chapel which is located at the centre of the cemetery. All the cemetery buildings, including the northern boundary wall, were laid out in a single phase and designed by the architect C E Davis.
The northern wall fronts Lower Bristol Road and is a visible historic feature within the streetscape. It provides a clear boundary to the cemetery and is largely intact; it retains its carved piers, rock faced dwarf wall and ashlar coping but has unfortunately lost its iron railings.
A mile plate is fixed to the most westerly octagonal pier and reads '1 Mile From The Guildhall, BATH'.
Listing Entry 446451, which used to cover just the Lodge and Gateway, is thus now extended to include the entire wall, both sides of the gateway, as Grade II listed structures. We are delighted that this clarification of the exact status of the wall has now been made.
[7/2/10]
San Francisco Fudge Factory
We commented on two planning applications for the San Francisco Fudge Factory. 09/02694/FUL was for the erection of a new shop front, and 09/03184/FUL was for tables and chairs in front of it.
The shopfront we supported, and we are delighted to see that the finished article is every bit as attractive as we imagined (see picture).
The tables and chairs we objected to, and we take no pleasure in seeing that the shiny chrome looks every bit as out of place against such a traditional shopfront as we feared.
Go back to top index
Other News
Theatre Royal [22/8/10]
When we commented on the plans for the Theatre Royal, we were supportive of the work inside the building (and even suggested a few minor improvements), but had a few reservations about the exterior work.
One of the suggestions we made was that the words "THEATRE ROYAL" that was on the outside of the original box office extension (see picture above) should be retained and remounted on the newly constructed wall facing south, advertising the building to those approaching from Westgate Buildings and Westgate Street. We appreciate that work is still in progress, but there is no suggestion in the revised drawings that the former sign is to be installed. As you can see from the photograph, this omission makes it look as though the building is called "PIT GALLERY". We recommend that signage with the theatre name is added.
We appreciated the opportunity to discuss the proposed improvements to the Theatre Royal with the Theatre management and the architects, so we were disappointed to discover that revised drawings were lodged without letting us know, particularly when we had indicated that we could offer some constructive ideas when the external lighting scheme was being designed. However, a lighting scheme was put forward in the new drawings and approved as submitted. With the holes drilled and the cables run, we accept that there is no opportunity to influence the lighting scheme now, and can only wait to see what it looks like when everything is finished.
The element in the plans that most concerned us was the proposed canopy. We thought that the size proposed would make eventual damage from a traffic accident inevitable. The good news is that the size has been reduced in the later drawings.
We were aware that the canopy would be in metal, but we were under the impression that it would be painted metal. Indeed the revised drawing showed that the canopy would be either copper or pre-patinated (= artificially oxidised) alloy depending on what was approved. We had recommended that the top of the canopy should be glass (rather like the canopy in front of Green Park Station), so that the Royal Coat of Arms would be visible and able to be photographed from in front of the theatre without standing in the street and risking a traffic accident. We can see, now that the hoardings have been removed, that the suggestion of glass fell on deaf ears.
The juxtaposition of the construction company's banner over a shiny gold coloured canopy was amusing to those who knew the story of King Midas turning everything he touched to gold (or in this case polished brass).
However, standing back and looking at a Grade II* listed building with a Georgian main house fronted by a Victorian box office, a shiny brass canopy really looks out of place. It is the architectural equivalent of a pantomime dame bounding on stage in the middle of a scene from Hamlet and throwing sweets into the audience. A pantomime dame has a place, but it is not there! Likewise, we cannot understand the choice of shiny metal over elegant Victorian arched doorways when the option of a pre-patinated finish was available.
Given its unfinished and unpolished state, we were surprised by the quality of the reflection, which is even clearer than our picture on the left suggests. Future female theatre patrons with low-cut necklines will never be able to be entirely sure whether anybody giving an admiring glance upwards is appreciating the canopy itself or the reflection in it.
Such criticisms aside, we are still supportive of the interior work, and were grateful for the glimpses of the inside shown on the TV. These three snapshots from the TV screen give some idea of the work in progress.
Public Realm
Public Art
[22/8/10] It is recognised that water and Bath go naturally together, and public art incorporating flowing water is an obvious example of this. However, water plus sunlight plus wind-borne spores result in algae. When we discussed the Watchdog approach to public art planning applications, we recognised that installing water features should be accompanied by arrangements to keep them clean.
That has not happened. The public art in the small garden where Walcot Street meets London Street has now grown sufficient algae that graffiti can marked in it. Our pictures show innocuous examples, but visitors to the site can read things from a different angle which are much more unsavoury.
Public Furniture
Our second example is of a public seat. This is located at the bottom of Milsom Street where it meets Old Bond Street.
Barriers have been placed across the seat because it is damaged and for Health and Safety reasons it is necessary to prevent the public using it. However, a sign has been fixed to the barrier, and we have photographed it on the right.
We have no idea who put it there, and don't even know if the timescale stated is true. But this is spontaneous customer feedback, and in a World Heritage Site and in a prime tourist location like this, it needs to be heeded. It should never have been necessary.
[29/8/10] What a difference a week
makes! When we examined the public realm a week later we were pleased to
see that the sculpture we had featured has been cleaned. Apart from a
residual hint of green near the base, it is back to its original shiny
condition. We will keep an eye on it, because it will eventually host more
algae if it is neglected again, but hopefully now that we have drawn attention
to the problem, future cleaning will be part of a routine schedule.
There was rather less satisfaction with the seat we photographed. The barriers are still there preventing the seat from being used. The only difference is that the complaint notice has been torn off. That doesn't solve anything.
Victoria Bridge
The other piece of news was the closure of Victoria Bridge. Alerted by
the Chronicle's news item, we went along to see if there was any
observable reason
for the closure. Nothing stood out as obvious, but the signs of neglect
were everywhere, as the picture on the right shows.
One set of graffiti painted over the top of an older set shows how long it has been since it has been cleaned.
The stone support for the suspension chain on the left side as pictured must
be of dubious strength given the amount of vegetation growing out of the
stonework, which can be seen pictured in close-up on the left.
High up on the other side, buddleia in full flower can be seen through the
arch. A close-up shows that this is growing out of the stonework
too. Buddleia roots are capable of breaking apart stonework, so the
strength of the support for the suspension chains on this side must also be
suspect.
Other potential weaknesses can be seen by eye, though they do not show up in photographs. Bumps like molehills in the road surface have been there for years, but they are not caused by moles, they are caused by rust under the tarmac. Some small areas of the suspension chains are now without paint and rust is evident in those places.
It is difficult to reconcile this level of neglect with its listing status. English Heritage have awarded it Grade II*. When designed by James Dredge it was the first ever bridge built to his patented "Taper Principle" (both patent and bridge are dated 1836), and it caused a great deal of interest at the time. In 1840, Lord Western wrote a letter to Lord Melbourne, and copied it to The Times. The following are extracts from that letter (the entire text is too long to reproduce here).
The reason for writing the letter was to support Dredge's offer to repair the Menai Bridge. Dredge's patent was for a design that compared to conventional bridges of the time had a much greater load bearing weight for any given amount of wrought iron - in the case of the Victoria Bridge, 150% compared with conventional bridges was claimed.
Dredge offered to repair the Menai bridge at no cost, having estimated that the value of the reclaimed metal that would be surplus when reconstructed to his design would exceed the cost of rebuilding the bridge. His offer was not taken up.
I cannot refrain from entreating your attention to the vast improvement that has been made in the construction of suspension bridges by Mr. Dredge, of Bath. During a recent residence of two months in that city, I have had an opportunity of seeing often the bridge that has been built by him across the Avon; it is a beautiful structure, and at once commands admiration of its beauty and confidence in its stability. I have communicated with him frequently about it and altogether the consequence has been so strong an impression upon my mind of the vast and immeasurable superiority of the principle on which it is built over anything that has hitherto been attempted...
... Mr. Dredge's statements of the superiority of the power of his system over the established plan of structure certainly, at first, astonished me; he has, indeed, proved, by trials, in the presence of very many persons, a superiority of strength to the extent of at least, 150 per cent. These were made upon small models of bridges, formed severally on the present and on his new principles, each out of the same quantity of iron, but he carries his calculations of the accumulating power derivable from size and extent over and above the 150 per cent, shown upon the small models to such a degree, that I will not venture to state it; but if he should be called upon, in the way, I trust, sooner or later, he will be, to exhibit his system before your lordship and the public, he is confident he can mathematically and practically establish any of the statements he may make, and I have little doubt he will be found to be correct.
... I proceed to give you some account of the expense and particulars of the Victoria bridge, across the Avon, built in 1836, and which has proved itself equal to its inventor's most sanguine expectations; it's cost was £l,650, its span is 150 feet, and only 21 tons of iron were consumed in its construction, which, at £20 per ton, is only £420; the great expense was therefore on the masonry and the timbers supporting the platform or road, which are still of insufficient dimensions and strength, but which, of course, are quite unconnected with the principles on which the bridge is built; the chains are under 10 tons, and are equal to sustain 500 tons on transit.
The Bridge of Oich is listed as Category A. Scottish categories do not exactly match the English listing grades, but Category A (unmodified structure of national or international importance) is compatible with the Grade II* listing of the Victoria Bridge.
According to the paper by Robin Griffiths of Bath University for the Bridge Engineering Conference 2009, Dredge built around 50 bridges to the same design, of which 3 survive today (the most recent loss was the Ballievy Bridge in Northern Ireland which was dismantled as beyond repair in September 1988 and is currently in storage).
The Victoria Bridge remains as does the unlisted Stowell Park Suspension Bridge over the Kennett and Avon
Canal (picture left),
and the listed Bridge of
Oich (picture right), near Fort Augustus in
Scotland, which Historic Scotland advertise as a place to
visit. Both are very much better cared for than the Victoria Bridge, yet the
Victoria Bridge is the only one easily accessible by the public. It is
certainly the only one in a World Heritage Site.
The Stowell Park bridge spans the Kennet and Avon Canal (our picture was taken from a boat on the canal), but the park is private land so walking across the bridge is by invitation only. The Bridge of Oich is a public right of way, but it is in a relatively remote part of the Scottish Highlands and is not easy to visit.
The
Victoria Bridge was the first to be designed by Dredge, and it's construction
was completed just 5 months after his patent. Dredge over-engineered the
bridge, intending it to remain sound for a very long time, because it was to be used as an example of his design in order to sell
more bridges. The advertisement on the right, dated 16 Jan 1843 is perhaps
too small to read on a web page, but it includes the statement: The principle was first used by the Victoria Bridge Company over the Avon at Bath, in 1836, in a bridge 150 feet long, and 19 wide.
Further down the text he lists seven other bridges built to his design.
The Victoria Bridge is evidently a very important historic structure and fully deserves its Grade II* listing. The fact that the council allowed it to get into a state where even pedestrians are unable to use when it was designed to carry fully loaded brewers drays (Dredge owned a brewery before embarking full time into bridges, and the Victoria Bridge was inspired by a wish to have his cross-river deliveries made quicker and easier) shows an irresponsible dereliction of duty. The bridge must be repaired as soon as possible to a standard compatible with its Grade II* listing. We know that money is tight, but this has more national and international importance than pet local schemes such as bus lanes, and the possibility of grants being available should be explored. Those council members who wince at the cost should bear in mind for the future that regular routine maintenance always costs less in the long run than emergency repairs after a period of neglect.