Planning Applications Reference:16/05219/EOUT

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

View Further Information
Type of Application:Outline Application with an EIA attached
Status:Pending Decision
Address of Proposal:Street Record, Fox Hill, Combe Down, Bath,
Ward:Combe Down
Proposal:Application for Outline planning permission for the redevelopment of the Foxhill Estate comprising:- the demolition of up to 542 dwellings;- the re-provision of up to 700 dwellings;- demolition and re-provision of the local centre to include up to 560 sq m of A1, A3, A4, A5 uses- all associated access roads, infrastructure, landscaping, open space and cycle/footways.(All matters reserved).
Decision Type:Planning Committee
Planning Portal Reference Number:PP-05530190
Environmental Impact Assessment Received:25/10/2016
Applicant Name:Curo Places Ltd
Agent Name:Barton Willmore Planning
Agent Address:101 Victoria Street, Bristol, BS1 6PU
Case Officer Name:Simon Metcalf
Date Application Received:24/10/2016
Date Application Validated:25/10/2016
Neighbourhood Consultations sent on:25/07/2017
Standard Consultations sent on:17/07/2017
Last advertised on:11/05/2017
Latest Site Notice posted on:11/05/2017
Expiry Date for Consultation :20/06/2017
Actual Committee Date:26/07/2017
For details of this Development Control Committee Meeting please visit the Councils Democracy Website.
Target Decision Date14/02/2017

Documents

ConstraintsAffordable Housing, Agric Land Class 3b,4,5, Article 4, Forest of Avon, Hotspring Protection, LLFA - Flood Risk Management, Local Shops, MOD Safeguarded Areas, SSSI - Impact Risk Zones, Water Source Areas, World Heritage Site
Related Property:1 Bradford Park,Combe Down,Bath,BA2 5PR.
Related Property:1 Kewstoke Road,Combe Down,Bath,BA2 5PU.
Related Property:1 Quantocks,Combe Down,Bath,BA2 5PF.
Related Property:1 Queen's Drive,Combe Down,Bath,BA2 5PA.
Related Property:10 Bradford Park,Combe Down,Bath,BA2 5PR.
Related Property:10 Kewstoke Road,Combe Down,Bath,BA2 5PU.
Related Property:10 Quantocks,Combe Down,Bath,BA2 5PF.
Related Property:10 Queen's Drive,Combe Down,Bath,BA2 5PA.
Related Property:10 Sedgemoor Road,Combe Down,Bath,BA2 5PJ.
Related Property:100 Queen's Drive,Combe Down,Bath,BA2 5PE.
Related Property:101 Bradford Road,Combe Down,Bath,BA2 5BR.
Related Property:101 Queen's Drive,Combe Down,Bath,BA2 5PD.
Related Property:102 Queen's Drive,Combe Down,Bath,BA2 5PE.
Related Property:103 Bradford Road,Combe Down,Bath,BA2 5BR.
Related Property:103 Queen's Drive,Combe Down,Bath,BA2 5PD.
Related Property:104 Queen's Drive,Combe Down,Bath,BA2 5PE.
Related Property:105 Bradford Road,Combe Down,Bath,BA2 5BR.
Related Property:105 Queen's Drive,Combe Down,Bath,BA2 5PD.
Related Property:106 Queen's Drive,Combe Down,Bath,BA2 5PE.
Related Property:107 Queen's Drive,Combe Down,Bath,BA2 5PD.
Related Property:108 Queen's Drive,Combe Down,Bath,BA2 5PE.
Related Property:109 Queen's Drive,Combe Down,Bath,BA2 5PD.
Related Property:11 Bradford Park,Combe Down,Bath,BA2 5PR.
Related Property:11 Kewstoke Road,Combe Down,Bath,BA2 5PU.
Related Property:11 Quantocks,Combe Down,Bath,BA2 5PF.
Related Property:11 Queen's Drive,Combe Down,Bath,BA2 5PA.
Related Property:110 Queen's Drive,Combe Down,Bath,BA2 5PE.
Related Property:111 Queen's Drive,Combe Down,Bath,BA2 5PD.
Related Property:112 Queen's Drive,Combe Down,Bath,BA2 5PE.
Related Property:114 Queen's Drive,Combe Down,Bath,BA2 5PE.
Related Property:116 Queen's Drive,Combe Down,Bath,BA2 5PE.
Related Property:118 Queen's Drive,Combe Down,Bath,BA2 5PE.
Related Property:12 Bradford Park,Combe Down,Bath,BA2 5PR.
Related Property:12 Kewstoke Road,Combe Down,Bath,BA2 5PU.
Related Property:12 Quantocks,Combe Down,Bath,BA2 5PF.
Related Property:12 Queen's Drive,Combe Down,Bath,BA2 5PA.
Related Property:12 Sedgemoor Road,Combe Down,Bath,BA2 5PJ.
Related Property:120 Queen's Drive,Combe Down,Bath,BA2 5PE.
Related Property:122 Queen's Drive,Combe Down,Bath,BA2 5PE.
Related Property:123 Bradford Road,Combe Down,Bath,BA2 5BR.
Related Property:124 Queen's Drive,Combe Down,Bath,BA2 5PE.
Related Property:125 Bradford Road,Combe Down,Bath,BA2 5BR.
Related Property:127 Bradford Road,Combe Down,Bath,BA2 5BR.
Related Property:13 Bradford Park,Combe Down,Bath,BA2 5PR.
Related Property:13 Fox Hill,Combe Down,Bath,BA2 5QL.
Related Property:13 Kewstoke Road,Combe Down,Bath,BA2 5PU.
Related Property:13 Quantocks,Combe Down,Bath,BA2 5PF.
Related Property:14 Bradford Park,Combe Down,Bath,BA2 5PR.
Related Property:14 Kewstoke Road,Combe Down,Bath,BA2 5PU.
Related Property:14 Quantocks,Combe Down,Bath,BA2 5PF.
Related Property:14 Queen's Drive,Combe Down,Bath,BA2 5PA.
Related Property:14 Sedgemoor Road,Combe Down,Bath,BA2 5PJ.
Related Property:15 Bradford Park,Combe Down,Bath,BA2 5PR.
Related Property:15 Kewstoke Road,Combe Down,Bath,BA2 5PU.
Related Property:15 Quantocks,Combe Down,Bath,BA2 5PF.
Related Property:15 Queen's Drive,Combe Down,Bath,BA2 5PA.
Related Property:16 Bradford Park,Combe Down,Bath,BA2 5PR.
Related Property:16 Kewstoke Road,Combe Down,Bath,BA2 5PU.
Related Property:16 Quantocks,Combe Down,Bath,BA2 5PF.
Related Property:16 Queen's Drive,Combe Down,Bath,BA2 5PA.
Related Property:16 Sedgemoor Road,Combe Down,Bath,BA2 5PJ.
Related Property:17 Bradford Park,Combe Down,Bath,BA2 5PR.
Related Property:17 Kewstoke Road,Combe Down,Bath,BA2 5PU.
Related Property:17 Quantocks,Combe Down,Bath,BA2 5PF.
Related Property:17 Queen's Drive,Combe Down,Bath,BA2 5PA.
Related Property:18 Bradford Park,Combe Down,Bath,BA2 5PR.
Related Property:18 Kewstoke Road,Combe Down,Bath,BA2 5PU.
Related Property:18 Quantocks,Combe Down,Bath,BA2 5PF.
Related Property:18 Queen's Drive,Combe Down,Bath,BA2 5PA.
Related Property:18 Sedgemoor Road,Combe Down,Bath,BA2 5PJ.
Related Property:19 Bradford Park,Combe Down,Bath,BA2 5PR.
Related Property:19 Kewstoke Road,Combe Down,Bath,BA2 5PU.
Related Property:19 Quantocks,Combe Down,Bath,BA2 5PF.
Related Property:19 Queen's Drive,Combe Down,Bath,BA2 5PA.
Related Property:2 Bradford Park,Combe Down,Bath,BA2 5PR.
Related Property:2 Kewstoke Road,Combe Down,Bath,BA2 5PU.
Related Property:2 Quantocks,Combe Down,Bath,BA2 5PF.
Related Property:2 Queen's Drive,Combe Down,Bath,BA2 5PA.
Related Property:2 Sedgemoor Road,Combe Down,Bath,BA2 5PJ.
Related Property:20 Bradford Park,Combe Down,Bath,BA2 5PR.
Related Property:20 Kewstoke Road,Combe Down,Bath,BA2 5PU.
Related Property:20 Quantocks,Combe Down,Bath,BA2 5PF.
Related Property:20 Queen's Drive,Combe Down,Bath,BA2 5PA.
Related Property:20 Sedgemoor Road,Combe Down,Bath,BA2 5PJ.
Related Property:21 Bradford Park,Combe Down,Bath,BA2 5PR.
Related Property:21 Kewstoke Road,Combe Down,Bath,BA2 5PU.
Related Property:21 Quantocks,Combe Down,Bath,BA2 5PF.
Related Property:21 Queen's Drive,Combe Down,Bath,BA2 5PA.
Related Property:22 Bradford Park,Combe Down,Bath,BA2 5PR.
Related Property:22 Kewstoke Road,Combe Down,Bath,BA2 5PU.
Related Property:22 Quantocks,Combe Down,Bath,BA2 5PF.
Related Property:22 Queen's Drive,Combe Down,Bath,BA2 5PA.
Related Property:22 Sedgemoor Road,Combe Down,Bath,BA2 5PJ.
Related Property:23 Bradford Park,Combe Down,Bath,BA2 5PR.
Related Property:23 Kewstoke Road,Combe Down,Bath,BA2 5PU.
Related Property:23 Quantocks,Combe Down,Bath,BA2 5PF.
Related Property:23 Queen's Drive,Combe Down,Bath,BA2 5PA.
Related Property:24 Bradford Park,Combe Down,Bath,BA2 5PR.
Related Property:24 Kewstoke Road,Combe Down,Bath,BA2 5PU.
Reference Proposal Application Received Status
13/01362/TEL .Installation of 1 x DSLAM telecommunications cabinet O/S 12A Fox Hill, Bath, BA2 5QL (PCP001)28/03/2013Approve
16/02440/SCOPE .Request for scoping opinion for Foxhill Estate, Bath.13/05/2016
16/05219/EOUT .Application for Outline planning permission for the redevelopment of the Foxhill Estate comprising:- the demolition of up to 542 dwellings;- the re-provision of up to 700 dwellings;- demolition and re-provision of the local centre to include up to 560 sq m of A1, A3, A4, A5 uses- all associated access roads, infrastructure, landscaping, open space and cycle/footways.(All matters reserved).24/10/2016Pending Decision

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
Mike Watts 29 Kelston Mills, Kelston, Bath, Bath And North East Somerset, BA1 9AL O 19/05/2017:
I object to the proposed regeneration and to such large scale demolition of a lively community.

My reasons for the objection are:

1) Home owners are not receiving a fair offer from Curo as they are not really given a choice if they wish to remain in the area.
They would be forced into shared ownership with Curo as the market value they are being offered would not allow them to purchase an equivalent home elsewhere in Bath. These people OWN their property and should be heard and respected – or offered a deal that gives them the flexibility to move to wherever they wish in Bath.

2) The fact that the project actually results in a net LOSS of social housing defeats the purpose

3) Demolishing 542 homes is an extremely destructive measure and should not be approved by the Council. Curo should build a higher number of homes on Mulberry Park if they wish to build more homes.

4) It is shocking to imagine what the community is going through, and how residents have been living in fear and uncertainty for over 3 years with no end in sight. I believe that people need security and reassurance, and particularly home owners should have the right to have the security of their homes guaranteed.

5) Elderly people should not be put through such upheaval at this point in their life

6) Having grown up in Foxhill and knowing many people in the area I disagree with the statement that Foxhill residents feel isolated and that they feel disadvantaged. There is a strong community spirit, and building with such density would not lead to any social improvement.
02/06/2017
Wendy Mills 29 Kelston Mills, Kelston, Bath, Bath And North East Somerset, BA1 9AL O 19/05/2017:
I object to the proposed regeneration and to such large scale demolition of homes that are in good order.

My reasons for the objection are:

1) The whole project defeats the purpose with the loss of social housing

2) The offer that Curo is making home owners is neither fair nor affordable. People who will receive LESS than £200,000 as market value for their 2 bedroom house are not able to buy an equivalent property elsewhere in Bath. Is this legal? I believe that if it came to compulsory purchase orders (and the Council have stated in writing that they are NOT looking to approve CPOs) people need to be in the same position as they are now. They should not be forced into shared ownership with Curo, or alternatively be forced out of Foxhill as they cannot afford to buy 100% of a new Curo home.

3) Demolishing 542 homes is an extremely destructive measure and should not be approved by the Council. Curo should build a higher number of homes on Mulberry Park if they wish to build more homes.

4) Home owners should have their homes guaranteed right now. It goes against human rights to rob residents of their sense of safety by leaving them in uncertainty for years without an end in sight. As the Council has already stated in writing that they are not anticipating any CPOs I am unclear why Curo has not done a detailed consultation with home owners before submitting an outline planning permission that is seeking to demolish 95 privately owned homes? Most home owners do not want to sell, so why are Curo pushing against this if they don't even have backing from the Council in relation to acquiring those homes? It appears to be a very conflicting and aggressive approach.

5) Elderly people should not be put through such upheaval at this point in their life

6) The Council should put a stop on this project right now. Curo have enough space to build on Mulberry Park. There is no need to destroy an entire community, to take away people's social network, to demolish homes that are in good order. Curo are hoping to make money by taking advantage of people who are not rich and replacing them with wealthy residents. The losers will be the hard working people who have built their lives here, who work in full time jobs that are not paying top salaries. Why should those hard working people be the victims in this?
The same applies to pensioners and disabled people. Why should vulnerable people pay the price for Curo’s vision which takes advantage of their vulnerability?
The Council has the power to stop this destruction right now, and therefore the Council should reject the outline planning permission to give a sense of safety back to a community who desperately needs and deserves it.

7) The Council urgently needs to acknowledge the impact this has on so many lives on a day to day basis. It is easy for people who are not affected to get drawn into Curo's marketing strategies. But there is no doubt that people would think very differently if they were told that their home will be demolished. Therefore the rights and views of present residents need to come first; in particular the rights of home owners need to be respected and protected right now – the uncertainty needs to end. The Council should not allow this to continue for years to come.
19/05/2017
Wendy Sowden 54 Brook Road, Twerton, Bath, Bath And North East Somerset, BA2 3RS O 20/05/2017: These people do not need to lose there home and there community 20/05/2017
David King 25 Wansdyke Road, Odd Down, Bath, Bath And North East Somerset, BA2 2TG O 20/05/2017: There is a fantastic community in foxhill, and there is going to be a lack of social housing in mulberry park. 20/05/2017
Miss Clifford 107 Redland Park, Twerton, Bath, Bath And North East Somerset, BA2 1SJ O 21/05/2017: I do not agree with the planning aplication, importantly I feel curo and the local authority are not keeping local people informed or answering local people's questions. My mother and sister both live within the current foxhill estate, and are left with questions and worry about what is going on. I also don't belive putting garages underneath homes is a good idea or with make the area being developed look very appealing, also with the occupants of the house not being given the garage it could cause a problem. 21/05/2017
Matthew Welch Cherrywood, Perrymead, Lyncombe, Bath, Bath And North East Somerset, BA2 5AY R 22/05/2017: I object to the application. The demolition and redevelopment, with a decline in the amount of social housing, threatens the existing community. The development is against the wishes of the local community. 22/05/2017
Caroline Ambrose The Grove, Lyncombe Vale Road, Lyncombe, Bath, Bath And North East Somerset, BA2 4LR O 28/05/2017: I'm objecting to this application because I believe Curo Group are seeking to put their own interests before Foxhill residents. My key concerns are:

1. The failure to offer a like for like reprovision for existing homeowners. The developer is pursuing an application which would force many existing homeowners to choose between going into debt to buy a new comparably sized home or accept a much reduced, and less desirable space.
2. The reduction in social housing provision at a time when Bath needs much more, not less.
3. The loss of green space, landscape and trees which contribute enormously to the character of the community.
4. The loss of mature trees which form the skyline view from the city centre and form an important part of Bath's World Heritage City setting. As Bath and Venice are the only two cities on the planet granted this whole setting status by UNESCO, any redevelopment which risks this status is clearly not in Bath's best interests.
28/05/2017
Hilary Furlonger Ridgewood, Perrymead, Lyncombe, Bath, Bath And North East Somerset, BA2 5AX O 29/05/2017: Curo do not own all the property in the area. Permission should only be considered for property which they own and when they have put forward satisfactory plans for the preservation of an acceptable living environment for residents of property that is not due for demolition in the immediate area of the work. 29/05/2017
Gina Grainger-Windridge 5 Jesse Hughes Court, Lower Swainswick, Bath, Bath And North East Somerset, BA1 7BE O 29/05/2017: Having visited Fox Hill on the weekend, it's evident that this community is one to be cherished and saved, not demolished. Do not make this critical and quite frankly selfish decision to ruin the lives of the residents in this area. 29/05/2017
Emma Tjolle 10 Sedgemoor Road, Combe Down, Bath, Bath And North East Somerset, BA2 5PJ O 29/05/2017: I object to the large scale demolition and destruction of Foxhill community on the following grounds.

1) Home owners are not receiving adequate offers from Curo to allow them to purchase like for like in Bath. They will be left with the choice to leave Bath and move somewhere cheaper (which is totally unacceptable) or accept shared ownership with Curo (also unacceptable) when they currently own their whole house outright.

2) Despite Curo's protestations otherwise, there will be significant loss of social housing. This is unacceptable.

3) The demolition of in excess of 500 homes is destructive and unnecessary. It is correct that some (and I stress it is only a small percentage) properties in Foxhill could benefit from updating, Curo should be investing in updating these properties rather than demolishing them.







29/05/2017
Richard Hill 115 Church Road, Combe Down, Bath, Bath And North East Somerset, BA2 5JJ O 30/05/2017: This proposed development will result in the loss of affordable housing and the displacement of those who currently rent - and this from what is supposed to be a social housing organisation!

The proposed development will also mean the loss of green space, gardens and parking, which is likely to create problems on surrounding streets and in Combe Down as a whole and harm the character of the neighbourhood.
30/05/2017
Nigel Dann 31 Hawthorn Grove, Combe Down, Bath, Bath And North East Somerset, BA2 5QA O 30/05/2017: There are several grounds upon which objections can be raised:

The so-called ‘regeneration’ of the existing estate is in reality demolition and rebuild – ‘comprehensive redevelopment’ as it used to be known.

HTA, the master planners and architects engaged by Curo’s development arm, specialise in just this – they have little experience or interest in refurbishment and this would appear to be both the motivation for hiring them and the cause of the failure to effectively consider a more nuanced and thoughtful approach. There is an ‘undeniable logic’ and momentum to the schemes of master planners whose commercial and professional self-interest is in the thrill of a big new scheme – existing residents spoil the view - apparently. Unfortunately, it would appear that many of the residents of Foxhill have no faith in Curo’s architects: legend has it that they were inadvertently given the full and frank views of members of the development team when the community was discussed on the way to a public meeting – their taxi driver lived locally, and even for a member of that profession, was a little embarrassed by the forthright language used to describe the local community.

Curo’s claim to have significant support for their ‘regeneration’ evidenced through survey returns is not entirely accurate and could be considered self-serving. Many of the public ‘consultations’ have been almost entirely closed question quantitative surveys. Who would not say yes to ‘increased community facilities’, ‘better public spaces’ or ‘improved shopping’? Ask whether this would be worth attaining through the wholesale demolition of the existing estate, suspicions of social cleansing and the threat of compulsory purchase - the reported experience of some on Foxhill - then the suspicion must be that you might get a different answer.

The only independent qualitative (i.e. asking people what they felt - not giving them limited, simplistic options) survey of local opinion from 4 years ago made it clear that the sense of community was a significant positive and yet it was also considered to be an aspect at risk.

How prescient.

Curo have been proactive in developing consultation and this has had some significant successes, establishing the community hub, some great events locally and so on. However, aspects of Curo’s approach to community engagement about their schemes can be seen as cynical. Their cumbersome and divisive consultation structures have been carefully managed - there is a lack of executive power - they are entirely advisory in nature and there has been a clear policy of division between the various stakeholders. It is clear that some at Curo do not like dissent and will seemingly work hard to ensure that this is side-lined.

Turning to Curo’s technical justification - this is largely based on the report from consultants – it confirms a number of issues which are often encountered with such technical justifications:

There would appear to be big gaps in their existing asset management data regarding the existing estate.

There is no explanation of the assumptions regarding the economic and policy context within which their 30 year projection is made – these issues change and the basis for the calculations will be impacted significantly.

Research clearly suggests that the assumptions and cost indicators often have significant impact on data put forward to justify demolition and rebuild – and that these can be very subjective. The capital costs of new build are relatively easy to ascertain – however the on-going maintenance costs of new build are not adequately considered in the proposal – and the non-financial costs – the impact on community cohesion, the disruption to daily life, the embodied energy deficit of demolition & rebuild and so on, seem to have been ignored altogether by Curo.

Often the justification for demolition over refurbishment is made on building performance grounds, and this is the case here too. Nice, shiny, new buildings can undoubtedly be built to high thermal efficiency standards but research suggests that very often there is a ‘performance gap’ whereby the theoretical energy performance is not matched by the real day-to-day performance. The impact of this over assessment of the benefits of new build to tenants is twofold – firstly they disappointed as what was promised is not delivered and secondly because it is them who pay the larger than expected energy bills.

There are a large number of case studies which suggest that retrofitting energy improvement measures as part of a refurbishment scheme is more capital cost effective. Add in the cost savings associated with avoidance of decanting, rehousing, demolition, rebuild, moving back in costs (for those given the opportunity) and so on, and a strong case for refurbishment can be developed.

What is more difficult to account for are the non-financial costs that can accrue from refurbishment. Some demolition and rebuild will be appropriate and is desirable on Foxhill. A thoughtful, partial development and area-based refurbishment will deliver significant positives over comprehensive redevelopment:
• Retaining and enhancing the existing community - particularly as evidence from many case studies suggests that many of the refurbishments could be achieved with occupiers remaining within their existing homes;
• Faster completion of the works, and thus faster access to the significant benefits to tenants & other occupiers would accrue through improvements to their home’s performance;
• The level of carbon emissions is dependent on the fuel source. This, and concerns about affordability of fuel, could far more effectively be addressed by the development of an area based scheme which developed local production of renewable non-carbon based energy as part of a large scale refurbishment scheme – this should be a top priority - if fuel poverty and carbon emissions are such concerns;
• Huge quantities of carbon and energy have already been expended in the construction of the existing – comprehensive redevelopment will have a significantly greater environmental impact than mixed refurbishment in waste production and in the creation & transport of vast quantities of new materials.

The current proposal remains car dominant. There is a lack of effective consideration of the impact of significantly increased vehicle movements onto the existing and over-burdened road network. The collective failure of BANES & Curo to really crack this strategic issue through the opportunity of this scheme and the MoD redevelopment, will unfortunately blight the whole area for the foreseeable future. On the scheme itself, the dominance of the car will reduce rather than enhance pedestrian and cyclists’ opportunities for safe and comfortable experience and surrenders much of the public space to cars.

Development is not for the faint hearted - that is for sure – but when dealing with an existing community, a top-down approach - which is experienced by some as bullying – such as the mass demolition and redevelopment proposed, is genuinely blighting some people’s lives. A sense of alienation, fear and anger has been created. This is having a horrible impact on the well-being of individuals, and has an impact on the community too. The one up-shot of this has been to galvanise a degree of collective anger, but peoples’ lives have been put on hold, an unnecessary sense of uncertainty created: this is unjust, uncompassionate and this current proposal does nothing to address these issues.

Surely if Curo really had the degree of commitment they claim to have about Foxhill, they would genuinely put the conservation of the existing community at the heart of their proposal. If this was honestly their primary objective, if they really consider how to integrate and bolster the existing community through a mixture of partial demolition & replacement, area-based repairs and refurbishment, together with seeking to significantly enlarge the pool of social housing, then they would be able to describe their proposal as ‘regeneration’. They would too garner significant local support. It would also make for a more sustainable example of community-led development – one which is far better aligned with their own strategic objectives than the current proposal.

The current proposal should be rejected.
30/05/2017
Joanne Lyons Tytherly, Perrymead, Lyncombe, Bath, Bath And North East Somerset, BA2 5AX O 30/05/2017: I OBJECT to this application because:

1) it proposes to demolish people's homes and displace them, which will effectively destroy the existing community of Foxhill,
2) the high density of the buildings means a loss of essential green space (what happened to the allotments at Mulberry Park?). This will also have an impact on parking and traffic in the immediate and surrounding areas,
3) some of the proposed buildings are too high at more than three storeys high and this could also have a visual impact on the Bath skyline - and so we could be in danger of losing our UNESCO WHS status,
4) it will ultimately reduce the number of affordable houses available (by about 250) which is TOTALLY unacceptable (what does 'affordable' mean anyway?).

The amount of money paid to consultants for reports and surveys by Curo (Lord knows how much this amounts to) could've gone some way to paying for essential repairs and maintenance of existing properties.

The end (profit to apparently plough back into existing social housing) DOES NOT justify the means in this case.
30/05/2017
Linda Seward Woodbine Cottage, Perrymead, Lyncombe, Bath, Bath And North East Somerset, BA2 5AY O 30/05/2017: Curo's plan to redevelop Foxhill has caused much concern to its residents including ill health to some threatened with the loss of their homes. The loss of 256 social housing units is unbelievable when increasing the density of the housing. Surely this housing association's reason for existence is as a social housing landlord and not as a developer?
Planning permission should be refused and the community not demolished.
30/05/2017
Rosemary Paterson The Coach House Foxhill Grove, Perrymead, Lyncombe, Bath, Bath And North East Somerset, BA2 5BA O 30/05/2017: I believe the number of social housing should stay the same as at present or increase with the modernisation of Foxhill Estate. I am told the number of social housing will decrease by 250. This should not be the objective in rebuilding the council estate. With the development of Mulberry Park there has been ample opportunity to build low cost housing for the public but the social housing on the estate should be ring fenced. 30/05/2017
Nicholas Beach Little Moregrove, Perrymead, Lyncombe, Bath, Bath And North East Somerset, BA2 5AZ O 30/05/2017: I object to the loss of affordable housing, and the effects on the local community in Foxhill for whom this is their home and locality. To remove these houses, actual homes, and for them to be replaced by a dense new build seems a totally bad idea. There are so many other factors which make this a negative scheme, not least displacement of people, local people, and the effect on parking! We bang on about this but 700 new houses equals say 1000 cars that need to be parked - and the likelihood is that the proposed streets will be of small width so the congestion and traffic movement will have the potential to be enormous. And add in, if Curo have their way, people needing to park to use the cable car and the whole scheme seems broken from the outset. There has to be a better way. 30/05/2017
Geoffrey Lee Erinbrae, Shakespeare Avenue, Bath, BA2 4RG O 31/05/2017: I strongly object to this proposal.
The project is clearly a money making scheme with no empathy shown either for the residents of the area affected or the damage done to the built environment. We do not want a "scar" running North to South across this beautiful City. This project is breathtaking in its arrogrance.
31/05/2017
Roger Clifton 20 Southcot Place, Lyncombe, Bath, Bath And North East Somerset, BA2 4PE O 31/05/2017: It would appear that this development, if granted in its present form, would result in a net loss of 250 social housing homes. This is wholly unacceptable in the present housing shortage, and in a city where house prices are increasingly out of reach for young people. 31/05/2017
Richard Squires 14 Tyning End, Widcombe, Bath, Bath And North East Somerset, BA2 6AN O 31/05/2017: This application would result in the net loss of 250 social housing units/loss of affordable housing.Displacement of those who cannot afford to purchase housing.Additionally it would mean a loss of green space and parking.
Such an action would highlight the Council's total lack of a social housing policy and free rein given to developers putting up student accommodation,which is rife in Bath.
31/05/2017
Transition Bath Not Given O View Associated Documents 31/05/2017
Mr D Bishop 31 Stirtingale Avenue, Southdown, Bath, Bath And North East Somerset, BA2 2NQ O View Associated Documents 16/05/2017
Melanie Jackson 1 Weatherly Avenue, Bloomfield, Bath, Bath And North East Somerset, BA2 2PF O 17/05/2017: It seems over the top to demolish and rebuild. I am concerned whether the existing open spaces and trees will be conserved as the vision of the landscape is only just coming to fruition. Surely if the houses are substandard that many can be remodelled in line with current insulation and building regs. These are peoples homes , is it really necessary to destroy so much just to squeeze in 150 more dwellings?
17/05/2017
Tracey Cook 11 Acacia Grove, Southdown, Bath, Bath And North East Somerset, BA2 2HG O 14/11/2016: People just won't be able to afford these houses, I think regeneration is a positive, but the people who own their own home will. E short changed as they can't afford to buy another house at the steep prices that will be charged... well over what the houses will be bought for... not really affordable housing is it? 14/11/2016
Andrew Carpenter 26 Churchward Drive, Frome, Somerset, BA11 2XL S View Associated Documents 13/11/2016
Carol Morgan 5 Albert Terrace, Twerton, Bath, Bath And North East Somerset, BA2 3RZ O 13/11/2016: I have friends and family who live in this area of Bath who could not afford to live there if this goes ahead. Bath is becoming a city of haves & have nots or STUDENTS. Stop the rot now. 13/11/2016
T Warren Queens Drive, Combe Down, Bath, BA2 5PA O 17/05/2017:  In reverence to 
3.5 socia-economic baseline
this starts by comparing situations of residents (for exmple: unemployment, longterm sick, disabled, lone parent) to the rest of banes.
the last time I looked at a map Foxhill is and always has been in bath so is a part of banes
it then goes on to compare the differences in employment between the residents of Foxhill and the residents of combe down 
stating Foxhill residents who are in employment work in elementry occupations skill trade occupations, admin and secretarial,sales and customer services as though this is a bad thing. I AM OFFENDED all of these said occupations are excellent employment choices most of which have further career prospects, we can not all start at the top of the ladder
without these occupations, appointments would not be made, letters would not be sent, places would not be clean and nothing would be built
It goes without saying most of the residents of Combe Down would be in higher paid employment they would need to be to be able to afford the property prices in Combe Down
17/05/2017
Ian Plain 18 Arundel Road, Walcot, Bath, Bath And North East Somerset, BA1 6EF O 23/11/2016: I object to this application on many levels. It is quite clear that there is a whiff of social cleansing to it, The Head of Curo has made it clear on many occasions that he does not feel that "his" city centre properties are suitable for social tenants and more suited Weekend Holiday lets in clear breach of existing owners in the same blocks leasehold agreements. He has now decided that the same now goes for the foxhill estate.
It used to be the norm when regeneration happens tenants and owners benefit. but not in this case it is probably fair to say that no existing residents will be able to afford to stay, Not just here but in the Bath region with the average 3 bed house price at £340K and Flats @ £290K Even out as far as Peasedown SJ the lower average is £240

Regenration works when its inclusive and is done with the support of the residents and not wholesale evictions.
It is clear to everyone that what is being built are at one end ready to go Buy to Let properties for private landlords. These too will be out of reach for most existing residents, and areas with many small amateur landlords soon fall into disrepair as can be seen in many areas of Bath.

Dont forget none of this matters to Victor he doesn't even live in Bath, Banes or even the west country, He lives in a £1M house in London, and as such he knows his market, They are the Middle classes that now cant afford to live near him in London.

I have heard on many occasions Tim Warren the leader of teh council say he will not support any evictions, I hope he will abide by his promise and refuse this application.

23/11/2016
Sarah Rosir 15 Innox Grove, Englishcombe, Bath, Bath And North East Somerset, BA2 9DX O 23/11/2016: Where will the residents that live in this community rebuild their lives? These people had secure tenancies which means absolutely nothing to Curo it's disgusting 23/11/2016
Foxhill Residents' Association 97 Queen's Drive, Combe Down, Bath, Bath And North East Somerset, BA2 5PD O 23/11/2016: Foxhill Residents Association opposes the plans put forward to demolish 542 homes in Foxhill.

1 Curo does not have local support
In 2013 Curo began its consultation in Foxhill with a survey. This is one of Curos' findings which were published at the first master planning exhibition. 8% of people endorse the replacement of some of the existing homes.
Or to put it the other way round 92% of residents surveyed by Curo do not endorse the replacement of existing homes.
Curo fell at the first hurdle but they have persisted with their plans.

2 We object to the scale of the project. The plans put forward will drastically change the whole environment in Foxhill. At present we have a fairly typical post war housing estate with a mixture of houses and flats. All of the houses have gardens front and back. All of the ground floor flats have gardens. All of the flats above ground floor have a dedicated green space assigned to them.
Curo plans to take away private amenity space and replace it with pockets of public amenity space. The green spaces proposed will nowhere near compensate for the loss of hundreds of gardens and existing public open spaces. Our environment will change from a leafy suburban area to an intensively built estate dominated by hard surfaces. Now we only have one small block of flats at the entrance to the estate which is over 3 storeys. Everything else is two storeys except for a few three storey flats. Curo intends to build 3, 4, 5 and 6 storey buildings drastically changing the overall character of Foxhill

3 Foxhill is high up and notoriously windy, Curo has not presented models which measure the environmental impact of high winds being channelled through a new high rise estate potentially causing real problems in the area.

4 The proposed plan has not understood the social dynamics of Foxhill. At present the area has a high degree of social interaction. People use their front gardens and converse with their neighbours. Children play all over the estate in both private and public spaces. Elderly residents have a high degree of support from their neighbours and the wider community. People assist each other in a myriad of ways because they know each other. So although the estate is not of great architectural merit in visual terms it is of enormous architectural merit in the way it functions on a social level. Having observed many newer residential estates, this is a quality that has been designed out of modern schemes. A new community centre cannot compensate for the loss of community caused by the destruction of existing networks both through altering the physical environment and through the forced relocation of people. The plan submitted in common with many others has the effect of isolating people because those small safe places where people first encounter each other no longer exist and social interaction is stifled. There have been no attempts made by Curo to explore ways of keeping the community actively engaged with each other in this proposed scheme. Nothing has been put in place to offer residents ways of moving to new homes in social groups. All that is offered is a bidding war through the Homesearch system.

Curo have singularly failed to meet the expectations of the NPPF which state
11.3 The planning system should take account of and support health, social and cultural well-being for all, and deliver sufficient community facilities and services to meet local need. The planning system also plays an important role in facilitating social interaction and creating healthy inclusive communities. Planning should promote opportunities for community members to interact through the inclusion of strong community centres ensuring an integrated approach to considering the location of housing and community facilities.


5 Private home owners in Foxhill have proved that it is feasible to upgrade existing houses in Foxhill to a high specification at a relatively small cost. Homeowners have demonstrated that it is more economically viable for them to upgrade their properties than it is to sell them and move on. This is a contradiction to Curos’ argument that the properties in Foxhill are beyond repair. The planning committee has a duty to the people of Foxhill to test the figures that Curo has submitted illustrating the projected costs for improving and maintaining existing housing stock.

Foxhill Residents’ Associations objects to the plans for demolition and reconstruction on the grounds stated above.

31/05/2017: Foxhill Resident’s Association objects to the regeneration plans for Foxhill.

All previous comments by FRA objection dated 23/11/16 still stand.

Please take into consideration the objection of Nola Edwards 22/5/17 which questions the use of the Hepworth Report as justification for this plan in conjunction with the following paragraph.

FRA objects to this plan as the information is not clear and transparent as to how this scheme was first conceived. Despite asking my local councillor who was interviewed for the Hepworth Report she was unable to furnish me with the information I asked for. Namely who instructed the planning department to commission the report and who was it that chose a specific area of the estate for scrutiny rather than looking at the estate in its entirety. Without this information it is not possible to ascertain that there are no private interests at the bottom of this scheme. The demolition of 542 homes is far too important a matter to be decided upon without knowing who is behind it.

The re-submitted scheme is in fact worse than the previous version. The current plan is to squeeze 707 homes, 7 more than stated in the original application, into an area which comfortably contains 542 homes. The reduction in the height of the proposed flats has only resulted in more densely packed units at lower levels.

The loss of green space is exceedingly detrimental. At a time when planners are suggesting that more hedges need to be planted in cities to help combat pollution Curo is contemplating ripping up mature hedges and gardens many of them very mature and bio diverse.

FRA considers Curo lacks competent leadership to deliver this scheme. Curo have for 3 years lavished money on publicity, mail shots, advertising, and exhibitions to try to garner support. Recently they have instigated community initiatives that offer prizes for local participants in an attempt to win residents over. And what has all of this resulted in? A mere 9 letters of support only 4 of which are from residents of Foxhill. (as of 31/5/17)

The FRA on the other hand is a completely voluntary organisation formed as a response to Curo’s activities. This letter is written on behalf of our 74 members. Our funds are under £400pa solely raised from membership subscriptions. Yet with this limited resource we have engaged with our friends and neighbours and managed to generate 201 objections, I know that figure will rise as several residents have posted objections today. To date the planning office has received 137 objections from Foxhill from 80 addresses and another 164 objections from the wider area. The response to Curo’s plans from our neighbours dispels the myth that Curo constantly peddles that Foxhill is an isolated community. (as of 31/5/17)

I would particularly like to publicly thank Michael and Siobhan Arkell for their work and dedication in helping to found the FRA. Their belief in the Foxhill community is an inspiration, if Curo shared their vision then this plan would not be in existence in its present form.
31/05/2017
Martin Wilkinson The Lodge, Lyncombe Vale, Lyncombe, Bath, Bath And North East Somerset, BA2 4LT O 19/06/2017: I am very concerned that the body responsible for low cost and affordable housing in Bath is proposing a decrease in the availability of such homes. To my mind it is an almost unbelievable act of folly at a time when there is a crisis for such housing in Bath.

I believe that Curo has now become a developer as well as being responsible to the community and B&NES. In the light of this proposal one is led to no other conclusion than that there may be conflicts of interest within the organisation.

There appear to be differences expressed in opinions about the estate at Foxhill. The results of surveys conducted for CURO appear to be at odds with the comments I have heard directly from residents.

That some parts of the estate appear relatively unattractive is more than likely to the current road layout being designed when few residents had cars. I am not convinced by the arguments supporting the demolition of the estate, nor that the houses have reached the end of their useful lives. Providing a revised road layout with parking for every house would help improve the environs enormously. This could be achieved by reducing road width and making use of single lane carriageways that are only 'one way'. No resort to the wholesale demolition of buildings would be necessary.
19/06/2017
Jenny Green 16 Fore Street, Beacon, Camborne, Cornwall, TR14 7SB O 18/11/2016: I object to the huge loss of social homes, the demolition of a strong community and object against high density building, it destroys communities. 18/11/2016
Tracie Fishlock Not Given O 18/11/2016: Who are curo kidding? Or the builders it's just pure greed. No one can afford the proposed prices, and the home owners who will have to sell probably cannot afford the new houses. Shame on you Banes & builders hope you can sleep at night. 18/11/2016
G Moulder Queens Drive , BA41 9AX O 18/11/2016: I object to the plans on the height of the buildings in the middle of the plans, being to high for the rest of the estate 18/11/2016: 1.The new road on the plans , turning the estate in to a rat run for the houses on mulberry park who will not be able to get out of the estate on to Bradford road, why do we need new roads when the one hear do great.
2. The number of off street parking spaces more cars parked on the road, blocking the road . All new house should Haverfordwest street parking for 2 cars as that is the average for most people
17/11/2016: I object to the plans on the grounds of the number of homes planned for Foxhill being 700 on 11 hectares whith in the middle of Foxhill estate, when on mulberry park has 19 hectares with the same number of homes. 18/11/2016
Alice Kingham 46 St Kilda's Road, Oldfield Park, Bath, Bath And North East Somerset, BA2 3QL O 18/11/2016: I object to the demolition of the homes in Foxhill. The environmental impact will be huge, it is much more sustainable to improve existing homes than to build new homes even 'green' homes.
It will lead to the dismantling of a community, and this decision impacting on so many peoples lives should never be taken lightly, and simply for the profit of curo, as I feel that this is what it is really about rather than the regeneration of the area.
Homes that start at over £300,000 are not affordable for the current residents of Foxhill. It is important for the diversity and benefit for the whole city of Bath that housing is available for people working on low incomes, and this diversity will be lost if these plans go ahead. Also a city with a 6500 long waiting list for social housing needs to increase its' social housing stock rather than decrease it which is what will be happening. These people need homes and community for the better good of society not emergency accommodation which will be paid for by the cities tax payers, as well as the knock on social effects of these situations. These people will not dissappear. It is a subtle form of social cleansing. Unfortunately similar situations are being seen all over the country.
I write this as a former resident of Foxhill.
18/11/2016
Mrs R Sadler 36 Roundbarrow Close, Colerne, Chippenham, Wiltshire, SN14 8EF O 19/11/2016: Although I do not live in bath any more ( because there is very little affordable housing) i wish to object to these plans. I was brought up in the odd down, Combe down area and still have many friends living on the fox hill estate. I am objecting to these plans as we have very little housing association rental properties in the area and the proposed housing will not fulfil the current rental rates. Private rentals are twice as much plus the tenants are unable to have a guaranteed home. As for affordable housing!! I have two children who have both worked in good jobs, my son a royal marine and now a operations department practitioner working at the Royal United hospital. My daughter working in finance and as a PA with companies in Bath. Neither of them with their partners are able to raise enough to buy in Bath. I feel the proposal is not conducive to Bath people who have not got a big enough income to afford these so called affordable houses. The government help to by scheme is a scam as you have to have the deposit before they will release the monies. I object as people's homes and lives will be completely disrupted plus these houses are NOT affordable. 19/11/2016
Marilyn Tye 8 Bargates, Box, SN13 8LT O 20/11/2016: Building affordable houses is great and just what the country needs. Providing approx. 160 extra dwellings by pulling down 542 just does not make any sense at all. You are making MORE families homeless.
Bath has an extremely warped manner of providing homes; on the Landsdown Hope building site, building homes that cost a million and giving permission for them to NOT build starter homes is an act of social barbarism. Does BANES actually care about ordinary people? Actions speak louder than words!!
20/11/2016
Frieda Buckley 57 Queen's Drive, Combe Down, Bath, Bath And North East Somerset, BA2 5PB O View Associated Documents 24/06/2017
Dr V J Williamson - BANES Allotments Association 7 Milton Avenue, Bear Flat, Bath, Bath And North East Somerset, BA2 4QZ R 01/12/2016: The Public Open Space document states "Up to 0.1 ha of the amenity greenspace in the northern part of the site could be allocated for allotments or grow patches to meet the open space requirement for allotments." Our response is that "up to" is unsatisfactory; there should be 0.11 ha as calculated in the document based on the Green Spaces Strategy formula. Informal growing spaces are not an alternative to allotment provision, they should be regarded as beneficially supplementary/additional to allotment provision. An example would be planting fruit trees as part of the general landscaping.
The Public Open Space document states "Requirements for allotments or grow patches and Youth Play-Space can also be met onsite if necessary." The provision of allotments on site is necessary - as we know from the Mulberry Park development, there is no suitable land nearby. Close proximity to tenants’ residences increases the efficiency of cultivation. More families with young children are taking on allotment plots, there is (and will be increasing) focus on the availability of affordable food, and B&NES’ Local Food Strategy makes a strong evidence-based link between food growing, health and wellbeing.
01/12/2016
Michael Arkell Ashfield Brocka, Ballinderry, Nenagh, Co Tipperary , Eire, BA2 5AL O 01/12/2016: As a recent former resident of Combe Down I object to the current application for this development as it stands. My previous postcode used to enter form online
I believe it is an offence to the human rights of the elderly residents occupying the two existing bungalow communities, where they enjoy ground floor living, with gardens and pets to move these residents to flats. I personally met and surveyed all the residents in the Quantocks and they unanimously reject moving to flats.
I believe it is an offence to the human rights of home owners, the majority of whom neither want to move or sell their homes to Curo to be offered circa £170,000 for their homes and be offered a part share in so called
new affordable homes at circa £340,000 or twice the price. These are not affordable for most of the home owners and to offer shared ownership would reduce them to owning 50% only of their home for those who could finance such an agreement. For the council to impose CPO's on such home owners would be a disgrace on BANES
I believe it is an offence to the 5000 plus waiting on the council list for homes to reduce the number of social
home in Foxhill when the existing number of social homes should be maintained or increased.
From the outset this has been a land grab where perfectly good homes, many with large gardens, and an estate with areas of open green space, is planned for demolition for higher density development for sale to the private sector.
The exercise of exhibitions held by Curo, and the monthly meetings held with resident groups, have been lip service only in a tick box exercise by Curo to appease the residents and governing authorities without regard
to the real substance of residents objections - the future of their very homes and community. A prolonged period of several years of uncertainty for home owners and tenants leaves them in a situation where their own decisions for investment in their homes is negated. The consultations with residents have been meaningless because the issues for residents has not been built into the planning application made.
Investment should be made by Curo to properly maintain the houses they own to meet the standard set by many of the home owners.
Foxhill Residents Association conducted a survey of all home owners and tenants which was given to Curo and BANES in a transparent way and identifying areas where a majority of tenants do want to move, namely the blocks of flats with the exclusion of Foxhill House block. This survey should be taken into account in development planning as it is a genuine and independent reflection of residents views.

22/05/2017: As a former resident of Combe Down I strongly object to the proposed plans.
Despite years of ''so called'' consultation by Curo with Foxhill residents the revised plans still do not take into account the real needs and concerns of residents that have been expressed so consistently and vigorously for so long. The excessive proposed destruction is unnecessary and serves only the purpose of facilitating higher density development for sale in the private sector. The proposed affordable homes are not affordable to existing residents who will not be paid at a high enough value for existing properties to make such a purchase for affordable housing tenable.The loss of social housing proposed is untenable and does not
contribute to easing the BANES problem of the families waiting for homes on the housing list. Existing properties are in need of investment for repair by Curo - not destruction. I believe it is an affront to the human rights of the residents of Foxhill to be treated with such contempt by Curo in paying lip service only to the objections of so many families whose homes will be lost against their consent. In particular I object to the loss of the bungalow communities for elderly residents that already exist in Foxhill and will not
be replaced and serves only to diminish the lives of those elderly residents.
22/05/2017
Geroge Moulder Not Given O 01/12/2016: I object to this planning application on the grounds of the height the building planned for Foxhill, why is it that curo think thay can build 4 to 6 storey flats around exsiting homes when when the MOD asked for planning permission to build 2 storey building on the old site helping keep employment in bath , thus saving people having to travel to Bristol and were turned down by this planning office.
If you allow this to go ahead you will be forcing people to live with loss of sun light . There could also be future scocial issues .
01/12/2016
Ian Bell Summerfield, Bristol Road, Chew Stoke, Bristol, Bath And North East Somerset, BS40 8UB S 01/12/2016: There is a critical shortage of housing in the district which is driving up prices and proving to be an obstacle for people wishing to live and work in Bath. This is an important development which will do something to improve supply and should be strongly supported. 01/12/2016
Lucy Smith 35 Ridge Green Close, Odd Down, Bath, Bath And North East Somerset, BA2 2EG O 01/12/2016: I lived in Foxhill for 22 Years and my parents still live there now.
I am absolutely disgusted and strongly object to CURO's plans to demolish the Foxhill estate, the only reason I can see is to expand the Mullberry Park master plan for sheer profit, and in doing so displacing the whole community on Foxhill estate. Foxhill has a lovely community with neighbours that look out for each other, When I visit my parents, I still see the same friendly faces that I seen as a child growing up. I hate the way that CURO portray the people of Foxhill to be lazy dossers who are of no value to the community, when the majority of them are hard working, decent people. Basically this is a purge of ordinary people so that the middle and upper classes can benefit from the residents of Foxhill,s losses.
I also strongly object to the road scheme that has been sneaked in under the radar.
07/06/2017: I lived in Foxhill for 22 Years and my parents still live there now.
I am absolutely disgusted and strongly object to CURO's plans to demolish the Foxhill estate, the only reason I can see is to expand the Mullberry Park master plan for sheer profit, and in doing so displacing the whole community on Foxhill estate. Foxhill has a lovely community with neighbours that look out for each other, When I visit my parents, I still see the same friendly faces that I seen as a child growing up. I hate the way that CURO portray the people of Foxhill to be lazy dossers who are of no value to the community, when the majority of them are hard working, decent people. Basically this is a purge of ordinary people so that the middle and upper classes can benefit from the residents of Foxhill,s losses.
I also strongly object to the road scheme that has been sneaked in under the radar.
07/06/2017
Siobhan Arkell Ashfield, Bocka, Ballinderry, Nenagh, Co Tipperary, Ireland O 01/12/2016: As a former resident of Combe Down for 14 years I object to this planning application.
I have had to use our former postcode to summit this objection online.
I object to the way the wishes of home owners have been ignored by the so called consultation process of Curo.
It is disgraceful to subject these residents to an uncertain future that they have had to deal with for more than 2 years now and have to bear this suffering for many more years.
The so called affordable new homes are NOT affordable to these residents, what do Curo expect them to do move out of Bath where they live, work, send their children to school because at the value of the homes Curo are trying to bully them to sell there are not suitable homes for sale in Bath.
I object to the loss of social homes , Curo are supposed to be a housing association offering such homes not a property developer for the private sector.
I strongly object to the disgraceful demolition of the elderly residents bungalows and expecting them to go into flats where they have no gardens or even pets - it is cruel and against their rights as citizens - if necessary a like for like community of bungalows should be built into the plans for ALL those elderly people.
I object to all the tenant families who may have lived for 2 or even 3 generations in their homes to lose their homes when hundreds of fewer social homes will be built.
I object to the higher density buildings planned for and loss of the open spaces in the estate
01/12/2016
Mabel Smith 85 Midford Road, Odd Down, Bath, Bath And North East Somerset, BA2 5RT O View Associated Documents 23/01/2017
Laura Jones 121 Newbridge Road, Newbridge, Bath, BA1 3HG, O 07/06/2017: i agree with all the objections to this application and of the Foxhill Residents' Association 07/06/2017
Deb Jones 139 Queen's Drive, Combe Down, Bath, Bath And North East Somerset, BA2 5PE O 07/06/2017: i agree with the Foxhill Residents' Association and their objections 07/06/2017
Carol Jones 48 St Michael's Road, Whiteway, Bath, Bath And North East Somerset, BA2 1PZ O 07/06/2017: i object to this application 07/06/2017
Stephen James 28 Sedgemoor Road, Combe Down, Bath, Bath And North East Somerset, BA2 5PJ S 20/05/2017: I support the application overall.

I am a home owner living in Foxhill and I am impacted by the plans as I am in Phase G, which means Curo would like me to move to Mulberry Park in 2026 when they plan to develop Sedgemoor Road.

I am not sure if there are enough shared ownership houses. Currently only 7.5% (30% * 25%) of houses will be shared ownership. This works out as 52 (700 * 7.5%). I might struggle to afford a mortgage to fund the difference between the value of my Foxhill house and a 3-bedroom house in Mulberry Park. I need shared ownership to enable me to move across to Mulberry Park.

I think the compensation package is reasonable. However, I don't think it is fair that I lose the compensation package if I move before my phase in 2026. I feel in limbo waiting for 2026 so that I can move to Mulberry Park. I would be willing to move earlier, Curo would still buy my house, but I would lose the compensation package. Is that fair? The compensation package is 10% of market value of home owner's home, legal fees for conveyancing and selling home paid, removal fees paid and stamp duty on new property paid.
22/05/2017
Eileen Hitchcock 5 Quantocks, Combe Down, Bath, Bath And North East Somerset, BA2 5PF O View Associated Documents 31/05/2017
Dr James & Mrs Rebecca Underwood 96 Hawthorn Grove, Combe Down, Bath, Bath And North East Somerset, BA2 5QG O View Associated Documents 17/05/2017
Daniel Coombs 42 Bradford Park, Combe Down, Bath, Bath And North East Somerset, BA2 5PR O 15/11/2016: I originally thought the plan set out by Curo was to benefit the Foxhill community, which I was all for, now as proceedings move forward all it seems to have done is anger this community including myself.In the beginning stages,Curo assured me that being a home owner,I would not lose out. During these discussions,I expressed that moving from Bath and particularly the Foxhill area was not an option as we have a new family and the majority of family and friends network were in the area,which helps us a lot.I was then told the houses being built were going to be affordable,After seeing the plans and price list of phase 1 and 2, this is far from the truth.What Curo plan to offer me for my house would not only make living in Mulberry park/Foxhill unaffordable, but would also drive me out of Bath as we could not afford to live here.I have worked hard in order to create this life for me and my family and do not wish for it to be destroyed, just so someone can make a profit.Re-juvenation is fine, destruction does not accomplish this !!!
31/05/2017: I believe,this will destroy the current community in Foxhill rather than build on or improve what has taken so many years to achieve.
Certain areas could do with slight rejuvenation but that does not by any means require demolition,this is surely counter productive and would destroy any sense of community the area currently has.
I have worked hard to be where I am and do not intend to be shoved aside,for what I consider meaningless gains.
31/05/2017
Tanya Holmes 27 Kewstoke Road, Combe Down, Bath, Bath And North East Somerset, BA2 5PU O 21/05/2017: No thanks!!!!!!!!!!!!! 21/05/2017
Victoria Hickson 15 Meare Road, Combe Down, Bath, Bath And North East Somerset, BA2 5PP O View Associated Documents 02/12/2016
Alfreda Buckley 57 Queen's Drive, Combe Down, Bath, Bath And North East Somerset, BA2 5PB O 08/11/2016: Alfreda Buckley
57 Queens Drive
Bath BA2 5PB
(Home Owner)

Date: 9 November 2016

To: Planning Services - Lewis House - Manvers Street - Bath - BA1 1JG


Re: Planning Application Ref No 16/05219/EOUT


Dear Sirs,

I hereby wish to oppose Curo's overall planning application for the regeneration of the Foxhill estate for the following reasons:

1. According to a solicitor specialising in planning law - Martin Goodall - the law allows regeneration to take place on existing residential settlements - but only filling in, in gaps between existing homes.

What Curo are applying planning permission for is the demolition of a whole neighbourhood and community (apart from constraints created by existing ownership) - not a filling in between existing homes.

2. Curo states it wants to create a unified development linking Foxhill Estate and Mulberry Park, thus creating a huge sprawling estate, a city within a city, which means that Foxhill would no longer be the peaceful supportive village style community it has been for many years and still is.

This kind of huge development may be what people are used to in London, but it is out of character with the whole ethos and way of living of residents in Bath. Estates of this magnitude are a breeding ground for social problems.

Strong supportive communities do not exist in huge developments but in small scale living areas such as villages and small estates. The community we have here in Foxhill is something to be treasured and valued and it is a rare gem in our modern world.

3. The regeneration of Foxhill will provide around 700 new homes - but only a small percentage of these homes will be social housing. If planning permission is granted for Curo's plans there will be a loss of social housing in Foxhill: (see below please for figures).

At present there are 452 social homes inside the red zone of Foxhill: this is the area which Curo wishes to demolish.

4. The proposed flats on several corners of Queens Drive do not fit in with the rest of the neighbourhood. Flats of this size should be located on the outskirts of an estate, not in the middle of it.

5. The proposed 4 to 41/2 storey flats on the corner of Queens Drive and Sedgemoor Road would be built next to my home which we own. The flats would overlook our garden and bedroom plus kitchen windows, thus resulting in a loss of privacy. The suggested plans for these flats will result in building too close to the borders of my property, too close to the windows and too close to the garden which will be plunged into shade which planning laws do not permit. The flats will be too high, compared to our property. The 6 to 6 1/2 storey high flats to be built on the corner of the current Kewstoke Road will be out of place in an area where the houses will be 3 to 3 1/2 and 2 to 2 1/2 storeys storeys high.

6. Between the flats (to be built on the corner of Queens Drive and Sedgemoor Road,) and our house, there will be a car park. This car park will be right next to our garden. Given the numbers of cars expected in this car park (numbers generated by the residents living in 4 to 4 1/2 storey flat) this will create a lot of pollution right next to our garden! I obejct to these flats and the car park being built right next to our house and garden.

7. The plans for Queens Drive consist of a large percentage of high density building, and only a small percentage of medium and small density building. I object to high density building which is only possible if a general "land grab" ( garden grab) is taking place. I object to high density building which the proposed outline planning application is proposing.

8. The bottom part of Queens Drive would consist of 2 to 2.5 storey houses, presumably to fit in with the large numbers of privately owned houses in that section of Queens Drive and the surrounding areas of Axbridge and Meare Road (2 storey houses) .
The same principle of building homes no higher than 2 to 2.5 storeys high, should be applied to the whole of Queens Drive as blocks of houses containing a privately owned house would be too expensive for Curo to demolish and 2 to 2 1/2 storey high houses will fit in well with the blocs of housing to remain due to private ownership.

9. The houses which the plans are proposing will be a mixture of social housing, affordable housing and up market "expensive" housing (many of them will have 3 to 4 bedrooms).
The local population of Foxhill will be offered very narrow houses to live in instead of the small but comfortable houses they are used to. The mixture of social housing and upmarket privately owned housing is bound to create resentment and anger, which will also lead to social problems such as in increased crime rate - the present crime rate in Foxhill is extremely low.

10. Curo wants to enhance local wildlife and ecology: lots of traffic and pollution is not going to attract wildlife. These conditions will chase the wild life present in Foxhill away: we have hedgehogs, foxes, toads, frogs and a variety of bird species. We used to have bats in our garden but since the building has started in Mulberry Park, for the first time in 36 years, we no longer have bats in our garden.

11. MOST IMPORTANTLY:

LOSS OF SOCIAL HOMES FIGURES BASED ON FINAL PLANS FOR REGENERATION OF FOXHILL CURO

LOSS OF SOCIAL HOMES FIGURES BASED ON FINAL PLANS FOR REGENERATION OF FOXHILL CURO

Curo's final exhibition states that they would like to build 30% of affordable homes (out of the 700 new homes they plan to build).

There are 544 homes in the red zone (this is the zone which the current plans refer to) : 92 of these are privately owned: so there are 452 social homes in the red zone in Foxhill.

However, out of these 452 social homes 53 are homes which were bought from private owners by Curo and are currently rented out at market prices (instead of being rented out to those on the waiting list!)

So: 452 minus 53 = 399 social homes left in the red zone in Foxhill

The plans mention that out of the 700 new homes to be built - these are not 700 homes on top of the homes in existence, these are 700 instead of the ones in place at present! - out of these 700 homes:

30% will be affordable (this means houses which are less expensive than the going market rate) : so 210 of these houses will be affordable

out of the 30% affordable ones, 75% will be for rent (social homes) and 25% will be for sale under the shared ownership system.

so: out of 210 affordable homes to be built, 158 will be for rent and 52 will be for sale under shared ownership system.

THERE WILL BE 158 SOCIAL HOMES INSTEAD OF 399

THIS IS A LOSS OF 241 SOCIAL HOMES

( FIGURES BASED ON FINAL OUTLINE PLANS FOR THE FOXHILL ESTATE REGENERATION)


The Council’s rehousing policy states that developers have to build 30% of affordable housing on new build sites (Mulberry Park, the empty plot next to our housing estate) but Liz Richardson, cabinet member for housing at Banes Council, mentioned that percentages of social housing/shared ownership for sale housing will be negotiated subject to availablitity.

Curo – the housing developer – keep stating that all those who wish to stay in Foxhill will be rehoused in Mulberry Park or Foxhill – and that 2/3 of the current tenants in social homes wish to stay in this area, so 266 homes are needed (2/3 of 399 is 266) : 158 social homes will be built on Foxhill estate itself according to final plans from Curo so 266 minus 158 = 108 social homes need to be found in the Foxhill area but not on the Foxhill estate itself.

Residents who currently live in houses fear that their only option , if they wish to stay in the Foxhill area, will be that they will be rehoused in flats in Mulberry Park (the new site bought from the MOD by Curo and located next to the Foxhill housing estate)



I object to the huge loss of social homes in Foxhill.

The law obliges Curo to build 30% of social homes on a new empty site, so Curo have to build 30% of social homes on Mulberry Park which is not part of the Foxhill red zone area.

Curo have been quoted by HTC news to have said that everyone who wishes to stay in Foxhill will be housed in Foxhill but as there will be a loss of 294 social homes in Foxhill itself the only way to do this is by offering Foxhill residents a home on Mulberry Park. This would be illegal as the law states that on new builds 30% of the houses must be social homes, in other words, a whole new batch of social homes must be available to the community at large.

Demolishing for simplicity's sake 10 social homes and then housing these 10 families in the 30% of social homes to be built robs the 30% of new available homes to the community and actually reduces the amount of social homes by 20 (10 less in Foxhill and 10 less in Mulberry Park)

This is illegal and I object to houses built on Mulberry Park replacing the demolished ones in Foxhill rather than being available to those on the waiting list.

Design and Access Statement mentions that:

- building stock is old and will become increasingly expensive to maintain and is more expensive to heat than modern homes - houses which are privately owned have been done up in such a way that there is NO MAINTENANCE needed and that heating bills have been reduced by £100 a year (my own home is an example of this - we replaced the walls in 2001 and installed good quality double glazing in the whole property and a self condensing boiler - this is less expensive than rebuilding a whole house! We have had no maintenance costs at all since 2011!!!!

- (section 3) homes grouped in large clusters ..... limits social interaction between different groups within the community by separating them into different areas of the estate - has the team which created these plans ever waited at the bus stop in Queens Drive - people from Queens Drive, Selworthy House, Kewstoke, Dunster House, Sedgemoor Road use this bus stop and you can hardly hear yourself think because of the happy chatter and general hello love how are you etc which is taking place. If there is one thing which can be said about Foxhill it is that people talk to one another, whichever area of Foxhill they come from - if those who wrote these plans took the Foxhill bus they would soon realise there is no lack of social interaction between residents of several areas of Foxhill: those from Bradford Park happily join the bus at the main road and so do those of Down Avenue and Bradford Road and the happy bantering and chatting stars again with the "Hello Loves " etc, the bus is usually noisy in a wonderful way due to all the chattering, it is so lovely!!!!

It is well known that Foxhill contains up to three generations of families who live on different parts of the estate and who visit and socialise, this then extends to the friends of the members of these families so social interaction is vibrant and much alive here!

Planning Statement mention that:

- there is a high turnover of tenants: given the fact that many tenants have lived here for generations this is hard to believe. The only high turnover is in the groups of tenants who since Curo decided they wished to demolish the estate, have been given short lease tenancies in properties bought back by Curo from private owners and rented out to tenants at high rent rates!

I have lived here for 38 years and I still see the same old faces day in day out at the bus stop and in the shops. Foxhill is a very stable community and people like it here and want to stay; newcomers to the area are delighted by the lovely village atmosphere and the peaceful way of living.

- there is a limited connection with surrounding areas ...... with MOD site creating a physical barrier between Foxhill and Combe Down ...... there are 4 buses connecting Foxhill to surrounding areas: the no 2, the no 3, and the no 20 ..... some people from Foxhill go to church in Combe Down, we all use the doctors surgery in Combe Down, many Foxhill children go to school in the primary school in Combe Down and the secondary school (Ralph Allen) in Combe Down. So it would seem that the presence of the MOD has never been a physical barrier between Foxhill and Combe Down

- Foxhill has been designated a Housing Zone by the Governement. Housing zone status means that the site has access to government funding ..... that does not mean that Foxhill is so derelict that it needs to be demolished ..... government funding can be used to upgrade houses rather than demolishing them


- 3.5 socio-economic baseline:

- compares percentages of various situations and conditions of groups in Foxhill to the total percentage of the same groups in Banes ..... but Foxhill is part of Banes so how can these statistics have any comparative value at all?

- compares employment figures of people in Foxhill with figures for those living in Combe Down and mentions that:

in Combe Down the majority of residents are in professional or associate professional occupation or management roles whereas in Foxhill the majority of residents are in elementary occupations, skilled trade occupations, administrative or secretarial occupations and sales and customer services .... so? Are the occupations of those in Foxhill of lower value than those in Combe Down? Our city would not be able to exist without the contribution of those lower paid workers who keep the restaurants, shops, businesses, colleges and universities open! Of course the residents in Combe Down are residents whose higher qualifications and better paid employment allow them to live in the more expensive houses in Combe Down.

Foxhill at the Crossroads

3.9 The Hepworth report is quoted: Professor Hepworth himself officially anounced in publications and to the press that his report was outdated and no longer of value.

The said report mentioned - and this is quoted in the planning application - that 60% of the residents live in social housing - as if this comes as a surprise to Professor Hepworth and Curo - of course there will be a large percentage of residents living in social housing as Foxhill is a social housing estate! 40% of the residents own their house and have bought is because life in Foxhill in peacefull and quiet in a very supportive community.

The said report is quoted again by Curo in their planning application as it called: "Foxhill: the worst place to live in Bath"! That must be why so many of us decided to buy our houses and live here for forty years and more! This amounts to malicious low grade gossip: years ago Whiteway used to be described as the place to avoid, Twerton had a similar fate. Foxhill is a wonderful place to live in, we have a lot of wildlife, we are close to the country side, we have a supportive community, the traffic is not too heavy, allowing children to still play outside, and we grow vegetables and fruit in our gardens. We have good local schools, two good supermarkets nearby, a post office, a chemist, two churches , a news agent, a baker and a poodle parlour! What more do we need?

Curo then continues to use the Hepworth report to discredit Foxhill - the report mentioned at the time (it is now out of date according to the professor who wrote it) -
that there are poor transport links and that there is an island mentality - we have three different buses connecting us to the city, Combe Down and the University plus all the surrounding estates too as bus no 20 goes round several estates in Bath as well as the city. Many of the residents work in town and at the University and many have families on other estates. When going into town, one regularly bumps into other residents from Foxhill, so this statement is far from the truth.

Curo mentions that 31% of the population have no qualifications: social housing estates help those who have a low income - they are human beings too - and some of those with no qualifications carry out the jobs the rest of us do not want to do - recycling, bins, street cleaning, cleaning houses etc - is Curo planning to give these people money to obtain qualifications? How is demolishing our estate going to help these people to obtain qualifications.

The lack of qualifications is described as something to be ashamed of. The poverty trap is exactly that: poor families can not always afford to send their children to college or university

Economic Challenges

Curo mentions that 22% of Foxhill residents are out of work and on benefits, which is quoted as double the rate for residents in Combe Down - obiously, if people in Combe Down were out of work and on benefits they would not live in Combe Down as they could not afford the mortgages for their expensive houses. I do not know what Curo are trying to prove with these statistics. A plan which results in a huge loss of social housing will only increase these figures as those who can afford to work at present, may not be able to work anymore if they are being rehoused in new houses with increased rents and charges.

That is indeed an economic challenge!!!!

Curo mentions that 8.2% are economically inactive due to long term illness - yes, that does make sense as some residents are elderly and old people do indeed often have long term illnesses and no longer work

Curo mentions the lack of social opportunities, particularly for the young - that must be the reason why their plans for the community hub include and art gallery (it is well known that teenagers love going to art galleries!!!! ) - instead of building a sports centre or a large space for a youth club.

3.16 Curo explains that Foxhill can only use the facilities of Mulberry Park - such as the school and the community hub - "if the two sites of Mulberry Park and Foxhill are physically and socially integrated" - it is not necessary to demolish a large amount of homes in Foxhill to give young mums the incentive to use the pre school facilties of Mulberry Park (they will be very pleased to use these) or to go to a slimming world session or a coffee morning in the hub.

My conclusion is that the proposed redevelopment of Foxhill will create - and has already created - a huge amount of anger and anguish amongst the residents of Foxhill. It will not create happy thriving communities - we already have this here in Foxhill - it may create social friction and resentment.



Alfreda Buckley
57 Queens Drive
Bath BA2 5PB
(Home Owner)

Date: 9 November 2016

To: Planning Services - Lewis House - Manvers Street - Bath - BA1 1JG


Re: Planning Application Ref No 16/05219/EOUT


Dear Sirs,

I hereby wish to oppose Curo's overall planning application for the regeneration of the Foxhill estate for the following reasons:

1. According to a solicitor specialising in planning law - Martin Goodall - the law allows regeneration to take place on existing residential settlements - but only filling in, in gaps between existing homes.

What Curo are applying planning permission for is the demolition of a whole neighbourhood and community (apart from constraints created by existing ownership) - not a filling in between existing homes.

2. Curo states it wants to create a unified development linking Foxhill Estate and Mulberry Park, thus creating a huge sprawling estate, a city within a city, which means that Foxhill would no longer be the peaceful supportive village style community it has been for many years and still is.

This kind of huge development may be what people are used to in London, but it is out of character with the whole ethos and way of living of residents in Bath. Estates of this magnitude are a breeding ground for social problems.

Strong supportive communities do not exist in huge developments but in small scale living areas such as villages and small estates. The community we have here in Foxhill is something to be treasured and valued and it is a rare gem in our modern world.

3. The regeneration of Foxhill will provide around 700 new homes - but only a small percentage of these homes will be social housing. If planning permission is granted for Curo's plans there will be a loss of social housing in Foxhill: (see below please for figures).

At present there are 452 social homes inside the red zone of Foxhill: this is the area which Curo wishes to demolish.

4. The proposed flats on several corners of Queens Drive do not fit in with the rest of the neighbourhood. Flats of this size should be located on the outskirts of an estate, not in the middle of it.

5. The proposed 4 to 41/2 storey flats on the corner of Queens Drive and Sedgemoor Road would be built next to my home which we own. The flats would overlook our garden and bedroom plus kitchen windows, thus resulting in a loss of privacy. The suggested plans for these flats will result in building too close to the borders of my property, too close to the windows and too close to the garden which will be plunged into shade which planning laws do not permit. The flats will be too high, compared to our property. The 6 to 6 1/2 storey high flats to be built on the corner of the current Kewstoke Road will be out of place in an area where the houses will be 3 to 3 1/2 and 2 to 2 1/2 storeys storeys high.

6. Between the flats (to be built on the corner of Queens Drive and Sedgemoor Road,) and our house, there will be a car park. This car park will be right next to our garden. Given the numbers of cars expected in this car park (numbers generated by the residents living in 4 to 4 1/2 storey flat) this will create a lot of pollution right next to our garden! I obejct to these flats and the car park being built right next to our house and garden.

7. The plans for Queens Drive consist of a large percentage of high density building, and only a small percentage of medium and small density building. I object to high density building which is only possible if a general "land grab" ( garden grab) is taking place. I object to high density building which the proposed outline planning application is proposing.

8. The bottom part of Queens Drive would consist of 2 to 2.5 storey houses, presumably to fit in with the large numbers of privately owned houses in that section of Queens Drive and the surrounding areas of Axbridge and Meare Road (2 storey houses) .
The same principle of building homes no higher than 2 to 2.5 storeys high, should be applied to the whole of Queens Drive as blocks of houses containing a privately owned house would be too expensive for Curo to demolish and 2 to 2 1/2 storey high houses will fit in well with the blocs of housing to remain due to private ownership.

9. The houses which the plans are proposing will be a mixture of social housing, affordable housing and up market "expensive" housing (many of them will have 3 to 4 bedrooms).
The local population of Foxhill will be offered very narrow houses to live in instead of the small but comfortable houses they are used to. The mixture of social housing and upmarket privately owned housing is bound to create resentment and anger, which will also lead to social problems such as in increased crime rate - the present crime rate in Foxhill is extremely low.

10. Curo wants to enhance local wildlife and ecology: lots of traffic and pollution is not going to attract wildlife. These conditions will chase the wild life present in Foxhill away: we have hedgehogs, foxes, toads, frogs and a variety of bird species. We used to have bats in our garden but since the building has started in Mulberry Park, for the first time in 36 years, we no longer have bats in our garden.

11. MOST IMPORTANTLY:

LOSS OF SOCIAL HOMES FIGURES BASED ON FINAL PLANS FOR REGENERATION OF FOXHILL CURO

LOSS OF SOCIAL HOMES FIGURES BASED ON FINAL PLANS FOR REGENERATION OF FOXHILL CURO

Curo's final exhibition states that they would like to build 30% of affordable homes (out of the 700 new homes they plan to build).

There are 544 homes in the red zone (this is the zone which the current plans refer to) : 92 of these are privately owned: so there are 452 social homes in the red zone in Foxhill.

However, out of these 452 social homes 53 are homes which were bought from private owners by Curo and are currently rented out at market prices (instead of being rented out to those on the waiting list!)

So: 452 minus 53 = 399 social homes left in the red zone in Foxhill

The plans mention that out of the 700 new homes to be built - these are not 700 homes on top of the homes in existence, these are 700 instead of the ones in place at present! - out of these 700 homes:

30% will be affordable (this means houses which are less expensive than the going market rate) : so 210 of these houses will be affordable

out of the 30% affordable ones, 75% will be for rent (social homes) and 25% will be for sale under the shared ownership system.

so: out of 210 affordable homes to be built, 158 will be for rent and 52 will be for sale under shared ownership system.

THERE WILL BE 158 SOCIAL HOMES INSTEAD OF 399

THIS IS A LOSS OF 241 SOCIAL HOMES

( FIGURES BASED ON FINAL OUTLINE PLANS FOR THE FOXHILL ESTATE REGENERATION)


The Council’s rehousing policy states that developers have to build 30% of affordable housing on new build sites (Mulberry Park, the empty plot next to our housing estate) but Liz Richardson, cabinet member for housing at Banes Council, mentioned that percentages of social housing/shared ownership for sale housing will be negotiated subject to availablitity.

Curo – the housing developer – keep stating that all those who wish to stay in Foxhill will be rehoused in Mulberry Park or Foxhill – and that 2/3 of the current tenants in social homes wish to stay in this area, so 266 homes are needed (2/3 of 399 is 266) : 158 social homes will be built on Foxhill estate itself according to final plans from Curo so 266 minus 158 = 108 social homes need to be found in the Foxhill area but not on the Foxhill estate itself.

Residents who currently live in houses fear that their only option , if they wish to stay in the Foxhill area, will be that they will be rehoused in flats in Mulberry Park (the new site bought from the MOD by Curo and located next to the Foxhill housing estate)



I object to the huge loss of social homes in Foxhill.

The law obliges Curo to build 30% of social homes on a new empty site, so Curo have to build 30% of social homes on Mulberry Park which is not part of the Foxhill red zone area.

Curo have been quoted by HTC news to have said that everyone who wishes to stay in Foxhill will be housed in Foxhill but as there will be a loss of 294 social homes in Foxhill itself the only way to do this is by offering Foxhill residents a home on Mulberry Park. This would be illegal as the law states that on new builds 30% of the houses must be social homes, in other words, a whole new batch of social homes must be available to the community at large.

Demolishing for simplicity's sake 10 social homes and then housing these 10 families in the 30% of social homes to be built robs the 30% of new available homes to the community and actually reduces the amount of social homes by 20 (10 less in Foxhill and 10 less in Mulberry Park)

This is illegal and I object to houses built on Mulberry Park replacing the demolished ones in Foxhill rather than being available to those on the waiting list.

Design and Access Statement mentions that:

- building stock is old and will become increasingly expensive to maintain and is more expensive to heat than modern homes - houses which are privately owned have been done up in such a way that there is NO MAINTENANCE needed and that heating bills have been reduced by £100 a year (my own home is an example of this - we replaced the walls in 2001 and installed good quality double glazing in the whole property and a self condensing boiler - this is less expensive than rebuilding a whole house! We have had no maintenance costs at all since 2011!!!!

- (section 3) homes grouped in large clusters ..... limits social interaction between different groups within the community by separating them into different areas of the estate - has the team which created these plans ever waited at the bus stop in Queens Drive - people from Queens Drive, Selworthy House, Kewstoke, Dunster House, Sedgemoor Road use this bus stop and you can hardly hear yourself think because of the happy chatter and general hello love how are you etc which is taking place. If there is one thing which can be said about Foxhill it is that people talk to one another, whichever area of Foxhill they come from - if those who wrote these plans took the Foxhill bus they would soon realise there is no lack of social interaction between residents of several areas of Foxhill: those from Bradford Park happily join the bus at the main road and so do those of Down Avenue and Bradford Road and the happy bantering and chatting stars again with the "Hello Loves " etc, the bus is usually noisy in a wonderful way due to all the chattering, it is so lovely!!!!

It is well known that Foxhill contains up to three generations of families who live on different parts of the estate and who visit and socialise, this then extends to the friends of the members of these families so social interaction is vibrant and much alive here!

Planning Statement mention that:

- there is a high turnover of tenants: given the fact that many tenants have lived here for generations this is hard to believe. The only high turnover is in the groups of tenants who since Curo decided they wished to demolish the estate, have been given short lease tenancies in properties bought back by Curo from private owners and rented out to tenants at high rent rates!

I have lived here for 38 years and I still see the same old faces day in day out at the bus stop and in the shops. Foxhill is a very stable community and people like it here and want to stay; newcomers to the area are delighted by the lovely village atmosphere and the peaceful way of living.

- there is a limited connection with surrounding areas ...... with MOD site creating a physical barrier between Foxhill and Combe Down ...... there are 4 buses connecting Foxhill to surrounding areas: the no 2, the no 3, and the no 20 ..... some people from Foxhill go to church in Combe Down, we all use the doctors surgery in Combe Down, many Foxhill children go to school in the primary school in Combe Down and the secondary school (Ralph Allen) in Combe Down. So it would seem that the presence of the MOD has never been a physical barrier between Foxhill and Combe Down

- Foxhill has been designated a Housing Zone by the Governement. Housing zone status means that the site has access to government funding ..... that does not mean that Foxhill is so derelict that it needs to be demolished ..... government funding can be used to upgrade houses rather than demolishing them


- 3.5 socio-economic baseline:

- compares percentages of various situations and conditions of groups in Foxhill to the total percentage of the same groups in Banes ..... but Foxhill is part of Banes so how can these statistics have any comparative value at all?

- compares employment figures of people in Foxhill with figures for those living in Combe Down and mentions that:

in Combe Down the majority of residents are in professional or associate professional occupation or management roles whereas in Foxhill the majority of residents are in elementary occupations, skilled trade occupations, administrative or secretarial occupations and sales and customer services .... so? Are the occupations of those in Foxhill of lower value than those in Combe Down? Our city would not be able to exist without the contribution of those lower paid workers who keep the restaurants, shops, businesses, colleges and universities open! Of course the residents in Combe Down are residents whose higher qualifications and better paid employment allow them to live in the more expensive houses in Combe Down.

Foxhill at the Crossroads

3.9 The Hepworth report is quoted: Professor Hepworth himself officially anounced in publications and to the press that his report was outdated and no longer of value.

The said report mentioned - and this is quoted in the planning application - that 60% of the residents live in social housing - as if this comes as a surprise to Professor Hepworth and Curo - of course there will be a large percentage of residents living in social housing as Foxhill is a social housing estate! 40% of the residents own their house and have bought is because life in Foxhill in peacefull and quiet in a very supportive community.

The said report is quoted again by Curo in their planning application as it called: "Foxhill: the worst place to live in Bath"! That must be why so many of us decided to buy our houses and live here for forty years and more! This amounts to malicious low grade gossip: years ago Whiteway used to be described as the place to avoid, Twerton had a similar fate. Foxhill is a wonderful place to live in, we have a lot of wildlife, we are close to the country side, we have a supportive community, the traffic is not too heavy, allowing children to still play outside, and we grow vegetables and fruit in our gardens. We have good local schools, two good supermarkets nearby, a post office, a chemist, two churches , a news agent, a baker and a poodle parlour! What more do we need?

Curo then continues to use the Hepworth report to discredit Foxhill - the report mentioned at the time (it is now out of date according to the professor who wrote it) -
that there are poor transport links and that there is an island mentality - we have three different buses connecting us to the city, Combe Down and the University plus all the surrounding estates too as bus no 20 goes round several estates in Bath as well as the city. Many of the residents work in town and at the University and many have families on other estates. When going into town, one regularly bumps into other residents from Foxhill, so this statement is far from the truth.

Curo mentions that 31% of the population have no qualifications: social housing estates help those who have a low income - they are human beings too - and some of those with no qualifications carry out the jobs the rest of us do not want to do - recycling, bins, street cleaning, cleaning houses etc - is Curo planning to give these people money to obtain qualifications? How is demolishing our estate going to help these people to obtain qualifications.

The lack of qualifications is described as something to be ashamed of. The poverty trap is exactly that: poor families can not always afford to send their children to college or university

Economic Challenges

Curo mentions that 22% of Foxhill residents are out of work and on benefits, which is quoted as double the rate for residents in Combe Down - obiously, if people in Combe Down were out of work and on benefits they would not live in Combe Down as they could not afford the mortgages for their expensive houses. I do not know what Curo are trying to prove with these statistics. A plan which results in a huge loss of social housing will only increase these figures as those who can afford to work at present, may not be able to work anymore if they are being rehoused in new houses with increased rents and charges.

That is indeed an economic challenge!!!!

Curo mentions that 8.2% are economically inactive due to long term illness - yes, that does make sense as some residents are elderly and old people do indeed often have long term illnesses and no longer work

Curo mentions the lack of social opportunities, particularly for the young - that must be the reason why their plans for the community hub include and art gallery (it is well known that teenagers love going to art galleries!!!! ) - instead of building a sports centre or a large space for a youth club.

3.16 Curo explains that Foxhill can only use the facilities of Mulberry Park - such as the school and the community hub - "if the two sites of Mulberry Park and Foxhill are physically and socially integrated" - it is not necessary to demolish a large amount of homes in Foxhill to give young mums the incentive to use the pre school facilties of Mulberry Park (they will be very pleased to use these) or to go to a slimming world session or a coffee morning in the hub.

My conclusion is that the proposed redevelopment of Foxhill will create - and has already created - a huge amount of anger and anguish amongst the residents of Foxhill. It will not create happy thriving communities - we already have this here in Foxhill - it may create social friction and resentment.








Alfreda Buckley
57 Queens Drive
Bath BA2 5PB
(Home Owner)

Date: 9 November 2016

To: Planning Services - Lewis House - Manvers Street - Bath - BA1 1JG


Re: Planning Application Ref No 16/05219/EOUT


Dear Sirs,

I hereby wish to oppose Curo's overall planning application for the regeneration of the Foxhill estate for the following reasons:

1. According to a solicitor specialising in planning law - Martin Goodall - the law allows regeneration to take place on existing residential settlements - but only filling in, in gaps between existing homes.

What Curo are applying planning permission for is the demolition of a whole neighbourhood and community (apart from constraints created by existing ownership) - not a filling in between existing homes.

2. Curo states it wants to create a unified development linking Foxhill Estate and Mulberry Park, thus creating a huge sprawling estate, a city within a city, which means that Foxhill would no longer be the peaceful supportive village style community it has been for many years and still is.

This kind of huge development may be what people are used to in London, but it is out of character with the whole ethos and way of living of residents in Bath. Estates of this magnitude are a breeding ground for social problems.

Strong supportive communities do not exist in huge developments but in small scale living areas such as villages and small estates. The community we have here in Foxhill is something to be treasured and valued and it is a rare gem in our modern world.

3. The regeneration of Foxhill will provide around 700 new homes - but only a small percentage of these homes will be social housing. If planning permission is granted for Curo's plans there will be a loss of social housing in Foxhill: (see below please for figures).

At present there are 452 social homes inside the red zone of Foxhill: this is the area which Curo wishes to demolish.

4. The proposed flats on several corners of Queens Drive do not fit in with the rest of the neighbourhood. Flats of this size should be located on the outskirts of an estate, not in the middle of it.

5. The proposed 4 to 41/2 storey flats on the corner of Queens Drive and Sedgemoor Road would be built next to my home which we own. The flats would overlook our garden and bedroom plus kitchen windows, thus resulting in a loss of privacy. The suggested plans for these flats will result in building too close to the borders of my property, too close to the windows and too close to the garden which will be plunged into shade which planning laws do not permit. The flats will be too high, compared to our property. The 6 to 6 1/2 storey high flats to be built on the corner of the current Kewstoke Road will be out of place in an area where the houses will be 3 to 3 1/2 and 2 to 2 1/2 storeys storeys high.

6. Between the flats (to be built on the corner of Queens Drive and Sedgemoor Road,) and our house, there will be a car park. This car park will be right next to our garden. Given the numbers of cars expected in this car park (numbers generated by the residents living in 4 to 4 1/2 storey flat) this will create a lot of pollution right next to our garden! I obejct to these flats and the car park being built right next to our house and garden.

7. The plans for Queens Drive consist of a large percentage of high density building, and only a small percentage of medium and small density building. I object to high density building which is only possible if a general "land grab" ( garden grab) is taking place. I object to high density building which the proposed outline planning application is proposing.

8. The bottom part of Queens Drive would consist of 2 to 2.5 storey houses, presumably to fit in with the large numbers of privately owned houses in that section of Queens Drive and the surrounding areas of Axbridge and Meare Road (2 storey houses) .
The same principle of building homes no higher than 2 to 2.5 storeys high, should be applied to the whole of Queens Drive as blocks of houses containing a privately owned house would be too expensive for Curo to demolish and 2 to 2 1/2 storey high houses will fit in well with the blocs of housing to remain due to private ownership.

9. The houses which the plans are proposing will be a mixture of social housing, affordable housing and up market "expensive" housing (many of them will have 3 to 4 bedrooms).
The local population of Foxhill will be offered very narrow houses to live in instead of the small but comfortable houses they are used to. The mixture of social housing and upmarket privately owned housing is bound to create resentment and anger, which will also lead to social problems such as in increased crime rate - the present crime rate in Foxhill is extremely low.

10. Curo wants to enhance local wildlife and ecology: lots of traffic and pollution is not going to attract wildlife. These conditions will chase the wild life present in Foxhill away: we have hedgehogs, foxes, toads, frogs and a variety of bird species. We used to have bats in our garden but since the building has started in Mulberry Park, for the first time in 36 years, we no longer have bats in our garden.

11. MOST IMPORTANTLY:

LOSS OF SOCIAL HOMES FIGURES BASED ON FINAL PLANS FOR REGENERATION OF FOXHILL CURO

LOSS OF SOCIAL HOMES FIGURES BASED ON FINAL PLANS FOR REGENERATION OF FOXHILL CURO

Curo's final exhibition states that they would like to build 30% of affordable homes (out of the 700 new homes they plan to build).

There are 544 homes in the red zone (this is the zone which the current plans refer to) : 92 of these are privately owned: so there are 452 social homes in the red zone in Foxhill.

However, out of these 452 social homes 53 are homes which were bought from private owners by Curo and are currently rented out at market prices (instead of being rented out to those on the waiting list!)

So: 452 minus 53 = 399 social homes left in the red zone in Foxhill

The plans mention that out of the 700 new homes to be built - these are not 700 homes on top of the homes in existence, these are 700 instead of the ones in place at present! - out of these 700 homes:

30% will be affordable (this means houses which are less expensive than the going market rate) : so 210 of these houses will be affordable

out of the 30% affordable ones, 75% will be for rent (social homes) and 25% will be for sale under the shared ownership system.

so: out of 210 affordable homes to be built, 158 will be for rent and 52 will be for sale under shared ownership system.

THERE WILL BE 158 SOCIAL HOMES INSTEAD OF 399

THIS IS A LOSS OF 241 SOCIAL HOMES

( FIGURES BASED ON FINAL OUTLINE PLANS FOR THE FOXHILL ESTATE REGENERATION)


The Council’s rehousing policy states that developers have to build 30% of affordable housing on new build sites (Mulberry Park, the empty plot next to our housing estate) but Liz Richardson, cabinet member for housing at Banes Council, mentioned that percentages of social housing/shared ownership for sale housing will be negotiated subject to availablitity.

Curo – the housing developer – keep stating that all those who wish to stay in Foxhill will be rehoused in Mulberry Park or Foxhill – and that 2/3 of the current tenants in social homes wish to stay in this area, so 266 homes are needed (2/3 of 399 is 266) : 158 social homes will be built on Foxhill estate itself according to final plans from Curo so 266 minus 158 = 108 social homes need to be found in the Foxhill area but not on the Foxhill estate itself.

Residents who currently live in houses fear that their only option , if they wish to stay in the Foxhill area, will be that they will be rehoused in flats in Mulberry Park (the new site bought from the MOD by Curo and located next to the Foxhill housing estate)



I object to the huge loss of social homes in Foxhill.

The law obliges Curo to build 30% of social homes on a new empty site, so Curo have to build 30% of social homes on Mulberry Park which is not part of the Foxhill red zone area.

Curo have been quoted by HTC news to have said that everyone who wishes to stay in Foxhill will be housed in Foxhill but as there will be a loss of 294 social homes in Foxhill itself the only way to do this is by offering Foxhill residents a home on Mulberry Park. This would be illegal as the law states that on new builds 30% of the houses must be social homes, in other words, a whole new batch of social homes must be available to the community at large.

Demolishing for simplicity's sake 10 social homes and then housing these 10 families in the 30% of social homes to be built robs the 30% of new available homes to the community and actually reduces the amount of social homes by 20 (10 less in Foxhill and 10 less in Mulberry Park)

This is illegal and I object to houses built on Mulberry Park replacing the demolished ones in Foxhill rather than being available to those on the waiting list.

Design and Access Statement mentions that:

- building stock is old and will become increasingly expensive to maintain and is more expensive to heat than modern homes - houses which are privately owned have been done up in such a way that there is NO MAINTENANCE needed and that heating bills have been reduced by £100 a year (my own home is an example of this - we replaced the walls in 2001 and installed good quality double glazing in the whole property and a self condensing boiler - this is less expensive than rebuilding a whole house! We have had no maintenance costs at all since 2011!!!!

- (section 3) homes grouped in large clusters ..... limits social interaction between different groups within the community by separating them into different areas of the estate - has the team which created these plans ever waited at the bus stop in Queens Drive - people from Queens Drive, Selworthy House, Kewstoke, Dunster House, Sedgemoor Road use this bus stop and you can hardly hear yourself think because of the happy chatter and general hello love how are you etc which is taking place. If there is one thing which can be said about Foxhill it is that people talk to one another, whichever area of Foxhill they come from - if those who wrote these plans took the Foxhill bus they would soon realise there is no lack of social interaction between residents of several areas of Foxhill: those from Bradford Park happily join the bus at the main road and so do those of Down Avenue and Bradford Road and the happy bantering and chatting stars again with the "Hello Loves " etc, the bus is usually noisy in a wonderful way due to all the chattering, it is so lovely!!!!

It is well known that Foxhill contains up to three generations of families who live on different parts of the estate and who visit and socialise, this then extends to the friends of the members of these families so social interaction is vibrant and much alive here!

Planning Statement mention that:

- there is a high turnover of tenants: given the fact that many tenants have lived here for generations this is hard to believe. The only high turnover is in the groups of tenants who since Curo decided they wished to demolish the estate, have been given short lease tenancies in properties bought back by Curo from private owners and rented out to tenants at high rent rates!

I have lived here for 38 years and I still see the same old faces day in day out at the bus stop and in the shops. Foxhill is a very stable community and people like it here and want to stay; newcomers to the area are delighted by the lovely village atmosphere and the peaceful way of living.

- there is a limited connection with surrounding areas ...... with MOD site creating a physical barrier between Foxhill and Combe Down ...... there are 4 buses connecting Foxhill to surrounding areas: the no 2, the no 3, and the no 20 ..... some people from Foxhill go to church in Combe Down, we all use the doctors surgery in Combe Down, many Foxhill children go to school in the primary school in Combe Down and the secondary school (Ralph Allen) in Combe Down. So it would seem that the presence of the MOD has never been a physical barrier between Foxhill and Combe Down

- Foxhill has been designated a Housing Zone by the Governement. Housing zone status means that the site has access to government funding ..... that does not mean that Foxhill is so derelict that it needs to be demolished ..... government funding can be used to upgrade houses rather than demolishing them


- 3.5 socio-economic baseline:

- compares percentages of various situations and conditions of groups in Foxhill to the total percentage of the same groups in Banes ..... but Foxhill is part of Banes so how can these statistics have any comparative value at all?

- compares employment figures of people in Foxhill with figures for those living in Combe Down and mentions that:

in Combe Down the majority of residents are in professional or associate professional occupation or management roles whereas in Foxhill the majority of residents are in elementary occupations, skilled trade occupations, administrative or secretarial occupations and sales and customer services .... so? Are the occupations of those in Foxhill of lower value than those in Combe Down? Our city would not be able to exist without the contribution of those lower paid workers who keep the restaurants, shops, businesses, colleges and universities open! Of course the residents in Combe Down are residents whose higher qualifications and better paid employment allow them to live in the more expensive houses in Combe Down.

Foxhill at the Crossroads

3.9 The Hepworth report is quoted: Professor Hepworth himself officially anounced in publications and to the press that his report was outdated and no longer of value.

The said report mentioned - and this is quoted in the planning application - that 60% of the residents live in social housing - as if this comes as a surprise to Professor Hepworth and Curo - of course there will be a large percentage of residents living in social housing as Foxhill is a social housing estate! 40% of the residents own their house and have bought is because life in Foxhill in peacefull and quiet in a very supportive community.

The said report is quoted again by Curo in their planning application as it called: "Foxhill: the worst place to live in Bath"! That must be why so many of us decided to buy our houses and live here for forty years and more! This amounts to malicious low grade gossip: years ago Whiteway used to be described as the place to avoid, Twerton had a similar fate. Foxhill is a wonderful place to live in, we have a lot of wildlife, we are close to the country side, we have a supportive community, the traffic is not too heavy, allowing children to still play outside, and we grow vegetables and fruit in our gardens. We have good local schools, two good supermarkets nearby, a post office, a chemist, two churches , a news agent, a baker and a poodle parlour! What more do we need?

Curo then continues to use the Hepworth report to discredit Foxhill - the report mentioned at the time (it is now out of date according to the professor who wrote it) -
that there are poor transport links and that there is an island mentality - we have three different buses connecting us to the city, Combe Down and the University plus all the surrounding estates too as bus no 20 goes round several estates in Bath as well as the city. Many of the residents work in town and at the University and many have families on other estates. When going into town, one regularly bumps into other residents from Foxhill, so this statement is far from the truth.

Curo mentions that 31% of the population have no qualifications: social housing estates help those who have a low income - they are human beings too - and some of those with no qualifications carry out the jobs the rest of us do not want to do - recycling, bins, street cleaning, cleaning houses etc - is Curo planning to give these people money to obtain qualifications? How is demolishing our estate going to help these people to obtain qualifications.

The lack of qualifications is described as something to be ashamed of. The poverty trap is exactly that: poor families can not always afford to send their children to college or university

Economic Challenges

Curo mentions that 22% of Foxhill residents are out of work and on benefits, which is quoted as double the rate for residents in Combe Down - obiously, if people in Combe Down were out of work and on benefits they would not live in Combe Down as they could not afford the mortgages for their expensive houses. I do not know what Curo are trying to prove with these statistics. A plan which results in a huge loss of social housing will only increase these figures as those who can afford to work at present, may not be able to work anymore if they are being rehoused in new houses with increased rents and charges.

That is indeed an economic challenge!!!!

Curo mentions that 8.2% are economically inactive due to long term illness - yes, that does make sense as some residents are elderly and old people do indeed often have long term illnesses and no longer work

Curo mentions the lack of social opportunities, particularly for the young - that must be the reason why their plans for the community hub include and art gallery (it is well known that teenagers love going to art galleries!!!! ) - instead of building a sports centre or a large space for a youth club.

3.16 Curo explains that Foxhill can only use the facilities of Mulberry Park - such as the school and the community hub - "if the two sites of Mulberry Park and Foxhill are physically and socially integrated" - it is not necessary to demolish a large amount of homes in Foxhill to give young mums the incentive to use the pre school facilties of Mulberry Park (they will be very pleased to use these) or to go to a slimming world session or a coffee morning in the hub.

My conclusion is that the proposed redevelopment of Foxhill will create - and has already created - a huge amount of anger and anguish amongst the residents of Foxhill. It will not create happy thriving communities - we already have this here in Foxhill - it may create social friction and resentment.



I object to the application and shall send you my comments by post as there does not seem to be a facility to
send you my document as an attachment, thank you









08/11/2016: My main objection is that Curo's plans would result in a huge loss of social housing (241 houses), that the plans would result in high density building, that the flats to built in the middle of Queens Drive would be out of character with the neighbourhood, that the flats on the corner of Queens Drive would be too close to two privately owner properties resulting on lack of privacy and overshadowing of the gardens, that it will adversely affect wildlife, that some of the flats will be 6 to 61/2 stories high which is out of character with the neighbourhood, that it would create a huge London type sprawling estate rather than the peaceful village atmosphere with supportive community that exists in Foxhill, that the huge increase in traffic will create pollution, that the whole project is a garden grab, that is will create economical problems for the residents some of whom will be rehouses in housing with higher rents than their present accommodation and higher service charges, that residents will have to live on a building project for ten years with no information about the details of their particular building phase as these will not be available for years to come, which creates anxiety and does not allow people to plan their lives. I am sending you a more detailed objection to the plans by post as your website does not allow me to attach my letter. Best regards, Frieda Buckley 09/11/2016: I submitted my objection comments yesterday and mentioned my objections to some of the flats on the future Foxhill Square (corner of present Queens Drive, and Sedgemoor having up to 6 storeys, but I have noticed today in the plans that this previous plan has been changed and that these flats will now not be higher than 4 storeys.I still feel that the flats should be located on the outskirts of the estate though, not in the middle next to homes of a much smaller height, thank you
Thank you
09/11/2016
J Evered 44 Sedgemoor Road, Combe Down, Bath, Bath And North East Somerset, BA2 5PL O View Associated Documents 31/05/2017
Lesley Ault 69 Bradford Park, Combe Down, Bath, Bath And North East Somerset, BA2 5PS S 18/05/2017: I think the new development is a great opportunity for Bath and the surrounding area and will provide many much needed low cost homes for the local people on viewing the new homes I was very impressed with the workmanship and planning that had gone into the development a much needed and very exciting times ahead. 18/05/2017
Elizabeth Eastwood 50 Sedgemoor Road, Combe Down, Bath, Bath And North East Somerset, BA2 5PL O 13/11/2016: I do not support the demolition of my home or any of the 542 homes that Curo are trying to demolish.
I am one of the 338 tenants that signed the petition earlier in the year.
What will be achieved by doing so?
I am very upset & distressed of the uncertainty of this plan & so are so many of the residents whose homes will be affected.
Allowing this to go ahead will destroy our community.
We would also have to live on a building site for many years, which could affect our health.
There is already a huge waiting list for housing, how & where will we all be rehoused?
There certainly won't be enough affordable housing for us.
Why can't Curo tidy the estate & our homes rather than demolish them?
I have lived in my home in Sedgemoor Roaf for over 28 years. I brought my children up here.
One thing I love about my home is my huge garden which I could lose if this horrendous plan goes ahead.
Finally please think about us residents when deciding our fate.
We don't want to leave or lose our homes,or have our community which has taken decades to build destroyed.
I feel that Curo does not care about us, all they see is £££ signs, they are supposed to be a Charity!!
Please please please don't allow this planning application to go ahead.
Please consider us.
Thankyou


13/11/2016: I strongly oppose the plan for demolition of 542 homes on Foxhill Estate by Curo including my own home.
I signed petition earlier in the year stating that I did not want to leave my home.
Curo does not care about us tenants & homeowners or that our community will be destroyed.
This community has taken decades to build & Curo now want to destroy it.
How will we be rehoused when there are already over 6500 people on waiting list for social housing.
Curo is offering compensation to us,
I for one don't want compensation I want to remain in my current home, a home that I have lived in for over 28 years, a home that I brought my children up in.
If these plans are approved we will have to live on a building site for years to come.
Curo are supposed to be a Charity but all they care about is £££s, they don't care about us.
Curo should be looking how to improve our homes & community not demolishing it.
No no no!!
Please please please have some compassion for us residents & reject these plans.
It is so upsetting & stressful for those of us that wish to remain in our homes.
Thankyou
13/05/2017: I do not want my home or the Foxhill estate demolished.
Curo don't care about us residents or about destroying our neighbourhood, just about lining their pockets. The new plans don't look any different, the new housing look like prisons with no garden!! Why demolish our homes that we have lived in & brought our families up in for many years, what right have they got to invade our privacy.I strongly object to these plans. Please let us keep our homes.
13/05/2017
Alexis Tjolle 10 Sedgemoor Road, Combe Down, Bath, Bath And North East Somerset, BA2 5PJ O 29/05/2017: I object to this planning application on a number of grounds, the principle one being the loss of social housing. The gentrification of this area is unacceptable. The proposed new housing is largely unaffordable to many who currently own homes here and is effectively pushing them out of Bath. Currently a two bed house here is around 100k less than the new housing being built in Mulberry Park.
I strongly object to the proposed demolition of housing at Foxhill.
29/05/2017
Lisa Hayman-Briggs 50 Kewstoke Road, Combe Down, Bath, Bath And North East Somerset, BA2 5PU O 24/05/2017: I live next to the bungalows which provide space and privacy to those living in them. I object to the plans because it won't add any value to the area. Elderly residents will be displaced, stressed out, potentially causing further illness. I also think Curo won't support affected residents adequately throughout the process causing even more stress to residents. 24/05/2017
Mrs T Warren 12 King Street, Kingswood, Bristol, BS15 1DH O 25/11/2016: I object to the planning application reference: 16/05219/EOUT
Our Family home is NOT FOR SALE at any cost I am totally against selling our property including compulsory selling
this property our family home is for our safety and security now and for the future
if we are made to sale our family home now it would effectively plunge my mother in to poverty within two years.
28/11/2016: I object to this application. With more properties comes more cars, and less driveways will mean more on street parking which will make the roads narrow and crowded. more roads cutting through the estate makes more crowded rat runs. This can make it difficult for Emergeny services and could make response times longer.
Bradford road already has a high volume of traffic and congestion and this will see alot more as residents move in to mullbury park.
Demolishing Foxhill, changing access and buliding more properties is going to make the traffic situation alot worse.
28/11/2016
Alison Mead 40 Kewstoke Road, Combe Down, Bath, Bath And North East Somerset, BA2 5PU O 23/11/2016: I object to the proposed plan for the following reasons:-

1) The mass demolition of homes. There are several types, built at different times, are they all sub-standard and need to be replaced? I find that very hard to believe.

2) Tenants and homeowners being forced to move from their homes. Some like myself have lived in Foxhill for decades.

3) The number of market value to buy homes compared to the very small number of social housing homes. The BANES area have a waiting list of thousands, how will this help them if existing social housing is lost?

4) The height of some of the buildings, FIVE and SIX storeys!!!

5) The destruction of the mature trees and gardens and the effect this will have on the wildlife they support.

6) The inevitable increase in traffic and parking problems.

7) The prospect of having to live in a building site for up to ten years.

23/05/2017: This amended plan still means the loss of social housing on Foxhill, residents made to move from their homes, mature trees, gardens, wildlife habitats destroyed and the inevitable parking/traffic problems. 23/05/2017
N Cooper 3 Kewstoke Road, Combe Down, Bath, Bath And North East Somerset, BA2 5PU O View Associated Documents 02/11/2016
Paula Cooper 62 Queen's Drive, Combe Down, Bath, Bath And North East Somerset, BA2 5PB O 11/11/2016: I am all for re-generation
But not when homes are lost rather than gained especially for the poorer and people, whom have no choice or say in what happens to their homes or where they will be placed next,
23/11/2016: We are in need of more affordable housing not less, how can these multi million or billion pound companies get away with their plans to reduce affordable housing it should be illegal ! 23/11/2016
Kelly Loxton 29 Drake Avenue, Combe Down, Bath, Bath And North East Somerset, BA2 5NX O 15/11/2016: Keep foxhill as it is houses do not need to be demolished just updated 15/11/2016
Dr. Yukteshwar Kumar 8 Bradford Park, Combe Down, Bath, Bath And North East Somerset, BA2 5PR O View Associated Documents 18/10/2016
George Ferguson 43 Bradford Park, Combe Down, Bath, Bath And North East Somerset, BA2 5PR O 26/11/2016: I OBJECT to this application on the grounds that I have owned this property for over 30 years, and lived here for44 years.
I cannot afford to purchase or rent a new property at this stage in my life.
I am devastated that Curo wants to bulldoze a whole community.
The proposed new homes will be far too expensive for existing residents to buy. This can only mean that
the residents are being forced out of their homes to make way for wealthier newcomers.
There has been a lack of meaningful consultation about this proposal.
The houses on this estate are NOT beyond repair, and there is NO reason to pull them down on social grounds. Regeneration does NOT have to mean pulling down homes and destroying communities.
There will be a loss of 243 units of social housing overall- this is being done TO the people of Foxhill, not FOR us.
I also OBJECT to road schemes being included in this planning application- these should be in a separate planning application.
17/05/2017: I OBJECT to this application on the grounds that Curo propose to knock down perfectly good existing homes to replace them with homes that local people cannot afford to rent or buy. I have paid off my mortgage in full and at the age of 70 I have no way of paying rent or indeed securing a new mortgage. The amount that Curo propose to pay for my home is nowhere near enough to be able to purchase a similar property in the local area, or indeed anywhere in Bath. The proposed scheme also results in a significant loss of social housing units. To bulldoze a community and drive out local people to make way for expensive homes is scandalous. The existing estate is not run down and the houses are not beyond repair. 17/05/2017
Neomy Callas 17 Kewstoke Road, Combe Down, Bath, Bath And North East Somerset, BA2 5PU O 22/05/2017: Disgraceful!
Where has all the social housing gone in this plan!!!
We are a strong community and do not want the houses we live in to be knocked down!!
Are gardens are a safe haven to lots of endangered wildlife!
My garden in particular, provides a safe space for my homeschooled son with special needs to learn and play!
Bath city council I beg you to not accept these plans!!
22/05/2017
Christopher Smith 15 Kewstoke Road, Combe Down, Bath, Bath And North East Somerset, BA2 5PU O 28/11/2016: I fail to see the point of displacing 542 families in Foxhill, making them bid for housing in the BANES area. Many of these families work in the area. This scheme does not suit anyone. Why demolish wholesale when these properties are prime for renovation and at a reasonable price.

As a home owner in Foxhill our house has had all of the defective concrete taken away and replaced with well insulated inner walls and stonework outside.

Foxhill is a community and there are a lot of people here who are very worried by these plans, I am sure there is not 542 empty properties in the BANES area to rehouse people. Is it reasonable to evict the retired population, they have comfortable bungalows with gardens front and rear. Curos plan shows that they will be relocated to a block of flats with lifts and probably a small communal area.

As the plan stands there is going to be up to 1100 new homes in the Foxhill area, an extra 600 in Odd Down, has any thought been put in to the extra traffic. Bradford Road is virtually gridlocked during the long rush hours as it is, or have they considered building a new motorway through Combe Down?

Once this community is scattered all over creation, what will be left? 6, 4 and 3 storey blocks without even a garden, allocated parking which causes a problem straight away.

65 years of community gone within a few years never to be replaced. When Curo had an independent survey carried out 92% of people in Foxhill were against this scheme. Also I would like to object to Curos Road Scheme which hasn't even been mentioned to the residents of Foxhill.

I absolutely oppose the demolition of the Foxhill estate and relocation of community. I feel that this is an arrogant plan, which has implications for any Curo resident in BANES. I would also like to say that I am not impressed with Curos attitude to home owners and residents alike.
28/11/2016
Heidi Rearden 41 Corston View, Bloomfield, Bath, Bath And North East Somerset, BA2 2PL O 16/06/2017: I object to Curo significantly reducing the number of affordable rented homes on the development: The 30% affordable housing offering will result in a net loss of 218 affordable housing. Where will all of these people live? As one high ranking official involved was heart to say 'Twerton'. I would like to ask, where are there 218 social houses available in Twerton? He went on to say 'you can't stop the gentrification of Bath.' This is not Gentrification, this is Social Cleansing and should absolutely not be allowed to happen.
The 30% affordable housing proposed will result in a net loss of 218 affordable housing as it is replacing an estate with 60% affordable housing (and what is deemed to be affordable is not the same as what is truly affordable to residents), and despite what Curo says, it will involve a net loss of affordable rented accommodation across the combined Foxhill and Mulberry Park estate as 25% of the affordable housing will be shared purchase for which many of the existing residents will not be able to afford. The scheme needs to be equal homes for the people involved and no one should be left out of this.
16/06/2017
Kaz Harding Flat 9 Fox Hill House, Fox Hill, Combe Down, Bath, Bath And North East Somerset, BA2 5QW O View Associated Documents 01/06/2017
Mrs M Moulder 9 Queen's Drive, Combe Down, Bath, Bath And North East Somerset, BA2 5PA O 29/11/2016: I strongly object to this entire planning application
it seems after reading about the Alsbury estate in london it will be a breach of my human rights(see guardian 16th september 2016
htts://www.the guardian.com/society/2016/sep/16/government-blocks-controversialplan-to-force-out-housing-estate.residents)
29/11/2016: I Object to this planning application I own my home. my home is NOT FOR SALE. I have rebuilt and adapted my home to meet my current and future health and age issues. Foxhill is flat i can get to the local supermarket, chemist, bakers,newsagents, and hardware store.
my GP Dentist and Church are in combe down which is also conveinient to get to.(although on reading the planning statement combe down is unaccessable to me)
i will be financially worse off if these plans are aloud to go ahead. like many of my fellow homeowners we will not beable to afford to buy another home in bath or even on the outskirts of Bath. Shame on you Curo.
Curo has put a dreaded redline around the middle of Foxhill saying its the worse place to live.
should we tell the residents of Foxhill outside the redline who brought their homes where Curo own less land that they live in such a terrible place?
29/11/2016: I Object to the demolition of 542 homes on Foxhill estate (redline) a well established community, neighbourhood,large homes, gardens and off street parking to be replaced with 700 smaller homes including six storey flats. this i a lot to lose for just an extra 158 homes.even with the extra homes we still lose 242 social homes there is no gain.This is not acceptable.
look at mulbury park 700 homes on 19 hectors against the 700 homes on 12 hectors wheres the justice in that for Foxhill
the planning statement paragraghs 1.9,1.10, 1.11 refer to Foxhill regneration and development charter Curo and Banes signed this document on the 7th september 2016 , This outline planning application is in direct contravention of "The Charter".
"Quality of Place", page 20, states "Establish and respond to a clear set of place making 'rules' including appropriate building heights, "DENSITIES" and design guide lines.

29/11/2016
N E White 22 Quantocks, Combe Down, Bath, Bath And North East Somerset, BA2 5PF O View Associated Documents 31/05/2017
Sheila Salter 3 Quantocks, Combe Down, Bath, Bath And North East Somerset, BA2 5PF O View Associated Documents 31/05/2017
Jacqueline Stacey 39 Drake Avenue, Combe Down, Bath, Bath And North East Somerset, BA2 5NY O 14/05/2017: I moved to 39 Drake Avenue on 26 May 2016 and was told it would not be part of the redevelopment. I have since spend time decorating and making the place look nice and do not want to leave as it's a lovely neighbourhood. Please don't pull our houses down. 14/05/2017
Lisa Heywood 32 Kewstoke Road, Combe Down, Bath, Bath And North East Somerset, BA2 5PU O 11/11/2016: . 11/11/2016
Owner/Occupier C/o N Cooper 8 Kewstoke Road, Combe Down, Bath, Bath And North East Somerset, BA2 5PU O View Associated Documents 02/11/2016
Abhishek Upadhyay 74 Hawthorn Grove, Combe Down, Bath, Bath And North East Somerset, BA2 5QF O 11/05/2017: I do not think it is a good idea to bring this massive change to the lives of people who feel part of a community and are attached to their properties and the neighborhood. I can't see a convincing argument and object to the application. 11/05/2017
Andrea Bartlett 62 Kewstoke Road, Combe Down, Bath, Bath And North East Somerset, BA2 5PU O 20/05/2017: These new properties look awful, where is the green space ,it looks so alien and unfriendly ..Does not fit in with Combe Down . 20/05/2017
Mrs Eluned Philpot 10 Queen's Drive, Combe Down, Bath, Bath And North East Somerset, BA2 5PA O 30/11/2016: I am the owner of a mid-terrace house on Queen's Drive and have no wish to be forced to move. Offers by Curo to buy my house would not allow me to buy any comparable property in Bath. Any work to develop neighbouring houses would damage mine.

I have lived on the Foxhill estate for over 25 years, and find it a friendly, safe and pleasant community. The new plans would destroy this.

The consultation process by Curo has been intimidating and insensitive. I wonder how residents in other areas of Bath would react to being sent a timetable notice for the demolition of their home before any agreement to sell has been made.

Previous Bath Councils had the decency to provide bungalow accommodation for older people, which would be lost if this plan goes ahead.

These plans will force many Bath residents into inferior accommodation at higher rent, while pricing owner occupiers out of Bath altogether.

30/11/2016
Andrew Fawcett 2 Hill View, Ditteridge, Box, SN13 8QF O 17/11/2016: I have a number of friends and family who live in and around foxhill and combedown who struggle with rents now. It appears that Curo just wants to line their pockets. On this appearance I object. There are better ways to make housing affordable. 17/11/2016
Jo Lewitt 42 Orchid Way, Writhlington, Radstock, Bath And North East Somerset, BA3 3FR, R 14/11/2016: as a former foxhill resident in support regeberationnof the area but there must be a cap on what is considered affordable rent. anything that is market price rent is not affordable. houses that cost 200,000 are not affordable. shared rent/mortgage housing options are worth considering but only if the buyers share is affordable to those on average incomes of 25,000 with minimum deposits of 5k. and only if the total amount payable per month (rent and mortgage ) is less than the average local rent they would pay privately ie.less than 650pcm. I had to move to radstock to afford a home instead of staying in my local area. 14/11/2016
William Morris Not Given. O View Associated Documents 17/02/2017
Lucy Williams 57 Sedgemoor Road, Combe Down, Bath, Bath And North East Somerset, BA2 5PL O 24/05/2017: I cannot see how these new plans are an improvement 24/05/2017
Sarah Long 5 Selworthy Terrace, Sedgemoor Road, Combe Down, Bath, Bath And North East Somerset, BA2 5QZ O 16/05/2017: I wish to raise some major objections to this application both as a resident and as a professional interested in inclusive design. I have lived in the area for 21 years in an accessible bungalow and although I have asked a number of times what the implications of this application will be for me, Curo and the various representatives have been unable to answer. The benefit of living here, is that it is quiet during the night and I have lived quite happily in this area. There are always difficulties wherever you go, but for me this has worked out well.

My concerns are that the noise, disruption and dust from demolitions and general building work is going to make it impossible for me to continue living here as it would have a very negative impact on my health. In addition I have raised the question as to whether my house will be included or not and no-one can give me a conclusive answer. Even though I live about 1 metre from properties that are to be demolished gives me concern that I might be in "the accident zone" especially since it is social housing and Curo appear to have a very Laissez faire attitude towards social housing.

In addition I am concerned that the amenities that are to be built around the area will not have inclusive design at its heart therefore provide an environment that is comfortable and accessible for all regardless of culture, physicality and age. As an assistance dog owner I would welcome better amenities for me to walk my dog, and encouragement that prevents other dog owners in the area from allowing their dogs to wonder freely in the area when they are dangerous (my dog was attacked by such a dog) and also they leave their excrement on the pavements. I hope that any environmental change to this urban space will increase the number of green areas beyond our gardens for us to explore safely and accessibly.

I look forward to a response as to whether or not my property is to remain unaffected and that I should have easy access to my property not just for myself but for my care support team.
16/05/2017
Lisa Rosser 31 Queen's Drive, Combe Down, Bath, Bath And North East Somerset, BA2 5PA O 13/11/2016: I think this is a terrible idea, these are people's homes you want to demolish, people who have been here for many years and who could continue to be here for many years. Also if demolished the same number of affordable homes (social) WILL NOT be available and the housing crisis happening now is in great need. DO NOT DEMOLISH THESE HOMES PLEASE. 17/11/2016: Terrible thing to do to people, also demolishing 542 and about 200 of the new will be social, the rest private....all about Curo making money. 26/11/2016: I object to the road plans there will increased traffic. 26/11/2016
Mr. Liam Kiely 27 Bradford Park, Combe Down, Bath, Bath And North East Somerset, BA2 5PR O 14/11/2016: I have lived on Foxhill for 50 years and I have lived in my current house for 40 years. My house is 3 beds. Curo are offering ex-council house "market value" for my house,£200,000. The cheapest house on Mulberry park (to stay in the area) is £295.000 for a 2 bed. The Curo offer will not even enable me to buy a house in the Norton /Radstock area. It is morally wrong that they want to remove me from MY house, to knock it down and then sell the new more expensive house to somebody who has NOT lived in Bradford park for the past 40 years. 29/11/2016: I have lived on Foxhill for 50 years and I have lived in my current house for 40 years. My house is 3 beds. Curo are offering ex-council house "market value" for my house,£200,000. The cheapest house on Mulberry park (to stay in the area) is £295.000 for a 2 bed. The Curo offer will not even enable me to buy a house in the Norton /Radstock area. It is morally wrong that they want to remove me from MY house, to knock it down and then sell the new more expensive house to somebody who has NOT lived in Bradford park for the past 40 years. Even though the new homes and gardens are smaller than the originals on Fox Hill and in an effort to stay on Fox Hill, I offered Curo my house in direct exchange for a new house but they refused, citing that there is no profit in such a move.
10/05/2017: I have lived on Foxhill for 50 years and I have lived in my current house for 40 years. My house is 3 beds. Curo are offering ex-council house "market value" for my house,£200,000. The cheapest house on Mulberry park (to stay in the area) is £295.000 for a 2 bed. The Curo offer will not even enable me to buy a house in the Norton /Radstock area. It is morally wrong that they want to remove me from MY house, to knock it down and then sell the new more expensive house to somebody who has NOT lived in Bradford park for the past 40 years. Even though the new homes and gardens are smaller than the originals on Fox Hill and in an effort to stay on Fox Hill, I offered Curo my house in direct exchange for a new house but they refused, citing that there is no profit in such a move. 10/05/2017
Tracey Hargreaves 40 Bradford Park, Combe Down, Bath, Bath And North East Somerset, BA2 5PR R 13/11/2016: I do support the regeneration project in principle but I am in the minority of people who are owner occupiers. If the redevelopment gets approved then Curo will have to re-think their plan as to what financial offer they will make us, as at present they are offering less than market value with very little compensation which means that we won't be able to afford to buy any of the new houses that they're building on Mulberry Park let alone anything else in Bath. For those people like myself who already have a mortgage and some of my older neighbours who have now retired, getting a 2nd mortgage is simply not an option and why should we be financially disadvantaged through no fault of our own. Support for the current residents whether tenants or owner occupiers, is pretty shocking. They may only be small insignificant houses to Curo but these are peoples homes at the end of the day 13/11/2016
Dr EM Vincent 48 Frome Road, Odd Down, Bath, Bath And North East Somerset, BA2 2QB O View Associated Documents 30/12/2016
Annie Gothard 167 Newbridge Hill, Newbridge, Bath, BA1 3PX, O View Associated Documents 04/01/2017
Jane Goodwin 182 North Road, Combe Down, Bath, Bath And North East Somerset, BA2 5DN S 16/11/2016: Dear Sirs

As a resident of Bath for 73 years and local to Combe Down for the past 15 years, I would like to offer my support for the re-development of Foxhill.

It has long been a blight on Combe Down, and it’s residents have to bear the brunt of the disadvantages attached to it.

The majority of the properties are poorly designed and very expensive to heat and run. With the innovations being made in house building, new properties will be far more economical to run.

The poor standard of the majority of the houses has attracted a ‘don’t care’ attitude, which is only too apparent as you drive through the estate.

Redeveloping and refurbishing the current houses can only be a benefit to residents and locals alike, and will breathe new life into the area
Regards
Jane Goodwin
16/11/2016
Helen Bendle 17 Inverness Road, Twerton, Bath, Bath And North East Somerset, BA2 3RX O 28/11/2016: I do not agree with the proposal for demolition of houses that have been home to so many for a great many years, the home owners on the estate should not be forced into selling their homes. So many people's lives will be disrupted by this plan and with little benefit to them as the new dwellings will be less affordable to both tennants or homebuyers!! As an ex homeowner of the foxhill estate, I object strongly to any demolition of existing homes. 28/11/2016
Frank Scott-Tomlin Flat 42 Selworthy House, Sedgemoor Road, Combe Down, Bath, Bath And North East Somerset, BA2 5NZ O View Associated Documents 01/12/2016
R.C. Madurga-Peters Flat 40 Selworthy House, Sedgemoor Road, Combe Down, Bath, Bath And North East Somerset, BA2 5NZ O View Associated Documents 03/07/2017
Joan Roberts 24 Quantocks, Combe Down, Bath, Bath And North East Somerset, BA2 5PF O View Associated Documents 31/05/2017
Dennis Nicoll 34 Sedgemoor Road, Combe Down, Bath, Bath And North East Somerset, BA2 5PL O 30/11/2016:
I am, herewith, formally presenting my objections to the proposed, planned demolition of most of the existing Foxhill Estate (including my own home) by Curo.

Personal Circumstances
I have lived in Foxhill since I was sixteen years old. This house (34 Sedgemoor Road) was allocated to my father (as a tenant) by Bath City Council, as he was a technical officer working for the (then) Admiralty. I moved into the premises with my parents and two younger sisters on Friday 2nd November 1962 and it has been my home since that date - just over fifty four years ago. I have owned the property for nearly twenty one years, but the 'Market Value' which I might hope to obtain, were I forced to sell my home would be quite insufficient to acquire another property of the same specification (i.e. a three bedroom two storey house) anywhere in this immediate location.
Furthermore, consideration of this matter is not merely a question of monetary value but of specific, enhanced personal value to myself. This house has been adjusted to my current needs and convenience. The future cost of fitting out a new home to similar specifications would be both prolonged and arduous at my age. Moreover, the expense would, almost certainly, be well beyond my limited financial means.

Cornish Unit Houses
In 2006 Somer Housing (Curo's antecedent organisation) partially consolidated the structural fabric (also installing new double glazed doors and windows) for the Cornish type properties in their ownership around Foxhill. This must have been a considerable capital expenditure. Then in 2011, all the Kitchens/Bathrooms/WC s were completely refurbished and the properties re-wired. This again must have cost a good deal of money. Why then have plans now been submitted for the destruction of these houses after so short a space of time? It appears to makes no sense either economically or environmentally. A viable alternative to this scenario could be that all the Cornish Unit properties in Curo's ownership are completely upgraded to full quality brickwork and additionally provided with modern standard insulation for the cavity walls and mansard cavities. Extra loft insulation lagging and the installation of efficient bathroom extractor fans and vented kitchen cooker hoods would upgrade these sturdy little houses into energy efficient and damp-free modern homes. This would actually ensure a high level of real and sustainable regeneration.

Consultations Publicity and Public Relations Exercises
Over the last three years Curo have conducted an extensive, systematic propaganda (aka public relations) campaign and issued an interminable plethora of documents, leaflets and newsletters to the residents of Foxhill. Their oft repeated pronouncement to the effect that, 'This regeneration aims to improve the area and provide greater opportunities to all residents' - conveys in itself no precise details as to exactly how these rather clichéd aspirations are to be attained. Furthermore, after studying the 2016 so called, 'Masterplan', I do not see in any way at all what possible benefits would accrue to myself or (for that matter) to any other individual Foxhill resident (owner or tenant) from the imposition of this scheme. It will only continue to provoke further fear, apprehension and anxiety for many dwelling here - particularly the elderly and vulnerable. Indeed, some tenants have, to my personal knowledge, lived in Foxhill for a longer period than myself and they certainly have no desire to be uprooted, swept aside and see their established community obliterated by the inexorable advance of Curo's juggernaut.

Despite many suggestions and objections from different quarters during Curo's so called consultation exercises, their basic plan (total demolition of all extant properties) has not been modified or any amendments incorporated. They consult, but do not take any notice of what local people have been saying to them. It seems as if the feelings and concerns of Foxhill residents and the indigenous community up here are of no particular concern or importance to them. They are totally determined to have their way (if they can!) and completely ignore what has been said concerning any amelioration of their grandiose and socially pretentious scheme. I myself have long had the distinct impression that Curo has from the outset regarded this entire matter as a fait accompli - and that local residents and their opinions are nothing more than a trifling, transient nuisance.

Social Housing
The Foxhill Estate was (like many others) originally built in the early 1950s to provide Social Housing (then called Council Housing) for those families unable to purchase a home of their own and in urgent need of affordable modern accommodation. In 1946, the post-war Labour government tried to meet the acute housing shortage through the construction of prefabs and repairs to existing structures. Incidentally, the area of Foxhill now known as Bradford Park was until the mid 1960s occupied by prefabs. Longer-term measures depended on the development of housing by local authorities. The 1946 Housing Act greatly increased the subsidy available to local authorities, and they were allowed to borrow from the (then) Public Works Loan Board. A further Housing Act in 1949 enabled local authorities to build houses for the population generally, rather than only for the needy. Some 1.5 million public homes were constructed by 1951.

This is (of course) now all history and the importance and emphasis of Social Housing for those in need in contemporary Britain has (along with financial support from central government) sadly declined. But the country is still in the grip of a housing shortage. And soaring rents, poor conditions and rising homelessness are the end result. For many decades, successive governments have failed to build the homes required. By 2008, the number of new homes being started had fallen to its lowest peacetime level since 1924 – and house building has barely recovered since then. This means that every year more and more people are being priced out of home ownership. It means rising rents and more people competing for every single home.

Curo have stated that they would like to build 30% of affordable homes (out of the 700 new houses planned). There are 544 properties in the regeneration zone (92 of these are privately owned) this means that there are 452 social homes in the proposed regeneration zone within Foxhill.

Curo's plans mention that of the 700 new homes to be built - 30% will be affordable (i.e. less expensive than the going market rate) therefore 210 of these houses will be affordable. Of the 30% affordable ones, 75% will be for rent (social homes) and 25% will be for outright sale or included under the shared ownership system.

This would ultimately mean that from the 210 affordable homes proposed to be built, 158 will be for rent and 52 will be for direct sale or included under the shared ownership system. So it is quite apparent that in the future there will be 158 Social Homes in Foxhill instead of the current 452, a net loss of 294 Social Homes. Rents for these new build properties will also be appreciably higher than those paid now.

Less social Homes and more homes at 'affordable' rents and for private purchase to those who can afford to buy them - less well off residents (particularly tenants) will be forced out and replaced by more affluent newcomers. Do we not see here a covert attempt at social cleansing and some anticipated future 'gentrification' of what is now a widely mixed, integrated and (in a general sense) egalitarian community?

Environmental Implications
The overall size and enhanced scale of these 'regeneration' plans will completely and utterly change the whole character of this local area for ever. There will be a massively increased density of housing compared with the current level which (although not perfect) is acceptable and familiar.
New buildings of up to six storeys and many more of three and four storeys would be totally out of keeping with the suburban semi-rural complexion of Foxhill as it presently exists. Indeed, one can easily envisage that if these plans are ever implemented the complete area will become nothing but a mere extension of 'Mulberry Park' - a vast, unrecognizable, semi-megalopolitan sprawl.

There will also inevitably be an appreciable loss of space as the proposed new houses have far less external grounds than those now in existence. The large gardens now found on many properties in Foxhill provide (as well as beneficial relaxation for tenants and owners) a haven for a multitude of wildlife - birds, mammals, amphibians, reptiles, insects along with other assorted arthropods and invertebrates. All of these, together with trees, shrubs, wildflowers and the entire subsisting indigenous flora would be obliterated by Curo's rapacious bulldozers. My own back garden, though admittedly somewhat neglected of late, has a valued population of slow worms, hedgehogs, wood mice, shrews and a wide diversity of spiders (including funnel webs) together with thriving colonies (among other bird species) of house sparrows, hedge sparrows and mellifluous blackbirds. I for one do not wish or desire in any way whatsoever to see all of this destroyed and eradicated merely to promote the commercial aspirations of a greedy and ruthless property developer!

Vehicle and Traffic Considerations
This area is currently over burdened by domestic vehicles. Car utilization appears to have widely proliferated in recent years to an almost intolerable level with household multi-vehicle ownership now not at all uncommon. Despite the introduction of new traffic-calming schemes, congestion and speeding on the residential thoroughfares of Foxhill is still a serious problem. Parking of vehicles too is not without its difficulties - for non-car owners like myself (as pedestrians) access to pavements is often obstructed or blocked by drivers depositing their machines (particularly at night) onto walkways, causing considerable nuisance and inconvenience to those proceeding on foot.

The development proposals to transform this area into a quasi- mini new town will only exacerbate the situation still further - more houses inevitably (these days) mean more cars to be parked and driven. This, together with the nearby future development on the Southstoke Plateau site will impose a heavy new burden on access routes in the adjacent area. The existing road system is inadequate for current traffic levels and improvements cannot easily be made without drastic alterations (including road widening) being undertaken. There is already massive congestion on Bradford Road at peak periods - public transport being disrupted and often severely delayed.
How is all of this to be addressed in the future? And what about increased air pollution levels from expanding numbers of vehicle exhaust systems and the detrimental effects on human health?

Retirement Community
The sheltered housing bungalows at 'Quantocks' are currently included in the 'regeneration' proposals. These are to be demolished and the elderly residents rehoused in Flats. This is not what the inhabitants want. Older people (including myself) do not like the idea of dwelling in flats at all.
Bungalows are far more suitable for a senior citizen lifestyle and are much more amenable to the individual's personal requirements and aspirations. No one relishes the idea of being forcibly removed from their home and this is especially true of those in their sunset years. Indeed it can be extremely detrimental to the health and well being of elderly people to be uprooted from a familiar environment and made to adapt to an entirely new set of personal circumstances. Quantocks is a settled and well maintained local retirement community in Foxhill. It should not be eliminated, but allowed to remain as it is.

Dennis Nicoll.
31/05/2017:


I am herewith submitting my second formal objection to the revised Planning Application,by Curo, for the proposed regeneration of Foxhill.

There appear to have been no substantial changes of any significant importance made to the original plans and the demolition of 542 dwellings (including my own home) is still being put forward.

Over the last three years Curo have conducted a wide-ranging public relations campaign, with prodigious numbers of documents, leaflets and newsletters being regularly distributed to the residents of Foxhill. However, despite the many suggestions and objections from different quarters put forward during Curo's consultation exercises, their basic plan of total demolition for all existing properties (within the current regeneration zone) has not been modified nor have any of the proposed amendments been incorporated.

This matter has been for some time of considerable and significant local concern to all residents (both tenants and home owners) who will be adversely affected in the future by these proposals.

The Foxhill Estate was (like many others in Britain) originally built in the early 1950s to provide Social Housing (then called Council Housing) for those families unable to purchase a home of their own and in urgent need of affordable modern accommodation. Such need still persists to this day!

Under these revised plans it seems quite apparent that there will still be a considerably lesser number of Social Homes, but again more houses at (so called) affordable rents and indeed for possible private purchase to those who are able to afford them. Lower income residents (particularly tenants) will inevitably be forced out and replaced by more well-off householders.

Furthermore, the overall size and enhanced scale of these revised regeneration plans will still result in a complete change to the character of this local area. There will still be a massively increased density of housing compared with the current familiar level which (although not perfect) remains acceptable. The projected new buildings (as outlined) would again appear to be totally out of keeping with the existing, suburban and semi-rural complexion of Foxhill.

In the light of these further considerations, my original objections to these plans, as detailed in the previous submission of November 2016, still stand.


Dennis Nicoll.
31/05/2017
John Gowers 95 Hawthorn Grove, Combe Down, Bath, Bath And North East Somerset, BA2 5QG O View Associated Documents 20/06/2017
Pat Slip 69 Hawthorn Grove, Combe Down, Bath, Bath And North East Somerset, BA2 5QF O View Associated Documents 01/06/2017
Mr And Mrs Barnaby 12 Kewstoke Road, Combe Down, Bath, Bath And North East Somerset, BA2 5PU O View Associated Documents 01/12/2016
Mrs Sandra Burronghs 47 Queen's Drive, Combe Down, Bath, Bath And North East Somerset, BA2 5PA O View Associated Documents 31/05/2017
Laurie Fielding 35 Coxley Drive, Larkhall, Bath, Bath And North East Somerset, BA1 6PD O 17/11/2016: The houses that you choose to build will not be affordable housing. The going rate for some houses in bath for first time buyers is 200k yet you want to start the re-built ones starting at 325k. How is a first time buyer like myself ever goimg to be able to afford yhis as your supposed 'affordable housing'. 17/11/2016
Mrs Ayres 19 Stonehouse Close, Combe Down, Bath, Bath And North East Somerset, BA2 5DP O 17/11/2016: North Road is already notoriously busy as a main route into Bath for a lot of commuters, with the University, Wessex Water, Ralph Allen Secondary School, Bath Clinic amongst other large companies etc. traffic backed up from 8 am until at least 9.10 am each morning; from 4 pm until 6/6.30 pm backed up with commuters trying to exit Bath.
I would to know how such a development could pass through planning for 700 dwellings (with possibly 2/3 cars per household) with an estimated 1400 additional cars using the only accessible route out - North Road!
Maybe the planning team need to visit North Road at such times to realise the impact such an increase in volume of traffic would affect a small road, with parked cars as an added obstacle would be catastrophic. The needs of current residents should be taken into consideration – residence who have already invested in the area.
I will be very interested in your comments.
17/11/2016
Marc Novak 22 Horsecombe Brow, Combe Down, Bath, Bath And North East Somerset, BA2 5QY O 17/11/2016: Although I don't object in principle to new homes in Comb Down it is plainly insanity to add 300 houses at the South Stoke site
700 houses at the MOD site at Foxhill and now a further 150 at the revamped Fox Hill site with absolutely no provision for the increase in traffic on roads that are already at a standstill at least twice a day.
17/11/2016
Andy Stewart 25 Georgian View, Southdown, Bath, Bath And North East Somerset, BA2 2LZ R 17/11/2016: My mum grew up in Foxhill, I remember when many of these homes were built (in the early 1970s) and I spent many happy times playing there when my grandparents lived there, it is a strong community; I went back recently to attend the Cycle Powered Cinema event held in the summer - it brought back many happy memories! It was great to see the Foxhill community is still as strong as it always was.

Yes, like any community it has it's issues. I am not convinced that these plans help address them. They may even make things worse. Curo manage the Social Housing on the new Crest Nicolson Riverside Development - I have friends who live there and see others reporting regularly that the social housing is 'ghetto-ised' and there is a great deal of discord surrounding the way it is managed. The same cannot be said of the present Foxhill.

I also worked for the MoD at Foxhill - at one point it was suggested that the MoD could 'regenerate' the site to enable the MoD to collocate from the other Bath sites (Ensleigh, Warminster Road and Pixsash Lane) to Foxhill that would have necessitated building multi-storey buildings and new road access - we were led to believe that discussions with the local planning authority indicated that permission would not be granted for anything taller than 2 storeys and hence the plans were shelved - the MoD vacated Bath and moved to Abbey Wood in North Bristol - a huge 'campus' style Headquarters that employs more than 8,000 people - access is horrendous. Staff travel from their homes in the Bath area mostly by car due to the poor public transport provision and the cost in terms of damage to the environment and those peoples lives cannot be measured. In contrast, those who worked at Foxhill, and the other Bath MoD sites mostly lived locally. The site should have been kept for employment use.

I am currently homeless following my wife's decision to force me to leave our family home so that she could move her lover in (although sadly (for her) he turned out not to be "single" after all, he was quite happy living with his wife and 3 kids) (If I sound bitter, I'm afraid it's because I am).

I am living out of a suitcase, sometimes with friends and sometimes with my parents. I wish I could afford to buy a house or a flat in Bath. I can't. I am acutely aware then of the housing situation.

You might think that means I support these plans? I do support the idea in principle (to provide more and "better" homes), but I have a number of concerns about these plans and the way it is proposed to implement them.

Clearly there will always be 'nimbys' but I have read through the objection comments already submitted by a number of local residents and see that they have well-founded concerns about a number of aspects - the proposed relocation and compensation of existing tennants and owners key amongst them, also the mix and number of social homes (for rent and part-ownership) versus the number proposed to be in private ownership. I would like to see these concerns addressed - I do not see why they should not be within the auspices of this outline application - they must be.

Finally - I ride a bike - when I used to work at Foxhill I got showers and new cycle parking installed - I also campaigned for Foxhill (the narrow lane up from Perrymead) to be closed to traffic - it should remain closed but be improved as a shared route for cyclists and pedestrians - yes it's at the top of a hill but hills go down as well as up - the (uphill) journey to work using Foxhill was good for getting your heart-rate up and the (downhill) one home (Entry Hill) was fun too!

I also use the Two Tunnels path regularly - there is no proper access onto the path in Lyncombe Vale (from Foxhill) - it's a huge missing opportunity. The plans mention it - I'd like to see firm proposals included - and the applicant fund the works under a s106.

17/11/2016
Mrs Eustace Stoneleigh, Horsecombe Grove, Combe Down, Bath, Bath And North East Somerset, BA2 5QP O 17/11/2016: Has anyone on the planning committee tried to motor anywhere near Glasshouse in the rush hour? The traffic is already horrific and I dread to think of many more cars etc.
Please do not build so much additional housing and even add to the field opposite the Crosskeys pub.
17/11/2016
Richard Brown-Jackson 28 Horsecombe Brow, Combe Down, Bath, Bath And North East Somerset, BA2 5QY O 17/11/2016: I am dismayed that the scheme provides a greatly reduced number of affordable houses. The need has never been greater and the provision you are providing has been reduced rather than increased. On these grounds I object to the planning application. 17/11/2016
Mrs S.J. Morris No Address Given. O View Associated Documents 03/07/2017
T. Warren Queen's Drive, BA2 5PA O View Associated Documents 03/07/2017
M Parker 90 Queen's Drive, Combe Down, Bath, Bath And North East Somerset, BA2 5PE O 30/11/2016: The existing flat blocks at four storeys are quite high enough. To have flat blocks six storeys high would completely change the character of the area. The proposed blocks of flats seem far too long, especially the one being built in phase B at the corner of Queens Drive and Foxhill road, and will dominate the neighbourhood as well as block light from surrounding properties.

The increase of nearly 30% in dwellings really smacks of packing people in simply for profit rather than because there is sufficient room.

The vast majority of privately owned housing in phase C is 2-3 bedroom 2 storey housing. Most of that housing has south or west facing rear gardens. The Curo proposal for house owners was for them to move into new Curo homes however insufficient numbers of similar housing are being built in phase B for owners to transfer into. The two storey housing that is being built in phase B tends to have north or east facing rear gardens which is far less desirable.

Even with Curo's offer of market value plus 10% it is unlikely that many owners will have much more than 60-70% equity in discounted replacement Curo houses. Whilst I was initially positive about Curo's plans I now feel as a homeowner it is not in my interest to sell up. I would far prefer to spend further money on improving my home rather than end up in a home which will not be as well situated and still require further improvement including the garden.

Curo were supposed to have a water bowser to wash the wheels of trucks exiting the truck site. So far it seems conspicuous by its absence and it appears the only time the road outside gets cleaned is when it rains. If Curo can't abide by reasonably easy conditions such as that it makes it difficult to trust its other promises.
30/11/2016
Jake Hoskins 107 Queen's Drive, Combe Down, Bath, Bath And North East Somerset, BA2 5PD O 12/05/2017: Dear Curo / whom it may concern.

I am writing to let you know that I'm objecting the plans for Foxhill. My family have lived in Foxhill now for over 35 years. My mum previously had a flat opposite the M.O.D, my nan also having her home on Queens Drive which is bought. My dad and my uncles have all lived here as well. So to see it all go to waste is heart braking. For starters, on the pictures of the complete houses on Mulberry Park show there isn't enough room for 2 cars to both drive on the same road. There is no privacy, the tenants who are paying an awful amount of money will always be over-looked by other people. There is hardly any front garden (if you're lucky) there's no garage's so people might have to get rid of their transport. Busses will hold traffic (if busses go through Mulberry Park). Take a look at what you've got now, the size comparison is totally different. What you're doing is destroying a well loved community, tons of memories good or bad will be gone. Essentially what you're doing is building over what is already there but except it'll be too crowded. Everyone is going to be on top each other. With the proposed plans of not even demolishing Queens drive for at least 10 years, will affect everyone's health. Dust will affect the lungs which could cause disease. I'm very fond of the estate and what have been accomplished here. A lot of adults who have objected on this site, I'm a year 8 pupil and this will affect me long term, will I be able to live in the estate I've been brought up in?

Jake Hoskins.

Feel free to get in contact.
12/05/2017
Mr K G Adams 79 Queen's Drive, Combe Down, Bath, Bath And North East Somerset, BA2 5PB O 28/11/2016: I fully support the objections already submitted by the Foxhill Residents Association 28/11/2016
Barbara Margaret Wright 7 Quantocks, Combe Down, Bath, Bath And North East Somerset, BA2 5PF O View Associated Documents 31/05/2017
Mr And Mrs Hancock 92 Hawthorn Grove, Combe Down, Bath, Bath And North East Somerset, BA2 5QG O 30/11/2016: We share the views of Dr J.M. & Mrs R.C. Underwood in their Objection letter dated 27.11.16 concerning the proposed development of the Fox Hill flats, referred to as Phase B or Phase 2 in the Indicative Phasing information. 30/11/2016
Frank Beddall 40 Drake Avenue, Combe Down, Bath, Bath And North East Somerset, BA2 5NY O View Associated Documents 29/11/2016
Kim Turpin 91A Bradford Road, Combe Down, Bath, Bath And North East Somerset, BA2 5BP O 23/11/2016: How can you give planning permission for residence to. Be demolished when people will lose their properties & will be forced out of owning their own homes as they cannot afford to buy. These people have lived in these properties all their lives & will be forced out, so Curo can knock down perfectly good homes to build more homes & make money leaving people looking for homes. If homes are perfectly good they should be left as they are if residence want to stay. 21/05/2017: This application is about getting rid of the main stay of the community of Combe Down. Curo are not interested in keeping local people who have lived in the area all their lives or large parts of. They are not guaranteeing rehousing people in the area. People who own their properties will not be able to purchase properties in the area as house prices are being pushed up. A large number of properyies in the are are in a good structure state & only need cosmetic improvement but this will not make curo any money &U they can rent out privately at vastily increased rent as they have done on properties they have brought & now rent out at market value rents, Where is the social housing going to be for the residence who lose their homes. If Curo wishes to do this they should GUARANTEE home in this area for all who lose their homes. Parking is not easy now it will get even worse 21/05/2017
Monica & Brian Sheppard 25 Bradford Park, Combe Down, Bath, Bath And North East Somerset, BA2 5PR O View Associated Documents 21/11/2016
Mrs Harper 12 Bradford Park, Combe Down, Bath, Bath And North East Somerset, BA2 5PR O 26/11/2016: I am a tenant and have lived in my home for 48 years. Your plans show there won’t be enough social housing and I feel it is against my human rights to be forced to move. Good housing is going to be pulled down and a good community is being broken up to be replaced by high density building. A lot of the new homes to be built will be smaller and with higher rents. All of the uncertainty of what is happening here is affecting our health. 26/11/2016
Owner/Occupier 42 Axbridge Road 42 Axbridge Road, Combe Down, Bath, Bath And North East Somerset, BA2 5PW O View Associated Documents 29/11/2016
Bridget Barron 5 Axbridge Road, Combe Down, Bath, Bath And North East Somerset, BA2 5PW O 17/05/2017: I object to the plans to high rise buildings in the Foxhill Estate. I think that two storey buildings are high enough. My reasons are as follows.
- it has been proven that housing people on top of each other in high rise buildings doesn't work. It leads to increased social problems.

- Our outlook would very much change. We look out at trees and sky at present but if the high rises are built we will be looking out and up at them. The buildings would also reduce the amount of light in the estate. Light is very important for people's well being.
We would also feel very overlooked by the proposed new builds. Our privacy would be compromised.
17/05/2017
T Warren 12 King Street, Kingswood, Bristol, BS15 1DH O 25/11/2016: I object to (matters of access to being determined) being in the outline planning application this should be a reserved matter
affordable housing statement paragraph 1.4 page 1. quote. as the planning application is submitted in outline for future consideration part from access
if approved this could give Curo leverage when considering future reserved matters.
27/11/2016: In reverence to
3.5 socia-economic baseline
this starts by comparing situations of residents (for exmple: unemployment, longterm sick, disabled, lone parent) to the rest of banes.
the last time I looked at a map Foxhill is and always has been in bath so is a part of banes
it then goes on to compare the differences in employment between the residents of Foxhill and the residents of combe down
stating Foxhill residents who are in employment work in elementry occupations skill trade occupations, admin and secretarial,sales and customer services as though this is a bad thing. I AM OFFENDED all of these said occupations are excellent employment choices most of which have further career prospects, we can not all start at the top of the ladder
without these occupations, appointments would not be made, letters would not be sent, places would not be clean and nothing would be built
It goes without saying most of the residents of Combe Down would be in higher paid employment they would need to be to be able to afford the property prices in Combe Down
27/11/2016: I object to the loss of social/affordable rented homes
Curo states. ( see affordable housing statement 3.0 application purposal para 3.3 in order for the scheme to remain viable it is not possible for the scheme to provide the same level of affordable housing as currently provided on the foxhill estate)
as i understand it if this goes ahead foxhill estate will lose a great number of social homes how is this going to benifit anyone but curo places ltd
It would be in everyones best interest to maintatian the current housing stock and not give Curo permission to demolish homes they themselves state they can not replace because it will not be viable. NOT DEMOLISH FOXHILL
27/11/2016
Eleanor Eaton 6 Greendown Place, Combe Down, Bath, Bath And North East Somerset, BA2 5DD O 31/05/2017: Further to my earlier objection to this planning application, I would like to add my comments in respect of the updated material which has been supplied by Curo in relation to concerns over the affordable housing provision on this site.

I am deeply concerned that the amount of affordable housing provided by this application should represent such a significant loss of provision for the Foxhill Site. Bath's lack of affordable housing is reaching crisis point, and large development sites such as Foxhill represents very rare opportunities to ease some of the pressure facing ordinary working families in this city.

I understand Curo's argument in the updated technical statement that the two neighbouring development sites, Foxhill and Mulberry Park, should be considered in the context of one another, and as such do not represent an overall reduction in the provision of affordable housing in Bath. But this is not the spirit of the minimum level of 30% in the Local Plan - we should be looking at a net increase of affordable houses to the city's housing stock by the addition of Mulberry Park.

I simply do not believe that it is not possible to deliver a regeneration project such as Foxhill/ Mulberry Park without it being financially viable to deliver the minimum amount of additional affordable housing. And, if this is the case, we should be having a discussion as a city about what that means for the future of Bath.

I understand all that Curo have given us about how they intend to accommodate existing tenants. I understand they state there will be no net loss of affordable housing across the two sites. However, the current plans for Foxhill offer no hope for anyone else in Bath for finding affordable accommodation by not delivering any additional new affordable homes. This represents a significant lost opportunity for the city, and should have been made absolutely explicit in the Mulberry Park application documents.

An effective case has been made for regenerating the Foxhill site, but I would ask you to consider that the demographics of Foxhill may well be improved by adding a wider mix of incomes and tenures, but this will not help those most in need in Bath, other than those lucky enough to be rehoused into the new accommodation. The demographics will mostly be improved by bringing in those who are already wealthy enough to afford market rate housing. I ask you to consider that the loss of affordable housing opportunities has a considerable health impact on Bath families, whose lives and choices about healthy eating, diet, employment and childcare are negatively affected by spiralling rents and house prices.

This isn't a decision which just affects the residents of Foxhill, but for every family in the city. We need more affordable housing, and I can't see any rational justification in the documents which justifies the lack of additional provision.


31/05/2017 This comment also has associated documents: View Associated Documents
Terence & Wendy Harvey 93A Bradford Road, Combe Down, Bath, Bath And North East Somerset, BA2 5BP O View Associated Documents 23/11/2016
Joanna Hodges 42 Sedgemoor Road, Combe Down, Bath, Bath And North East Somerset, BA2 5PL O 30/11/2016: I really don't want to leave my house I'm the happiest I've ever been in a long time living where I am . I also think it's disgusting we are being turfed out and we have to bid on houses , I accept we need more housing but as most of them up the new estate are going to be sold , and most of them are going to be private are we really going to be able to afford the rent as I am a single mum ! There is no way there will be enough houses for everyone from the estate to move into . 30/11/2016
Mrs Roles 49 Queen's Drive, Combe Down, Bath, Bath And North East Somerset, BA2 5PA O View Associated Documents 03/07/2017
Jennifer Frayling 44 Drake Avenue, Combe Down, Bath, Bath And North East Somerset, BA2 5NY O 13/05/2017: All through the consultations we were informed that are houses would not be affected resulting in me investing money improving the interior of my house.
I am also concerned that the open spaces we love and enjoy will be swallowed up in this outrageous land grab.
13/05/2017
Fred Hart 7 Fox Hill, Combe Down, Bath, Bath And North East Somerset, BA2 5QN O View Associated Documents 21/05/2017
Mr G. R. J. Peschel 11 Bradford Park, Combe Down, Bath, Bath And North East Somerset, BA2 5PR O View Associated Documents 30/05/2017
Denise Stainer 47 Bradford Park, Combe Down, Bath, Bath And North East Somerset, BA2 5PR S 09/11/2016: I am in favor of this going a head because I feel that the home's that are here at the moment arent fit for the future as they are already cost a lot of money to run. Also we have to think about the children of today will be the one's that will be tennents and owners of the homes. I would like to see more social housing than 30% that they have to build as we need more social housing to help with the growing waiting list for homes that people can afford. I know that it is stressful to move and not know when it will happen but we have to think of the future. 09/11/2016
J Spanswick 141 Queen's Drive, Combe Down, Bath, Bath And North East Somerset, BA2 5PE O 30/11/2016: I object to the planning permission for the redevelopment of Foxhill Estate. Why should tenants and homeowners have the worry and uncertainty of where they will live in the future when at the moment they are settled within the community. The question I keep hearing is where is Curo proposing to house all these people if they demolish their homes? The road network is stretched at peak times now so how it will cope with extra traffic? I also object to the height of the buildings. We do not want up to 6 storeys (20m) (from the plan it looks like a crescent shape) at the bottom of Queens Drive. It will encroach on people's privacy, blocking the daylight and in the winter months when the sun is low the houses will be shadowed making them dark even though they are south facing. Houses 141 to 147 would be badly affected. 29/05/2017: My comments in Nov16 regarding my objection to the redevelopment of Foxhill Estate still stand and I see from the resubmitted plans that the height of the crescent shape building at the bottom of Queens Drive has now been reduced from 6 to 4 stories but this is still to high and will infringe on the houses opposite especially from 141 to 147 QD, affecting our privacy, light and shading the houses. I object to 4 stories. 29/05/2017
David Stubbs 6 Fox Hill, Combe Down, Bath, Bath And North East Somerset, BA2 5QN O 02/12/2016:
Dear Sirs

Application: 16/05219/EOUT

I am writing to object to the above planning application and request that it be refused on highway grounds.

The reasons are that the impact on the surrounding highway network has been understated, specifically the Fox Hill/Bradford Road junction and Fox Hill itself.

If the Council is minded to grant planning permission I ask that it be subject to the following conditions:

1. The redesign of the Fox Hill/Bradford Road junction in order to increase its capacity, (preferably through the construction of a roundabout)
2. The production of a Travel Plan which includes positive initiatives to encourage walking and cycling
3. The upgrading of the southern end of Perrymead
4. The reconfiguration of Fox Hill along its whole length to render it suitable and safe for use as a primary route serving the development.

Fox Hill/ Bradford Road junction (the “Junction”).

My concern is with the Peak AM OUT traffic leaving Fox Hill to join Bradford Road.

The Transport Assessment concludes that the development will cause the Peak AM OUT to reach 97% of its capacity and in fact states at 7.17 that it will be “at capacity”.

For the reasons set out below I believe that this margin is too close to be acceptable and that the assumptions supporting the calculations themselves are flawed.

The base line data was collected in connection with Mulberry Park in 2013 (Para 6.31) and neither reflects the observed increase in traffic on Bradford Road nor the Mulberry Park construction traffic (workers, HGVs and plant) now entering and leaving Fox Hill. The construction traffic will be there until 2026, beyond the forecast year of 2024. I assume there will also be additional construction traffic generated by the development. The data adopted assumes only 2 HGV movements during the AM Peak of 0800 to 0930. Local observation confirms that this assumption is too low.

It may be suggested that the Foxhill/Bradford Road junction is one of three access/egress points and if this junction is at capacity traffic will flow to the other junctions. Whilst the new Bradford Road junction may well be designed with spare capacity, Down Avebnue ( a narrow residential,street) will not be able to cope.

The additional traffic movements assumed to be generated by the development (AM Total +119) are adjusted down to reflect the impact of the proposed Travel Plan and the effect of Internalisation of traffic. I believe the impact of both these factors has been over stated.

The Travel Plan

The Transport Assessment concludes at Para 3.17 that the development is well located to enable trips to be made on foot or by bike. This is a gross misrepresentation of the reality of living on Fox Hill and needing to reach work, transport hubs or leisure facilities in Bath City Centre. Incredibly it is suggested that the City Centre is an 11 minute cycle ride. That statistic neatly avoids the need to cycle back up.

Whilst the cycling isochrone neatly suggests that many local facilities are within relatively short cycling distance, this ignores the dangerous nature of many of the routes that cyclists would have to take. The author appears unaware that the Mulberry Park S106 requirement to provide cycle lanes on the Bradford Road has been abandoned as impractical and that there is to be a study into the Bradford Road corridor.

The Transport Assessment is ignoring reality when it states at Para 3.26 that there are safe cycling links to schools and other facilities. This is demonstrably not the case. If parents are to be persuaded that it is safe for their children to cycle to school, it is essential that suitable safe routes are created.

The current BANES planning policies state clearly (para 4.10) that all developments must be within cycling distance of key facilities. It follows that those links must also be safe.

It is well recognised locally that one of the factors creating isolation for the residents of Fox Hill is the severe topography and that an improvement in walking and cycling links is essential if traffic movements are to be reduced.

Regrettably the Travel Plan includes neither positive proposals to encourage walking and cycling to the City centre nor proposals to create safe cycle routes. The suggestion that the sustainable travel vouchers (value £100 per bedroom) to purchase electric bikes to overcome the “not ideal” topography (para 8.5) is risible.

Initiatives that could be explored include:

• The introduction of electric bike hire facilities.
• The upgrading of the upper section of Perrymead to make it safe for use by walkers and cyclists during the day and at night. Presently the road surface is very poor and the street lighting is inadequate.
• The installation of a Trondheim style bike lift on Perrymead.
• The creation of safe cycle routes throughout the Fox Hill/Combe Down area.
• The addition of bike racks to local buses.
• The reduction of bus fares to the city centre

It is also well recognised locally that another factor creating isolation for residents of Fox Hill is the cost of bus travel. Other than a £100 travel voucher, which would provide two people with ten return trips to the city centre, there are no proposals for addressing the high cost of bus travel.

The Transport Assessment suggests that the AM Total vehicle movements will be reduced by 20 (possibly 30) (Para 6.15 & 6.16) suggesting that 17% (possibly 25%) of car journeys will be removed by people being persuaded to walk or cycle. I do not believe the Travel Plan will result is such a high transfer away from cars.

Internalisation

The Transport Assessment suggests that the AM Peak flow will reduce by 11 because the proximity of the new school on Mulberry Park will encourage residents to walk their children to school, instead of driving. The reality is that many parents already walk their children to Combe Down Primary School, itself much further away than the Mulberry Park school. Those that drive will most often continue on to work. The proximity of the new school will not stop parents dropping children off whilst on their way to work.

Fox Hill/Bradford Road junction Conclusion

The Transport Assessment has been over optimistic in its conclusions regarding the AM Peak OUT flow at the Fox Hill/Bradford Road junction because:

• It ignores the observed increase in traffic since 2013
• It ignores the construction traffic from Mulberry Park, set to continue until 2026
• It overstates the ability of the Travel Plan to divert people from their cars to walking and cycling

Planning permission should not be granted until the Fox Hill/Bradford Road junction has been redesigned to increase its capacity to cope with traffic leaving Fox Hill. The practicality of a roundabout should be explored and the Travel Plan reviewed to include positive initiatives to encourage more walking and cycling.

Fox Hill

The Transport Assessment suggests that Fox Hill benefits from a “number of existing vehicular access points onto the highway network providing for a highly permeable site”.

This is clearly not so. Access to and from the highway network is via two roads, Hawthorn Grove and Fox Hill. I am supported in this view by the Design and Access Statement which states at Part 1.3 that “The Estate is constrained for vehicular access with principle points from either Hawthorn Grove ….or…Fox Hill. This lack of a clear point of arrival limits permeability and choice of access”.

The Transport Assessment concludes that 50% of all additional traffic movements will access or egress via the Fox Hill/Bradford Road junction, the balance using Hawthorn Grove and a new junction on Bradford Road.

Fox Hill is no longer fit for purpose to serve as the principal entrance to the development and a secondary entrance to Mulberry Park. The carriageway is narrow with on street parking either narrowing the carriageway further or destroying the grass verges.

The Design and Access Statement (page 56) describes Queens Drive as a primary route and having a street width greater that 28m. Fox Hill is identified as also being a primary route but has a street width of no more than 12m.

Planning permission should not be granted without a condition requiring Fox Hill to be reconfigured along its whole length to render it suitable and safe for use as a primary route serving the development.

Conclusion

I object to the above planning application and request that it be refused on highway grounds.

The reasons are that the impact on the surrounding highway network has been understated, specifically the Fox Hill/Bradford Road junction and Fox Hill itself.

If the Council is minded to grant planning permission I ask that it be subject to the following conditions:

1. The redesign of the Fox Hill/Bradford Road junction in order to increase its capacity, (preferably through the construction of a roundabout)
2. The production of a Travel Plan which includes positive initiatives to encourage walking and cycling
3. The upgrading of the southern end of Perrymead
4. The reconfiguration of Fox Hill along its whole length to render it suitable and safe for use as a primary route serving the development.


Yours faithfully

David Stubbs










15/05/2017:
Dear Sirs

Application: 16/05219/EOUT

I am writing to object to the above planning application and request that it be refused on highway grounds.

The reasons are that the impact on the surrounding highway network has been understated, specifically the Fox Hill/Bradford Road junction and Fox Hill itself.

If the Council is minded to grant planning permission I ask that it be subject to the following conditions:

1. The redesign of the Fox Hill/Bradford Road junction in order to increase its capacity, (preferably through the construction of a roundabout)
2. The production of a Travel Plan which includes creative positive initiatives to encourage walking and cycling
3. The upgrading of the southern end of Perrymead to make it more cycle/pedestrian friendly
4. The reconfiguration of Fox Hill along its whole length to render it suitable and safe for use as a primary route serving the development.

The recently submitted Transport Assessment Addendum and amended Design and Access Statement have done nothing to address the concerns expressed in my previous objection dated 2 December 2016. Indeed, the BANES Highways and Traffic consultation response dated 5 May 2017 supports me in some of my concerns.

The key areas still not addressed by the applicant are:

• A Traffic Plan which includes positive initiatives to encourage safe walking and cycling.
• Proposals to reconfigure Fox Hill along its entire length in order reduce vehicle speeds and prevent parking on the grass verges because the carriageway is too narrow.

The traffic impact assessment for the Fox Hill/Bradford Road junction is being artificially manipulated by two erroneous assumptions.

1. That additional vehicle movements will be reduced by 17%-25% as a result of the Traffic Plan
2. That 25% of additional vehicle movements will be absorbed by the new Down Avenue access point.

These erroneous assumptions artificially improve the capacity of the Fox Hill/Bradford Road junction which the applicant has already conceded will be at capacity at Peak AM OUT (Original Design and Access Statement Para 7.17). I cannot see how the local highway network can support the additional traffic without further junction improvement works.


I share the BANES Highways and Transport concerns regarding the use of Down Avenue as an additional route into the development. It is a quiet residential street wholly unsuitable to support significant volumes of traffic.


Yours faithfully

David Stubbs

15 May 2017
15/05/2017
Charlotte Reynolds 6 Meare Road, Combe Down, Bath, Bath And North East Somerset, BA2 5PP O 14/11/2016: We do not want our family home knocked down. 14/11/2016
M J Carpenter Flat 3 Selworthy House, Sedgemoor Road, Combe Down, Bath, Bath And North East Somerset, BA2 5NZ O View Associated Documents 01/06/2017
Chris Jones 139 Queen's Drive, Combe Down, Bath, Bath And North East Somerset, BA2 5PE O 22/11/2016: We feel it is unfair for Foxhill residents that do not want this application to go ahead if it means they will have to move from their homes. Some people may feel they have to agree as they are tenants and that they have no rights to disagree. 29/11/2016: I object to this application, unhappy with height of new buildings affecting sunlight and general view.
Many residents are happy in their homes and do not want or maybe can't afford to move elsewhere, maybe improvements could be made to community without demolition .
29/11/2016
Bob & Sue Platten 137 Queen's Drive, Combe Down, Bath, Bath And North East Somerset, BA2 5PE O 28/11/2016: We are totally against and strongly object to these plans.There is no need to pull down perfectly good houses,just to build more that will be smaller and a lot dearer to buy.They are not affordable,and a lot of people have already bought their homes and have no wish to buy again,and what of the homeowners that have retired,they will never get a mortgage.Curo is only out to line there own pockets,they can not look after the houses they already own.There is talk of flats of up to six stories high,who wants that sort of eyesore around. 13/05/2017: It is the same as last time,We strongly object to the proposals. Curo is only out to line there pockets.leave things as they are,there is nothing wrong with the houses so why mess with them. 13/05/2017
David Beaven 8 Sedgemoor Road, Combe Down, Bath, Bath And North East Somerset, BA2 5PJ O 21/11/2016: I object to the demolition of 542 homes and replacing them with 700 new dwellings.
The Planning Statement, paras 1.9, 1.10 and 1.11 refers to the "Foxhill Regeneration & Development Charter" which BANES and Curo approved on 7th September 2016.
This outline planning application is in direct contravention of "The Charter".
"Quality of Place", page 20, states "Establish and respond to a clear set of place making 'rules' including appropriate building heights, "DENSITIES" and design guide lines.
Please consider 700 houses being built on Mulberry Park on 19ha and the same number of dwellings proposed for Foxhill on 12ha.
The increase from the current density is totally unacceptable. This number of dwellings requires multi floor buildings, up to six floors.
The density was queried in a pre ap concern raised by the Council on page 25 of the planning statement.
I don't think Curo's reply was satisfactory.
21/11/2016: I object to "access" being included in the Outline Planning Application.
Planning Statement para 1.17 on page 4 and "Affordable Housing Statement" para 1.4 on page 1, both include access.
This should be in reserved matters for the individual phases when they are presented for planning approval.
I see this as an opportunity by Curo to get under the radar and have approved road layouts in place, giving leverage which could affect the outcome of reserved matters.
29/11/2016: I wish to object to the loss of 241 Social Homes. (This number confirmed by Mike Grist of Curo)
My objection is twofold.
1) The loss of this number of social homes at a time when the government has identified the need to reduce the number of people waiting for housing. The application by Curo to supply 30% affordable housing is all very well but "not" affordable in this area.
2) How can Curo defend it's position as a "Charitable Landlord" of a Housing Association?
They appear to be pursuing a land grab to reduce their housing association responsibilities and increase their profits.
29/11/2016
Ron Auton 35 Hawthorn Grove, Combe Down, Bath, Bath And North East Somerset, BA2 5QD O View Associated Documents 29/11/2016
Mark Horton 58 Queen's Drive, Combe Down, Bath, Bath And North East Somerset, BA2 5PB O View Associated Documents 16/11/2016
Nicholls 15 Queen's Drive, Combe Down, Bath, Bath And North East Somerset, BA2 5PA O View Associated Documents 31/05/2017
Tom Whitehead 70 Bloomfield Avenue, Oldfield Park, Bath, Bath And North East Somerset, BA2 3AA O View Associated Documents 30/11/2016
Mr A. J. Ford 77 Queen's Drive, Combe Down, Bath, Bath And North East Somerset, BA2 5PB O View Associated Documents 16/06/2017
Mr & Mrs Harwood 63 Queen's Drive, Combe Down, Bath, Bath And North East Somerset, BA2 5PB R 14/11/2016: We have bought our house, Have spent a lot of money on it and the garden, so we do not intend to move. We also do not understand why the curo seem to like wasting money, on these houses, not that long ago they updated the outside by rebuilding them, they have put new kitchens and bathrooms in and all new wiring, this mush have cost them a fortune, Why pull down these house, and waste money yet again 14/11/2016
Joan Beaverstock 22 Sedgemoor Road, Combe Down, Bath, Bath And North East Somerset, BA2 5PJ O View Associated Documents 14/06/2017
Ms Crystal Noble 13 Drake Avenue, Combe Down, Bath, Bath And North East Somerset, BA2 5NX O 30/11/2016: I would like to register my objections to the Curo outline planning application for Foxhill in its entirety. Having seen the plans I am now concerned about the effects that this huge development will have on this local village community and on my property.

The red line on the new plan appears to be sitting on the edge of my front garden, with a new road on the other side of it, which looks like it will be closer to my property than Sellworthy House is now. My property is below the level of the proposed new road, so I am very concerned about drainage, flooding and sewerage issues, because all the extra concrete from the new buildings, roads and paths etc, is all going to be above the level of my property. I go down steps in my garden to my front door, as do others in the terrace.

This causes me to have many questions about safety, risk assessments, pollution, flooding, drainage, sewerage and the border etc, but when I asked questions I was told they can’t be answered at the moment, until the next stage of 'Reserved Matters' in Spring 2017. I only read today that a flood risk assessment and detailed drainage strategy still needs to be provided to and approved by the Local Planning Authority prior to commencement. All these unanswered questions leaves many affected community members in turmoil.

From a safety issue, I’d like to know what is going to stop cars coming off the proposed road and crashing down into my garden or kitchen window. There is no road near me at the moment, which was a reason I bought that property. The proposed development is just too big for the area, how will the surrounding roads to the village cope with all the extra traffic and pollution?

In addition to things already mentioned above, other issues to which I object include a lack of parking, dust and noise whilst building as it is so close, loss of social housing, destruction of the community. Will the new housing even be affordable? The estate may need a bit of maintenance and some improvement here and there, but people’s homes shouldn’t be demolished.

I would like all the issues I raise to be given full and careful consideration and to be kept informed. At the moment I have too many questions and not enough answers, so I must make these objections.
24/05/2017: I write in my objection that my previous objection sent in on 30/11/2016 below, still stands.

30/11/2016: I would like to register my objections to the Curo outline planning application for Foxhill in its entirety. Having seen the plans I am now concerned about the effects that this huge development will have on this local village community and on my property.

The red line on the new plan appears to be sitting on the edge of my front garden, with a new road on the other side of it, which looks like it will be closer to my property than Sellworthy House is now. My property is below the level of the proposed new road, so I am very concerned about drainage, flooding and sewerage issues, because all the extra concrete from the new buildings, roads and paths etc, is all going to be above the level of my property. I go down steps in my garden to my front door, as do others in the terrace.

This causes me to have many questions about safety, risk assessments, pollution, flooding, drainage, sewerage and the border etc, but when I asked questions I was told they can’t be answered at the moment, until the next stage of 'Reserved Matters' in Spring 2017. I only read today that a flood risk assessment and detailed drainage strategy still needs to be provided to and approved by the Local Planning Authority prior to commencement. All these unanswered questions leaves many affected community members in turmoil.

From a safety issue, I’d like to know what is going to stop cars coming off the proposed road and crashing down into my garden or kitchen window. There is no road near me at the moment, which was a reason I bought that property. The proposed development is just too big for the area, how will the surrounding roads to the village cope with all the extra traffic and pollution?

In addition to things already mentioned above, other issues to which I object include a lack of parking, dust and noise whilst building as it is so close, loss of social housing, destruction of the community. Will the new housing even be affordable? The estate may need a bit of maintenance and some improvement here and there, but people’s homes shouldn’t be demolished.

I would like all the issues I raise to be given full and careful consideration and to be kept informed. At the moment I have too many questions and not enough answers, so I must make these objections.
24/05/2017
Stephen Sharpe 2 Drake Avenue, Combe Down, Bath, Bath And North East Somerset, BA2 5NX O 17/05/2017: I have just spent over £15,000 up dating my property!!!

I done this as my property was not under threat!!!

This is just a land grab by curo !!

No concern about the residents living here!!!!

Just greed to make more money

I object strongly
17/05/2017
Victoria Greenland 38 Kewstoke Road, Combe Down, Bath, Bath And North East Somerset, BA2 5PU O 29/11/2016: I object to the demolition of the houses in foxhill estate. 22/05/2017: I object to the demolition of the houses. We already do not have enough social housing. 22/05/2017
Brenda O'Neill 52 Sedgemoor Road, Combe Down, Bath, Bath And North East Somerset, BA2 5PL O View Associated Documents 31/05/2017
Tracy Tavener 5 Kewstoke Road, Combe Down, Bath, Bath And North East Somerset, BA2 5PU O 28/11/2016: I have lived in Foxhill for 30 years and cannot believe Curos plans, what gives them the right to throw 542+ families from their homes for profit? This truly feels like a purge to gentrify the area. Maybe they should invest in the Foxhill estate, by bringing their property into the 21st century. This isn't the 1850s anymore, and thinking that they can sweep it aside like a Victorian slum isn't acceptable anymore.

The only people that will be able to afford the new houses are the rich, the normal everyday working person will not be able to afford to buy or rent the houses, both myself and my partner work full time and we would not be able to afford to buy or rent in the new Foxhill.

We have very good neighbours and we rely on each other for various reasons, if we had to move we would never get this back again. It takes a long time to make a good community and Curo are willing to destroy this for the sake of money and greed. It amazes they can afford such a grand scheme seeing as they cant afford to send a regular road sweeper or grass cutter up to the estate because of cuts. Ever since Curo has taken over the houses from the council the whole estate has degraded, I wonder if this has been the plan from the start?

I oppose the demolition of Foxhill and also of the Road scheme.

01/06/2017: My previous objection sent in, still stands. It is an absolute disgrace that this is even being thought of again. 06/06/2017: As per my last two objections I still stand by my decision to object to the demolition of Foxhill estate and the road plans. 06/06/2017
Nola Edwards 97 Queen's Drive, Combe Down, Bath, Bath And North East Somerset, BA2 5PD O 15/11/2016: I strongly object to the plans submitted for the regeneration of Foxhill. It is not a regeneration, what is proposed is destruction and replacement.
Specifically I object to the overall loss of homes for social rent. Curently there are 399 homes let at social rates by Curo and a further 15 let by other housing associations as stated in the application, that is 414 social rented homes. The proportion of homes for social rent in the new scheme will only provide 158 homes for social rent. The regeneration area will therefore lose 256 social rented properties. Mulberry Park is not Foxhill! The social homes built on an adjacent site should be as well as and not instead of replacing existing social homes.

I demand that the Councils Placemaking Plan is honoured. The plan states

Curo has indicated its intention to pursue regeneration of its affordable
housing stock in the Foxhill area adjoining the former MoD site. As set out in the District-wide chapter the Council is generally supportive of such regeneration, where it is justified, and will seek to protect against the
net loss of much needed affordable housing stock, while also allowing
for enhancements to that stock (see Policy H9).

17/11/2016: Foxhill Residents Association objects to this application on the grounds that the consultation process has been biased and flawed. While we welcome improvement to the estate and some remodelling we are vehemently opposed to the destruction of a strong community. We seek that this application is rejected and that Curo conduct a meaningful consultation before reapplying.
The FRA was formed in an attempt to engage with Curo and the council when many residents felt that the consultation process was being conducted as a mere tick box exercise aimed at justifying a preconceived plan. In fact for most of us the consultation began when we attended a masterplan exhibition which presented the scheme as a fete accompli. Residents have not been invited to make suggestions that would result in remodelling the plan or pass comment on any substantive issues.
Therefore since August 2015 the Foxhill Residents Association and some members of the regeneration panel have been asking for the following:
That meetings between interested parties are properly recorded and minuted.
That minutes are posted on BANES Council and Curo websites and are open to scrutiny.
That residents are able to respond to minutes and suggest topics for meeting agendas.
The FRA conducted a survey of opinion on the estate it identified a very strong retirement community in the regeneration zone where residents live in good quality bungalows. Residents in the bungalows are content and enjoy excellent outside space which they maintain to a very high standard. The FRA asks that the wishes of residents are respected and that the bungalows are removed from the regeneration zone.
The FRA has campaigned for support for vulnerable residents. While we were delighted at the appointment of an independent advisor we are disappointed that the needs of vulnerable tenants are still not on the top of the agenda and that the IA role is passive rather than proactive in pushing for greater understanding of the issues faced by residents with various needs.
The Foxhill Regeneration and Development Charter draws attention to the issue of an inadequate supply of homes for rent in the proposed scheme. FRA want Curo and BANES to explore ways of securing alternative funding streams in order to dramatically improve the ratio of homes for rent in the regeneration area.
The FRA has campaigned for an alternative method of rehoming tenants rather than the Homesearch Scheme which obliges tenants to seek alternative accommodation and bid for it. It is possible to devise a scheme that offers alternatives not just to individual tenants but also to family groups and existing informal networks.
The FRA asks for far less emphasis to be placed on the Hepworth report. The report is viewed with contempt by many residents in Foxhill many of us are of the view that it unfairly stereotypes large sections of our community and belittles the problems that people face. My own experience of being interviewed for the report was that the researcher apologised to me for having to assign a category to me that she felt did not reflect the reality of my position.
The FRA has campaigned from the start that there is a commitment not seek or issue any Compulsory Purchase Orders. The council position has long been that it will only issue one or two CPO’s if necessary. The FRA position is that a scheme that proposes to build 1,400 new homes in the area can well afford to buy out two homeowners on more generous terms than a CPO would offer.
The FRA wants a new consultation to place much greater emphasis in offering employment and training opportunities to all sections of the population in the area. The current provision that Curo has in place of offering the services of an advisor for 3 hour on a Tuesday afternoon is completely inadequate.
It is in the interests of everyone that a project of this size should aim to be ambitious rather than merely adequate, if a different approach is adopted the scheme could be truly transformational. If Foxhill residents are regarded as assets rather than as obstacles to be overcome then real progress can be achieved.
Therefore the FRA asks for this application to be rejected and that new recommendations are made that insist that people are put at the centre of a new consultation period and that the issues raised in this objection are addressed.






Foxhill Residents Association objects to this application on the grounds that the consultation process has been biased and flawed. While we welcome improvement to the estate and some remodelling we are vehemently opposed to the destruction of a strong community. We seek that this application is rejected and that Curo conduct a meaningful consultation before reapplying.
The FRA was formed in an attempt to engage with Curo and the council when many residents felt that the consultation process was being conducted as a mere tick box exercise aimed at justifying a preconceived plan. In fact for most of us the consultation began when we attended a masterplan exhibition which presented the scheme as a fete accompli. Residents have not been invited to make suggestions that would result in remodelling the plan or pass comment on any substantive issues.
Therefore since August 2015 the Foxhill Residents Association and some members of the regeneration panel have been asking for the following:
That meetings between interested parties are properly recorded and minuted.
That minutes are posted on BANES Council and Curo websites and are open to scrutiny.
That residents are able to respond to minutes and suggest topics for meeting agendas.
The FRA conducted a survey of opinion on the estate it identified a very strong retirement community in the regeneration zone where residents live in good quality bungalows. Residents in the bungalows are content and enjoy excellent outside space which they maintain to a very high standard. The FRA asks that the wishes of residents are respected and that the bungalows are removed from the regeneration zone.
The FRA has campaigned for support for vulnerable residents. While we were delighted at the appointment of an independent advisor we are disappointed that the needs of vulnerable tenants are still not on the top of the agenda and that the IA role is passive rather than proactive in pushing for greater understanding of the issues faced by residents with various needs.
The Foxhill Regeneration and Development Charter draws attention to the issue of an inadequate supply of homes for rent in the proposed scheme. FRA want Curo and BANES to explore ways of securing alternative funding streams in order to dramatically improve the ratio of homes for rent in the regeneration area.
The FRA has campaigned for an alternative method of rehoming tenants rather than the Homesearch Scheme which obliges tenants to seek alternative accommodation and bid for it. It is possible to devise a scheme that offers alternatives not just to individual tenants but also to family groups and existing informal networks.
The FRA asks for far less emphasis to be placed on the Hepworth report. The report is viewed with contempt by many residents in Foxhill many of us are of the view that it unfairly stereotypes large sections of our community and belittles the problems that people face. My own experience of being interviewed for the report was that the researcher apologised to me for having to assign a category to me that she felt did not reflect the reality of my position.
The FRA has campaigned from the start that there is a commitment not seek or issue any Compulsory Purchase Orders. The council position has long been that it will only issue one or two CPO’s if necessary. The FRA position is that a scheme that proposes to build 1,400 new homes in the area can well afford to buy out two homeowners on more generous terms than a CPO would offer.
The FRA wants a new consultation to place much greater emphasis in offering employment and training opportunities to all sections of the population in the area. The current provision that Curo has in place of offering the services of an advisor for 3 hour on a Tuesday afternoon is completely inadequate.
It is in the interests of everyone that a project of this size should aim to be ambitious rather than merely adequate, if a different approach is adopted the scheme could be truly transformational. If Foxhill residents are regarded as assets rather than as obstacles to be overcome then real progress can be achieved.
Therefore the FRA asks for this application to be rejected and that new recommendations are made that insist that people are put at the centre of a new consultation period and that the issues raised in this objection are addressed.






Foxhill Residents Association objects to this application on the grounds that the consultation process has been biased and flawed. While we welcome improvement to the estate and some remodelling we are vehemently opposed to the destruction of a strong community. We seek that this application is rejected and that Curo conduct a meaningful consultation before reapplying.
The FRA was formed in an attempt to engage with Curo and the council when many residents felt that the consultation process was being conducted as a mere tick box exercise aimed at justifying a preconceived plan. In fact for most of us the consultation began when we attended a masterplan exhibition which presented the scheme as a fete accompli. Residents have not been invited to make suggestions that would result in remodelling the plan or pass comment on any substantive issues.
Therefore since August 2015 the Foxhill Residents Association and some members of the regeneration panel have been asking for the following:
That meetings between interested parties are properly recorded and minuted.
That minutes are posted on BANES Council and Curo websites and are open to scrutiny.
That residents are able to respond to minutes and suggest topics for meeting agendas.
The FRA conducted a survey of opinion on the estate it identified a very strong retirement community in the regeneration zone where residents live in good quality bungalows. Residents in the bungalows are content and enjoy excellent outside space which they maintain to a very high standard. The FRA asks that the wishes of residents are respected and that the bungalows are removed from the regeneration zone.
The FRA has campaigned for support for vulnerable residents. While we were delighted at the appointment of an independent advisor we are disappointed that the needs of vulnerable tenants are still not on the top of the agenda and that the IA role is passive rather than proactive in pushing for greater understanding of the issues faced by residents with various needs.
The Foxhill Regeneration and Development Charter draws attention to the issue of an inadequate supply of homes for rent in the proposed scheme. FRA want Curo and BANES to explore ways of securing alternative funding streams in order to dramatically improve the ratio of homes for rent in the regeneration area.
The FRA has campaigned for an alternative method of rehoming tenants rather than the Homesearch Scheme which obliges tenants to seek alternative accommodation and bid for it. It is possible to devise a scheme that offers alternatives not just to individual tenants but also to family groups and existing informal networks.
The FRA asks for far less emphasis to be placed on the Hepworth report. The report is viewed with contempt by many residents in Foxhill many of us are of the view that it unfairly stereotypes large sections of our community and belittles the problems that people face. My own experience of being interviewed for the report was that the researcher apologised to me for having to assign a category to me that she felt did not reflect the reality of my position.
The FRA has campaigned from the start that there is a commitment not seek or issue any Compulsory Purchase Orders. The council position has long been that it will only issue one or two CPO’s if necessary. The FRA position is that a scheme that proposes to build 1,400 new homes in the area can well afford to buy out two homeowners on more generous terms than a CPO would offer.
The FRA wants a new consultation to place much greater emphasis in offering employment and training opportunities to all sections of the population in the area. The current provision that Curo has in place of offering the services of an advisor for 3 hour on a Tuesday afternoon is completely inadequate.
It is in the interests of everyone that a project of this size should aim to be ambitious rather than merely adequate, if a different approach is adopted the scheme could be truly transformational. If Foxhill residents are regarded as assets rather than as obstacles to be overcome then real progress can be achieved.
Therefore the FRA asks for this application to be rejected and that new recommendations are made that insist that people are put at the centre of a new consultation period and that the issues raised in this objection are addressed.










30/11/2016: Objection to the redevelopment of Foxhill

1 Social Impact.

12.17 At the time of the Study nearly 60% of Foxhill working age residents lacked basic qualifications. Foxhill’s work and skills profile is strongly influenced by the high concentration of social housing. Stating that ‘a high concentration of social housing is the main factor explaining the areas poor work and profile’.

The above paragraph is taken from Curo’s Regeneration Statement. It exposes Curo’s real attitude towards their tenants. Much as Curo like to vaunt their social housing provider credentials and their charitable status in reality the organisation has very little respect for the people who rent from them. This quote from the Hepworth report is quite clearly a poor attempt at justifying their aim to demolish homes in the area. Curo seems to be endorsing the view that social housing is at the root of social problems rather than as a remedy for the problems created by an overpriced housing market. It is an untenable position for a social housing provider to adopt. The CEO of Curo should be held to account for publishing such a contradictory statement.

While it is true that there is a percentage of the population in Foxhill who possess fewer academic qualifications than the national average, it quite patently has nothing to do with where they live. Everyone in Foxhill has equal access to very good local schools. There is no mention in the Hepworth report of those residents who have very good academic and vocational qualifications nor does it attribute their achievements to their postcode. To equate social housing with qualifications is an absolute nonsense.

To suggest that demolishing peoples’ homes and relocating them will somehow alter their skill levels and therefore life chances is again utter nonsense. If Curo really wishes to help residents who are struggling to find work then they could provide them with employment and training on the Mulberry Park development. Instead Curo is proposing to relocate people destroying their long established social support networks and in so doing distribute disadvantaged families amongst wealthier new comers. The result will be detrimental for many residents especially those with health issues who benefit from their familial and community ties within Foxhill.

I have asked Curo how many people live in the 542 homes in the regeneration zone. They have not replied, either they don’t know or they prefer to remain silent. I estimate there are in the region of 1,500 individuals who are directly affected by the proposals. I am aware that there are many residents who experience both physical and mental health issues. Some with neurological conditions have already been adversely affected by the plans put forward by Curo. It is distressing to see some of my neighbours suffering from acute anxiety caused by the prospect of losing their homes and their friendship circles.

In my view the plans put forward should be discarded. If Curo wishes to resubmit a new plan it should start with a genuine consultation with local people. The welfare and interests of existing residents in the area should be at the heart of any new proposals. A robust safeguarding policy is required to ensure that the mistakes made in producing the proposals put forward for consideration are not replicated and vulnerable residents are not put at risk.

2 Viability

Curo have failed to demonstrate that they can deliver their proposals. 95 private homes stand in the way of this development. Home owners have asked for plans demonstrating how existing private properties can be incorporated into the new scheme. All 95 properties are either, terraced, semi-detached houses or flats. The type of construction of the buildings makes it difficult to build onto existing properties so in effect there are many more than 95 properties unavailable for demolition. Curo have not provided any realistic illustration of how they intend to accommodate existing homes into the regeneration scheme.

Homeowners are aware that this is not a social enterprise but a commercial one. Curo have inflated property prices in the area by buildings more expensive homes on the Mulberry Park site making it impossible for home owners to move on without an equivalent rise in the value of their own properties. In order to induce home owners to move Curo will have to pay homeowners much more than has been offered so far greatly increasing their expenditure in acquiring the land required to realise their plans. Curo has linked their ability to provide social housing with the profit that they make from selling private homes, if their expenditure is increased will they be able to deliver the 30% affordable housing required of them?

Therefore planning permission should not be granted until Curo can provide evidence that they are able to deliver their proposals and can properly fund the minimum 30% affordable housing demanded of them by law.


30/11/2016
C A Newland 25 Quantocks, Combe Down, Bath, Bath And North East Somerset, BA2 5PF O View Associated Documents 31/05/2017
P Lane 2 Quantocks, Combe Down, Bath, Bath And North East Somerset, BA2 5PF O View Associated Documents 31/05/2017
Gary Webb 42 Drake Avenue, Combe Down, Bath, Bath And North East Somerset, BA2 5NY O 13/05/2017: All the way through the consultation we have been told that our road was unaffected by the development. 13/05/2017
Kamila Kantoch 64 Bradford Park, Combe Down, Bath, Bath And North East Somerset, BA2 5PS S 18/05/2017: I support the application and I think new development will be great for the Foxhill area. 19/05/2017
Kat Sinclair 16 Fox Hill, Combe Down, Bath, Bath And North East Somerset, BA2 5QN O View Associated Documents 31/10/2016
Richard And Jessie Vowles 48 Down Avenue, Combe Down, Bath, Bath And North East Somerset, BA2 5QJ O View Associated Documents 30/11/2016
Tim Woodland 97 Queen's Drive, Combe Down, Bath, Bath And North East Somerset, BA2 5PD O 22/11/2016: I wish to raise an objection to this application for planning permission on the grounds that there will be a breach of my, and other home owners human rights, if this project goes ahead in its present form.

This breach of human rights being on the grounds that compulsory purchase orders (CPO’s) will have to be issued by the council (BANES) to facilitate the demolition of all homes privately owned on the Foxhill site before the developer (Curo) can build.

At the present time we have not been give any exact valuations for our homes, however we expect to get no more than current market value, c. £180,000 - £200,000. This amount will not enable us to buy property within the local area, as it does do not compare to the cost of similar sized homes in Combe Down, which Foxhill is part of. It is this that I consider to be in breach of my human rights.

May I draw you attention to a similar case, won by the home owners of the Aylesbury estate in the London Borough of Southwark and as reported in The Guardian newspaper of Friday 16th September 2016. The complete article from which I shall include in full below, for the sake of clarity:

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2016/sep/16/government-blocks-controversial-plan-to-force-out-housing-estate-residents

Government blocks plan to force out London estate residents:

Controversial proposal to issue tenants of Aylesbury estate with compulsory purchase orders a ‘breach of human rights’
A controversial plan to force people out of their housing estate to make way for a rebuild that would leave more private and less social housing has been dealt a blow after the government decided it would breach residents’ human rights.
A south London council request for permission to issue people on the Aylesbury estate with compulsory purchase orders “adopted extremely low valuations”, the government said. The communities secretary, Sajid Javid, rejected it on Friday.
He agreed with a government inspector who said residents would “need to invest considerable personal resources” if they were to stay in the area after they were moved out of their homes.
Among the issues raised by the inspector was the price offered to them by Southwark borough council. The average was calculated at £187,000, while a flat on a nearby development was valued at £459,000.
“For elderly residents, who are of an age where they would probably be unable to obtain a mortgage to make up any shortfall and their future earning potential is likely to be limited, using their savings and other investments would severely limit their ability to choose how they spend their retirement,” Javid said.
He also said it was likely that people of black and ethnic minority backgrounds would be disproportionately affected. Those issues breached residents’ human rights, he said.
According to documents released by the council, the plan to demolish then rebuild the estate would leave about 30% fewer social rented homes and more than four times the number of private homes. Research by the Guardian suggests those let at social rent levels after the rebuild would be more expensive than their current value.
The council’s proposal has faced bitter opposition from residents and anti-gentrification campaigners, who have said the current social housing should be upgraded instead.
Some residents vocalised their support, however. “We watched the estate go up. Now it’s had it. It needs to come down,” Jean Bartlett told the Guardian in July.
Eileen Short of Defend Council Housing, said: “Whether it’s motivated by cynical financial interests, competing interests of other landlords, or fear of the political consequences of attacks on tenants and housing, the government’s decision to block compulsory purchase on Aylesbury is good for council housing.
“Tenants and leaseholders have fought long and hard against privatisation, demolition and sell-off of the Aylesbury, pushed by governments over 20 years.
“Councils and ministers need to stop all demolition of good quality council homes and instead invest in existing and new homes to meet the growing and desperate housing need for secure and really affordable council housing.”
Mark Williams, the Labour councillor in Southwark responsible for regeneration and new homes, said the decision was “extremely disappointing”.
“We are, however, committed to the regeneration proposals and will continue to negotiate with leaseholders on all phases of the regeneration programme, to buy back their properties and allow the work, which is supported by the vast majority of residents on the estate, to move forward as soon as possible,” he said.



As you will see in the article above, if CPO’s are issued and compensation for loss of our homes is awarded at only the current market values, then a breach of our human rights will have occurred, on the grounds that:

• Homeowners of working age would need to invest considerable personal resources, to afford a like for like home in the local area of Combe Down.

• Retired and elderly residents will be extremely unlikely to be able get a mortgage to make up the shortfall between the compensation they will receive and the cost a replacement home in the local area of Combe Down


I therefore strongly urge you not to allow planning permission on the grounds set out above.


23/11/2016: I am opposed to this application on the grounds that none of the community of Foxhill have been given the opportunity to fully and properly express our views about the so called ‘regeneration’’ of the area we live in. There has been no meaningful consultation with us and in fact from the outset it has been apparent that Curo have already been given the ‘go-ahead’ for the destruction of our homes, the community of Foxhill and rebuilding what they like, how they like it. We have just been paid lip service by them and ignored by the council (BANES) ever since then.

The only attempt at a consultation by Curo began AFTER the exhibition of their ‘masterplan’ at St Andrews Church. This exhibition was basically for Curo to show off, in their view, what exactly was going to happen, with no deviation or even discussion about any alternatives and no opportunity for the community as a whole to take any part in it. Everything since then has just been about Curo being seen to engage with us and tick a few boxes on a form or two.

We have not been asked what we think about the destruction of our HOMES or even what the ‘regeneration’ should look like or what needs to be done to improve the area. We have therefore been completely left out of the process that decides OUR future.

Personally, I welcome improvements to the Foxhill estate, mainly in the shape of investment in the existing homes and infrastructure, which has been deliberately run down by successive stakeholders in the estate. This running down of the estate is always blamed on us (the homeowners and tenants) but we are powerless to make the necessary changes as we have never been consulted on what is needed to improve our lives and we cannot make the necessary investment ourselves! This is what makes it obvious to us that Curo have already been given the go-ahead!

Investment and proper regeneration of the area is a good thing but the whole community must be completely engaged and involved in any future plans that affect US.

It is for these reasons that I oppose this planning application.

21/11/2016: I vehemently oppose the plans submitted by Curo for the ‘regeneration’ of the Foxhill Estate.

I do not consider the demolition of 542 homes as ‘regeneration’ but as destruction of perfectly good housing stock for both the tenants and home owners on the estate.

I am particularly opposed to this application on the grounds that if this ‘regeneration’ goes ahead there will be a drastic reduction in the availability of Social Housing for rent at social housing rates on the Foxhill estate. At the present time there are 414 homes let at social rates by Curo and other housing associations. If these plans are approved the new development will only provide 158 homes for social rent. In light of the current housing crisis, with 6500 people on the housing waiting list in BANES alone, the destruction one single property let alone 414 is totally unacceptable. The only way forward is to retain all existing housing stock for rent to lower income families who cannot afford the extortionate rates charged by private landlords at full market rates across the city.


To quote from your own Pacemaking plan (Part 2):

http://www.bathnes.gov.uk/sites/default/files/sitedocuments/Planning-and-Building-Control/Planning-Policy/Placemaking-Plan/draft_pmp_vol_2_bath.pdf


"Strategic Issues:

10. The housing market is particularly expensive to penetrate and this contributes to a dislocation of workers from workplace and exacerbates the level of incommuting from lower cost locations. More housing and more affordable housing is needed to support economic growth, increase the colocation of jobs and workers, and address the needs of households on the housing register".


By approving these plans you will be going against your own policies as set out in the Pacemaking Plan, above, by reducing the availability of homes for rent at social rates. You will also be reducing the availability of affordable housing by removing 90 plus properties, currently owned privately, from any future entry into the housing market.

I cannot support this application and I object to it for the reasons set out above.
23/11/2016
Emma Simpson 4 Haviland Grove, Upper Weston, Bath, Bath And North East Somerset, BA1 4JP O 22/11/2016: No need to demolish people's homes . Some have been there for years and years and now own their properties- the mod site is huge . Build your new houses there and school - can't believe another school is being built , when Combe Down primary is brillant , don't not start knocking down private properties
Disgusting !!!
22/11/2016
Jeanie Edwards 97 Queen's Drive, Combe Down, Bath, Bath And North East Somerset, BA2 5PD O 22/11/2016: I object to the destruction of Foxhill, the arguments used to justify such vandalism are so false they are farcical.

Curo have presented figures to justify demolishing homes in Foxhill claiming that they are too expensive to renovate or maintain. If Curo believe the figures that they have put forward, then perhaps they should stand aside and offer the work to a more competent organisation. Private home owners have proved that it is perfectly feasible to modernise and renovate the properties in Foxhill to a high standard and on a reasonable budget. In fact Curo have proved conclusively that they themselves believe that the work carried out by private individuals is superior to their own efforts. Curo rent the homes that they have improved themselves at the rate of £450 pm, Curo rent out properties that they have bought back off private homeowners at a rate of £725pm.

Curo further prove that their figures are merely a work of convenience by sectioning off an area of Foxhill for regeneration within a red line and leaving the rest of the estate untouched. The area within the red line does not encompass properties that are in a worse condition than the surrounding area but is does have a much lower proportion of private homes in it therefore making it the cheapest and easiest target for development. Curo is not targeting run down properties, it is looking for easy pickings.

Curo argues that the residents of Foxhill are isolated from the communities around them and that reconfiguring the estate would somehow integrate us into the wider area. Again a ridiculous assertion. The residents of Foxhill are employed all around Bath and the wider area. The children attend schools all over the city, the number 3 bus is probably one of the best used services in the city ferrying people in and out of the estate. Foxhill is like any other suburban area, it’s residents travel far and wide but there is little reason for other city dwellers to take much notice of us unless they are visiting friends and relatives.

Curo are very keen to tout their charitable status. They should live up to their ambitions and put forward a scheme that is for the benefit of their tenants rather than a scheme that will destroy a thriving community. Private home owners have shown what can be achieved Curo should stop telling us what is good for us and start listening to us instead.

22/11/2016
Anna Brownell 199A Bradford Road, Combe Down, Bath, Bath And North East Somerset, BA2 5BT O 23/11/2016: Do not agree with the redevelopment of Foxhill 23/11/2016
E Button Foxhill Bath, BA2 5AS O 11/05/2017: I absolutely object to the proposal to demolish any dwellings in Foxhill.

With a housing shortage in Bath & across the whole of the country, how can it be justified to demolish any housing in Foxhill? It does not make sense to demolish 542 homes to create only 158 extra ones. This seems like a very destructive, unnecessary & expensive way to go about things. Rather than destroy homes, the properties could be modernised & improved (if necessary) to help keep maintenance costs to a minimum.

The existing estate has many beautiful open areas & lovely homes & a friendly community created over decades. All of this will be lost. These are people's homes & their lives and the community will be ripped apart with this totally unnecessary destruction.

The demolition of Foxhill is completely unethical & unnecessary and the methods of attempting to obtain the private housing on the estate are exploitative. Residents are being pestered & intimidated by Curo staff with the mention of compulsory purchase. Having ones life & home threatened in this way is not good for positive mental health or building a future.

Foxhill has good bus links to the city & is not isolated. There are good links with Combe Down & the wider city.
11/05/2017
J Salcedo West Lodge, Fox Hill, Combe Down, Bath, Bath And North East Somerset, BA2 5AS O 11/05/2017: I object to the demolishion of homes in fox hill. I think the homes should be modernised and upgraded without this level of destruction. The community and peoples welfare needs to be considered. I'm extremely disappointed by how Curo conduct business! 11/05/2017
J Shaw 133 Queen's Drive, Combe Down, Bath, Bath And North East Somerset, BA2 5PE O 28/11/2016: I would like to make the following objections to the planning application:

1. Heights: Buildings of three storeys or more are not appropriate to suburban areas of the city such as Foxhill. It should be noted that one of the reasons for the MOD abandoning their sites within Bath was their inability to gain approval to replace single-storey buildings with multi-storey buildings. The existing housing within the Foxhill estate that are above two storeys take advantage of depressions on the estate to reduce the impact and are largely on a north-south axis and take up isolated positions, whereas many of the proposed new mult-storey buildings are extended in nature and arranged east-west.
In particular housing on roads such as Queens Drive (north) rely on an open southern aspect in order to receive ANY sun. At present the mid-day winter sun casts shadows into their front gardens, under these plans all of the front-facing windows will be in shade during the winter, producing near arctic living conditions.
2. Parking: The proposed provision of off-road parking is insufficient. The application ignores the planning guidance on the basis that existing car-ownership is 'below average', in part because the residents have 'below average' incomes. This ignores the fact that the estate was originally built without any off-road parking, except in the areas close to the flats. Garden walls, the topography of the estate and council 'dropped kerb' charges have made it expensive for residents to make their own provision for parking spaces. However the planned new-build is expected to raise the average income and expectations of the residents so to use sub-standard planning guidance is ridiculous.
3. Crossroads: Historically crossroads are formed when direct routes cross. Traffic engineers now attempt to 'displace' these historic intersections by replacing them with a pair of 'T' junctions. To design crossroads where no natural direct routes exist is, to be frank, stupid and un-safe.
4. Sustainability: I have concerns about the proposals to 'soakaway' surface water. Foxhill is at the top of a hill, where will this water flow to? Will it emerge on the southern slopes and run into Avon/Bath centre? What certainty is there that the ground can absorb abnormal rainfalls? What about surface contaminants, such as oil spills? It IS possible to produce flooding on a hill top by design.
I also have concerns that no allowance seems to have been made for producing energy from solar power. Not only will the proposed tall building shade existing and potential solar installations around the scheme but the north-south axis of roof ridges precludes retro-fitting of solar panels to the new-build too.
28/11/2016 This comment also has associated documents: View Associated Documents
James Bidmead 129 Queen's Drive, Combe Down, Bath, Bath And North East Somerset, BA2 5PE O 31/05/2017: I do not agree with the planning application and breaking up the local community.

I've lived in Foxhill for 10 years now as a home owner with my partner. Our house is just on the edge of the Application site boundary, so thankfully we are safe for now. It has however not at all been clear from Curo where we stand and we've had no clear indication we are still truly safe from being at risk. Even sending various emails to Curo to try a get an answers we were just directed to the website plans, which aren't clear at all.

Although we are not directly affected, from the current plans it looks like there is a possibility of 3 or even 4 story house that could be built opposite us. I object to any other house being build around me that is not of the same height, this will cast a major shadow over my house. Also will there be any consultation from Curo of the disruptions and how it may affect us.

I feel Curo and the local authority are not keeping local people informed or answering local people's questions which needs to be addressed. Curo also seem to be very much in it for the money rather than the community and the people.
31/05/2017
J Baldwin 20 Queen's Drive, Combe Down, Bath, Bath And North East Somerset, BA2 5PA O View Associated Documents 01/06/2017
Glen Eames 109 Queen's Drive, Combe Down, Bath, Bath And North East Somerset, BA2 5PD O 20/11/2016: I wholly object to this application. The lack of meaningful consultation and loss of community and for the need of that my own property which i own 109 Queens Drive by Curo, despite repeatedly informing them that i do not wish to sell, they continually carry on regardless in their ways that they still form plans showing my home of 30 years my personal property needs to be demolished to accommodate which they are trying to achieve. I wish to remind you that under The right to property under the European Convention on Human Rights (https://rm.coe.int/CoERMPublicCommonSearchServices/DisplayDCTMContent?documentId=090000168007ff55)

Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the European Convention on Human Rights
Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, which guarantees the right to property,
provides:
Every natural or legal person is entitled to the peaceful
enjoyment of his possessions. No one shall be deprived of his
possessions except in the public interest and subject to the
conditions provided for by law and by the general principles
of international law.

By recognising that everyone has the right to the peaceful enjoyment
of his possessions, Article 1 is in substance guaranteeing
the right of property. This is the clear impression left by the
words “possessions” and “use of property” (in French: “biens”,
“propriété”, “usage des biens”); the “travaux préparatoires”, for
their part, confirm this unequivocally: the drafters continually
spoke of “right of property” or “right to property” to describe the
subject-matter of the successive drafts which were the forerunners
of the present Article 1. Indeed, the right to dispose of one’s
property constitutes a traditional and fundamental aspect of
the right of property.

This development is not in the Public Interest, but in Curo's interest alone, therefore if this development was to go ahead it would have a life changing impact on me and my family, i have worked all my life to provide for myself and my family and more importantly for my retirement. With what Curo are proposing to offer homeowners, will not leave me in the same position as what i am in at the moment therefor all the years of hard work gone in a stroke of a pen.

I just wish to be left in peace, and not to have the worry as to what might happen, i just want to be able to enjoy my twilight years. At no point has curo ever taken on board or listened to comments but steam rollered on, at one point even bamboozling everyone with talk of a chair lift for the new Mulberry Park, to the extent the local press rang with it on their front page
11/06/2017: My previous objection submitted I still stand by, however I would like to add having read the stock condition survey submitted by Curo which has been compiled on there behalf by Ridge and Partners LLP (Ridge) there are a number of discrepancies the Curo when speaking during public meetings seem to contradict in matters what Curo have lead us to believe. One of the most common things have been that the properties are not structurally sound,
If you look at the 2nd paragraph of the Executive Summery, it states From a general inspection of the exterior of the properties, in our opinion there appear to be no obvious significant structural defects, with all properties appearing to be relatively true in terms of overall alignment,

We are often told that these properties are not cost effective to repair etc. but again in the same paragraph it states In order to be able to confirm the exact construction type, structural condition and potential assured life for the units, Curo should undertake further investigation work of the fabric and main structures to ensure adequate cost allowances have been made. The investigations would ideally comprise exposing critical connection details, the condition of any mechanical ties and material testing for the frames and façades. So how is it this has not been done or carried out but it seems they are working on the assumption that these properties are failing

I would also like to refer to PropertyType of the same report

Cornish Type 1 units
The construction of these non-traditional units are well documented, comprising pre cast concrete columns, pre cast concrete panels and first floor concrete ring beams surmounted by timber framed mansard roofs with interlocking concrete tiles. Typical defects with these buildings include crack damage to the pre cast concrete elements through lateral movement, defective fixings and unacceptably high levels of carbonation within the concrete elements. The Cornish type 1 units within this estate were found to be in varying conditions, most of which had been upgraded through the installation of external insulation and masonry facades, details of these works may be available for review if required with the works likely to have been carried out in the correct manner to include repairs to the original concrete frame. There were several (nonCuro owned) properties that had remained in their original as built condition with no evidence of any repairs. From an external observation only, there were no obvious signs of any significant defects to any of these property types.

This evidence states that there is nothing wrong with the Cornish Units within Foxhill, even as such one rank of Cornish Unit Houses are being left alone and is not in the regeneration area.

Other Housing Organisations, Merlin Housing (South Glos) and Homes in Sedgemoor (Sedgemoor Council) have Cornish Units Type 1, and they are not pulling them down, but cladding them with external wall insulation (EWI) following any concrete repairs that maybe required. Which Curo has already done.

They Survey Data that Curo has supplied, it seems the prices stated seem to be higher then benchmark prices too, which seems the are trying to inflate the costs to justify their means, and do not reflect truly, the following comment is also noted

In order to reasonably estimate the renewal cost of a component, we would usually expect to multiply a unit cost from an agreed Schedule of Rates to a quantity (e.g. a 50 m² roof with interlocking tiles with a unit cost of £77/m² would be cost £3,850). Curo does not currently adopt such a process but uses market tested rates adopted from an agreed supplier list.

It seems that the data given by Curo has not been robust enough, and it has been commented within the report the following

Ideally the survey form design used to collect data should be reviewed and updated to ensure that complete and robust data is collected and managed within the database.

So it seems that not the full picture is being disclosed by Curo, therefor this report should be dismissed, until a true Stock Condition Report is carried out.


11/06/2017
Angela Galpin 43 Hawthorn Grove, Combe Down, Bath, Bath And North East Somerset, BA2 5QE O 29/11/2016: I strongly object to Curo's plans for the regeneration of the Foxhill Estate. For a start there has not been much consultation with local residents, either tenants or home owners, to get their views on the project and what it will mean to the local community. Some tenants have agreed with the plans but under the misapprehension as to what it will actually mean for them e.g. higher rental costs, smaller size properties and also possibly an added community charge. There will also be a considerable lack of car parking spaces.

There is on the whole a very friendly community on the estate which we would like to keep, but increasing the size of it by such a vast amount will ruin this and could well result in the social problems experienced in other vast estates countrywide.

The loss of social housing will be significant and will only exacerbate the problem of the dire need for this type of accommodation in Bath and the surrounding areas.

I am a homeowner, having lived in this house for over 40 years, and I have spent a considerable amount getting my home exactly how I want it. I do not want to move to a smaller property and strongly object to being told I will have to do this if the plans go ahead. Also for what Curo would pay me to move would not enable me to buy even the cheapest of the new ones being built on Mulberry Park and I do not want to move from the area. There are many other retired people in the same position as myself and we have not been given any satisfactory answers to all our concerns.

I agree that some properties on the estate require work doing to them but the destruction of so many family homes is NOT acceptable, especially as there will not be enough properties for the number of tenants they are pushing out of their current rented accommodation to move in to. Surely renovation is the best way forward.

The proposed height of some of the housing will also be a problem for those whose properties are not in the regeneration area, restricting sunlight and views.

Having to live on what will be a giant building site for at least ten years with all the extra heavy traffic, machinery noise and air pollution will not be at all pleasant and will also be detrimental to peoples' health.

As far as I can see it just appears to be a land grabbing exercise to cram as many smaller properties as they can in to an unsuitably sized area, for as much profit as they can make, without any concern for all the local residents that are involved in the development, or their welfare. Many of these are already suffering from problems and illnesses brought on by the worry of what is going to happen to them in the future.

With the development of Mulberry Park and the proposed developments at Southstoke/Odd Down and Foxhill the considerable amount of extra traffic flow generated will be horrendous and will only add to the existing peak time traffic problems we already have to endure.
30/05/2017: I wish to make it known that I strongly object to the revised plans for the redevelopment of the Foxhill Estate. All the objections I put forward re the previous plans still stand. I can't really see that Curo have taken notice of any of our previous objections and worked on them. They still seem determined to turn us out of our houses to make as much profit as they can.
The terrace of houses I live in in Hawthorn Grove is the only one in the road due for demolition, apart from two properties on the opposite corner of Queens Drive. At present the terrace consists of 5 houses and the new plans suggest 8 houses will be squashed into the same area, with a bit of green space on the corner. I fail to understand how they can tell me that the new build houses will be no smaller than the present ones.
The height and density of the proposed units is unsatisfactory and in many case will result in current home owners in the road being deprived of sunlight. I thought it is not allowed for this to happen, as was the case when we submitted plans for our extension. We could not go out as far as we originally wanted as it would have blocked neighbours' light.
Also many people take great pride in their gardens and these will be practically non-existent on the new development.
The development surely will also go against the Bath Building Heights Strategy as the proposed changes will cause major deterioration of the existing panoramic views around the city. The streetlight pollution at night will surely also cause problems for residents in Perrymead and surrounding roads.
I understood that we were supposed to be conserving and enhancing the natural environment. Much of the wildlife in our area has already been affected by the Mulberry Park site. Deer, foxes and badgers among others have suffered by the loss of their habitat on the old MOD grounds and now they will be losing even more of their habitat if this ugly development is allowed to go ahead.
For the most part our estate is a happy, friendly place to live and we do not want to move, even with the promise of a new property of our choice. This will not make up for what we will be losing moving from our homes that we have made exactly as we want, at considerable expense, ready for our twilight years. Upheaval and the current threat of compulsory purchase is not what senior citizens need at this time in our lives.
Please consider refurbishment above regeneration. All the Cornish units have been cleared of concrete cancer at great expense to residents and council alike so surely it makes sense just to upgrade where necessary.
The Government is saying that more social and affordable housing should now be being built. This is NOT what Curo's plans are as they are turning more tenants out than they are building homes for and what they call affordable is way above the means of many, especially first time buyers.
I must also object very strongly at the way Curo are describing all the residents here. To say that we are one of the 11% of the most deprived areas in England with significant social and economic deprivation is most derogatory and also very defamatory. The majority of people living here are upstanding citizens. It is not our fault if Curo decide to move those who some may call 'unsociable people' to our area. Maybe this is just their way of hopefully pushing their plans through by denigrating our estate in this way.
We will stand together in our objections to these plans as we are very happy where we live and do not want the present tranquillity of our estate destroyed.
30/05/2017
Dr S Lampkin 7 Kewstoke Road, Combe Down, Bath, Bath And North East Somerset, BA2 5PU O 13/11/2016: I object to the application 21/05/2017: As with the previous application by Curo, I wholly object to this application 10/06/2017: I object to the description revision and amended drawings/information regarding this application. 10/06/2017
T Warren Queens Drive, BA2 5PA O 10/05/2017: 1. I object to the demolition of Foxhill loss of private homes
it may not be viable for curo to regenerate but you must consider it is NOT VIABLE for the 95 private tenants to sale the homes to curo some tenants will be left financially challenged as well as displaced, unsecure and vulnerable.

2.I object to the loss of social homes.
how is the loss of 257 social homes a good thing. demolishing 542 homes to replace them with 700 may sound good. NO NO NO Not until you look at the figures
95 private home. 95 families displaced . 447 curo owned homes of which 414 are social rented and 33 I presume privately rented 447 families displaced.
and for what? so curo can gain 490 market value and 53 shared ownership homes and give back 153 social homes. that makes a massive loss of 257 social homes considering the size of the current waiting list for social homes this is outrageous.

15/05/2017: I object to the planning application reference: 16/05219/EOUT
Our Family home is NOT FOR SALE at any cost I am totally against selling our property including compulsory selling
this property our family home is for our safety and security now and for the future
if we are made to sale our family home now it would effectively plunge my mother in to poverty within two years.
15/05/2017: I object to this application. With more properties comes more cars, and less driveways will mean more on street parking which will make the roads narrow and crowded. more roads cutting through the estate makes more crowded rat runs. This can make it difficult for Emergeny services and could make response times longer.
Bradford road already has a high volume of traffic and congestion and this will see alot more as residents move in to mullbury park.
Demolishing Foxhill, changing access and buliding more properties is going to make the traffic situation alot worse.
15/05/2017
Colin Larcombe 7 Fullers Way, Odd Down, Bath, Bath And North East Somerset, BA2 2UG O 11/05/2017: Good sturdy houses to be replaced with probably flimsy chicken coops with paper thin walls. 11/05/2017
Eleanor Ellington 10 Woodland Grove, Claverton Down, Bath, Bath And North East Somerset, BA2 7AT O View Associated Documents 08/01/2017
Allen Perrett 1 Queen's Drive, Combe Down, Bath, Bath And North East Somerset, BA2 5PA O View Associated Documents 28/11/2016
Mrs D J M Seale 94 Hawthorn Grove, Combe Down, Bath, Bath And North East Somerset, BA2 5QG O View Associated Documents 01/06/2017
Jose Abren 22 Bradford Park, Combe Down, Bath, Bath And North East Somerset, BA2 5PR O View Associated Documents 31/05/2017
Sabine Bachinger 32 Bradford Park, Combe Down, Bath, Bath And North East Somerset, BA2 5PR O 11/11/2016: I am a home owner and object the demolition of existing homes. It is extremely unsettling and has been going on for years. It is impossible to make any decisions around financial investment in home improvements, not knowing whether my home is "safe" or not.
I have asked numerous times for clear answers, but have not received any, and it is psychologically extremely distressing to think I will live in more uncertainty for years to come.
I agree with the fact that Foxhill could do with some improvements, but this should not include the demolition of perfectly fine houses.
11/05/2017: I object to the proposed regeneration of Foxhill for the following reasons:

1) I own my property, and the offer made to home owners would not leave them in the same position. The market value being offered is not high enough to secure an equivalent home elsewhere in Combe Down/Bath. This means that shared ownership with Curo remains as the only alternative if they wish to stay in Combe Down/Bath. Shared ownership would mean that residents no longer own 100% of their property (which they do at present).
Most privately owned homes are well looked after, and there is no need to demolish them. They are not sub-standard, and owners enjoy owning 100% of their home, large gardens and space around them.

2) Many residents are elderly people who have lived in Foxhill for decades. They feel part of a community, and they do not wish to face such upheaval at this stage in their life. I know quite a few older people in the area, and they do not know how they would cope with such a change, and they feel it would have (and already has) a detrimental impact on their physical and mental health.

3) I understand from reading the planning documents that Curo feel that there is a need to attract a wider range of people to Foxhill – a social mix.
Whilst I cannot comment on where this evidence stems from I know from many Foxhill residents that they do not feel worse off or isolated. In fact, having things in common, sharing values etc. contributes to feeling that they want to live here – not that they are forced to live here.
I personally reject the idea of creating a “class system” and judging people on their social or financial status. I cannot see why attracting richer people to Foxhill would improve the entire area.

4) The planning documents state that compulsory purchase orders would be seen as a last resort.
The Council has recently confirmed in writing to home owners that they are not willing to issue any CPO’s, unless there might be a compelling reason in 1 or 2 cases where absolutely no work-around is possible.
Curo have also stated that they would be willing to design their plans around home owners who do not wish to sell, but stated that the plans can only be developed/completed on a phased basis.
My question is: Why is it not possible to consult ALL home owners BEFORE any outline planning permission request is submitted (as I am sure that all home owners already know whether they wish to sell or not, no matter what phase they are in), and then design the actual outline plan according to this? Wouldn’t this save Curo a lot of re-designing further down the line?

5) As it was mentioned in the previous comments during the first consultation, the net loss of social and affordable housing is concerning.
As a home owner I am concerned about my own situation; “affordable” for me is what I currently have. Unless I accept a “compromise” (such as shared ownership) nothing else would be affordable for me at all.
What is the legal position on this? Are residents not entitled to receive an alternative that leaves them in exactly the same financial position should it come to the use of CPO’s?

6) There would be a huge loss of green space due to the density of buildings, and also increased traffic

7) If the demolition went ahead people would live on a building site for many years

8) What is the human rights perspective on this? The uncertainty has a huge impact on people’s sense of security and mental health. I feel that the project needs to look more closely at individuals who are directly affected, including ensuring that they are not forced into a situation that leaves them disadvantaged.





11/05/2017
Raymond Wentland 36 Axbridge Road, Combe Down, Bath, Bath And North East Somerset, BA2 5PW O 30/05/2017: The wilful destruction of 550 perfectly decent homes and the terrible upset and distress this is causing residents is illogical and totally unnecessary as this community functions perefctly sensibly without this unwarranted intervention.

If it aint broke dont fix it. Unless of course the intention is purely financial gain and gentrification.

CURO should stick to the old MOD site and allow Foxhill residents to get on with their lives happily.
01/06/2017: I totally object to the application. It makes absolutely no sense at all to demolish nearly 550 decent homes in a settled community forcing out residents who have been brought up in the area and lived in the area only to replace them with 700 new homes at great cost but with very little increase in the number of homes. Not only that but clearly more homes will be squeezed into a smaller area ibcreasing the density of housing. For what reason? Purely to gentrify the area?

Also to me this is mission creep and I can see Curo coming back later to further spread this disruption and destruction of a vibrant local commuinity.
18/06/2017: I am an owner occupier in an adjacent street to this carve up. What is to happen to those opting to exercise their right not to sell. I just cannot see Curo building around home owners who refuse to sell. It just wont work and would be prohibitively expensive if they kept their word and the Council did not force people to compulsory sell.

This whole scenario seems to have been orchestrated from the beginning by Curo to soften opposition but I see no positive changes in the Estate following their involvement and yet there are many issues which need addressing and from what I have read many of those are down to Curo who do not have a good name for other properties they are managing.

I have looked at the application and a number of things have struck me:

1) Many of the houses are apparently in a very poor condition and yet its Curo that's responsible for them. How is that supposed to inspire confidence that they can deliver such a massive project successfully?

2) I was shocked to read the claim that Foxhill is supposedly amongst the 11% most deprived places in England. I just don’t believe the claim. It's absolute nonsense I would love to know what the claimed source is. What claims do though is deliberately stigmatise the area further.

3) Another thing that struck me wading through a number of iterations of a map with the odd line or shading added for effect is the complete lack of illustrations of what it will all look like once completed with the phases showing how progressively things might change. Is the intention just to drown people in words without letting people see what the overall effect will be. The ugly buildings appearing on the Mulberry development hardly inspire me with confidence.

4) The fact that this will drag on for twelve, possibly twenty years is an absolute disgrace. The prospect of living on a virtual building site for that long fills me with dread. Perhaps thats part of the stretgy to force people out. That alone should be enough to kill this plan but its not something which appears to exercise CURO.

5) What I have read on parking and traffic suggests they've been either very naïve or more likely disingenuous. As it is some selfish resdients already use pavements as part of the parking provision forcing pedestrians, push chair and wheelchair users on to busy roads.

6) Curo should stick to their Mulberry park project minus the bizarre cable car plan and bring the houses they own in Foxhill up to an acceptable standard. Not demolish them.
18/06/2017
Mrs Susan M Huggins 19 Axbridge Road, Combe Down, Bath, Bath And North East Somerset, BA2 5PW O View Associated Documents 26/05/2017
Valerie Josey 6 Sedgemoor Road, Combe Down, Bath, Bath And North East Somerset, BA2 5PJ O 28/11/2016: I am concerned that there won't be enough Social Housing for all tenants. Therefor we could be sent anywhere, miles away where we would be isolated, knowing no-one!!
You are breaking up a whole community caring nothing for any of us.
A lot of us are getting on in years, probably in our eighties when this project is finished.
We are settled here, know our neighbours, and have a social network.
Moving house is a terrific upheaval, even when we want to move and are young. It would be ten times worse when you are aged and "don't" want to go!
The stress of our future is tremendous causing both mental and physical illness.
I have lived in Sedgemoor Road since 1969 till my father died in 72 and mother in 85.
We are on a bus route and have access to shops, doctors' surgery, dental surgery and of course Bath and The Sports Centre.
I am disabled, aged and feel vulnerable at the hands of Curo, who I have no confidence in!!
I am determined not to go.
28/11/2016
Steve And Sally Buddle 13A Fox Hill, Combe Down, Bath, Bath And North East Somerset, BA2 5QL O View Associated Documents 21/12/2016
Sally Marchant 22 Queen's Drive, Combe Down, Bath, Bath And North East Somerset, BA2 5PA O 21/05/2017: I have lived her all my life and it is a lovely community,I think it is so unfair that curo I trying to break up this community ,take away all our gardens and move us into this concrete jungle if we do get one of these properties,which I personally think are an eyesore where we would all be living on top of each other.As a parent of a child that was killed in a road accident I have grave concerns on how much traffic this build is going to cause and the risk of more road accidents.Saying that this is for the good of the community is untrue as not one person I have spoke to wants this to happen.These are our homes and for most of us all our memories are here .If curo really cared about are community they would not be trying to knock it down but improve what is here already. 21/05/2017
Adam Radcliffe Flat 2 , 16 Russell Street, City Centre, Bath, Bath And North East Somerset, BA1 2QF O View Associated Documents 09/01/2017
Benjamin Hill 115 Church Road, Combe Down, Bath, Bath And North East Somerset, BA2 5JJ O 23/05/2017: I, like my family and everyone I know, object strongly to this.

You may not allow people's homes to be destroyed.

You may not allow an extension of the mundane ugliness that is to be Mulberry Park.
23/05/2017
Desmond Daly 22 Highfield Crescent, Parsonage Lane, Chilcompton, Radstock, BA3 4JX O 24/05/2017: I object to the Application that is being applied for and on behalf of my Foxhill Family,The reasons for my objection are as follows.
I would like to think that curo would do their best to build a better foxhill community,
But all I can see is that they are destroying the community that exists and trying to build a new one,
Over the past two years I have witnessed what Curo has done to this community of foxhill,Curo has slowly moved in what I would say was alcoholics and drug users and antisocial behaviour people in the hope that the long-term tenants move out of which this I have witnessed has been happening, I am sure that Avon and Somerset police will tell you that in the last two years of calls to Foxhill have most definitely increased ,I have seen for myself that this is all down to the new tenants that have been moved in to foxhill in the last two years,I believe that this is what curo hoped would happen,I get many of calls from my Childs mother saying that my child is feeling so unsafe can I please come and sit with him and try to settle him down, my son Ki Daly has been registered as having high functioning autism and unless you have a child that is same as mine you will never understand,as it has taken me years and I still don't fully understand I just try my best to understand for the sake of my son, ki does not respond well to change and when I get a call from his mother asking me to come and try to settle him because of the New neighbours that CURO has moved within doors of his home Who fight and drink almost 7 days a week as I said avon and Somerset police can confirm this all that my son keeps on about is Curo is going to knock his house down and please dad can you stop them, I as his father feel totally helpless I want to help my child but I can't, I did offer his mother The cash to purchase her house under the right to buy of which was refused by curo but weeks earlier three doors away from him before they moved the scum into the street they let that woman move and buy her new house ??? Anyway curo is going to build a and create jungle of which the city of natural beauty does not need ,from what I can make of this it's all about money curo have doubled the price of the property that they will build the local residents will never be able to afford to buy It's all a moneymaking scam and I am sure that people at the top of Curo Will have their pockets well lined for the parts that they play in this scam, and I really do hope that the people involved in the jurisdiction of this application do you not have their pocket blind or else foxhill is doomed, I myself am a landlord and I would never treat any of my tenants like this for financial gain, if anyone actually does read this please phone me and speak to me directly my telephone number is as follows (07851) 077030, I have much to say about the goings on in Foxhill and their so-called regeneration of it , I worked on these houses in 1985 and I would like to see these disposable house rebuilt in a more solid construction and people would be able to do that into their own homes with the same size gardens Don't be shy if you really want communication with the real people foxhill call me you have my number and I'm sure that any time I will and can get a lot of the community behind me thank you for your time if you do read this email MR DEZ DALY THE FATHER OF KI DALY 62 QUEENS DRIVE FOXHILL AND A TRUE FREIND OF MOST OF FOXHILL,


24/05/2017
Elizabeth Eastwood 50 Sedgemoor Road, Combe Down, Bath, Bath And North East Somerset, BA2 5PL O 24/05/2017: I object to demolition of our homes.
Refurbishment should be done done to improve our homes not demolition which will destroy our Community.
Curo do not listen to our views & do not care that they will destroy our lives & Community, they just care about lining their pockets££££.
We don't want to be forced from our homes.
24/05/2017
Geoff Simmons 1 Farrs Cottages, Farrs Lane, Combe Down, Bath, Bath And North East Somerset, BA2 5DU O 24/05/2017: This development is not welcome, it does nothing to enhance or improve the community or the general area
It is conceived not to address the increasing need for social housing or to enhance the environment of the Foxhill Estate but to provide profit to as supposedly Not For Profit organisation at the expense of current and future residents
It does nothing to address the need for social or affordable housing
In addition it is ugly and brutal in terms of architecture and not fit for a World Heritage city!
The redevelopment of the MoD site proves that Curo are not interested in delivering their primary aim of being the councils chosen provider of social housing, the provision is woeful nor ate they good at designing housing of any quality! The new build resembles Soviet era worker housing, offers little in terms of aesthetic and nothing to create a new thriving and vibrant community
Reject please
24/05/2017
Councillor Alan Hale Not Given O View Associated Documents 28/06/2017
Wayne Rosser 31 Queen's Drive, Combe Down, Bath, Bath And North East Somerset, BA2 5PA O 15/11/2016: Not enough social housing as it is and you would be allowing them to reduce it even more. Think of the people who have their homes here with this hanging over them. 15/05/2017: Still not enough social housing and remember these are peoples homes and their community, leave it alone. Refurbish not demolish. 15/05/2017
Samantha Selway 96 Haycombe Drive, Southdown, Bath, Bath And North East Somerset, BA2 1PN O 15/11/2016: I object to the application. I spent most of my childhood growing up in the area and my family still live there. It is so wrong that so many people's lives are being left in limbo as curo can't give them honest answers. Why would the elderly want to start moving when they are perfectly happy in their homes. I would love to buy my own house but the prices that curo have attached to the "affordable housing" is completely unacceptable. More social housing is required. Why not spend the money on upgrading the propertys? Foxhill was and still is a great community. Don't ruin ithe! 15/11/2016
Marie Daniels 11 Sunnybank, Lyncombe Vale, Lyncombe, Bath, Bath And North East Somerset, BA2 4NA O 31/05/2017: Curo’s ownership of roughly 60% of the housing on the Foxhill estate is the basis for their proposal to regenerate the whole estate, demolish a large part of it and rebuild homes at a higher density. There is desperate need for social housing and a proposal which reduces the number of social homes that currently exist on the Foxhill site is unjustified. Adequate maintenance of the existing properties is preferable to the loss of social housing.

In their Affordable Housing Statement, Curo propose to provide 30% affordable housing at a regenerated Foxhill, compared with the current 76% social housing. The regeneration would provide no more social housing than a typical new private housing development would, and Foxhilll’s existing number of socially rented units would not be replaced by adding the proposed quotas for these for both Foxhill and the adjoining Mulberry Park together. I speak for many in urging Bathnes to make a condition of any planning granted the provision of an equivalent amount of social housing within Foxhill to that which currently exists and in this application to deal with assertions of unviability in accordance their Planning Obligations SPD 2015. The loss of a substantial amount of social housing is a matter of public interest and therefore any viability documentation needs to be made public.

One justification given by Curo for their proposal at Foxhill (Planning Statement May 2017 1.3) quotes from the ‘Foxhill Regeneration and Development Charter’ adopted by Banes Council in 2016. It states that regeneration would enable Foxhill to be “a destination where people choose to come and live and then want to stay”. This was precisely the choice and the opinion of the majority of the 95 Foxhill owner- occupiers whose homes are currently earmarked for demolition. They committed to their ‘strong and vibrant community’ by buying the homes they rented, in the reasonable expectation of staying in them.

Surveyors consider most Foxhill properties to be in reasonable condition and much better suited to refurbishment than destruction. The two options Curo offer owner-occupiers of homes earmarked for demolition are inadequate even when viewed purely financially: either a payout of the market value plus 10% of the property, or shared ownership with Curo of an new property in Mulberry Park. The payment is insufficient to buy a comparable house in the area. The shared ownership properties offered are inferior, with less private space inside and outside. The benefit of full ownership is lost and there are added costs of staircasing to full ownership, even if that were affordable. The majority of the 95 owner-occupiers whose homes Curo propose to demolish do not want to move and compulsory purchase orders are unjustifiable.

Even at the reduced heights the tallest buildings in the proposal would be a visible interruption on Bath’s skyline seen from a distance, damaging one of the Attributes of Outstanding Universal Value on which the ‘whole city’ designation of Bath as a World Heritage Site is predicated. High buildings facing the Bradford Road or Foxhill wouldn’t serve Curo’s stated aim of integrating the estate with the rest of Combe Down, but rather form a material and visual barrier.

Socio-economic reasons used by Curo to justify regeneration still use the Hepworth Report of 2012. This is now an outdated source for the purposes of informing policy on regeneration. The Foxhill community is supportive, stable and now rooted in its place through generations of families living there. From personal experience as a former resident of the immediately surrounding area, I’m not surprised to hear that the crime rate in the area is low. The post- Hepworth socio- economic data in the Planning Statement contains dubious assumptions. It’s incorrect and offensive to assume that a low income equates with being problematic or deprived, or that a totting up of a higher than average number of residents in ‘elementary occupations’, as opposed to professional occupations, contributes to a need for regeneration, as asserted in Chapter 3 of the Planning Statement. Curo fail to establish a socio-economic need for regeneration in preference to refurbishment.

The proposal would dismantle an unconsenting community of outright owners and those in need of the scarce social housing which the proposal would substantially reduce in quantity, and should not be approved.
01/06/2017
Darren Baldwin Sunnyside, Redfield Road, Midsomer Norton, Radstock, Bath And North East Somerset, BA3 2JW O 14/11/2016: I lived on the Fox Hill estate from birth (1991) until this year (2016), when I chose to move out to be with my SO. I was living there with my Mother and Brother, also upon this estate lives my Nan who has lived there all her life, and Aunt, same again lived there all their lives, all of who have Curo as their landlord. My family is one of many who have history back generations, who have friends for life and family who will be forcible ejected and torn to different areas to live which would put strain on all our relationship and duty to assist my Nan that allow her to live a free and easy life without having to get extra care putting more strain on local resources.

This would not be such a problem if the number of homes being guaranteed for social housing matched those that are currently in use and needed.

We, the people who are still the community of Fox Hill, could still keep all ties and support to each other as we have and still do.
14/11/2016
Robin Sandall 67 The Hollow, Southdown, Bath, Bath And North East Somerset, BA2 1NE O 14/11/2016: This is clearly a money making scheme for Curo, of whom are a poor Housing Association and cannot manage what properties they have now!

The fact that they charge higher rates for a property privately owned then someone on benefits, just goes to show what a mess the Country is in!

I cannot see, by building these houses any form of effective transport plan neither in terms of reduced and or increased local buses or like other towns/cities a new train station to ease congestion. I assume there is little being done too about the fact that Culverhay School is under threat of closure, thus with these new homes there be more children with few places and overcrowded school once the development is completed.

Bath as a city, has no/little affordable housing such as cities/towns like Exeter where a 2 bedroom property starts at around £245,000.00 in a small area called Cranbrook. This is what attracts people to live and work in the city.
14/11/2016
Leigh Giles Holmlea, 9B Prospect Place, Upper Weston, Bath, BA1 4EU, O 14/11/2016: I believe that the proposed dwellings will be far too expensive to qualify as affordable housing, the scheme needs to include MORE than the current number of 'affordable' units, not less, and at the same price for rent and sale as the current provision. 14/11/2016
Nola Edwards 97 Queen's Drive, Combe Down, Bath, Bath And North East Somerset, BA2 5PD O 20/05/2017: I object to the plans put forward because the arguments for regeneration are founded on inaccurate and cherry picked information.

The Hepworth Report
Curo states. “In 2012, a report on Foxhill was commissioned called “The Hepworth Report”. The 36-page document says investment to build homes and offices on the MoD site could turn the area into a national model for regeneration, ‘the ‘MoD development’ is a lifetime opportunity to regenerate Foxhill and get the community on a firmer path to sustainability.’”

A good deal of the justification for the plans come from the Hepworth report . Considering how much this document has been relied upon why has it not been submitted as one of the documents for consideration? I could not find a copy of the report either in Curo’s submission or on BANES website. However after a good deal of searching I found a copy to find out what else it said other than quotes used by Curo.

The Hepworth report was commissioned by Funda Willetts, Senior Urban Designer, B&NES Council whilst on secondment to Construction Excellence SW & Future Foundations. According to CESW website. “We are a cross-sector, cross-supply chain, member led organisation operating for the good of industry and its stakeholders.” CESW has several regional clubs. Bath has a CESW club which was launched in 2015, It’s president is listed as Cllr Martin Veal and Gerraint Oakley MD Curo Homes is listed as a committee member

Mark Hepworth was MD of Geoeconomics Ltd, a private ltd Company based in Bathwick Hill.

The Hepworth Report is flawed in that it is based on a lot of anecdotal evidence collected from residents of Foxhill. The report does not say how interviewees were selected and as far as I am aware did not attempt to gather information from the entire population of Foxhill. At one point the report mentions that 150 doors were knocked on and this is the only reference I could find to how the material was collected. There is no indication on how households were selected for interview, therefore we don’t know if the picture is skewed for example by collecting data during office hours thereby not gathering a true picture of the experiences of the working population.

The Hepworth report is a mere 36 pages the first 6 of which are simply an introduction. At no point is the wholesale demolition of the heart of Foxhill advocated. 30 A4 pages written by one individual is not enough evidence on which to determine the future of 542 households.

Poularity of the Area
Curo have used the report to paint a very negative view of Foxhill. “ It is Curo’s ambition that regeneration will halt the decline experienced by Foxhill over many years and ensure a successful and sustainable future for its residents”
Curo choses not to use some of the more positive comments from the Hepworth Report such as.” Most interviewees believe that living conditions in Foxhill have improved over the last decade. Partners at Combe Down Surgery thought health standards were better, the St. Martin’s Children Centre are reaching more families and children, Somer Housing reported lower tenant turnover and residents and combe Down councillors thought the area was safer and more secure”

Curo state that they aim to create ‘a destination where people choose to come to live and then want
to stay’ The Hepworth Report report states “a minority of residents believe that Foxhill still carries the stigma one of the worst places in Bath to live in” Curo’s own report describes Foxhill as ‘communities which continue to be proud of themselves and the local neighbourhood’

Residents of Foxhill have argued for a long time that one area of the estate has been singled out for redevelopment because it is cheaper to achieve as there are fewer owner occupiers in that zone than on the estate as a whole. The Hepworth Report states.” The statistical evidence presented here descends below the B&NES ward level and ‘zooms in’ on Foxhill North, where localism has been more apparent than real, and where well-being is most under threat. Earlier Chart 1.1 showed, the boundaries of Foxhill North are actually drawn quite tightly, and exclude the newly-built Church and community centre located on Hawthorne Grove, where rows of Victorian terraced housing lead to Entry Hill. The Bradford Road shops are also located outside the estate


Foxhill is already a place where we choose to live and want to stay. Unfortunately these plans are taking away our right to stay, because Foxhill as we know it will no longer exist if these plans come to fruition.

Social Problems
Curo insist demolition will cure all our woes.

The Hepworth Report says There were only seven young people identified as “NEETs” living in Foxhill at the time of writing this report. (not in employment, education and training) and “ On closer inspection, the skills picture in Foxhill North is more mixed and possibly polarised. Once you go beyond the flats there is a real mix of housing tenure and socio-economic groups. There are professional people, including MoD workers – living on the estate. There are also Bath University students – the bus goes straight there.” Not having done a survey myself I cannot say how the majority of people who live in the flats are employed however I do know several people who in them ,they are employed in all manner of ways and none of them deserved to be classified by the type of property they live in.

Unemployment levels are used as an argument for regeneration. Unemployment rates for Foxhill were gathered at a time of recession May 2004 to May 2011. Current unemployment has not been ascertained. How many people living in the regeneration zone have found work directly related to the redevelopment at Mulberry Park? The case has not been proved on employment grounds.

Facilities
The need for better community facilities are identified in the Hepworth Report in order to improve social conditions. These facilities have already been promised and are being built on Mulberry Park, no demolition is required to meet that provision.

Flats
The new plans increase the proposed number of homes to 707. Of those 351 will be flats 244 for private sale and 107 as affordable homes. They do not say if the Coach Houses are classed as flats or houses. A home on one level built above garages is in effect a flat. The Hepworth Report states ” Somer’s tenant survey in 2009 showed that people in Foxhill were less satisfied than in other Somer neighbourhoods. This is at least partly due to the fact that Foxhill is highly flatted. Flats are relatively unpopular – people with kids like houses with gardens”


Connectivity
Curo aims to provide ‘a neighbourhood which is well connected and fully integrated with its
Surroundings.’ That is really simple to achieve, take down the fences and hoardings when Mulberry Park is completed and voila we are connected. We are not in any way disadvantaged from connecting with Bath and wider world. Foxhill enjoys an excellent bus service and all the local schools are easily within reach by foot.
22/05/2017
Charlotte Duckworth 12 Foster Street, Bristol , BS5 6JE, O 14/11/2016: I object to this application and think it is crazy that this can be seen as a move that is helping people afford homes. The main benefit of this application is about making money rather than supporting the community and those who need real affordable housing. 14/11/2016
Johanna Gibson 59 Lade Braes, St Andrews, KY16 9DA, O 14/11/2016: Demolishing 542 homes and replacing them with 700 sounds reasonable, until you discover that only 158 will be to let at a social rent. Don't make it even harder for the working poor of Bath. I enjoy the lovely Georgian buildings in Bath, but not everyone can afford to live there. 14/11/2016
Dawn Worthington 22 Charmouth Road, Newbridge, Bath, Bath And North East Somerset, BA1 3LJ O 11/11/2016: These houses are the homes to the people in the community of Foxhill. The money offered is an insult to homeowners as there are no similar properties to be bought at the same price. Do not destroy communities 11/11/2016
Desmond Daly 22 Highfield Crescent , Chilcompton , Radstock, BA3 4JX, O 11/11/2016: I Desmond Daly Fully object to you demolishing these houses in foxhill,this will effect many of people of ALL ages,this is having a massive effect on my autistic son who lives with his mother in one of these homes, he now feels insecure in his own home which is being taking away from him and demolished,being autistic he does not handle change easy and has asked me as his father to help him,I have tried to explain I can not fight the financial wealth of the people or companies behind this,this makes me as a FATHER feel that I am helpless to help my child, you are destroying a well established community and taking social housing away from those that need it ,WHY DOES OUR GOVERNMENT ALLOW YOU TO DO THIS, I CAN ONLY WONDER WHAT GOES ON BEHIND CLOSED DOORS, I would hope to get a reply from this letter but I have my doubts
Mr D Daly
11/11/2016
Ian Holton 5 Roseland Close, Lower Swainswick, Bath, Bath And North East Somerset, BA1 7AD O 11/11/2016: We can not in Bath lose social homes. We have a waiting list of 6500 we need our social housing increased not decreased. To lose those gardens to effect those lives this should be changed to enhance the social housing stock not deplete it. Renting in Bath is so expensive it will be crazy to reduce social housing stock. 11/11/2016
Lorrie Edwards-Sandrone Not Given. O 11/11/2016: Simply why make people homeless by knocking down 542 homes in favour of building 700. Surely it's not cost effective and its definitely not morally effective 11/11/2016
Daniel Newman 21 Faulkland View, Peasedown St. John, Bath, Bath And North East Somerset, BA2 8TG O 11/11/2016: Object 11/11/2016
Rowena Isaac 29 Wheelers Road, Midsomer Norton, Radstock, Bath And North East Somerset, BA3 2BX O 12/11/2016: I object as there looks to be less social housing stock if this redevelopment goes ahead and the locals object to the destruction of their neighbourhood as I once was apart of. 12/11/2016
Richard Hall Zenith International Ltd , 7 Kingsmead Square, City Centre, Bath, Bath And North East Somerset, BA1 2AB S 14/12/2016: Dear Sirs

FOXHILL DEVELOPMENT

I was especially pleased to learn of plans to regenerate the Foxhill estate. The scheme seems imaginative and enterprising.

I wonder how else such a major improvement could take place. The extra density of home should not be a problem with careful planning and design. The opportunity for more affordable housing is significant.

I do hope the Council will approve the Curo application.

My views stem from an interest as a business owner in the future prosperity of our city.

Yours faithfully

Richard Hall
Chairman
14/12/2016
Kevin Smith 68 Hansford Square, Combe Down, Bath, Bath And North East Somerset, BA2 5LL O View Associated Documents 11/01/2017
Daniel Lyons Tytherly, Perrymead, Lyncombe, Bath, Bath And North East Somerset, BA2 5AX O 31/05/2017: I strongly object to this application. Foxhill is a friendly and real community which will be destroyed by these proposals. Social housing provision will be decreased, pensioners will be forced out of comfortable bungalows and private homeowners will be forced to sell their homes at prices which will not allow them to buy equivalent properties in the City. Any "affordable" homes built will not in reality be "affordable" In short it is an example of "social cleansing" purely to benefit the commercial interests of a property developer (Curo) which has long since forgotten its origins as a housing association. 31/05/2017
Jeanie Edwards 97 Queen's Drive, Combe Down, Bath, Bath And North East Somerset, BA2 5PD O 31/05/2017: I object to these revised plans. If these plans actually come into being, then the area where I was raised will be obliterated and the opportunity to find a place to live in the city of my birth will be even more difficult than it is now. This plan will destroy some of the most affordable homes in Bath. As a young adult I feel aggrieved that there is next to no affordable housing for young workers to either rent or buy in Bath. It is not only students who live in HMO's, even with a reasonable job my choices have been to either live with my mother or share with other workers whose salaries do not pay them enough to live independently. Bath council needs to provide much more affordable housing for its indigenous population and put their needs at the top of the housing agenda or risk losing its most valuable asset, its young people. 31/05/2017
Larissa Thompson 4 Catharine Place, City Centre, Bath, Bath And North East Somerset, BA1 2PR O 01/06/2017: I'm objecting to this application because I believe it is not in the interests of Foxhill residents - as many have repeatedly stated.
The replacement provision is not like for like.
To reduce social housing in Bath at this time would be utterly indefensible.
The loss of green space and mature trees involved is unacceptable.
Please act to protect Bath's vital *whole setting* UNESCO status.
Please don't let this appalling proposal go any further.
Thank you.
01/06/2017
Sally Whitworth Fox Hill Lodge, Fox Hill, Combe Down, Bath, Bath And North East Somerset, BA2 5AT O 01/06/2017:
Foxhill estate, a longstanding and diverse community, build over generations will be broken up. Proposals will not deliver greater diversity but greater isolation particularly for the most vulnerable who need the security that Foxhill has provided with its close-knit community spirit and support. It may not be a deemed a place of great beauty by some but what it delivers for many goes way beyond the facades. Putting 200 of these people out of their secure homes and moving them to locations further away will not improve their mobility but diminish it and being able to live more centrally to a city has got to improve their ability to work whereas moving them away will potentially lose them the jobs they already have. The new proposed builds will reduce the living space for those 'lucky' enough to stay - with smaller plots and little 'real' social space. They will be living cheek by jowl, losing the space around them that Foxhill currently offers.

Those who own their own homes on the Foxhill Estate won't be able to afford to live there any more - they are being made to sell their houses and made to leave the area as a result, destroying the future they had planned here and potentially making it harder or impossible for them to keep their jobs locally if they have to move out of Bath to afford to buy again (how can Curo be offering a 'fair' price if these owners can't buy another comparable home for the same amount in the new development or nearby?). And what about the pride they had at owning their own homes and having that taken away from them for the benefits primarily of richer individuals who won't see Mulburry Park as their forever home but a stepping stone into Bath - does the developer get to decide that it is better for the richer at the expense of the less well off and will Bath planning go along with this?

Why is the housing stock in such a poor state. Surely if people cared so much for the residents of Foxhill they would have done something sooner to improve the existing stock instead of letting it gets so bad that instead of renovating it they need to destroy it and start again. Much like the proposed cable car, create a transport problem then come up with a 'cunning plan' to solve it. How can they be allowed to keep creating a problem and then be given the reward of solving it to suit their own ends? What is the environmental impact of destroying all these homes instead of updating them? It may not make such a lovely view for the Mulberry Park residents but it would allow the current residents of Foxhill to maintain their security and history for the future. Mulberry Park may deliver some greater social diversity and this will be an improvement on the luna landscape that has been the MOD site - how much more is required - it feels like the Foxhill estate is being cleaned up to make it more palatable for the Mulberry Park residents and not for the benefit of the Foxhill residents. Wolf in sheep's clothing comes to mind....

01/06/2017
Peter Ellis 4 Chilton Road, Fairfield Park, Bath, Bath And North East Somerset, BA1 6DR O View Associated Documents 05/01/2017
Chris Rogers Lyncombe Court, Lyncombe Vale Road, Lyncombe, Bath, Bath And North East Somerset, BA2 4LR O 09/06/2017: How can an application by a social housing landlord to demolish 542 homes and replace them with 700 new ones, with the net loss of 215 social homes, be considered acceptable in any shape or form - not to mention the loss of gardens, public green space and trees? 09/06/2017
Rupert Rhymes Honeysuckle Farm, Perrymead, Lyncombe, Bath, Bath And North East Somerset, BA2 5AU O 18/05/2017: This is an inappropriate way to provide the kind of accommodation the City needs, causing distress and upheaval to the current community
Curo appear to be intent on destroying what exists in pursuit of financial gain
None of this development was clear at the time of the original application for developing the MOD site
18/05/2017
Richard Hill 115 Church Road, Combe Down, Bath, Bath And North East Somerset, BA2 5JJ O 22/05/2017: There is not enough social housing from what is supposed to be a social housing association. 22/05/2017
Jane Alexander 61 Sladebrook Road, Southdown, Bath, Bath And North East Somerset, BA2 1LP O 22/05/2017: Although I am not personally affected by this development, I am shocked at the small amount of social housing being provided by this scheme. It seems totally inappropriate for a housing association to be proposing a scheme which consists of predominately private and shared ownership properties. Appears to be more akin to a private developer? 22/05/2017
Gillian Burnford Lyncombe Vale Farm, Lyncombe Vale, Lyncombe, Bath, Bath And North East Somerset, BA2 4LT O 31/05/2017: It has been proved time and time again that re-housing people who have made a life for themselves in a settled community causes negative knock-on consequences for generations to come. We have an abundance of private dwellings in Bath and we must not forget our responsibilities to those who need our help on a social level.
I hope you will reject the plan to turn people out of their homes who have limited access to other possibilities.
31/05/2017
Mark Annand 1 Leopold Buildings, Upper Hedgemead Road, Walcot, Bath, Bath And North East Somerset, BA1 5NY O 31/05/2017: I object to this application on the grounds that its execution would be destructive. It would disrupt and disperse a substantial existing community and neighbourhood. 31/05/2017
Jayne Gall Woodside, Lyncombe Vale Road, Lyncombe, Bath, Bath And North East Somerset, BA2 4LS O 01/06/2017: Totally unfair proposel to free holders as they wouldn't be able to buy like for like and Curo and Council need to take responsibility to all tennents at Fox Hill. The proposel of the new development would be too densely packed. 01/06/2017
Diane Hine 48 Hawthorn Grove, Combe Down, Bath, Bath And North East Somerset, BA2 5QE O 01/06/2017: I have lived in my home in Foxhill for over19 years and have made many home improvements during my time here. Home is where the heart is, and our hearts and our community will be ripped apart, for the sake of squeezing more and more houses and FLATS into this small space.There are already too many vehicles and traffic on our roads, and developing this area further will cause what is now a relatively quite, and peaceful rural area, into a busy, polluted and overcrowded thoroughfare!! Also, we have a wide and diverse population of bird and wildlife, including slowworms and bats (which are protected), hedgehogs and birds, which form an important eco-system to our environment, with the well establish trees and green areas which have developed over many years. To think you can come and demolish all that, and think that your widespread destruction of people's homes will be an improvement to our community is ludicrous and will rip the heart out of Foxhill. I appeal to you to re-consider the demolition of Hawthorn Grove and please let us live in peace. Renovate not Detonate!! SAVE OUR SOULS, SAVE OUR HOMES. 01/06/2017
Christopher Smith 5 Kewstoke Road, Combe Down, Bath, Bath And North East Somerset, BA2 5PU O 01/06/2017: still cannot see a good reason to tear an established settled community apart. This will create denser population in the area more traffic, which will create problems for the wider area. I would also beg the question where is the enormous car park for the cable car situated, I believe it will be in the foxhill area so is their reasons for evictions for this purpose. my previous objection still stands. 06/06/2017: my previous 2 objections still stand. 06/06/2017
Andrew Udale-Smith 100 Greenway Lane, Lyncombe, Bath, Bath And North East Somerset, BA2 4LN O 01/06/2017: I've been listening to the arguments surrounding this application. The point I object to is the net loss of 250 social homes. I think Curo should be forced to revise its application so that there is no net loss of social homes. 01/06/2017
Mary Udale-Smith 100 Greenway Lane, Lyncombe, Bath, Bath And North East Somerset, BA2 4LN O 01/06/2017: I do not support the application because, although more homes will be built on the Foxhill site, there will be a net loss of 250 social housing units. The increase in the overall number of units must impact the proportion of green space on the site. Those whose homes are being demolished are not all going to be able to be housed in the immediate vicinity which will cause unnecessary levels of disruption and stress. 01/06/2017
S M Parsons Juniper House, Lyncombe Vale Road, Lyncombe, Bath, Bath And North East Somerset, BA2 4LP O 01/06/2017: I object to this application on the grounds that opportunities to design a more sustainable form of development have been missed.
Whilst the ‘Fabric First’ approach to construction is understood, there are errors in the Sustainability Statement provided by AES Sustainability Consultants on behalf of Curo. Table 4 claims that “bolt on renewable technologies” (presumably including solar PV) do not result in energy savings and do not result in savings for the life of the dwelling. Both statements are untrue.
During the life of this proposed development, the UK will need to see a move to clean energy production in order to meet its commitments under the Paris agreement. To omit solar PV is short sighted and will result in higher energy bills for residents, some of whom are currently in fuel poverty. Battery technology is becoming available and by the time the final phase of this development is being built, will be established. The combination of solar PV and battery technology can potentially release households from fuel poverty by storing energy which is generated during the day, for use in the evening. Research also shows that households with lower fuel bills suffer fewer rent arrears. Social housing in particular can therefore benefit from renewable energy provision.
Secondly, the opportunity to allow residents to charge electric vehicles at home has been missed. Bath’s air pollution issues are well-known. By the time this proposed development is built the growth in EV usage will be well-established, which will contribute to lower levels of air pollution in the city. As meter boxes are to be sited on the outside of dwellings, to add an adjacent terminal plate with the correct cabling for a charging point would be an extremely low cost addition for those houses with their own parking spaces attached to the property. The householder could then choose to add a charging point without the disruption of retrofit, meaning that the choice of an EV would be easier. Over 90% of EV charging occurs at home.
Climate change is identified in the Bath Sustainable Community Strategy 2009-2026 as the first driver for change in Bath. It follows that buildings should use renewable energy technology, and should enable the use of cleaner car technology to reduce carbon emissions arising from fossil fuel use in heating and transport.
01/06/2017
Kirsten Elliot 58 Minster Way, Bathwick, Bath, Bath And North East Somerset, BA2 6RL O 01/06/2017: Although this development does not affect me directly, I feel I must object on the following grounds.
1. This appears to be the destruction of a community on spurious grounds. It is being portrayed as rundown and out of date, when the way in which the community has come together over this it is clear that it is still an active and vibrant place.
2. People are being told they must leave their homes when they have no wish to go. This application is being made when some of the property does not even belong to Curo, so people will be looking down the barrel of a Compulsory Purchase Order. These are not just houses – they are homes. In restrospect, selling council houses was probably not a good idea but people bought them in good faith. Now they will be forced out. This is morally indefensible.
3. The demolition of any building carries a carbon footprint. The demolition of perfectly good buildings for no reason beyond commercial gain is inexcusable on moral and ecological grounds. If some houses are rundown, the fault surely lies with Curo. If the company had spent money on maintaining them to a good standard, this would not now be necessary.
Conclusion
I am not against house-building on the old MoD site. What I am objecting to is the demolition of people’s homes for no good reason. The council has a duty to protect the residents, whether owners or tenants, in these properties.
01/06/2017
Andrew Grant Not Given. O View Associated Documents 01/06/2017
Enid Thompson 4 Catharine Place, City Centre, Bath, Bath And North East Somerset, BA1 2PR O 01/06/2017: Shocked by this proposal which reduces both social housing and green spaces. Not a fair deal for the residents of Foxhill. Please reject this, it is the wrong direction for Bath. 01/06/2017
H Sewell 16 Alexandra Road, Lyncombe, Bath, Bath And North East Somerset, BA2 4PW, O 01/06/2017: The plan to Displace people from their existing homes is likely to cause significant suffering for individuals, particularly the elderly.
No scheme which reduces the amount of social housing is acceptable to the community.

01/06/2017
Annabel Jackson 54 Lyncombe Hill, Lyncombe, Bath, Bath And North East Somerset, BA2 4PJ O 01/06/2017: I strongly object to the proposals. They constitute highly undesirable and inappropriate densification and disregard for the need for social housing. If Curo, which holds itself up as a housing association disregards the need, then this sets a precedent for other developers including more unambiguously commercial developers to do likewise. Bath has recently given permission for far too much residential development, in many cases to replace employment land uses (MOD). The council should require more mixed use development especially that including a balanced proportion of office, retail and workshop accommodation. This massive and disproportionate increase in residential land will cause blight and a major increase in traffic problems. 01/06/2017
Julie South 103 Greenway Lane, Lyncombe, Bath, Bath And North East Somerset, BA2 4LN O 01/06/2017: This is yet another ugly development that will do absolutely nothing to alleviate the housing problems in Bath, and will only cause more traffic chaos. The city is being ruined by the proliferation of student housing and ugly developments, which have recently arisen in the centre of Bath, and will certainly undermine the World Heritage status that the City currently holds. We, as a family, have lived in Bath throughout our lives and are extremely disappointed to see it being ruined. I am all for contemporary buildings - but what is being offered is appalling!! 01/06/2017
R Jolly Lyncombe Coach House, Lyncombe Vale Road, Lyncombe, Bath, Bath And North East Somerset, BA2 4LS O 01/06/2017: I object to the 2017 Revised Outline Planning Application 16/05219/EOUT for the Foxhill Estate on the following grounds:

The Viability Assessment (VA) has not been included in the application documents. This should be made available, including all assumptions, calculations, results and who has commissioned and produced them (Curo and/or BathNES). The presumption for regeneration cannot be made without this detailed evidence and sufficient time for independent scrutiny, in accordance with the legal requirements of public environmental interest.

There is a proposed net loss of approx. 250 existing socially rented housing units in the combined Foxhill/Mulberry Park development. This is an unacceptable approach to social housing regeneration would result in significant loss of social housing stock in the Foxhill area and also risks replication across Bath. The regeneration proposal does not comply with the intention of BathNES Council in PMP Policy 8, even though that policy was written collaboratively with Curo. This demonstrates that Curo are avoiding the intention of PM8 , they should be ‘placing the provision of social rented homes at the heart of new delivery of housing’. In fact, in the interest of BathNES, all Bath residents and Curo ‘Core Social Purpose’, the total social rentals and affordable housing across the two sites should be the sum of the 35% affordable units contractually required in Mulberry Park PLUS replicating the number existing social rentals properties that Curo wish to demolish in Foxhill.

There is a lack of transparency on the financial transfer between the profit making and non-profit making businesses within Curo Albion. This is relevant to this planning application as Curo state that they are offering a ‘once in a lifetime opportunity’ for Foxhill, implying that there is only one chance now to reinvest profit from Mulberry Park (MP). How much profit from their Mulberry Park developments will Curo, as the strategic landowner and developer of both sites, make available for their ambitious, high risk, rebuilding plans for Foxhill?

Where is the financial information available for the overall development and new market sales at both Mulberry Park and Foxhill? Will Curo be developing all houses themselves or are they selling the land to other developers? Curo seem to have reduced their potential profit at MP by reselling parcels of land to other developers with significantly less profit as undeveloped land. Smaller developers of parcels of say 50 homes will be seeking to minimise land costs and maximise their own profit. Does this business model comply with the Council’s legal and planning requirements for Mulberry Park and also the Foxhill Regeneration Charter?

Mulberry Park/ Foxhill is described as a Government Housing Zone. Is the whole development eligible for Government grants or just Mulberry Park? Have Curo applied for these grants, and where are the details? How will the refurbishment and/or regeneration of Foxhill benefit from any grant funding? Again, detailed public scrutiny of the modelling assumptions in the VA report detail is required.

The assumptions used to reject sustainable refurbishment of existing homes have not been presented in sufficient detail. The financial modelling should consider a number of different refurbishment scenarios with a range of numbers / types of existing homes in Foxhill. Has the possibility of enabling grants for the thermal improvement of homes been considered? There is significant environmental benefit of retaining the majority of the well established gardens in Foxhill.

The Hepworth report is cited as evidence for regeneration. This report, prepared in 2011/12 shortly after the 2008/9 economic recession, is out of date. The main barrier on the North side of Foxhill at that time was the MOD site. This physical barrier will be removed once the Mulberry Park hoarding is taken down and the two areas of housing are open to each other and naturally linked. The Hepworth report did not propose full-scale demolition and break up of the established Foxhill community, suggesting instead smaller pockets of new build to replace the poorest condition properties (eg some of the flats) with improvements to existing housing would be more sustainable to the community.

The suggestion of CPOs to force out owners of 93 homes on this site is completely unacceptable, as it would be for anyone else living in their own home. If the owners decline the manipulative offer by Curo of a shared equity scheme, with no rent payable on the Applicant owned share, then there is no alternative proposal that would permit the owner/occupiers to remain in Bath. Under the current offer they would have to leave their long cherished home and valuable outdoor garden space in exchange for a part share in a smaller net area of shared ownership house or flat with the on-going risks of increasing ground rent, high parking and maintenance charges, smaller area of garden or even no garden, restrictions on future sales etc.
This is not an acceptable offer for the majority of the existing owner/occupiers on this site, and results in many potentially adverse effects for them. So, at least for a minimum of 17.5% of the homes in the application zone, this proposal fails to meet the aims of the proposal. In conclusion, Curo are intending to force long standing residents into a perilous route to financial insecurity or social displacement. They should be offered the opportunity to stay in their own homes if they wish, and grants to help with refurbishment should be investigated too.

The visual impact of the higher buildings on the site has not been fully addressed. Heritage England and the Bath Preservation Trust have commented on this in more detail. The proposed small reduction in height of the highest buildings will not prevent them being visible on the UNESCO WHS protected Bath Skyline, particularly near the northern edge or in winter. Some existing trees are to be removed too. Similarly the impact of lighting on the nightsky of Bath’s UNESCO protected skyline has not been addressed.

02/06/2017
Lilian McClemont 15 Vernham Grove, Odd Down, Bath, Bath And North East Somerset, BA2 2TA O 02/06/2017: I object to the demolition of foxhill estate as I have family who live there and have done for years and now the council are trying to force them out. Everyone in Foxhill is all part of a community and have formed bonds and friendship with one another over the years. For people to buy another house on the money they would be offered from CURO they would have to move out of the area which for a lot of people could be devastating as they would have to leave elderly parents for whom they care for on a daily basis. Why CURO think they can play GOD with peoples lives is unbelievable. Its totally disgusting all they are out to do is make money off of hard working people.
I also strongly object to the road scheme that has been sneaked in under the radar.
02/06/2017
Hilary Fraser Not Given. O View Associated Documents 12/01/2017
Terrence N Harvey Not Given. O View Associated Documents 07/06/2017
Elaine Bachinger 60 Quarry Rock Gardens, Claverton Down, Bath, Bath And North East Somerset, BA2 6EG O 11/05/2017: I object to the proposed regeneration of Foxhill and will explain my reasons below.

1) Foxhill is a lively community. In my opinion the need for attracting people of a “different social class” to the area feels more like discrimination and making money from people who can buy the new expensive homes. It would not lead to a happier community spirit.

2) The suggestion that people living in Foxhill at present are unhealthier and have a reduced life expectancy is not due to the fact that they live in Foxhill. Attracting rich people to the area would not make Foxhill residents healthier or live longer. People live in Foxhill because that’s where they can afford to live – and in many cases want to live. Building more houses will not make people healthier.

3) At present many home owners enjoy beautiful gardens and green space around them. They wish to stay where they are and should not be forced to accept a deal that they don’t want or need. The offers that home owners have received would not leave them in the same position. They cannot afford 100% of a brand new Curo home based on what they are offered as market value for their current home. Therefore the only compromise would be to opt for shared ownership with Curo - which is not acceptable as this is no real choice; they would not have the opportunity to move to another place in Bath because they are not given enough money to buy an equivalent home in the area that they would own outright.

4) In order to improve the social facilities and some of the homes in Foxhill it is not necessary to demolish the entire community and build more houses, especially not if the new homes are not affordable, particularly for home owners who live in Foxhill at present.

5) As this is a long term project residents would be expected to live on a building site for over a decade. That is not acceptable.

6) Elderly residents should not be forced to go through such upheaval in the later stage of their life, having lived in Foxhill for decades and feeling integrated into the community. Neighbours who are less mobile have socially nourishing connections and would be torn apart. In my opinion this goes against human rights.

7) I understand that the Council has sent a letter to home owners stating that they are not looking to issue compulsory purchase orders unless there was a compelling reason in 1 or 2 cases. However, this is not sufficient reassurance for home owners as they are now all asking themselves “What if it is my house?” They cannot make any sensible decisions around financial investment in their homes and have lived in uncertainty for over 3 years now with no end in sight.
If the Council and Curo genuinely respect home owners’ wishes not to sell why can Curo not ask all home owners right now who wants to sell and then design the outline plan based on this?
If it is done on a phased basis and Curo only find out over the years who doesn’t want to sell that would lead to having to re-design the plans over and over again.
Home owners KNOW already whether they wish to sell or not. So if the statement about protecting home owners is true why can no definite guarantee be made that no CPO will be issued to anyone?

8) The overall look of the proposed housing is depressing. Hardly any green, houses packed together as tightly as teeth. I cannot imagine that people who are happy in their present home can see any incentive to sell. They don’t want to live on a building site for years, and they don’t need a higher value home as they are keeping their beloved current homes in good order.
11/05/2017
Phil Blacker Foxhill Grove Farm, Perrymead, Lyncombe, Bath, Bath And North East Somerset, BA2 5BA O 29/11/2016: My main objection is that the Curo plans for the development of Mulberry Park and the redevelopment of Foxhill will result in an overall significant reduction in the number of affordable rented homes. This is at a time when there is a real need for more affordable homes. BANES seems to accept the need as outlined in their 2013 SHMA but in allowing the redeveloped Foxhill estate to lose so many rented units is completely contrary to this policy. The Council should reject this application on the basis it does not fulfil the local need for more affordable rented homes and its own stated policies and objectives. 08/06/2017: My biggest objection is the net loss of a substantial number affordable rented homes. Bath is an expensive place to buy or rent a home: Curo, as a housing association should be focussing their attention on not reducing the number of affordable rented homes but increasing them.
Curo have handled the interface with existing residents on Foxhill very poorly leading to massive uncertainty, stress and anxiety which has gone on for at least 3 years. Curo seem to go through the mechanics of consultation because they have to and then proceed to ignore any feedback that doesn't accord with their plans. They are also inconsistent in their dealings with residents as time passes as their ideas and plans change.
The proposed redevelopment looks Utopian on paper but ignores the human cost along the way. More needs to done to take account of the views and feelings of those affected by the scheme, particularly the old and vulnerable, and not make it a box ticking exercise.
08/06/2017
D Button 57 Faulkland Road, Oldfield Park, Bath, Bath And North East Somerset, BA2 3LT O 12/05/2017: Can Bath really afford to lose that number of council owned properties! 09/06/2017: Can Bath really afford to lose that many local authority dwellings? 09/06/2017
Anna Gilmore Lych Gate, Perrymead, Lyncombe, Bath, Bath And North East Somerset, BA2 5AX O 13/05/2017: The proposal to redevelop Foxhill is inappropriate and should not be given support by the Council. The details submitted by Curo are highly misleading and need to be carefully challenged. The following objections are particularly notable:
1. Reduction in affordable housing: it will reduce rather than increase the amount of affordable housing in Bath, resulting in a net loss of 218 affordable homes. This is simply unacceptable.
2. Community destruction: if Curo gets its way, the Foxhill community will be destroyed. Given overwhelming evidence of the importance of community cohesion to health and wellbeing, the knock on implications of this are likely substantial. The opinions of the local community are paramount here. It is simply unacceptable to allow Curo to bully people out of their homes.
3. Energy inefficiency: The houses are being built to the minimum allowable energy standards. The implications of this for the environment and fuel poverty are substantial.
13/05/2017
Pip Burrows The Yard, High Street, Freshford, Bath, Bath And North East Somerset, BA2 7WF O 29/11/2016: I believe the demolition of the existing houses will not be of benefit to the area. 29/11/2016
Federation Of Bath Residents' Associations 2 Ainslie's Belvedere, Lansdown, Bath, Bath And North East Somerset, BA1 5HT O 29/11/2016:

29 November 2016

Mr Simon Metcalf
Development Planning and Management
Bath & North East Somerset Council
Trimbridge House
Trim Street
Bath
BA1 2DP

Dear Mr Metcalf

FoBRA - OBJECTION TO PLANNING APPLICATION TO REDEVELOP THE FOXHILL ESTATE (16/05219/EOUT)

FoBRA objects to the over ambitious and socially destabilising redevelopment plans for the Foxhill estate proposed in the subject outline planning application.

We have followed the development of the proposals in support of the Foxhill Residents’ Association (FRA) since the beginning of the planning process and, while we do not argue that there is a need to regenerate some of the entire estate of 863 homes, especially where the properties are not in good repair, we are certainly not convinced that all of the 542 homes within the red zone should be demolished. According to chartered surveyors who are very familiar with the estate, the majority of these homes are in good material condition. Of the properties proposed for demolition, we understand that about 20% are owner occupied. Furthermore, many of the homes earmarked for demolition are of the same build and material state as many of those in the other 321 properties in the Foxhill estate (outside the red zone) and those in Southland, Combe Park, which as far as we are aware are not being considered for demolition. How can the developers prove and justify that that all of those being considered for demolition are beyond their useful lives? Surely there is a strong case for the more cost-effective refurbishment of most of the properties, particularly the bungalows and ‘Cornish’ houses, rather than their demolition?

We note that the proposal is to build 700 new properties on an 11 hectare site, yet we observe that the same number of properties are planned to be built in Mulberry Park in a site of 29 hectares. We appreciate that the latter site will also include a community hub, a sports pitch and a school, but we would contend that whatever the mix of properties, the proposed development site is much too dense, which would lead to ‘chicken coop’ size homes.

Within the emerging Policy of the draft B&NES Placemaking Plan, specifically in relation to Affordable Housing Regeneration schemes, Policy H8 states:

“There is a general presumption to support the redevelopment of social housing where the following criteria can be demonstrated to be met: (i) The physical condition of the housing stock is poor (i.e. the dwellings are substandard, or demonstrably not fit for purpose in the short-medium term or similar); and/or (ii) There is a site specific socioeconomic justification for redevelopment led regeneration, considered alongside alternative options for re-modelling or refurbishment; (iii) If there is a loss of amenity space, policy LCR5 should be met. Where the principle of redevelopment is accepted, there is a presumption against the net loss of affordable housing, subject to viability considerations and other social balance considerations.

In our view, and from what we have heard from Foxhill residents and other stakeholders, criteria (i) is met but for only some and certainly not for most of the properties earmarked for demolition; and (ii) is certainly not met, there being overall excellent cohesion and well-being within the Foxhill estate, which has a stable and settled community. Most importantly, though, as underlined above, Policy H8 presumes against the net loss of affordable housing. Of the proposed 542 homes for demolition, 432 (c80%) are owned by CURO, 399 of which are affordable homes, yet the Affordable Housing Statement submitted with the application states that:

“.....In order to remain viable it is not possible for the scheme to provide the same level of affordable housing as is currently provided on the Foxhill Estate. The Regeneration scheme will therefore deliver a minimum of 30% affordable housing, which when complete will amount to 210 affordable homes [of which 158 (75%) are for social housing]. When combined with the 210 affordable homes [also 75:25] that are to be provided at Mulberry Park, the combined scheme will deliver 420 affordable homes, equating to a slight increase in the current level of provision........”

The above statement clearly challenges Policy H8 and alarms FoBRA that the development is only “viable” if no more than 210 affordable homes (whatever the mix) are built to replace the current 399 affordable homes. This represents a loss of 241 social homes for rent. Is this the cunning deployment of ‘smoke and mirrors’ by the developers? It also indirectly questions the security and viability of the finance that should underpin a proposed redevelopment of this size. The affordable homes that are to be built in Mulberry Park should not form part of the Foxhill affordable homes equation and the Council should not be persuaded otherwise.

FoBRA understands that a widely held view of residents and other stakeholders affected is that while there has been much consultation carried out by CURO, the developers have rarely listened to or acted upon the genuine concerns being expressed. If true, this lack of constructive involvement and unwillingness to be more understanding and to compromise is disingenuous to say the least. Finally, and most importantly, is the deep concern for residents of the site who are likely to be displaced if the outline planning application is approved as proposed and who have already suffered three years of stress, uncertainty and anxiety. How will current owner occupiers be able to afford new homes, with the cheapest two-bedroom home currently being advertised in Mulberry Park for £325,000 while, for instance, the average market value of their current three-bed homes (with gardens) is about £200,000? How and where will current tenants of social homes be re-housed?

FoBRA recommends that the Development Management Committee rejects the planning application and invites CURO to resubmit a more coherent and less socially destabilising plan that focuses on more on refurbishment than demolition.

Yours sincerely

Nicholas Tobin

Vice-Chairman
FoBRA
01/06/2017:

31 May 2017

Mr Simon Metcalf
Development Planning and Management
Bath & North East Somerset Council
Trimbridge House
Trim Street
Bath
BA1 2DP

Dear Mr Metcalf

FoBRA - OBJECTION TO PLANNING APPLICATION TO REDEVELOP THE FOXHILL ESTATE (16/05219/EOUT)

FoBRA submitted an objection to the subject outline planning application to regenerate the Foxhill estate on 29 November 2016. Like most Foxhill residents and other community stakeholders, we have studied carefully the latest proposed alterations to the application and can see little to change our original objection which still stands. Specifically:
a. While we accept that there is a need to regenerate some of the entire estate of 863 homes, we remain adamant that most of the 542 homes within the red zone should not be demolished because, despite what the developers’ claim, the majority of these dwellings, especially the 95 owner-occupied properties, are in good material condition. The developers have failed to satisfy Policy H8 of the emerging draft Placemaking Plan in relation to Affordable Housing Regeneration which states that the criteria must be demonstrated to be met where the physical condition of the housing stock is poor: i.e the dwellings are “…(i) substandard , or demonstrably not fit for purpose in the short/medium term and/or (ii) there is a site specific socioeconomic justification for redevelopment regeneration, considered alongside alternative options for remodelling or refurbishment…”. In other words that all of the properties earmarked for demolition are beyond their useful lives. In FoBRA’s and other stakeholders’ opinion including, most importantly, Foxhill residents themselves, Policy H8 criteria (i) is met for only some and certainly not for most of the properties earmarked for demolition; and (ii) is certainly not met, there being overall excellent cohesion, community spirit and well-being within the Foxhill estate, which has a stable and settled community. There are many less than compelling one-sided extracts from the Hepworth Report, a report which is arguably out-of-date and has been discredited by many for failing to capture accurately the true socioeconomic reality of the existing estate.

b. Most importantly, Policy H8 presumes against the net loss of affordable housing. Of the proposed 542 homes for demolition, 432 (c80%) are owned by CURO, 399 of which are affordable homes, yet the Affordable Housing Statement submitted with the application still states that:

“.....In order to remain viable it is not possible for the scheme to provide the same level of affordable housing as is currently provided on the Foxhill Estate. The Regeneration scheme will therefore deliver a minimum of 30% affordable housing, which when complete will amount to 210 affordable homes [the precise number and mix of market or affordable homes has not yet been determined]. When combined with the 210 affordable homes that are to be provided at Mulberry Park, the combined scheme will deliver 420 affordable homes, equating to a slight increase in the current level of provision........”

The statement still challenges Policy H8 and continues to alarm FoBRA that the development is only “viable” if no more than 210 affordable homes (whatever the mix) are built to replace the current 399 affordable homes. This represents an actual loss of 241 social homes for rent, and it is unlikely that the LPA will have agreed that the affordable housing being built on the adjacent Mulberry Park site can count towards the loss of these homes in the Foxhill estate. This is double counting or robbing Peter to pay Paul. It also still indirectly questions the security and viability of the finance that should underpin a proposed redevelopment of this size. The affordable homes that are to be built in Mulberry Park should not form part of the Foxhill affordable homes equation and the Council should not be persuaded otherwise.

c. The 11 hectare site, with now 707, not 700, planned homes will be too dense.

d. FoBRA’s research continues to reveal that the widely held view of residents and other stakeholders affected is that while there has been more consultation by CURO, the developers may listen but do not absorb or act upon the genuine concerns being expressed. If true, this lack of constructive involvement and unwillingness to compromise and adjust plans for the good and well-being of the many affected is not helpful. Finally, and most importantly, is the deep concern for residents of the site who are likely to be displaced if the outline planning application is approved as proposed and who have already suffered three years of stress, uncertainty and anxiety.

e. FoBRA still believe that there is a strong case for the more cost-effective refurbishment of most of the properties, particularly the 306 bungalows and ‘Cornish’ houses.

FoBRA recommends that the Development Management Committee rejects the planning application and invites CURO to resubmit a more coherent and less socially destabilising plan that focuses on ‘soft’ regeneration where it is most needed and more on refurbishment than demolition.

Yours sincerely

Nicholas Tobin

Vice-Chairman
FoBRA

01/06/2017
Mrs M Moulder 9 Queen's Drive, Combe Down, Bath, Bath And North East Somerset, BA2 5PA O 29/11/2016: I object to "access" being included in the Outline Planning Application
.Affordable Housing Statement paragragh 1.4 on page 1,and Planning Statement paragragh 1.17 page 4 and both include access.
This should be in reserved matters for the individual phases when they are presented for planning approval.
if curo have approved road layouts in place,it will givethem more leverage which could affect the outcome of reserved matters.
29/11/2016: I Object to the amount of new roads being built on foxhill estate they will be used as rat runs from the neighbouring mulbury park estate to avoid the congestion on bradford road. As everyone in Combe Down, Foxhill and Odd Down know Bradford road is extremely busy. This could potentially be another 1400 cars from mulbury park and an added say 400 from Foxhill.
the amount of parking spaces allocated to the newbuild is inadaquate less driveways more on street parking. this can affect the emergencey services causing slower respone times, childrens safety will they be safe on the open spaces with so much traffic.
And more pollution.
29/11/2016: I Object to the gardens of Foxhill being demolished, many of the gardens are well established wild life havens. Creating homes for Birds, Bats, Toads,Frogs,sloworms, foxes and hedgehogs(Hedgehogs are protected, in England, Scotland and Wales, under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981, Schedule 6) amongst other wonders of nature,
(can you CPO a Hogitat?)
29/11/2016
Mrs M Moulder 9 Queen's Drive, Combe Down, Bath, Bath And North East Somerset, BA2 5PA O 29/11/2016: I Object to the fact that we as homeowners could have the threat of CPO'S hanging over us, some for up to ten years. This is unexceptable. causing fear for our future security and safety for ourselves and our family's
I am aware the council have stated one or two properties could be compulsary purchased over the whole development .but this is one or two to many
30/11/2016: I strongly Object and i am greatly offended by the lanuage used in this planning application .They have continually qouted the hepworth report Foxhill at the crossroad. although the author of this report has since said this is outdated and no longer of value ( see regeneration statement page 2 paragragh 2.3 on on through out this statement) to suggest that Foxhill in it entirety is the worse place in bath to live in, the tone of this report is disrespectful and degrading to all residents of Foxhill.

I would like to bring your attention to the planning statement page 2 1.10The Charter (now adopted by the Council) sets out the agreed ambitions of Curo (landowner) and B&NES (as local authority) with a particular focus on the need to improve the health of residents and the socio-economic performance of Foxhill as a place to live.
The four agreed ambitions are:
Communities: ‘communities which continue to be proud of themselves and the local neighbourhood’
Connections: ‘a neighbourhood which is well connected and fully integrated with its surroundings’
Housing Choice: ‘a destination where people choose to come to live and then want to stay’
Quality of Place: ‘A vibrant neighbourhood with a mix of uses and a strong local economy’

As for the above ambitions communties,connections, Housing Choice and Quality of place
WE ALREADY HAVE ALL THESE THINGS. BY DEMOLISHING FOXHILL YOU WILL BE DESTROYING EVERYTHING YOU ARE TRYING TO ACHIVE
in reflection on reading all these plans curo and others as stated in planning statement 1.6 and 1.71.6
The new development at Mulberry Park and the redevelopment of the Foxhill Estate have
always been seen as a single project, tasked with the overall objective of raising the living standards, opportunities and access to jobs and services of those living on the Foxhill Estate and securing the comprehensive social and physical regeneration of this area.
1.7 Curo are not alone in recognising the need to deliver change and improvements at Foxhill
it seems Curo and others see us as a blot on the landscape.
30/11/2016: I do agree that some regeneration is needed but this does not mean you need to demolish foxhill estate
when curo brought the MOD site residents on foxhill were never made aware this would have such an adverse affect on our homes
would we be going through all this upheaval if another company had purchased the site.
This feels like a land grab noboby but Curo are going to gain from this.
I have attened many meeting all workshops and events over the past three plus year i feel no further forward now than the very first meeting held
the plans have not change much Curo did not listen to the residents then and are still not listening now
we do not want our estate demolished.
No to demolistion.

30/11/2016
G Moulder Queens Drive , BA41 9AX, O 30/11/2016: I object to this application on the grounds the curo what to knock down so many rented propaties and not build as many rented propaties , making more money to a housing asocition, when bath needs more rented propaties not less.
Also why knock down all the large homes only to build smaller homes with only 158 more homes
30/11/2016: I object on the grounds of the planning statement dates in annex 1, why start on phase A and phase G on the same dates,( I have not had any meetings with curo nor do I want any as my home and land are not for sale) when phase G can not even see mulberry park

See annex 1 draft programme plannng statement
29/05/2017: I OBJECT to this application,

The LOSS of some many social homes

The amount of houses to be built within the Foxhill eastate,Curo only looking at the eastate within the RED line when Foxhill is all of the eastate from Enrty Hill to mulberry park,

The offer to homeowners with is not even the amount of money to buy a small house on the new estate, or anywhere with in bath, so this becomes a new eastate on wich Curo a houseing association , only building houses to sale with only a small amount for social houseing, let them build on mulberry park the concrete jungle, thay want a estate with no soul. Only to make money for Curo.

The heights of the flats blocking light

No hedges or trees for wildlife to pass through the eastate, ( go look at mulberry park then you will see this)

What about the amount of traffic if Curo got this plan, all going on to Bradford Road, ( on which planet do Curo think that people will not use there cars)


Yes Foxhill could do with some redevelopment ( Curo have owned the property on Foxhill for a long time thay used to be Somer, thay have let there property's get to a state, so that can get more from building new houses for sale and get the social houseing tenants out), but not demolished, what about the homes owned buy private homeowners thay have looked after there homes, if Curo did the homes up then you would be getting large family homes, with big gardens, let the plans through and you get small boxs no gardens .

Bath planning should not pass this planes

This is a land grad buy Curo another way.

My objection still stands
29/05/2017
Mrs M M Moulder 9 Queen's Drive, Combe Down, Bath, Bath And North East Somerset, BA2 5PA O 30/11/2016: I object to the plan for the shops on Bradford Road it seems their will be less parking, these shops have lots of passing business also lots of disabled people use cars to get there please rethink this.
Also the loss of the bungalows the tenants their lose gardens they are a part of the estate can easily talk to people in a flat they will not be able to do this it will isolate them.
I feel asking tenants to bid for new homes is not right, Curo are making them homeless, some are not wanting to move. This could cause all sort of issues if few tenants bid for same property the Council will need to get this right.

14/05/2017: I object to these new changes to this development ,Curo has only changed the heights of the flats not listen to residents who live in other part of Foxhill Estate. my objection is around having flats at top of queens drive also in middle of estate over looking homes higher density of homes not so open as now, we will surrounded by flats, also there are car parking issues their plans state there will be parking bays not next to flats but near with in the development so loss of our lovely gardens and homes for parking and looks like lots of smaller roads so loss of homes for road to go to parking, what is happening here surely loss of 252 homes good homes for family room to move for car parks and roads rat run estate, The dreaded red line which Curo keeps on about with in Foxhill Estate I hope the council planning committee will realize this is just the part Curo in which own more of their social home which they want to get rid of.

WE ARE ALL LIVING ON FOXHILL ESTATE AND I OBJECT TO CURO,S STATEMENT WE ARE A ISLAND ITS RUBBISH, WE LIVE IN A BIG COMMUNITY NOT JUST THE BIT THEY WANT TO DISTROY FOR THEIR OWN GAINS.
They do not listen to us on Foxhill these new changes shows this.















14/05/2017: " My previous objections still stand" on the plans before changes 14/05/2017
Mrs J E Prescott 39 North Road, Combe Down, Bath, Bath And North East Somerset, BA2 5DF O 30/11/2016: I lived in Foxhill for many years and still visit friends there. It had and still has great community spirit. To destroy that by knocking down existing properties which are still habitable and comfortable to be replaced by unaffordable properties is not right. This is purely a money making venture by Curo. Curo don't see these residents who are being turfed out of their homes as human beings, merely as statistics. In particular the elderly should not be forced to move from the homes they love. It will be impossible for them to recover from that trauma. High rise blocks of flats are not suitable for this area, they will ruin the aesthetics of Foxhill. Curo were supposed to build affordable housing but so far they haven't and this latest development is no different. Only outsiders will be able to afford them with existing Foxhillers forced out of the area. I object to this application. 30/11/2016
Colette Duffy 35 Morris Lane, Batheaston, Bath, Bath And North East Somerset, BA1 7PR O 30/11/2016: i object to this development,project and demolition. 30/11/2016
Maria King 38 Kewstoke Road, Combe Down, Bath, Bath And North East Somerset, BA2 5PU O 30/11/2016: I object because of the lack of social housing. To lose so many in this area will result in a lot of households with nowhere to go!!
And the loss of our community as a whole!! Having lived here for most of my life I would not like to move anywhere else
20/05/2017: My objection stands!! Not enough social housing and demolition of a wonderful community!! 20/05/2017
Adrian Poolr 18 The Down, Trowbridge, BA14 8QW, O 30/11/2016: Unless those with owner occupied housing are offered the funds to purchase housing of equivalent size and nature within the area, then I do not see how this application is in the interests of anyone other than the property developer themselves. Additionally, this planning application does little to address the desperate need for affordable social housing in Bath. It appears that this 'redevelopment' is serving the shareholders of the developer and no-one else. The community in Fox Hill appear to be having this thrust upon them, with little ability to have a say. The will of large developers seem more important to the council than the community - the council exists to represent people and their interests, not those of corporations. This development should be stopped. 30/11/2016
Gail Wilkinson The Lodge, Lyncombe Vale, Lyncombe, Bath, Bath And North East Somerset, BA2 4LT O 15/05/2017: I am not convinced by the argument for 'comprehensive regeneration'. After reading the documents for this application, I feel that this 'regeneration' does not include those who already live there, in spite of the rhetoric. CURO admits that the existing community will probably be dispersed.... Yet I note that most of the residents do not want to move. They argue that their housing is not demonstrably 'not fit for purpose in the short/medium term'.

I am concerned that some of the new housing might become 'holiday rental accommodation' for tourists - this trend has already been started by CURO in the city.

The report repeatedly states the fact that the existing population in the estate is poor and ill-educated (although not in those words... phrases like 'have no qualifications' and 'economically inactive' or 'claiming job seekers allowance' etc.) yet the aspirations of these people seem to count for nothing. Those who have bought their own houses, for example, could see their life's work bulldozed to the ground. They don't want to be moved elsewhere.

The statistics of 'the poor' also concern me. For instance, we are told 24.5% of residents are claiming Council Tax Benefits. Yet only 2% are on job seekers allowance. The others, we are told, are claiming what is called 'out of work benefits'. This has to be ESA or income support, so a proportion of those receiving benefits must herefore be disabled. The existing community is a source of support to these people.

I am not convinced by the argument that open green spaces can replace gardens. Gardens are havens for wildlife. For example, FoxHill is known to be an area with a healthy hedgehog population. These hedgehogs will not be able to thrive in this new estate with its open green spaces and miniscule enclosed gardens. I have no doubt the the increased population density, plus the estate design, will not only displace people but also a lot of animals and birds. This has not been considered.
15/05/2017
Alfreda Buckley 57 Queen's Drive Combe Down Bath Bath And North East Somerset BA2 5PB O 15/05/2017: My objection (second round of consultation) submitted on 13 May, contained a typing error. I wrote that the solution is simple and that Curo could build the extra homes they are planning to build on Foxhill, on Mulberry Park instead. I quoted the Highways document - consultation document submitted on the case file by Banes, who mentioned that Curo's plans in Table 6.3 showed that the plans would result in the building of 165 extra properties, but I misprinted this figure as 115. So, at the end of my previous objection, what I meant to say is that Curo can build extra 165 new homes on Mulberry Park (on top of what they have planned to build there already) and upgrade some homes in Foxhill rather than demolish our community. 165 extra homes on Mulberry Park instead of on Foxhill? Three or four blocks of flats would do it!!!! (Frieda) 13/05/2017: My previous objections (3 objections) to Curo's plans are still standing. I am now adding a new objection: Curo were asked by The Council to provide several types of information before the planning permission request could be decided on. Curo have not provided the new information requested. One of the requests was that they had to provide the Council with a justification of the huge reduction in social housing: Curo have resubmitted their previous justification but have not added anything new, so they have not responded adequately to the Council's request. The justification provided uses the same propaganda stating that Foxhill is deprived, neglected, an island, huge social problems, isolation ... etc .. we have all heard this before and we know these statements do not correspond to the reality of life for most of us who live in Foxhill. We have a high employment rate, we have excellent community support from one another, we are in general not isolated, and it is not a derelict area. We have a low crime rate. The homes in Foxhill are less old than the majority of buildings in Bath and do not need to be demolished because of their age, most of them are in good condition and just need a few minor improvements such as improved insulation - which is what most owners have put in place at a very reasonable cost in their property. The cost of maintaining and/or improving (some, a few) of these properties is "affordable" (! a fashionable term!) but will not produce the same amount of profit for Curo.
The current plans would result in 102 less social houses and 131 less social flats. We need more houses as a country and that is true. The density of housing on Foxhill would in the proposed plans be very high in Foxhill, much higher than in Mulberry Park. There would be a 30% increase in dwellings. (figures mentioned by the Highways Consultation document submitted on this site a few days ago). We need more houses as a country and that is true. The solution is obvious to me: move this high density to Mulberry Park, which was acquired as an empty site, and build the 30% increase of planned dwellings for Foxhill in Mulberry Park instead,rather than creating this type of density by demolishing a long standing thriving community by demolishing the homes of Foxhill. Curo would need to build about 115 extra homes on Mulberry Park to achieve this, three blocks of flats would do it!!!!!
The Bath community at large is totally opposed to Curo's plans for Foxhill, other residents associations in Bath are supporting our cause, as well as other associations and groups. The Guardian have recently published an article about Foxhill and on Monday, the radio program "Today" will air our views about this matter. Foxhill is now in the national press and is attracting attention which will do untold damage to Curo's reputation. Bath's reputation as a heritage site and a wonderful place to live will be tainted if planning permission is granted for the demolition of Foxhill and if Foxhill is allowed to be demolished then there will be no reason for Curo to stop there: Larkhall, Twerton, Whiteway, Weston, Snowhill next? Objection from Frieda)
15/05/2017
Mrs M Moulder 9 Queen's Drive, Combe Down, Bath, Bath And North East Somerset, BA2 5PA O 15/05/2017: I object to these change plans as yet again Curo have not taken on boaard the real concerns of the private owners these documents still mention CPO's which when you take into account they have advised the council in letter, we have received a statement in writing from council that Curo will build around homeowner's homes, nothing in these plans with this statment, it does mention phase by phase and changes might be needed and if they can not buy the homes but this could take ten years for some of us,
if I lose my home here I will be in poverty I could not buy a new home in Bath or outside Bath I would have to do a private rent which do not want to do, I worked hard for my home it suits me now near GP Dentist,Shops,Bus Routes.

As homeowners we need more assurance that given so far that our home are safe we deserve this. these plans do not help us at all.
26/05/2017: 1. my objection onth 29/11/16.30/11/16 still stand

2.I have just finished reading the new planning statement Curo has put in for Foxhill there does not seem much changed, except hights and views their lanuage about Foxhill residents is just the same their continued statement we are isolated is incorrect.
I would like the planning committee to get a copy of the Community Guide that St Andrews Church as got together it includes the whole of Foxhill not just inside red line the committee will see what goes on and how easy it is for us to travel around walking,bike riding,bus routes which we have had since I moved in 43 years ago.

2.After visiting Mulberry Park and looking around it is like a stone city I am sure that people will buy these home and like living their and I wish them all the best. I did not realize just how tall and close together these homes are, lots of off street parking I thought there would be more 2 level homes and with larger gardens, it seems very dark and cold to me that is just my opinion,I have supported the Mulberry development but now I wish I had paid more attention to their plans, we have to get it right for those living there I hope Curo has done this, I am now not sure.

3. All through this planning statement states that Foxhill is GOING TO BE A BETTER PLACE TO LIVE we already think it is we don't need Curo to tell us, I don't think it will it the council allow these plans to go through we will lose our lovely gardens and our homes just to replace with a stone estate, we are a community who needs someone to stand with us and stop this happening, our homes are bigger and Curo could if they were realy concerned about us regenerate the homes like they have in Bristol and other areas of the west county, but of couse they would not make so much money this planning has nothing postive to say about Foxhill just lke the last one. LAND GRAB

4. I object to having three story town houses and 4 story and town homes with garages underneath being built next to me, I will no longer have a private garden, and having so many it will be very hard on the home outside the redline who will be looking at stone not the lovely trees, air space,gardens like they do now, to many homes, could cause lots of problems.

5, I object to the loss of the Bungalows which the resident love and feel safe they I am sure do not want to move to a flat.

6.This is also not fair on the residents that Curo have moved to estate on as short term tennants, although when they move here they know the situation but will Curo they help them with any concerns over their homes or will Curo just let the estate become run down this is a big fear for us all, lets not forget ths is a ten year development.

This planning statement shows that Curo have still not listened to residents concerned or taken on board how the landscape of the estate changed over the years it is not like the Hepworth report now we have issues like any other estate is Bath are they going to be next for Curo to attack.
19/06/2017: I object to these new designs as I have just noticed that if they go ahead I will have a car park in my back garden, although I am not selling how is this showing that Curo or the council are listening to homeowers, if this goes ahead I will be living in a very vunerable situtation with lots of cars belonging to people I do not know,I will no longer feel safe in my own home, as this shows how can Curo build around my home and keep us safe.

I also have concerns regarding the councils stand on social homes it seems from their reply Housing, that they are not taking on board the loss of 252 Social Homes for Bath it also states the have been in talks with Curo over this planning this does not seem very imparial to lots of people, also the Planning Polices seem to think the same, this is a sad refection on the Bath Council and it housing issues, not realy thinking of residents of Bath or Foxhill. As decisions made on these plans could have they same issues for other Curo sites in Bath and other areas.

I also feel you need to take a look at the Stock condition survey complied by Ridge and Partners (Ridge) which has a number of discrepancies that Curo have not mention at all events conducted over the last 3 years,see
Paragraph 2
hold details with show that the Cornish homes on Foxhill are not so bad as Curo keep stating they are so they are not even lisitening to companys who do work for them, I object to this ar Curo have not told us about this untill now we see it in the plans.

These plans show where Curo have left out a whole rank of Cornish homes which are not in the development but are on the end of Queens Drive same homes same street but not to be demolish,
says it all realy about the way Curo have conducted these plans for Foxhill they have picked all parts that plays to what they want, they are not here for residents no matter how hard they try.

I also object to the way that Curo and others are not taking on board how this project is having on residents health and well being, they seem to be ignoring these issues.
19/06/2017
Nick Coates 23 Stonehouse Lane, Combe Down, Bath, Bath And North East Somerset, BA2 5DW O 20/06/2017: I have reviewed the two sets of revised documents. It appears that there are some minor modifications, particularly regarding heights, and a lot more words regarding stock condition and social regeneration.
In fact the words concerning stock condition do not add much since they are still couched with words such as 'probably' and 'normally' and so on and rely largely on Curo's own internal assessment of stock condition. Therefore my criticisms contained in my prior objection stand. This is particularly so since homeowners seem to do a lot better job of improving their homes than Curo and for a lot less money.

Secondly, the commentary of social regeneration does not add anything to what was said before. But it does repeat itself ad infinitum over a very large number of pages. The assumption is: the area is poor. It is poorer than Combe Down. This is a bad thing. There cannot possibly be a proper community until it is like Combe Down so let's disperse some of these people and make it more like Combe Down. This is called gentrification. Others have been more unkind in their description of these plans. It assumes that poorer people cannot function as a community. As has been evidenced elsewhere recently so clearly, this is patently untrue and undermines the premise of the proposals.

Viability - we still have not seen either the viability report or the Council's assessment of this. Please can this be logged within the documentation.

Social housing - my overarching, but not my only, objection to these proposals of Curo is that is a deliberate, and unnecessary, reduction in much needed social rented housing with the plan to replace it with more expensive affordable rented housing (even if initially current tenants are protected, we know that this does not make the housing affordable) and an increase in the amount of home ownership. This is wrong.

Therefore ALL the areas cited in my objection letter dated 1 December 2016 stand as before.
20/06/2017 This comment also has associated documents: View Associated Documents
Bath Preservation Trust Bath Preservation Trust , 1 Royal Crescent, City Centre, Bath, Bath And North East Somerset, BA1 2LR R 02/12/2016: Comment:
We acknowledge that this is an outline application and that many matters which concern the Trust are reserved for later submission & determination. The Trust is broadly supportive of the regeneration of this site to improve housing stock performance, appearance and sustainability, to provide a better and contemporary public realm and an extended series of open green spaces, and to generally enhance the estate and those communities within it. We acknowledge that the scheme has considerable challenges, not least in the complex process of negotiating with the community, re-housing and development phasing that is involved in transforming an area to which many people have strong and long held communal ties. In this regard we commend the level of detail and extent of assessment undertaken and provided by Curo and the extensive public consultation that has occurred so far.
However, we feel strongly that we must, at this stage, continue to express our concerns regarding the harmful impact of the taller built elements of the scheme (particularly the 6 storey crescent building) upon the setting of the World Heritage site. Regrettably, the intrusion of built forms on the rim or edge of the green setting of Bath has already occurred in other developments (for example, Lansdown and the University of Bath). This has initiated a potential cumulative effect that, if unchecked, could impact on one of the specific and highly protected qualities of the Outstanding Universal Value of the WHS, that of the green setting of the city in a bowl surrounded by undeveloped hillsides. We fear that were this special feature (the undeveloped wooded ridge of the bowl) to be lost, Bath would struggle to maintain its World Heritage Status in the future.
Housing Mix and Viability
The Trust repeats our earlier comment in June and October 2016 on the availability and density of affordable housing: “The committee was concerned by fact that there was no net increase in affordable housing across the whole site. The affordable housing provision across both Mulberry and Foxhill would equal what was previously available in Foxhill, thereby effectively providing a net reduction per hectare and we sincerely regret this outcome.” However, we note the applicants' commentary in the Affordable Housing Statement in which they assert that they are keenly aware of this issue and are working with significant national and local bodies towards achieving the viability to enable a more socially beneficial mix of housing tenure and that the scheme will provide a more suitable variety of housing types for this area. We are seeing more and more schemes within Bath that are, for reasons of ‘viability’, reneging on their responsibilities to provide an adequate proportion of affordable housing. We are seriously concerned regarding the economic impact on the city of a lack of available lower paid service industry workforce, resulting in a distorted housing and employment market and population.
Landscape Visual Impact Appraisal
The Trust welcomes the provision of an LVIA with images of building lines and heights from long views. We would, however, strongly urge provision of this information with winter images, because the long distance visibility of the scheme will be much increased in the winter months with little tree cover. We are very concerned that some of the key buildings (particularly the 6 storey crescent) are quite visible in long views, even in summer, and will, therefore, be particularly so in winter; this will result in a significant harmful impact on the character of the setting of the World Heritage site. As it stands at the moment, it is impossible to judge how visible the buildings adjacent to the skyline ridge will be in the long winter months: we suspect very visible. In the AVR documents some of the viewpoints are already reported as having a Minor-Moderate Adverse Effect on the Key Features of on the WHS Setting, and we suggest that this effect would be increased without the benefit of summer tree cover.
We would recommend that the height of the crescent be reduced to 5 storeys, or less, to ensure that this building is not overbearing to its neighbours, and does not interrupt or tower above the tree lined ridge that provides the important setting to the city.
Moreover, we note that, in the illustrative drawings, the crescent is heavily glazed. We urge Curo to consider the impact of light spill and reflection in long and short views when designing these elevations in detail. This a particular issue in winter, when low sunlight catches the glazing and reinforces the visibility of buildings on the skyline.
Overall Layout & Height Parameters
On the whole, we accept the general principles of the illustrative masterplan & layout. We find some of the heights problematic, as outlined above and below.
We repeat our earlier concern about the 'openness' of the entry points to the site. The provision of 4 storey apartment blocks at the junctions with Foxhill Road and Down Avenue could create ‘isolating’ threshold features, presenting foreboding outward faces to the surrounding area and effectively ‘gating in’ the site with their height and scale – exploiting the indicative shape of the Fox Hill block combined with use of the maximum height throughout could prove particularly harmful. The Trust feels that more domestic scale architecture at the gateway locations would allow a more comfortable transition from the Combe Down area and provide a sense of openness and connectivity to the whole site that would facilitate and encourage its integration into the overall larger community. At the very least, these apartment blocks should be stepped back from the main road and include design elements to provide a sense of openness and vitality to these gateway locations.
Bradford Road access points
We welcome the ambition to achieve a full connectivity with Mulberry Park and other local places and have no major concerns about the access arrangements as detailed in this application.
Design issues
Whilst we understand all design matters are illustrative at this point, we are disappointed to see that there appear to be no design references to the form of the ‘Cornish Houses’ that are a historical feature of the site. We would urge Curo to consider either incorporating a design echo of the particular shape of these houses to visually connect the new scheme to the past built heritage of this estate or retaining a Cornish House, perhaps as a community building, to reflect the history.
We note the reference to the use of the stepped back roof form which is becoming more and more prevalent in Bath. We do not support this type of roof articulation (for reasons of its boxy, bland appearance contrary to the varied patterns of roofscape in Bath), unless it is used sparingly within a mixed group of different roof forms.
Conclusion
We urge Curo to take on board our concerns in advance of any detailed reserved matters application, in particular the issue of building heights within the scheme. We advise the case officer to request AVR’s with winter views in order to be able to fully judge the impact of the development on the setting of the WHS. We would be pleased to be involved in, and consulted on, the ongoing development of detailed plans for the scheme. We reserve the right to make further comments in response to any subsequent planning applications for this scheme.
01/06/2017: Comment: BPT welcomes the reduction in height of 4m (1 storey) of the tallest buildings within the scheme, especially those that may have an impact on the important tree lined ridge of the green setting of the World Heritage site. We also welcome the general reduction in heights across the scheme and continue to suggest that the key entrances to the site should be framed by shorter buildings in order to visually assimilate the scheme within its largely domestic scale surrounding area and to avoid providing a sense of foreboding height as one enters the estate. Harm is identified in the views from Midford where the tree skyline is breached and we express concern at this element.
We appreciate the challenges in regenerating such a large site. However we continue to be concerned regarding affordable housing; it is regrettable that the level of affordable housing across the regenerated ‘old’ Foxhill and the new Mulberry Park taken together shows little or no net increase. We also note that the social rent and the affordable mix may change. For those seeking affordable housing in Bath, therefore, while the overall development may well improve the quality of affordable housing on Curo’s ‘books’, it does nothing to address the acute shortage of affordable housing in the City.
There is no evidence that we have seen in the planning statement that any efforts have been made either by the Council or Curo to look at imaginative funding solutions from other sources so that pure market economics are not the only driver for the viability assessment of affordable housing. We would draw the applicant’s and Council’s attention to the recent publication by the Town and Country Planning Association https://www.tcpa.org.uk/building-homes-together2017 which looks at innovative leadership to deliver affordable housing.
01/06/2017
Bridget Barron Not Given O View Associated Documents 14/12/2016
Simon Stuart 1 Pioneer Avenue, Combe Down, Bath, Bath And North East Somerset, BA2 5QX O View Associated Documents 03/07/2017 This comment also has associated documents: View Associated Documents
Claire Worrall 23 Lansdown Heights, Lansdown, Bath, Bath And North East Somerset, BA1 5AE O View Associated Documents 18/01/2017
Mrs Roots 46 Marsden Road, Southdown, Bath, Bath And North East Somerset, BA2 2LL O 29/05/2017: I object to the large scale demolition of Foxhill estate

1) I strongly object the significant loss of social housing.

2) I object the inadequate offers to homeowners from Curo. With the houses in Foxhill being some of the cheapest in Bath, owners will be forced into joint ownership with CURO, where they currently own their homes outright, or forced to leave the area. This gentrification of the area is unacceptable

3) I object to the demolition of 500 homes. It seems to be excessive. Where properties are in disrepair, they should be brought up to a better standard rather than knocked down.
29/05/2017
Bernard Roots 46 Marsden Road, Southdown, Bath, Bath And North East Somerset, BA2 2LL O 29/05/2017: I object to Curo's plans put forward to demolish in 500+ homes in Foxhill.

1) I object to the scale of the plans submitted. They will dramatically alter the community of Foxhill.

2) I object to the destruction of good sized homes with front and back gardens being replaced with more densely populated areas, with significantly smaller (or in many cases, non existent) gardens. The communal green spaces proposed do not compensate for the loss of hundreds of gardens.

3) I object to the loss of social housing and making an area, that wa designed to be affordable, unaffordable to the very people who are already settled there, forcing them out of the area. Homeowners will be forced to leave the area as they will be unable to afford a similar sized property in Bath with the offers CURO are making.

4) I object to the years of uncertainty this has given and continues to give homeowner and tenants alike. The community of Foxhill has the right to live in their homes without the ongoing stress that their home will be demolished.
29/05/2017
Alison Born 1 Cambridge Place, Widcombe Hill, Widcombe, Bath, Bath And North East Somerset, BA2 6AB R View Associated Documents 13/01/2017
Judy Ferguson 43 Bradford Park, Combe Down, Bath, Bath And North East Somerset, BA2 5PR O 26/11/2016: I OBJECT to this applicaton. I am an owner occupier. I have lived in my house for 44 years and I have gone blind in this house. I am now 70 and I am too old to start again. I have significant physical and sensory disabilities, and if I went into sheltered housing I would have to pay. Me and my husband worked so hard to buy this house so we could leave something for our daughter. The sum we have been offered to move would not even cover buying a flat in Bath. Having this worry is causing my health to deteriorate even more. We are being threatened with our community being ripped apart, neighbours being split up, old and vulnerable people being evicted from their bungalows with NO CHOICE. I think Curo are the worst social landlords this estate has ever had.
Curo are saying the houses on this estate are beyond repair. This is NOT TRUE. There is a strong community up here so there is NO social reason to pull the homes down.
The proposed new homes are FAR too expensive for existing residents to buy or rent. It is clear that these new homes are not for the people of Foxhill. There will be a LOSS of 243 social housing homes!! This will force local people out of the area. Surely regeneration is supposed to strengthen communities, not rip them apart?
The proposed scheme is high density with some flats up to 6 storeys high, and loss of front gardens and green spaces. This is far too high density for such a small area. There are mature trees and wildlife areas under threat from this.
17/05/2017: I OBJECT to this application on the grounds that Curo propose to knock down perfectly good existing homes to replace them with homes that local people cannot afford to rent or buy. I have paid off my mortgage in full and at the age of 71 I have no way of paying rent or indeed securing a new mortgage. The amount that Curo propose to pay for my home is nowhere near enough to be able to purchase a similar property in the local area, or indeed anywhere in Bath. The proposed scheme also results in a significant loss of social housing units. To bulldoze a community and drive out local people to make way for expensive homes is scandalous. The existing estate is not run down and the houses are not beyond repair. I am registered blind and I have lived in my home for over 40 years and would not be able to cope with finding my way around a new home. 17/05/2017
Anna Ferguson Montague 6 St John's Road, Lower Weston, Bath, BA1 3BN, O 26/11/2016: I OBJECT to this application. My parents are owner occupiers being threatened with a compulsory purchase order and the demolition of the home they have worked so hard to purchase. Curo seem to think it's fine to terrorise vulnerable older people in this way, and leave them in limbo, not knowing whether they will be forced from their homes. My parents have a lifetime of memories in that house and are absolutely devastated that they may have to leave it with NO CHOICE.
There has been no meaningful consultation about these proposals and the motive seems to be pure profit as opposed to improving the lives of the community. They intend to pull down people's homes and rebuild with 243 FEWER homes for social housing- how does that make any kind of sense? In addition the rents on the new homes are significantly HIGHER than current rents, which will have a huge impact on working families. The purchase price of the new homes is far too expensive and out of reach for current owner occupiers. The homes on the estate are NOT beyond repair, and there is NO social reason to tear them down and start again. This entire scheme seems to be for the benefit of wealthy newcomers.
I also OBJECT to the road layouts being included in this application, and ask that they be considered in an entirely speerage stand alone application.
17/05/2017: I OBJECT to the application on the grounds that there is no need to bulldoze existing houses and tear a thriving community apart. My elderly parents are homeowners on the estate and are absolutely sick with worry at the thought of being forced to leave the home they have lived in for over 40 years. They would not be able to afford to buy another property in Foxhill, Combe Down or indeed anywhere in Bath, and at their age a move would cause huge stress and anxiety. The homes are NOT in bad repair, and even if they were, regeneration can be done without destroying the estate and the community. Hands off Foxhill! 17/05/2017
Anne Hardin 25 Bloomfield Grove, Bloomfield, Bath, Bath And North East Somerset, BA2 2BZ O 26/11/2016: Object to demolition of existing houses 26/11/2016
T Warren 12 King Street, Kingswood, Bristol, BS15 1DH O 27/11/2016: I object to the big red line
Why is there is a big red line seperating the outer edges of Foxhill from the middle. Has Foxhill shrunk or become an island?
Is this because Curo are saying Foxhill is such a bad place to live
see planning statement 3.10 Foxhill still carries the stigma of being “one of the worst places in Bath to live in”.
Have Curo decided the residents that live on the outer edges of Foxhill no longer belong to the estate, or is it because 75% of these homes are privately owned and this would show that people actually like living on Foxhill estate so much so they brought their homes here. and i am sure they did this knowing their home was a part of foxhill estate, thats the same estate that is inside the big red line with 95 residents who brought their homes and the residents currently social or privately renting
It would seem the only thing the red line is good for is to show the big heart of the Foxhill community.

27/11/2016: ref planning statement
physical condition and apperance of the estate
3.19 i. the building stock is old and is reaching the end of its intended design life
at the time of buying our home we had the concerete cladding removed and the whole lower level rebuilt and we have added an extention
our home is not past its design life it is easy to maintain and heat.
there are homes NOT in the outline plan for demolistion that still have the original cladding, why are these homes not in the plans and up for demolition if Curo are saying they are no longer fit for purpose, yet the one we own that is fit and will be for a very long time is in the plans to be demolished this does not make any sense at all.

27/11/2016: I object to the distruction of well established gardens that are home to a large variaty of birds, hedgehogs (which are now listed as an endangered species), sloworms, toads,frogs, foxes and bats just to name a few. to demolish this estate and destroy the gardens
will have a huge impact on the wildlife in and around the estate.
27/11/2016
Carol A. Wiliams Not Given. O View Associated Documents 27/11/2016
Tim Woodland 97 Queen's Drive, Combe Down, Bath, Bath And North East Somerset, BA2 5PD O 27/11/2016: I object to this planning application.

I quote from a friend talking about her parents who live on the Foxhill estate:

"They're both absolutely petrified that they'll have to move. Her Mum's partially blind (and knows her way round the house as she's been there for nearly 50 years) and her Dad's got agoraphobia. So he doesn't want to go anywhere".

Good enough reason? Breach of human rights I'd say.

Thank you
27/11/2016
Diana Price 2 Cleevedale Road, Combe Down, Bath, Bath And North East Somerset, BA2 5QS R 27/11/2016: 1. Will Curo provide the same number of social houses as they are proposing to demolish?
2. Will the social houses have the same area (square feet inside house)?
3. Old people should have single storey houses with small gardens - not the proposed multi-storey block of flats on the noisy and busy Bradford Road which are well known to cause social problems among residents and visitors.
4. The traffic on the Bradford Road is already very busy since the road changes in Widcombe and the construction of the Sainsbury supermarket and it's roundabout. More housing on Foxhill will make the volume of traffic even worse.
5. If CURO demolish the local shops, where will the elderly residents do their necessary shopping?
6. Foxhill badly needs meeting places for the kids and the elderly. There is currently only the (mostly closed) so-called Community Centre. Where can people congregate in the evenings and ,for the kids, the school holidays?
7. People who have purchased their own homes say that CURO have offered them insufficient money to be able to buy another house of the same size, the same situation, and the same area. elsewhere. Their homes should not be compulsorily purchased, and they should be told that CURO cannot do this legally. BANES should protect their residents from property developers like this.
27/11/2016
Amanda Nicoll Penzance, Cornwall, TR19 7QB, O 27/11/2016: It seems that Cura has made noises to suggest it is listening to the concerns of both residents and tenants, but in fact has no intention of actually taking those concerns into consideration.

So much for consultation!

I have relatives living in Foxhill and I spent part of my childhood growing up there.

Cura spent millions renovating and improving its own housing stock in Foxhill less than ten years ago. Now it wants to pull all those properties down.

This is economic and environmental nonsense.

Private residents in the area have extended their homes, improved their homes, and are happy living in their homes. Yet Cura wants them to leave so that it can bulldoze their properties.

And to what end?

From the plans outlined all this smacks very much of social cleansing. Move out the less affluent residents and Cura tenants, rebuild, and encourage private ownership.

Are the current owners going to be given enough cash to buy like-for-like properties? I doubt it.

Cura will offer them the market value of their current home and with house prices as they are in the Bath region, they will be unable to afford anything comparable to what they have now.

As for the tenants. Where do they go? Perhaps Cura has plans for "resettlement in the east" districts of the city.

This land-grab and that is what it amounts to, is based on greed and profit with no real concern for the residents and tenants of the area whatsoever.

This is what we get when we have rampant privatisation and lack of accountability.

So much for consumer choice.
27/11/2016
Dan Absolon 62 Bradford Road, Combe Down, Bath, Bath And North East Somerset, BA2 5BY O 27/11/2016: Forcibly removing people from their homes and rehousing them elsewhere - separating them from their community and in many cases jobs - while replacing those homes with more expensive accommodation for professionals is totally unacceptable. 27/11/2016
Dr Christopher Absolon 62 Bradford Road, Combe Down, Bath, Bath And North East Somerset, BA2 5BY O 28/11/2016: I would like to object to this application. There is in fact a thriving active community on Foxhill Estate, and it is quite wrong to represent this as not the case. It is wrong that people who have lived for 30 years or more in their homes will be moved against their will, their homes destroyed, family groups and friends split up, and moved elsewhere, with no guarantee of a new home in Mulberry Park, and even if they are fortunate enough to be offered a new home locally that their rent will be 20% higher.
This attempted gentrification does not meet the needs of local people and should be abandoned. Less money could be spent to improve homes and local facilities.
28/11/2016
G.C Roy 7 Fox Hill, Combe Down, Bath, Bath And North East Somerset, BA2 5QN O View Associated Documents 28/11/2016
Scott Galpin Lower Leam Street, Leamington Spa, CV31 1DJ, O 28/11/2016: From the vagueness of the plans, I cannot see how they will benefit the wider community of Foxhill.

Existing owners of properties will be forced out and not be able to afford the properties that are going to replace them. It is not fair to relocate existing families to parts of the area they may not want to live in, just because they cannot afford to stay living in the area they have settled in.

The recompense being offered is not anywhere near adequate to allow existing owners to move to similar properties in areas of Bath that are of equal value.

The plans have so much information about what they want to do, that I do not believe you can allow planning permission to be granted without more detail being given about the proposed plans.
28/11/2016
Elizabeth Hudson Flat 2 West Brow, Belmont Road, Combe Down, Bath, Bath And North East Somerset, BA2 5JR O View Associated Documents 16/12/2016
B M Eaton 6 Greendown Place, Combe Down, Bath, Bath And North East Somerset, BA2 5DD O View Associated Documents 16/12/2016
Laurence Holton 4 Osborne Road, Newbridge, Bath, Bath And North East Somerset, BA1 3JR O View Associated Documents 17/12/2016
Erika Button Foxhill O 08/06/2017: I object to the demolition of Foxhill. 08/06/2017
Lisa Rosser 31 Queen's Drive, Combe Down, Bath, Bath And North East Somerset, BA2 5PA O 15/05/2017: Why demolish these houses when you can refurbish them, there is not enough social housing as it is in Bath, just leave this community....YES COMMUNITY alone. 15/05/2017
Peter Buckley 57 Queen's Drive, Combe Down, Bath, Bath And North East Somerset, BA2 5PB O 21/11/2016: I object to the planning application as follows :-
1. Proposed changes indicate that it is intended to increase traffic use along Queen's Drive by introducing more feeder roads into it and creating an outlet onto Bradford Road. This would, together with the potential for traffic from Mulberry Park cutting through to access Entry Hill, result in a detrimental change to the peaceful residential street that Queen’s Drive currently is. I object to ALL proposed road changes.
2. Increased numbers of properties near to us will inevitable create more noise and disturbance for current residents and put extra pressures on local services at a time when 700 new homes on Mulberry Park will already be doing just that.
3. Proposed unacceptably high densities throughout the estate will have an adverse effect on the day to day lives of current residents and will put pressure on aspects of life here that work well at the moment e.g. on street car parking. The sense of a rural pace of life will be destroyed and replaced by a more energetic urban feel. There’s nothing wrong with this in the right place e.g. Mulberry Park but it should be noted that according to the application, 43% of homes in Foxhill are privately owned meaning that owners bought their properties to live on the estate AS IT IS.
4. Proposed heights of new buildings will be totally out of character with the estate. I strongly object to higher buildings being placed near my home as it will result in loss of privacy for us as new residents will be able to look down onto our house and garden. Current blocks of flats, although higher than houses here are, in the main, tucked away and not intrusive, giving a feeling, generally, on the rest of the estate of homes situated in open air with views of the many trees over the houses. The Arboricultural Impact Assessment section 5.3.2 states that “the extent of redevelopment is such that most internal trees will be removed.” Although tree planting is, of course, included in the plans, the drawings suggest avenue trees with huge, ugly buildings towering over them, giving the impression of sardine tin living where buildings dominate people rather than people living alongside a natural feeling environment. Ideas of “landmark buildings” are even worse and the visual impact of these together with the loss of “green” land to buildings will have a wholly negative effect on the character of the area and the quality of life here.
5. I object to the loss of social/affordable housing on Foxhill. Figures in the application proposal are to demolish up to 399 social rent homes and replace them with 210 affordable homes, a loss of 189. Of the 210 affordable homes, only 75% will be at social rents (158) meaning that the total loss of homes at social rents will be 241. Plans for Mulberry Park already require 210 affordable homes there so rejection of this application will result in a total of 609 affordable and social homes over the two sites. This would be consistent with the ambitions of the emerging Placemaking Plan which seeks to prioritise provision of affordable homes.
6. There are aspects of the application assertions which I object to. I reject the assertion in the Design and Access Statement that the houses here are past their useful life. Of the 220 or so “Cornish” houses of Queen’s Drive, Sedgemoor Road and Kewstoke Road, over 60 have been privately bought, all but a handful have been extensively renovated with brick walls replacing concrete and added features such as extensions, conservatories, solar panels etc. Renovations were not particularly expensive and these properties should have a long life.
Stone houses and bungalows enjoy widespread popularity with both owners and tenants and there is no reason to think that they are in any way worse than similar houses nearby in Odd Down, for example. Policy H8 of the draft Placemaking Plan supports redevelopment where homes are substandard and demonstrably not fit for purpose. I realise that some parts of Foxhill may fall into this category but there is no recognition in the application that other parts can be or have been fully renovated. Private ownership of “Cornish” houses is scattered throughout the stock. Are we expected to believe that all these owners were just lucky that their homes happened to be suitable for renovation? The opposite appears far more likely, that nearly all these homes could be easily and relatively cheaply renovated, causing minimal disruption to residents. It is clear that there are different levels of home quality here requiring different approaches and respect for residents’ aspirations which has been sadly lacking.
7. I object to the presumption that runs through the application that Foxhill is a poor place to live. Over 40% of homes are owned and many tenants have lived in their homes for 30, 40, even 50 years quite happily. References to the findings of the Hepworth report in the planning statement appear to give a different picture. This report, sponsored by the construction industry concludes that the estate should be demolished and re-built. Nowhere in the 36 page report, however, does he make any reference to home owners. He appears to be blissfully unaware that rather than being “trapped on an island”, most of us get in our cars if we need to go somewhere. An early Sunday morning walk along Queen’s Drive will prove this but not Monday as most people will be at work! Within the Hepworth report, however, are indications of the state of Foxhill which lead to alternative views of how Foxhill should progress :-
Page7 “Community well-being is undermined by the lack of mobility and flexibility for families wanting to move from flats to houses on the estate and policies that geographically concentrate highly vulnerable people who need social housing in one place”.
Page8 “Foxhill needs the type of Nimbyism found in better- off neighbourhoods.”
Page15 “Everybody I interviewed traced the source of Foxhill’s problems to the blocks of flats” and “Flats are relatively unpopular – people with kids like houses with gardens.” Page16 “The concentration of challenges is around Dunster , Bradford Park and Selworthy.” These last two comments from Somer Community Housing Trust, the forerunner of Curo. Page16 “The big problem is that whilst turnover is high in the flats, it’s low in the houses” B@NES Housing Services.
Page 25 “(But) with houses on the estate like “gold dust”, lack of mobility for young families means “trapped in flats.”
Page28 “Once you go beyond the flats there is a real mix of housing tenure and socio-economic groups.”
This last statement finally recognises that not all residents of Foxhill fit into the perception of a deprived community that he has sought to portray throughout his report and which pervades the current application. The blocks of flats quoted total about 200 homes, less than 25% of the total number but his solution is to bulldoze the 75% of “gold dust” houses to solve socio-economic problems. The solution is much simpler, as he tells us earlier in his report, i.e. to change housing allocation policies of Curo (and predecessors) to “ spread Bath’s burden of worklessness and inequality more evenly geographically.”
If Foxhill has problems stemming from the blocks of flats as stated, then the residents of houses have shown a remarkable resilience and commitment over decades. This is easily demonstrated by the numbers of renovated homes in the “Cornish” houses together with, for example, improvements made by tenants such as building fences or walls or customising gardens with decking are typical examples. The estate is waiting for Curo not to knock it down but to play its part in enhancing what is a very stable, settled community. In 2015 the Foxhill Residents’ Association conducted its own survey of residents throughout the site and prepared a “Vision Brief” based on the results. The brief is attached as Appendix1 but to summarize we found that the majority of residents of Bradford Park, Dunster House and Selworthy House were in favour of re-housing whilst all types of houses and bungalows showed majorities who did not want to move. This broadly agrees with the quotes from the Hepworth report and we believe that this should form the basis of forward thinking i.e. what people here actually want.
8. I object to the Statement of Community Involvement particularly section2 Policy. The assertion that “Curo can confirm that the public consultation programme was in keeping with the requirements of –the spirit of thorough and meaningful public consultation.” Their initial survey attempted to create, artificially, the impression of mass support on the estate for new house building. I have previously lodged my objection to this with both Curo and B@NES council in a document entitled THE CURO SURVEY – WHY IT WAS WRONG. I attach a copy as Appendix2. Curo’s willingness to adopt such tactics suggests that rather than “the spirit of thorough and meaningful public consultation” claimed, they have gone through the motions with a lot of paperwork, meetings etc. but no attempt to listen to what people up here actually want. They are happy to incorporate anything that fits in with their plans but are reluctant to adapt their plans to accommodate the majority wishes of residents, expressed through the Foxhill Residents Association survey, a petition to the council, a demonstration attracting local T.V. coverage of 60 or 70 residents outside one of their meetings and a very vocal public meeting attended by our M.P., Ben Howlett and chaired by council leader Tim Warren where well over 100 local residents expressed their dismay at the attack on our homes to senior Curo figures with no voices from residents in support of them. They continue to say that their meetings with residents support them but it should be clear that there is massive opposition to large scale redevelopment, particularly amongst house and bungalow dwellers. Curo also do not adhere to the principle of “thorough consultation” in respect of financial effects on tenants who are moved to Mulberry Park. Rather than just promising better homes they should be honest and up front and tell them that rents there will be substantially higher together with probable extra service charges and increases in Council Tax levels. Consultation is not what you want to tell them, it is what they need to hear and then listening and acting on what they say.
9. I object to any attempt to abuse the planning system. Everyone plans in one way or another and systems are in place within the planning structure for people to use. If an area, as Foxhill was, is not included in Core Strategy, then people living in that area should be able to plan individually with confidence. The “Cornish” houses here make a good example again. Owners here or potential owners should have been able to plan changes to their homes or to purchase homes without fear of being let down by the planning system. There is no room in the planning system for opportunism in the sense that Curo describe acquisition of Mulberry Park as “the opportunity of a lifetime” to redevelop Foxhill. It might suit their purposes but what about all the people who were relying on the integrity of the planning system. Planning and opportunism are total opposites.

APPENDIX 1

Foxhill Residents’ Association ‘Vision Brief’ for future development planning of Foxhill
Presented to Curo/BANES on Monday 18th January 2016

Background

Publically elected in August 2015, the Foxhill Residents’ Association has a mandate from residents as the voice of the community. There exists a strong sense of community spirit in Foxhill which is a valued resource to protect and cherish going forward. Foxhill is the home for some families in a third generation of residents since construction in the 1950’s. There is no discord between owners and tenants.

The Association was founded as a response to the fears and concerns of residents surrounding the planned unnecessary destruction of homes and the community as a result of the original Curo masterplan to regenerate the existing Foxhill estate whilst progressing plans to develop the new Mulberry Park ex MOD site.

The constitution of the Association encompasses the area inclusive of the new Mulberry Park site, bounded by Pope’s Walk to the East, Entry Hill to the West and includes both sides of Bradford Road from Entry Hill to Combe Road. Going forward the Association will actively engage with Curo/ BANES, if needs be The Housing & Communities Agency, and others on all aspects within the confines of the Association boundaries. The Association will actively endeavour to encompass all residents and does not believe in a ‘them and us’ division between residents on the two sites. It is understood that the whole area is under consideration when new plans are to be drawn up.

The services of an Independent Adviser to assist residents, including making residents aware of their legal rights at face to face meetings, has been established and these services are to be financed forthwith by BANES through government grant funds. The FRA are currently leafleting all home owners who have received letters from Curo seeking face to face appointments advising that home owners need to contact the Independent TPAS Adviser to ensure her presence at these meeting and the FRA are also offering a Committee member to be present if needed. The FRA will continue to engage and work with the adviser.

Vision
The Association welcomes the opportunity for regeneration of the Foxhill estate (which includes much needed refurbishment of some properties as well as demolition plus complete rebuilding of others) as long as the aspirations of existing tenants and home owners are given due respect and consideration.

Survey
The Association recently conducted a detailed, comprehensive face to face survey with residents within what is known as the 'red line' area (defined by the original Curo notification for regeneration to residents.) These interviews were recorded and logged and the results of this survey presented to Curo/BANES on 15th December 2015 in graph and written form.
The Vision Brief recommendations below are derived from this information and hence seek to reflect as closely as possible the stated aspiration of residents.

Vision Brief

For consideration when new plans are drawn up:

That the sense of Community be valued and the views of residents to be at the forefront when plans are in development and that an attitude of working with the Association and residents is embraced. An open and transparent dialogue for shared information and views to prevail across all parties involved.

The needs of the elderly and more vulnerable residents in the community to be given specific attention to fulfil their needs and situations, including the provision of trained personnel in dealing with this sector of the community.

The existing estate does not form part of BANES Core Housing Strategy and hence Curo are under no obligation to BANES to build more homes than currently exist on the estate. Higher density housing can be avoided and green open areas can be maintained or considered when planning.
The original Curo masterplan led to the loss of some 250 social homes. This is an unacceptable loss to the community and wider City. This is compounded by Curo already renting properties at market value – as an example in Queen’s Drive, and thereby further reducing the availability of social housing. The 30% ruling on social and affordable housing is a minimum requirement and not a ceiling or a maximum. Every effort needs to be made to improve this percentage, and accommodation made available for all tenants who wish to remain in the existing estate. The new development at Mulberry Park has a 30% ruling enshrined and does form part of BANES Core Housing Strategy therefore this minimum percentage will apply and is a separate entity from the need to maximise social and affordable housing on the existing Foxhill estate.

That the impact and effect of increased traffic on the immediate area and wider local area be carefully surveyed and considered taking the current, not historic, criteria into account. The FRA are prepared to host a further public meeting and debate on this subject so that the community can voice their concerns and constructive thoughts on this issue.

When drawing up plans that adequate parking be taken into consideration, particularly where existing parking spaces are lost through development to avoid the need of roadside parking.
That adequate lighting, pavements, green areas be planned to avoid creating areas that could become the focus for antisocial behaviour.




Ongoing:

The area to be properly managed and surveyed –by Curo/BANES - during demolishing and rebuilding phases of particular areas – such as the flats for example – to minimise disruption for residents living in adjoining areas.

Curo to prevent degradation of their existing and new areas and properties by properly managing their upkeep. This needs to be monitored by BANES.

That Curo maintain and improve their existing properties to a high standard.


Tenant considerations:

That the views of existing tenant individuals and families, who may be subject to a move, hold a priority status when relocated in terms of remaining in Foxhill and Mulberry Park if they so wish and in terms of accommodation.

That BANES and Curo maintain the support and workshops that assist residents in their applications through the Homesearch website, if this is the mechanism that will prevail for the purpose of relocation. In particular for residents who are not, or partially, computer literate. The FRA standpoint is that the onus is on Curo to rehouse tenants that are displaced by Curo development in like for like accommodation, not on the resident.

Curo accepted a responsibility when initially acquiring the housing stock to upgrade properties to a state where a mortgage would be granted within ten years. In the case of Cornish properties the upgrade should provide a 50 – 60 year lifecycle for these properties. This aspect to be fully surveyed and redressed to comply with this standing agreement where such upgrade cannot be proved to have taken place.
It is understood that Curo have drawn up a package of benefits for tenants relocating.

Specific areas taking the survey results as central to the following:

Flats in Dunster House, Selworthy House and Bradford Park house a majority of residents that wish to move so may require regeneration.

Foxhill House should be kept. Residents advise that some interior decorating in the staircase, sound proofing of front door, upgrading of intercom system which continually breaks down and draft proofing of staircase and doors leading to balconies of flats on the outside of the building is needed. The building would also benefit by the installation of a lift in the disused waste shaft.

Quantocks Flats should be resurveyed to include all tenants and home owners without exception as this site may be potentially for different use as not all residents were accessed at time of FRA survey – see bungalows below


Bungalows
Bungalows of Quantocks and Bradford Park must not be demolished. Forcing older vulnerable people to move from their bungalows could endanger their health and is not acceptable. Residents hold strong majority views not to move and specifically not to flats. Many have experienced living in flats before their bungalow accommodation and have no desire to return to this accommodation.
The building of a residential home for elderly and vulnerable residents should be considered providing an assisted and sympathetic lifestyle possibly with a warden in attendance. Possibly the site of Quantock flats could be considered.
It may be considered that a new community of like for like bungalows and potential residential home be assessed and the community moved en- masse.


Cornish houses
Sedgemoor Road, Queens Drive, Kewstoke Road (especially top of Kewstoke Road at the Queens Drive entrance which houses a group of home owners not wishing to move or sell) should not be demolished as the majority of residents do not wish to sell or move. The walls should be upgraded to good quality brick work to make the houses mortgage standard and the houses need proper insulation.

Bradford Park Houses
Houses should not be demolished as the majority of home owners do not want to sell and the majority of tenants do not wish to move.

Bradford Road homes
86% of residents on Bradford Road do not want to move.

Shops
The existing site of Bradford Road shops is considered to be the most convenient location and the tenants/owners in flats above do not wish to move.



APPENDIX 2

THE CURO SURVEY OF FOXHILL – WHY IT WAS WRONG
A PERSONAL VIEW
The initial questionnaire from Curo arrived through our letterboxes with no covering letter explaining that major changes to our estate may be being considered. It is self-evident that had local people been aware of any threat to the stability of our estate that our responses to the questions would have been based on whether we wanted wholesale changes here or not. The casual way in which I, for one, filled in the form, thinking I was contributing in a minor way to plans for the former M.O.D. site, would have become an earnest defence of our home here. The questions themselves would have been largely irrelevant; the only point to all my answers would have been my opposition to the potential destruction of our estate.
THE SURVEY QUESTIONS
The first question asks which of a range of desirable elements, identified in the council’s “Concept Statement” for the former M.O.D. site, would be our priorities. The Concept Statement relates to that site and understandably top priority was affordable housing in our replies, for THAT site. Other sensible priorities were a new primary school and a doctor’s surgery, for example, to support both the new community and Foxhill estate.
The next section relates to the existing Foxhill estate. To move from a question about the new estate to something about our estate can easily lead to confusion. It mixes the idea of new facilities, suggested in the previous question with new houses and it is easy to see that many people would reply to this automatically as a follow on from the previous question, bearing in mind that we have, at this stage, no reason to feel in any way threatened.
The survey invited us to express one of five levels of agreement to the following statement: - I support new housing and new or improved facilities being provided within the existing Foxhill estate. Many of us noticed that you cannot reasonably mix two concepts in the same statement since, naturally, some respondents may be replying to “new housing” and others to “new facilities” and in this instance we have been considering “new facilities” in the previous question so you could expect a high level of support for this. Also, many people, particularly owners, live in either extensively renovated homes already or perfectly viable properties. These people could legitimately vote for new homes, recognising that there are areas of Foxhill which do need to be regenerated. The data from this should not work towards condemning their own homes. The question asked leaves them nowhere to go to express their views.
New houses on our estate had until now not been mentioned and it seems clear to me that this has been “smuggled” in by the back door. The results of the survey claimed 83% support for new housing and new or improved facilities in Foxhill and considering the way this had been done it was no surprise.
Curo wasted no time in bandying this result about. It appeared, for instance, in their publications, in the local press and on their architect’s (HTA) web site and any casual observer may conclude “O.K. that’s what everyone wants up there”.
What Curo have never mentioned again are findings from deeper in their survey.
75% of respondents expressed satisfaction with the Foxhill neighbourhood as a place to live AS IT IS.
When asked “What would be your top priorities for improving the physical appearance of Foxhill?”, the top answer was” improvement to existing homes”. “Replacing some of the existing homes” came below “better street lighting” and “traffic calming”!
These answers to simple unambiguous questions are, I believe, the real feelings on the estate and Curo’s attempts to manufacture their result from what should have been a very simple survey are clear.
COMPARISON OF CURO SURVEY AND FRA SURVEY
The surveys have different aims. The Curo survey does not recognise housing types and equal weight is given to the views of, for example, long term tenants, home owners and recent arrivals. Living conditions and differing aspirations of these various groups are not reflected in their results.
The FRA survey identifies various housing groups and attempts to establish the general feeling of members of each group on their particular home and environment.
The Curo questions on housing can be considered as confusing and formulated such that it is difficult for people to express what they really feel.
The FRA survey has a simple yes - no – undecided - format so that no ambiguity will contaminate results.
A reasonable comparison can be made in the original regeneration area (area inside the red line) between Curo’s question on “satisfaction in Foxhill as a place to live” and FRA’s question “do you want to move” since both are direct and can be answered with a yes - no -response.
Curo’s survey: satisfaction with Foxhill as a place to live percentages (satisfied /neither satisfied nor dissatisfied)
Owners 87 % satisfied/3% neither satisfied nor dissatisfied
Curo customers 69% satisfied/12 % neither satisfied nor dissatisfied
FRA’s survey: do you want to move (don’t want to move/ undecided)
Owners 72% don’t want to move /14% undecided
Curo customers 56% don’t want to move/6% undecided
The final figure there, for Curo customers, of course, includes information from the flats which (excluding Foxhill House) had high percentages of people wishing to move.
However, a large majority of Curo customers from the houses do not want to move (please refer to FRA survey for detailed results of survey street by street).
These sets of results, I believe, show the real picture of Foxhill and any plans for the future should reflect the general desire for as much stability as possible whilst recognising the requirements or wishes of people who feel that they are inadequately housed.
SUMMARY
The Curo survey has the following flaws:-
No indication was given when it was originally sent out that responses would have potentially serious consequences for Foxhill estate.
Leading residents’ answers by firstly offering advantages in the new estate and then incorporating new ideas (houses) in Foxhill, in a related question cannot be seen as anything other than an attempt to obfuscate the issue.
Mixing questions between the former M.O.D. site and Foxhill was misleading, particularly in an alternating form.
Limiting residents’ ability to express what they would really want to contribute by substandard questions is unacceptable.
A question that mixes different concepts requiring one answer can have no validity.
Promotion of favourable aspects of the survey, whilst ignoring others, in further publications, the media and with business partners such as HTA, is unacceptable.
CONCLUSION
The Curo survey, together with an over robust approach to describing how they would implement their plans has caused much distress in the community.
40% of homes here are privately owned and many of the rest have been tenants for 30, 40, even 50 years and we are expected to believe that 83% of us want to knock the place down!
Any survey should be such that anyone participating could have absolute confidence that their views will genuinely reflect what they are trying to say and not be subject to manipulation to support the ambitions of the surveyor. The Curo survey was either deliberately skewed or just very poor. Either way it cannot be relied upon with any confidence.















22/05/2017: I stand by my previous objection of 2016.
I would also like to add some challenges to the Curo statement justifying the need for regeneration.
When, in 2013, Curo first proposed the regeneration of Foxhill, there were 43% privately owned homes here. This indicates either that claims of high deprivation here are wrong or that deprivation may occur in certain parts of the estate i.e. the flats. Curo have never recognised that much of the estate is perfectly viable with 43% being none of their business until this attempt to force people out of their homes.
It is hard to imagine that there are major problems with the houses here when some 400 families have elected to buy
their homes many of which have already been substantially renovated to a high standard by their owners.
Claims of high tenant turnover may again refer to the flats as most tenants of houses have lived here for many years. Perhaps Curo should be asked to prove their assertions and separate different accommodation types to get a clear picture.
I would also like to say that Foxhill is a beautiful place to live. Tall trees everywhere, giving a relaxed ambience, delightful birdsong everywhere and a varied wildlife in the interesting gardens, which are well used and loved by young and old. The contrast between this estate and the sombre "prison blocks" appearing as Mulberry Park couldn't be greater! I object to the application as the planned heights and density of building and the cramming in of so many extra homes would reduce the quality of life of current residents, so many of whom invested in this area to live on the estate as it is. If there were to be development here, preserving this way of life should be paramount.
18/06/2017 This comment also has associated documents: View Associated Documents
David Beaven 8 Sedgemoor Road, Combe Down, Bath, Bath And North East Somerset, BA2 5PJ O 29/11/2016: I wish to object to the "review of Housing Stock Condition". (Planning Statement. Para 7.40. Page 41.
Ridge and Partners, who carried out the review, have unreasonably included the various building types which collectively make up the Foxhill Estate.
Para 7.41 they refer to properties of "non-traditional construction". This of course refers to the "Cornish Houses". They suggest that the "majority" of properties are of this type of construction. For this assessment Curo needs to give more specific figures regarding numbers involved.
I have been a home owner of one of these properties for over twenty years, and do not accept the figures presented.
Para 7.44. The condition of Curo's stock is due to the poor standard of repairs. The quality of workmanship very often falls short of being acceptable.
Para 7.45. Refers to "properties not having central heating and poor insulation". Insulation can be retro fitted, as I have done, and is not as expensive as the projected figures laid out by Ridge and Partners.
Curo has allowed their stock to reduce to a poor condition so that it becomes preferable for them to demolish the whole estate.
I accept that some regeneration is required, but not the destruction of 542 homes.
I do not accept their plans and intend to remain in my home.
29/11/2016
J Stephenson 54 Newbridge Hill, Newbridge, Bath, BA1 3PU, S 08/12/2016: This represents a great opportunity to create new, energy efficient housing in a development which will blend with the new Mulberry Park to create a cohesive whole.
It is a rare chance to make improvements on such a large scale.
It increases the number of dwellings on an existing site, helping to meet local housing needs.
08/12/2016