Planning Applications Reference:18/05047/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:Plumb Center, Locksbrook Road, Newbridge, Bath, Bath And North East Somerset, BA1 3EU
Ward:Kingsmead
Proposal:The demolition of the former Plumb Centre and Genesis Lifestyle Centre and the erection of a 4 storey (plus mezzanine) mixed use building for 1354sqm of B1c Light Industrial, 364sqm of D2 Assembly and Leisure, 61 student studios and 42 student ensuite rooms in cluster flats.
Planning Portal Reference Number:PP-07289336
Applicant Name:Summix LRB Developments Ltd
Agent Name:Arena Global Management Ltd
Agent Address:Studio 160, 3 Edgar Buildings, George Street, Bath, BA1 2FJ
Case Officer Name:Sasha Berezina
Date Application Received:12/11/2018
Date Application Validated:16/11/2018
Neighbourhood Consultations sent on:19/11/2018
Standard Consultations sent on:20/12/2018
Last advertised on:22/11/2018
Latest Site Notice posted on:26/11/2018
Expiry Date for Consultation :17/12/2018
Target Decision Date15/02/2019

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, Conservation Area, Flood Zone 2, HMO Stage 1 Test Area (Stage 2 Test Req), LLFA - Flood Risk Management, MOD Safeguarded Areas, Policy B1 Bath Enterprise Zone, Policy B3 Twerton and Newbridge Riversid, Policy B4 WHS - Boundary, Policy B4 WHS - Indicative Extent, Policy CP9 Affordable Housing Zones, Policy ED2A Strategic & Other Primary In, Policy NE1 Green Infrastructure Network, Policy NE5 Ecological Networks, River Avon and Kennet & Avon Canal, SSSI - Impact Risk Zones
Related Property:15 Station Road,Newbridge,Bath,BA1 3DY.
Related Property:Genesis Lifestyle Centre,15 Station Road,Newbridge,Bath,BA1 3DY.
Related Property:Plumb Center,Locksbrook Road,Newbridge,Bath,BA1 3EU.
Reference Proposal Application Received Status
10/02585/AR .Display of 1no non-illuminated fascia sign, repositioning of existing fascia sign and display of 1no non-illuminated vinyl overlay to existing projection sign09/06/2010Consent
15/00346/TCA .1x Sycamore - cut back to clear the roof by 2 m and the walls by 1 m. Saplings - cut to ground level. 1x Buddlia cut back to a stump. 1x Sycamore - cut back to fence28/01/2015No Objection
16/02776/TCA .1x self seeded Sycamore - remove02/06/2016No Objection
18/05047/FUL .The demolition of the former Plumb Centre and Genesis Lifestyle Centre and the erection of a 4 storey (plus mezzanine) mixed use building for 1354sqm of B1c Light Industrial, 364sqm of D2 Assembly and Leisure, 61 student studios and 42 student ensuite rooms in cluster flats.12/11/2018Pending 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
Pam Richards 1 Station Road, Newbridge, Bath, Bath And North East Somerset, BA1 3DX O 06/12/2018: I have three main objections
1. The building is too high and will be seen over the tree screen on the old railway line.
The building height means that it is out of scale with surrounding buildings .
2. The introduction of student accommodation is not acceptable. Previous Council plans proposed that there should be a buffer between the industrial units and the residential area ( the old railway line acting as a green shield). This application breaches this principle. There is more than enough student accom already in the area and this will only attract more cars . It would be far better if this development was entirely for employment use .
3. The building design is ugly. It would be more fitting if it was in a lighter colour and blended in with the Herman Miller Building opposite.
4. This is yet another example of student housing being used as an add on to make money for developers regardless of the need or the suitability of the location.The Planning Cttee should take a stand against this before every employment use site or brown filed site in the city is gobbled up.
06/12/2018
Jessie Jones 26 Ashley Avenue, Lower Weston, Bath, Bath And North East Somerset, BA1 3DS O 06/12/2018: I object to the height of this building which would overshadow our house, ruin our views and our privacy as windows would face directly into our master bedrooms on Ashley Avenue.
It is not in keeping with the area at all. The beauty of Bath is it’s far reaching views due to its bowl shape, it is wrong to destroy that historical ethos.
Obviously there is not enough parking for these dwellings and the visitors that would be created.
There was once an application for an elderly residential development on the station road land that the council rejected - I would love to know the reasons for that (would have been far more minimal impact on existing residents and minimal need for parking).
Will be seeking advice on this.
06/12/2018
N F Dowdney Whidcombe House, Hardings Lane, Marksbury, Bath, Bath And North East Somerset, BA2 9HP O 07/12/2018: The area adjoining Locksbrook Road has a substantial percentage of student occupation already. a further increase would alter the character of a residential area to the detriment of existing use.

The loss of the existing unit would reduce employment in this area
07/12/2018
Judith Anderson 1 Norfolk Buildings, Kingsmead, Bath, Bath And North East Somerset, BA1 2BP O 08/12/2018: While the regeneration of this area is welcome, together with better facilities for the existing gym, I object to the further creation of student accommodation at the expense of cheaper, starter homes for residents of Bath. This site is close to the hospital and would be attractive to anyone working on the west side of Bath.
I also disagree with the statement that the site would not be suitable for ordinary accommodation. There is nothing wrong with mixed-use sites - and there are shops and other residential properties close by.
08/12/2018
Laurence Cale 18 Station Road, Newbridge, Bath, Bath And North East Somerset, BA1 3DX O 09/12/2018: Overall I believe that the council should reject this application for the following reasons:
1. The proposed development is too high and will overlook and overshadow Ashleigh Avenue properties. Furthermore it will dominate the view when there is no leaf on the trees of the green mile. Both of these are a blight on existing properties.
2. Insufficient parking. The proposal is for over 100 students, business units and the gym with no real increase in parking space. The proposal to tell students they cannot bring cars is unenforceable and so will be ignored. This means there will be an influx of cars which will overload existing parking spaces.
This adds a further blight to an area that is already suffering from over parking
3. Inappropriate use of the site. As many others make clear, students use our services but do not contribute in council tax. Encouraging more seems unwise. Furthermore, this is an area that if developed would surely be better used to provide housing for residents especially those that work in an around the city. This would actually help to reduce car usage
4. Formation of a student ghetto. It is clear that should this planning be passed, it will open the floodgates to develop the other sites on Locksbrook road into more student accommodation thereby creating a ghetto. Throughout history this has only ever led to mistrust between sections of the community
5. Inappropriate type of development. Flats are proposed when the city needs houses for families so a house development might be welcome. There is surely a surfeit of flats in the city
6. Non viable business units. There is around 14000 square feet apparently which is massive for a small business. Also what small business wants to pay the rent and rates in the city? Especially when there is no parking? When the developer cannot let the business units they will apply to convert them to yet more student accommodation thereby exacerbating the problem
7. Risk to the Genesis business from rent and rate rises which will put them out of business

I trust that you will take these views into account and reject the application
09/12/2018
Mark Price 30 Ashley Avenue, Lower Weston, Bath, Bath And North East Somerset, BA1 3DS O 09/12/2018: 1. The BANES local plan 2018 proposes a default option whereby all student accommodation should be on campus. This application should either be rejected on these grounds or temporarily deferred until a decision is made as to which of the following three options the plan will implement:

--New student accommodation and academic/research space to be facilitated on campuses. Proposals for new student accommodation and academic/research space within the city outside the university campuses will be refused.

--New student accommodation to be accommodated on campuses only, but academic/research space can be accommodated in the city where it does not harm the other objectives of the Plan.

--Focus new student accommodation and academic/research space on campus and only allow such development in the city and elsewhere where it does not harm the other objectives of the Plan, particularly the delivery of housing & employment.

2. Irrespective of the above, the industrial zone should not include any accommodation and this application should be refused.

3. The building is over-bearing and out of scale with its surroundings. At the equivalent of six storeys high at the north it would impose and dominate over the surrounding one, two or three storey buildings. The black metal construction is out of keeping with any part of Bath’s architectural heritage and would intensify the building’s dominance over the area. It would not compensate for the size as claimed in the planning documentation.

4. The building would have a negative effect on a community where residential and industrial zones have coexisted for many decades by skewing the balance in favour of large industrial buildings.

5. It represents over development of the site. It proposes to introduce a large number of new residents to the area, who will need access, amenities, and car parking, all of which are scarce resources, via high density accommodation. The car parking issue is not mitigated by the unenforceable claims in the application documentation that students would be deprived of the right to use a car.
09/12/2018
Hat Gray 6 Yomede Park, Lower Weston, Bath, Bath And North East Somerset, BA1 3LS S 17/12/2018: I support having a gym in this area. There aren’t many on the edge of town. It’s great to have such a good gym with parking for all of the local residents. It will be fantastic to have a new building to work out in and to know that there is a future for my gym for my use in the future. There is great need for a good, new gym here.
However, there is too much student accommodation off campus and would prefer that it is residential accommodation. Thank you for giving me the opportunity to have my say.
17/12/2018
Jill Stenning 69 Hansford Square, Combe Down, Bath, Bath And North East Somerset, BA2 5LJ S 17/12/2018: The new development would be good for the gym providing new facilities and ensuring its continued role as a vital part of the local community. 17/12/2018
Jonathan Gates 152 Newbridge Road, Newbridge, Bath, BA1 3LE, S 17/12/2018: Improve access and facilities of this neglected part of the area. 17/12/2018
Robert Clark 29 Charmouth Road, Newbridge, Bath, Bath And North East Somerset, BA1 3LJ S 17/12/2018: Enhances the area in terms of appearance, facilities and employment. 17/12/2018
Mrs C P Allen 44 Ashley Avenue, Lower Weston, Bath, Bath And North East Somerset, BA1 3DS O 26/11/2018: I object to this application on the following grounds:- 1) the buildings are too high 2) the fact that they will bring even more students into our area 3) there will be a huge impact on an already problematic parking situation 4)it will affect the general ambience of the area 5)the area cannot cope with such an addition to its population 5) the roads are not suitable for the inevitable increase in traffic, pollution and noise 6) the value of our properties will be affected 7) if it were for affordable housing with parking I would not object, however, the proposed height would still be an issue for me 8) students do not contribute anything positive to the location in which they live and they are exempt from council tax 26/11/2018
Bjorn Arnils 43 Ashley Avenue, Lower Weston, Bath, Bath And North East Somerset, BA1 3DS O 29/11/2018: I strongly object to the proposed 18/05047/FUL application.

1. When Bath Spa University bought the Herman Miller building, local residents were assured that it was not going to become a campus, hence no objection from me. Building student accommodation opposite this is exactly what will happen.

2. The student population in this area has seen a huge increase over the last 8 years and as a result this area has become much noisier at night. Many properties here in Ashley Avenue are currently rented out to students. Every weekend and even ordinary week days we experience loud drunken behaviour at night, including fighting, obscene and profane shouting and intimidating group behavior. Adding as many new students residences as the proposal suggests will only add fuel to the fire.

3. Twenty three parking spaces for all the people who may be using that building at any given time is far from enough. As pointed out by Phil Weeks in his comment, the parking problem has been masked in the current drawings; most cars have been airbrushed out of the images. Parking in Ashley Avenue and surrounding streets is already a huge issue, and it is not easy for residents to find a parking space in this street as it is now. The speeds at which cars travel along is already dangerous without adding to the amount of traffic passing through the area. Adding even more traffic will drastically reduce quality of life and safety for all residents in nearby streets, particularly for families and older people. The proposed measures that have been put in place to control the noise/parking etc are naïve, unrealistic and impossible to police.

4. The design of four floors plus a mezzanine is actually five floors. The proposed building will overlook and dominate all residential buildings in the area, impacting on quality of life. The height of local buildings is standing at a maximum three floors, therefore no building above three floors should be considered. The proposed building is ugly, hard and aggressive and not remotely in keeping with the area.
29/11/2018
Phil Weeks 151 Locksbrook Road, Newbridge, Bath, Bath And North East Somerset, BA1 3EJ O 06/12/2018: This scheme will not enhance the lives of the local residents nor the people that work in Locksbrook Road. If you try and park in Locksbrook Road during normal working hours or an evening, you will be very lucky to find a parking space and during working hours, the road is frequently congested with lorries trying to negotiate illegally parked cars. This scheme will add significant pressure to an already intolerable situation.
06/12/2018 This comment also has associated documents: Documents Tab
David Potts Top Floor Flat , 14A Station Road, Newbridge, Bath, Bath And North East Somerset, BA1 3DY O 23/11/2018: When Bath Spa University bought the Herman Miller building the local residents were assured that it was not going to become a campus. However by building student accommodation opposite this is exactly what is going to happen. Whilst I realise not all students are the same, areas with a lot of students living in them tend to be noisier become less cared for. I have seen a huge increase in the student population of the area already over the last 5 years and as a result the area has become much noisier at night. I am often woken by people shouting in the street, being sick on the pavement and my car has been damaged too.

The speeds at which cars travel along Station Road and Locksbrook Road, predominantly at night, is already dangerous without adding to the amount of traffic passing through the area. Further cars will drastically reduce quality of life, particularly for families in the area and also contribute to extra air pollution in an already industrial sector. Twenty three parking spaces for all the people who may be using that building at any given time is grossly inadequate. As pointed out by Phil Weeks in his comment, the parking problem has been masked in the current drawings; most cars have been airbrushed out of the images. Parking in the area is a huge issue already; we are already over capacity for the road infrastructure. I am hugely concerned about the road safety, both for pedestrians and drivers, that this increase in the residential density is likely to cause.

In terms of student safety I feel that student accommodation right next to the river is also a bad idea. Young adults moving away from home for the first time may not have an awareness of the dangers the river can pose, particularly when inebriated. There have already been too many tragedies of this nature on the river. I also have concerns over the design of the building itself. The design of 4 floors plus a mezzanine (which is essentially 5 floors, so call it 5 floors) will hugely overlook and dominate all residential buildings already in the area again impacting on quality of life. The height of local buildings is currently 3 storeys, therefore no building above 3 storeys should be considered.

On a personal note I am becoming increasingly frustrated with the current culture throughout Bath of building blocks of flats rather than building homes/houses for young families, consequently forcing young families who are the cities future to leave the area. The application states that they are building student flats ‘in an site which otherwise would be unsuitable for ordinary residential development’; I see no reason why this is true and seek explanation of this statement.
23/11/2018
R Brunton First Floor Flat , 14A Station Road, Newbridge, Bath, Bath And North East Somerset, BA1 3DY O 27/11/2018: During the planning roadshow that was held regarding this development the designers admitted that whilst there would be a clause in the contract of the Students regarding parking, they would be unable to enforce it. By their own admission, they cannot monitor vehicles that are parked in the area constantly. This clause merely plays lip service to try and distract from the issues that introducing such a large number of new residents to the area will have on an already over-crowded parking situation. Access and parking is already a serious problem in the area, I fail to see how the developer feels adding 2 further spaces to their original plan is going to have a great impact, bearing in mind these spaces will be used by gym patrons as much as by students.

I am also surprised to see that students will have access to the rooftop areas, again in the roadshow I was assured this would not be the case.
Immediately this raises issues of noise going long into the night and possible safety issues if parties are being held on the rooftop area.

With regard to the employment area, they have made claims about the potential increase in Business Rate available for the Council. However their plan seems to involve letting parts of the property to small businesses. This instead would suggest that the property would be split into smaller units and therefore the Council may see an increase in the amount of Small Business Rate Relief being granted, rather than any real growth in net Rateable income.

It is also worth noting that a Council plan for the Old Coal Yard on Station Road, less than 100 yards from this planned development, has been mothballed following feedback from local residents worried about parking and access issues, that plan had considerably fewer new properties.

While I am not naïve enough to believe this site will not be redeveloped, I do not feel permission should be granted at this time. Instead a new plan should be considered that takes the obvious issues created by this development into greater consideration
27/11/2018
John Davies Station House, 16 Station Road, Newbridge, Bath, BA1 3DX, O 07/12/2018: I strongly oppose this planning application for the following reasons.

a) The proposed building at 4 floors plus a mezzanine is much too high and will overlook and dominate all residential buildings in the area, impacting on quality of life. The heights of local buildings are a maximum three floors therefore no building above three floors should be considered. The proposed building is ugly, hard and reminds me of a USSR communist type construction which is not remotely in keeping with the area.

b) We need more low cost housing in this area for local families and staff at the RUH rather than more student accommodation. When Bath Spa University bought the Herman Miller building the local residents were assured that the area was not going to become a campus but that is exactly what is going to happen with a large student block opposite.

c) Car parking and the amount and speed of traffic in the area is already a major headache for local residents and surly the addition of 103 student flats will cause even more traffic and will cause more parking congestion.
07/12/2018
Karen Sherwin Garden Flat, 11 Station Road, Newbridge, Bath, BA1 3DY, O 23/11/2018: Having attended the consultation event at Genesis Lifestyle Centre (of which I am a member) I object to the application for the following reasons:
1) Adverse affect on parking in an area that already has parking issues for local residents (I realise 2 additional spaces have now been incorporated) -there will be no way of controlling/monitoring students bringing cars to the area and parking offsite. Simply asking them not to will not suffice. It is not illegal for them to park a car on the public highway.
2) Noise. This is a residential area, many people have lived here for a long time and it has a 'villagey' feel -a massive influx of students will have an adverse affect on this. I have been told that the site will be manned 24 hours -they will be entirely unable to control what happens outside of the building and out of hours.
3) Property value. I purchased my flat April 2017 as an investment (I also live there) -had there already been student accommodation as proposed, or the planning application had been granted I wouldn't have made the purchase -I do not want to live near student accommodation for all the reasons listed. I am not the only person who will think this, so I know it will affect my property value/investment.
4) The building is ugly and not remotely in keeping with the area. It looks hard and aggressive -it is near Bath Stone Victorian houses -there is a total lack of sympathy to it's surroundings.

The proposed measures that have been put in place to control the above (noise/parking etc) will simply not work in practice and are an 'ideal world' solution and not based in reality. I moved to Station Road from Lower Oldfield Park in April 2017 -many students lived nearby in house shares -the noise/disruption was phenomenal -parties/shouting/singing/arguing in the streets at all hours on their way 'home'. The bottles/mess/rubbish left after these events found in my garden or on/near my car, on the footpaths etc was ridiculous. You cannot tell me that by having a 'manned' site will positively influence student behaviour when off site and making their way home. In addition, these student when drunk can be intimidating, unreasonable and irrational and I would certainly never approach them if they were singing or having an argument outside my home or near my home -and now potentially I am going to be mere yards away (I live opposite the Genesis Lifestyle Centre) from a site that will house over a 100 of them! -As well as not being able to find anywhere to park!!!!
23/11/2018
Patricia Spencer-Barclay 6 Station Road, Newbridge, Bath, Bath And North East Somerset, BA1 3DX O Documents Tab 29/11/2018
Hannah Brownell 144 Locksbrook Road, Newbridge, Bath, Bath And North East Somerset, BA1 3EJ O 21/11/2018: The parking around this area is horrendous! Also we don’t not need anymore students in this area, they are noisy and messy, this area over the past years have got worse, the traffic is awlful, the parking is rubbish, it’ student central already. No more student housing!!!!!! 21/11/2018
Mr Geraint Horton 44 Locksbrook Road, Newbridge, Bath, Bath And North East Somerset, BA1 3ES O 30/11/2018: I object to the application mainly on the following grounds:

As previous developments in the area have been permitted without consideration for the long term affects on the residents relating to Parking, Noise and Light pollution i.e. Lidl across the river and the new development for Bath Spa University at the former Herman Miller site. What conditions and building design will be employed to mitigate and reduce the impact on the residents once the construction is complete going into to the future?

As the area has one of the most busy cross roads in Bath the traffic situation is already intolerable with huge articulated vehicles accessing the "Light" industrial estate so to add to this by increasing business and student demand for access and parking will only greatly add to the problem, not only during the construction phase but once business and occupation of the student accommodation is in operation. What methods will be employed to minimise effects on the residents going into the future once the development is completed especially as parking requirements in the area are already greatly over subscribed and already causes issues?

Existing light pollution of the area is already excessive but this will be increased

Once the Arts department has been completed there will be a gallery and cafe in operation that will increase the demand for parking and will create light and noise pollution late into the evening affecting quality of life. This will be compounded further by having rowdy students living directly opposite the Arts centre unless increased noise and light pollution control methods are considered, what provisions for minimising the effects are to be employed?

Residents lives have already been disrupted by the Arts centre development and will continue to be for another year, what methods have or will be employed to mitigate the noise dust and disruption caused by further development in the immediate vicinity, during construction and on completion of the development?
30/11/2018
Jessica Boston 125 Locksbrook Road, Newbridge, Bath, Bath And North East Somerset, BA1 3EJ O 21/11/2018: I object to this application as this area is a predominately family area and parking is already very stressed and there is a lot of heavy traffic. If there are an additional 103 student flats then this will put the area under additional stress causing even more traffic (which makes our road even more unsafe) and will cause more parking congestion. 21/11/2018
H Smith Bath , BA2, O 27/11/2018: I think that Bath has probably reached the limit in terms of its student population. The endless stream of new student residences does not appear to be supporting the preservation of 'family homes' in Southdown and Oldfield Park as is so often spouted by the developers' planning consultants as justification, and the conversion of houses in these areas to HMOs would appear to continue unabashed. As such the planning officer should ignore the usual waffle in the supporting planning statements.

This design will undoubtedly be described as 'bold', 'honest' or 'exciting' by its supporters and most probably be given a prize by the RIBA and be opened to much fanfare by Kelvin McClod. In reality it's just a top heavy, depressing black lump, sandwiched between a scrap yard and a shed. I prefer the shed.
27/11/2018
Sue Bush 38 Old Newbridge Hill, Newbridge, Bath, BA1 3LU, S 02/12/2018: This looks like a wonderful opportunity for the area. I am a small business owner, a local resident and a Genesis gym member. It is refreshing to see such a modern development, which is not out of keeping with the Bath Spa building across the road. I do hope this goes ahead. 02/12/2018
Grenville Gore Langton 29 Ashley Avenue, Lower Weston, Bath, Bath And North East Somerset, BA1 3DS O 02/12/2018: The fact that the area concerned has legally protected bats, badgers and other examples of what were once rural animals but now urban.

I would hope that the highways department would look at this serious matter as well as the following:
1) Car parking in this area is already squeezed beyond endurance and the
and the fact that no one can seriously believe any developer is going to police student ownership is frankly unbelievable.
2) Should student buses be used to transport students one the university facility there is opened, there is no where for them to turn as Locksbrook Road is too narrow and Station Road unsuitable. Where are the students who come form far afield going to park?
3) The introduction of Lidl's supermarket and further retail outlets has meant that parking in this area is even worse as people park and cross the river to shop. the knock on effect of this has meant that companies on the trading estate have had to fence off their staff car parks.
4) I am also cynical about the developer providing raised beds to cover the stipulation that allotment space has to be provided. I have yet to find a student willing to take on such responsibility as we are constantly trying to encourage them to join us at the Bath Organic Garden where we offer help, guidance and veg in return for voluntary labour.
5) At the presentation we were informed that there were serious applicants for prospective workshop space - another fallacy. Should the workshops be filled in the fullness of time where to the artisans park their business vehicles as well as their customers. Locksbrook Road is far too narrow for any increase in on road parking as lorry/arctic lorries, semis and larger delivery vans already have serious issues.
6) We are all exhorted to as Mr. Tebbit once famously said "get on our bikes", take to the pavement or take an expensive erratic bus service which currently reminds some of London Buses - come one come all. Should we get further cyclists Fieldings Bridge which I have complained about before will become totally unfit for purpose. It is already dangerous with cyclists who have no community sense or wish to please pedestrians, disabled, young children, prams/buggies and dog walkers let alone the honest shopper.
I took the liberty of showing said bridge to a retired member of the Council's planning inspectorate and the verdict was unsuitable for purpose and possible H&S risk should numbers increase significantly.
7) Parking for the gym and the veterinary practice is already inadequate and often dangerous with speeding drivers and cyclists freewheeling at speed down Station Road.
8) The proposed building is grossly out of proportion to the prospective site and surrounding area. It is too tall and too dense. It will over shadow everything around it and significantly effect trees and other habitats by reducing the sun shine levels during the greater part of the year. This development has been put together too hastily as there are so many infrastructure concerns that need to be readdressed and local residents applied to for advice and assistance as we live here and therefore have a factual understanding of how the area currently functions.
No one is discounting change but please let it be for the better for the entire local community who feel that yet again their views have not been seriously considered or listened to by either the council or the developer. Democracy - always a difficult word seems to mean little in the present day - it's dictionary meaning is certainly flagrantly ignored.

Parking and the infrastructure to the road system around here need attending to first before any sizeable development such as the one proposed be sanctioned.
02/12/2018
Guy Harbord 1 Mount View, Southdown, Bath, Bath And North East Somerset, BA2 1JX O 02/12/2018: This is an industrial site for local business and should stay that way about time we look after the residents instead of cashing in on easy students accomodation where none of tbem pay council tax 02/12/2018
Arthur Perdicchia 4 Southville Road, Bradford On Avon, BA15 1HP, , S 17/12/2018: I think this application will be great for the community as it will bring vibrancy and rejuvenation to a traditional 60s tired trading estate.
17/12/2018
John Mitchell 43 Audley Grove, Lower Weston, Bath, Bath And North East Somerset, BA1 3BS R 17/12/2018: Having reviewed the planning application, I have the following queries for the developer and/or planning officer to consider.

1) The height of the building is 5 stories with a pitch roof above. It is not 4 + mezzanine. This feels very large given the local area, and will be a very large dominant building that sits poorly in the site (the footprint covers almost the entire site, and feels very over developed as a consequence). Other comments have been critical of the design, so I won't repeat the same comments here.

To make this scheme acceptable, the total mass (height, width and depth) of the building should be reduced.

2) The proposed industrial floor space seems to be of exceptionally poor quality and design. The developer has argued that a proposed use would be advanced manufacture, but the design is wholly unsuited to any form of industrial use.
The concerns are as follows:
a) There are no loading doors into either industrial unit for receiving or dispatching goods.
b) There are no loading bays for either industrial unit capable of receiving and unloading a HGV. The only loading bay shown supports a small van, which is suited to serving the gym and the residents in the proposed apartments. This single bay is wholly unsuitable for industrial use. There is an additional safety hazard in the most deliveries and goods dispatch will come into conflict with pedestrian users - the loading bay needs to be segregated from the general public. Given the length of time to load and unload a HGV at an industrial unit, parking in the road is not an acceptable solution.
c) There is no materials or waste compounds available for either industrial unit.
d) With the residential spaces above, and lack of industrial compound or space either side of the building, there is no space for ventilation equipment, fume extraction or processing. This highlights the incredibly poor design of the industrial space. Typical units would be able to install extraction and fume equipment adjacent to or on the roof. Neither are possible here.
e) The close proximity to residential users. The noise assessment assumes a commercial (i.e. office) use in the industrial units. This needs to be redone for an industrial user. The assessment needs to cover a potential triple shift pattern with worst case noise during the night (it should be noted that some users of Locksbrock Road already operate a 6:00-Midnight double shift pattern. So triple shift (i.e. 24/7 working) is entirely possible and permissible). This will need to also be secured by condition, i.e. the design needs to demonstrate the residential spaces are suitably isolated from vibration and noise prior to starting build, and again on completion before the residential spaces can be occupied. If the building fails the noise assessment, then the residential spaces cannot be occupied until rectified. If it cannot be rectified (either technically or economically), then the residential spaces must remain uninhabited or be demolished.
It should be noted that ensuring noise and vibration levels are acceptable will be incredibly challenging for users sharing a building. Normally this is achieved with noise insulation and separated buildings and foundations to prevent the transmission of vibration, but in this case that is not possible.

3) Parking levels are currently 20 spaces for the existing gym and its car park is regularly full, and will increase as the new gym is larger. There will therefore be no parking available for either the residential users or industrial users.
The developer needs to show an analysis of the expected users (the gym, residential and 2 industrial units) and their parking requirements during the day. This will confirm the quantity of car parking required.

4) While the flood plan shows the expected evacuation plan should a flood occur, it does not detail what will happen to the residents if the building is flooded for several days or weeks (or months). The 2007 and 2013-2014 UK wide floods both lasted several months.

5) Given the above, and the poor quality of industrial space, some conditions are recommended to ensure these remain units solely available for industrial use, and that these cannot be changed to residential or commercial space by claiming the space is unviable. A condition is recommended to ensure the industrial space is tenanted prior to the residential space and a condition removing all and any permitted development rights around changing the use of the industrial space. In addition a condition completely preventing the changing of the use class from industrial to anything, no matter the difficulty of finding an industrial tenant or uneconomic use. If the developer is unable to find an industrial tenant for either site for 20+ years, then the residential spaces and industrial units shall remain empty. No exceptions. If the developer is confident on the quality of the use space despite what is detailed above, then they should have no problem agreeing to this.

Most of the comments above are addressable with redesign or amendments, however the integration of residential users above industrial users is particularly challenging while ensuring both users have high quality spaces that do not have their use restricted by the other tenant. While this isn't impossible to achieve, it is debatable how this will be achieved given the constraints of the site.
17/12/2018
Bath Preservation Trust Bath Preservation Trust , 1 Royal Crescent, City Centre, Bath, Bath And North East Somerset, BA1 2LR O 17/12/2018: The Trust has mixed feelings about this scheme:
We have an in-principle objection to the student accommodation element of the scheme on the basis that there is no proven need for more high-end speculative PBSAs, as acknowledged in the evidence base for the Local Plan Options, and given the sustainable location close to the RUH and local businesses, these units could provide much needed residential accommodation for key workers and young professionals and therefore contribute to the housing shortfall as identified in the Local Plan. We support the provision of leisure and light industrial space.
Our committee were pleased to see an innovative and creative design come forward which creates visual interest and could potentially enhance the mixed character of the local area. However the height is too great for its location and therefore we object to this element of the scheme. The sections clearly demonstrate how the building will sit within the topography of the local area, and it is clear that it will dominate the local area with its height and scale and produce a contextually discordant townscape feature. In fact it would be the tallest building by some way. Whilst we appreciate the addition of green roofs these will only go some way to alleviating the dominance of the scheme within the local townscape. Most importantly both the scale and height appear to ‘loom’ over the listed Herman Miller building and will therefore harm the setting of the building by encroaching into its space; whilst we don’t object to the colour, the black materials of the building only serve to exacerbate this sense of intrusion. Being a large flat building, Herman Miller must sit within a large open setting in order for the special interest of the building to be appreciated. While there is explicit reference to a riverside industrial warehouse aesthetic, in fact this site is set back from the riverfront and in other locations (e.g. Bath Quays South there is some recognition of heights to step back from the river frontage in order to provide a transition to the domestic scale).
We would recommend that the building is reduced in height by at least one floor at the rear gabled sections, and that perhaps some redesign or use of recessive coloured materials can achieve a set-back on the front of the building which can allow it to retreat somewhat away from a visual confrontation with the former Herman Miller building.
On balance, despite our appreciation of the high quality design of the scheme, and the efforts made to be architecturally inventive, we have to object to this scheme on the basis of the proposed student accommodation and the excessive height of the rear sections.
The proposed height and scale of the scheme fails to maintain or enhance the character and appearance of the conservation area, harms the setting and significance of the Herman Miller building and would therefore detract from the special qualities of the World Heritage Site. Therefore the proposal would be contrary to the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas Act) 1990, Section 16 (Conserving and enhancing the historic environment) of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), policies; B1, B4 and CP6 of the B&NES Core Strategy and policies CP6, D.2, D.5, HE1, B4, BD1 of the Placemaking Plan. We would therefore recommend that the application is amended or refused.

17/12/2018
David Walker 3 Darlington Place, Bathwick, Bath, Bath And North East Somerset, BA2 6BX S 17/12/2018: I support the plans for the redevelopment. I think the area will be improved by updating it. I am a gym user at genesis and I am very happy they are to remain but with a new facility.
17/12/2018
Alison Brazington 46 Gainsborough Gardens, Lower Weston, Bath, Bath And North East Somerset, BA1 4AJ S 17/12/2018: This development would really benefit and local community. 17/12/2018
Martyn Dormer 30 Lymore Gardens, Twerton, Bath, Bath And North East Somerset, BA2 1AQ S 17/12/2018: As a former regular user of Genesis Gym, I wholeheartedly support this proposal to improve what is an asset to the local community. 17/12/2018
Emily Fletcher The Salcombe Trading Company, 9 Broad Street, City Centre, Bath, BA1 5LJ, S 17/12/2018: I believe the renovation of this building, will improve the area greatly. It is currently dated and in need of a upgrading. I also think it is an ideal location for student housing. We shouldn't be using historic buildings in Bath for students. I fully support the application. 17/12/2018
Isla Meek 1 Old Pit Terrace, Clandown, Radstock, Bath And North East Somerset, BA3 3BE S 17/12/2018: Genesis gym has struggled with their current facilities for about 11 years. They are not like any other gym the really give to the community of Bath and Weston. They encourage like no other and help anybody whatever shape size or age. This gym really needs this opportunity. 17/12/2018
Richard Wendland 35 Newbridge Road, Newbridge, Bath, BA1 3HE, O 17/12/2018: I have submitted a letter of objection by email at 4:11pm today to development_management@bathnes.gov.uk. A very brief summary of my 3 objections are:

1) Object to this development because of excessive building height, out of local scale, and especially the visual impact from houses to the north of the site which has not been sufficiently analysed and tested in the documentation (eg no views of proposal from Ashley Avenue 55 metres north supplied).

2) Should it be agreed despite objections, consent should be subject to the larger trees immediately to the north being given Tree Preservation Orders to future preserve the “considerable concealment” the proposal asserts they provide.

3) The police submission records that the architect told them access will be restricted to authorised persons only by the installation of access controlled gates external to the building, and the police advise they should be 2.4 metres tall. The proposal does not show any such gates in its plans, and they would be extremely obtrusive. The application should be rejected until either the plans are changed to show these gates, or the police be allowed to make a new submission in the knowledge that the information they received from the architect was incorrect.
17/12/2018 This comment also has associated documents: Documents Tab
Bernard Whishaw 12 Homelea Park West, Newbridge, Bath, Bath And North East Somerset, BA1 3HR S 18/12/2018: Existing building hideous. Good place for a facility that benefits community. Ensure the roof is sympathetic design not like the flats next to Homebase which are grotesque. 18/12/2018
Simon Thomas 7 Osborne Road, Newbridge, Bath, Bath And North East Somerset, BA1 3JR O 24/11/2018: I already think there is not enough affordable housing in Bath and too much student accommodation, student numbers feel out of balance with the resident population as it is, this will make matters worse! Why can't we have affordable hospital housing for example? Parking though is a major concern, even if students aren't allowed to park near the site i can't see how you can police this, look at the issues caused by student parking on the lower Bristol road. If this scheme does go ahead then you must consider residents parking permits since there will be a negative parking impact! Also we are losing another good industrial site, i understand that there is a real shortage in Bath of good sized sites and companies are having to relocate outside Bath if they want to expand. In another city this would be a great use of space but given the overall amount of student sites in Bath i can't see how this can be viable when student numbers are expected to fall over coming years? So in short a nice proposal but not for students, definatly for good affordable homes! 24/11/2018
Patricia Caudle 3 Henley View, Wellow, Bath, Bath And North East Somerset, BA2 8PZ O 29/11/2018: I object to this application in its present form:-

Student accommodation: The current thinking (October 2018) under the latest Local Plan suggests that future student accommodation should be within university campuses. (NB: Oxford will now only allow further university expansion if students are accommodated on campus or university owned land.) Furthermore, with a predicted fall in student numbers (currently down some 5%) and, if in future two year courses become the norm, the need for additional off campus accommodation may well become unnecessary.

At a time when councils are struggling to balance a budget to allow further untaxable property development is madness and suggests developers’ greed to build property as densely as possible without the need for parking requirements.

The suggestion that students would not be permitted to bring cars is unenforceable: the surrounding roads are already overfull with residents’ cars during the evening and commuter cars during the day. If only 25% of the proposed students brought cars with them there would be an increase of 26 cars needing to park somewhere.

The building is too large: the proposed development overshadows the listed Grade II Herman Miller Building opposite. Policies BH2 and BH6.

Note the developers’ own statement in the D&A Statement: “ Aside from the potential impact on the Herman Miller building and its setting, the massing and volume of the building appear to relate well to the other industrial buildings surrounding the site.” They therefore acknowledge this development is inappropriate in its setting.

The Conservation Area Appraisal states:

“What factors might be seen as threats [to the Conservation Area]?

Developers attempting to take their cue from the four- to seven-storey blocks of Western Riverside as justification for further tall blocks within this Character Area.

Significant creeping increase of building heights may threaten the integrity of the World Heritage Site’s green setting”

Locksbrook Road and Locksbrook Industrial Estate both lie bounded by residential property areas of mainly two storey Victorian properties, many considered to be unlisted buildings of merit. The proposed building at five storeys would not sit well within the WHS which not only encompasses the Bath city centre but its setting and surrounding landscape.

The developers seem to think that on the back of their ‘community spirit’ in building a new gym they can get away with yet another overlarge building in Bath. The building is out of place in both size and colour and student use.
29/11/2018
Debbie Robinson 6 Rudmore Park, Newbridge, Bath, Bath And North East Somerset, BA1 3JA O 22/11/2018: Traffic will increase and the area is used by walkers and cyclists 22/11/2018
Richard Pullin 63 Newbridge Road, Newbridge, Bath, BA1 3HF, R 29/11/2018: I accept this application but do not see why we need more Student accommodation if they want more build on the campus there are too many in Bath 29/11/2018
Dr John Potjewyd 51 Loxton Drive, Twerton, Bath, Bath And North East Somerset, BA2 1BR O 23/11/2018: Why more student flats? Students do not pay Council Tax. Wouldn't it be better for BANES to actually support affordable housing in Bath? Too many HMOs for students, leaving young Bath people without a chance to enter the housing market. Short-sighted planning will approve this as they have countless others to the detriment of Bath. There are already approved student flats on Jews Lane at the old Cobbs Bakery site. 23/11/2018
Theresa Elly Red House Hotel, 37 Newbridge Road, Newbridge, Bath, BA1 3HE, O Documents Tab 14/12/2018
Philippa Spruit 305 Kelston Road, Newbridge, Bath, Bath And North East Somerset, BA1 9AB S Documents Tab 05/12/2018
Hannah Brownell 114 Locksbrook Road, Newbridge, Bath, Bath And North East Somerset, BA1 3EN R Documents Tab 05/12/2018
Simon Goater 102 Freeview Road, Twerton, Bath, Bath And North East Somerset, BA2 1DZ S Documents Tab 05/12/2018
David Snook 26 Burnham Road, Twerton, Bath, Bath And North East Somerset, BA2 3RY O 04/12/2018: I object to this application, the buildings are much too large for the space available, the building materials are visually awful, puts you mind of a Soviet prison block. Bringing yet more students to the City will not help the local Locksbrook Rd / Station Rd community or city wide community, it's just antisocial. 04/12/2018
Martin Fletcher The Hunting Lodge , London Road West, Lower Swainswick, Bath, Bath And North East Somerset, BA1 7JF S Documents Tab 05/12/2018
Gill Goddon Not Given S Documents Tab 05/12/2018
Brenda Gray 6 Yomede Park, Lower Weston, Bath, Bath And North East Somerset, BA1 3LS S Documents Tab 05/12/2018
Iris Hardenberg 27 Newbridge Road, Newbridge, Bath, BA1 3HE, S Documents Tab 05/12/2018
Alison Weston 15 Clarence Place, Newbridge, Bath, Bath And North East Somerset, BA1 3EW O 14/12/2018: I feel this proposed building is completely inappropriate for the location.
It is too high. Higher than any other buildings in the area.
The architecture does not match nor complement the environment.
The roof terraces are so impractical, a health & safety risk and potential to cause noise pollution, for the neighbours.
If the plot is to be used then should it not be low cost housing.
How can it be enforced that the students have no cars. What will stop them parking in the local, already congested roads.
Can the local roads cope with the increase in the traffic, this amount of occupants will create.
Does the building need to be so large, ugly? Does the area need more students residence?
14/12/2018
Andrew Ward 19 Clarence Place, Newbridge, Bath, Bath And North East Somerset, BA1 3EW O 14/12/2018: Dear Sir/Madam

we have following objections to the above planning application:
1. Primary objection is the planned use of the space as residential area. The flat design is not in keeping with other properties or building architecture in the area and sets a precedent for amending existing light industrial buildings to residential use in the future.
2. There is no clear planning in place to accommodate additional vehicular access and parking in the area. Despite assurances that students will not be able to park vehicles - no such assurance has been given for visitors, parents nor policing of this policy.
3. The light industry element of this development is not clear enough in its proposed business use. There is no delivery area large enough for many retail or industrial commerce to be meaningful and appears to be the minimal possible to ensure the planning process gets through.
4. A 4 storey building is excessive and intrusive compared to surrounding buildings. The design uses materials that is not in keeping with other local materials.
5. The use of the space specifically for student use not what this area needs. It does nothing to balance out the needs of the local community or the housing stock for local residents looking to purchase local housing to get on the property ladder.

regards
Andy Ward
14/12/2018
Mrs A Zell 118 Locksbrook Road, Newbridge, Bath, Bath And North East Somerset, BA1 3EN O 11/12/2018: I wish to lodge my objections to this planning application over concerns of the increase to traffic in the area, limited parking included in the development and the excessive height of the proposed development.
The area has light industrial units but it is mainly a residential area with a significant amount of housing having been built over the years. The design of the development looks more like a prison block and will significantly dominant the area due to the 4 storey height. The remaining buildings will be overshadowed and dwarfed by the development.
I further object to additional student accommodation as the city has a significant amount of this type of development and with university student numbers in decline due to high fees this should not continue to be a focus for developers. I am concerned that there will be increased numbers of vehicles looking to benefit from the current free on street parking that is already insufficient for the current residents as used by the businesses in the area such as Lovehoney. I would expect the council to provide a residents parking scheme to help to mitigate this issue. To provide cycle parking facilities does not guarantee students will use bikes rather than cars, how can students be banned from having cars. There seems to be an assumption by the planning department that if parking is not provided people will not travel by car. This is not the case! There should also be consideration for the gym staff and customers that frequently require more parking than is currently available. The staff and customers for the business in the ground floor would also require parking facilities.
To bring a large number of students into this area would not be desirable to the current residents as there is generally noise disturbance and also increases in rubbish as they do not have the same commitment to keeping areas looking clean and tidy. We already have the Herman Millar building being developed by Bath Spa University so will soon have more students than desired in this area, again with limited parking.
11/12/2018