Planning Applications Reference:18/02330/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:Charters, 43 Upper Oldfield Park, Oldfield Park, Bath, BA2 3LB
Ward:Widcombe
Proposal:Erection of 5 residential units for student or healthcare worker accommodation and associated works.
Planning Portal Reference Number:PP-07006568
Applicant Name:Landmark Development (Oakford House) Ltd.
Agent Name:Willis And Co. (Town Planning) Ltd
Agent Address:30 The Causeway, Chippenham, Wiltshire, SN15 3DB
Case Officer Name:Martin Almond
Date Application Received:25/05/2018
Date Application Validated:17/07/2018
Neighbourhood Consultations sent on:18/07/2018
Standard Consultations sent on:18/07/2018
Last advertised on:26/07/2018
Latest Site Notice posted on:24/07/2018
Expiry Date for Consultation :16/08/2018
Target Decision Date11/09/2018

Documents

ConstraintsAgric Land Class 3b,4,5, Article 4 Bath Demolition Wall, Article 4 HMO, Article 4 Reg 7: Estate Agent, Conservation Area, 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, SSSI - Impact Risk Zones
Related Property:Charters,43 Upper Oldfield Park,Oldfield Park,Bath,BA2 3LB.
Reference Proposal Application Received Status
06/02073/FUL .Erection of 14 No residential apartments and parking following demolition of existing dwelling.07/06/2006Application Refused
06/02075/CA .Demolition of 43 Upper Oldfield Park.07/06/2006Consent
07/00653/FUL .Erection of 13 no residential apartments with parking and shared grounds (Resubmission)27/02/2007Application Refused
07/02461/FUL .Erection of 14no. residential apartments with parking and shared grounds (Revised Application)31/07/2007Application Permitted
10/00294/FUL .Erection of 13 no residential apartments with parking and shared grounds (Resubmission)25/01/2010Application Refused
11/05409/COND .Discharge of conditions 2,4,5,11,12,14,15,17,20,21,22,23 of application 07/02461/FUL (Erection of 14no. residential apartments with parking and shared grounds (Revised Application))20/12/2011Condition Discharged
12/00387/CA .Demolition of existing dwelling on site.26/01/2012Consent
14/04229/NMA .Non-Material Amendement to application 07/02461/FUL. (Erection of 14no. residential apartments with parking and shared grounds (Revised Application))16/09/2014Approve
14/04547/FUL .Erection of 14no. residential apartments with parking and shared grounds (Revised Proposal) (Retrospective).07/10/2014Application Refused
15/02931/FUL .Erection of 14no residential apartments with parking and shared grounds (Revised Proposal)(Retrospective)29/06/2015Application Permitted
15/04780/COND .Discharge of conditions 2, 3, 7, 10 and 13 of application 15/02931/FUL (Erection of 14no residential apartments with parking and shared grounds (Revised Proposal)(Retrospective))21/10/2015Application Withdrawn
16/01102/COND .Discharge of conditions 1,8,9 and 12 attached to application 14/04547/FUL allowed on appeal dated 19th February 2016 (Erection of 14no. residential apartments with parking and shared grounds (Revised Proposal)).08/03/2016Condition Discharged
18/02330/FUL .Erection of 5 residential units for student or healthcare worker accommodation and associated works.25/05/2018Pending 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
John Woodcote Second Avenue , Bath, BA2 3NX, , O 19/07/2018: Dear Martin,

This is inappropriate and the applicant is applying a spurious mixture of end user - as these are clearly student cluster flats. A developer looking to pursue such a scheme would be targeting areas within the close vicinity of the RUH. Notwithstanding this and the inherent intensification of highway access / egress in this well known pinch point of Oldfield Park, is having 25 “residents” live here sensible.

Regards,
19/07/2018
Sally Howard 20 Junction Road, Oldfield Park, Bath, Bath And North East Somerset, BA2 3NH O 06/08/2018: Dear Mr Almond,

RE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT AT 43 UPPER OLDFIELD PARK REF 18/02330/FUL

I am writing to protest the proposed development and planning application by the developer Ms Favager.

The sketchy plans are just that- sketches, and surely cannot be counted as a proper submission? There isn’t any reference to materials of the rear elevation neither are there proper drawings detailing height and ground levels. The proposal for zinc roofs is totally inappropriate in this conservation area. Where is the tree survey, because it looks like the proposal ignores the area of the root system of the substantial pine tree which marks the boundary between the developer and her neighbours. This needs to be given special attention surely as the tree is a mature tree and a dominant feature of the conservation area in which it stands.

Personally, I think even in sketch form the proposal is a massive overdevelopment of the site. This a conservation area after all and whatever development is proposed should enhance or preserve the conservation area. This does not.
06/08/2018
Gemma Killick 15 Junction Road, Oldfield Park, Bath, Bath And North East Somerset, BA2 3NH O 07/08/2018: This planning application provides an inadequate amount of detail about the scheme.

There is no specification for any of the materials that might be used for its construction. This is despite the Council asking that any scheme has regard to the character and appearance of its surroundings.

There is no tree survey. The application must avoid the roots to the boundary pine tree. Without a survey it is not even possible to say the site can accommodate the building footprint.

The height of the building is unknown. There are no ground levels for either before or after the scheme or measurements stated for the building itself. This is despite the Council concern over the height of the building.

The distance and relationship between the building and the existing flats is unknown. There are no levels. There is a cross section but where this has been taken isn’t shown. It seems to show the flats parallel to the new building when they are not. Plans do not show the full relationship between the proposal as they exclude much of the existing flats.

Aside from the obvious lack of detail in the submission from the developer, such a development in this location would cause undue stresses on an already over utilized part of the City.

07/08/2018
Bath Heritage Watchdog Not Given O Documents Tab 07/08/2018
Paul Sandford 33 Upper Oldfield Park, Oldfield Park, Bath, BA2 3JX, O 07/08/2018: I am writing to join many others in objecting to this planning application, and am surprised that the application was even accepted given how incomplete it is. Specifically:

(1) Oldfield Park in general is already too overdeveloped and does not need any more high-density housing such as that proposed;

(2) The area of this proposed development, specifically, is too overdeveloped. It was my understanding that this plot of land was specifically not going to be developed by the developer as part of the agreed terms for the development of 43 Upper Oldfield Park. I believe the neighbourhood is much better with this lot undeveloped and properly landscaped, as currently required, to stop the over-development of the area;

(3) I find the style of the proposed development completely inconsistent with the general style of the area. Modern buildings can be attractive, but only when designed to be more complimentary to the area. I do not find this to be the case. I also find the idea of an additional 5 HMOs on this tiny plot the very definition of “over development”;

(4) Most all of the consultants have responded that not enough information has been provided to take decisions, confirming the premature nature of the application being made. Even the proposed “use class” remains unknown, which is incredible, and the Housing consultant called the application our for not being in accord with normal applications of its type;

(5) The application does not have sufficient information regarding specific materials, dimensions, etc to even warrant proper consideration;

(6) I feel the proposed development will prove to add risk to road safety, although the Highways consultant is unable to do any work because of the lack of clarity on use class; and

(7) I have concerns that the Council will not be able to enforce the “no car” concept being proposed, adding more congestion to an otherwise congested area.

I do hope you reject this application.
07/08/2018
Neill Young 3 Junction Road, Oldfield Park, Bath, Bath And North East Somerset, BA2 3NQ O 08/08/2018: I am objecting to this application as this site alongside Junction Road is completely unsuitable for residential development, let alone 5 HMOs housing 25 people as proposed. The plot is already overdeveloped. There are already several HMOs on Junction Road, adding more will harm the community mix along the street, and breach the councils own limits on HMOs in the area. This site is also on a dangerous corner with access onto a busy road.

The proposed use of no car ownership orders is nonsense, there is absolutely no way to prohibit residents from owning cars. The only way to stop them parking here is introduction of a residents parking zone. Junction Road is already full to capacity with cars from residents, commuters parking for the day, visitors to the 2 GP surgeries on the road and students at Norland College, there is no room for more to be added. Quality of life is already badly affected here by excessive parking and traffic, and the council accepting this application would just be making it worse. Norland College students are not meant to have cars, and yet a significant number of students still drive and park in surrounding streets, and their policy cannot be enforced.

Access to the site must not be from Junction Road as this is a dangerous corner with a large volume of traffic already. I walk past the property with my children on the way to and from school every day. Vehicles mount the pavement and speed around the blind corner to the west with alarming regularity. Any access during construction and for potential future residents must be from Upper Oldfield Park, as per the sites address. There must be no access from Junction Road.

Its not clear to me who the residents of this development will be - whomever it is having additional HMOs will affect the community balance - There is no caretakers office or accommodation that I can see, so essentially these residents will be left to themselves, and any promises of their behaviour or means of access should be regarded as insincere. There is also no guarantees provided by the developer that these units will not just immediately be sold on for different usage.

I cannot tell from the plans the size of these buildings or what materials they will be made of. Some of the units seem larger than others. But its obvious to me that they take up way too much of the plot (which is ultimately just 43UoP's garden, and not a location that has ever been developed in the past) and don't have space for amenities that would be needed by 25 residents.

Bearing in mind this is a conservation zone, the architectural quality of the existing block of flats at 43 UOP is very poor, and bears little relation to the buildings around it. There is nothing in these plans to make me believe that these units will be any different.

On top of this the developer has shown a complete lack of respect of the planning process in the past. The existing building at 43UOP was not built to the planning permission granted, and I believe that submission of this application over the summer holidays demonstrates the lack of respect for local residents that this developer has.

The original planning permission for 43UoP had this site as gardens, with no mention of any future development. Residents of Junction Road have had to put up with this developers deceptions and lies for too long, the council should demand the original landscaping plans for 43UoP are put in place and throw this application on the garbage where it belongs.
08/08/2018
Douglas Killick 15 Junction Road, Oldfield Park, Bath, Bath And North East Somerset, BA2 3NH O 06/08/2018: I object on the grounds of housing density and ridiculous suggestion that no parking provision is made nor needed.
The site upon which this scheme is proposed has already put parking pressure on the local vicinity (exacerbated when the flats are fully sold). From memory the section now proposed for development was zoned as garden.
And the development not making provision for parking due to the ridiculous claim that key workers or students don't have cars is simply false.
Junction Road is already dangerous for pedestrian and road traffic due to the extreme levels of local parking caused by the Norland College and nearby Oldfield Surgery, Pharmacy and wellness centre. People routinely double park on what is a hugely busy cut-through road, and more housing will compound an already dangerous road to become worse. It is capitalism gone mad with flagrant disregard for resident safety. The original zoning as garden should be maintained.
06/08/2018
Joelle Davies 17 Junction Road, Oldfield Park, Bath, Bath And North East Somerset, BA2 3NH R 15/08/2018: First of all, we are overwhelmingly surprised that this developer has the gall to proceed with this planning application. The Council knows full well that this road is (1) already overpopulated with accommodation (2) has limited car spaces and the residents of Junction Road are already crying to get clearance for RPZ (3) reporting of unsafe vehicle practises.

Secondly, in terms of what has been proposed there are many objections (1) the proposals will result in overbearing buildings and an unacceptable level of private amenity space for both existing and future residents. (2) the proposals will kill the boundary mature pine tree by encroaching on its roots and branches.
(3) There is no effective means to prevent future occupants of the scheme using a car.
(4) The planning application submission is inadequate and should be refused.
(5) The proposals will have an unacceptable impact on road safety.
(6) this piece of land was meant to be garden space for the existing flats of 43 Upper Oldfield Park, why on earth has this been overlooked?? Isn’t this supposed to be an area of conservation.

On a final note, we have recently put in a planning application for a dormer loft conversion (facing back of our house onto gardens, not seen from the road) and it was rejected TWICE by planning as it was deemed too large and unacceptable for an area of conservation. If this proposal of 5 houses gets accepted by the Council it flies in the face of everything that we have encountered by Planning.
16/08/2018
Gerry And Jackie Newman 18 Junction Road, Oldfield Park, Bath, Bath And North East Somerset, BA2 3NH O 13/08/2018: We are writing to objecting to this planning application as this development is out character for a conservation area. This planning application provides an inadequate amount of detail.

1) The creation of 5 new HMOs would upset the balance of the local community.

2) The plans do not give sufficient information about the size and design of the buildings.

3) The development would create an unacceptable loss of privacy levels both for the properties to the rear of the proposed building and immediately in front.

4) This site is a very busy stretch of B road as well patients visiting an enlarged doctor’s and dentist surgery. There is the Norland Nannies and many young children going to and from the local schools. Adding more residents with no enforceable parking restrictions would have a detrimental impact on road safety. Non-residents & commuter parking is already a major problem, so plans that propose the units to be car free would be impossible to police.

5) The proposed 5 units are of a different design, scale, and relative orientation than the other buildings on that side of Junction Road. As such it conflicts with Local Planning Policy by being detrimental to the character and appearance of the area.

6) There is no specification for any of the materials that might be used for its construction. This is despite the Council asking that any scheme has regard to the character and appearance of its surroundings.

7) It is concerning that the inadequate level of details attached to this application appear inconsistent with the professional obligations of the developer and architect. I request an additional 21-day period of consultation to respond once adequate information has been provided by the applicant.

8) This land was designated for landscaping as part of the agreed terms for the development of 43 Upper Oldfield Park, which has never been implemented. As previously this developer shows complete disregard of the planning decisions.

We object strongly to these proposals and request they are refused
13/08/2018
Simon Jack And Elaine Cavanagh 19 Junction Road, Oldfield Park, Bath, Bath And North East Somerset, BA2 3NH O 06/08/2018: We would like to object to this planning application on the following grounds:
1)The plans do not give sufficient information about the size and design of the buildings.
2)The construction of five new residential units is an over-development of the site. Good quality landscaped gardens in the area where the new development is proposed – as stipulated in the planning consent for the block of flats but never implemented – are necessary to preserve the Conservation Area.
3)There are serious implications for road safety. The position of the units on the corner would create dangers and add to the existing congestion problems in Junction Road.
4)The assumption that there would be no cars associated with the residential units is flawed – health workers in particular often need transport. Even if not using a car was made part of the terms for occupation it would be impossible to police effectively.
5)The impact on the pine tree located close by in the adjacent Norland College has not been addressed.
6)The creation of 5 new HMOs would upset the balance of the local community and could create problems in terms of privacy, noise and visual impact.
If there are new details provided by the developer in future we would like a further 21 days to comment upon them.
06/08/2018
Tim McCombe 20 Junction Road, Oldfield Park, Bath, Bath And North East Somerset, BA2 3NH O 05/08/2018: I object to these proposals and request they are refused.

A set of pre-application proposals were unacceptable to Council officers. The planning application proposals are not substantially different and are equally unacceptable. The minimal particulars in the submission make the application wholly inadequate, but there is sufficient information to conclude that the proposals do not preserve the character of the conservation area and will have a range of unacceptable impacts.

The proposals are an over-development of a backland site. They would result in overbearing buildings and an unacceptable level of private amenity space for both existing and future residents. Contrary to what the applicants say, the proposals do have windows directly facing the block of flats. The building is too close; less than 20m, generally recognised as a minimum between facing two storey dwellings. A greater distance is required when, as in this case, one of the properties has more than two storeys. The submission shows no existing or proposed grounds levels.

This design quality is inadequate. The building height and footprint disregards its context. The pattern of development between the large villas of Upper Oldfield Park and Junction Road is much smaller scale, generally single storey with the use of roof space. This preserves the sense of space around villas and the distinctiveness of each street. The proposals jar completely with this pattern and harm the character of this part of the conservation area.

The proposals will kill the boundary mature pine tree by encroaching on its roots and branches. There is no tree survey, but the site plan shows the significance and broad extent of this tree. On this basis, the building footprint clearly encroaches on it. The submission also does not take account of other trees planted along the boundary that also require protection.

The scheme must be considered as a proposal for an unimpeded general residential use without restrictions on car use or vehicle access. As such, it provides an inadequate standard of accommodation, road safety, private amenity and accessibility. It will have a harmful impact upon its surroundings.

The proposals will have an unacceptable impact on road safety. Current consent severely limits all vehicle access to this site save for exceptional use, for good road safety reasons. The site is positioned on a blind bend with a record of vehicle collisions. As a B road route, Junction Road is well used. This includes many vulnerable road users such as students travelling to and from Hayesfield and Beechen Cliff Schools. Additional on street parking will significantly worsen existing road safety issues and the proposals area contrary to policy ST7 of the placemaking plan.

There is no effective means to prevent future occupants of the scheme using a car. The submission includes no measures that attempt to prevent future occupiers from using cars. Reliance solely on planning conditions and obligations has not been shown to achieve ‘car free development’. They are unenforceable through planning controls and have not been upheld in the Courts. Healthcare workers are highly likely to need to use a car to work shifts out of hours of the operation of public transport. The proposals should have 15 off street parking spaces to meet minimum Council standards. The proposals do not include an alternative car parking management strategy and conflict with policy ST7 of the placemaking plan.

The impact of five additional HMOs has an unacceptable impact upon the social balance of the neighbourhood. Five additional HMOs in an area formally designated as already having a high concentration of HMOs is contrary to supporting the objective of a balanced community. Additional HMOs are incompatible with the character and amenity of established adjacent uses, will significantly harm the amenity of adjoining residents through a loss of privacy, visual and noise intrusion and will create a severe transport impact. The scheme is contrary to the objectives of policy H2 of the place making plan.
05/08/2018 This comment also has associated documents: Documents Tab
Rachel Knight 23 Junction Road, Oldfield Park, Bath, Bath And North East Somerset, BA2 3NH O 05/08/2018: I write in connection with the planning application reference:18/02330/FUL. I have looked at the plans submitted and I know the site well. I wish to object strongly to the development of these houses in this location. My reasons are as follows:

The proposal is an extremely high density of build for such a small site. The addition of five units – 25 extra residents - will overburden an already stressed area.

The site is within a region of the city with high density HMOs (10%+). The proposed units would serve to unbalance an already precarious area.

The development would create an unacceptable loss of privacy levels both for the properties to the rear of the proposed building and immediately in front.

The site itself is on a particularly busy stretch of road due to the unusual make up of amenities in close proximity (surgery, dentist, school, church, Norland Nannies, residents & commuter parking, ‘b road’ status). Adding more residents to this already overstressed site would have a detrimental impact on road safety.

There is no consideration or mention given to the large fir tree on the adjacent property in the current planning application.

The plans propose that the units would be car free, but this is impossible to police. Parking is already a huge problem in the immediate area. Even if the landlord were able to ensure residents remained car free, there would certainly be extra traffic due to visitors, tradesmen and deliveries. Additionally, if the units are to be occupied by health workers, there has been no consideration given as to how they will travel when working antisocial shifts.

In so far as you are able to tell from the limited information provided on the plans, the development as proposed is not at all in keeping with the surrounding area. The modern, heavy design is dramatically opposed to the distinctive character of both Upper Oldfield Park and Junction Road. As such, it would have an adverse effect on the character and appearance of the conservation area in which it sits.

While design issues may be solved by conditions or revised proposals, these could not remedy the siting problem.

05/08/2018
Derek Hood 24 Junction Road, Oldfield Park, Bath, Bath And North East Somerset, BA2 3NH O 05/08/2018: I object to the application 18/02330/FUL based on the lack of accurate information available.
As with the original development in 2007, there seems to be an air of ambiguity surrounding the final use/class of the proposed units. And in compliance with the Place Making Plan the Council has a duty to be diligent in relation to this.
Highways, Housing and Landscaping have all commented that there is not enough information in the submission to comment properly on. Therefor the application submission is inadequate and should be refused.
Car parking, character and design all seem to be at odds with Place Making Plan- see policies D6 and D7 for reference.
Design without any consideration for materials is surely poor design from conception and should not be permitted in a conservation area. Period.
05/08/2018 This comment also has associated documents: Documents Tab
Jane McKim 28 Junction Road, Oldfield Park, Bath, Bath And North East Somerset, BA2 3NH O 06/08/2018: My objections are firstly that Junction Road is too narrow to safely support several new properties and subsequent the increased traffic. The area is a conservation area: in her previous planning application, Ms Faverger had shown the gardens (where she is intending the houses to be) would be landscaped - which went a little way to protect the fact that it is a conservation aree. The buildings in this current application would undermine that previous application approval and again show a disregard for the fact that it is a conservation area. Finally, I don’t believe that Ms Faverger has any intention of using the property for student or healthcare workers- given that she built exactly what she wanted for her previous plan on the same site, despite planning permission having been refused; I think that she will do the same thing again and therefore I cannot see how any further applications made by her can be seen as credible. 06/08/2018
Richard Le Coyte 29 Junction Road, Oldfield Park, Bath, Bath And North East Somerset, BA2 3NH O 07/08/2018: I object to this application.

1) The proposals conflict with the character of the Conservation Area: the proposed 5 units are of a different design (utilising dissimilar materials), scale, and relative orientation than the other buildings on that side of Junction Road. As such it conflicts with Local Planning Policy by being detrimental to the character and appearance of the area

2) It is an overdevelopment of the site: Conditions covering landscaping and protection of existing trees attached to permission granted (on appeal) for the block of flats at the same location were deemed by the Inspector to be "reasonable and necessary" for the same site. To allow this application at the expense of the provision of an appropriate and necessary landscape setting would be irrational.

3) HMOs: It fails Criteria 2 of the HMOs SPD by being within an area with greater than 10% HMOs and is surrounded by other HMOs within 100m on Junction Road, Junction Avenue, Livingston Terrace, Second Avenue, Upper Oldfield Park.

4) Road Safety: Previous conditions for the location declared "The vehicle access/exit from Junction Road shall not be used other than for servicing and emergency vehicles" in the interests of Highway Safety. It is difficult to see how the proposals can be implemented without involving serious disruption to Junction Road and attendant risks to pedestrians and highway users.

5) Parking: The applicant's argument that "anticipated" occupants would be dependent on public transport is specious: The omission of car parking facilities is clearly because there isn't space in the scheme for 5 units of that size with parking. There is nothing to stop potential occupants from car ownership which would add to parking pressures in the vicinity.

6) Poor design: There is a lack of detailed information provided by the applicant when this consultation began & despite some additions it remains lacking. What sketchy plans that are currently available demonstrate that the application neither maintains nor enhances the Conservation Area (see point 1).

It is concerning that the inadequate level of details attached to this application appear inconsistent with the professional obligations of the developer and architect. I request an additional 21 day period of consultation to respond once adequate information has been provided by the applicant.
Many thanks
07/08/2018
Annette Phelps 30 Junction Road, Oldfield Park, Bath, Bath And North East Somerset, BA2 3NH O 15/08/2018: The planning application submission is inadequate and should be refused. I shall look forward to commenting on a complete re-submission in the future. The impact of 5 more HMO's will negatively affect the balance of the neighbourhood as well as the increase in traffic, further pressure on already limited parking, concerns with regards to road safety and a potential decrease in air quality. Furthermore, the current proposals will kill the mature pine tree. 15/08/2018
Richard Wilkinson 31 Junction Road, Oldfield Park, Bath, Bath And North East Somerset, BA2 3NH O 07/08/2018: This scheme is contrary to what was agreed for the site and the conditions on the completion of the recently built block of flats. Landscaping, no new access and re-instatement of the wall to the rear of 43 for example. I cannot see the justification for this scheme to be considered.

A set of pre-application proposals were unacceptable to the Council. The planning application proposals are not substantially different and are equally unacceptable.

Reliance on planning control for ‘car free development’ fails. Healthcare workers will need to use a car to work shifts out of hours of the operation of public transport and should have 15 off street parking spaces. The proposals do not include an alternative car parking management strategy and conflict with policy ST7 of the placemaking plan.

The scheme must be considered as an unimpeded general residential use and therefore provides a wholly unacceptable standard of accommodation, private amenity and accessibility.
07/08/2018
David Edwards 10 Junction Road, Oldfield Park, Bath, Bath And North East Somerset, BA2 3NQ O Documents Tab 07/08/2018
Rupert Baines 11 Upper Oldfield Park, Oldfield Park, Bath, Bath And North East Somerset, BA2 3JX O 17/08/2018: I object to this application for several reasons:

1) Parking. It is not clear from the map where parking access will be (UoP or Oldfield Pk) but either side is bad.
Both roads are already very congested with inadequate street parking.

2) Road access. The property is on a corner and access is already difficult / dangerous. Upper Oldfield Park has the school directly opposite and having more traffic on that corner with cars entering/exiting the property will make the existing congestion on that corner even worse.
Oldfield Park has the Dr and dentist, with similar problems.

3) When permission was granted for Charters in multiple planning meetings there was discussion regarding the size of building overwhelming the size of plot. The developer assured those present that this was the only building. But with this application, the combined building size would now overwhelm the size of plot, and be totally out of keeping with the neighbourhood.

4) Beyond the 'proportion' aspect it is also important to note that in those meetings the assurance was given that there would be no further building. Obviously, this application contradicts those assurances.

5) The existing building is already in breach of planning rules and was built "too big".
It seems bizarre to 'reward' that breach with additional permission.
Was is the confidence that the permission granted this time will be honoured?
(Especially since promise of no further building has been broken).

17/08/2018
Sarah Frere 7 Winchester Road, Oldfield Park, Bath, Bath And North East Somerset, BA2 3LF S 16/08/2018: I live in the imideiate street and I support this application after studying the plan. It will fit in perfectly in the street as a modern version of the houses opposite. It is better to build here than in the green belt. This site is otherwise unused and it will be much more interesting to have some lovely modern architecture.

Sarah Frere
16/08/2018
Ruth Huchrak-Thomas 50 Third Avenue, Oldfield Park, Bath, Bath And North East Somerset, BA2 3NZ S 16/08/2018: I think this new development looks great. We need new housing in the area and these will be please take to look at. I am no planning expert! But it certainly gets my support. Regards Ruth Huchrak-Thomas 16/08/2018
John Yeomans Flat 1, Charters, 43 Upper Oldfield Park, Oldfield Park, Bath, BA2 3LB, S 16/08/2018: Much needed key worker accommodation. In support of the local community for more affordable accommodation for those that give so much to the community 16/08/2018
Hannah Brownell 144 Locksbrook Road, Newbridge, Bath, Bath And North East Somerset, BA1 3EJ O 17/08/2018: Please no more student flats, Bath is over ran with them.. please put a cap on how many flats/houses on each street 17/08/2018
Alun Jones 9 Junction Road, Oldfield Park, Bath, Bath And North East Somerset, BA2 3NQ O 13/08/2018: Proposed Development at 43 Upper Oldfield Park, Ref 18/02330/FUL

I object to this application.

The planning permission granted for the erection of the block of apartments at 43 Upper Oldfield Park was conditional upon (amongst other things)

• The planning and carrying out of landscaping works in accordance with approved details, to ensure the provision of an appropriate landscape setting to the development and to ensure that the approved landscape scheme is implemented and maintained.
However, the current application ignores this condition by proposing to build a terrace of five houses instead of the approved landscape scheme.

• The access from Junction Road shall not be used, in the interest of Highway Safety.
Instead, the Design and Access statement for the current application states that “A drop off zone will be provided at the front of the development for deliveries and unloading etc”, presumably using the access from Junction Road mentioned in the condition (the only possible vehicular access shown on the site plan), thus ignoring the needs of Highway Safety.

Nothing has changed since these conditions were put in place. Indeed, the conditions have been validated in two notable ways:

1) When an earlier application went to appeal, the Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government found the landscaping conditions to be “reasonable and necessary” and the condition relating to the access from Junction Road to be “necessary”.

2) Identical conditions were placed on the later development of Norland College, next door.

There is no good reason why either or both of these conditions should be put to one side, and so the permission granted for the building of the apartment block at 43 Upper Oldfield Park precludes this current application.

This application should therefore be refused for being incompatible with the prevailing “reasonable” and “necessary” conditions.

However, the proposal does raise other objections:

1) The proposed terrace appears to be of five HMOs, of which there are several in the immediate vicinity. This, of course, taps into wider concerns felt throughout Oldfield Park; the application should therefore be judged in accordance with council policies relating to HMOs.

2) The proposed development is located on a blind bend leading to a stretch of single file traffic. I struggle to see how the student residence could be built safely, without a significant adverse impact on residents of Junction Road, through-traffic and passing pedestrians. There won’t be sufficient room on site to accommodate a site office, materials, the many builders’ & trades’ vans etc as well as the building itself, so hazardous parking will inevitably increase during the build. Deliveries to site on a blind bend would be particularly dangerous.

3) Constraints on tenants’ use of cars could not be effectively implemented or policed, and must anyway be questionable for health workers. Since on-site parking could not be provided without contravening the existing condition regarding the Junction Road access, the application would inevitably lead to a permanent increase in demand for on-street parking in and around Junction Road.

13/08/2018
Cllr Ian Gilchrist 24 Horseshoe Walk, Widcombe, Bath, Bath And North East Somerset, BA2 6DF R 13/08/2018: In view of previous controversy attaching to development at this site I have asked that the application be decided by the Development Management Control committee.
13/08/2018
C O'Boyle Upper Oldfield Park, Oldfield Park, Bath, Bath And North East Somerset, BA2 3LB S 13/08/2018: Having examined the drawings I see no reason why this application should not be approved. It is a piece of waste land that can be turned into five homes. Very convenient for the nanny’s College and the Doctor’s Surgery.

Please add my support.

C O’Boyle

13/08/2018
Samuel Croudace Ground Floor Flat, 6 Beaufort East, Lambridge, Bath, BA1 6QD, S 15/08/2018: I would like to support this application as the design is very good and a contemporary interpretation of the Edwardian terraces in the area. It will be a welcome 5 houses in the conservation area. I believe that they are being built with Bath Stone which will enhance the appearance of the street. The land is unused and surplus to requirements, so better to build here than the green belt.
Please approve, Samuel Croudace
15/08/2018
Helen Woodley 11 Junction Avenue, Oldfield Park, Bath, Bath And North East Somerset, BA2 3NJ O 15/08/2018: I wish to object on design grounds. The proposals (ref. 703:04) are alien to the established residential architecture of Oldfield Park. The proposal would fail the 'Bathness' test. If development here is deemed otherwise acceptable, then the dwellings must be beautiful and in keeping with the area: the wider area I mean, not the previously-objected-to monstrosity behind.
It is clear that the design is unacceptable because it is trying to hide itself behind a high wall. It would be hard to find another development in the locality that appears to be too ashamed to face the public realm.
I also wish to support the various other points of objection made on 5 August by Bath Heritage Watchdog.
Thank you.
15/08/2018
Rachael Hushon 4 Lansdown Place West, Lansdown, Bath, Bath And North East Somerset, BA1 5EZ S 15/08/2018: I support the application if the correct bath stone is retained post consent with no diminution of material quality 15/08/2018
Wendy Hood 24 Junction Road, Oldfield Park, Bath, Bath And North East Somerset, BA2 3NH O 15/08/2018: I wish to object to planning application 18/02330/FUL for the following reasons:
The proposed site for development was part of the original garden landscaping for the existing flats and was an integral part of the original application being passed. Junction Road is already overly congested and additional traffic volume would put further strain on parking and traffic flow. It would be impossible to determine whether further HMOs would have car owners as occupants or not. Access to the proposed flats appears to be from Junction Road and not 43 Upper Oldfield Park which would be unsuitable as an access route due to it being a narrow and busy road. Building materials have not been specified and therefore the proposed development cannot be considered as to whether it would meet the requirements of a conservation area. As far as I can see, there is no tree survey but the site plan shows the large size and broad extent of the existing mature tree and its roots and the planned building clearly encroaches upon this.
Wendy Hood
15/08/2018
Mark Curtis 23 Junction Road, Oldfield Park, Bath, Bath And North East Somerset, BA2 3NH O 14/08/2018: I object to the Planning Application 18/02330/FUL due to the lack of submitted information and overall ambiguity of the plans.

The lack of detail, especially regarding construction materials, building height and provision for the bordering tree is a major concern. To consider the application fairly this information needs to be submitted for public comment.

The ambiguity relating to the use of the units is a major failing which is echoed in the design. The proposal to fill an overdeveloped site with undetermined units for an unspecified group of people seems a rushed and poorly considered venture.
14/08/2018
Geoff Andrews 30 Oldfield Road, Oldfield Park, Bath, Bath And North East Somerset, BA2 3NF O 15/08/2018: • I am totally unclear how the developer plans to police the idea that this accommodation is for the sole use of 'key workers'. If for students the council has already refused applications in the recent past for student flats in the nearby Linear Park development because there are enough in the area.
• This application contains so few details of the proposals that it cannot be taken seriously in terms of the height of the buildings, the materials, the treatment of the old wall fronting the site, and anything to do with safeguarding the nearby pine tree.
• Given the daily congestion that already occurs on Junction Road, especially at this point, and the council's own Clean Air Zone proposals which could see an increase in traffic in the road, it seems absurd to contemplate developing this site.
• This site was promised, by the developer, to be developed as the gardens of the flats they built a couple of years ago. So they have failed to keep their word by not creating a garden here, or are planning a garden grab.
15/08/2018
Sanjar Ganiev Flat 12, Charters, 43 Upper Oldfield Park, Oldfield Park, Bath, BA2 3LB, S 16/08/2018: I live closest to this development and look out at tge waste land from my living room window.
The design is fantastic and will improve the street and the conservation area.
It will provide more homes close to the city.
Please add my name to the support.
Sam Ganiev
16/08/2018
Bath Preservation Trust Bath Preservation Trust , 1 Royal Crescent, City Centre, Bath, Bath And North East Somerset, BA1 2LR O 16/08/2018: Object: The Trust objects to this scheme on the basis of the principle of development of this site. Given that the applicant is bound by the duty to complete the landscape plan and planting as per the Condition attached to 14/04547/FUL, we believe that this should be followed through. The secession of the piece of garden to the rear of this large villa is unacceptable and the proposals amount to overdevelopment of the plot with jarring new buildings which will impact harmfully on both the local street scene and the conservation area. This area is characterised by large villas with spacious green garden settings, proportionate to the scale of residential development, and whilst there are rear garages and other backland and mews structures, none take the form of a terrace of bland identical buildings which fails to respond to or reinforce its local context. There can be no comparison with the visual interest and homogeneity of the adjacent Edwardian terraces which are non-designated heritage assets and are worthy of inclusion in an impact assessment. In any case the loss of a green landscaped area which would provide the appropriate and much needed setting and counterfoil for the large villa is an important consideration; it is vital to maintain the character of the conservation area via the retention of local distinctive elements such as large garden plots.
Aside from the principle of development, It is clear that if the scheme is for student units, then it should be refused on the basis that the units as HMO’s they will fail the Stage 1 and Stage 2 test of the current HMO Article 4 Direction as they are in an area of over 10% density. If it is for healthcare workers, then the lack of parking which is crucial for shift workers has not been provided and therefore the scheme should also be refused. There are various other highways, transport and access issues which are not within our remit to discuss but which are covered by other respondees.
Therefore, not only has this scheme a number of fundamental flaws, not least the issue of principle of development itself, and the fact of overdevelopment, but it is also harmful to the conservation area in terms of its design, massing, form and materials (particularly the dominance of zinc which would intrude incongruously upon the streetscene). It would also fail to provide sufficient residential amenity space for the occupants of number 43 Upper Oldfield Park.
On the basis of overdevelopment of a garden plot that contributes to distinct local character this proposal would neither preserve nor enhance the character and appearance of the conservation area and is not worthy of new development in the WHS. The scheme is contrary to the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 and fails to comply with Section 16 (Conserving and enhancing the historic environment) of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), policies; B1, B4 and CP6 of the B&NES Core Strategy and policies; CP6, D2, D3, D5, D7, B4, ST7 & HE1 of the B&NES Placemaking Plan. For this reason we object to this application and recommend that the scheme is refused.
16/08/2018
Margaret Favager Flat 14, Charters, 43 Upper Oldfield Park, Oldfield Park, Bath, BA2 3LB, S 16/08/2018: I am the applicant and my flat where I live directly overlooks the proposed site.
I have consulted with my neighbours and most of them agree that this should be a development site and also prefered that it would be a car free development. I have listened to their comments and acted upon them.
Bath needs more homes and I will be happy to look out on these well designed homes that will be built of Bath Stone.
However the people who comment are usually only the objectors as people who do not object do not comment.
I notice that there are only 29 objections and we have hundreds of immediate neighbours who do not object.

Please approve

Margaret Favager
16/08/2018
Didier Lebrat Flat 12, Charters, 43 Upper Oldfield Park, Oldfield Park, Bath, BA2 3LB, S 08/08/2018: As owner of flat 12 at the Charters I fully support this application which I think
brings significant improvement to this unoccupied space on junction road.
08/08/2018
Eileen Hyde Flat 11, Charters, 43 Upper Oldfield Park, Oldfield Park, Bath, BA2 3LB, S 10/08/2018: This development will provide much needed low cost accommodation in an area with good access into the city area and making good use of an existing brown field site. 10/08/2018
Jon Rolfe Flat 9, Charters, 43 Upper Oldfield Park, Oldfield Park, Bath, BA2 3LB, S 11/08/2018: My living room overlooks the site for these 5 houses.

I would like to support it because it will make great use of this space and create 5 more much needed housing in Bath.

The design seems nice and relevant for the area and will be a welcome addition to our area.

Please approve.
11/08/2018
Joanna Robins Flat 8, Charters, 43 Upper Oldfield Park, Oldfield Park, Bath, BA2 3LB, S 15/08/2018: I own and live in my flat at Charters, which directly overlooks the proposed development site. Having studied the plans carefully I consider this to be a well planned, high quality development which will enhance the conservation area and provide much needed accommodation.

15/08/2018
Mrs England Flat 7, Charters, 43 Upper Oldfield Park, Oldfield Park, Bath, BA2 3LB, S 10/08/2018: Having reviewed the plans, I feel strongly that this application should go through as it provides much needed good standard accommmodation for a local workforce. The design is suitable for the area. Please approve these plans. Mrs England. 10/08/2018
Simon Haselock Flat 4, Charters, 43 Upper Oldfield Park, Oldfield Park, Bath, BA2 3LB, S 13/08/2018: My flat is flat 4 of Charters which overlooks the site in question and I would like to support the planning application on the land at the back of the apartment building. I have looked at the plans in detail and see that a considerable effort has been made to ensure that they are in keeping with the architectural tone of the other properties in the area and are of a very high standard.

The gardens at the back and front of Charters are more than adequate for the needs of the residents and are well planned and maintained. There is certainly no need for any more outside space. Furthermore, the service yard for the waste and garden services are located in the underground carpark. For the waste, large communal bins are kept out of sight in the underground service yard, which provides a more convenient and safer solution than would be the case externally. They also limit significantly the attentions of the large community of marauding sea gulls that frequent the area. Clearly having the garden service equipment in this underground space is also much more convenient and tidy.

As a final point it also seems to me that at a time when residential property of the type proposed is in short supply, a sympathetic development like this not only goes some way to contributing to the alleviation of this shortage but limits the need for building on a green belt alternative. Please approve.
13/08/2018
Laura Yeomans Flat 1, Charters, 43 Upper Oldfield Park, Oldfield Park, Bath, BA2 3LB, S 16/08/2018: Having looked over the plans, I cannot see why there is any objection. My back garden faces this project, it would in fact benefit not only my privacy but will also benefit the community. 16/08/2018
Jim Warren 8 Junction Avenue, Oldfield Park, Bath, Bath And North East Somerset, BA2 3NJ O Documents Tab 05/08/2018
Laura Wilkins 1 Junction Road, Oldfield Park, Bath, Bath And North East Somerset, BA2 3NQ O 06/08/2018: This application should be refused. The site should be a garden as per the original application for 43 Upper Oldfield Park. The site will be accessed from Junction Road not Upper Oldfield Park so at the most basic level the application is misleading.

The developer held one consultation meeting and promised another so that more people could comment. This did not happen.

I am concerned that the proposal is for 5 HMO's in an area where there are already too many and that with the best will in the world, it will be impossible to prevent occupants from bringing cars into an already congested area.
06/08/2018
Simon And Heather Kale 6 Livingstone Terrace, Junction Road, Oldfield Park, Bath, Bath And North East Somerset, BA2 3LE O 05/08/2018: We wish to object to the proposals on the following matters;
1. There is insufficient information to allow a full appreciation of what the proposals comprise and therefore what the effects will be. Information required includes full details of the existing and proposed ground levels across the site, and in relation to the public highway and boundary wall; dimensions to the building, including roof height and length and width of the building; means of surface water drainage; arboricultural report (BS5837); distance of development to the block of flats and other properties to be shown on cross sections; what type of housing is proposed.
2. Incorrect statement in D&AS - The D&AS states there are no trees onsite. This is incorrect, there are trees onsite (*see comment below) and the ability and space for these, which include oak trees, to grow - a necessary requirement of the consented/ built development of flats - will be wholly compromised by the development, which will be far too close to the trees.
3. Character of development not in keeping with Conservation Area - the local character along the north side of Junction Road comprises a series of single, typically detached one storey buildings. The introduction of a terrace as proposed is clearly not in keeping and will neither preserve nor enhance the area.
4. Over development - the proposal for 5 x 3bedroom dwellings with minimal external realm/ garden space, no off-street parking and is clearly overdevelopment.
5. Mature Pine tree on adjacent property - notwithstanding the lack of information submitted, there will be an unacceptable impact on the Pine tree as a result of either construction and/ or the completed scheme.
6. Proposed materials not in keeping - the proposed use of zinc to the roof is unacceptable and not in keeping with the Conservation Area.
7. Parking and vehicle servicing - the site is adjacent to a blind bend and there is no information on acceptable means of providing safe parking and any required servicing. It is noted that 2 of the bedrooms show 2 single beds, suggesting that up to 5 people will be living in each property.
8. HMO - the intention is for the development to be for HMO this is unacceptable. The area already has a very high proportion/ percentage of HMO.
9. The proposals have windows on the north facing facade which will overlook the adjacent garden and property - this is poor design gives rise to impact on residential amenity.
10. The proposals are very similar in terms of apparent height, scale and mass to the very poorly considered and designed proposals presented to the local residents at the pre application consultation exercise. These were wholly rejected in terms of the nature of development, quantum, height, scale and massing, by all the local residents as flawed and unacceptable. As such this planning application is similarly poor and demonstrates, by the applicant and development team, a lack of sensitivity to the location and the local residents.

*existing trees onsite - these were a requirement of a planning condition for the creation of a suitable private garden for the block of flats and to provide some mitigation for the trees previously removed and as an important part of the character of the conservation area. It is noted that some of the trees are, or appear to be dead and should be replanted. It is also noted that the rear masonry wall, partially removed for the construction of the flats has not been fully rebuilt and the garden lacking in features which were shown on the planning drawings.

We would like to be notified of future information regarding this application a would request an additional 21 day period of consultation to respond to that submitted. Thank you.

Regards

Heather and Simon Kale


05/08/2018
Wendy Batt 4 Junction Avenue, Oldfield Park, Bath, Bath And North East Somerset, BA2 3NJ O Documents Tab 08/08/2018
Ashley Baker 7 Upper Oldfield Park, Oldfield Park, Bath, BA2 3JX, O 08/08/2018: The case for refusal has been well made by Derek Hood who has listed the planning policies that this application does not meet and I second and support his comments.
The developer has shown a total disregard for the planning process in the building of "Charters" and I think it should be a consideration by the planning office - whether they can be trusted to build what they promise and abide by the conditions relating to the ongoing administration and use of the proposed houses. The application states:-The development of the Junction Road site would provide 5 residential units for use as student or healthcare worker accommodation. This will be secured by a legal agreement to ensure that the development is not occupied as private residential accommodation.
Given the developers total disregard of the planning process and the planning officers lack of enforcement of conditions imposed on the Charters building it seems likely the developer will ignore any conditions imposed, and even if they are supported by a legal document, the council does not have the resources to enforce them. Experience tells us the developer cannot be trusted to build what was agreed or abide the conditions of who occupies the houses if they did get planning.
Local residents are relying on the planning office to apply planning policy and not be bullied by a small time developer.
08/08/2018
Fiona And Mark Bigwood 37 Upper Oldfield Park, Oldfield Park, Bath, Bath And North East Somerset, BA2 3LB O 08/08/2018: This proposed building would sit on a blind bend.I cannot see how car ownership would be enforced.Healthcare workers on shifts would need parking to enable them to get to unsocial hours shifts and thus would not wish to live here.It would therefore be an HMO in an area which is looking to reduce HMO’s. 08/08/2018
Peter Mulvaney 4 Junction Road, Oldfield Park, Bath, Bath And North East Somerset, BA2 3NQ O Documents Tab 23/07/2018
Clare And Ken Jones 29 Upper Oldfield Park, Oldfield Park, Bath, Bath And North East Somerset, BA2 3JX O 10/08/2018: We wish to object to the proposals on the following matters;
1. There is insufficient information to allow a full appreciation of what the proposals comprise and therefore what the effects will be. Information required includes full details of the existing and proposed ground levels across the site, and in relation to the public highway and boundary wall; dimensions to the building, including roof height and length and width of the building; means of surface water drainage; arboricultural report (BS5837); distance of development to the block of flats and other properties to be shown on cross sections; what type of housing is proposed.
2. Incorrect statement in D&AS - The D&AS states there are no trees onsite. This is incorrect, there are trees onsite (*see comment below) and the ability and space for these, which include oak trees, to grow - a necessary requirement of the consented/ built development of flats - will be wholly compromised by the development, which will be far too close to the trees.
3. Character of development not in keeping with Conservation Area - the local character along the north side of Junction Road comprises a series of single, typically detached one storey buildings. The introduction of a terrace as proposed is clearly not in keeping and will neither preserve nor enhance the area.
4. Over development - the proposal for 5 x 3bedroom dwellings with minimal external realm/ garden space, no off-street parking and is clearly overdevelopment.
5. Mature Pine tree on adjacent property - notwithstanding the lack of information submitted, there will be an unacceptable impact on the Pine tree as a result of either construction and/ or the completed scheme.
6. Proposed materials not in keeping - the proposed use of zinc to the roof is unacceptable and not in keeping with the Conservation Area.
7. Parking and vehicle servicing - the site is adjacent to a blind bend and there is no information on acceptable means of providing safe parking and any required servicing. It is noted that 2 of the bedrooms show 2 single beds, suggesting that up to 5 people will be living in each property.
8. HMO - the intention is for the development to be for HMO this is unacceptable. The area already has a very high proportion/ percentage of HMO.The proposed layout of the buildings is too cramped for five occupants sharing one communal cooking and living space, it is over crowded. 5 sets of kitchen units that include cookers, boilers, fridges sinks does not provide enough prep and storage space for 5 unrelated tenants the majority of which already share a bedroom! It would seem that this is an attempt to build a 2 bed small family homes not key worker accommodation.
9. The proposals have windows on the north facing facade which will overlook the adjacent garden and property - this is poor design gives rise to impact on residential amenity.
10. The proposals are very similar in terms of apparent height, scale and mass to the very poorly considered and designed proposals presented to the local residents at the pre application consultation exercise. These were wholly rejected in terms of the nature of development, quantum, height, scale and massing, by all the local residents as flawed and unacceptable. As such this planning application is similarly poor and demonstrates, by the applicant and development team, a lack of sensitivity to the location and the local residents.
11. Access to the site during development has not been considered on a highly congested blind bend, no driveway or parking or area for placement of waste...overdeveloped.
12. The site was and still should be a garden. All other developments in gardens of property on upper Oldfield Park historically have provided parking and have been single family dwellings. This proposal is too dense and the proposed former application enforcement notice Re landscaping for the site should be enforced, otherwise what was the point of it...I assume the current building doesn’t have planning permission yet so why is a new proposal on the site being considered?

*existing trees onsite - these were a requirement of a planning condition for the creation of a suitable private garden for the block of flats and to provide some mitigation for the trees previously removed and as an important part of the character of the conservation area. It is noted that some of the trees are, or appear to be dead and should be replanted. It is also noted that the rear masonry wall, partially removed for the construction of the flats has not been fully rebuilt and the garden lacking in features which were shown on the planning drawings.

In addition I fully support all of bath heritage comments.

We would like to be notified of future information regarding this application a would request an additional 21 day period of consultation to respond to that submitted.

Regards Clare and Ken Jones
10/08/2018
Jette Baker 7 Upper Oldfield Park, Oldfield Park, Bath, BA2 3JX, O 10/08/2018: I totally object to 18/02330/FUL planning application. What has been submitted by the developer currently gives inadequate details of the intended building. So surely the Planning Office can not agree to further development on this site when no detailed information has been supplied. This leaves it open for this developer to build what she likes as she did with Charters, breaking the planning conditions that were given in the planning consent at the time.

It shows total overdevelopment of the site by this developer. When the ‘Tower Block ‘, Charters, 43 Upper Oldfield Park was built it did not comply to the planning stipulations set out by the Planning office -so I have not doubt in my mind that any stipulations laid out by the planning office this time will also be ignored by this developer! If I remember correctly the land around Charters was to be landscaped gardens with planting as set out by the Planning Office - how can this now be completed changed into a development for 5 houses?? Who will enforce that these houses are only to be occupied by health workers and students without cars?? As if Oldfield Park didn't have enough HMOs already??!!!

No 43 Upper Oldfield Park should be developed as original set out and this application in this conservation area should be turned down with no right to appeal!
10/08/2018
Nikki McCarthy Upper Oldfield PArk, BA2 3JX S 11/08/2018: I cannot really see why anyone would object to much needed key worker accommodation and this seems perfect for Norland nannies. I am especially baffled by the imflammatory email sent round by the Junction Road residents association that shows a complete lack of understanding of the planning process:

. Materials used are not specifically required at this point and will no doubt be requested by the conservation officer.
. Tree survey will be requested by the BANES Tree Officer in due course as part of the process.
. The height of the buildings ARE shown in the plans.
. The distance and relationship to other buildings is also not a requirement on submission, however the drawings actually do show this anyway.
. Drainage and flooding measures will be requested by the related to bodies during the course of the application!

Objectors should be clear that the above are not grounds for objection and should indeed review their reasons for objecting as in my option I cannot see any reason why this shouldn’t be approved?
11/08/2018
Kirstie Rowlandson Garden Flat , 5 Upper Oldfield Park, Oldfield Park, Bath, Bath And North East Somerset, BA2 3JX O 01/08/2018: I believe that the road is too narrow for extra houses to exit onto it. I believe the original planning had the area landscaped and this seems a change of use. When the CAZ is introduced it is highly likely that Junction Road will have increased traffic. Houses built on junction road should have parking as there is little room for parked cars as it is. 01/08/2018