Planning Applications Reference:17/03774/OUT

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

View Further Information
Type of Application:Outline Application
Status:Pending Decision
Address of Proposal:34 - 35 Lower Bristol Road, Westmoreland, Bath, Bath And North East Somerset, BA2 3AZ
Ward:Widcombe
Proposal:Outline application for the erection of two buildings to provide residential accommodation for students (up to 204 bedrooms) with ancillary accommodation and facilities and external courtyards, alterations to existing pedestrian and vehicular access, and associated infrastructure following demolition of existing building. Access, appearance, layout and scale to be determined and landscaping reserved.
Decision Type:Planning Committee
Planning Portal Reference Number:PP-06282051
Applicant Name:c/o Agent
Agent Name:Dr Thomas Rocke
Agent Address:Number One, Queen Square Place, Bath, BA1 2LL
Case Officer Name:Chris Gomm
Date Application Received:04/08/2017
Date Application Validated:10/08/2017
Neighbourhood Consultations sent on:06/11/2017
Standard Consultations sent on:06/11/2017
Last advertised on:17/08/2017
Latest Site Notice posted on:21/08/2017
Expiry Date for Consultation :11/09/2017
Actual Committee Date:15/11/2017
For details of this Development Control Committee Meeting please visit the Councils Democracy Website.
Target Decision Date09/11/2017

Documents

ConstraintsAffordable Housing, Agric Land Class 3b,4,5, Air Quality Management Area, Article 4, Bath Core Office Area, British Waterways Major and EIA, British Waterways Minor and Householders, Contaminated Land, Flood Zone 2, Flood Zone 3, LLFA - Flood Risk Management, MOD Safeguarded Areas, Other Please specify, Other Please specify, River Avon and Kennet & Avon Canal, SSSI - Impact Risk Zones, World Heritage Site
Related Property:34 Lower Bristol Road,Westmoreland,Bath,BA2 3AZ.
Reference Proposal Application Received Status
16/05504/OUT .Erection of two buildings to provide residential accommodation for students (up to 204 bedrooms) with ancillary accommodation and facilities and external courtyards, alterations to existing pedestrian and vehicular access, and associated infrastructure following demolition of existing building10/11/2016Application Refused
17/03774/OUT .Outline application for the erection of two buildings to provide residential accommodation for students (up to 204 bedrooms) with ancillary accommodation and facilities and external courtyards, alterations to existing pedestrian and vehicular access, and associated infrastructure following demolition of existing building. Access, appearance, layout and scale to be determined and landscaping reserved.04/08/2017Pending 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
D Wilkey 51 West Avenue, Oldfield Park, Bath, Bath And North East Somerset, BA2 3QD O View Associated Documents 06/09/2017
Ian Hull And Steve Gayner Not Given O View Associated Documents 13/11/2017
Bath Preservation Trust 1 Royal Crescent, City Centre, Bath, Bath And North East Somerset, BA1 2LR S View Associated Documents 07/09/2017
P Mardon 4 Burford Close, Southdown, Bath, Bath And North East Somerset, BA2 1JF O 07/09/2017: Many of the comments made in my original objection (see 16/05504/OUT) still apply .
This sites close proximity to public transport would suit a commercial development, creating jobs for local people.
A layby should be provided within the boundry of the site to enable the many University buses stopping to pull off a very busy main route through the City, thus reducing congestion.
The reduction in height to the buildings appears negligible, and does not meet the original objections
07/09/2017
Federtation Of Bath Residents' Association 2 Ainslie's Belvedere, Lansdown, Bath, Bath And North East Somerset, BA1 5HT O 11/09/2017:

DEVELOPMENT OF PICKFORD’S SITE (17/03774/OUT)– FoBRA OBJECTION

The Applicant’s original application to redevelop this site was refused by the DMC partly on aesthetic grounds because it was deemed to be too high, too bulky, too massive and that the external appearance would have a dominating oppressive and incongruous impact on the character and appearance on this part of the Lower Bristol Road and the wider WHS. Apart from a very minor reduction in height, in our view little has changed from the original application; the revised scheme makes minimal difference, and still blocks views of the city from southern aspects.

Moreover, the DMC also believed that as well as the loss of well-established storage used by both businesses and residents, the loss of this site would have an unacceptable impact on the local economy and they deemed that there were strong economic reasons why its development for non-business uses was inappropriate. We have noted that the Council’s Economic Development and Regeneration, Arboriculture and Urban Design departments’ continuing objections to this proposal but we see little submitted evidence to counter the comments made in January 2017 by the Planning Policy Department that this development, if approved, would be contrary to the Development Plan, there being insufficiently strong economic reasons to justify the loss of this industrial site.

FoBRA supports the professional objections submitted by these Council departments because it appears little effort has been made by the Applicants (a) to revise their proposals and (b) to consider sympathetically either the adverse aesthetic or economic impact of their proposals. To threaten the LPA with an immediate appeal should the decision be negative may be tactically sound but is hardly likely to engender a good future working relationship with the Council. We note that the applicant’s agent concludes: “Moreover, enabling the provision of additional student accommodation in the city is critical not only to ensure that objectively assessed needs are met, but to sustain one of the city’s principal economic drivers and employers…” Is this really true, and will the rooms be affordable for the average student, because evidence from other recently built PBSAs suggests otherwise? Aside from the aesthetics, if the DMC were to agree that the economic case for refusal is insufficiently robust, what about using this prospective brownfield site to provide more urgently needed housing for the city which is in desperate need, especially social housing. Student population is inherently transient while residents are not.







11/09/2017
Transition Bath Not Given O View Associated Documents 05/09/2017
Bath Heritage Watchdog Not Given. O View Associated Documents 11/09/2017
Widcombe Association C/o Jan Shepley Greenlea, Perrymead, Lyncombe, Bath, Bath And North East Somerset, BA2 5AX O 11/09/2017: This is to advise that this revised application will be considered by the Widcombe Association Committee at its meeting on 12 September and I will advise of the Committee's views in the following days.
The Committee objected to the previous application on the basis of the proposed change of use and on the visual impact of the scheme. See extract below re Application ref 16/05504/OUT


The WA originally commented on this proposal questioning the appropriateness of the proposed change of use to create more student housing. The Committee has now reviewed the application in more detail and in the light of the recent amendments to the South Quays redevelopment scheme and its subsequent approval. We have been concerned by the scale of the proposed development and its impact on views of the city from Wellsway, one of the main entrances to the city from the south; and we remain concerned that this aspect has not been addressed adequately in the documents provided by the applicant.
We have reviewed the presentation of relative building heights as submitted by Steven Gaynor in his email of 23 April 2017, and have reached the same conclusions as he sets out in that message; we believe the height and massing of the main block as proposed would predominate in the views across the city, being higher and of greater east-west massing, than the approved residential buildings of South Quays. The excessive height of the proposed building is not justified and the design should be revisited.
I will advise on any change to these previous objections by the end of the week.
17/09/2017 This comment also has associated documents: View Associated Documents