Planning Applications Reference:18/00201/FUL

Further Information on this property is available on the Council's My House web page.

View Further Information
Type of Application:Full Application
Status:Pending Consideration
Address of Proposal:Food Machinery 2000 Ltd, Comfortable Place, Kingsmead, Bath, BA1 3AJ
Ward:Kingsmead
Proposal:Erection of 25 flats with cycle storage and car parking, refuse store, footpath linkage, revised access arrangements, landscaping and associated works, following demolition of 2 x 2 bed flats and 180m2 of office space.
Planning Portal Reference Number:PP-06666843
Applicant Name:Mr Sean Kelly
Agent Name:Impact Planning Services Ltd
Agent Address:Mayfair House, 5 Little London Court, Albert Street, Old Town, Swindon, Wiltshire, SN1 3HY
Case Officer Name:Chris Griggs-Trevarthen
Date Application Received:16/01/2018
Date Application Validated:16/01/2018
Neighbourhood Consultations sent on:10/09/2018
Standard Consultations sent on:10/09/2018
Last advertised on:25/01/2018
Latest Site Notice posted on:29/01/2018
Expiry Date for Consultation :24/09/2018
Target Decision Date21/09/2018

Documents

ConstraintsAgric Land Class 3b,4,5, Article 4 Bath Demolition Wall, Article 4 HMO, Article 4 Reg 7: Estate Agent, British Waterways Major and EIA, British Waterways Minor and Householders, Conservation Area, Contaminated Land, MOD Safeguarded Areas, Policy B1 Bath Enterprise Zone, Policy B4 WHS - Boundary, Policy B4 WHS - Indicative Extent, Policy CP9 Affordable Housing Zones, Policy NE1 Green Infrastructure Network, River Avon and Kennet & Avon Canal, SSSI - Impact Risk Zones
Related Property:First Floor Flat,Ivy Lodge,Comfortable Place,Kingsmead,Bath,BA1 3AJ.
Related Property:Food Machinery 2000 Ltd,Comfortable Place,Kingsmead,Bath,BA1 3AJ.
Related Property:Ground Floor Flat,Ivy Lodge,Comfortable Place,Kingsmead,Bath,BA1 3AJ.
Related Property:Ivy Lodge,Comfortable Place,Kingsmead,Bath,BA1 3AJ.
Reference Proposal Application Received Status
18/00201/FUL .Erection of 25 flats with cycle storage and car parking, refuse store, footpath linkage, revised access arrangements, landscaping and associated works, following demolition of 2 x 2 bed flats and 180m2 of office space.16/01/2018Pending Consideration

The Comments tab lists all public comments received on this application (not statutory consultees, e.g. The Environment Agency, Highways DC, etc). The majority of comments are submitted via our Comments Form through the website and you can expand the comment to view all of the text by clicking on the plus button. A minority of comments are submitted by post or email and it is not possible to include all the text here, however when you expand the comment you will see a link to our Associated Documents page where you can search for the comment.


Name Address Comment type Comment1 Comment2 Comment3 Date
Denise Gerrish Unit 4 Onega Centre, Upper Bristol Road, Lower Weston, Bath, Bath And North East Somerset, BA1 3AG O 21/04/2018: The architect at the public consultation evening advised us that he was already aware of the need to amend the southern projection of the development in order to lessen the overshadowing of nos 6 and 7 Onega Terrace, and that the development as a whole would need to be repositioned straight along the eastern boundary. On viewing the revised plans, I note that beyond these changes already envisaged, there have been just enough amendments proposed in order to satisfy the minimum standards required by planning. The concerns expressed by Onega Terrace residents, particularly about being overlooked/overshadowed, have therefore not received the required amount of consideration.

There is a lack of clarity in the plans about the two-way traffic access to the development and how this will impact on Onega Terrace. It would appear that the few single line, after hours parking spaces we currently have access to will be sacrificed and vehicles will come close to the end of our Terrace when turning into the new development. This clarification needs to be added to the plans now available for the public to consider.
23/04/2018
Rob Lane 6 Onega Terrace, Kingsmead, Bath, Bath And North East Somerset, BA1 3AH O 01/05/2018:
Objection on Traffic grounds

Contrary to the traffic analysis and resulting safety statements,
the number of Traffic and Pedestrian movements will increase
in Comfortable Place. A situation compounded by Delivery vehicles
entering and encountering the Large Estate Car trying to exit.
01/05/2018
Denise Gerrish 4 Onega Terrace, Kingsmead, Bath, Bath And North East Somerset, BA1 3AH O Documents Tab 13/03/2018
The Watkin Jones Group And Onega Centre Bath Ltd Onega Centre, Upper Bristol Road, Lower Weston, Bath, Bath And North East Somerset, BA1 3AG R Documents Tab 10/05/2018
Patricia Fosbury 8 Stothert Avenue, Westmoreland, Bath, BA2 3FF, R 31/01/2018: This site needs to be redeveloped BUT there is only parking for 10 residents (plus 2 disabled bays); where do the other residents park? It's true that one doesn't NEED a car to live there, but people will want one and this means more cars pushed out into the surrounding roads which are already full. Also - flat roofs? An invitation to the gulls that are already a big problem in this part of Bath to build their nests there - please re-think this! 31/01/2018
Kathleen Gerrish Not Given O Documents Tab 19/03/2018
Bath Preservation Trust Bath Preservation Trust , 1 Royal Crescent, City Centre, Bath, Bath And North East Somerset, BA1 2LR O 15/02/2018: Object: The Trust would have been pleased to have offered constructive feedback at an earlier stage than at planning. We object to this application on the basis of overdevelopment of the site, detrimental impact on the setting of non-designated heritage assets and the historic townscape, and poor quality response to site context.

This scheme fails to assimilate with or contribute to the local townscape character. Whilst some effort has been made to avoid completely overshadowing Onega Terrace by abruptly stepping down the riverside elevation and in the car park courtyard, nevertheless the scheme looks to sit hard, high, bulky and tight on the site, with no permeability or access offered to the river from the street. The excessive amount of development proposed generates a requirement for parking which in turn compromises the planning of the scheme. The irregularity of the arrangement of void to solid produces a design that is tense and unsettling.

We cannot see how the applicant has analysed or understood the site and local context in any meaningful way in order to inform the final design which we regard as unworthy of a key riverside site in the World Heritage Site. In particular there is a lack of finesse and detail to the development which, as the B&NES’ own Urban Designer & Landscape Officer both point out, sits within a domestic scale fine-grained townscape. As such this site should be developed in a more fragmented, permeable way with varied forms and roofscapes in order to lessen its impact both locally and in longer views and to sit more comfortably on this small site. In particular the historic local context (formal frontages to street and distinct, detached warehouse buildings to riverside) should inform how the scheme is designed. The flat stepped-back roofs present a blank and barren 5th elevation sitting on the valley floor; whilst precedent for this roof form has been set at BWR that has illustrated how uninteresting and over-dominant flat stepped-back roofs are in the townscape. We strongly recommend that the applicant is required to articulate and vary the roofscape. The elevation of the block along the towpath should follow the line of the towpath (in plan) to conform to historic relationships between the towpath and built forms behind, and the change in heights needs to be managed with more subtlety.

Whilst the applicant argues that the addition of a bland classically inspired terrace to the Upper Bristol Road elevation assists in repairing the streetscape, in that it will extend the classical terraced language of the street, the facts are against this. The proposed street elevation lacks authenticity and in any case, as the maps in the Heritage Report show, Georgian terraces were not built on this section of road. The history of this site is largely bound up in the piecemeal 19th century riverside development of Bath; so there is no authenticity in this response to the streetscape.

Whilst the adjacent permitted development has not yet been built out, it is regrettable that this scheme has failed to reference or identify with the forms and design of that scheme, to ensure a cohesive and visually harmonious entity over the two sites. Instead, the buildings will sit hard up and discordantly against each other.

We note no Landscape Visual Impact Assessment has been included with the submission. Given the sensitive location of this site on the valley floor and on the river frontage, we would expect some analysis of impact in long views into the site from vantage points around the city.

If, following any revisions to the scheme, the officer is minded to permit, we recommend that a condition is placed on the development that prohibits the use of these units as short term holiday lets; to ensure that they contribute to meeting Bath's housing need and are not bought solely as investment properties.

Recommendation
The proposed scheme by virtue of its design, massing, form and scale would be harmful to the setting of designated heritage assets, would neither preserve nor enhance the character and appearance of the conservation area, would be detrimental to the visual amenity of the street scene and the riverside and would detract from the special qualities of the WHS. The scheme would be contrary to Section 12 (Conserving and Enhancing the Historic Environment) of the NPPF, policies B1, B4, and CP6 of the B&NES Core Strategy and policies CP6, D.1, D.2, D.5, HE1, BD1, B4 of the Placemaking Plan. We would therefore strongly recommend the application be withdrawn or refused.

15/02/2018
Bath Preservation Trust 1 Royal Crescent, City Centre, Bath, Bath And North East Somerset, BA1 2LR O 01/05/2018: Object: We have reviewed the revisions to this scheme and acknowledge that some work has been done to address widespread concerns regarding elements of the scheme. In particular slightly moving the built form and parking away from Onega Terrace (and additional tree planting) goes some way to relieve the overbearing character of this scheme on the local townscape, but we feel there is still harm from the heavy monolithic footprint of the building. The submission of LVIA’s with photomontages is welcome and we note there are some design changes including the rationalisation of fenestration on the south elevation and the revised roof storey on the west elevation.
In our view however we do not feel these changes go far enough to allow this development to assimilate comfortably within the distinctive grain of the local townscape or the conservation area and WHS (for detail on this refer to our previous submission). It is of a scale and massing that is still dominant and jarring with local character. The combined use of a mansard roof turning into a step back roof form is clumsy. The large expanse of grey flat roof will be harmful in long views (see Southgate from Alexandra Park) and the material of the sloping roof element of the west elevation should be rethought as the expanse of grey is again blank and intrusive in views. There is a predominance of grey cladding in the eastern balconied portion of the south elevation, this should be replaced with a different material such as Bath stone or even a high quality timber cladding to reference the approved application adjacent and to make a visual transition to this scheme. The ground floor elevations are still inadequate in that they do not interface well with the towpath public realm; there could be more designed architectural interest and landscaping at this level.
A key tenet of urban planning under the Town and Country Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation areas) Act 1990 is the requirement to preserve or enhance local character and distinctiveness; this scheme continues to do neither. We cannot see that there is a case for sufficient public benefit to justify this scheme triumphing over considerate, contextually relevant place making.
We repeat our request that if the officer is minded to permit, we recommend that a condition is placed on the development that prohibits the use of these units as short term holiday lets; to ensure that they contribute to meeting Bath's housing need and are not bought solely as investment properties.

Recommendation
The proposed scheme by virtue of its design, massing, form and scale would be harmful to the setting of designated heritage assets, would neither preserve nor enhance the character and appearance of the conservation area, would be detrimental to the visual amenity of the street scene and the riverside and would detract from the special qualities of the WHS. The scheme would be contrary to Section 12 (Conserving and Enhancing the Historic Environment) of the NPPF, policies B1, B4, and CP6 of the B&NES Core Strategy and policies CP6, D.1, D.2, D.5, HE1, BD1, B4 of the Placemaking Plan. We would therefore strongly recommend the application be refused.
01/05/2018
Transition Bath Not Given. O Documents Tab 26/01/2018
Tim Thorne 32 Jubilee Road, Peasedown St. John, Bath, Bath And North East Somerset, BA2 8FB, O 27/01/2018: I object to this application due to NO affordable homes or social homes within these plans and therefore is of NO benefit to the residents of bath ! all new build should have these types of afford a le homes within it.cannot allow this to be granted on the hope a report says so . 29/01/2018
Laura Barker 27 East Lea Road, Lower Weston, Bath, Bath And North East Somerset, BA1 3RP O 27/01/2018: I object to this proposal as it includes no affordable or social housing and it is therefore of no benefit to Bath residents. 29/01/2018