Planning Applications Reference:18/02499/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 Decision
Address of Proposal:32 - 33 Victoria Buildings, Westmoreland, Bath, BA2 3EH
Ward:Westmoreland
Proposal:Provision of new skittle alley, a new community room, provision of new accessible toilets, refurbishment of the public house and the provision of 9 apartments at the Belvoir Castle Bath.
Decision Type:Planning Committee
Planning Portal Reference Number:PP-07033152
Applicant Name:Rengen Development Limited
Agent Name:Mr John White
Agent Address:Studio 160, 3 Edgar Buildings, George Street, Bath, BA1 2FJ, United Kingdom
Case Officer Name:Tessa Hampden
Date Application Received:07/06/2018
Date Application Validated:07/06/2018
Neighbourhood Consultations sent on:18/09/2018
Standard Consultations sent on:14/09/2018
Last advertised on:04/10/2018
Latest Site Notice posted on:04/10/2018
Expiry Date for Consultation :25/10/2018
Actual Committee Date:26/09/2018
For details of this Development Control Committee Meeting please visit the Councils Democracy Website.
Target Decision Date26/10/2018

Documents

ConstraintsAgric Land Class 3b,4,5, Air Quality Management Area, Article 4 HMO, District Heating Priority Area, Flood Zone 2, Flood Zone 3, HMO Stage 1 Test Area (Stage 2 Test Req), Listed Building, MOD Safeguarded Areas, Policy B1 Bath Enterprise Zone, Policy B4 WHS - Boundary, Policy B4 WHS - Indicative Extent, Policy CP9 Affordable Housing Zones, Policy NE5 Ecological Networks, SSSI - Impact Risk Zones
Related Property:32 Victoria Buildings,Westmoreland,Bath,BA2 3EH.
Related Property:Belvoir Castle,32 Victoria Buildings,Westmoreland,Bath,BA2 3EH.
Reference Proposal Application Received Status
08/00732/FUL .Change of use from public house (use class A4) to 3no. residential units (use class C3)22/02/2008Application Withdrawn
08/00735/LBA .Internal and external alterations to include creation of three residential units at the Belvoir Castle Public House22/02/2008Application Withdrawn
09/02699/LBA .Alterations including new signage, proposed lantern, clock, repainting elevations and new casement window23/07/2009Consent
18/02499/FUL .Provision of new skittle alley, a new community room, provision of new accessible toilets, refurbishment of the public house and the provision of 9 apartments at the Belvoir Castle Bath.07/06/2018Pending Decision
18/02500/LBA .Provision of new skittle alley, a new community room, provision of new accessible toilets, refurbishment of the public house and the provision of 9no apartments at the Belvior Castle Bath.07/06/2018Pending Decision

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


Name Address Comment type Comment1 Comment2 Comment3 Date
Andrea Robinson 8 St Peter's Place, Lower Bristol Road, Westmoreland, Bath, Bath And North East Somerset, BA2 3EP O 05/07/2018: As a local resident I applaud the owners of the Belvoir Castle for attempting to improve the site, particularly the community facilities.

However, I am very concerned regarding the complete absence of parking provision for the proposed residential development. The local streets are already overcrowded with parked cars, and this situation can only get worse when the council’s proposed Clean Air charging zone is introduced, as the application site is right at the boundary of it.

The applicant’s agent has attempted to justify the lack of parking provision via the use of an Accessibility Assessment. It is claimed that the Assessment gives the site a value of 62, which, according to B&NES' Parking Strategy, allows the possibility of a 50% or greater reduction to the normally-required amount of parking provision. In this case, the agent is claiming a 100% reduction is justified.

However, there are a number of errors on the Assessment, as outlined below. After correcting the scores accordingly, the Assessment confirms the site as having a value of 56 (not 62 as claimed by the applicant), and therefore the maximum reduction to onsite parking allowed by B&NES' Parking Strategy would be 25–50%.

Accessibility Assessment errors

Criteria 4 “Quality of nearest bus stop”...
Applicant states that the nearest bus stop has “shelter, seating and flag” and therefore qualifies for a “good” rating of 2 points.
Correction: The nearest bus stop is at the east end of St Peter’s Terrace and has neither shelter nor seating. This stop therefore qualifies for a “poor” rating of zero according to the Accessibility Assessment.
(deduct 2 points)

Criteria 6 “Walking distance to nearest railway station”...
Applicant states that Oldfield Park station is less than 400 metres from the site and accordingly awards itself 5 points.
Correction: The closest entrance to Oldfield Park station (i.e., the eastbound platform entrance) is 482 metres from the Belvoir Castle (this does not include the distance down the ramp to reach the platform). This score should accordingly be 3.
(deduct 2 points)

Criteria 8 “Quality of nearest railway station”...
Applicant states that the nearest railway station (Oldfield Park) has “toilets”, “some retail facilities” and a “taxi rank” and therefore qualifies for a “moderate” score of 1.
Correction: In fact the station has none of these facilities and should be rated “poor” (0 points).
(deduct 1 point)

Criteria 15 “Quality of pedestrian facilities”...
Applicant states that the footpath outside the proposed development “is at least 1.5 metres wide” and therefore the application should receive a “good” score of 3 points.
Correction: In fact the footpath here is just 1.14 metres wide, so this score should accordingly be downgraded to “moderate” (2 points).
(deduct 1 point)

Total deductions = 6 points
Correct score = 62–6 = 56 points

A so-called “car free” development would be a disaster at this site and has not been justified.
05/07/2018
Bath Preservation Trust Bath Preservation Trust , 1 Royal Crescent, City Centre, Bath, Bath And North East Somerset, BA1 2LR O 05/07/2018: Object: The Trust objected to the previous iteration of this application, registered under a different address, and we would request that the property history for this site includes the previous withdrawn application so that a proper record of application history is noted. We also understand that heritage assessment has not been amended in light of the additional information discovered by BHW.
Despite the design changes which go some way to a more contextually comfortable scheme, there is little to change our opinion that this scheme is harmful to the listed pub and adjacent heritage assets at Park View. Though we are not viability experts, we continue to be sceptical of the justification given by the applicant that the addition of TEN studio apartments is needed to essentially keep this well-placed pub as financially viable and to provide a community room. In our view this is overdevelopment on a significant scale, without regard for the setting of heritage assets and also harmful to the special historic and communal interest of the public house; which has been in operation for well over 100 years. The loss of both the amenity of the garden and the skittle alley, both of which contribute to the pub offering, should be weighed against the benefits of the development itself, of which we can see little besides developer financial gain, especially in that it does look likely that these units will either be holiday lets or student studios, given the compromised open living space. The community room could be achieved without this level of development occurring on the site, in fact the skittle alley itself is an ideal candidate for this space.
We refute the claim that the overdevelopment in terms of height and massing can be justified due to the nature of the nearby BWR townscape. The immediate area of this scheme is the most important element to focus on, namely Victoria Buildings and Park View. The proposed scheme, regardless of its nominal separation to the primary listed building, is too high and of a massing that dominates the surrounding heritage assets, it is not subservient in any way but instead is an oppressive and discordant element that sits high and wide on the site, piggy backing a heritage asset, obliterating any sense of the historic group (pub, skittle alley, beer garden) and further reducing the ability of the pub to offer space and outside amenity in an already built up area. A high level of harm is also caused to the setting, views and outlook of Park View and we are very concerned by this. The use of a dockside design idiom is also out of place. In our view, the character of the emerging urban townscape in this area provides much justification for NOT developing this pub site, as to retain the openness, human scale and sense of place of this historic site ensures that a welcome breathing space remains in a heavily developed urban landscape.
We are not in principle opposed to some form of residential development on this site, but in our view it should be much reduced in scale, height and amount, it should seek to retain and respect the special historic and communal interest of the historic skittle alley and the setting of both the pub and Park View; ideally a more spacious pub garden should be retained to ensure the pub can service the needs of its clients.
In short, we see little in this revised application which overcomes our previous concerns regarding the overdevelopment of this historic site and the apparent lack of reference or respect for the setting of heritage assets. Arguably the scale of harm to the setting of Park View and the historic skittle alley could be substantial. The proposed scheme by virtue of its design, height and massing would be harmful to designated heritage assets and their setting, would neither preserve nor enhance the character and appearance of the conservation area, would be detrimental to the visual amenity of the street scene and would detract from the special qualities of the WHS. The scheme would be contrary to Section 12 (Conserving and Enhancing the Historic Environment) of the NPPF, policies B1, B4, and CP6 of the B&NES Core Strategy and policies CP6, D.1, D.2, D.5, D.7, HE1 of the Placemaking Plan. We would therefore recommend the application be withdrawn or refused.
05/07/2018
Carol England 2 Worcester Park, Larkhall, Bath, Bath And North East Somerset, BA1 6QU O 13/07/2018: I am totally against the plan to build these apartments. They would tower over the back of my garden at 5 Park View. Far too close to the rest of my property. They would block the light, on my Primary Amenity. The front garden at the Western side of my house has already been spoilt , since Crest Nicholson were allowed to demolish the railway embankment at the rear of the terrace.
Three, five and six Park View were bought by Christopher Hill, over forty years ago, to save the terrace from being demolished. What an appalling thought that this pretty terrace of houses were going to be pulled down. Mr Hill went on to do a lot for the preservation of these houses, including repairing and restoring the Anderson shelter in the garden of number three. I sincerely hope that the thoughts and facts outlined will be taken into consideration by the planners in due course. Carol England
13/07/2018
S. Walker 8 Churchlands , North Bradley, BA14 0TD O 21/07/2018: After seeing a leaflet posted through letter boxes around the area " help save the Belvoir Castle Pub" I decided to look at the proposals to refurbish as I am all in favour of retaining traditional Public houses in Bath. After all how may have we lost in the city over recent years?

The lower Bristol Road area has recently and still is undergoing tremendous change due to numerous Student accommodation blocks and the massive Crest Nicholson development on the Old Stotherts & Pit site and the demolishing of the Pitman Press. Therefore how refreshing to see some of the original character is to remain and as The Belvoir Castle is a listed building why should it not survive? Important buildings need to be retained and maintained in original condition on this important busy route into the City. Fortunately we have Brougham Hays, Victoria buildings and Park View listed status dwellings.

I have enjoyed many skittle matches over the years at The Belvoir and by far this is one of the most respected, characterful and discussed alley in Bath. It was flooded many years ago which caused the wood to warp resulting in the tremendous cambers it retains until this day. This skittle alley is legendary, is of historical interest and has listed status. To alter it would be criminal.
(The lower Bristol road area was always vulnerable to flood, and is unfortunately put back at risk by lowering of flood defence embankment at Victoria bridge as witnessed December 2012 )

If the Pub wishes to increase and maintain a sustainable revenue stream why not refurbish the room retaining the original alley and develop the room into a function room that could even be offered as private hire. With suitable sound proofing a great music venue could be possible? Outside, the pub has a secluded garden area which could be semi enclosed subject to planning approval that many city pubs would treasure. With the aforementioned massive Crest Nicholson site, close proximity Student blocks and local residents surely trade can be encouraged.

It is therefore very disappointing to see proposals to demolish the existing skittle alley and build bland accommodation purely for profit as I see it, not as a means to sustain a revenue flow. Surely bar sales provides a sustainable cash flow for a pub. This is over development to say the least.

Personally, I feel this development would not benefit the Pub, in fact I think it may well have a negative effect, upsetting locals is not a good plan for a local pub!

Therefore I object to the current proposal to significantly alter the existing structure and build new accommodation for reasons listed:-

1. Demolishing of a listed structure.
2. The current proposal is over development and out of character.
3. Dwellings at risk of flooding.
4. Vehicular parking is not being proposed for new dwellings, increasing congestion on adjacent streets.
5. Access for Service vehicles Refuse / Recycling etc not suitable.
6. No consideration for adjacent dwellings (Park View)


21/07/2018
Seher Martin 1 Park View, Lower Bristol Road, Westmoreland, Bath, Bath And North East Somerset, BA2 3EJ O 23/07/2018: Not only this development would intrude on my privacy but also the noise; people smoking in the garden, would take away my only airspace/peace in the garden. The noice,closness of the community room, extention of the new skittle alley, light from appartment 1-single story- and from community room windows would take away my only privacy -as I only have one small patio garden-, not to mention the historical value of the skittle alley being violated. 23/07/2018
Malcolm Lippiatt Greystones, Ashton Hill, Corston, Bath, Bath And North East Somerset, BA2 9AR S 13/07/2018: Excellent scheme. Retains the important local social asset of the public house, meeting facilities and skittle alley and provides much needed affordable accommodation in a highly sustainable location. The existing building is a total eyesore and something has to be done with it before it falls down. The proposal would bring it into line with its new surroundings and compliment both the listed buildings to the Lower Bristol Road frontage and the new developments springing up in this part of our City. When you look at several current developments being constructed nearby this proposal really looks good and has great merit. I would urge the planning authority to approve the scheme. 13/07/2018
James Lee The Old Schoolroom, Denmark Road, Twerton, Bath, Bath And North East Somerset, BA2 3RE O 18/06/2018: too many units,on the limited site.No provision of parking spaces.Students do have cars these days! 18/06/2018
Edward Tyler Flat 3, 26 The Paragon, Walcot, Bath, BA1 5LY, S 19/07/2018: I take issue with the assumption that a line on a photograph of the skittle alley is "evidence" of there being a tide mark/flood damage. The line is not level with the dado rail. The line is caused by a build up of paint around what used to be a shoot to return balls from the end of the skittle alley. The line goes downwards, and therefore does not reflect lying water.

I also have to challenge the inference that the current Landlords have deliberately neglected the Belvoir Castle. I was there when Steve and Claire took on the pub (5 years ago) and every effort was made to look after the property. The comment that previous Landlords achieved profitability does not take into account that Pubs were much busier historically, and its viability came through opening at antisocial times, and being very noisy. The love which needs to be put back into the Belvoir Castle, is not through any sort of negligence over the last 5 years, but will have come through decades of previous Landlords choosing profitability over reinvesting back into the Pub's fabric. Steve and Claire are actively trying to do this so to preserve the Belvoir Castle's character and historical context. If the Pub does not survive then neither will the skittle alley, and I consider it a slur to suggest that Steve's and Claire's keenness to provide a community room is not about provision for the local community. People may not like the plans but there is no need to get personal.

I also have to take issue with negative tones towards students. I can categorically say that Bath Students contribute extensively to the local community. Yes, they may come and go but no more or less than those who have come to Bath from overseas to work in our restaurants, bars and hospitals. They all contribute extensively to the local economy and its culture. If anyone would prefer to avoid such "transience", then they should live in towns or cities without Universities, and without the prosperity they bring.

Fair play to what Steve and Claire are trying to achieve with the Belvoir Castle. Anyone less scrupulous would have gone for a change of use for the site as a first choice, rather than a means of last resort, and if the Belvoir Castle has to close - and instead, for example, becomes a residence - then the skittle alley's significance and listing will go with it also. The current Landlords are bending over backwards to undertake the difficult task of trying to please everyone, so to preserve the Belvoir Castle's future, and I sincerely hope that a project is approved of which is able to be the most positive outcome for all interested parties.
19/07/2018
Jane King 22 Victoria Buildings, Westmoreland, Bath, BA2 3EH, O 23/07/2018: I object to the plans submitted for 32-33 Victoria Buildings. It proposes an overdevelopment of a small plot. The new proposal is even higher than the previous proposal and would tower above and dominate over Park View destroying the privacy of the residents living there.
The Skittle Alley is part of the Grade 2 listed building and now a separate entity, hence should also be protected under the Planning (Listed Building and Conservation Areas) Act.
23/07/2018
Louise Betts 29 Denmark Road, Twerton, Bath, Bath And North East Somerset, BA2 3RE O Documents Tab 05/07/2018
Susan Walker Not Given. O Documents Tab 19/07/2018
Georgie Strube 61 Abinton Avenue, NN1 4PB O 29/06/2018: It frustrating and stressful to find that we are having to fight this application again. I have already put my objection in the previous application so it seems a bit pointless having to write it out all over again (I'll apologise in advance for the repetition) but some of it is included underneath.

Dear reader, this isn't about a bunch of residents spoilt for their incredible views, light and space; we lost those things many moons ago. I used to own a little house 'tucked away' down an alley. I used to turn off the busy road and walk down towards a quiet bank of green. It really was a little hideaway/haven. That's already all gone. We don't have views, our gardens are small, the rear east ones smaller. Our privacy at the front has been lost: the green bank with trees and birds is now a car park with huge buildings beyond. Now we are having to defend our only area of privacy at the back of the houses. For those that don't know the area, come and see our situation: a path runs the full length of the houses at the front and obviously offers no privacy whatsoever. You can perhaps imagine why we don't want to lose what little privacy and 'feeling' of space, we have at the back.

I mention feelings because they are important. Our physical and mental health is affected by our feelings. Our gardens at the back are small but offer some degree of privacy and somewhere to relax with friends if you don't feel like engaging with the neighbours etc at the front. We will lose this if the development is allowed to proceed. We will lose that feeling of space and privacy. How hemmed in must we be? I'm baffled why anyone thinks that's this proposal is a good one and that we won't mind simply because they think our back (east) gardens are secondary use. They are not. I don't want to lose the sky we currently see and the space we currently feel. I don't want to lose the wall that separates our boundary- the current fencing is not being maintained. This is not about provision for the local community, it is simply about profit. If there was any consideration about the community the pub and skittle alley would have been maintained - why is it in such a state of disrepair? It seems to have been deliberately neglected. The skittle alley has a wonderful history and was a very popular when I was living at park view. The pub doesn't need a new skittle alley - fix the old one - retaining the character and history of the building.

One other concern I have is the effect of 10 studios sold to individual young people and how that will affect our community. At one point 3 of the 6 houses in park view were rented out to students. It was a transient place at the time, with students coming and going and not interested or having the time/longevity in contributing to their local community. I'm concerned that feeling may be the same for the young people living smack bang up against our back garden walls and how that will affect us.

Some of my previous statement below.
Both gardens are primary amenity space if you are are resident in Park View. When my daughter was little the East garden was the primary outdoor space used daily in the summer as it was a safe, enclosed area for my daughter to play. Furthermore, one particular feature which seems to have been overlooked is that we get the afternoon sun in the back garden - a feature that will be quashed with the increase in height of this building.

The East gardens are not ‘much larger’ - they’re bigger but have a communal path running along the front of all our houses so are not private or attached to the house. When guests come to the house we sit in the back gardens as these are private and at the moment not overlooked! If we have a party/barbecue etc we do this in the back (west) garden so they are certainly not as suggested by the pub as ‘secondary’ rather unused areas that require less light!

If there was consideration for the community there would at least have been a mix of accommodation. It is suggested that these studios are going to be sold to first time buyers? Where are they gong to park? When the development went ahead for the Wester R. D. we negotiated parking for all residents of park view and victoria buildings - we were desperate for somewhere to park! Despite the proposed site being described as highly sustainable it should be noted that I the 2011 census data is obviously approaching 7 yrs out of date. There used to be parking for the public by Twerton Infants School but this was altered to timed use a few years ago as the parking became an issue for the school: commuters were using the spaces, there was no room for parents to pick up and drop off children. This is a very busy area so it is something that I feel should be looked at in a little more detail. Access should also be considered - it’s all double yellow lines in that area so no stopping or parking short term outside their studio which I’m sure they will need to do.

The distance to redbridge is 5 m. But that doesn’t mean it is 5 m from us. It is considerably further away and therefore much less imposing but Yes Redbridge does take light away from our gardens (we can’t enjoy a sunset because of this building) and now we have a new building proposed that will affect our afternoon light for sure. The newly proposed building is much closer therefore increasing the depth of shadow from the buildings but according to developers that doesn’t matter as our back gardens are secondary - this is incorrect.

It would be great if the pub simply updated its current facilities but to turn it into a housing complex as well is I feel totally innapropriate for this particular site. The location is not good and clearly the development will have a very negative physical and psychological affect on the current residents of Park View.

29/06/2018
T Cartwright 6 Park View, Lower Bristol Road, Westmoreland, Bath, Bath And North East Somerset, BA2 3EJ O 09/07/2018: My house which has windows that face to the north, is at the end of the Park View terrace next to the Riverside apartments currently being built by Crest. When this development is finished it will considerably affect our house which means that if this new proposal Belvoir Castle is passed there will be an increase in the general noise and disruption levels that we are already living with . However, my main objection to this application is that it is going to massively encroach and impact on my house and primary amenity which is my rear garden. This will remove any sense of space around the house, reduce the light in the house and garden as well as spoil the air space of my property. The proposed buildings are so high compared to our small home and will have an adverse effect upon the residential amenity of our property. The proposed development would be facing my rear garden which is definitely my primary and only private space due to the fact that my front garden is open to being overlooked by Park View, Victoria Buildings and Riverside properties as well as being separated from my house by a public footpath leading to Lower Bristol Road. To conclude I believe that the size and shape of the proposed buildings will completely over shadow Park View houses which is totally unacceptable and will ruin one of the oldest residences in the area. 09/07/2018
Susan Walker 4 Park View, Lower Bristol Road, Westmoreland, Bath, Bath And North East Somerset, BA2 3EJ O 17/07/2018: I remain STRONGLY OPPOSED to the proposed development described in this application. This is a resubmission of an application originally put forward in September 2017 but withdrawn by the applicant. The proposed Scheme is STILL not the correct one for meeting the stated aims of “saving the pub” and of providing a disabled accessible community space within the Westmoreland Ward.

One of the key factors in creating a community space with 21st century facilities is in the provision of sufficient WCs including wheelchair accessible ones. But the proposal actually would DECREASE the amount of toilets available to the pub’s customers and community groups attending meetings and other functions! The existing skittle alley ALREADY is wheelchair accessible via the side entrance on Midland Road. Putting additional (and accessible) WC facilities in the outbuilding as part of a general refurbishment of the space would benefit the community groups that use the meeting room AND the teams that use the skittle alley. These improved facilities might also encourage more teams to use the skittle alley, since the game continues to be a popular past-time in the City. (Alternatively, WCs could be sited in a small extension to the outbuilding at its northern end near the boundary wall.)

Bath Heritage Watchdog in its 2018 Objection Comment continues to be concerned about a “Trojan Horse” development, particularly in the absence of clarity as to whether the building owners or the developers made the initial approach for this scheme. I, too, am aware of this possibility but am also very conscious of the fact that the pub business is currently being marketed for sale (and has been since the planning application was first presented in September 2017).

The human scale of the historic site encompasses the pub and its outbuildings as well as the houses of the artisans who might once have been “regulars” at the pub. Bath Heritage Watchdog has mentioned Joseph Sparks who took over the pub in 1862 and definitely brewed his own ale. The deeds to my house include mention of someone associated with Park View who worked as a brewer (and, maybe, worked with Sparks?). This is the sort of detail that constructive interaction with neighbours could elicit, building on the history and heritage of the Belvoir Castle and its environs – and a possible marketing tool for the future.

Currently, this plot within the Conservation Area remains an OASIS within the frenetic building work proceeding apace to the south (Bath Press site) and to the north (Bath Riverside, in particular the B40 apartments immediately adjacent to the pub and the Park View terrace). The surrounding areas along the Lower and Upper Bristol Roads have a myriad of new developments (agreed and planned) that will provide HUGE NUMBERS of homes and business spaces for the growing population. Do we really need a mere 10 additional (student) apartments if that means the loss of unique historical detail?

As a resident of Park View, I am particularly concerned about the lasting effect on this small corner of the Conservation Area should planning permission be granted. I would like to remind everyone of what has happened to the area immediately adjacent to this proposed scheme. Permission granted to Crest Nicholson has resulted in the removal of the railway embankment, destroying any sense of the cosiness and seclusion enjoyed by former generations of the residents of Victoria Buildings and Park View. After being granted permission to continue the row of townhouses along Stothert Avenue, Crest had “second thoughts” and the result is the B40 apartments (currently being constructed). These apartments will not only take up the remainder of the south side of Stothert Avenue but also continue down Midland Road to within a very short distance of the boundary with the pub and Park View. A reminder of how the northern end of the plot used to look in 2009 may be had by looking at some images in the “Bath Pubs and Bars” archive. [See bathpubs.co.uk/260/archive/victoria-works/ which shows a view of the skittle alley along Midland Road when the railway embankment was still in place.]

Like in September 2017, I have detailed comments that I wish to make about the application. My Supporting Statement (SDW SS4) details how the applicant repeats their perverse interpretation of primary amenity (an obviously crucial part of their case in seeking to justify building so close to the rear of Park View). In addition, the applicant continues to rely on outdated information in several of the reports submitted since they have not updated the Heritage Statement or the Ecological Assessment Report.

The short term cost of funding the community amenities in the pub is intended to be covered by the residential aspect of this proposal, but the revamped scheme is no better than the first suggestion made in September 2017. The long term cost would be paid FOREVER by the residents of Park View (who would see the charm of their homes removed) and by the wider community in Bath (through loss of an important historical site which provides valuable reminders of the area in the past). That’s not a fair quid pro quo, and far too high a price for the residents of Park View to be expected to pay for their local community.
23/09/2018 This comment also has associated documents: Documents Tab
Anne Donnelly 3 Park View, Lower Bristol Road, Westmoreland, Bath, Bath And North East Somerset, BA2 3EJ O 23/07/2018: I STRONGLY OBJECT to the proposed plans for development of Belvoir Castle 32-33 Victoria Buildings BA2 3EH; Application 18/02499/FUL. Note much of this was stated in application Ref 17/04265 which was previously withdrawn by developer. Although developer states they have dealt with comments in previous application this is not the case. No consultation has happened with the Parkview residents that are within a few meters of this development. We own these listed buildings.

The proposal to build 10 dwellings on this small site is not a viable or fair solution, to obtain capital to redevelop the public house. This development will serious diminish the standard of living for the immediate community of Parkview residents including my house in 3 Parkview. There are six Grade II listed dwellings on Parkview, this proposed development will overlook and overshadow all these properties. As a qualified Engineer in my view this will significantly impact daylight in these properties.

Key Reasons for objections;

1. Loss of primary amenity for my house in 3 Parkview and the other residents of Parkview. Other reasons for objection include; overlooking, loss of daylight, loss of privacy noise, disturbance and overshadowing. Reference points 2/3/4/5 for further explanation.

“Development is 5-6m from kitchen window and backs onto the boundary of my small garden-my primary amenity”. It is approx. 4 times the height of the current skittle alley and as they are extending foot print it is much closer to my home. Note the developer as not included key distances to Parkview or elevations from the Parkview side, excluding height and distances.

Location of development in relation to Parkview
2. This development is backing onto the boundary of my back garden which is my primary amenity and my only private space. This is where I hang my washing and sit and enjoy the garden and view.
The boundary is 2-3 feet wall with temporary wooden fencing. This will destroy my privacy and present a security risk. Up to 20 people (10 bedsits including resident and partner) would be coming and within meters of my home.

3. The developments external walls 5-6 meters from my kitchen window and within a meter of my garden boundary. The main entrance of 2 of the bedsits is less than approx. 1 meter from my back garden. I have 5 windows would look onto this proposed development. This will significantly impact my quality of light, privacy and cause overshadowing. Again developer has not included key distances or Parkview in key drawings.

Blocking of day light and overshadowing (Reference PPS 7 Annex A; Overshadowing/Loss of Light)

4. In the previous planning submission support it incorrectly states that Redbridge house already overshadows the property. Redbridge house is located 30m from my kitchen wall, whereas this development is approx. 5m from my kitchen wall. As a qualified engineer I can confirm that it will significantly block SUNLIGHT, overshadow and loss privacy.
Parkview being of standard Georgian design, does not get substantial daylight, this will serious inhibit the day light we currently enjoy. This impacts 5 windows and light in my kitchen, dinning/living area and double bedroom upstairs. This will block light to an unreasonable amount and significant impact my ability to enjoy daylight in my home. I suffer from SAD Syndrome so this development has potential to impact my health.

5. Unacceptable high density/over development of sight. The sight is now overtaking the entire garden of pub and backing onto and overlooking Parkview residents.

6. Negative Impact to Listed building/Conservation Area and on character of area. The Belvoir castle and its adjoining skittle alley are listed buildings which enhance the character of the areas and are part of a conservation area of Bath a world heritage city. The skittle alley has a lot of history and is part of the heritage of this area. Demolishing the existing skittle alley is unacceptable as it is part of a listed building. This would diminish character of area. They very much blend with grated 2 listed dwellings in Parkview and the adjoining lower Bristol road. The redbrick of skittle alley complements and echoes the design of the World War II bunkers in Parkview gardens, forming part of the charm and character of the area. This is one of the reasons I enjoy the view from my kitchen window.
The poor ascetics of the bedsits are not in keeping with it’s immediate area which is a conservation area.

Note also there is evidence that the guttering on Skittle Alley has not been maintained- why is it acceptable to allow a historic building fall into disrepair?

7. The proposed development is over-bearing, out-of-scale and out of character in terms of its appearance compared with existing development of listed buildings in Parkview and lower Bristol Road.

8. Light pollution to Parkview residents- impacts 5 of my windows.

9. Pressure on Parking. There is no way to enforce residents to use cycles. Therefore there will increased pressure on parking in this area.

10. Overcrowding and a fire risk. Could be up to 20 people in this small area. 10 residents and partners. 10 kitchens in a confined space is a serious fire risk.

11. Loss of natural buffer.

12. Potential flooding. It is reported there is a historic well on this site.

I appeal to you that my objection will be carefully considered, and the position of the Parkview community will be understood. This is my first home and I relocated to Bath to enjoy the historic charm this city brings, my home and the surroundings capture this historic narrative. I work hard to keep my period property maintained.

The proposed development would gravely change my quality of life enjoyed in my home and the feel and look of this historic artisan area.

We do wish the pub success and I feel there are many other ways they could fund this project. I also acknowledge there are other community facilities in this area which have access to ground floor toilets. The pub is not an inviting place for the local community in fact there are derogatory signage inside which are insulting and upsetting to females. Completely unacceptable in this day and age!

I also note currently on Rightmove the pub lease is for sale and claims it’s very financially viable- which throws into question the statements made in this planning application.

Other point to note despite, flyer campaign by the pub and articles in several local papers, there is no community support for this venture

Please contact me if you need to discuss further. The planning officer is most welcome to visit my home to understand perspective of the home owners of period properties on Parkview.

Best wishes
23/07/2018
Thomas Chapman 2 Park View, Lower Bristol Road, Westmoreland, Bath, Bath And North East Somerset, BA2 3EJ O 23/07/2018: I wish to object strongly to the planning application. I am a resident of Park View.
The revised proposed development of the 10 no studio apartments is far too large in scale and overbearing.
This will have an extremely negative impact on the surrounding listed buildings. It will dominate both The Belvoir Castle itself and Park View. In my mind there can be no doubt about this.
The Belvoir Castle and the surrounding 19th Century artisan cottages of Park View are a fragile surviving collection of early Victorian buildings that are listed and in the conservation area. Insensitive development such as the proposed will severely damage the heritage values of this site. The proposals seek to remove part of this fabric completely by the demolition of the skittle alley – the oldest surviving structure of this kind in Bath. I don’t believe this proposal is justifiable - as proper investment in the pub and the right management should make the pub profitable and secure its future without ruining the surroundings.

The development will have an extremely negative impact on the quality of life of the residents at Park View. Our small back gardens (only about 5 metres long) are our primary private outside space that relate to the kitchens and living areas of the houses and this is where residents sit and enjoy their gardens, hang out their washing, and socialise with other neighbours and friends. The proposed buildings are extremely high and are built close to the boundary reducing views, cutting out light, and will completely dominate the space. The planning statement implies that they will have no more of an impact than Redbridge House. This is obviously nonsense – Redbridge is much further away and although being particularly unsightly, does not have anywhere near the overbearing impact this proposal will have on Park View. The proposal (still) seeks to argue that the front gardens are our primary outside space (Planning statement 5.10.5). I am particularly aggrieved that they are continuing with this line as it is not correct. The front gardens are separated from the houses by a footpath that leads into the Riverside development, and is freely accessible to anyone from the Lower Bristol Road. These front gardens are not private spaces – the back gardens are. The proposals show the complete lack of consideration to residents at Park View. As with the previous application this is shown in the drawings and statements – as the impact on Park View and any possible mitigation is pretty well ignored. Everyone who lives in Park View lives here because they love and enjoy the character of the street and its surroundings – make no mistake - this proposal will severely affect the lives of the residents of Park View.

The whole proposal has been promoted as an opportunity to save The Belvoir Castle Pub. However I believe the primary objective is to make money from the development. The title should start ‘application to build 10no studio apartments etc.’! The owners have had the pub for a number of years now and very little effort seems to have been made to upgrade or maintain the buildings at the rear leading to their current sad dilapidated appearance. If this application is about saving the pub then no evidence has been supplied that I can see to confirm that the pub is not profitable (something that would be expected if change of use was being applied for – and in a way converting part of the property to a different use is change of use - isn’t it?). The pub is located in an area with a large residential catchment– this has been added to enormously with the Riverside development. In my opinion the pub should be seeking to improve profitability by providing an improved service for its potentially massive community ( its easy to argue that the pub business is difficult in these times etc. But we all know pubs that have become profitable by the right management and offering the community a good product). Investment in the pub should be focused on this – not on getting quick profit from a development that will have a negative impact on the pub and its surroundings and could well reduce viability in the long term. The proposal reduces significantly the amount of outdoor space the pub has to be used as a beer garden - an area of future potential if this was made to be attractive. The potential of the existing skittle alley is also lost – currently it hosts live bands etc and again has potential to be used for more community and entertainment events that will attract more custom. The proposal seems like a classic ‘Trojan Horse’ development and I would not be at all surprised if in a few years time an application for change of use was made citing lack of viability! The correct course of action in my opinion is that the owners should sell the pub to an operator who is willing to make the necessary investment to turn the pub into a popular profitable venture valued by the community while retaining its character and surroundings – not ruining them.

Furthermore the idea of car free housing is admirable – but we all know the reality – at least some of the residents will own cars and will park them in the unrestricted parking on the other side of the Lower Bristol Road – increasing an already overburdened area.

Thomas Chapman

23/07/2018
Gavin Hyde 44 Corinthian, Midland Road, Westmoreland, Bath, BA2 3FT, O 23/06/2018: I object to this proposed development, It is too much of an over development for a small plot, Whilst I recognise the need for a way for the Pub to generate income and develop the site. This is too much.
I also object due to the lack of provision for parking spaces. It is not realistic to say to the tenants/owners of these apartments if built that they can not park there. Maybe they should reduce the number of units to put car parking on the ground level?
Midland Road along the stretch directly outside this proposed building is double yellows, which means parking will be pushed up into the main riverside development that is already congested.
MIdland Road has already seen extensive development and is already subject to contentious parking practices, Being a highway it is somewhat of free for all. People on the riverside site park all along it and on pavements. When Crest Nicholson finish there works this is only going to get worse with more people parking on the road /pavements as no permits or tickets are required. They have for the time being installed red and white bollards to allow construction lorries access without having to risk hitting parked cards but once removed it will again be a long car park.
There is also the issue of when the new destructor bridge opens how these apartments will fit into the plans of maybe making Midland Road one way upto Stothert Avenue. As Midland Road at the site of this application is very narrow it could cause issues for police vehicles entering and leaving the police dispatch depot on MIdland Road above Kia.
Additional cars could cause congestion.
This entrance is also used for Kia/Ford garages and is very congested. You struggle to get more than one vehicle along the route.
There is also the issue of the new school that is supposed to be built on The riverside development, as it stands this will be between Kia and the Riverside energy centre, This could generate large numbers of vehicles and children into a condensed and crowded area. This will further magnify any impact this development has.

The planning team should in my view consult with The Police to ascertain if this would impact their ability to respond quickly to incidents as if people did park outside it could cause issues for vehicles.
Banes planning dept, should liaise with The Highways team to ascertain how the new destructor bridge and proposed opening will impact on traffic directly in front of the proposed building. Likewise the developers should have to explain fully how the lack of parking will be addressed. If sufficient attention is not given to the lack of parking then I would expect interested parties will almost certainly seek judicial review as there are many failings in this application.
23/06/2018
Transistion Bath 19 Maple Grove, Oldfield Park, Bath, Bath And North East Somerset, BA2 3AF O 14/06/2018: The application doesn't conform with B&NES policy SCR1 (10% renewables) and doesn't contain a Sustainable Construction Checklist. Our understand is that because this application is for 10 dwellings of more it is therefore an invalid application.

Could B&NES please state why this application was accepted if key documents are missing?
14/06/2018
Bath Heritage Watchdog Not Given. O Documents Tab 27/06/2018