Planning Applications Reference:18/05475/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:The Royal High School, Lansdown Road, Lansdown, Bath, Bath And North East Somerset, BA1 5SZ
Ward:Lansdown
Proposal:Erection of new educational building for use as a Dance and Fitness Studio, landscaping and associated works; temporary service trench and low level bollard lighting to create safe pedestrian link to the Gatehouse.
Planning Portal Reference Number:PP-06694332
Applicant Name:Girls Day School Trust
Agent Name:PlanningSphere Ltd
Agent Address:Coworking, The Guild, High Street, Bath, Bath And North East Somerset, BA1 5EB
Case Officer Name:Sasha Berezina
Date Application Received:07/12/2018
Date Application Validated:13/12/2018
Neighbourhood Consultations sent on:17/12/2018
Standard Consultations sent on:24/01/2019
Last advertised on:20/12/2018
Latest Site Notice posted on:10/01/2019
Expiry Date for Consultation :31/01/2019
Target Decision Date27/02/2019

Documents

ConstraintsAgric Land Class 3b,4,5, Article 4 Bath Demolition Wall, Article 4 HMO, Article 4 Reg 7: Estate Agent, Conservation Area, Listed Building, MOD Safeguarded Areas, Policy B4 WHS - Boundary, Policy B4 WHS - Indicative Extent, Policy CP9 Affordable Housing Zones, Policy LCR5 Safeguarded existg sport & R, Policy NE2A Landscapes and the green set, SSSI - Impact Risk Zones
Related Property:The Royal High School,Lansdown Road,Lansdown,Bath,BA1 5SZ.
Reference Proposal Application Received Status
96/00547/FUL .Erection of sports hall after demolition of maintenance buildings and wall, minor alterations to school buildings and replacement of fire escape06/11/1996Approve
96/00548/LBA .Erection of sports hall after demolition of maintenance buildings and wall, minor alterations to school buildings and replacement of fire escape06/11/1996Approve
97/00625/FUL .Demolition of single storey link and external stairs to science/gymnasium block. Erection of two storey link block, elevational changes to gymnasium and new fire escape to physics Lab (revised proposal)14/07/1997Application Permitted
97/00624/LBA .Demolition of single storey link bldg to science centre including external staircase. Erection of a two storey link building, reduced levels to gymnasium, new floor built in to form laboratories with laboratories under & general alterations14/07/1997Consent
97/00727/LBA .Internal alterations to main building12/08/1997Consent
98/00341/FUL .Creation of playground with boundary fencing extension of stone boundary wall abutting Lansdown Place East, & minor alterations to Hope House, including repositioning of fire escape, after demolition of existing gym and library14/04/1998Application Permitted
98/00339/LBA .Demolition of Gym, Library and connecting corridor to Hope House, and minor alterations to Hope House14/04/1998Consent
98/00688/FUL .Formation of parking spaces after demolition of existing garages30/07/1998Application Permitted
98/00690/LBA .Formation of a parking spaces after demolition of existing garages30/07/1998Consent
98/00877/LBA .Construction of boundary wall to the east of Royal School, adjacent to the junction between Richmond Road and Richmond Heights02/10/1998Consent
98/01102/FUL .Provision of all weather play area, footpath link, Gloucester House access steps and landscaping and repositioning of timber shed at Hope House site23/12/1998Application Permitted
99/00408/LBA .Alterations to boundary wall, relocation of access, formation of parking spaces and landscaping to Northfields20/04/1999Consent
99/00362/FUL .Alterations to boundary wall, relocation of access, formation of parking spaces and landscaping to Northfields20/04/1999Application Permitted
01/00053/LBA .Internal remodelling of existing dormitories and ancillary areas including the demolition of some internal partitions. Raising effective height of handrail on existing staircase08/01/2001Consent
04/00287/FUL .Conversion of existing hard surface tennis courts to synthetic grass surface with new fencing.28/01/2004Application Permitted
04/03218/FUL .Provision of new steps for access to tennis courts after removal of existing steps08/10/2004Application Permitted
06/01029/LBA .Removal of 1960s wall, reinstatement to original Bath stone gate pillar.16/03/2006Consent
07/01806/AR .Display of educational establishment sign (retrospective application)04/06/2007Consent
07/03127/LBA .Erection of new two-storey building for art department after demolition of existing food technology building and two-storey extension and alterations to existing art studio10/10/2007Consent
07/03122/FUL .Erection of new two-storey building for art department after demolition of existing food technology building and two-storey extension and alterations to existing art studio10/10/2007Application Permitted
07/03178/LBA .Internal alterations to existing art room to accommodate relocation of Food Technology department to include service and provision of new extract system and alterations/adaptation to window frames to receive louvered terminal of extract system17/10/2007Consent
08/01104/FUL .Erection of a single storey extension to sixth form common room and relocation of fire escape25/03/2008Application Permitted
08/02371/TC5 .Prune and reshape Poplar26/06/2008No Objection
08/03916/TCA .Dismantle Conifer, 3 No. Field Maple and group of 5 No. Birch17/10/2008No Objection
10/00242/TCA .Various tree work20/01/2010No Objection
12/00162/LBA .Internal alterations for the subdivision of one room into three rooms and associated redecoration, flooring, electrical and heating works.28/12/2011Application Refused
14/03436/AR .Display of 2no non-illuminated post signs.28/07/2014Consent
14/05723/LBA .External alterations for re-roofing, repairs to gutters, downpipes, masonry and windows and external re-decoration16/12/2014Consent
14/05722/FUL .Re-roofing, repairs to gutters, downpipes, masonry and windows and external re-decoration16/12/2014Application Permitted
15/00344/FUL .Proposed re-roofing, repairs to copings, gutters and external re-decoration to gutters.28/01/2015Application Permitted
15/00345/LBA .External alterations to include re-roofing, repairs to copings, gutters and external re-decoration to gutters.28/01/2015Consent
15/01499/LBA .External alterations to include erection of glazed screen following demolition of existing to the north elevation of the art block and re-paint timber cladding.31/03/2015Consent
15/01498/FUL .Erection of glazed screen following demolition of existing to the north elevation of the art block.31/03/2015Application Permitted
15/02432/COND .Discharge of condition 2 attached to 14/05722/FUL (Re-roofing, repairs to gutters, downpipes, masonry and windows and external re-decoration)28/05/2015Condition Discharged
15/03720/COND .Discharge of condition 2 of application 14/05723/LBA (External alterations for re-roofing, repairs to gutters, downpipes, masonry and windows and external re-decoration)17/08/2015Condition Discharged
16/00756/LBA .Internal external alterations at ground floor to form reception/waiting area and new main office and new external flue to art block kiln room.17/02/2016Consent
16/00755/FUL .Internal alterations at ground floor to form reception/waiting area and new main office and installation of new external flue to art block kiln room.17/02/2016Application Permitted
16/01864/TCA .Works to trees 631, 633, 636, 678, 680, 681, 685, 686, 706, 715, 716, 723, 731, 747, 749, 750, 755, 774, 790, 805, 814 listed in submitted report.11/04/2016No Objection
16/02581/LBA .Internal and external work to replace existing boiler and flue (main building, entrance side at roof level)23/05/2016Consent
16/02822/COND .Discharge of condition 3 of application 15/00345/LBA (External alterations to include re-roofing, repairs to copings, gutters and external re-decoration to gutters.)06/06/2016Condition Discharged
16/02938/TCA .To carry out work to the following tree: (as detailed in the attached arboricultural by O Frost Arboriculture 28th April 2016) T809 - Beech - remove10/06/2016No Objection
17/02198/FUL .Resurfacing of all-weather hockey pitch, netball court and footpath.09/05/2017Application Permitted
18/01381/LBA .Internal alterations to facilitate new staff accommodation including the removal of partition walling and doors, re-subdivision of rooms, alteration and refurbishment of existing kitchen and bathroom, alterations to fire safety works and replacement of the first floor ceiling with a 60 minutes fire separation.26/03/2018Consent
18/02361/FUL .Installation of handrails to two flights of external steps.29/05/2018Application Permitted
18/02362/LBA .External alterations to install handrails to two flights of external steps.29/05/2018Consent
18/03709/AR .Installation of 4 aluminium pole & panel signs.17/08/2018Consent
18/04598/TCA .T676- Horse Chestnut - Reduce upper crown by 3 metres throughout to reduce wind loading.T664 - Horse Chestnut - Reduce limbs crown by 3 metres using pruning wounds less than 75mm in diameter. Install a stainless steel fixed bar brace above union to restrict movement in union.T3512 - Cherry - Removal of tree.T3513 - Horse Chestnut - Reduce lower limb over road by 30% of volume to reduce loading.T3517 - Beech - Reduce ends of lower limbs by 3 metres to appropriate unions to reduce loading on downward curved limbs.15/10/2018No Objection
18/05475/FUL .Erection of new educational building for use as a Dance and Fitness Studio, landscaping and associated works; temporary service trench and low level bollard lighting to create safe pedestrian link to the Gatehouse.07/12/2018Pending Consideration
18/05640/FUL .Resurfacing of existing car park off Richmond Road. Extension of car park to provide 11 additional parking spaces. Landscaping and associated works.20/12/2018Pending 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
Jan & Steve Clare 2 Richmond Road, Beacon Hill, Bath, Bath And North East Somerset, BA1 5TU O 20/01/2019: We object to this application on the following grounds:
The proposed new building id disproportionately large, bulky, and overly imposing.
It has migrated too far towards Richmond Rd., thereby significantly multiplying the visual negative impact, whilst causing the building to be overly dominant in its surroundings.
Accordingly, it does not compliment the semi rural neighbourhood.
The stark design and proposed building materials do not harmonise with either the existing school buildings nor the wider locality, which magnifies the negative effect of the scheme.
It is our contention therefore that the application in its current guise should be refused.

20/01/2019
Sarah & David Rowlands Braeside, 19 Van Diemen's Lane, Lansdown, Bath, Bath And North East Somerset, BA1 5TW R 20/01/2019: The proposed building in a conservation area is out of keeping with all the historical school buildings and obliterates the view of them from the length of Richmond Rd.
The height is misleading in its claim to be single storey and appears as an aesthetically ugly oblong block. We do not understand why it is placed forward of the old dark wood huts rather than on their original footprint further back, as it is adding to a messy, cluttered and incohesive collection of buildings.
It should be redesigned to more sympathetically engage with surrounding buildings such as the Art block and Sports Hall and removing the wooden buildings next to it.
Lastly a better study of noise levels triggered by the use of the proposed new building as well as the roof plant should be carried out.
20/01/2019
Rob Dunton & Linda Blair 9 Richmond Road, Beacon Hill, Bath, Bath And North East Somerset, BA1 5TU O 23/01/2019: The proposal to build the new Dance and Fitness Studio is not unwelcome as it is clearly a valuable facility for The Royal High School, however further work is needed in the design development to produce a building worthy of this prominent site within a Conservation Area and the established landscape of the school. The Design and Access Statement refers to refinements made since the previous Pre-App submission, but in our view more needs to be done. Taken in the context of the backdrop of Wilson's original building and Habershon's subsequent alterations, the design proposal lacks refinement or articulation: qualities which were displayed more adequately in the recent art school building adjoining the proposal site, even accepting that sports buildings are, by definition, liable to be bulky. We agree with the principle that a contemporary approach is appropriate and utilisation of stone is quite unnecessary, but the volume needs reconsidering as the current design blocks any view of the 19th century ensemble from Nos. 8-12 Richmond Road, and this does not need to be the case. The central dance studio utilises a ceiling height of 4.5m (14' 8"), but a further 900mm is designated for plant space and a relatively deep roof structure creates an external parapet height in excess of 7m. This does not need to be so high, even accepting the ceiling height, as ventilation ducts need not require a separate void and a more efficient roof structure could be chosen, bringing the parapet height within a more acceptable 5.5 - 6m. We understand the current floor level has been lowered from earlier designs, but a further reduction of 500mm would make a substantial difference to the apparent bulk.

The wall planes lack any articulation which might have the effect of breaking down the visual bulk of the building and introducing some verticality to counter the spreading horizontality of the current design. Even minor break-forward elements would radically improve the proportion, helped by the contrast between the render (which should be lime render) and the cedar boarding, which could be improved with virtually no cost implications. We regret that despite the 'sustainability report' a large array of air-conditioning condensers is shown on the roof, when natural ventilation is currently to be preferred on energy conservation grounds. Such a large quantity of plant has had the effect of skewing the symmetry of the east elevation, requiring a large increase in the parapet height to conceal them, and it is well known that (despite acoustic reports) most condensers become noisy after a few years of operation, which residents will have to endure on hot summer evenings.

Above all, residents are not satisfied that the construction sequence plan "can be agreed with the appointed contractor". Richmond Road residents have just endured several years of continuous noise and disruption from the School's re-roofing project. During this period the staff car-park was appropriated as a contractor's compound, and this application seeks to repeat this disruptive arrangement. Those living opposite have had to endure years of commercial vehicle movements, 36 tonne delivery trucks blocking the road, tele-handlers and forklift truck reversing 'bleeps' from 07.00 hours and numerous materials deliveries temporarily blocking Richmond Road at peak-hour times, with no attempt to manage the consequences. Displacement of staff car-parking has resulted in parking either blocking driveways or at such close proximity to block any visibility when emerging. It is not acceptable to repeat this arrangement, so the project manager and contractor will be required to agree a new site compound and delivery regime with the Richmond Road Residents' Association before any tender is accepted.

23/01/2019
Christopher Melbourne 11 Richmond Road, Beacon Hill, Bath, Bath And North East Somerset, BA1 5TU O 23/01/2019: Whilst I do not object to the RHS creating a new dance studio in their grounds, I do object to the location and size of the proposed dance studio.
1) Visual
a. The Landscape and Visual Appraisal (page 24) states that “The school and the site lie within the Bath World Heritage Site and a Conservation Area and several buildings within the school grounds are listed. The site is overlooked by a hillside which lies within the Cotswolds Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty. As a result of these designations, and the high quality of the townscape, the area is considered to be highly sensitive to change.” and “As a result, overall, the proposed development will have a negligible visual impact to those within the surrounding townscape,”
b. However the proposed location, height and width of the Dance studio means that the building will be an overbearing blot on the landscape which completely destroys the current views across to the beautiful listed school buildings as shown on the front of the D&A.
c. The photograph and architect’s impression of the new building in situ superimposed onto the photograph (Landscape and Visual Appraisal Appendix) show very clearly that the visual impact is devastating.
d. Richmond Road is used by walkers, joggers, dog walkers and children/families walking to local schools who all enjoy the open aspect; the Design and Access statement also describes the Richmond Road area as semi-rural and states that the Dance studio respects the semi-rural location (page 8). The Dance studio destroys completely the semi-rural nature of the road and removes the last open view across fields from the school perimeter.
e. The Dance studio, with an estimated total height of ~11.5m (7m building height elevated by ~4.5m above the car park) and width of ~30m is only ~30 - 35m from the pavement so it will present a massive elevation and width to pedestrians. It will also be very visible and imposing from the ground floors and bedrooms of all adjacent houses.
2) Location
a. The dance studio would be better sited adjacent to the very high and wide sports centre as it would then have almost negligible visual impact and would maintain the semi-rural setting of this conservation area. I would also assume this would be beneficial for the users of the Dance Studio. This location would involve re-siting the temporary wooden buildings. The RHS do not appear to have considered this option.
b. The dance studio could also be sited invisibly in the area behind the wall along Richmond Road, adjacent to the arts centre. This would then have no visual impact on pedestrians or residents and the wall would screen the 24 hour noise.
c. It is understandable that the school wishes to improve its facilities and grow in size but it seems reasonable to ask that new buildings are located centrally to maintain a clear margin around the perimeter for the benefit of the school and local residents.
3) Car Park Plan There are 2 plans submitted by the RHS – the dance studio and the enlarged car park. Why are these not considered together?
4) Community Consultation The summary of community consultation (Planning statement 2.21 Page 10) focuses entirely on traffic issues and makes no mention of the great number of objections to the location and vast size of the previous sports hall proposal. It is factually incorrect. There has been no neighbourhood consultation on this application.
5) Noise and lighting In the proposed location the access lights and plant noise will interfere with the local residents and indeed it is stated in the noise forecast (page 21) that it will exceed local authority criteria. The Noise Impact Assessment is extensive but it is not clear whether the test data was acquired in school term and whether the builders yard used for the chapel roof works was in use on the test days. Some days the builders yard has been extremely noisy and others less so. Any assessment of noise impact should be made a) during school holidays when there is no school noise b) when the school is in use and c) with the additional plant. As residents we are concerned with the total noise created by the school not just the additional noise created by the additional plant servicing the Dance Studio. Additionally noise will arise from pupils going into and out of the studio, but hopefully not from music etc inside the studio escaping.
6) Surface water run off The Design and Access Statement (page 8) states that run-off has not been an issue with this site previously. This is incorrect. Richmond Road has no surface water drainage so it is easily flooded by run-off. BATHNES council has been aware of this problem for at least 16 years (I have copies of correspondence dated 2002).
7) Ecology The area is used all year round by owls and other birds, bats, foxes and badgers, and, apart from some winter months, by toads and butterflies etc. The location of this massive building is only ~18m from one copse and 5m from the other so I cannot see how the light and noise will not have an impact on the local wildlife.
24/01/2019 This comment also has associated documents: Documents Tab
Rob And Sally Kendall Deepdene, Charlcombe Lane, Lansdown, Bath, Bath And North East Somerset, BA1 5TT O 24/01/2019: The Design and Access statement confirms ‘The application site is situated within the UNESCO World Heritage Site; within Area 2 of the Bath City-Wide Conservation Area Appraisal 11; and within Zone 37 of the Bath Archaeological Character Assessment.’

BANES website includes information on ‘Living in a Conservation Area’. Below are extracts which have particular relevance to this case;

‘A conservation area is an area of special architectural or historic interest, the character and appearance of which is it is desirable to preserve or enhance.’

‘It is the character of the area, the familiar and cherished local scene, that conservation and designation seek to protect’.

‘The emphasis within conservation areas is on ensuring local character is strengthened, not diminished’.

‘Stricter planning controls within a conservation area’.

‘The Council will require new building work to preserve/enhance the existing character or appearance of the conservation area. Special regard should be given to such matters a scale, height, massing, detailed design and quality of materials in the interests of harmonising the new development with its neighbours.’

‘There are many instances where a seemingly small alteration can damage the historic character and appearance of an area, including painting or rendering’

‘Density of development is an intrinsic part of the character of conservation areas’.

The proposed building appears too bulky, too high and at odds with conservation requirements. The scale will not only dominate the setting but also have a negative visual impact on the area for neighbouring properties as the Landscape Environment report confirms. The proposed planting scheme seems insufficient. Making substantial landscaping along the Richmond Road boundary conditional would be an improvement, but overall the building does not appear to comply with conservation policies.



24/01/2019
Sian Smith-Lickess 30 Vellore Lane, Bathwick, Bath, Bath And North East Somerset, BA2 6JQ O 24/01/2019: I am opposed to the proposed Dance Studio / Fitness Centre as it will have a detrimental visual and noise impact on the surrounding conservation area and residential houses. For the reasons listed by various others, it will completely change the current street view, due to the size and style of the structure, increase noise levels 24/7 and exacerbate existing traffic / parking issues.

There is massive concern over the noise levels from the 24/7 running of the plant machinery and air conditioning. There is also concern once the Studio is in use over the noise leakage and vibrations from the audio equipment and music being played especially as the studio will be used in the evenings as well as during the day.

Describing it as a “single storey building” is highly misleading.
The height of the building will be in fact higher than the average single storey in this area especially as its proposed site will mean it is on an elevated position. There is also the plant machinery / solar panels and ladders that are depicted to protrude above the building.

The impact will be extremely obtrusive and invasive from the properties immediately facing the building, i.e. numbers 7, 8, 9, 9A, 10, 11 & 12 (opposite) and will change the landscape of this semi-rural conservation area.
24/01/2019
Elaine Teh 9A Richmond Road, Beacon Hill, Bath, Bath And North East Somerset, BA1 5TU O 24/01/2019: I strongly object to the proposed Dance and Fitness Centre as it will have a detrimental visual and noise impact on the local residents.

Visual impact

I agree with previous comments that the structure is overbearing with a massive lateral bulk and height, and a visually jarring colour - overall it sits oddly and uncomfortably in this semi-rural setting.

It is purported to be a single-storey building, but in fact due to its proposed siting on an elevated slope coupled with the equipment on the roof, it will be much higher than the average single storey in this surrounding area. There are also plans for very large windows on the front façade that will look directly onto the 1st floor of the houses opposite and as a result will be extremely obtrusive for passers-by and residents in particular for numbers 7, 8, 9, 9A, 10, 11 & 12 Richmond Road. The school’s visual impact statement claiming that it is not negligible is actually very misleading on this point.

Not only will the building negatively impact visually on the view of the houses on this road, the planned studio will take up a considerable amount of space in an otherwise green/semi-rural area and the view of the Grade 2 listed school buildings will be lost to all and obliterated by this new building. This has a very negative impact on the residents and pedestrians along the road. It would make far more sense for very high dance studio to be located nearer to the sports hall.

Please note that the Planning Statement summary of community consultation includes a list of objections on the original planning proposal that are almost entirely devoted to traffic. This is factually incorrect as there were a large number of objections to the size, look and scale of the building which appear to have been ignored in this application.

Noise levels

There is a massive concern over the noise levels that will be generated by the 24-hour machinery and air conditioning. There is also concern once the Studio is in use over the noise leakage and vibrations from the audio equipment and music being played.

There is no estimate of sound levels when sessions are in progress. Noise levels (however low) from 24/7 running of the plant will further increase the negative effect of the whole.

Furthermore, the screening of the car park site due to take place in plans of 6 January 2000 was never carried out. This suggests that current plans for screening are also doubtful. (See Application 98/00688/FUL, Section 3: Car Park off Richmond Road, p4/7, para 3.2 Description of the Proposed Car Park.)
Car Park use as construction site

Residents have already suffered years of noise and traffic of heavy machinery during work on the chapel roof and other works and the site has only recently been cleared. Further extension of this area as a larger construction site is not welcome.

Together with other residents of Richmond Road, we suggest a redesign that
1. Considers repositioning the studio further back into school grounds and closer to the existing Sports Hall or that better integrates the studio into the present semi-rural scene.
2. Places the construction site offices and machinery in a different part of the school grounds.
24/01/2019
Katie McGill Garden Flat, Fairfield House, Fairfield Road, Fairfield Park, Bath, BA1 6JQ, O 24/01/2019: I strongly object to the proposed Dance and Fitness Centre as it will have a detrimental visual and noise impact on the surrounding residential area.

Visual impact

The structure is overbearing and ontrusive - overall it sits oddly and uncomfortably in this semi-rural setting. 

It is purported to be a single-storey building, but in fact due to its proposed siting on an elevated slope coupled with the equipment on the roof, it will be much higher than the average single storey in this surrounding area. There are also plans for very large windows on the front façade that will look directly onto the 1st floor of the houses opposite and as a result will be extremely obtrusive and invasive in particular for numbers 7, 8, 9, 9A, 10, 11 & 12 Richmond Road. The school’s visual impact statement claiming that it is not negligible is actually very misleading on this point.

Not only will the building negatively impact visually on the view of the houses on this road, the planned studio will take up a considerable amount of space in an otherwise green/semi-rural area and the view of the Grade 2 listed school buildings will be lost to all and obliterated by this new building. This has a very negative impact on the residents and pedestrians along the road. It would make far more sense for very high dance studio to be located nearer to the sports hall. 

Noise levels

There is a massive concern over the noise levels from the 24/7 running of the plant machinery and air conditioning. There is also concern once the Studio is in use over the noise leakage and vibrations from the audio equipment and music being played.

Residents have already suffered years of noise and traffic of heavy machinery during work on the chapel roof and other works and the site has only recently been cleared. Further extension of this area as a larger construction site is not welcome. 

We propose a redesign that
1. Considers repositioning the studio further back into school grounds and closer to the existing Sports Hall or that better integrates the studio into the present semi-rural scene. 
2. Places the construction site offices and machinery in a different part of the school grounds. 
24/01/2019
Philippa Andrews Valley View House, Richmond Close, Beacon Hill, Bath, Bath And North East Somerset, BA1 5PY O 08/01/2019: I object to this application because although it is described as single storey, at 7 metres in height ( due to the equipment on the roof), it will have a much greater visual impact than implied by the words 'single storey'. This massive block of a building will spoil the view for all the many local pedestrians as well as those who live opposite. 08/01/2019
David Andrews Valley View House, Richmond Close, Beacon Hill, Bath, Bath And North East Somerset, BA1 5PY O 08/01/2019: I object to the proposed dance studio at the back of the RHS. It is not a single storey building at a height of 7m including extensive equipment. It is of no architectural merit whatsoever and just adds to a conglomeration of outbuildings visible to walkers in a semi- rural area of outstanding beauty. 08/01/2019
Linda And Mike Renton 12A Richmond Road, Beacon Hill, Bath, Bath And North East Somerset, BA1 5TU O 16/01/2019: 2019 objections to Royal School Dance and Fitness Centre
Application ref: 18/05475/FUL : 17 December 2018

We strongly object to the proposed Dance and Fitness Centre for the following reasons:

Visual Impact
1. The structure is overbearing, with a massive lateral bulk and height and its colour – a reddish brown - sits oddly and uncomfortably in this semi-rural setting .
2. Landscape and Visual Appraisal Part 2, 20 November 2018, Summary and Conclusion, p.24 describes the proposed development as having a ‘negligible visual impact to those within the existing townscape.’ This is untrue on two counts:
(i) The design, a brutal brown block, sits oddly in front of the school’s listed buildings which it screens from view. There is no attempt to integrate the design with the older buildings or with the semi-rural setting.
(ii) The term ‘townscape’ in the L&VA statement above is misleading and is at odds with Design and Access Statement November 2018, p4, ‘Site Assessment 2.3: Surrounding Environment’ that ‘The road has a semi-rural feel’. And as a semi-rural road, many people enjoy walking it, particularly at the weekends.
Sound Levels
1. There is no estimate of sound levels when sessions are in progress.
2. Noise levels (however low) from 24/7 running of the plant will further increase the negative effect of the whole.
Screening of the Site
1. Screening of the site will not compensate for the erosion of this green open space.
2. The screening of the car park site due to take place in plans of 6 January 2000 was never carried out. This suggests that current plans for screening are also doubtful. (See Application 98/00688/FUL, Section 3: Car Park off Richmond Road, p4/7, para 3.2 Description of the Proposed Car Park.)
Car Park use as construction site
Residents have already suffered years of noise and traffic of heavy machinery during work on the chapel roof and other works and the site has only recently been cleared. Further extension of this area as a larger construction site is not welcome.
Car park extension
Extension of the car park will further erode the semi-rural nature of the site at this point, and car park lighting and sound will increase that loss.
We suggest a redesign that
1. Integrates the centre into the present semi-rural scene.
2. Places the construction site offices and machinery in a different part of the school grounds.
16/01/2019
Maria Melbourne 11 Richmond Road, Beacon Hill, Bath, Bath And North East Somerset, BA1 5TU O 23/01/2019: Royal High School (RHS) planning application Dance Studio January 2019 Application reference: 18/05475/FUL received on 07/12/2018
Planning Portal reference: PP-06694332

Initial concerns.
I am concerned that this application was made immediately prior to the Christmas holiday period when people are away. Since the New Year when all plans were finally available on-line I have taken time to review the submission. The application for the Dance Studio and the Car Park extension should be reviewed together as both need careful consideration and there are numerous contradictory statements. As I am objecting to certain aspects of both applications some points will be repeated.

The general public who use the road for recreational and domestic purposes will not have noticed this application but will be shocked by the visual impact of this colossus so high and close to the road.

There is currently no option to view a scale plan of the proposed buildings, as the previous sports barn proposal has been considered as the first part of the consultation for this new application. As the Sport’s Barn did not progress to application, partly as a result of objections by neighbours of the RHS against the scale and bulk of the development, it would have been neighbourly to have shared detailed new plans in advance of a new submission.

The RHS planning Design and Access Statement November 2018 states that the school is within the Bath Conservation Area. My expectation is for a design that is 100% environmentally sympathetic.

If the fitness centre and /or dance centre was built closer to the heart of the school it would be less visible from the road and presumably more integrated with the rest of the school. The planning application Aaron Evans 4.0 Design notes 2 other options closer to the centre that were considered but were dismissed. It is still not too late to reconsidered both of these especially site A as only 50% of the available space would be used and all of the project briefs would be met.

Should the application in an unrevised format pass the planning stage, I am, in advance, requesting that you arrange for the application to go to the full council planning committee.


Dance Studio

The Design and Access statement page 1. 6.00. Stresses “The centre has been carefully sited away from residences on Richmond Road, in a location that can be accessed on foot and by vehicle, with nearby parking (see objection to car park) and a direct connection to the main School.

I object to the location and size of the building. If the building was situated adjacent the sports hall to avoid dominating the road I would not object.



Lateral bulk
• The wide span of the building will extend approx. 30 metres and will be seen as a solid block from the houses directly facing the school (numbers 6 through to 12). The application states the building has been articulated to break up the building mass when viewed from Richmond Road. The new dance studio will be visible from neighbouring houses in Richmond Road from the garden, ground floor and bedroom levels.

• The photograph and architects impression of the street view in the Appendix to the Design and Access Statement submitted in the application have been taken at a diagonal angle from Number 6 Richmond Road which reduces the apparent size of the building. The impact will be far worse from the properties immediate facing the building, i.e. numbers 7, 8, 9, 9A, 10, 11 & 12 (opposite).

Height

• The design is totally overbearing, it is stark in contrast to the listed buildings, and its design would be better suited to an industrial environment, it completely changes the current street view, due to immediate visual impact.

• The height of the building is stated as single storey but in fact is 7 metres and this is on top of .the elevation of approximately 3 meters above the car park, which again is above the footpath at the side of the road. This means that the total height above the footpath and road is approximately 10 metres. This does not constitute a single storey building.

• the plant on the roof could be located elsewhere to reduce the overall height.

• the dance studio appears to be higher than that recommended by the sports England website

https://www.sportengland.org/media/4203/fitness-and-exercise-spaces.pdf page 26
Standard dance studio (30 to 35 person) 12 - 15 x 12 15 x 4.5m Large dance studio 15 x 17 x 5m /36.

• Sinking of the new building, will reduce some impact but viewing Landscape appraisal page 5 the south view illustrates the building on top of the incline, making the visible height impact far greater than just the 7 metres suggested, plus the solar panels partially project above the cladded walls as shown on page 4.

• The Planning Statement says that the building has been designed to be highly sustainable, but the total mass of the building will need a lot of


5.4 the studio will be partly visible from Richmond Road only.

This is not correct. The mass of the proposed building and design will be intrusive, and not empathetic within a semi-rural setting. I invite the planning committee to view the proposed site from my garden and home to appreciate the overbearing impact of the finished studio. The studio as designed is creating a potential overpowering change to the horizon.


Elsewhere in the Planning Statement November 2018 (planningsphere) I note

5.16 The building will be clearly seen from a section of Richmond Road –correct- contrary to a number of other mitigation statements made elsewhere in submitted documents.

3.3 The facility will be used entirely by existing pupils at the school. Community use is neither desirable or feasible as this would potentially limit the use of the facility for pupils (due to the need to follow safeguarding requirements). In order to achieve the maximum benefit from the new facility, it is proposed that pupils have access to the facility during the school day and (for boarders) into the evenings.

If the 3.3 is in the planning statement I would expect this to be the case with no change of use.

Additional Factors

A. Water drainage

The submitted documents reference The National Planning Policy Framework (NRPF) March 2012 revised in July 2018 and the reader’s attention is drawn to paragraph 170. Noted: unacceptable risk from soil, air, water and noise pollution or land instability.

As major land works are proposed it is vital before any permission is granted that a water table assessment is completed to avoid any increase of risk.

• Due to the incline of the land and natural springs in the school grounds
• There are no road drains in the section of the road below the proposed new build.
• Rain water flows down from the school and across the road and into the gardens of the adjacent properties. Heavy rain can cause flash flooding of driveways and some garages. Any increased risk is unacceptable.

B. Noise/acoustics (Noise Impact assessment)

The National Policy quoted above is further referenced quoting paragraph 180. To identify and protect tranquil areas which remain reality undisturbed by noise and prized for their recreational value for this reason.

Interestingly the document states
• it does not prescribe any assessment methodology or criteria to assess the adverse effect of noise.
• Page 8 records the planning need is outside the scope of noise and acoustics and will need to be addressed by others. Please can the local authority confirm who will advise? This is especially as the consultants suggest the noise impact might meet the national standard but not the Bath Local Authority Criteria.
• The building will have 2 air handling units and 4 heating units that could operate 24 hours a day according to demand.
• The tests were completed at a height of 4 metres above ground page 18. Please can I ask if tested at 7 metres the proposed height of the building would this vary the reading?
• Is there a reason why the LT2 sound test in Richmond Road was made at the far end of the proposed development, not in the middle area of the building?
• Can I also question how noise from the building will be monitored? Given it is sealed building with air conditioning will there be none?
• The building will be used throughout the week and the noise of pupils entering and leaving the building will travel.


Impact on trees and environment and nature.

Landscape and Visual appraisal.” The quality of the townscape is High and the visual
sensitivity of people within the environs of the site is High.”

The topography means Richmond Road looks up to the site, the new car park and then dance studio become the focus of view as the older buildings will now be mainly hidden.

As previously stated in background information the shrub and screening planting approved did not take place according 1998 approved plan. The proposal is now to augment the immature trees that replaced fallen trees with new planting.

All retrospective planting and new planting must be compulsory.

Light pollution.
Lights shine throughout the night in the main school blocks. Having the dance studio integrated with the main buildings would make it safer. The internal lights of this building should not remain on at night.

Nature

Please note the stretch of Richmond Road starting from the end of the old school wall is the start of the semi-rural walk past the playing fields and onto Charlcombe Lane and the toad crossing area. Toads are seen in this area of Richmond Road.

Owls live in this locality so a new large building would disrupt their habitat.



23/01/2019
Jeremy Mann 10 Richmond Road, Beacon Hill, Bath, Bath And North East Somerset, BA1 5TU O 20/01/2019:
1. Firstly the overall height will be 8 m with the accompanying solar panels. The surrounding one storey buildings finish at 6m why are they asking for another 2 m in height?
I quote from the Sight lines conclusions available on the planning application". The site is overlooked by a hillside which lies within the Cotswolds Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty. As a result of these designations , and the high quality of the townscape , the area is considered to be highly sensitive to change. The proposed building will be single storey with a flat roof and approximately 7 m high, the existing Charlecombe Building adjacent to it is approximately 6 m high.
I wonder why the height of this new building is allowed to exceed the height of the other 1 story buildings on the site"

2. The pictures on the sitelines mockupare what is referred to on the picture as from no 6. !!!!!! It is actually a picture taken outside our house no 10! and the site is visible from 9a 10 11 and 12 Richmond road. The 6 refered to is actually "sightline 6 "

I again quote from the Banes website documents " Tree cover also restricts views into the site from the east but gaps in the canopies allow views in from a short section of Richmond Road and the upper windows of approximately four properties on the opposite side of the road. As a result, overall, the proposed development will have a negligible visual impact to those within the surrounding townscape, including views from the hillside within the AONB which affords views of the school grounds. The only visual impact of note will from the short section of Richmond Road and the adjacent properties but a small additional planting along the boundary will screen the proposed facility from view. The proposed facility will result in a loss of part of the lawn, resulting in a slight loss of openness,"
The impact on the view is not negligible as has been stated but can be easily seen from my front garden, kitchen window and upstairs windows . The very rural aspect of the road will be compromised.

3. We agree that a mock up picture of both plans ie. the building and the car park extension (18/05640/FUL) TAKEN AS A WHOLE should be undertaken so that we can see exactly what is being proposed, and what impact it will have on our outlook.

4. This is again taken from the Documents on the site ." The walls will be rendered in Bath stone colour except the Dance Studio ‘box’ which will be clad in vertical Western red cedar vertical boards. The ‘plinth’ will be in a mid-dark grey brick and the windows and doors will be dark grey. "
We can't see how the material of what the architect calls a BOX i.e. Western red cedar can be in keeping with the vernacular Bath stone buildings in the rest of Richmond road
5. The proposed landscaping planting must be fully scrutinised by the planning office as proposed landscaping in the last (1998) application for the car park was not undertaken.

22/01/2019 This comment also has associated documents: Documents Tab
J Houlson 9A Richmond Road, Beacon Hill, Bath, Bath And North East Somerset, BA1 5TU O 24/01/2019: I strongly object to the proposed Dance and Fitness Centre as it will have a detrimental visual and noise impact on the surrounding conservation area and residential houses. It will completely change the current street view, due to immediate visual impact, increase noise levels 24/7 and exacerbate existing traffic / parking issues caused by the school.

Visual impact

Lateral bulk
• The wide span of the building will extend approx. 30 metres and will be seen as a solid block from the houses directly facing the school (numbers 6 through to 12). The application states the building has been articulated to break up the building mass when viewed from Richmond Road. The new dance studio will be visible from neighbouring houses in Richmond Road from the garden, ground floor and bedroom levels. 

• The photograph and architects impression of the street view in the Appendix to the Design and Access Statement submitted in the application have been taken at a diagonal angle from Number 6 Richmond Road which reduces the apparent size of the building. The impact will be far more obtrusive and invasive from the properties immediately facing the building, i.e. numbers 7, 8, 9, 9A, 10, 11 & 12 (opposite).

Height

• Describing it as a “single storey building” is highly misleading.
The height of the building is in fact is 7 metres and this is on top of the elevation of approximately 3 meters above the car park, which again is above the footpath at the side of the road. This means that the total height above the footpath and road is approximately 10 metres. There is also the plant machinery / solar panels and ladders that are depicted to protrude above the building.

Noise levels

There is a massive concern over the noise levels from the 24/7 running of the plant machinery and air conditioning. There is also concern once the Studio is in use over the noise leakage and vibrations from the audio equipment and music being played especially as the school proposes that pupils (boarders) have access to the studio late into evenings.

Residents have already suffered years of noise and traffic of heavy machinery during work on the chapel roof and other works and the site has only recently been cleared. Further extension of this area as a larger construction site is not welcome. 

We propose a redesign that considers repositioning the studio further back into school grounds and closer to the existing Sports Hall. If the fitness centre and /or dance centre was built closer to the heart of the school it would be less visible from the road and presumably more integrated with the rest of the school. It is still not too late to reconsider.

The application for the Dance Studio and the Car Park extension should be reviewed together as both need careful consideration and there are numerous contradictory statements.

The RHS planning Design and Access Statement November 2018 states that the school is within the Bath Conservation Area. My expectation is for a design that is 100% environmentally sympathetic.

24/01/2019
Fran Cockhill 8 Richmond Road, Beacon Hill, Bath, Bath And North East Somerset, BA1 5TU O 29/01/2019: This new building would have a massive impact on Richmond Road, not only visually but also noise and light pollution, increase in traffic and parked cars. Because we have no pavement on the housing side of the road it is already extremely dangerous trying to get out of our drives and this new building will add to the risks. 29/01/2019
Chris And Shirley Kelly 12 Richmond Road, Beacon Hill, Bath, Bath And North East Somerset, BA1 5TU O 22/01/2019: We object to the building of a dance studio/fitness centre in its current form on the following grounds:

1. The impact of the new build on what is a conservation and semi rural area (Design & Access Statement para 2.3) should be assessed together with the School’s separate application for an enlarged car park. In order to ask residents/experts/Planners for their opinions as to the visual impact, a cohesive site plan/mock up and Townscape Appraisal (street scene) must be requested by the Planners BEFORE final comments are taken.

2. The Landscape & Visual Amenity report (LVI) concludes that visual impact on residents is “mainly from those upper windows which face school grounds”, page 17. I have offered access to my ground floor in order that this may be corrected as it most definitely is NOT limited to the upper floors. In absence of a visit, I attach a photo. In addition, the report concludes on the same page that in summer the impact is “negligible” and winter, “of minor significance”. This is a semi rural area, the visual impact is most definitely NOT of minor significance and nor is the building “in character with the existing educational establishment”, as it attempts to conclude on page 24.

3. The height of the new build is partly responsible for the visual impact on surroundings. Describing it as a “single storey building” is highly misleading. At 7 m in height with a flat roof with solar panels/ladders shown on some elevations to protrude above (the extent to which is unclear despite requests to the school for clarification) it is in complete contrast to the current 6m pitched roof wooden structures and will have a significant visual impact – with or without landscaping. It totally blocks the current view of the listed parts of the school (see Appendix 2 LVI) from Richmond Road (RR) – add a considerably larger carpark to the boundary and the impact is even greater. Other possible sites are alluded to, but their lack of suitability not explored in these reports.

4. The overall bulk of the new build in its current position is too great. Three boxes of a width not far from that of the current sports hall whilst at least 1m of the proposed height is merely to accommodate plant (why not site it school side and thus reduce the impact?). It is proposed to cut it into the bank by 0.7m – this does not go far enough in mitigating its impact.

5. Why is render considered appropriate? It will certainly mark it as a contemporary design but contrasts wildly with the dark wooden huts and traditional stone of the Listed Buildings. The use of a natural stone facing would surely reduce the impact and weather in over time.

6. It is currently sited 30 m to 50 m from the boundary (depending on which report you read – ALL are highly contradictory in many places), it could be sited much closer into the curtilage of the school replacing the wooden structures that sit there at present. One currently houses the gym, which will now be in the new build. These structures clearly have a limited lifespan and it isn’t too far fetched to assume that there will be a further planning request to encompass these at a future date into a larger sports facility ….

7. The original objections by the community were not limited to traffic concerns (as reported in the Planning Statement p10). This is highly misleading. Together with the lack of any further consultation it shows a blatant disregard for the community’s views and I would not want Planning misled in this manner.

8. In various documents the current carpark is shown as 21 spaces, thus a “small” increase of 6 spaces could be inferred. The reality is an increase from 17 at present to 27 places – which is an increase of 60%. I would hope that this inconsistency hasn’t deterred others from close reading of the second application.

9. Noise report – we do not believe that the sound system has been specified in any of the reports nor formed part of the Noise Impact Report. What are the hours of operation, do the windows open, what soundproofing would follow? We don’t believe the noise impact of day to day use of the facility has been considered at present.

10. Landscaping in its present form is too little and too immature – it will take many years to achieve any level of screening. In addition, because the carpark application is treated separately, should it fail and the dance studio continue, the current proposal for screening leaves the carpark having a continued impact on surroundings (original planning conditions for screening (1998) were never undertaken). A cohesive landscaping project should involve the entire RR boundary – an opportunity to put right what was previously promised.

11. The use of the current carpark as a compound - the original planning application was for a teacher’s carpark not a builder’s compound but for the last 4/5 years it’s majority use is as a compound, most recently with double height portacabins. PLEASE can the school devote space away from RR for the compound and temporarily create a contractor’s carpark on site to alleviate the pressure on the road? If they use the carpark again they must also consider where they will site the teachers cars during the build? The combined impact of contractor and teacher parking on RR is what jams it up and presents a danger to pedestrians and for St Stephen’s children in particular.

12. The use of the carpark as a compound contributed to the ill health of the two horse chestnut trees (Landscape Environment Team response dated 8/1/19). Whilst they can try to protect them, siting the compound elsewhere would remove any risk of further damage.
22/01/2019
Shaun & Jane Hill 13 Richmond Road, Beacon Hill, Bath, Bath And North East Somerset, BA1 5TU O 21/01/2019: We object to the proposed Dance and Fitness Centre for the following reasons:

Noise : The impact of additional constant noise on Richmond Road residents will affect the enjoyment of their homes and gardens. The plant on the roof of the centre will be running 24/7 so there will be no respite from this new intrusive noise. In addition, no assessment has been made of the sound levels from the use of the studio on nearby residents. This needs to be addressed especially as the design features large windows facing Richmond Road.

Size and position: The proposed design is an overbearing structure of massive lateral bulk which is too close to Richmond Road. The old existing wooden classrooms next to it must have a limited remaining lifespan. We suggest consideration be given to moving the Dance Centre closer to the Sports Hall to integrate it better with the permanent buildings.

Landscape and Screening: Please ensure the proposed planting to screen and enhance the school grounds and neighbourhood is carried out as has not been the case in the past.

21/01/2019
Diana Viles 1 Charlcombe Rise, Lansdown, Bath, Bath And North East Somerset, BA1 6LA O Documents Tab 20/01/2019
Jennifer Rakoczi 3 Richmond Road, Beacon Hill, Bath, Bath And North East Somerset, BA1 5TU R 31/01/2019: I support the Royal School's desire to build a Dance Hall and appreciate the beneficial effect that this will have on the health and education of its pupils.
However, according to the picture that I have seen, in my opinion, the building looks to be dominant and less attractive than other school buildings, which will impact both on those attending the school and on local residents. I would urge the school to make every reasonable effort to place and style the building more discreetly thus reducing any negative visual impact on the school community and local residents.
31/01/2019
Bath Preservation Trust Bath Preservation Trust , 1 Royal Crescent, City Centre, Bath, Bath And North East Somerset, BA1 2LR R 31/01/2019: Dance Studio: Whilst we have no objection to the principle of development of a new contemporary education building, we are concerned that the proposed materials and design of the building creates an unnecessarily dominant visual impact in this part of the conservation area. There are large areas of blank render proposed, and this creates a stark appearance that gives a sense of imposing bulk that is incongruous with local character. The design could be broken down with a more mixed palette of materials and articulated elements that can allow the building assimilate more comfortably with its open green setting. In particular it would be important for the areas of timber cladding to be of a natural finish and not stained, in order to weather to a muted natural patina. We question whether the building could be further cut into the slope to reduce the impression of bulk as well. The issue of landscaping for screening and breaking up the views will be important for the case officer to assess, as will the issue of light spill from the glazing and pathways to the building; we note the presence of both planting and lighting plans and assessments in the application. 31/01/2019
Rachel Siglow 7 Richmond Road, Beacon Hill, Bath, Bath And North East Somerset, BA1 5TU O 31/01/2019: I strongly object to the plans. The structure is overbearing, bulky and ontrusive - overall it sits oddly and uncomfortably in this semi-rural setting. is purported to be a single-storey building, but in fact due to its proposed siting on an elevated slope coupled with the equipment on the roof, it will be much higher than the average single storey in this surrounding area. 2019. This massive block of a building will spoil the view for all the many local pedestrians as well as those who live opposite.
It has migrated too far towards Richmond Rd., thereby significantly multiplying the visual negative impact, whilst causing the building to be overly dominant in its surroundings.
Accordingly, it does not compliment the semi rural neighbourhood. This rural country lane feel is very characteristic of Richmond Road and this would alter this significantly.
31/01/2019
Peter Cockhill 8 Richmond Road, Beacon Hill, Bath, Bath And North East Somerset, BA1 5TU R 31/01/2019: I see the car park allows for many more spaces( 27) than the previously agreed development in 1998 which allowed for 17 spaces.
This expansion will bring an unprecedented car use to Richmond Road with is already suffering from increased volume since the developments on the MOD land on Lansdown. We also argued strongly, and still do, for a 4 M thick foliage barrier between the car park and Richmond Road.

Although single storey and 'dug into the slope' the height of the building is imposing and obscures any view of the original school building.

The scale and use of this building will adversely impact the feeling of 'semi-rural Richmond Rd" which all the residents are entitled to.
31/01/2019
Niall Bowen Rannoch House, 1 Richmond Road, Beacon Hill, Bath, BA1 5TU, O 22/01/2019: My objection is based on the view that the brutal and modernistic proposed design of this dance and fitness studio conflicts directly with the listed period buildings of the school itself and is completely unsympathetic to the acknowledged semi-rural environment within which it sits. 22/01/2019