Planning Applications Reference:18/00651/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
Ward:Westmoreland
Proposal:Erection of 4no. two bedroom homes, 2no. studio apartments, 4no. one bedroom apartments and associated parking following the demolition of Unit 2, Lymore Gardens.
Planning Portal Reference Number:PP-06705425
Applicant Name:c/o 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:13/02/2018
Date Application Validated:05/03/2018
Neighbourhood Consultations sent on:08/03/2018
Standard Consultations sent on:03/07/2018
Last advertised on:15/03/2018
Latest Site Notice posted on:17/03/2018
Expiry Date for Consultation :07/04/2018
Target Decision Date06/07/2018

Documents

ConstraintsAgric Land Class 3b,4,5, Article 4 HMO, Contaminated Land, HMO Stage 1 Test Area (Stage 2 Test Req), MOD Safeguarded Areas, Policy B4 WHS - Boundary, Policy B4 WHS - Indicative Extent, Policy CP9 Affordable Housing Zones, Policy NE1 Green Infrastructure Network, SSSI - Impact Risk Zones
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.Erection of 7no two bed dwellings with parking following demolition of existing structure04/08/2017Application Withdrawn
18/00651/FUL .Erection of 4no. two bedroom homes, 2no. studio apartments, 4no. one bedroom apartments and associated parking following the demolition of Unit 2, Lymore Gardens.13/02/2018Pending Consideration
18/02740/COND .Discharge of condition 4 of application 16/04261/FUL (Erection of 5No Three-bedroom, 2No Two-bedroom and 1No One-bedroom flat following conversion and adaptation of warehouse)20/06/2018Pending Consideration

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


Name Address Comment type Comment1 Comment2 Comment3 Date
Cosmo Fry The Old Rectory, Mells, Frome, Somerset, BA11 3PT O 03/04/2018: I own Units 4 and 5 Lymore Gardens, the former adjoins Unit 2, the subject of proposed development. Unit 4 shares a party wall with the proposed development (south elevation) and the existing rear access door of said unit abuts the space proposed for a vehicle and 16 bicycles. I have read through the objections and comments of both Maria Hyde and Fez Parker and concur with the various points raised in their statements.

In particular I echo most vehemently the concerns raised by both Hyde and Parker concerning the access, security and potential problems that will result from the inevitable increase in both foot and vehicular traffic in the yard. The current access to all units serviced by this yard is already severely compromised and the additional use proposed will present further problems for everyone concerned. The matter of both daytime and nocturnal security has always been an issue of concern and it is imperative that the gates are securely locked when the units are idle (5pm-8am Mon -Fri and 24 hrs Sat/Sun.) This will severely restrict and render unworkable the proposed scheme. In addition the issue of user safety (bodily harm) introduced by the addition of 16 number bicycles will further exacerbate this problem.

Further, the use of and access to the fire door to the rear of Unit 4 will be effected by the potential scale of the traffic and erratic storage habits likely to result from so many bicycles. This will seriously compromise the effective use in the event of evacuation of the property.
03/04/2018
Bath Preservation Trust Bath Preservation Trust , 1 Royal Crescent, City Centre, Bath, Bath And North East Somerset, BA1 2LR O 05/04/2018: Object: The Trust continues to object to the demolition of this local non-designated heritage asset. The loss of the historic light industrial use was justified, in 16/04261/FUL, on the basis that the building would be retained and converted.
This scheme seeks the demolition of the building, in line with previous application 17/03771/FUL (now withdrawn). Additionally 17/03771/FUL sought the provision of 7 dwellings. This scheme seeks the provision of 10 dwellings which the Trust considers to be overdevelopment of the site. The use of Bath stone on a site that has an historic and distinctive red brick character is also unacceptable and incongruous.
We continue to 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 loss and the undoubted harm.
The proposed scheme by virtue of the proposed demolition of the non-designated heritage asset and the overdevelopment of the site is contrary to Section 12 (Conserving & Enhancing the Historic Environment) of the NPPF, policy B1, CP6 and B4 of the B&NES Core Strategy and policies DW1, SD1, CP6, D1, D2, D3, D5, and HE1 Placemaking Plan and should be refused.
05/04/2018
Transition Bath Not Given O Documents Tab 14/03/2018
Jim Warren 8 Junction Avenue, Oldfield Park, Bath, Bath And North East Somerset, BA2 3NJ R Documents Tab 28/04/2018
Sarah Clarkson And Jeff Fanstone 33 Lymore Gardens, Twerton, Bath, Bath And North East Somerset, BA2 1AQ O 28/03/2018: We object to the application,
The proposed properties will be surrounded on all sides by the remaining light industrial industries and all that this entails which will negatively impact on any new residents. The inevitable chaos and the impact of noise of turning unit 2 into a demolition building site will have a devastating effect on current residents
Too many new properties crammed into too small a space with the inevitable impact on parking. During term time it is already exceedingly difficult to find a parking space close to our home.
Until the parking issues in Lymore gardens and surrounding area we cannot support any further housing development
28/03/2018
Nina Moore 31 Lymore Gardens, Twerton, Bath, Bath And North East Somerset, BA2 1AQ O 12/03/2018: This is a lot residences planned to be built on this relatively small plot. This is a quiet cul-de-sac with a mixture of families & student community - this could have a big impact on the road, traffic and general feel of the street. 12/03/2018
Martyn Dormer 30 Lymore Gardens, Twerton, Bath, Bath And North East Somerset, BA2 1AQ O 15/03/2018: Once again this very speculative application presents itself without regard to the nature or character of the existing environment. On a cul-de-sac with vehicular ingress and egress on one busy t-junction, especially at school times and with parking already limited by the number of HMOs in the street, this application could potentially bring a further 20 vehicles into the road with absolutely no provision for their parking. Couple this with the potential chaos caused by the extra vehicular traffic at peak times and what we have here is a recipe for environmental disaster. I am mindful of the inevitable march of progress but until a reasonable plan is put forward for this site which has some regard for the existing environment and its residents I shall oppose all applications which serve only to squeeze maximum profitability out of a small site for the sole benefit of its developers. 15/03/2018
Maria Hyde Unit 3 Kwik Strip, Lymore Gardens, Twerton, Bath, BA2 1AQ, O Documents Tab 28/03/2018 This comment also has associated documents: Documents Tab
Gabriel Russell Unit 4 Gabriel Russell Trading As Couch, Lymore Gardens, Twerton, Bath, Bath And North East Somerset, BA2 1AQ O 27/03/2018: I am concerned about the access for parking (proposed is new spaces for a car parking space and 16 bicycles) These would have access through the gate and our car park which is already packed full with industrial lorries, deliveries, articulated lorries etc coming and going throughout the day. The suggested access to the new car park is already blocked regularly and is a heavily used area. (photographs and video provided)
The new residents with the car parking space would potentially be very frustrated at the lack of access in or out at busy times of day. The car park is not only used by articulated lorries but also fork lift trucks carrying heavy dangerous loads. We have public liability concerns for any accidents or damage to vehicles.
The gate is currently closed and locked at night for the security of all the units and if this was open it would jeopardise the insurance of the businesses here.

The wall of my unit is currently an interior wall, if this building work went ahead it would become an exterior wall. I am very concerned about the fact that provisions in the planning clearly haven't been made for this.
We often run noisy and heavy machinery as part of our production. We also listen to music etc which needs to be turned up to a certain level to be heard over our production noise. This could be day or night or over the weekend, and so we are concerned about receiving noise complaints if there were residents next door. We deliberately chose a space that we could work in at any hour and make noise, the building is historically an industrial complex of units and provides much needed employment to local people (at least 5 in our unit) and so is unsuitable for the current housing plans. We have been operating here for 15 years and intend to stay. Our business is currently growing and looking to employ more staff; increasing manufacturing and production and putting more pressure on this already full and busy local unit.

We already get noise complaints from residents living further away than this new development would be.
Also our extraction pipe exits the building on the side of the proposed balconies only metres away. Understandably future residents of the new dwellings would be upset by the noise and industrial smells coming from our production.

With the current plans no provision has been made for our office upstairs sinks and drains which would no longer be functional if this plan went ahead.

In the event of an emergency we can potentially use the office window as an access point/unofficial fire escape onto the roof. With these plans we would loose this emergency access point out of our premises.

We also feel that historical buildings such as this are an important part of the cultural history of the area and it would be a shame to loose such a characterful brick building which is a part of the urban landscape.

Regards,

Mr. G Russell

27/03/2018 This comment also has associated documents: Documents Tab
Nigel Boutland Unit 3B Quality Foods, Lymore Gardens, Twerton, Bath, BA1 2AQ, O 27/03/2018: My main objection to the above proposal is the parking provision. The street is already saturated with parked vehicles, especially during term time, leading to illegal parking on restricted areas.
Although provision has been made, the internal parking is unworkable, as detailed in the Highways document, and results in the loss of at least one on-street parking space to be used for access.
The footway across this proposed access is busy with young school children, attending the nearby Oldfield Park Junior School, twice a day. A narrow access would not allow sufficient sight lines for vehicles to emerge safely.
Parking space 10 appears to block the fire exit for unit 4, and would have to be accessed via the yard which serves the businesses.
During the day the yard is congested with delivery vehicles and, when the units are closed, it must be kept locked for insurance purposes.
27/03/2018
Christopher Brann 11 Lymore Gardens, Twerton, Bath, Bath And North East Somerset, BA2 1AQ O 20/03/2018: Yet another try to change the grounds for this permission for changing this buildings use. Now they are saying it is not in a good condition, well they have left it open to the elements over the winter so I suppose it might well be suffering, there is at least one opening in the roof but there last year while they were working on site along with some in the front wall. Having onsite parking is a good move but they are still trying to put to much into a small area. Not including that they are ignoring the effect of the surrounding workshops, which will back right up to these planed homes. There also does not seem to be any affordable housing being included which the area really needs. I object to this proposal on the grounds that it will need to demolish a building which is part of the landscape and not bring new build which fits with the rest of the street or deals with its over parking.
Please can we have a plan which deals with the local problems rather than just maximizing profit.
20/03/2018
Julian Hopgood 9 Lymore Gardens, Twerton, Bath, Bath And North East Somerset, BA2 1AQ O 26/03/2018: I object to this proposal for similar reasons as the previous scheme - The proposals represents over development of the site.The houses lack real amenity space. To accommodate the number of flats and studios,a section of the street elevation has been heightened and gable ends introduced at second floor level which represents a departure from the scale of houses to Lymore Gardens. The gable ends are proposed to be clad in vertical slates - this will look obtrusive and wrong for the street. The development will inevitably generate additional demand for on street parking to a street already overburdened with cars. 26/03/2018
David J Cox 23 Bradford Road, Combe Down, Bath, Bath And North East Somerset, BA2 5BL O 27/03/2018: Little Garth,
23 Bradford Road,
Combe Down,
Bath.
BA2 5BL.
Tel. No. 01225 849269
Planning Service,
Lewis Houe,
Manvers Sreet,
Bath.
BA1 1JG.

27th March 2018.

Dear Sir/Madam, AMENDED VERSION.

re: Planning Application Reference 18/00651/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 into 4 two bed houses, 2 studio appartments, 4 one bed appartmens with parking provision included but also stating provsion for 16 bicycles and one car at the rear of the property,within the area of the Units in Lymore Gardens. These units are protected by a galvanised gate which is locked when no-one is working in the units.

I would like to make it clear that I have received no information about this proposed development. Mrs. Hyde let me know about the proposal today. Because of work being done on my home I have not been living at Bradford Road, however I do check my mail everyday and have not received any communication with regard to this proposal.

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 who owns part of the building proposed for demolition which has a door which provides a fire exit into the area in front of the units. Shown in another picture showing the asbestos roof.

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? Furthermore as it currently stands only one part of the party wall is an external wall, the lower part being an internal wall, how will this be made into an external wall? How can security be easily maintained bearing in mind he uses paint products in his work which are flamable. 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.

There is no mention in the application stating the distance between the new development and the "external" wall of Mrs. Hyde's tenants unit. How is maintenance to Mrs. Hyde's unit to be accomplished when it would appear there will not be enough room to even put up a ladder to the wall.

Also I note in the plannng Application - Section 23 - Hazardous Waste: none has been disclosed but it is clear from the pictures attached there is an asbestos roof involved in the development.

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. Even with the provision of internal parking, this will mean that at least 2 car parking spaces will be lost to enable access to the internal car park.

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.

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. I feel there is the potential for accidents to occur if residents of such a development were allowed access into a light industrial to access, say, bicycles, this raises the need for public liability insurance, will the developer provide this for residents or will they require individual cover. If residents are allowed access to the space in front of the units this will inevitably increase the insurance costs to the unit owners. I am unaware of a residential development having access into a light industrial area. Changing the unit to accommodation would mean losing potential premises for the formation of a small business and possible employment for local people

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, however my understanding that a development cannot be approved within 20 metres of a water course.


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

Yours faithfully,


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

27/03/2018: Little Garth,
23 Bradford Road,
Combe Down,
Bath.
BA2 5BL.
Tel. No. 01225 849269
Planning Service,
Lewis Houe,
Manvers Sreet,
Bath.
BA1 1JG.

27th March 2018.

Dear Sir/Madam,

re: Planning Application Reference 18/00651/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 into10 two bed houses with parking provision included but also stating provsion fo 16 bicycles and one car at the rear of the property, with rear access into the I own sub-units 1 and 2.

I would like to make it clear that I have received no information about this proposed development. Mrs. Hyde let me know about the proposal today. Because of work being done on my home I have not been living at Bradford Road, however I do check my mail everyday and have not received any communication with regard to this proposal.

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 who owns part of the building proposed for demolition which has a door which provides a fire exit into the area in front of the units. Shown in another picture showing the asbestos roof.

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? Furthermore as it currently stands only one part of the party wall is an external wall, the lower part being an internal wall, how will this be made into an external wall? How can security be easily maintained bearing in mind he uses paint products in his work which are flamable. 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.

There is no mention in the application stating the distance between the new development and the "external" wall of Mrs. Hyde's tenants unit. How is maintenance to Mrs. Hyde's unit to be accomplished when it would appear there will not be enough room to even put up a ladder to the wall.

Also I note in the plannng Application - Section 23 - Hazardous Waste: none has been disclosed but it is clear from the pictures attached there is an asbestos roof involved in the development.

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. Even with the provision of internal parking, this will mean that at least 2 car parking spaces will be lost to enable access to the internal car park.

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.

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. I feel there is the potential for accidents to occur if residents of such a development were allowed access into a light industrial to access, say, bicycles, this raises the need for public liability insurance, will the developer provide this for residents or will they require individual cover. If residents are allowed access to the space in front of the units this will inevitably increase the insurance costs to the unit owners. I am unaware of a residential development having access into a light industrial area. Changing the unit to accommodation would mean losing potential premises for the formation of a small business and possible employment for local people

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, however my understanding that a development cannot be approved within 20 metres of a water course.


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

Yours faithfully,


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

27/03/2018
Fez Parker Not Given O Documents Tab 02/05/2018 This comment also has associated documents: Documents Tab
Mr Dodds-Smith 3 Mayfield Road, Twerton, Bath, Bath And North East Somerset, BA2 3QA O 08/04/2018: I run my timber workshop and custom furniture manufacturing company from unit 3, we have a further mix of 5 companies running from unit 3 and 1 other large manufacturer running from the units 4 and 5

I have two main concerns with the proposed development of unit 2 and 1 objection to the proposed access.

I am very concerned to see yet another useful commercial building being taken away and turned into residential property. The area has a massive lack of creative work spaces and light industrial spaces for small companies to run from. The council currently have no units of this type in Bath to offer for rent and there is also none available privately. With the recent closing of the Wansdyke estate near Moorland road and all the development elsewhere in Bath more and more companies are being pushed out of Bath and having to commute in and out to workplaces/spaces out of town. It is increasingly hard for small businesses to set up and run inside Bath.
Myself and my employees all live within walking distance to my workshop and this has a great impact on our work and family lives.

I am very concerned with the development being so close to my workshop. I run large woodworking machines all day inside the unit and outside I have vehicles constantly arriving with materials and deliveries which are unloaded by fork lift and by hand. The building has no soundproofing so sound is constant and varying. I don't think that anybody will like to live in such close proximity to such a noisy site.
The proposed development has many windows and even balconies directly facing my unit. and I don't believe this will be at all suitable.

I object to the proposed development including access to the new property for vehicles pushbikes and inevitably foot traffic through the works yard.
I would not be happy with residents having access to the yard at any time and I dispute their
right to do so. The yard is solely for the use of the businesses.
This seems unsafe and impractical in our small yard which is in constant use by all 7 businesses. Yard traffic is of an industrial nature with forklifts, delivery trucks lorries vans and trailers constantly in and out. we also have an assortment of wast disposal and rubbish collections servicing the companies bins and skips kept in the yard.

I am also very concerned about security of the yard, We have large steel gates that enclose the yard and these are locked up when the businesses are closed not only for security but for the safety of the public. I cannot see how proposed residents can have any suitable access by foot or vehicle.



08/04/2018
Bath Heritage Watchdog Not Given O Documents Tab 21/03/2018