Planning Applications Reference:17/02953/FUL

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

View Further Information
Type of Application:Full Application
Status:Pending Consideration
Address of Proposal:Site Of 15 And 16, Hampton Row, Bathwick, Bath,
Proposal:Erection of detached dwelling house
Decision Type:Delegated
Planning Portal Reference Number:PP-06155074
Applicant Name:Mr Paul Stevens
Agent Name:Hurst Associates
Agent Address:Failand House, 22 Newbridge Road, Bath, Bath And North East Somerset, BA1 3JZ
Case Officer Name:Alice Barnes
Date Application Received:21/06/2017
Date Application Validated:10/08/2017
Neighbourhood Consultations sent on:14/08/2017
Standard Consultations sent on:24/10/2017
Last advertised on:17/08/2017
Latest Site Notice posted on:21/08/2017
Expiry Date for Consultation :11/09/2017
Target Decision Date22/12/2017


ConstraintsAffordable Housing, Agric Land Class 3b,4,5, Article 4, British Waterways Major and EIA, British Waterways Minor and Householders, Conservation Area, Forest of Avon, Hotspring Protection, Listed Building, MOD Safeguarded Areas, SSSI - Impact Risk Zones, World Heritage Site
Related Property:Site Of 15 And 16,Hampton Row,Bathwick,Bath,
Reference Proposal Application Received Status
16/01366/FUL .Erection of 1no four bed detached dwelling.22/03/2016Application Refused
17/02954/LBA .Erection of detached dwelling house21/06/2017Listed Building Consent Not Required
17/02953/FUL .Erection of detached dwelling house21/06/2017Pending Consideration

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

Name Address Comment type Comment1 Comment2 Comment3 Date
Richard Cooper 9 Hampton Row, Bathwick, Bath, Bath And North East Somerset, BA2 6QS O 31/08/2017: I object mainly to the subsequent density of occupation should this scheme go ahead.
As it stands today, not even half of present residents of Hampton Row run a car, but
frequently it can be difficult parking . Clearly that could change at anytime. On top of that
work is currently underway to restore Nos. 10-15, each having more than one household, with basement flats etc. So I say, enough already.
Another objection is the siting of quite a large modern looking structure out of the line
of terraced houses, spoiling the effect of these listed buildings .
I would urge that before further permissions be granted, the impact of a re inhabited
Hampton row should be assessed.
Arthur Stock Ferry Lane, Widcombe, Bath, BA2 1HL S 03/09/2017: This application is supported by myself..
The traffic and parking mentioned in the objection letter I have viewed is not making much sense to me.
This is a "parking zone area" and if sufficient parking is not available, then the parking permits would not be issued. Permits are only issued for the amount of spaces available..
This building ( if permitted ) would allow someone else a "home" to live in.
Bath is difficult enough to obtain planning consent, but this application is to rebuild a home that was previously on site.... It was NOT part of the "rank" of houses on Hampton Row, it was sited separately and BEHIND the rank, therefore did never detract and will not again detract from Hampton Row rank. I urge the Council to approve.
Carole Beattie 3 Hampton Row, Bathwick, Bath, Bath And North East Somerset, BA2 6QS O 07/09/2017: The restoration of numbers 10 to 14 Hampton Row has been long awaited. When and if completed it will provide an extra 20 bedrooms, and thus a lot of extra people in this street of small houses - the impact on parking alone will be considerable. While it will be a great relief to all to have the blight of these derelict buildings finally lifted from this area we should surely see what impact this added population has before considering the building of more houses. I also object to the proposed design of these new builds, I understand they wouldn't be joined on to the listed terrace but their appearance is in my opinion out of keeping for this position. 07/09/2017
Bath Preservation Trust 1 Royal Crescent, City Centre, Bath, Bath And North East Somerset, BA1 2LR O 07/09/2017: Object: The Trust objected to the last iteration of this application, and we can see no reasons to suggest that the concerns we identified relating to the impact of the development on the adjacent heritage assets and lack of positive contribution to the overall character of the area have been adequately mitigated or improved in this application. We continue to strongly object to this scheme on the basis of a lack of appropriate planning detail, awkward siting, overbearing form and poor design. In particular the Trust is concerned at the lack of Heritage Statement, nor any kind of contextual analysis of local and longer views of the site, nor an impact assessment on the setting of the listed Hampton Row, the conservation area, and the historic canal and railway. The principle of development has not been justified. The scheme fails to respond to the local context in terms of its design or form and does not sit comfortably on the site itself; its bland design fails to reinforce local distinctiveness and character. It appears incongruous and at odds with its context, and access is awkward and unresolved. In our view the quality of the application drawing detail and assessment is still very poor, with no contextual or 3D images to show how the dwelling would sit in the plot and the wider area.
The proposed scheme, by virtue of its siting, form and design would fail to complement or enhance the setting of the nearby listed buildings, and fails to respect the special character, quality and appearance of the surrounding townscape and conservation area and therefore the World Heritage site. In our view the principle of development on this site has not be adequately unjustified in this application. The scheme would be contrary to the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas Act) 1990, Section 7 (Requiring Good Design), Section 12 (Conserving and enhancing the historic environment) of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), policies; B1, B4, CP6 of the B&NES Core Strategy, saved polices; D2, BH1, BH2 and BH6 of the B&NES Local Plan and policies CP6, D.1, D.2, D.5, HE1, D.7, BD1 of the Placemaking Plan. We would therefore recommend that the application be refused.
Pauline Mungai 39 Rockliffe Avenue, Bathwick, Bath, Bath And North East Somerset, BA2 6QP O 04/09/2017: i am surprised and distressed to see yet another planning application from the same person who owns the derelict houses at the bottom end of hampton row. those particular houses have been derelict for an awful long time and, though he would appear to be now working on them in a rather desultory manner, the proof is in the pudding. i believe it is immoral that the owner has kept these houses in a derelict state for so long where they obviously get worse from year to year, and i also believe that it is immoral of the authorities to allow him to do so in a time where housing shortage is prevalent.

granting planning permission for, and starting work on, the houses that are in existence already, is no guarantee that the work will get finished. after all this time, i believe it would be in everyone's interests that he finish what is already started.

therefore i strongly believe the owner should concentrate on the existing refurbishments (so far, he has shown no hurry in this) before any discussions or agreements are given for further builds.
Simon Chippindale 39 Rockliffe Avenue, Bathwick, Bath, Bath And North East Somerset, BA2 6QP O 04/09/2017: The applicant's design statement says that the proposed buildings are of "more traditional design and in keeping with the established pattern of development in the area" and that it "responds and harmonises with the surrounding area". This is an absurd untruth. The design is not traditional, and it does not harmonise with the surrounding buildings. This is a conservation area characterised almost entirely by Bath stone buildings with pitched tile roofs. It seems to me that there is a clear danger that the very recent proliferation of flat-roofed wood-clad boxes is already greatly harming the look and character of the Bathwick estate.
The applicant has deliberately run down his existing properties in Hampton Row for decades, turning the neat little houses that he bought into ugly derelict eyesores. If he can afford to build houses, then he can afford to repair his existing properties. I feel strongly that he should not be allowed to build in this area until he has finished repairing the derelicts.
This is a conservation area, please conserve it.
John Richar Jerrom And Jude Sandy 5 Hampton Row, Bathwick, Bath, Bath And North East Somerset, BA2 6QS O 09/09/2017: This application seeks permission to erect a "detached dwelling house" on the "Site of 15 and 16 Hampton Row...". This is incorrect: there has never been a no. 16 Hampton Row. No. 15 - which more or less abutted the railway - was demolished many years ago. The only previous building on the actual site in question was a small outhouse, clearly visible in Thomas Hennell's early 20th. century painting; the owner seeks to create a large dwelling where none has existed before. Furthermore he seeks to impose this completely incongruous piece of very indifferent "design" on an important conservation site. I object. Pinch the Elder is the probable architect of Hampton Row, a once-pleasing unity of late Georgian terraced artisan houses (the inhabited houses still please the eye) which combines with the fine form and function of Brunel's railway and his terrific restraining wall holding back the re-routed Kennet and Avon Canal to form a remarkable and surprisingly harmonious - and multiply historic - vision. Even the honestly functional early 20th. C. footbridge graces the scene - which is the first the arriving rail-passenger - or canal towpath traveller - sees of our renowned city. The projected "dwelling" is a vandalism; I hope Planners will not hesitate to consign this plan to the dustbin.
The author of the plan has owned nos. 10 - 14 Hampton Row for decades. When he bought them, they were empty and semi-derelict; they were, however, solid, roofed, and apt for refurbishment - and they were historic, graceful and atmospheric. Permission was sought to bulldoze a hole in the terrace - to destroy one or more of the houses - in order to create an access road to enable the building of "dwellings" behind the terrace. Since the refusal of that permission it appears that the dilapidation of the houses has been allowed and even encouraged. Roofs have collapsed as have interior floors. The stewardship of this unique gem of a terrace has been abject; shameful. Now, haphazard and fitful "works" to no.10 are taking place, and equally slapdash and sporadic attempts to clean up the atrocious midden of refuse in front of the houses. The inappropriate use of heavy, tracked vehicles in that narrow space, and/or the careless plonking down of heavy skips may or may not be the cause of the large vertical crack which has appeared in the fabric of the facade. It is astonishing that this continuing desecration is permissible.

Tom And Colette Foulstone Rosemount Cottage, Lyncombe Vale Road, Lyncombe, Bath, Bath And North East Somerset, BA2 4LP R 10/09/2017:
The applicant has run down his properties at the end of Hampton Row for the last 20 years. Another application should not even be considered until these have been completely restored.
The proposed building is ugly, it is too big and it is NOT in keeping with its surroundings.