Planning Applications Reference:17/03771/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:Unit 2 , Lymore Gardens, Twerton, Bath, BA2 1AQ
Proposal:Erection of 7no two bed dwellings with parking following demolition of existing structure
Planning Portal Reference Number:PP-06247305
Applicant Name:Farleigh Rengen (One) Limited
Agent Name:Arena Global Management Ltd
Agent Address:Studio 160, 3 Edgar Buildings, George Street, Bath, BA1 2FJ
Case Officer Name:Christine Moorfield
Date Application Received:04/08/2017
Date Application Validated:10/08/2017
Neighbourhood Consultations sent on:11/08/2017
Standard Consultations sent on:22/08/2017
Last advertised on:17/08/2017
Expiry Date for Consultation :07/09/2017
Target Decision Date23/02/2018


ConstraintsAffordable Housing, Agric Land Class 3b,4,5, Article 4, Contaminated Land, Forest of Avon, HMO Stage 1 Test Area (Stage 2 Test Req), Hotspring Protection, MOD Safeguarded Areas, SSSI - Impact Risk Zones, World Heritage Site
Related Property:Unit 2,Lymore Gardens,Twerton,Bath,BA2 1AQ.
Reference Proposal Application Received Status
16/04261/FUL .Erection of 5No Three-bedroom, 2No Two-bedroom and 1No One-bedroom flat following conversion and adaptation of warehouse25/08/2016Application Permitted
17/03771/FUL .Erection of 7no two bed dwellings with parking following demolition of existing structure04/08/2017Pending 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
Cat Mogford Not Given. S 17/08/2017: Starter homes with parking are always a good idea in Bath 17/08/2017
Maria Hyde Unit 3 Kwik Strip, Lymore Gardens, Twerton, Bath, BA2 1AQ, O 31/08/2017: Dear Christina Moorfield,

Further to this application, I wish to object based on the following reasons:

The Factory Units at Lymore Garderns were once a laundry house, their use falls within the B2 general industry use class, they cannot operate in close proximity to housing without causing a nuisance, as Derek Walker, Chartered Surveyor pointed out to me. If houses are situated near to us/ backing on to our walls, the occupants will inevitably complain and make life difficult for us. The business has been established for over 25 years and intends to continue, so any complaints in the future would not be appreciated.

I feel that a lot of the residents in Lymore Gardens will be loosing approx 8 car parking spaces, so the pressure on parking escalated enormously. Residents and workers struggle with parking already, with cars often getting knocked as there is limited space for turning etc.

With Health & Safety in mind - Due to such close proximity to the school would the new development be accessible for pedestrians, Lymore Gardens is a cul-de-sac where already there are so many problems with maneuvering of vehicles.

Thank you for considering these points,

Yours Sincerely

Maria Hyde
Countertops Units 4 & 5 Counter Tops, Lymore Gardens, Twerton, Bath, Bath And North East Somerset, BA2 1AQ O 31/08/2017: Hi
We all at Countertops object most strongly with the application for building works on the above project, this is for a number of reasons,1 the parking situation.. it is a very busy small street in which we are and parking is very limited as it is and to remove even more parking spaces ( 8 ) would be terrible and im sure cause all sorts of uproar.
2 The noise we are a very busy little unit as are the others and the noise at times is quite loud we are just far enough away from the street to cause any problem to our neighbours but to built right next door we can see now this will be a issue as once complaints are made , we have seen it elsewere , people get closed down and there are @ 14 people employed around our small units who will loose there jobs
3 Its takeing away another affordable industial unit and makeing space for what will eventualy become student lets.
4 According to the new plans one of the new houses shows a garden which encroaches onto our comunial owned carpark at the rear of our unit were theres clearly a fire door
Nigel Boutland Unit 3B Quality Foods, Lymore Gardens, Twerton, Bath, BA1 2AQ, O 01/09/2017: My main objection regards the on-street parking. Apart from college vacations, on-street parking is already a problem in the area. Many houses in Lymore gardens are HMOs and when occupied, the numerous extra cars result in a hazard. Cars are often parked in restricted areas, limiting manoeuvrability and vision. The street is used by a lot of young children walking to the nearby school and they are particularly vulnerable when visibility to the unit's yard entrance is obstructed by vehicles.
The proposed development, with a possible seven extra on-street spaces needed, is further aggravated by the loss of at least four spaces needed to access the proposed seven off-street spaces.
Many staff in the adjoining units need to drive to work and on-site parking is limited.
In my case we have one space in the yard and six people who need to drive to work, either because of an early start, or living in rural locations.
Martyn Dormer 30 Lymore Gardens, Twerton, Bath, Bath And North East Somerset, BA2 1AQ O 18/08/2017: 7x two-bed dwellings is squeezing a quart into a pint pot. The added stress on local parking and traffic safety will be unsustainable. Obviously this site will be redeveloped for housing but this proposal is unacceptable. 18/08/2017
Ken Goodenough 28 Lymore Gardens, Twerton, Bath, Bath And North East Somerset, BA2 1AQ O 25/08/2017: This application will remove all parking spaces in front of Unit 2. There is a huge demand for on-Street parking in this area especially when the Universities are open. I will be sending some photos directly to the case officer to confirm this.Due to the vehicles having carports directly onto Lymore Gardens causes me great concern about the Health and Safety of all the pedestrians using this side of the road especially all the children going to and from the Junior and Infant Schools. 25/08/2017
David Thackwell 26 Lymore Gardens, Twerton, Bath, Bath And North East Somerset, BA2 1AQ O 25/08/2017: Objection

The proposed development would result in tiny properties being crammed in to a space that was originally intended for light industrial use, and it is my view that this is how this space should remain.

The location of a garage on the ground floor of each property would lead to the following issues:
a) Considerable reduction to the total size of each home;
b) The inevitable loss of on-street parking over that entire section of the road, affecting all existing residents

With regard to point (b), I rather suspect that any photographic evidence gathered by the developers to suggest that there is ample parking, would have been taken at quiet daytime periods during the universities' summer break. As many of the existing houses are HMOs being rented by students, the street will inevitably be quieter at this time of the year. It will be a different matter towards the end of September as the new semester commences and the students return.

There is also the noise, disruption and dust resulting from the demolition and reconstruction to consider. I know several residents who would be considerably inconvenienced by this, due either to long-term health issues or the need to sleep during the day because they work night shifts.

I applaud and support any sensible and realistic plans for the building of truly affordable starter homes - or homes for young families - in Bath, with house prices being far beyond the reach of so many local people. The development in question, however, cannot be said to be in any way viable or indeed desirable.

I therefore object to the proposal, and urge the Council to refuse permission. Thank you.
25/08/2017 This comment also has associated documents: View Associated Documents
James Harwood 22 Lymore Gardens, Twerton, Bath, Bath And North East Somerset, BA2 1AQ O 26/08/2017: The grounds for my objection are the loss of on street parking in a already over congested street, also this being a popular route to the local schools health and safety must be a issue. Also in the previous application the building was praised for being part of our industrial heritage, and now you want to tear it down, the loss of these historical sites I find unacceptable. I understand there has been complaints about noise from the industrial units operating there has this been taken into consideration. I have lived here forty one years and would like to see these small businesses continue to operate in this area and not be forced out in the future. 26/08/2017
Nicola Townsend 17 Lymore Gardens, Twerton, Bath, Bath And North East Somerset, BA2 1AQ O 04/09/2017: My husband and I have lived at Lymore Gardens for two and a half years now and in that time we have found that for much of the year there is insufficient parking for the existing residents. It results in residents almost being forced to park on double yellow lines or on the white lines outside of the industrial unit to allow them to park in a reasonable distance from their home. Removing effectively a quarter of the existing parking spaces available on the road is unacceptable. Whilst the proposed new homes might have car ports, they may have two cars which will add even more pressure to an already crowded road.

I also feel that it is inappropriate to build new homes right on top of an industrial estate and whilst I do not consider the existing industrial buildings to be of any kind of nuisance, I would if I lived right on top of them as there would be noise and fumes or dust from them.

As this is a no through road, it will potentially cause access issues for residents while the demolition is going on which is unacceptable. In addition, I feel that as many parents park on the road or walk their children down the road in order to collect them from school, it could lead to dangers to the young children walking past the car ports as cars could pull out suddenly.

The previous application used the existing building and added underground parking which I feel is a much better use of the space as it keeps the historic building. I feel the city of Bath is all about preserving history and industry is part of the city's heritage and therefore the building should be preserved.

My final comment is that 7 houses in such a small space feels like someone is trying to squeeze as many people into a small space as possible and I imagine there will be better value houses on the market for first time buyers regardless of them having off street parking.
Charlotte Nightingale 15 Lymore Gardens, Twerton, Bath, Bath And North East Somerset, BA2 1AQ O 05/09/2017: I strongly object to this application on the grounds that the character of this street will be negatively changed forever by this proposed development.
One of the most attractive features of this street is the historical aspect of the attractive red brick old laundry, which resonates of times gone by and is entirely in character with the small terraced houses. This application proposes the entire demolition of the current building, with replacement by modern garage doors which would be ugly and out of character with the street.
This street is used by many more walkers than the average road, as it leads through the park to Dartmouth Avenue, so the impact of this development would not only be felt by residents of Lymore Gardens.
If off road parking is included in the form of garages, then a vast area of parking for current residents (many of whom have lived here for decades) would be lost, sacrificed, for an ugly development. There is no need for parking, everyone else parks on the road. By including parking, the developers will be able to sell the properties for more money, while the saleability of current properties will decrease as parking on Lymore Gardens becomes increasingly difficult. Parking pressure increases dramatically when university terms are on, as there are several HMOs on the road.
There will be many proposals for development of this building in the future, and at some point there will be one that accommodates the current needs of current residents as well as keeping the original building which maintains the unique and charming character of the street.
In addition, it is much more environmentally sustainable to keep the original shell of the building rather than raze it to the ground and use new resources to build up again.
I strongly object and I hope this application is rejected.
C Brann 11 Lymore Gardens, Twerton, Bath, Bath And North East Somerset, BA2 1AQ O 19/08/2017: As far as I can see this application is even worse than the current plans.
Yes it is less rooms and seems more to be for young buyers.
However the use of 7 parking ports will take out the whole of the rank for parking.
At the moment during term time this road is often full of cars and vans. I notice that applications always use pictures from quite times to show that there is a lot of empty road. Taking out the frontage of 8 or 9 cars will leave the road with more cars than parking spaces. At least the previous plans still had on street parking left available. Add to that that these cars in ports will have to manovure in a tight space to get in and out of the ports.

On top of that the demolition of the building, not required before, will cause massive disruption to the work units as well as to all of us who live here. With a narrow road used by large lorries daily to deliver to the work units as well as many pedestrians there is going to be problems.

Some of the residents here are old and or have health problems, the dust and disruption will not be good for them in any way. I include myself in that group. I am home during the day with my windows open to help with my health issues, how will I or others be able to have open windows with dust and noise from demolition and building work going on for a long time. As well as having disrupted sleep.

I still think that trying to get so many units into this space is bad for the area, at least the previous plans meant that most of the work was screened by the building from those who live here.

As I said before there will need to be some use for this area but I am sure this is not it. The frontage is the same as 5 of the existing houses so why not just 5 homes in this plot? It seems that the idea is to just put as much as can be crammed in with no concern for those who will live there or those who are already in this street.

I notice that each time plans are put forward in this area they use other applications to help theirs, like that number 10 didn't need to supply parking. However number 10 has like all the houses here the use of the road and wasn't being demolished and rebuilt. It does however have a garden and a back way out. Unit 1 has never had planning permission and uses up some of the parking spaces this application will remove. Where are the tenants living there going to park?
Development in this street needs to be joined up and not piecemeal and it needs to recognise that there are work units that need access as well as other homes.
Thank you
C Brann

Julian Hopgood 9 Lymore Gardens, Twerton, Bath, Bath And North East Somerset, BA2 1AQ O 31/08/2017: I feel this type of residential development more appropriate than the previous scheme showing a conversion of the existing building - However the numbers of new houses proposed will lead to cramped accommodation and inadequate amenity space and I object on these grounds. I notice the car indicated on the ground floor plan is much shorter in length compared to the average car.

As a side note there are a number of fire safety issues to resolve with this design - ie. having a non protected fire exit through the covered car parking area and the fact that the light well runs through the height of the building shares a space with a car.
Bath Preservation Trust 1 Royal Crescent, City Centre, Bath, Bath And North East Somerset, BA1 2LR O 07/09/2017: Object: The Trust has no objection in principle to creative contemporary design and commend the desire to provide ‘affordable’ starter homes, which are sadly lacking in Bath - if indeed they are truly to be marketed at a ‘starter’ level price and restricted through condition from downstream use as lettings properties for HMOS or holiday lets. We also had no objection to the conversion of the building to housing shown in 16/04261/FUL. The basis for our objection lies in the demolition of the original building on this site, which is recognised as a non-designated local asset.
The extant planning permission for this site (16/04261/FUL) argued that the loss of the historic industrial use was justified on the basis that the building would be retained and converted. The Trust is concerned that this application now claims that the original old building is now not suitable for conversion, following the principle of development on this site being established in the extant permission. We would argue that the basis on which the extant permission was granted is therefore negated and that this application should be considered from first principles, in particular whether it is acceptable to demolish the building on the site.
The submitted structural condition report concludes that the condition of the building is average with no identified need for underpinning at this stage though it is accepted that the roof structures are not capable of conversion without replacement. In our view this means that the structure is generally sound and would need some remedial works to allow it to be converted, a normal enough situation when converting a 117 year old building.
In our view the loss of the old building, albeit undistinguished, would mean the loss of a local non-designated heritage asset that, by its visible existence, tells a little of the history of the local area and its community. We recommend that demolition should be resisted unless the case officer is certain and can demonstrate, without reference to the former application as a precedent, that the replacement scheme brings sufficient benefits to the local community and sufficient enhancement to the streetscape and local character to outweigh the harm.
Holly Marks Not Given. O View Associated Documents 12/09/2017
Gabriel Russell Couch UK Ltd, Sub Unit 4, Unit 3, Lymore Gardens, Oldfield Park , Bath, O 31/08/2017: Dear Sir or Madam,

I am writing to notify you of my objection to application ref. 17/03771/FUL

I run my screen printing and rubber casting business from one of the industrial units at the bottom of Lymore gardens that back on to the site of the proposed build and i am very concerned that the noise produced in our B2 general use premises, as well as that coming from my neighbouring businesses will prove to be a problem to the residents should this site be developed for housing. I have already received one noise complaint from someone in a neighbouring flat, which i am happy to provide copies of. Having worked here for over 15 years am convinced that it is not advisable for residential properties to be built in such close proximity to our units. We quite often work outside the traditional 9-5 hours, working into the evenings and at weekends.

I have been informed that the street will loose 7 of its available on street parking spaces if this build goes ahead. This is also of concern to me as the road is already clogged with cars. My unit comes with 1 car parking space within the gates of our complex but i have 5 members of staff that drive to work. They already struggle to park in the mornings so i am very worried that reducing the number of parking spaces in the street will be a big problem for us and the residents.

Thank you for reading.

Gabriel Russell

Managing Director
David Cox 23 Bradford Road, Combe Down, Bath, Bath And North East Somerset, BA2 5BL O 31/08/2017: Little Garth,
23 Bradford Road,
Combe Down,
BA2 5BL.
Tel. No. 01225 849269
Planning Service,
Lewis Houe,
Manvers Sreet,
BA1 1JG.

31st September 2017.

Dear Sir/Madam,

re: Planning Application No. 17/03771/FUL.

Site Location: Unit 2 previously used by Silcox Son & Wicks as a Furniture Warehouse,
Lymore Gardens,Bath.

Wih reference to the above I, David Cox, would like to state that I am against the proposed development to turn the ex-Silcox Son & Wicks warehouse into7 two bed houses with parking provision. I own sub-units 1 and 2.

The units on the site are classified as "Light Industrial" and units 1 and 2 are let as: unit 1)comprising a carpentary workshop trading as Perfect Space prop. Cody Dodds-Smith and the other unit (2) is a vegetrarian bakery trading as Quality Foods prop. Nigel Boutland. Units 3 and 4 are: Mrs Hydes' unit, Kwik Strip, this uses chemicals in its processes and has fans running to provide ventilation for staff. Mrs. Hyde's other unit is used in the production of printing T shirts trading as Couch UK Ltd. so specialist paint is used. Units 3 and 4 are occupied by Counter Tops prop. Mr. Cosmo Fry.

Any housing on the proposed site would have to contend with noise from the workshop and smells from the bakery and other units, there are also motors on the exterior of the units for ventilation and cooling the deep freezers and walk in refridgerator in the bakery. These motors can be in use on and off throughout the night as well as mostly continuous in the day time. We are concerned, should the development be allowed to go ahead, that owners/tenants are going to complain to the Council of the cooking smells, noise from fans, extraction and ventilation fans, which can run night and day, after living in such close proximity for few months. The units have been inexistence for a long time and provide essential work for a number of people locally.

We would also like to express our extreme concern on behalf of the residents of Lymore Gardens, Lymore Avenue, and Claude Avenue etc. The units in Lymore Gardens were established as light industrial units over 30 year ago. During this time the businesses have, and continue, to employ, approximately 24 staff some of whom travel to work by car and require parking spaces of which there are insufficient on the site of the units. Most of them park in Lymore Gardens and surrounding roads because they are there in the day time and have left by the time the residents of Lymore Gardens and surrounding roads return home. This development will cause an extra demand for parking spaces and there will be a shortfall as descibed in the Highways comments.

There are many houses of multiple occupancy in the immediate vicinity and over the whole of the Oldfield Park/Twerton area and when students, particularly, return from their vacations the pressure on parking escalates enormously. Also using the basis that the 7 houses have the potential of housing 3/4 adults in each house, there is a potential total of up to 21/28 adults. With this potential number of people living in the house it is extremely likely there will be more than one car in each household. Although provision has been made for parking this means at least 4 parking spaces in Lymore Gardens will be lost to the rest of the residents.

Construction of the houses is going to prove difficult with all the materials required on site on top of which the property is to be demolished, including a wall belonging to Mrs. Hyde's tenant. How is he to carry on his business when the wall is demolished? How will security be maintained bearing in mind he uses paint products in his work. The road way is too narrow to allow material to be unloaded on to the road. If the developer has it in mind to use the area in front of the units this will not be possible as all the units require access to the area in front of the units all of the time.

I feel this development of the site will impact greatly on the residents of Lymore Gardens and the surrounding area. I believe it is trying to put too many properties in the space available. I would support a development if it was, say, half the number of properties being proposed. Also as owners of the units we have felt somewhat excluded from any communication about this proposed development. I myself did not receive any notification of the development. We have already had studio flats allowed in Unit 1; we were unable to object to this occupation because initially it was done illegally but, it would appear, because of the length of time people had been living on the premises the Council allowed retrospective permission for this to continue. We acknowledge the pressing need for accommodation but feel this is an inappropriate development within a unit which is essentially within a light industrial site. Does the developer have to apply for change of use? If no, why not. Changing the unit to accommodation would mean losing potential premises for the formation of a small business.

Another concern which appears to have been overlooked is that in the past the units have been subject to "flash flooding". Before the development of the units the site was used as a laundry and water from a stream was used by the laundry. Under the floor of units 1 and 2 there were lots of manhole covers which gave access for the storage of water etc. One of the residents living nearby in Lymore Gardens can actually see a water course under the Counter Tops unit and heavy rainfall can cause the level of water to rise. Admittedly the main water course was diverted to a "storm drain" which, I believe, runs down the road in Lymore Gardens.

I am strongly opposed to this development and hope planning pemission will not be given.

Yours faithfully,

David J. Cox. ,
Sub-units 1 & 2.

Bath Heritage Watchdog Not Given O View Associated Documents 08/09/2017
John Parker Indaba, Entry Hill, Bath, BA2 5LY O 01/09/2017: As an occupier of one of the units on the site, I wish to lodge an objection. I understand that today is the final day for receipt of objections/comments but I would like to point out that the notification, dated 11 August 2017, was only delivered last week and has just come into my hands today. My initial reason for objection is that, at first sight, the application does not appear to address the impact of the development on other units on the site. I may well have further comments to offer when I have had a reasonable chance to go through all 25 pages of the application. I therefore request that either the consultation period is extended by one more working week or, if this is not possible, that no decision is made until 11th September 2017 at the earliest. It may well be that other owner/occupiers will also have comments to make. 01/09/2017