Planning Applications Reference:19/01854/OUT

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

View Further Information
Type of Application:Outline Application
Status:Pending Consideration
Address of Proposal:Hartwells Of Bath, Newbridge Road, Newbridge, Bath, BA1 2PP
Ward:Newbridge
Proposal:Outline application with all matters reserved except for access and layout comprising the demolition of the existing buildings on the site; construction of replacement buildings ranging in height from 3 to 5 storeys providing a mixed use development comprising up to 104 residential units (Class C3 Use), up to 186 student bedrooms (Sui Generis Use), and a commercial retail unit (flexible A1/A3 Use); formation of new vehicular access from Newbridge Road, construction of new access ramp, and provision of vehicle parking spaces; provision of new shared bicycle and pedestrian sustainable transport route through the site and formation of new access and linkages on the eastern and western boundary; provision of hard and soft landscaping scheme across entire site.
Planning Portal Reference Number:PP-07745170
Applicant Name:Oakhill Group
Agent Name:Walsingham Planning
Agent Address:Bourne House, Cores End Road, Bourne End, Buckinghamshire, SL8 5AR
Case Officer Name:Chris Gomm
Date Application Received:25/04/2019
Date Application Validated:01/05/2019
Neighbourhood Consultations sent on:07/05/2019
Standard Consultations sent on:20/05/2019
Last advertised on:16/05/2019
Latest Site Notice posted on:14/05/2019
Expiry Date for Consultation :07/06/2019
Target Decision Date31/07/2019

Documents

ConstraintsAgric Land Class 3b,4,5, Article 4 HMO, Contaminated Land, MOD Safeguarded Areas, Placemaking Plan Allocated Sites, Policy B4 WHS - Boundary, Policy B4 WHS - Indicative Extent, Policy CP9 Affordable Housing Zones, SSSI - Impact Risk Zones
Related Property:Hartwells Of Bath,Newbridge Road,Newbridge,Bath,BA1 2PP.
Related Property:Premix Concrete Ltd,Newbridge Road,Newbridge,Bath,BA1 3HH.
Reference Proposal Application Received Status
96/00086/AR .Display of an internally illuminated free-standing sign to service station forecourt01/07/1996Application Refused
97/00130/FUL .Installation of satellite receiving antenna, 1.2 m in diameter07/02/1997Approve
97/00283/FUL .Installation of 1.0 metre diameter satellite antenna to Citroen Dealership24/03/1997Approve
97/00304/AR .Display of 1 internally illuminated pole sign02/04/1997Approve
99/00108/AR .Display of internally illuminated fascia and totem signs (Retrospective application)12/02/1999Consent
99/00307/AR .Display of internally illuminated totem, and fascia signs; and non-illuminated free standing site direction signs07/04/1999Consent
99/01169/FUL .Erection of new 'Rover' entrance canopy and refurbishment of building exterior after demolition of part of the existing used car display01/12/1999Application Permitted
04/01415/AR .Internally-illuminated double sided pylon logo sign26/04/2004Consent
04/02902/FUL .Retention of 1m. satellite dish installed for connection to company information system10/09/2004Application Permitted
05/00776/AR .1 No. Internally illuminated stand-alone projecting logo sign, 1 No. internally illuminated wall mounted logo sign and 2 No non-illuminated wall mounted directional signs.03/03/2005Split decision/check certificate or file
05/01094/AR .Display of illuminated 1 x 4m totem sign31/03/2005Consent
05/04038/AR .Display of wall mounted and free standing advertisement.29/12/2005Application Refused
06/02334/AR .Erection of a static, non-illuminated, wall mounted sign.29/06/2006Advert Consent Not Required
07/01509/AR .Display of internally illuminated 610mm Fascia Cap height 150mm, internally illuminated double sided projecting sign 1350mm x 610mm and silver finished post sign 150mm x 5000mm.16/05/2007Split decision/check certificate or file
07/03558/AR .1 off internally illuminated, freestanding, double sided projecting sign and 150mm x 5000mm finished post.26/11/2007Application Refused
10/03384/CAAD .Certificate of Appropriate Alternative Development for potential future residential development.10/08/2010Positive - CAAD Applications
10/03638/AR .Display of 1no non-illuminated totem, 3no flags on existing flagpoles, erection of 1no non-illuminated directional sign to replace existing, 2no non-illuminated entrance door markers and 2no internally illuminated fascia signs12/08/2010Consent
12/01859/AR .Display of 3no internally-illuminated fascia signs and 2no sets of internally-illuminated corner lights to replace existing signage25/04/2012Application Refused
12/02795/AR .Display of 5no non-illuminated fascia signs to replace existing signage (Resubmission)28/06/2012Consent
14/00362/TCA .11x Ash and Sycamore - fell and 1x Ash - prune overhanging limbs, thin crown by 30%23/01/2014No Objection
14/02229/SCREEN .Request for screening opinion in relation to the development of student accommodation at the Hartwell site on Newbridge Road07/05/2014
14/03977/OUT .Outline planning application for erection of three blocks of student accommodation comprising 194 student bedrooms in studio/cluster flats and 70 bedrooms in a terrace of 14 two storey HMOs with access from Newbridge Road, shared foot/cycleway, associated car parking, cycle parking, amenity space and landscaping following demolition of existing buildings29/08/2014Application Withdrawn
16/00399/AR .Display of 1no non-illuminated fascia clip and 1no non-illuminated free standing double sided pylon.28/01/2016Consent
17/03535/SCREEN .Request for screening opinion for a residential-led mixed-used development of 99 residential units, 170 student accommodation units, retail unit and associated parking and access.21/07/2017
19/01854/OUT .Outline application with all matters reserved except for access and layout comprising the demolition of the existing buildings on the site; construction of replacement buildings ranging in height from 3 to 5 storeys providing a mixed use development comprising up to 104 residential units (Class C3 Use), up to 186 student bedrooms (Sui Generis Use), and a commercial retail unit (flexible A1/A3 Use); formation of new vehicular access from Newbridge Road, construction of new access ramp, and provision of vehicle parking spaces; provision of new shared bicycle and pedestrian sustainable transport route through the site and formation of new access and linkages on the eastern and western boundary; provision of hard and soft landscaping scheme across entire site.25/04/2019Pending 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
J Campos 3 Lyme Road, Newbridge, Bath, Bath And North East Somerset, BA1 3LN O 29/05/2019: I strongly object to the proposed development on the Hartwell’s site.

An increase in traffic, on this already busy road, would be a serious road safety issue as the site is opposite a local primary school.
Newbridge Road & the side roads already have HUGE parking problems & this development will only make matters worse.

There is no provision in the plans for student parking, only for residential use. Students may well be requested not to bring vehicles to Bath but they will & do.

Newbridge is also a popular residential area & student accommodation does not fit in with the surrounding area.

The site would be far better served to provide a mixture of affordable housing for the people of Bath.

29/05/2019
Adam Goulston 12 Homelea Park East, Newbridge, Bath, Bath And North East Somerset, BA1 3HP O 30/05/2019: Many local residents have expressed concerns that the proposals are much too large for the site and that the road access could be dangerous. Consider allocating the lower (rear) part of the site to continued industrial use. The site already has a rear access to the Maltings estate. The upper site could be residential, but allowing for a mix of family, affordable and social housing. 30/05/2019
Transition Bath Canteen Cottage, Canteen Lane, Wellow, Bath, Bath And North East Somerset, BA2 8PY R 30/05/2019: Transition Bath normally makes comments on large planning applications from a sustainability perspective.

Unfortunately the Energy Statement of this application is very poorly written and its impossible to tell whether it is compliant with B&NES SCR1 and CP2 standards. In addition the Sustainable Construction Checklist has not been completed.

Could the Planning Department insist that the developer resubmit their Energy Statement and Sustainable Construction Checklist in a readable form, so that we can comment on it before a decision on this planning application is made? We feel it will be undemocratic if this application is accepted and permitted in this form as its impossible for us in its current state to comment on.
30/05/2019
Susan Cox 23 Foxcombe Road, Newbridge, Bath, Bath And North East Somerset, BA1 3ED O 30/05/2019: The plans are a massive overdevelopment of the site. The monolithic style is out of keeping with the buildings in the area ie Victorian and Edwardian family homes.
This is a quiet family area and student housing will affect negatively the ambience of this popular residential suburb.
30/05/2019
Wendy Lambson 5 Newbridge Gardens, Lower Weston, Bath, Bath And North East Somerset, BA1 3LT O 31/05/2019: The volume of traffic along Newbridge Road and surrounding area has massively increased in the past few years. A large development of this type will only add to this, and be contrary to the Council's effort to reduce traffic emissions.
Too much extra pollution and volume of traffic near school for very young children.
Access for traffic to developed site too near to bend in main road.
Not enough provision for affordable houses. Accommodation would be empty for large part of year if for undergraduate students.
Temptation for much more on street parking.
31/05/2019
Candy Harrison The Yard, High Street, Freshford, Bath, Bath And North East Somerset, BA2 7WF O 31/05/2019: I object to planning application 19/01854/OUT on the following basis:
The proposed height of the buildings is out of context with the local domestic character.
The proposed buildings lack character and diversity and do not enrich the character of the Newbridge area.
The proposed buildings represent overdevelopment and are detrimental to the local character.
The proposed buildings would be incongruous in the mixed local townscape.
The proposed buildings lack a range of affordable housing
The proposed 1 and 2 bed flats do not produce a stable long-term community.
The proposed bronze cladding is totally incongruous with the local building style and will not weather or integrate over time.
Bath is rapidly surrendering it's domestic neighbourhoods in favour of transient populations that do not contribute to or further family orientated communities.
Strong, supportive and resilient communities are not established by building expensive student lets and holiday accomodation.

31/05/2019
BANES Allotment Association Not Given O Documents Tab 02/06/2019
Philip Dauncey 156 Newbridge Road, Newbridge, Bath, BA1 3HH, O 03/06/2019: As a long term resident of Newbridge Road, the influx of yet more cars is a burden the infrastructure cannot bear. The planned development mainly takes into account maximising footfall and profit through the site, but doesn't integrate into the wider context of Newbridge Road and the neighbourhood. Parking, pollution, increased noise, darkening the visibility with a tall facade at a primary school crossing - the list goes on. 03/06/2019
Lucy Aston 10 Newbridge Gardens, Lower Weston, Bath, Bath And North East Somerset, BA1 3LT O 03/06/2019: I object to this planning application because I do not think this area can support this sudden increase in the number of new homes/student accommodation - for example traffic to the junction opposite the road which leads to the primary school, car parking (I appreciate some spaces will be permitted however we all know that many more spaces will be needed) and thus parking will spill onto surrounding roads such as Newbridge Gardens which are already at maximum capacity. 03/06/2019
T Aston 10 Newbridge Gardens, Lower Weston, Bath, Bath And North East Somerset, BA1 3LT O 03/06/2019: I object to this planning application because I feel this area can not support the volume of people and their vehicles.
I feel that people will end up parking down Newbridge road and surrounding areas. These are already busy and effecting the vision of crossing roads safely especially for the local children.
I feel this area could be put to better use. Maybe another area for children to use as I’ve seen local kids enjoying this empty space already and with the park towards the park and ride not that suitable for older children.
03/06/2019
Sally Goodridge 31 Rudmore Park, Newbridge, Bath, Bath And North East Somerset, BA1 3JA O 03/06/2019: I object to the proposed plans as I am concerned about the increase in traffic around the area and the safety implications this will have on our children walking to and from the nearby school. Especially with a large increase of cars exiting and entering Newbridge Road.
Parking in the area, which is already an issue, is also a worry as the planned car park will not cater for all the new residents and they will therefore have to find parking in the local area.
03/06/2019
Cllr Mark Roper 197 Bailbrook Lane, Lower Swainswick, Bath, Bath And North East Somerset, BA1 7AB, O 03/06/2019: My reasons to object are as follows:

1. The site specific planning policy SB15 for the site in the Core Strategy and Placemaking plan states that it should be considered for:

Residential developments of around 80-100 dwellings, which could include a variety of specialist older persons housing types but not student accommodation, where this would prejudice the achievement of Policy DW.1 and B1 in respect of boosting the supply of standard market and affordable housing

The proposed development clearly includes a substantial element of student housing and therefore goes against this clear policy aim.

2. PBSA in Bath is not being matched by developments on campus - which is clearly the intention of planning officers going forward - see the arguments to refuse the Bath Cricket Club PBSA development.

3. The Draft Local PLan Options Document published last autumn recognised the issues caused by too many PBSA in urban areas - specifically parking problems. It is not sufficient for the developers to claim that students will not be permitted to bring their cars with an S106 agreement as these are not in practicable terms legally enforceable. The student cars parked along the Lower Bristol Road outside the Twerton Mill development during term time are proof of this. There are huge parking issues in the surrounding roads due to the employment areas on Locksbrook Road and Brassmill Lane and the fact that many - indeed most -of the houses in the vicinity do not have off street parking.

4. Highways issues. I am extremely concerned at the volume of vehicles entering and leaving the site via the new proposed entrance which is opposite Charmouth Road (a main entrance to a school) and next door to Rosslyn Road and Osbourne Road entrances onto Newbridge Road. I know from 30 years of working in the area that this is a complex and busy set of junctions as it is - and the prospect of another entrance in the area - in effect four roads joining Newbridge Road in about 200 metres - will be dangerous without some form of traffic calming measures.

5. Over density of the site. It is unreasonable to propose a development which may end up with over 400 people living on a site of this size. It is especially unreasonable of the developers to include no extra facilities apart from what they are currently calling a coffee shop.

6. Loss of employment land. Although the Hartwells site is outside the core economic zone it will be another example of Bath losing key economic development space - along with all the space lost along the A4. The space remaining in Bath to build non-office based industrial units is declining at an alarming rate.

03/06/2019
Carla Musgrave 58 Locksbrook Road, Newbridge, Bath, Bath And North East Somerset, BA1 3ES O 03/06/2019: While I agree that this site is in need of development I strongly feel that it should be developed into affordable family housing. The house prices in this areas are already very high and every effort should be made to build some houses and apartments that local young people can afford to buy.
Over the past few years lots of new m student accommodation has been built in this local area. Student numbers are reducing at local Bath SpaUniversity, as more kids think about whether to go to university and the overall costs. Surely now is the time to support local families who hope to remain living in Bath.

The other issue to consider is parking in the local area, with a primary school just along Charmouth Road, the area is already busy with traffic and consideration should be made to ensure adequate parking for the new development.
03/06/2019: While I agree that this site is in need of development I strongly feel that it should be developed into affordable family housing. The house prices in this areas are already very high and every effort should be made to build some houses and apartments that local young people can afford to buy.
Over the past few years lots of new m student accommodation has been built in this local area. Student numbers are reducing at local Bath SpaUniversity, as more kids think about whether to go to university and the overall costs. Surely now is the time to support local families who hope to remain living in Bath.

The other issue to consider is parking in the local area, with a primary school just along Charmouth Road, the area is already busy with traffic and consideration should be made to ensure adequate parking for the new development.
03/06/2019
Ian Hayman King Edward Road, Oldfield Park, Bath, Bath And North East Somerset, BA2 3PB O 03/06/2019: Bath needs more affordable housing with sensible parking and access provision. There is more than enough student housing elsewhere in Bath.
03/06/2019
Duncan Nash 6 Newbridge Road, Newbridge, Bath, BA1 3JX, O 03/06/2019: 1. To higher density of people in too small an area.
2. This leads to a big increase in vehicles in the immediate area
3. Students in particular will whatever the restrictions, bring a good number of cars into the area if not directly on site, but in the surrounding roads increasing congestion.
4. This is a residential area and should be kept as a residential area, with private residential properties only being built only, ideally offering starter homes and homes for key workers.
5. There are plenty of other areas where student accommodation can be situated, as is the case on the Lower Bristol Road.
03/06/2019
Remco Vuijk 96 Newbridge Road, Newbridge, Bath, BA1 3LD, O 03/06/2019: I object to the planning proposal. The current plans are pretty much unchanged from the 2014 application and after public consultation on current proposal in January this year.
In Bath councils ‘core strategy and placemaking plan’ of July 2017 it states in item 203 and also in item 1 of SB15 that the vision is for a residential development of around 80-100 dwellings. It specifically mentions not for students. This plan has 186 student rooms.
From the same council vision, the development should be ‘sympathetic to the Victorian context, and the active frontage should integrate with the surrounding context’. In the planning documentation they have clearly looked at the surrounding housing, but added an extra floor to the height of the dwellings facing Newbridge Road; 3 floors with an apex roof. This is not going to be in keeping with the style and height of the surrounding Victorian houses.
Similarly, the brass mill lane industrial estate is dwarfed by the 5-story tall student accommodation.
Traffic problems on Newbridge Road with a new road opposite Charmouth road, cars entering and leaving the car park, and cement mixers entering the cement factory. All this on an already busy road with children walking to school.
There are too few parking spaces allocated in the development, 100 spaces for 300+ apartments. Not allowing students to park their cars is not enforceable as can be seen on the parked cars at the Twerton Mill development. The shortage of parking spaces in the area will be exacerbated, causing even greater problems at school drop off and pick up times on Charmouth road.
03/06/2019
Mrs L Leming 10 Evelyn Road, Lower Weston, Bath, Bath And North East Somerset, BA1 3QF O 05/06/2019: I am not happy about yet more student accommodation. Especially there, where it is built up already and on a very busy road.
Which college would it serve anyway, as there isn’t one near there?
I think it would be far better to have more housing for families being near a school and the hospital etc.
It’s great to infill urban areas and regenerate an ugly site, but not with students. The Lower Bristol road has plenty of that.
Please use this site sensibly and make it look good and ‘green’ too!!
05/06/2019
Cameron Beggs 9 Ashley Terrace, Lower Weston, Bath, Bath And North East Somerset, BA1 3DP O 09/05/2019: It is BANES planning policy (CP9) that residential development sites should target 40% affordable homes. The proposals for this development state a share of only 10% affordable homes. It states that viability of the site is the reason for such a signficiant reduction.

Whilst I do not have any experience in viability assessments, I do work in the development industry and I find it remarkable that a large site in an affulent and highly desirable area can not 'viably' comply with the affordability requirements. The fact that affordability is based on market values and that market values in the local area are very high would suggest to me that this site should be one of the easiest to construct in compliance with affordable policy. This is made increasingly difficult to comprehend when also considering the site includes near 200 student accomodate units which are known to deliver very high profit margins. I would be interested to hear how viability assessments are reviewed and if an additional independent assessment would produce the same results.

One specific issue I have is with the use of ' the design, specification and complexity' of the site to justify higher than upper quartile build costs (page 7 - viability assessment). Firstly, the complexity of the site is already accounted for in abnormal costs section of the assessment. It should therefore not be used to justify high build costs as well,as this 'double handles' the cost. Secondly, the design and specification of the proposed properties are fully within the applicants control. It should not be acceptable that by specifying higher spec properties it is permitted to not build affordable homes. It follows that if the applicant proposed more basic properties (with lower build costs) then it would be able to charge lower rents that comply with the affordability requirements.

I would therefore like to object to the development proposals as it is not compliant with CP9 and does not make reasonable efforts to do so. If CP9 is not upheld on a prime development site such as this then I fail to understand when it would ever be upheld and therefore why it even exists.
09/05/2019
Debbie Lynch 10 The Batch, Batheaston, Bath, Bath And North East Somerset, BA1 7DR O 09/05/2019: This would be devastating to an already busy road, and would be an eyesore to the homes surrounding, which would lower the value. Can this not be built on for affordable homes? 09/05/2019
Chris Garcia 8 Lyme Road, Newbridge, Bath, Bath And North East Somerset, BA1 3LN O 28/05/2019: I objected to these proposals previously and little notice of my and others objections has been taken in these latest submissions. I still strongly believe:
- there should be far far more affordable homes. Profitability / costs are in the control of the developer to achieve this.
- we do not need more student accommodation in this part of Bath. Council policy agrees with this I understand and should be followed.
- Viability arguments are not valid as the developer could control costs to devise an alternative scheme.
- the proposals are for far too much accommodation. A less dense scheme would put less pressure on local infrastructure and traffic levels
- the proposed parking arrangements are completely inadequate. A minimum of one space for each student / accommodation unit is required. More would be better as there is already too much pressure on local residents in the immediate area for parking spaces
- Developers proposed mitigation measures on stopping students parking cars are not realistic or enforceable in practice and should not be taken on trust
- More green space for family use should be included as we don’t have enough in the immediate area
- All development to be kept in scale to existing housing in neighbouring roads - irrespective of where it is on the site. The student accommodation is far too high and not in keeping with neighbouring housing.
- Development of this site for housing means we have even less employment in the city. A mixed use proposal Should be required.
28/05/2019
Ashlea Lane 120 Newbridge Road, Newbridge, Bath, BA1 3LD, O 28/05/2019: I would like to object to the planning application that has been submitted for the Hartwell’s site (19/01854/OUT – hereafter referred to as ‘the Proposal’).

The development is completely against the Council’s core strategy and local placemaking plan. The core strategy requires that:

1. The site not be used for student development, but for residential development for 80 - 100 people. The Proposal includes accommodation for 186 students and a total occupancy that is three times that stated in the core strategy. With the significant number of other new student developments in the city, I do not feel another student development is needed.

2. The site should be sympathetic to the Victorian context of terrace housing. In the Proposal the properties are high-density modern buildings. The Proposal’s design is out of scale with the surrounding houses and is not in keeping with the character of the area. The Proposal’s design (which is modern high-density flats) does not fit with the period detached and terraced houses in the area.

3. With the five-storey height of the building on the rear development I would argue that it will be much more visible from Kelston View than the current buildings on the site. The developer has even shown the significant impact it is likely to cause on the view on page 32 of the Proposal.

The Proposal is therefore quite clearly in direct conflict with the Council’s core strategy and local placemaking plan.

In addition, I am concerned about the wider impact the development in the Proposal would have on the community, which is largely populated by young families. An influx of a significant number of students will have a major impact on the neighbourhood due to the noise and disturbance they would bring. It would see an end to the family feel of our local area. The impact would also be felt on the local amenities that would not be able to deal with extra demand that would be placed on them.

My final objection relates to highway safety and parking. The Proposal shows vehicular access on to Newbridge Road. Newbridge Road is already extremely busy at peak times, being a main route into the city and with the school traffic for Newbridge Primary School. The additional traffic the development would bring would make the road dangerous to other road users and to school children on their way to Newbridge Primary. Parking will also be a significant problem with the new development. 113 spaces are provided in the Proposal which will not accommodate all of the vehicles from the new site, resulting in additional cars being parked on Newbridge Road. Parking in this area is already extremely congested and over-development of the site will make the situation worse. I notice in the Proposal that no parking would be available to students, as they are not allowed to bring their cars to Bath. I cannot see how this policy could be policed and therefore I consider it would be unenforceable and easily flouted.

My view is that the Proposal is an over-development of the Hartwell’s site, which does not fit with the city’s core strategy and placemaking plan and which will have significant impact on the local community and local residents. The site should instead be used for affordable housing which is essential for Newbridge and Bath as a whole.


28/05/2019
Linda Bushell 16 Newbridge Gardens, Lower Weston, Bath, Bath And North East Somerset, BA1 3LT O 28/05/2019: There can surely be no need for further student accommodation in the Newbridge area.
It will create heavier traffic along Newbridge Road, and in the immediate area around Osborne Road.

At peak times, there will be additional traffic from this site as well as school traffic and children walking to nearby Newbridge School, and another junction for traffic to negotiate in al already busy area.

It will create more parking issues on the surrounding streets.
28/05/2019
Nick Cawood 267 Newbridge Road, Newbridge, Bath, BA1 3HJ, O 04/06/2019: The plot needs to be developed but in my opinion these plans are not suitable.

Plans for significant new housing developments ought to satisfy the following criteria, and unfortunately these plans do not:

Does the plan fulfill a need the area has for housing?
There is no need for more off-campus student housing in Bath, on-campus housing is preferred by the students and the University.
The area needs affordable and social housing of a variety of types with garden areas, space for parking and other facilities.

Does the plan fit into the existing aesthetic of the area?
The buildings have too many storeys so they won't fit in with the local buildings.

Does the plan have enough social/affordable housing?
According to the plans there is limited provision for social and affordable housing. Bath needs affordable housing of the right type and this plan does not help enough with that. Instead units will probably be bought for use as AirBnBs.

Does the plan have sufficient on-site parking?
The parking plans lack enough spaces. Bans on students parking cars in the area are unlikely to be enforced. The local area's parking issues will be exacerbated.

Does the plan improve the local area, adding to the community?
There is not enough provision for green areas (playground or play areas and gardens or allotments would be good to see).
The building phase of the project will no doubt cause significant congestion in the area (other Bath developments seem to have freedom to block roads and change the road layouts for months/years, for example Victoria Place and Monmouth Place/Nile St in the last few years).


The plot does need to be developed, either for housing, retail or industrial buildings but this plan is not suitable.
If the plan is for housing it needs:
Less units, more parking, avoiding focusing on off-campus student units, more green areas and a design that fits in with the local neighbourhood.
I would support a development on this plot if its plans were more like this, more suitable for the local area, but the current plans are not suitable for the local area in my opinion.
04/06/2019
John Smith 289 Newbridge Road, Newbridge, Bath, BA1 3HN, O 04/06/2019: 1. Fails to meet requirements for affordable housing
2. Fails to meet the need for family housing in this locality
3 Scale of frontages to Newbridge Road are out of proportion to and not in sympathy with
surrounding properties
4.Breaches the Local Plan that precludes any further building of Purpose Built Student Accommodation
04/06/2019
Pam Gates 152 Newbridge Road, Newbridge, Bath, BA1 3LE, O 05/06/2019: National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF)6 seeks to ensure sustainable development yet the developers have made no explicit provision for recharging of residents' electric vehicles. Electric vehicles are likely to become the major form of vehicle early in the life of the development. 05/06/2019
Sanober Miller 58 Grange Road, Saltford, Bristol, Bath And North East Somerset, BS31 3AG O 26/05/2019: I Travel on this road everyday. Building on the site would create more traffic congestion, pollution , ruin landscape of road for residents. 26/05/2019
Alan Merrill 164 Newbridge Road, Newbridge, Bath, BA1 3LE, O 27/05/2019: Newbridge is primarily a family residential area and the proposed development will introduce mostly student accommodation with a tiny percentage of 'affordable housing' which is entirely out of keeping with the location. The pressure on the surrounding area will increase significantly with parking and traffic already a major concern in the local streets. The proposed entrance to the development is directly opposite the local primary school with obvious concerns about the safety of the children and families during the rush hour periods.

Student accommodation is taking every available piece of land in Bath which is rapidly turning into a city of hotels / students and absentee landlords. There is a massive need for homes for local families not high rise flats but affordable genuine homes for younger families with space to grow. This is a prime site for such housing and it should be used for such not squandered for profit.
27/05/2019
Carole Ricketts 28 Avondale Road, Newbridge, Bath, Bath And North East Somerset, BA1 3EG O 27/05/2019: I wish to object to:

- the size of development as being inappropriate for the plot and the area.
- the lack of family housing - this is predominantly a family community and it needs more of this type of accommodation
- the increased danger to the children walking to school on Osbourne Road
- unnecessary student housing - the university has plenty of space and declining student numbers
- students bringing cars and making the already difficult parking in our own road even more problematic
- number of studentsin the area unbalancing the Newbridge community
27/05/2019
N Hills 128 Newbridge Road, Newbridge, Bath, BA1 3LD, O 27/05/2019: I wish to formally register my objection to this proposal for the development of the Hartwells garage. The site is prime for a considered redevelopment which will support the local and new community, ideally positioned for creating new affordable homes and supporting amenities including shops and associated parking. What it does not support is deliberate overdevelopment, trying to cram in nearly 400 people with limited access to main roads, putting a strain on an already stretched local infrastructure. The parking allocation is less than 30%, the entry onto the main road will lead to congestion, and create additional hazards to an already busy set of junctions including proximity to many primary school children routes to school.

I attended the public consultation and registered my concerns with the development team on a variety of issues ranging from over population, layout of the site, impact on the local community, overspill of parking, compatibility of the architecture with the existing location. I’m afraid I was presented with fabrications and distortions of the truth, including special “contracts” where students would not be bringing cars into the city, that the viability of the site only supported this development and no variation in the building arrangements could be entertained without affecting profitability. I was dismayed that the proposed affordable housing was not as expected, but would be 2 bedroom rental properties, and not the family housing envisaged (but was assured by one of the team that a family of 4 could happily live in them provided the children shared a bedroom!!).

I believe the proposals represent a gross over development of the site, I am not anti-student and understand that this real estate needs rebuilding, but please make it something balanced and worthwhile to the community, and not an option for a distant property developer to make a quick profit at the expense of the local area.
27/05/2019
Lucy Hills 128 Newbridge Road, Newbridge, Bath, BA1 3LD, O 27/05/2019: I have seen the proposed arrangements for the development of the Hartwells garage on Newbridge Road, and wish to formally object to these proposals. Despite attending the public consultation and being asked “what we would like”, the proposals have not changed and still contain the same misinformation including contradictory artists impressions and miss scaled drawings. Nothing has been changed and the over development of the site for students and transient rental accommodation remains. The number of students and the type of proposed accommodation are way beyond the capacity of the site and the impact on the local area will be extreme.

I realise that this is on my doorstep, but I have deep concerns over the way that Bath City is being impacted by developments such as this, with these faceless, architecturally bland, quick profit, no longevity schemes becoming prevalent throughout our heritage city. As a parent, what future are we leaving our children, allowing continued developments of this type. This has reinforced my existing misgivings over the groundswell of corporate developments in the city. Has the environmental impact of the construction and more cars been taken into account in protecting our historic city?

Could this site not be used to develop secure safe housing for our elderly residents who are often overlooked. Or, developing the site for the use and introduction of more local businesses helping to preserve the employment opportunities of the city.

The potential hazards presented by the proposed over population of this site and impact on local transport and parking issues, coupled to the closeness of a busy primary school lead to genuine concerns for everybody’s wellbeing and safety.

I sincerely hope that the planning committee of any and all legitimate concerns raised on this proposal.
27/05/2019
Amanda Horton 84 Newbridge Road, Newbridge, Bath, BA1 3LA, O 28/05/2019: I wish to object to the present plan of student accommodation on this site. Newbridge is a residential area with very little capacity for more parking. Students will bring cars and there is not enough provision on the site. More traffic will cause a really safety issue so close to Newbridge school and other children walking to school and accessing buses.
There is a real lack of affordable housing in bath and this site would be ideal for this and could offer an ideal site for actively aging population who are keen to downsize thereby freeing up more family homes.
Please do consider this carefully as there is so much accommodation for students but little for the young adults who have been raised in bath and are unable to get on the property market.
28/05/2019
Simon Thomas 7 Osborne Road, Newbridge, Bath, Bath And North East Somerset, BA1 3JR O 28/05/2019: i object to the planned redevelopment of the Hartwells site on several grounds, 1 I worry about the increased conjestion on the main road at busy times with extra traffic trying to exit the development and extra buses picking up students from the site, its difficult enough in the mornings to turn onto the main road from Osborne road ( a bend in the road does cause visibility issues which i would consider to be a problem). 2 The sheer scale of the development alarms me and will totally change the character of the area, surely we don't need yet more student accommodation in Bath ( i enjoy the vibrancy that the student population brings to Bath, but think the balance is getting out of kilter when you think of how much student accommodation has been built recently) some sites like the large lower Bristol road development work really well at that location, but NOT here. 3 Another main concern is parking plans say they implement a no car policy for students but that is totally unenforceable, and so parking will become a major problem ( worse than it already is, i have lived at my house for 20 years and have seen a recent dramatic increase in parking and driver being forced to park at locations that are dangerous and illegal, i can't use my car during the day now, if i go out then on my return there is nowhere at all to park!) The plans seem to be a proposal to make maxim profit out of the site without consideration of the area. Surely a much better use of the site would be to make the bottom half of the site an extension to the commercial development at the back of the site, there is a real shortage of commercial sites, and the front area facing the street could be housing. Again there is a real shortage of affordable housing for staff at the hospital for example. Or maybe it would make an ideal location for a headquarters for a company like "Loveyhoney" round the corner which has clearly out ground its present location, so i am in favour of the site being redeveloped but definitely NOT in the shape the proposed redevelopment, lets have something that would actually benefit Newbridge please! I am looking forward to the opening of the Artschool in the area because that will bring revenue and vibrancy to Chelsea road and will make the area overall more interesting, lest hope the council see sense and consider the wider impact to the community of such redevelopment. 28/05/2019
Dorian Baker 25 Sion Road, Lansdown, Bath, Bath And North East Somerset, BA1 5SH O 28/05/2019: My underlying objection to the proposal is that it would constitute over-development of the site.

In particular, the details of my objection on the above grounds are as follows:
the short description of the proposed development states that it will include:
"provision of new shared bicycle and pedestrian sustainable transport route through the site."

The drawings provided so far do not provide an adequately wide or straight route through the site for a "sustainable transport route" without creating severe constraints on the type of sustainable transport technology that may be chosen by the Local Authority. The former railway corridor from Green Park to west of the city boundary where it becomes the Bristol to Bath cycleway, is approximately 8 metres wide at former railway track level over most of its length and has a plan layout along its centre line that is either straight or of quite large curve radius. These characteristics make this corridor ideal for the development of one of many forms of sustainable rapid transit technology, plus a cycleway, which is likely to be required to serve Bath from the very near future. If a "pinch point" of reduced width and including relatively tight curvatures is interposed on this corridor this will create a problem for the future, an unnecessary constraint on the development of the whole sustainable transport corridor, Green Park to Newbridge.

The developer is clearly aware that the former railway alignment currently continues in use as a transport corridor. The developer should therefore be asked to amend the proposed site layout to provide a corridor through the site, free of built development, of the same width and alignment as is available to east and west of the proposed development. Overall, this would represent only a slightly less dense development of the site than is currently proposed but it would make an extremely valuable provision for a future sustainable transport facility serving the Bath & North East Somerset area.
28/05/2019
Ailie Steele 126 Newbridge Road, Newbridge, Bath, BA1 3LD, O 04/06/2019: Newbridge is a quiet residential area of family homes with generous space and a thriving community central to the local school. The amount of people that will be living in the new accomodation should the development proceed, will significantly change and unbalance the community and the make up of the area. A drastically reduced number of units might prove acceptable alongside a sensible contribution to enhanced public transport facilities. 04/06/2019
R M Freeman 26 Apsley Road, Newbridge, Bath, Bath And North East Somerset, BA1 3LP O 04/06/2019: I object to this proposal for two reasons:-

• The scale & design of the proposed structures take no account whatsoever of existing properties along the entire residential neighbourhood of Newbridge Road.

• Quite plainly the proposal is not in line with the Council’s own aspirations for future residential development for its population.

A proper balance cannot be achieved if the weight of decisions so often falls in favour of the city’s transient occupiers – the universities, the day trippers, the short stay vacationers. The city’s permanent population - the workers, the young families, the elderly – need help right now to afford to live, work & spend their time & money here. This development site should be part of sensible, visionary plans to meet those urgent needs.
04/06/2019
Stuart Farrer 38 Newbridge Road, Newbridge, Bath, BA1 3JZ, O 04/06/2019: Comment: I object to this planned development by Oakhill Group for blocks of tiny residential flats and expensive student accommodation. There is no need for more off Campus development .Students should be accommodated on the university sites. Need more affordable and family accommodation. Rear of site could used for extending the business park. Too many university buses along Newbridge Road. (high pollution rate!)
Thank you.
Stuart Farrer
04/06/2019
David Stoneman 31 Newbridge Road, Newbridge, Bath, BA1 3HE, O 04/06/2019: The proposal constitutes over development of the site.

Site specific planning policy SB15 in the Core Strategy and Placemaking plan states that it should be considered for: "Residential developments of around 80-100 dwellings, which could include a variety of specialist older
persons housing types but not student accommodation, where this would prejudice the achievement of
Policy DW.1 and B1 in respect of boosting the supply of standard market and affordable housing".

The developer has attempted to satisfy the non-student residential target whilst still incorporating a very large element of student accommodation. The site can only accommodate both by being densely developed resulting in overly high and bulky buildings that are out of keeping with the established street scene.

The demand for student accommodation is questionable. There is currently an oversupply of higher education capacity with universities struggling to fill spaces. Market forces will correct this oversupply is due course. If our local universities believe they have continued demand they should address the balance through further on campus development.

There is clearly demand for housing for families. The site could be better used to meet that demand directly, or indirectly through provision of older person housing types (freeing up existing housing stock better suited to families whilst allowing older persons to stay in their existing community).
04/06/2019
Anne Osborn 137 Newbridge Road, Newbridge, Bath, BA1 3HG, O 04/06/2019: 1. I am totally opposed to additional development for student accommodation that contravenes the adopted strategy (Local Plan) and is completely inappropriate development in this location. I would expect this element of the application to be removed.


2. The proposed figure of "up to" 104 new homes exceeds the upper limit of development as defined in the core strategy [80 – 100 homes]. I would expect the development to be restricted to the numbers set out in the core strategy. The 3 storey terraced blocks proposed for the street frontage are excessive and do not fit the context of the site. Adjoining houses, even the larger detached Villas along this part of Newbridge Road do not reach 3 storeys. The building is too big for its site and should be 2 storeys to match the street.

3. I am totally opposed to the additional accommodation for students on top of the residential provision.

The reasons for my objection are as follows:
a. This represents an overdevelopment of the site, significantly beyond its capacity.
b. The core strategy, Policy SB15, specifically excludes student accommodation from this site. I fully expect this to be reflected in any planning decision for the site.
c. The residential mix proposed [1+2 bed units] is inappropriate for this site. This is a family based neighbourhood, near to 2 primary schools, the RUH and local community facilities, and the development should be providing much needed family accommodation. There should be affordable provision within this. The proposed mix is likely to become short term lets to students/holiday visitors which is not appropriate. Such a mix is in contravention of policy CP10
d. The proposal does not meet the required provision of affordable homes set down in CP9. This is unacceptable.
e. The proposal only provides parking for the residential elements, and includes no student parking at all. This is totally unacceptable. As a long term resident of Newbridge Road, I can confirm that the student rental accommodation in the houses adjacent generate parking requirements. Many students are also car owners and of the 186 student places, a proportion will have cars and will use local streets as parking. I do not accept the developer’s assertion that no students will be permitted to have cars. This is unrealistic, unenforceable and misleading.
f. The additional traffic generated by the residential development and compounded by the student car owners and the necessary additional public transport will exacerbate airborne pollution on Newbridge Road. The road is a key access route for vehicles from the west into Bath and at peak times carries large numbers of slow moving traffic. Bath’s air quality problems must be taken into account when considering developments which are likely to have detrimental effect on air quality. Of particular concern, is the proximity of Newbridge School to Newbridge Road.

There are significant road safety issues also with the site's entrance & exit viz. proximity to the pedestrian crossing and the difficult junction with Osborne Road.

The proposals indicate parking along the disused railway line. I object to any proposal for lighting this car park. There is considerable bat activity along this green corridor, which is currently dark at night.

The developer will need to demonstrate an appropriate balance of public safety and the specific needs of nocturnal wildlife. The railway corridor, combined with the river corridor , are important ecological greenways that connect the rural hinterland to the centre of the city.

Any car parking must include a substantial area of good quality, well managed and non- illuminated ecological planting.



04/06/2019
Nick Wharf 220 Newbridge Road, Newbridge, Bath, BA1 3LG, O 04/06/2019: D2 – Local Character and Distinctiveness; by way of scale and massing of the double depth frontage buildings, the scheme constitutes overdevelopment and harms local character.

Policy D1 – General Urban Design Principles: the development fails to:
Look varied, safe or attractive
Enrich the character of Newbridge or contribute positively to local character and history
Respond positively to local topography or townscape context

D4 – Streets and Spaces: the provision of the cycle path is NOT a benefit to be weighed against harm in the planning judgement as it’s a road to nowhere, as it depends on B&NES to deliver the rest of the path. The only way the cycle path can be a meaningful benefit is if the S106 includes a requirement that the applicant must deliver the rest of the cycle path at their own cost….otherwise it is meaningless.

Policy HE1 – the area contains many non-designated heritage assets, namely attractive Victiorian and Edwardian villas, and rows of older terraces. The scheme will sit incongruously amongst this attractive mixed townscape, its massing and depth out of context and alien.

CP9 Affordable Housing – the lack of affordable housing is contrary to this policy…..the developer cites viability reasons for the lack of affordable housing, yet invariably developers ‘idea of what constitutes acceptable profit is excessive (check the viability report).

CP10 – Housing Mix – the scheme fails to propose a proper mix of housing to meet the needs of the local and wider community. 1 and 2 bed rented flats does not produce long-term housing in a mix of sizes and therefore is contrary to this policy. No doubt rental flats will not all be leased out and may become holiday lets or more student accommodation.

Bath does not need more PBSA (Purpose Built Student Accommodation) given what which has already been approved in Bath (Student Castle, Lower Bristol Rd (Pickfords), Bath Cricket Club, Green Park, Brougham Hayes, Twerton Mills , Twerton Bakery site etc) – many PBSA are not full and renting out rooms to visitors and holiday makers (e,g Green Park and Student Castle), hence it's not really student accommodation and should not be given the priorities and benefits that student accommodation applications are currently given.

B1 setting of conservation area and non-designated heritage assets; the scheme fails to maintain or enhance the local character and distinctiveness that forms the setting of the conservation area (site is not in a CA but in the setting).

BD1 – Bath Design Policy – the proposed height and scale fails to respect and respond to local character. But the use of bronze cladding fails to respond to and actually jars with local palette

Policy SB15 – does it respect and conform to the site specific policy?

80-100 dwellings which do not boost supply of standard market and affordable housing!
Facades and roofs do not integrate with surrounding context!

04/06/2019
Emma Puzey 160 Newbridge Road, Newbridge, Bath, BA1 3LE, O 09/05/2019: I would like to object to the development on Hartwells Garage site: Why more student property? Numerous areas around Bath are being developed for students? Why not residential housing for a residential area opposite a Primary School?
The building proposal is for too many floors? Too much of Baths skyline is being obscured but new high build property.
Parking along Newbridge Road is at an all time high where too many accidents are taking place as vehicles can not see the pavements, pedestrians and side roads. With so many houses being built where is everyone going to park? This is a major route that children walk to get to Newbridge Primary School. Please do not allow for road parking to take place causing a potential accident to one of our local children.
09/05/2019
Vickie Wood 6 Newbridge Hill, Newbridge, Bath, BA1 3PU, O 12/05/2019: I object strongly to the current proposals which I don’t feel fit with the locality. This site is directly opposite a primary school. Parking and road conditions are already unsafe for children walking to school. The current proposals don’t provide adequate parking for the units proposed. Other student developments elsewhere such as Twerton Mills have created unsafe parking along the road opposite and I can see this development leading to similar issues. Secondly the balance of student units to affordable housing feel out of balance in this key residential area. More affordable family units would seem more in keeping with the councils obligations in this locality. 12/05/2019
Fay Morrice 33 Maybrick Road, Twerton, Bath, Bath And North East Somerset, BA2 3PU O 12/05/2019: Last thing we need ruining bath is further student accommodation, provide truly affordable housing for young people 12/05/2019
Hannah Lees 271 Newbridge Road, Newbridge, Bath, BA1 3HL, O 08/05/2019: Student housing will negatively impact on the area. Parking is already inadequate and this will make it even worse.
Increased traffic is a serious road safety issue with the site opposite a primary school.
08/05/2019
Katrina Hayes Lyme Road, Newbridge, Bath, Bath And North East Somerset, BA1 3LN O 08/05/2019: I feel this area is already suffering with huge parking problems and traffic problems. We are close to a school and already the safety of the children i feel is at risk due to the heavy traffic and risky parking that is going on. This is proposing huge student accommodation again with little or no parking accommodating this and they do have cars. Unless the application had suitable parking to housing o don’t feel this would be a suitable or safe option. 08/05/2019
Laura Pincock 57 Brassmill Lane, Newbridge, Bath, Bath And North East Somerset, BA1 3JD O 08/05/2019: The amenities in the local area do not support the size of the development (even with the planning proposal inclusions).

The Newbridge Road area is already a busy road and to add more cars to the area would cause more standstill cars (already at standstill during the main commuting hours) and pollution in a primarily residential area including schools.

The plans for up to 5 storeys is completely out of character for the surrounding area.

The lack of parking will cause further clogging of already busy roads with pressure from RUH staff that park in neighbouring streets.
08/05/2019: The amenities in the local area do not support the size of the development (even with the planning proposal inclusions).

The Newbridge Road area is already a busy road and to add more cars to the area would cause more standstill cars (already at standstill during the main commuting hours) and pollution in a primarily residential area including schools.

The plans for up to 5 storeys is completely out of character for the surrounding area.

The lack of parking will cause further clogging of already busy roads with pressure from RUH staff that park in neighbouring streets.
08/05/2019
S Bateman 7 Kaynton Mead, Newbridge, Bath, BA1 3EQ, O 08/05/2019: Please consider residential housing over student. There is a lot of student housing being built in the area currently.

Additionally addition of a walkway diverting away from the main road, the corner is very dangerous for children walking to school. Additionally if a car park is being added the bus stop and crossings will all need to be rerouted anyway. Lastly, please consider accessibility and drop curbs, which are so often lacking in this area.
09/05/2019: Need to fulfill local housing needs first.

Need to consider parking, and road rerouting making the corner safer for children walking to school
09/05/2019
Ellie Giles 19 Charmouth Road, Newbridge, Bath, Bath And North East Somerset, BA1 3LJ O 08/05/2019: the parking provision is inadequate. It is naive to think that students won’t have cars. They will and they will park in surrounding roads which are already at breaking point. This will cause dangerous parking around the primary school opposite (already an issue). There needs to be an adequate number of parking spaces for the number of dwellings. 08/05/2019
Isobel Tait 14 Osborne Road, Newbridge, Bath, Bath And North East Somerset, BA1 3JR O 08/05/2019: I object to the application due to the parking difficulties which will impact upon myself and the neighbours where I live. I am deeply concerned that the families in my area will not be able to park their cars close to their homes due to students bringing their vehicles with them. Our roads are narrow and double parking on paths already occurs and is dangerous at the bottom of Osborne Road. A problem I fear would increase with no parking permits in place. A problem which Newbridge road already suffers from. This may impact re-sale value of our houses. These are family homes and parking is a necessity. It would put me off buying in this area if I was searching and this development existed. I also fear any commercial outlets would detract from local businesses. 08/05/2019
Rachel McDonough 17 Lyme Gardens, Newbridge, Bath, Bath And North East Somerset, BA1 3LW O 08/05/2019: I am very concerned about the above proposal on many grounds.
1. The site is very close to a school and a crossing that has lots of children crossing.
Having an increased number of residents in that area - in both cars and as pedestrians just makes this part of the street dangerous for crossing as more cars coming in and out. More houses on an already skinny pavement.
I also worry about the impact that the amount of people who would live on the site and the numbers of parking spaces not matching those - where they will park.
Already our street is at breaking point on parking. The amount of people you are talking about having living there is completely unacceptable for the area.
Also as a family home owner who has looked for years now to move to another family home in Bath. It is clear that there is a massive shortage of family housing in this area - this does absolutely nothing to help that - a massive student site with 3 storey houses which are certainly not family based and would not meet the need of a family - no garden etc..... are they actually family homes or rental properties - flats and houses.
I am astounded that this has got this far without the council putting a stop to it.
Of course a solution for the site needs to be found but not this - we need family homes not student accommodation. The area is crying out for it - why not help the residents rather than the greedy poachers of the developers just trying to get every last penny out of the site.
Disgusting and disgusted.
08/05/2019
Peter Clinick 19 Faulkland Road, Oldfield Park, Bath, Bath And North East Somerset, BA2 3LS O 04/06/2019: As a person living amongst student HMOs (Oldfield Park)I believe high student numbers devalue family house values,drive families out unbalancing the local demographic & cause a general down turn of the area,more rubbish in the streets & car congestion.
The noise pollution from densely packed student accommodation has effects upon peoples health & well being.
04/06/2019
Jen Stoneman 31 Newbridge Road, Newbridge, Bath, BA1 3HE, O 04/06/2019: Not enough affordable housing
Inadequate parking for number of dwellings.
Loss of light - proposed structures too high and will impact on views of fields and open green space
Concern over increased noise in a family area.
Concern over highway safety with 4 roads connecting to Newbridge road - inadequate space for loading, turning etc
04/06/2019
Graham Wake 94A Newbridge Road, Newbridge, Bath, BA1 3LD, O 07/06/2019: My objection to the proposal is that it would constitute over-development of the site. Newbridge road is a residential area , and needs new private affordable houses to be built, ideally offering starter homes for working families.

The increased volume of vehicles entering and leaving the new entrance opposite Charmouth Road (a main entrance to a school) and close to Rosslyn and Osborne Roads, will create four roads joining Newbridge Road within about 200 metres all on a dangerous bend.

Student rental accommodation will generate parking requirements. Many students are car owners and of the 186 student places, a proportion will have cars and will use local streets as parking. I do not accept the developer’s assertion that no students will be permitted to have cars. I believe this is unrealistic, unenforceable and misleading.
07/06/2019
I Medd 124 Newbridge Road, Newbridge, Bath, BA1 3LD, O 10/05/2019: A similar application for the Hartwell's site was withdrawn several years ago following a consultation period, which surfaced all the same comments and concerns being raised against this new application.

So what has changed since the last time ?
- Parking in the neighbourhood has become more challenging
- More student housing has been built in Bath, some of which are empty and some occupiers are car owners (Lower Bristol Road roadside parking)
- Affordable housing is needed for families more than ever

186 students and 105 residential homes served by 114 parking spaces, does not work. 1 & 2 bedroom apartments are not helping families.

This application exacerbates rather than resolves the issues, it is surprising that the council has permitted the application to progress to this stage.
10/05/2019
Ryan Smallman 3 Spencer's Belle Vue, Lansdown, Bath, Bath And North East Somerset, BA1 5ER O 16/05/2019: We have too much student housing already, we need more affordable housing for the people of Bath. We have to rent because we cannot afford any of the new houses being built as they are all very high end, and affordable housing should be a priority, not students, especially when they do not pay Council Tax. 16/05/2019
Lisa Maendl 142 Newbridge Road, Newbridge, Bath, BA1 3LD, O 30/05/2019: Bath already has many blocks of student flats, these are not all currently filled to capacity. Further student accommodation, if needed, should be built on campus rather than in the city as commuting by students adds to peak time congestion in the city. Many students do use buses, however, buses stop for long periods to let on many students at peak times. This adds to congestion and also causes risk of accidents as cars try to get past buses that are blocking the roads. Bath has a shortage of affordable accommodation in the city. This leads to many problems e.g. recruitment difficulties in healthcare. It also adds to traffic congestion at peak times as workers try to get into and leave the city. This negatively impacts on air quality, particularly worrying where children are walking to school next to heavily congested roads. The city also has a shortage of social housing. A mixed development of affordable and social housing would be a good use of the site and meet the needs of the city effectively. I object to the proposal of including student accomodation in the development 30/05/2019
Jonathan Gates 152 Newbridge Road, Newbridge, Bath, BA1 3LE, O 05/06/2019: I object to the proposal 19/01854/OUT entitled Hartwells of Bath, Newbridge Road, Bath, BA1 2PP and in particular the proposal to install new access to the site on the Eastern boundary. This access represents an increased danger to pedestrians and vehicles in the vicinity of the site.

As a chartered engineer with over 35 years experience, I regard the junction modelling of Newbridge Road / proposed site access / Charmouth Road to be misleading and, possibly, flawed (Transport Assessment Page 26 section 7 Junction Analysis). The modelling technique employed was PICADY (the Priority Intersection Capacity & Delay Module) for a four-arm staggered priority junction. Examination of Page 598 APPENDIX J: PICADY output indicates the following shortcomings and omissions:
a) The traffic-light controlled (‘puffin’) crossing close to Charmouth Rd. If the site were to be developed the crossing would experience greater use because of an increased number of pedestrians heading to, from and across the site. This has not been modelled. The impact of the proposed access is of particular concern because of the large number of children (from both Newbridge and Oldfield schools) using this crossing at the beginning and end of the school day.
b) Traffic from the (one-way) Osborne Road that is close to the proposed access is ignored despite having a possible an impact on the results.
c) Two-way traffic to and from Rosslyn Rd. that is also close to the proposed access will also have an impact on the results but has not been included in the model. Traffic turning right from this junction has restricted vision because of the bend opposite the proposed access. This should be taken into account in respect of delay and dangers of the overall layout of the junctions.
d) The current bus stop has been ignored despite its importance to the traffic capacity and delays at the junctions. Were the site to be developed, and the residents of the site encouraged to use public transport, then the stopping time for buses would be increased although it appears not to be considered.
e) The current bus stop road markings cross the proposed access. At the moment buses tend to stop where the access is proposed in order to give following traffic good visibility of the puffin crossing. The plans show significantly foreshortened bus markings meaning buses would have to stop closer to the puffin crossing. The potential increase in traffic delay (not to mention enhanced danger) has not addressed. Furthermore, there are currently situations where two buses arrive at the stop together. Foreshortened space allocated for buses would create delays and block the proposed site access. This should have been addressed in the study.
f) No account has been taken of the access to the retail car park opposite the bus stop for Bath-bound buses.

The junction analysis studies of the proposed access solely models a subset of junctions for capacity and delay. However, it can be deduced from the comments above that the stretch of the A4 close to the proposed site is complex and presents a number of dangers and risks. These will only be exacerbated by increased vehicular and pedestrian flows and longer bus waiting times. The addition of the proposed access and foreshortening of the bus stand will increase the dangers as a numerical risk assessment would show.

The accident rate along Newbridge Road is low but, as with all statistical events with a low occurrence, this is no guide to the risks over a particular stretch of the road. There is one accident quoted that is relevant (Appendix B, 171707207). However, since the accident report was generated, a further accident has occurred at the Newbridge Road/Charmouth Road junction. The road layout fronting the proposed site (and to 50m either side) incorporates a puffin crossing that acts as a school crossing. The proposed changes should in no way be allowed to degrade the safety or compromise this stretch of highway. This, alas, appears to be the case.

J Gates PhD, CEng, FIET
05/06/2019
Bernard Whishaw 12 Homelea Park West, Newbridge, Bath, Bath And North East Somerset, BA1 3HR O 05/06/2019: Morally wrong. Students can't afford this type of accommodation and it will remain empty, rented by overseas students. They want to live in shared houses: the same as families need to be able to buy. You should, no, must build family homes, small if necessary, eco sensible. Don't allow a naive speculative build based on developer's greed. 05/06/2019
Catherine Shakeshaft 31 - 33 Uplands Road, Saltford, Bristol, Bath And North East Somerset, BS31 3JQ O 05/06/2019: There is already too much traffic on the Upper Bristol/Newbridge Road, particularly before 10 and after 3. This amount of accommodation is far too dense for the area particularly in terms of traffic volume and lack of parking ( just look at the parking by the student housing on the Lower Bristol Road by the railway arches).
5 storeys is also far too high for the existing area.
05/06/2019
Professor Alan Champneys 189 Newbridge Road, Newbridge, Bath, BA1 3HH, O 06/06/2019: I should like to object in the strongest possible terms to this unwanted and fundamentally flawed proposal. I shall set out 5 grounds below before summarising.


1. On transport issues, especially around student cars.

The Highways assessment in response to consultation states. "It is proposed that student parking would be restricted through the implementation of a Management Plan, and this includes tenancy policies that would restrict students from parking any car within the
local area. The planning authority enforcement team would need to be content that this approach was enforceable if necessary, and this is considered to be critical for the success of the scheme. It is recommended that the detail of the monitoring methods are agreed at
this time, and if deemed to be appropriate, that any Management Plan would need to be secured by a planning condition."

In other words, a legally enforcible Management Plan needs to be put in place to stop students from brining cars to the neighbourhood in order for this scheme to be acceptable. Without impinging on the human rights of a resident student in owning a car and parking it wherever they chose on a public road, such a management plan is a myth. It simply does not exist. I know. I am a University Professor and father of three University students.

This myth was also perpetrated during the public consultation and forms key part of the submitted Framework Travel Plan: "5.3 Parking management processes, including limitations on car ownership for resident students, will be secured through planning conditions and/or a Section 106 agreement for the site." You cannot limit car ownership of resident students. This would violate their human rights. Simply saying that permitted developments 13/01876 and 14/00480 accepted such an argument is not relevant. It was a false argument then, it is a false argument now.

Unfortunately this myth prejudices the whole of the rest of the Transport Assessment in my view. The assessment assumes no student cars will be travelling during peak hours. Also, none of the transport assessment considers the impact of a gated community on the road
network, especially with cars coming around the bend on Newbridge road and so close to the School during peak hours.

Finally on transport, it is great that a potential cycle path will be opened up. However, I note that this will not be funded by the developers but by a levy on each of the individual properties. I also note that the cycle path will be compromised by the car parking
spaces. The potential for a car reversing into the path of a cyclist is not something that would encourage me to use this cycle path.

2. The issue of viability.

This document is fundamentally flawed in my view. It makes the false assumption that only a tiny fraction of the site will be for commercial development. It completely ignores the most obvious option; using the top part of the site for housing and the lower part of the
site for business use. This would be in accord with what is already in each area and what the local community wants. Why the developers have not considered this option is something that the planners may wish to consider. Could it be that the viability assessment is merely a thinly veiled attempt to justify the viability of the most profitable scheme for the developers?

3. The need for family and older person housing not for temporary residents

It is widely accepted by the local community and by BANES own medium term plans that housing is too expensive in Bath, and prime land like this in residential districts is required for family housing. There is no shortage in bath of small apartments. Indeed the whole of the riverside development caters for this need. But not for families. It is clear from the response from educational services that this will not be family accommodation. In fact, they calculate that there will be a total of 2 children under 5 and 1.6 of primary age. This accords with my own estimates of the space of each of the 1 and 2-bed
units. These are tiny "executive apartments" that are designed for short term let. There is no need for any more of this type of transient accommodation in bath. It is also noted that the requirement for affordable housing is likely to be fudged by saying that such small apartments are affordable, or that student accommodation is affordable. We can see the beginnings of this fudging in the flawed viability assessment.

I believe many many others have also commented on the lack of need for any further student accommodation in bath. One only needs to go onto Air B&B to see that the purpose built student accommodation on the lower Bristol Road, Green Park etc is not full. The price of such accommodation is prohibitive to most home students. And crucially these purpose built top-end student flats do not stop HMOs, which is the preference of home students. Such accommodation is mostly for overseas students. The overseas student market is fickle and all Universities are competing for these students. Many Universities have plans to increase these numbers, but clearly the market will not sustain all those plans. Incidentally these overseas students tend to be more wealthy and many of them buy cars..... see point 1 above. Frankly the 'student flats' bubble is about to burst and very soon developers will no longer see this as a cash cow. I also note the developing BANES area plan, currently out for consultation, that would outlaw such developments off campus. I am therefore cynical about the timing of this planning application.

4. Failure to comply with SB15

"Residential developments of around 80-100 dwellings, which could include a variety of specialist older persons housing types but not student accommodation, where this would prejudice the achievement of Policy DW.1 and B1 in respect of boosting the supply of standard market and affordable housing"

Clearly the student element of this proposal prejudices the delivery of 80-100 dwellings. Because the student element is there, the only room left for housing is tiny studio and so-called 2-bedroom apartments. Legally speaking these might be deemed as "dwellings" but
under most people's definition these lettings of small single person young professional apartments are not dwellings in the sense that anyone in the local community would recognise. This is not the form of housing that bath needs. This clearly prejudices the possible delivery of 80-100 family or older person dwellings.


5. Failing to consult properly with the community.


If one reads all the negative comments in the community consultation appendix, it is clear that the PR consultants were hired to try to sell an unwanted development to a community that has dealt with these developers before and made their views abundantly clear. In fact, the developers have had 5 years to engage with the community. They not only failed to do so, but they engaged in correspondence with the council and conducted local surveys in secret, and clearly they have spent a fortune on consultants (mostly not Bath based). During those 5 years not once did they engage with the local councillors, nor any other community group.

Then the report from the PR consultants contains something that frankly if I saw in a student essay, I would fail it. "It is important to highlight that less than a third of people invited to attend the public consultation event provided a response to the proposed scheme, indicating a potential neutrality amongst other local residents and
members of the community".

Lets unpick this statement. The PR firm sent out 494 letters (actually it appeared as unsolicited mail, "to the occupier" and many local residents I spoke to claim are adamant they never saw this.) This was the only communication about the consultation as far as I am aware. Had they wanted to publicise it properly this could easily have been achieved using
modern social media, the parents network at Newbridge School etc. The meeting was at an inconvenient time (the end of the working day). Only 75 turned up. Yet, the total response rate was 1/3 of the total number invited. Twice as many as turned up. Such a response rate to any public consultation is, in my experience, almost unprecedented. Any attempt to claim a "potential neutrality" fails a basic course in statistics. For the 2/3 who did not reply, there is no inference.

Finally, we have the paragraph which I imagine is cut and paste by the PR company as part
of their standard service to any client... "This document demonstrates Oakhill Group Ltd’s commitment to community consultation, going above and beyond the requirements set out by local and national government, engaging directly with residents’ groups and the community to involve them in the evolution of the submitted plans." but in this
case could hardly be close to the truth. There has been no significant evolution of the plans which were drawn up long before the community engagement event. They had 5 years to listen to the community and they failed to do so.


In summary:

This is an unwanted development by a developer who has no interest in the needs of Bath and a singularly obstinate attitude to taking feedback from the local community. They have instead hired lots of consultants to try to face a false picture about viability and compliance with BANES policies. It should be thrown out immediately and any future plans from these developers should show significant evidence of genuine community engagement.
06/06/2019
J A 123 Newbridge Road, Newbridge, Bath, BA1 3HG, O Documents Tab 16/05/2019
Peter Ward 100 Newbridge Road, Newbridge, Bath, BA1 3LD, O 30/05/2019: There is far too much student accommodation in Bath as it is.
There is a need for more family style accommodation.
There are not adequate facilities to provide the necessary public transport to accommodate the increase in student population.
The style of the fronting homes on Newbridge road is not in keeping with the surrounding properties.


30/05/2019
Catrin Yeomans 96 Newbridge Road, Newbridge, Bath, BA1 3LD, O 03/06/2019: I object to this application.
The application has insufficient parking and is below council recommended levels. The 2011 census shows that roughly 75% of households in Newbridge have one or more vehicles. BANES policy states that 1 bed room flats should be allocated 1 parking space and two bedroom flats should have two parking spaces. Lack of parking in Newbridge means that BANES parking policy should be adhered to in this case. I question the ability of the student accommodation management company to effectively monitor student parking in this area and a reliance on local residents to help police this.
Newbridge is predominantly a family area and any new developments should reflect this community and focus on building family homes, with outside space. This should include the council recommended level of affordable housing so that local families are not forced to move out of the area. The current plan has a very low level of affordable housing, which is well below the recommended council levels. The planning application states that the proposal would not be financially viable to provide the council recommended level. Surely lack of developer profit is not a reason to ignore council policy?
Housing on Newbridge Road in the vicinity of the development is two storeys above street level – with some properties having an additional floor in the roof space. The proposed development would significantly change the visual appearance of the local area due to the height of the build. Properties in the development on Newbridge Road should be reduced by 1 storey (and student flats should match this maximum height) to remain in keeping with local area.
The development is close to Newbridge Primary School and I have concerns about the safety of primary school children getting to and from school with increased traffic levels and inevitable spill out of cars from the development. The application states that there will be an increased flow during peak times – one of which will be the time that children are going to school. Newbridge school has a breakfast club before school starts, so children start walking along Newbridge Road during peak times. There have been two recent road accidents on Newbridge Road and traffic from the development could increase the likelihood of further accidents in the area.
I object to the application stating that the application has been shaped by the local community. The only substantial change to the application following a public consultation has been the possible retail unit. Comments made on parking, design of the buildings, number of student residences etc have been ignored.
03/06/2019
Elaine Jones 108 Newbridge Road, Newbridge, Bath, BA1 3LD, O 04/06/2019: We need affordable housing for families and young professionals. There is a lack of this in Bath.
There is more than enough student accommodation in Bath already to the extent that some of it is unoccupied and open to being let as holiday accommodation. Any further accommodation that is deemed necessary for students should be built on Campus, not in the city.
If student accommodation is built on the site then the situation with local parking will become impossible. It is understood that parking permits will be issued to residents but it will be very difficult (and costly) to enforce these and so students or others will inevitably bring cars onto the car park on site. Although University students are discouraged from bringing cars to University it is obvious that they do and car parking on Newbridge Road and the surrounding streets is already very difficult.
The gated entrance to the site is too close to the Osborne Road bridge. It is close to a significant bend in the road and could have dangerous consequences for those trying to cross the road and especially children going to and from Newbridge Primary school.
The site seems over developed and cramped. Trying to cram as many dwellings into as little space as possible. This will not contribute to quality of living space or sense of community. The business park at the rear could be extended. Would this not be financially viable and relieve more room for affordable family housing to the front of the site.
04/06/2019
James Stone 90 Newbridge Road, Newbridge, Bath, BA1 3LB, O 07/06/2019: 1. Over-development: The density of the design (300 plus units) is out of keeping with the residential nature of this district and will change its character. What is needed in this area is more family housing - this development area is one of the few left on this side of Bath that would be attractive to buyers of family housing because of access to schools and public transport along with a well established and stable residential community.
2. Negative effects on local amenities: The influx of 300 plus students and young professionals (plus their visitors) and their social lifestyle is likely to be incompatible in a residential family neighborhood. There are many other student housing projects completed and planned in Bath but few residential projects focused on families. There is anecdotal evidence that existing student apartments are not fully occupied by students and are being let to tourists via Airbnb.
3. Parking issues: There are already problems with car parking (RUH staff overspill). There is not enough parking provided on this design for the number of people who will live on this site. There is no legal way to restrict car ownership and useage amongst tenants in the areas around the development.
4. Road safety: the plans show access and exit to the site on a bend on Newbridge Road, along with delays incurred by the use of electric gates. Traffic turning onto Newbridge Road and Osborne Road already creates hazards on the bend because of obscured sight lines. Any further contention for road space will be highly dangerous.

Jim Stone
07/06/2019
Jan Bishop 191 Newbridge Road, Newbridge, Bath, BA1 3HH, O 09/05/2019: This sort of build would be out of character with the surrounding area. I am worried about the increase in traffic on what is already a busy road and the safety of children walking to the nearby primary school. 09/05/2019
Sarah Ormes 14 The Linleys, Lower Weston, Bath, Bath And North East Somerset, BA1 2XE O 05/06/2019: The density of this development is not consistent with the profile of the surrounding area. There will be a detrimental impact on local amenities including availability of parking and the strain on the already overburdened GP surgery. It’s closeness to a nearby primary school will exacerbate an already congested area for parking and access. 05/06/2019
K Haabjoern 10 Charmouth Road, Newbridge, Bath, Bath And North East Somerset, BA1 3LJ O 05/06/2019: The look: This site is out of character with the local building vernacular.
Parking: The site 'Framework Travel Plan' 5.4 indicates that one parking space will be allocated for each of the 104 residential units. The two bedroom units are likely to be occupied by people who work in different locations and there is a high likelihood of two cars being used, and if their cars are not being used they will need to be parked. These additional cars belonging to residents of the non-student accommodation, will be parked in the already congested local streets.
In 5.1 the framework states that the developers are following Banes parking standards by not providing parking for students. Is there any evidence that students do not drive and keep cars at the town where they study? I have researched this and there is evidence that students do bring cars, so therefore a problem will be created for existing street parking. In sections 5.10 and 5.11 the statement recommends that when signing their tenancy agreements the students will agree not to bring cars - however it will be up to existing residents to monitor the situation in the streets and report to the site managers. This is not acceptable and places the emphasis on residents to police a problem created by the developers.
This area already has peak times where the traffic is extremely busy, the developers claim that they are likely to add only one extra car every six minutes to those peak traffic flows- this is based on traffic surveys taken between 7am and 10 am so they average across those three hours. However it is highly unlikely that the traffic movement from the additional hundreds of people proposed to live at the site will travel in such even numbers across the whole three hours they will add to the extreme congestion at the most busy times. This means that our children when travelling to school will be in even more danger from these additional vehicles.
05/06/2019
Brigitte Bell Maisonette, 2 , 62 Newbridge Road, Newbridge, Bath, BA1 3LA, O 05/06/2019: in line with the comments already put forward by the Bath Preservation Trust. 05/06/2019
Kate Taylor 9 Charmouth Road, Newbridge, Bath, Bath And North East Somerset, BA1 3LJ R 05/06/2019: My concerns and comments regarding the development are:
1. The view from my house (the top end of Charmouth) of the southern slopes of Bath (namely the area around Bath City Farm) will be obscured by the new development and were not included in the LVIA. Viewpoint 7 is from the bottom of Charmouth Road from which point you can't really see the southern slopes anyway but if there had been a viewpoint from the top of the road, by the school, it would have been much more evident that there will be a significant negative effect on the view of the rural landscape in Bath for many residences. There isn't much left and to be able to see this is very important.

2. I am also concerned about the safety of school children and caregivers who are walking/cycling to and from Newbridge Primary every day during the construction works; equally, the negative traffic impacts on those caregivers who are driving their children to school and who will be negatively affected by construction works. I would like to know what the TMP is, what the construction programme looks like and also what safety considerations are to be implemented, particularly for school children.

3. Will there be an opportunity for school children and local residents to visit the site during construction to understand progress and to learn about the different skills employed? The development could be an excellent opportunity for school children to supplement their understanding of architecture, planning, landscaping, surveying, engineering, technology, geography, amongst other subjects.

4. I fully support the introduction of a cycleway along the disused railway line through the site and this will be a great addition to the already-excellent cycling route.

5. I worry, maybe unfairly, that a large group of students will not mix well with residential properties which are predominantly families (given the proximity of the primary school). We have had bad experiences of students living on Lyme Road and this was just one house so I worry that a large number in a small space will increase anti-social behaviour. I appreciate the siting of the students blocks on the southern side of the plot but i question the need for more student housing anyway. I would have thought affordable housing for small families, given the local amenities, would be much more beneficial and in keeping with the area.
05/06/2019
Chris Ellul Not Given O Documents Tab 05/06/2019
Liam Holcombe 24 Rudmore Park, Newbridge, Bath, Bath And North East Somerset, BA1 3JA O 13/05/2019: I have a few concerns 1 is the noise as my house overlooks the site and my young children sleep in the room overlooking the site and there will privacy issues as every one will be able to look directly in too there bedroom 13/05/2019
Dr Victoria Holt 26A Avondale Road, Newbridge, Bath, Bath And North East Somerset, BA1 3EG O 04/06/2019: The development is too overpopulated. There is no where for the 180 students to park their cars. I know it will be written into the lease that tenants can't have cars but that is not enforceable. This will lead to road access issues with over crowded car parking. Access for the 100+ cars to the car park will lead to increased traffic. The height of the building will be visable from my home. 04/06/2019
Ana Gomez 125 Newbridge Road, Newbridge, Bath, BA1 3HG, O 17/05/2019: I object this propossal as I feel will devalue the properties on the area. Parking around this already busy road it's difficult and it will compromise the safety of the children walking to the local school just opposite the site. Instead it would be welcome to build affordable housing , something lacking in this beautiful city. Or perhaps the area would be utilise to accommodate local shops, outdoor market, gym, play area for children and eating establishments, something that would bring live to this end of town. 18/05/2019
Ossian Whiley Garden Flat, 121 Newbridge Road, Newbridge, Bath, BA1 3HG, O 27/05/2019: 1. We are concerned that the development extends so far towards the city centre via the old tram lines. The natural green space in this area is thriving with wildlife including birds, amphibians, bats and small mammals such as badgers. We are concerned of not only the lasting change to this environment, but also the temporary disturbance caused during construction works.
2. We are concerned about the impact on our privacy due to the removal of green space and our gardens backing onto the tramway extension.
3. There is no provision for student parking and you have no way of controlling student car use. The primary reason for us not owning a car ourselves is the lack of parking on this street. The introduction of even a dozen additional vehicles would exacerbate this issue.
4. We are concerned about student accommodation in general being introduced to this area. These large scale developments have a significant impact on local services as they change to cater for a different demographic, therefore changing the character of yet another local community. Bath already has thriving student hubs in several locations, it seems unnecessary to introduce another.
5. As a regular commuter to Bristol and the centre of Bath, I saw no indication of the potential mitigation of disruption to this major public transport artery in the consultation boards. I have seen a rush hour commute to Bristol change from 45mins to up to 90mins due to other works between the two cities. Disruption on this road would potentially make it unviable to commute and would therefore have significant impact on the local economy.
6. We would like to know how you intend to mitigate general disruption and construction noise that will impact local residents.
7. We are not entirely opposed to development of this site. Commercial property in Bath is highly sought after and difficult to find and we would prefer it stayed as such.
27/05/2019
Tim Osborn 137 Newbridge Road, Newbridge, Bath, BA1 3HG, O 04/06/2019:
1. I agree in principle to redeveloping the site for residential use. However, the proposed figure of 105 new homes exceeds the upper limit of development as defined in the core strategy [80 – 100 homes]. I would expect the development to be restricted to the numbers set out in the core strategy.
2. I am totally opposed to the additional accommodation for students on top of the residential provision. The reasons for my objection are as follows:
a. This represents an overdevelopment of the site, significantly beyond its capacity.
b. The core strategy, Policy SB15, specifically excludes student accommodation from this site. I fully expect this to be reflected in any planning decision for the site.
c. The residential mix proposed [1+2 bed units] is inappropriate for this site. This is a family based neighbourhood, near to 2 primary schools, the RUH and local community facilities, and the development should be providing much needed family accommodation. There should be affordable provision within this. The proposed mix is likely to become short term lets to students/holiday visitors which is not appropriate. Such a mix is in contravention of policy CP10
d. The proposal does not meet the required provision of affordable homes set down in CP9. This is unacceptable.
e. The proposal only provides parking for the residential elements, and includes no student parking at all. This is totally unacceptable. As a long term resident of Newbridge Road, I can confirm that the student rental accommodation in the houses adjacent generate parking requirements. Many students are also car owners and of the 186 student places, a proportion will have cars and will use local streets as parking. I do not accept the developer’s assertion that no students will be permitted to have cars. This is unrealistic, unenforceable and misleading.
f. The additional traffic generated by the residential development and compounded by the student car owners and the necessary additional public transport will exacerbate airborne pollution on Newbridge Road. The road is a key access route for vehicles from the west into Bath and at peak times carries large numbers of slow moving traffic. Bath’s air quality problems must be taken into account when considering developments which are likely to have detrimental effect on air quality. Of particular concern, is the proximity of Newbridge school to Newbridge Road.

3. The principle of re-establishing a terraced frontage to the street is welcomed. However, the 3 storey blocks are excessive and do not fit the context of the site. Adjoining houses, even the larger detached Villas along this part of Newbridge Road do not reach 3 storeys. The building is too big for its site and should be 2 storeys to match the street.
4. The proposals indicate parking along the disused railway line. We would object to any proposal for lighting this car park. There is considerable bat activity along this green corridor which is currently dark at night. The developer will need to demonstrate an appropriate balance of public safety and the specific needs of nocturnal wildlife. The railway corridor, combined with the river corridor are important ecological greenways that connect the rural hinterland to the centre of the city. Any car parking must include a substantial area of good quality, well managed and non illuminated ecological planting.

In summary, I support an application for residential uses that is in accordance with the local plan, but totally opposed to additional development for student accommodation that contravenes the adopted strategy and is completely inappropriate development in this location. I would expect this element of the application to be removed.
04/06/2019
P Burrows Maisonette, 121 Newbridge Road, Newbridge, Bath, BA1 3HG, O 13/05/2019: The Newbridge Road is already a very busy road. The additional cars this development would bring to the local area would add yet more vehicles to an already congested and heavily polluted area. At peak hours cars are already tailed back at a standstill with their engines idling. This development would further increase air pollution levels, with a primary school in such close proximity it should be a major concern.

The current proposals does not provide adequate parking for the units proposed. There is already a heavy strain on parking currently without this added demand. Other student developments in the Bath area, such as Twerton Mills, have created unsafe parking along the road opposite. I believe that this development will create similar issues with the added risk of being in such close proximity to a primary school.

The proposals for this development state a share of only 10% affordable homes. It is BANES planning policy (CP9) that residential development sites should target 40% affordable homes. Affordable family units make a lot more sense to be built within this area.
13/05/2019
James 28 Brassmill Lane, Newbridge, Bath, Bath And North East Somerset, BA1 3JE O 14/05/2019: Should be used for affordable homes for the people of Bath, not more student homes/flats! The houses should match what is on newbridge road now. 14/05/2019
Kevin Musty 6 Rudmore Park, Newbridge, Bath, Bath And North East Somerset, BA1 3JA O 14/05/2019: Newbridge road is congested with private student let’s and cars without an extra 100 odd cars exiting on to the main road adjacent to the school.
And the pollution levels are rising due to the students cars.
I think we have more than enough accommodation already built for bath uni.
This will also have a big impact for on recycling and stretch the resources even more.
14/05/2019
Mike Barrett 61 Ashgrove, Peasedown St. John, Bath, Bath And North East Somerset, BA2 8EF O 15/05/2019: It is an utter disgrace, Bath city council seem to green light any student accommodation, probably due to the profit margins. However they should be green lighting affordable housing for residents. Student accommodation will completely transform this area of Bath and not in a good way. You are destroying Bath, enough with the student accommodation!! 15/05/2019
Stephen Coates 17 Avondale Court, Newbridge, Bath, BA1 3ET, O 15/05/2019: There is a real need for affordable housing for families in this area.
I went through a separation last year and it was extremely difficult to either a rent or buy an affordable property in the area for me and my family.
RUH staff park in this area, as well as staff from the local industrial units and also people using it as an informal park and ride area. Therefore, the addition of that many people, with associated vehicles (don't’ be in denial that students won’t bring them!) will add pressures to the parking situation.
Additionally, it is a concern that so much traffic will be coming in and out so close to the school crossing, which is dangerous at the best of times! You only have to look at the damaged railings from a recent road traffic accident!
15/05/2019
Owen Rogers 18 Charmouth Road, Newbridge, Bath, Bath And North East Somerset, BA1 3LJ O 15/05/2019: Newbridge is a suburb of Bath populated with young families and the older generation. Students are an important part of Bath, and we need them, but there are plenty of places in the city where students are already the majority. The character of Newbridge can't handle an influx of such a large number of students in such a concentrated space, and there will inevitably be noise, disturbance, traffic issues and parking issues as a result of the development. Parking is a major concern: residents already struggle to park due to commuters and hospital employees. Even if the development prohibits students from bringing cars, how will this be policed? How will the student management company be aware of if a student has a car, and how will this be dealt with? It seems naive to assume this can be managed. The developers have stipulated there will be 117 car parking spaces for over 400 new residents - do they really believe only 1 in 4 residents will have a car? This will cause massive challenges for those with families, the elderly and infirm, and others, who already can't find a space on their own street. Traffic around Charmouth Road is already busy due to school dropoffs: adding new roads could lead to issues of road safety, especially with youngsters walking to school.

All residents appreciate something must be done with the Hartwells site, but Bath is screaming out for more space for young families and more space for industry and commerce. Students are a key component of Bath's culture, but Newbridge can't retain its character with the additional traffic, parking stress, noise and disturbance that will inevitably result from so many students living in such a dense area
15/05/2019
Jesper Knapton 17 Charmouth Road, Newbridge, Bath, Bath And North East Somerset, BA1 3LJ O 15/05/2019: This site is crying out to be developed but yet more student accommodation in what is predominantly a neighbourhood of young families and the elderly is simply not a viable mix. Parking and congestion in and around Charnouth road is already at breaking point what with hospital staff and commuters leaving their cars on this and adjoining roads, yet you’ve only allowed 117 parking spaces which is absurd for a proposed development of this size. Trying to police the students who are not purportedly allowed cars will be an impossible task and I’m sure I don’t need to spell it out to you where those cars will be left! The huge increase in traffic coupled with a school drop off and collection time at newbridge school is a recipe for disaster. This to me screams out as just another money making venture and to-hell with what the local residents feel or think. 15/05/2019
Emma Bloom 11 Lampard's Buildings, Ballance Street, Lansdown, Bath, Bath And North East Somerset, BA1 2RW O 15/05/2019: There is already a disproportionate provision of student housing in Bath.
I think it is disgraceful that, in this particular proposal, so many parking spaces should be provided for a group of individuals who should be encouraged if not obliged by the university to use the public transport provided. Why, when Bath is apparently so commited to controlling the impact of private vehicles on the city , should it be acceptable to actually provide more parking spaces than bedrooms, madness.
It should be incumbent on all developers to devote some of their dwellings to social housing or fair rental properties as is the case with other major developments in bath, for example Riverside.
It would not be completely incompatible to provide some kind of homeless hostel accomodation as part of this student development project. After all both groups are notorious for not being the most considerate of neighbours, perhaps they might learn something from one another.
15/05/2019
A M Carter 53 Park Road, Newbridge, Bath, Bath And North East Somerset, BA1 3EE O 15/05/2019: The developer mentions that student block has no parking and that students, as part of their tenancy agreement, will not be allowed to park a vehicle within 3km of the site. The developer does not state how this will be monitored or enforced.

Both universities have people travelling the world recruiting students so they should be responsible for providing accommodation on their sites. There is ample space.

The site should be developed for affordable housing which Bath needs!
15/05/2019
Gerald Delahunt 1 Yomede Park, Lower Weston, Bath, Bath And North East Somerset, BA1 3LS O 15/05/2019: My objections relate 1) to the proposed entrance to the proposed development being at a corner onto the A4, opposite the road leading to the main entrance to Newbridge School. 2) the proposed inclusion and volume of student accommodation. If Both universities base in Bath want to increase their student numbers then they should provide sufficient living accommodation on campus and in the city at the expense of affordable/social housing. 3) the insufficient provision of parking for the number of proposed houses/apartments and proposed student accommodation. 15/05/2019
S Partridge 5 Holcombe Green, Upper Weston, Bath, Bath And North East Somerset, BA1 4HT R 15/05/2019: Bath needs social housing we are over run with student accommodation already.
Not only will this put pressure on the flow of traffic coming in and out of one of bath busiest commuter roads to Bristol,car parking for these flats is not clear we cannot cope with another 200 cars trying to park.
15/05/2019
Colin Callan Flat 29 Clarkson House, 6 Great Stanhope Street, Kingsmead, Bath, Bath And North East Somerset, BA1 2BQ O 15/05/2019: Firstly, I want to say that Bath is overrun with students and student accommodation outnumbers accommodation for the full time residents of Bath. These are the hard working people who keep Bath going from day to day!

Bath does not need any more student accommodation, it will lead to more parking difficulties, more affordable housing is needed for the people of Bath NOT more student accommodation! Build more student accommodation up at the university. There is plenty of space on the Bath Spa Uni campus for more student accommodation, use it!

I think it should be a lot more social housing for the people of Bath. NO MORE STUDENT accommodation please? - they have enough, think of the good people of Bath who have nowhere to live?

This development contradicts BANES' housing policy it seems. It is BANES' planning policy that residential development sites should target 40 per cent affordable homes. The proposals for this development state a share of only 10 per cent affordable homes it seems? The viability of the site is the reason quoted for such a significant reduction. Please explain why the goalpost have been moved in this instance? This seems very underhand to me.

15/05/2019
Danielle 82 Sheridan Road, Whiteway, Bath, Bath And North East Somerset, BA2 1RB O 15/05/2019: 1. Traffic is already a huge issue on this very busy road. Whilst it states that the students will not bring cars, due to signing a contract, I previously lived opposite the student buildings along Lower Bristol roads and there were constant parking issues. The students kept bringing cars and there was no enforcement on this, despite numerous phone calls. Working late, I had to park in Twerton often and walk along to my home past midnight because I could not park outside or near my own home!
2. Being near a primary school is also a concern, especially with increased traffic. On top of this, students continue to show little regard for the city - litter and vomits are a common occurrence along the Lower Bristol Road. How safe and what example does this set for the children attending this school.
3. Bath continues to under deliver on social housing,affordable housing or general low end housing options. The city cannot continue to disregard the population of the city in favour of overflowing short term students. The universities need to be held accountable and numbers need to be capped. Continued growth at both universities is feeding the problem and in turn takes away from those born and bred in bath (I happily say this coming from Kent as well). Take a leaf from Oxford here! Protect the heritage of the city.
4. City skyline looks horrendous now as we continue to build up. This is continuing to be commented on negatively by tourists...how long before that takes a hit!
15/05/2019
Ben Gardiner 16 Bellotts Road, Twerton, Bath, Bath And North East Somerset, BA2 3RT O 15/05/2019: Bath is overrun with new flats e.g. Riverside, Rosebury Place. We need family houses not more flats which will be purchased by investors and rented out for profit. Also please don’t make Newbridge another area with lots of students. The application is again trying to overdevelop the size of the site to maximise profit and will completely change the feel of the family area. Why can’t it follow all other surrounding property styles - houses. 15/05/2019
Jan Byrne 19 Rosslyn Road, Newbridge, Bath, Bath And North East Somerset, BA1 3LQ R 04/06/2019: There is a shortage of family and private housing in Bath and I believe far too much student accomodation outside the university campuses. This main road is a busy and noisy one as it is and extra traffic, in what is essentially a residential area, will have an impact on parents willing to allow their children to walk to school.
I would have no objection to houses for families as this is essentially a residential area
04/06/2019
Nick Denning 3 Newbridge Gardens, Lower Weston, Bath, Bath And North East Somerset, BA1 3LT O 02/06/2019: As a local resident I have major concerns around this application and feel that it needs to be rejected based on the following observations:

* The initial development plans for the site were for residential not including student accommodation. I fail to see how an application for 180 student beds and 105 small apartments can fulfil this requirement
* The application has the potential risk of bringing in 285 additional cars to the area, with onsite parking for a fraction of this number. There is no way of policing or encouraging residents to not use cars, as it has been proven at the Twerton Mill development where cars are now parked along the Lower Bristol Road all day every day. The area already suffers from there being no safe way for larger vehicles from from Bristol to access Newbridge from Newbridge Road. Large vehicles cannot make the turn at the top of Old Newbridge Hill. They have to either go up Roslyn Road or Apsley Road - a feat witnessed everyday by local school buses. These two roads are also used by local traffic trying to avoid the queues on Old Newbridge Hill. Additional cars being parked on these road from the development will result in daily gridlock.The area is already significantly suffering from over capacity of parking from staff at the RUH parking on local roads to avoid daily charges.
* The density of the development is completely out of character from the local environment. Every dwelling along Newbridge Road is an Edwardian or Victorian villa, to then have a high volume development squeezed between the buildings will look odd and be an eyesore for future generations
* There is no need for even further development for student accommodation in Bath, a fact recognised by the council. This application is obviously being fast tracked by the developer before the ban of new development comes into force.
* There are real concerns about mixing student life and family life so closely together. The issues in Oldfield Park have been well documented with student lifestyles and family lifestyles not mixing well. Students quite rightly want to live a life that starts late in the day and finished late in the day, families get up early and go to bed early. This will have an adverse affect on the the location community and will lead to time and money being consumed by the council dealing with complaints associated with noise and antisocial behaviours
* Employment across Bath has become a real issue. The number of residential and student dwelling has exploded in the last five years. This is precisely at a time when employment opportunities are withering away to nothing. The result of this is mass commuting each day in and out of Bath, putting massive strain on the road network and the rail network. Consideration for this site needs to be on creating local well paid employment for the area, encouraging Students to stay after their studies
* There is an inclusion on the plans for another local coffeeshop. Is this really necessary with the facilities and amenities of Chelsea Road?
02/06/2019
Allan Dyson 2 Charmouth Road, Newbridge, Bath, Bath And North East Somerset, BA1 3LJ O 02/06/2019: The proposal fails to reflect the essential nature of the area. The large characterless buildings are incompatible with existing architecture and do not complement or enhance the locality - quite the reverse - they detract from the fundamental character of the neighbourhood. In another setting the design might be acceptable but it has little, if any, merit in this context.

The intention is to provide accommodation for over 400 residents; just 113 parking spaces have been allocated to residents (visiting friends, families and tradespeople will create further demand for parking). Not a single parking space has been allocated to any of the 186 adult students. Claims that students can be prevented from bringing cars into the area is not naive, it is a wilful neglect of reality. The proposed parking provision is inadequate in all respects and will exacerbate problems in an already congested area which serves as an overspill car park for staff and visitors to the RUH. If approved, this proposal will have a significant negative impact on an already unsatisfactory residential amenity. However, of greater concern is the consequences of inadequate parking provision.

If approved, the resultant crawling car and commercial vehicles seeking (non-existent) parking spaces will inevitably lead to increased emissions causing further deterioration in air quality and consequent risks to health, particularly young children. Inevitably illegal parking will be more persistent than it is already promoting greater risks of accidents to pedestrians, people in wheelchairs or with visual impairments, and people with prams/pushchairs (as well as drivers). If approved, this proposal will have a significant negative impact on the environment, health and safety of the community.

All in all, this proposal misses the opportunity to provide affordable family homes. Its focus on the development of unattractive high density dwellings will have a deleterious affect on the neighbourhood and should not be approved.
02/06/2019
Donald Branston 235 Newbridge Road, Newbridge, Bath, BA1 3HJ, O 02/06/2019: I object to the development of the site for unnecessary off-campus student accommodation which will inevitably lead to increased vehicle movements in the area. These will pose a hazard to the existing road users and pedestrians, including schoolchildren. Additionally, the contracts requiring students not to bring cars will not be enforced creating further pressure on the area's parking in what is already a congested area given that RUH staff and visitors frequently park in surrounding streets.
02/06/2019
Amanda Thomas 11 Homelea Park East, Newbridge, Bath, Bath And North East Somerset, BA1 3HP O 02/06/2019: I feel I must object to this development in the strongest terms. It is vast and totally inappropriate for the setting. There is inadequate provision for access and parking and the local roads, congested even now, risk being overwhelmed. The extra weight of traffic will increase the chance of accidents, particularly given that there is a primary school directly opposite. There is a need for affordable homes, and an appropriate mix of housing, but such a huge number of tiny flats and student accommodation does not address this. I believe it does not take into account the needs of the community, or Bath as a whole, in the slightest. 02/06/2019
Luke O'Shea 17 Lyme Road, Newbridge, Bath, Bath And North East Somerset, BA1 3LN O 02/06/2019: I wish to raise an objection to the proposed Hartwells redevelopment in the strongest possible terms.

I have very serious concerns around the safety of children at Newbridge School, with the increased traffic and additional parking pressure on Charmouth Rd, Lyme Road and Lyme Gardens, as well as concerns about the inappropriate and out of keeping character of the design of the flats, and totally inadequate parking of 117 spaces for 104 multiple occupancy units, 186 student units and retail space.

To support 186 students, 104 multiple occupancy units and the proposed retail space, you would need at least 200 car spaces. Inevitably the overflow from this additional car parking will go to the nearest roads, including Charmouth Road where Newbridge school is placed. At best this will compromise the already pressured residential parking and access, but also we will see large numbers of students and non-residents driving more dangerously round the streets where large numbers of children are present. This presents a serious additional safety risk. There will also be major congestion added, to an already congested area, when we should be seeking to minimise car use and traffic.

I also object to the very poor design of the proposed high rise blocks of flats. These are totally out of keeping with the Bath Stone housing in the surrounding area and have large facades of cheap grey metal cladding to minimise costs. The character of the blocks of flats in no way reflects the BANES planning vision of an internationally renowned city of architectural character. The erosion of standards of architecture is not a necessity, even when building blocks of flats for several hundred people, and this design will be a blight on the architectural character of the residential area. The design should be re-visited to fit with the surrounding housing.
02/06/2019
Jane Kovalev 15 Rowacres, Southdown, Bath, Bath And North East Somerset, BA2 2LH O 14/05/2019: enough is enough! We need homes for people who work and live in Bath and contribute via paying their council tax! What I would prefer to see on a site like this is accommodation for residents who would make be like to down size from their current homes like myself. I would love to find a place on a level walk to shops etc the flats going up on the riverside are way out of our price range! 14/05/2019
Kieran Jukes 203 Newbridge Road, Newbridge, Bath, BA1 3HH, O 14/05/2019: During the public consultation the developer was unable to satisfactorily explain how car parking for the student population would be handled as the development includes no parking provision for them. The explanation was that their licence to occupy the accommodation would include clauses banning them from bringing cars onto the site. This means that students who purchase cars (and they will, the university cannot ban them from ownership, they're free citizens) will park them in the local community. There is already considerable demand for parking from the local residents, parents dropping children off at school and from hospital staff who cannot park on the hospital site. This situation will only add to congestion in the area.
My second point is that student accommodation is not appropriate for the area. This is a residential (although busy) street, as is the majority of the surrounding area and student accommodation does not fit with the nature of the immediate or surrounding area.
I have no objection to the site being developed for affordable, first time purchase housing that gives opportunity for local children to live in the community in which they were raised. The city is seriously lacking in this area and this site should not be used as a cash cow for the university. Thank you.
14/05/2019
Steve Ford 10 Minerva Gardens, Southdown, Bath, Bath And North East Somerset, BA2 1JP O 14/05/2019: I along with my sister are joint owners of 18 Lyme Road, Bath BA1 3LN. We object to this application which is no more than an iteration of a previously rejected application to build accommodation on the Hartwells Garage site (the site). There are many reasons why this application should not be approved but first and foremost is the proposed over development of the site with its accompanying transport/road usage implications. If all the accommodation units are used to their maximum capacity there will be 445 residents occupying the site!
With this in mind, there are clearly insufficient parking spaces. It is proposed that students will have 4 dedicated parking spaces for 186 Student units!!! While students are requested not to bring vehicles to Bath, there is nothing to stop them and a great many do. This can easily be substantiated by just visiting areas of Oldfield Park and the Lower Bristol Road opposite Twerton Mill during term time and then by comparison at University holiday time. It would be naïve in the extreme to think that because there are only 4 student parking spaces, only 4 students would bring their vehicles. It would also be naïve to believe that any extended cycle/pedestrian route would offer anything other than minimal benefit as the vast majority of residents would use road transport.
The streets/roads close to the site are already over crowded with vehicle spaces being used 24 hours a day. Staff at the nearby hospital (RUH) park in these roads rather than pay to park at the hospital. Residents have great difficulty now of being able to park anywhere near their property. Newbridge school in Charmouth Road is opposite the site. Many parents take and collect their children by car which already causes road blockage/traffic congestion with vehicle emissions being an increasing cause for concern. The upper Bristol Road is already congested at rush hour both going into and out of Bath. By injecting up to 445 additional residents into an already congested area, the impact on the current residents will be detrimental to health in terms of increased vehicle emissions and safety especially for school children with the associated increase in traffic. This must not be approved.
14/05/2019
Justin Hunter Hunter & Lye Estate Agents, 7 Chelsea Road, Newbridge, Bath, BA1 3DU, O 14/05/2019: I write to object to this application. The build would be out of character within Newbridge as will so many student residences, this is a family area without the facilities for so many students.
I feel the entrance to the site entrance is too close to the entrance to Charmouth Road where there is a primary school, the traffic is already horrendous at dropping off and collection times with spillage on Newbridge Road. I have little doubt that the extra cars will in time result in a serious accident.
The developers state that Bath needs more Student accommodation, this I question. I feel we need to fulfil local housing needs first and we need more affordable homes in Bath.
I hope this site is developed for the good of the people of Bath and not in the interest of the developer’s pocket. I feel they can make a respectable profit from creating family homes with a mix of affordable homes on the site rather than decimating a lovely community.
14/05/2019
Michael Dennis-Jones 33 St John's Road, Bathwick, Bath, BA2 6PX, O 21/05/2019: The requirement for yet more student accommodation in Bath, upon which this application is substantially based, is specious. Has the Council a clear view of how much student accommodation already exists, and how that relates to student numbers? Do the universities? There is evidence of over-provision already. For example the development at 30 St John's Road, Bathwick (16/03359/FUL), approved in 2016: in this academic year, over half of the accommodation has been given over to AirBnB holiday lets (without planning consent) as the student letting company was unable to fill the rooms. The Council must strictly control the construction of "sui generis" (=unique/peculiar!) accommodation which is, by definition, unsuitable for any alternative use and sits outside any Plans. Until such control is demonstrable, I object to the application. 21/05/2019
Joe Scofield Blackmore Drive, Twerton, Bath, Bath And North East Somerset, BA2 1JW O 22/05/2019: I object to this current proposals because I want to see the levels of social and affordable housing specified in planning policy CP9. On this basis I disagree with housing land given to yet more student blocks.

I also feel that the proposals represent serious massing and cramming, failing to create attractive public spaces in line with planning policies such as D1 and D2 etc.

Thanks for taking the time to process my comment.

22/05/2019
Nancy Davey 11 Kingsfield, Southdown, Bath, Bath And North East Somerset, BA2 2NB O 22/05/2019: Student housing without parking will only increase local residence misery further. Banning students from parking on site will push them to parking on nearby roads. With Newbridge Infant school opposite cars/parking is already hazardous.
There is already a glut of student accommodation in Bath in areas that make far more sense than Newbridge and these are not fully occupied. Bath needs more affordable housing for its own younger generation to be able to continue to live in the City they were born and brought up in. This site would serve much better dedicated to family homes/affordable housing.
22/05/2019
Paul De'Ath 15 Walcot Parade, Walcot, Bath, Bath And North East Somerset, BA1 5NF O 22/05/2019: I consider this latest planning application of the old Hartwells garage to be a massive overdevelopment of the site, with buildings whose design are completely inappropriate for this location. The planners must enforced that all proposed buildings on this site will not be of greater height than the surrounding properties. I believe that the present application is yet another nail in the coffin for Bath's UNESCO World Heritage City status.

I also consider that using this site for student accommodation is completely wrong. All further student accommodation MUST be located on their respective sites. If they have no room to house any more students on their own land then that will mean that the student popoulation in Bath has reached its maximum and no further increase in numbers will be allowed here. This site should either be used as a much needed petrol filling station as there is no longer one on this road or for the housing of non-students.
22/05/2019
Alice White 15 Charmouth Road, Newbridge, Bath, Bath And North East Somerset, BA1 3LJ O 09/05/2019: You are suggesting 290 new dwellings which would house at least 290 people. Newbridge simply does not have the space to accommodate that many new residents. The proposal says 186 student bedrooms. The surrounding streets are very family oriented with young children and it is a very quiet area at night. 200 students would completely change the make up of the community and alter the neighbourhood and devalue the surrounding properties.
There is also no mention of how many parking spaces they are going to provide. The parking situation in the surrounding streets is already dire and traffic congestion at peak times is at an all time high. How do they intend to accommodate 200 extra cars?! Bath is already over populated. Creating 200 more dwelling places in an already cramped city is ludicrous. I do not believe it enriches the area. It creates noise pollution, traffic pollution and overcrowds the local area.
09/05/2019
Lewis Clark 1 Dorset Close, Twerton, Bath, Bath And North East Somerset, BA2 3RF O 22/05/2019: We do not need any more student housing in Bath, there is already too much. Currently the 2 student halls of residence on the Lower Bristol (Waterside and Charlton Court have a lot of free spaces. Bath Spa has to pay rent on these unoccupied rooms, this is why they are currently offering unconditional offers to students and trying to attract 2nd and 3rd years into these blocks. This is clear evidence that Bath doesn't need more student housing.

The councils continued support of higher education businesses over the needs of the students and locals who live in the city is killing Bath. If you are a resident in Bath you face rising rents, and the fact that your children will never be able to live in the city. If you are a student, you are just product to the universities and landlords in the city. You pay exorbitant fees and exorbitant rents and then can't afford to ever live in the city after graduation.

The lack of affordable housing is draining the city of it's residents and replacing it with imaginary London millionaires who will keep all are shops and restaurants afloat, and debt ridden students who work for minimum wage servicing non existent rich people.

This project is exactly what Bath doesn't need.
22/05/2019
Ed Ascott 4 Ayr Street, Twerton, Bath, Bath And North East Somerset, BA2 3RJ O 22/05/2019: This is more student housing. We need more social and affordable housing in Bath. The university should take responsibility for housing their customers. B&NES need to take responsibility for their residents. There are hard working local families unable to rent or buy where they are needed as workers and where they grew up. B&NES need to address this. Now. 22/05/2019
Laurence Cale 18 Station Road, Newbridge, Bath, Bath And North East Somerset, BA1 3DX O 22/05/2019: I have a number of objections to this planning proposal as follows
* The proposal is for high density occupation in blocks of flats. There are no other blocks of flats nearby so this is totally out of keeping with the area. Furthermore there is a clear need for houses in Bath, not flats and to develop houses on this site would be in keeping with the area and what the community (voters) want.
* The proposal for student accommodation is not acceptable. There is plenty of student accommodation available already and more importantly, students do not pay council tax but use the facilities that tax payers provide. This imbalance has become ridiculous of late. Houses for tax payers does not seem unreasonable.
* Inadequate parking is proposed. It is clear that 2 parking spaces per property is a more sensible number given the massive parking and traffic problems in Bath. The proposal that a student car ban would be enforced by site security clearly will not work. On these grounds alone the scheme should be rejected
* The proposed buildings lack any aesthetic and could be blocks of flats anywhere. This follows the trend of the Riverside development and so should be rejected because that development nearly lost Bath its World Heritage status which brings in the all important tourist pound - especially to the council.
22/05/2019
Christopher Wild Flat 2, 16 St James's Parade, Bath, BA1 1UL, O 22/05/2019: This city needs more affordable housing. 22/05/2019
Jon Taylor Flat 8 , 1 - 8 Rosslyn Close, Newbridge, Bath, Bath And North East Somerset, BA1 3JU O 22/05/2019: What Bath needs is more affordable, and social housing, not more student accommodation. 22/05/2019
Emma Savage 15 Ambleside Road, Southdown, Bath, Bath And North East Somerset, BA2 2LR O 22/05/2019: The plans are hideous and do not compliment the surrounding area at all. This is a dense residential area, predominantly of young families. From previous experience living in Oldfield Park, the disturbance caused by students is unrelenting, it will be a disruptive addition to a peaceful neighbourhood. 22/05/2019
Sarah Keep 20 Charmouth Road, Newbridge, Bath, Bath And North East Somerset, BA1 3LJ O 22/05/2019: 1) Newbridge Road is already a very busy road. Adding more housing and an access road will cause even more traffic. There is a primary school opposite the proposed development; more cars = busier road = potential for more accidents.

2) Parking is already an issue in the area; cars park all along Newbridge road, which often creates poor visibility for drivers leaving or entering roads such as Rossyln Road, Charmouth Road and Apsley Road. The proposed number of parking spaces on the site will not be enough - 114 spaces for 104 units is not enough if there are multiple car owners in some of the properties. This will lead to more people trying to park their cars along Newbridge Road and surrounding roads. Many of the houses in the area e.g. Charmouth Road, do not have driveways, so it will become even more difficult for residents to park anywhere near their homes.

3) Over-development: 3-5 storey residential and student blocks are not in-keeping with the area, which is made up of family housing. Would homeowners want to live so close to so many students?
22/05/2019
Rachael Gamow 27 Brassmill Lane, Newbridge, Bath, Bath And North East Somerset, BA1 3JE O 22/05/2019: The parking in this area is already overcrowded due to the proximity of the area to the Bitton Cycle Track, the RUH and Town and there is only mention of parking but no mention of whether the parking would be sufficient to cater for 186 students. If it isn't, the strain on existing residents would be extreme. The amount of through traffic is dangerous and the pollution is getting terrible. The road pollution of 186 more cars would also be devistating. The Tow path next to the river is dangerous because it is not lit cyclists use it as a race track to work with no regard to the pedestrians who also use it. Adding further traffic (pedestrians or cyclists) with no development of the tow path would be irresponsible and puts students lives at risk.
The facilities in the area are at breaking point and the infrastructure and council services are clearly not coping. Therefore the proposal is not viable unless there are proposals to strenghten the infrastructure in the area to accommodate 186 students.
22/05/2019
Victoria Walker 17 Avondale Road, Newbridge, Bath, Bath And North East Somerset, BA1 3EG O 22/05/2019: I have a number of serious concerns about the nature and location of this proposed development. My primary concern is safety. The plans propose two vehicle entry/exit points onto Newbridge Road and one is located close to a wide bend and opposite the entrance to a primary school. The pavement directly outside Hartwells is narrow and is always filled with very young children on the way to and from school. To have as many as 100 cars potentially crossing the pavement where the children are walking - or often running - during peak hours poses a very high risk of an accident. Add to this the fact that Newbridge Road curves away from the site (in the Easterly direction). This makes it hard to see oncoming traffic. What's more Charmouth Road is almost directly opposite, creating a staggered-crossroad junction, on a bend, close to a primary school. I am concerned this creates an unnecessary hazard and poses a real risk to safety.

I am also concerned about the volume of homes being suggested - 186 student rooms and 105 one and two bedroom apartments, providing accommodation for more than 300 people. That is a lot of people crammed into a small area. But what is more is that there are only 105 parking spaces for those 300 people. Newbridge Road and the residential streets that feed into it are already under a great deal of pressure for parking. This is caused by overspill from the RUH, businesses in Locksbrook Road and Brassmill Lane and an increasing number of HMOs in the area. While it is likely that not every one of the 300 or so people who may end up living in this development will have a car, it is unreasonable to expect only a third will have a car - so where will the additional cars be parked? On the local streets where residents are already struggling to find spaces.

My understanding is that Bath is already struggling with air pollution and that Newbridge Road is a hotspot for poor air quality. This development would remove an area of green close to Newbridge Road (the former branch line rail route located between Avondale Court and Newbridge Rd) and pave it for vehicle parking and access. It can't be a good idea to remove part of the city's lungs and replace it with more polluting vehicles.

There is already a lot of high density housing in this area - particularly on the Lower Bristol Road, where there less existing residential housing and no issues with proximity to primary schools etc. Do we need yet another high density development in such a small area? I don't think so.
22/05/2019
Pam Richards 1 Station Road, Newbridge, Bath, Bath And North East Somerset, BA1 3DX O 10/05/2019: I object to this for the following reasons
1. The density of occupation for this site is inappropriate for the neighbourhood which is largely residential with family housing. It will be difficult to integrate such large numbers into the local community especially as there are such a significant number of transient students who will only be there for half the year. This will have a significant impact on community cohesion and development .
2. The height of the buildings ( 5 storeys ) is too high and out of scale with the other housing in the area. The block like buildings are ugly and will be visually very dominant.
3. I think the amount of landscaping is inadequate within in the site . This would have been an opportunity to improve this location and offer a much greener environment.
4. The number of parking spaces is not sufficient . I am afraid my experience of student dwellings is that students do have cars and this is difficult to police. Parking in the area is already at a premium.
5. The applicant has totally ignored comments from local residents to their consultation. Nearly 90% of respondents did not want student accommodation. This brown field site should be used to meet the desperate need for affordable housing or supported housing for older people.
6. Access to this site is on a particular narrow and curved section of Newbridge Road and will be quite hazardous for cars and pedestrians particularly children going to the local primary school.
7. It would have been wonderful to have seen a really innovative environmentally sustainable development of affordable family housing on this site but I guess developers are only in it for the max. profit !
10/05/2019
Christopher Dooley 8 Homelea Park East, Newbridge, Bath, Bath And North East Somerset, BA1 3HP O 11/05/2019: A three to five storey development in Newbridge is totally not in keeping with the general look of this residential area.
Also the influx of students will not be appropriate to this area.
The development should be for residential housing only and be kept to an elevation of two storeys as viewed from Newbridge Road.
Parking issues will also be a major factor in the local area, which already suffers from parking from commuters using the excellent bus service along Newbridge Road
11/05/2019
Charlotte Morris 19 Apsley Road, Newbridge, Bath, Bath And North East Somerset, BA1 3LP O 11/05/2019: I wish to object to this application for a number of reasons. Firstly, there is a shortage of family housing in Bath, yet this development does not alleviate that problem. Also, I don’t believe that what is being proposed meets the affordability rules as laid out by the council. I also believe that there is an enormous safety issue. Charmouth Road is a home to Newbridge Primary School and there is already a serious problem with dangerous parking at school drop off and pick up. Likewise, Apsley Road, Avondale, Osborne and Locksbrook are already at absolute capacity with parking. Pavements are mounted, accessibility is impaired and safety is at risk. All the roads in the area are the last free parking before the hospital, and this demand needs to be considered when looking at the reliance on on-street parking as part of this build. Newbridge does not have capacity for additional on-street parking, and there aren’t enough spaces provided as part of the development. The idea that students will be told not to bring a car as part of their rental agreement is not policeable as proven in other parts of the city. 11/05/2019
Clare Dooley 8 Homelea Park East, Newbridge, Bath, Bath And North East Somerset, BA1 3HP O 11/05/2019: I object to the application for a 4 storey building on this site as it is total out of proportion in relation to the surround two storey. A building of two stories would be more appropriate as viewed from Newbridge Road.
I don't believe that this neighbourhood is appropriate for a high density student accommodation. We have a oversubscribed primary school, so I would question if families are to be housed here too, where their children would go to school.
Parking is an issue already in this area with commuters and hospital visitors parking along Newbridge Road plus the increased traffic this would attract.
11/05/2019
Dan Blake 5 Homelea Park East, Newbridge, Bath, Bath And North East Somerset, BA1 3HP O 13/05/2019: There simply isnt enough parking allocated to this development and therefore the impact on the surrounding residential roads will be significant, not to mention around the immediate area close to Newbridge Primary school. Parking along Newbridge Road is already congested, leading to people parking too close to junctions, crossings and driveways. The roads off Newbridge, such as Homelea Park East, are filling up with cars of people who dont live in those roads, choking the roads and air.
Also, the fact so many of the units will be student accommodation is worrying. Newbridge is a great community, but filling it with so many transient residents will negatively affect the community. Fewer residential units, or more commercial and retail space will have a greater contribution to the community than cramming in as many student units as possible.
Finally, the height of the new buildings is a concern - more focus on ££ per square foot than building property that fits in with the surroundings.
13/05/2019
Trevor Wild 5 Shaftesbury Avenue, Lower Weston, Bath, Bath And North East Somerset, BA1 3DT O 25/05/2019: Enough!!! We need housing for local people and their offspring not transient often relatively prosperous students etc...look after our people not profiteers from Oakhill and University Vice Chancellors.. 25/05/2019
Philip Jansseune 17 Avondale Road, Newbridge, Bath, Bath And North East Somerset, BA1 3EG O 25/05/2019: I object to the numbers AND types of dwellings being proposed. Brownfield sites need to be redeveloped of course, but these need to be overwhelmingly for families, key workers and professionals who need access to their jobs, schools and the city. STUDENTS DO NOT NEED THIS. The student housing element is entirely unsuitable for this location. Students should be housed on the University campuses where there is ample space and these kind of objections do not arise. Bath needs more affordable housing for first time buyers, not more student accommodation. If you are proposing 100 car parking spaces then DO NOT BUILD MORE THAN 100 DWELLINGS. As for the impact on local accommodation and parking, it is already difficult for residents in Avondale and Osborne Roads to find parking spaces, so the fact that there will be no parking provision for students means they will park their cars in the surrounding streets. The impact on the local area of nearly 200 student flats will be detrimental in terms of noise and anti-social behaviour. Having sent my children to the nearby Newbridge Primary School I can verify that it is a difficult road to cross given the bend in the road and adding a second site entrance and exit onto Newbridge Road from the lower car park will impact on children walking to Newbridge Primary school. My last objection is on the green space we will lose form the area which was formerly the railway line. This acts as a fantastic sound and carbon sink from the heavily used Newbridge Road which is the major arterial route into and out of the city towards Bristol. It also gives us a green space and wildlife sanctuary that prevents the area becoming one solid concrete jungle. 25/05/2019
Denise Hobbs 222 Newbridge Road, Newbridge, Bath, BA1 3LG, O 25/05/2019: My concerns and objections are as follows:

Lack of housing for local families, both rental and affordable.
More than enough student accommodation already in Bath.
Site very close to Newbridge Primary School, and en-route to Oldfield School, lots of children walking to both schools, concerned about safety issues.
I am often unable to park near to my home, this could only get worse with many more residents on the site, with an increase in vehicles.
Newbridge Road is always busy with traffic, what impact will this development have on safety and access.
What will be the impact on site being so close to Osbourne Road bridge, and increased traffic

25/05/2019
Ceri Davies 18 Avondale Court, Newbridge, Bath, BA1 3ET, O 25/05/2019: My main concern is that this development is not in keeping with the local area – in particular the number of storeys and density of housing. While I agree that the site should be redeveloped, I believe this would set a precedent so that in the future other industrial units in the area will be allowed to redevelop into high-rise. This would significantly negatively change the area; which has always been a mixture of residential and industrial units in the Brassmill Lane,
Locksbrook and Western Riverside Character Area of Bath Conservation Area which part of this site is located in. You just need to look at the riverside developments south of the river which do not fit visually or culturally next to normal sized houses, overpowering them.

I also am very concerned about the site vehicle entrance onto Newbridge Road. As a local resident who regularly uses the Osborne Road bridge to turn onto Newbridge Road, I know that especially in the morning rush hour when children are heading to school the turning can be dangerous. Having a second turning closer to the Newbridge Road pedestrian crossing will only exacerbate this issue.

I support other comments that there will be a lack of parking associated with the site and this will impact the local roads. Avondale Road and Osborne Road are already over-parked, with cars parked on the pavements making the Avondale Road pavements inaccessible and requiring most people, in particular wheelchair users and parents with buggies, to walk on the road. Even if students agree not to bring cars (and some always will ignore that and it cannot be enforced outside the site), there will regularly be visitors to the site - such as parents - who will be wanting to park close to the accommodation.

Both high-rise and high-density student accommodation is out of place for the local area. Low-rise and accessible affordable housing for families is also required in Bath, and would be much more suited to the area and local amenities.
25/05/2019
Hazel Rofe 5 Avondale Road, Newbridge, Bath, Bath And North East Somerset, BA1 3EG O 26/05/2019: I am very concerned about the impact the development will have on my road and the lack of parking.

We already accommodate additional parking from Love Honey on a day to day basis and feel that if the Hartwell’s development goes through, it will only lead to less parking space being available for residents of Avondale Road.
26/05/2019
Cathleen Lennon Flat 1 Front, 25 Morford Street, Lansdown, Bath, BA1 2RJ, O 26/05/2019: More affordable accommodation should be made for residence not for students 26/05/2019
S Freeman 26 Apsley Road, Newbridge, Bath, Bath And North East Somerset, BA1 3LP O 26/05/2019: I object to the application because:
The proposed development is inappropriate for the Hartwells site & will add to the traffic flow in Newbridge Road, leading to further congestion and pollution on a major route in & out of the city.

Traffic planning for the site appears totally inadequate with a new entrance for residents parking access positioned on a narrow bend between the Osborne Road exit and a bus stop on a walking route to school.

Parking provision for the proposed density of development is insufficient and it is fanciful to suggest that any resident students could be prevented from bringing cars to the area. The road by the Twerton Mill development is a fine example of the parking problems caused, while here parking would spill over into adjacent streets.
26/05/2019
Stephanie Hunt 34 Old Newbridge Hill, Newbridge, Bath, BA1 3LU, O 26/05/2019: These plans are money making and won’t bring value to the people living in the Newbridge area. Affordable family homes are what this area is crying out for not more student let’s and expensive homes without adequate parking. Not to mention the added congestion and pollution directly opposite the primary school. 26/05/2019
Nicholas Tobin Federation Of Bath Residents Associations 2 Ainslie's Belvedere, Lansdown, Bath, Bath And North East Somerset, BA1 5HT O Documents Tab 29/05/2019
Ros Windsor 58 Rudmore Park, Newbridge, Bath, Bath And North East Somerset, BA1 3JB O 21/05/2019: This application is as flawed as the last one. As a parent I do not believe it is safe to have so many people dwelling in such a short space directly outside a point where children cross the road to get to school. I believe it will cause significant problems with cars turning onto a busy road. There is no way that car ownership can be effectively monitored and parking will spill onto other roads nearby which are already struggling with capacity and parking by RUH staff.

Affordable residential housing would be a much more appropriate use of the space. The application for additional student accommodation is not driven by need but by profit and it is Newbridge residents who will suffer accordingly.
21/05/2019
Sharon Scovell 2 Podgers Drive, Upper Weston, Bath, Bath And North East Somerset, BA1 4JA R 10/05/2019: I think it should be social housing for the people of Bath
NO MORE STUDENT accommodation they have enough think of the people of Bath who have no where to live
10/05/2019
Chris John 62 Rosslyn Road, Newbridge, Bath, Bath And North East Somerset, BA1 3LH O 13/05/2019: I would like to object in the strongest possible terms to this proposed development of Hartwells garage.

The original proposal back in 2014 demonstrated that the local population held significant concerns about the planned student development.
They made many clear objections about why this area was totally inappropriate to put a large body of students. The proposal was withdrawn. I do not see this new proposal has significantly change this in any way.

Firstly one of the main initial objections was that the whole area around Newbridge is of houses with families, especially families with young children, as well a significant elderly population and this is what makes the community here in Newbridge so special to us.
This is evidenced by the fact there is a very successful junior school right opposite the proposed development as well as a strong church following.
To bring in multiple students and apartments with a transient group of people does not demonstrate any thought to the area at all.
Students and people living in small apartments are unlikely to have families. They will not fit in to or contribute to the local community.
You have proposed 105 apartments and a combination of 186 students therefore there will be at least 290 people living in this huge dense complex with only 114 parking spaces. it is obvious to anybody with any mathematical insight that there will be a colossal problem with parking and that students and the residents of the tiny flats will have to park all over the area and interfere with the parking of the local residents. This will cause unhappiness and conflict.

The position of the development has not changed in five years. it is still opposite the junior school on a very difficult dangerous corner.
any local resident or tell you how many near misses there are almost on a daily basis. To have a large development right on this dangerous corner will add to the risk of injury from cars, especially of all the young children go to school on a daily basis.

The other objection is the type of people who will be living here will not contribute in any way to the local community.
therefore it’s very unlikely that they will create jobs it’s unlikely that any of them are will blend in with the local community and won’t want to live here over the long term basis especially if they are students.
We have no objections students but they are not appropriate for a residential area and they were much better served have a large development like the ones that are being made in town or up near the University which will be close to the places of study.

It is a recognised fact that students are young and lively and therefore noisy and we are invariably partying late at night as evidence by all the local students who do you actually live in this area in small houses
Fortunately as the they live in small groups their parties and gatherings are on a small scale and therefore we have absolutely no objection to them. but to put 186 students in one place will inevitably lead to a noisy environment which will be to the detriment of the families and elderly people living nearby.

As a local resident who follows the council closely it is extremely disappointing that this application has been put forward. The BANES council document SP 15 specifically states that the vision for heart was site is “residential accommodation not including student accommodation “and states the development requirement of 80-100 dwellings which could include a variety of specialised alderpersons types but not student accommodation. It’s very disappointing to see the council go back on its vision and promises made to the local community.

As a local wildlife observer I would like to mention the fact that there are many rare bats who live around the hartwells garage.
they use the tower as a geographical beacon location. Several of them nest around the small bridge and in the roof of the local houses in summer. Any kind of large development will totally devastate the local population and the increased noise will drive them away.
I would like some assurance that some thought is going to this.
Thank you for your attention.


All the best,

Chris
13/05/2019
Mary Ann Rodman 114 Newbridge Road, Newbridge, Bath, BA1 3LD, O 19/05/2019: This application envisages 104 residential units and 186 student bedrooms plus some sort (unspecified) of retail unit. Mention of 'vehicular parking spaces' is made but there is no indication of the precise number of these.

This application should include the precise number of parking spaces to be provided. Commonsense would indicate that appropriate parking is next to impossible on this site and furthermore the extra traffic flow and the additional impact on local on street parking (whatever the parking allocation turns out to be) would be totally unsustainable. Both of these issues are already at crisis level in this neighbourhood.

There has been much talk of late about climate change, increasing air pollution, and the rise in respiratory and cardiac diseases. BANES Council should not be in approval of a scheme such as this which is bound to exacerbate the already existing traffic, pollution and air quality problems in Newbridge Road and surrounding area. On no account should this scheme be given the go ahead. Planning Services has to act firmly to protect the quality of life for all residents in this World Heritage City of ours.

Thank you.
19/05/2019
Kris Cole 193 Newbridge Road, Newbridge, Bath, BA1 3HH, O 29/05/2019: This proposal is wholly inappropriate for the Newbridge residential area, within which it is located. My main points are as follows:
1, The local infrastructure (shops, pubs, leisure & recreation, etc), is inadequate for such high density student accommodation and the site would be better used for low density family housing.
2, The proposal has inadequate parking provision for the number of occupants (I believe the generally accepted rate is 0.8-0.9 parking spaces per resident). The proposal will result in Newbridge road and the surrounding area, becoming the overflow car park.
3, The access to this development is directly opposite the access road to a primary school, the increased traffic flow around the entrance/exit will introduce additional and unnecessary risk of collision/accident, to the children and their guardians.
4, The local buses travelling along Newbridge Road will be inundated with the shear volume of students wishing to travel to/return from university each day. Leading to stationary buses for long periods in a single carriageway road, which will quickly result in frustrated 'other' vehicle drivers taking excessive risks trying to overtake stationary buses, which in turn will lead to accidents.
5, The nuisance caused by such a high density student population within a residential area, cannot be underestimated. Litter, noise, drunken antics, will all be raised to intolerable levels for the local residents.
6, This proposal for student rental accommodation (as with all others like it), increases the financial burden on the council tax paying local residents and will result in further council tax increases/reduced services.
7, This residential family area will not be enhance in any way by this proposal, which has been formulated simple for the financial gain of the developer and their shareholders. No due consideration has been given to developing this site into family accommodation for resale (not rental).
29/05/2019
Mr Oliver Williams 157 Newbridge Road, Newbridge, Bath, BA1 3HQ, O Documents Tab 07/06/2019
Ed Williams 155 Newbridge Road, Newbridge, Bath, BA1 3HQ, O 23/05/2019: I strongly object to the proposal put forward by Oakland Group Ltd for the development of 104 residential units and 186 student bedrooms. I have outlined the reasons why, below;

Affordable Housing – Policy CP9 – this policy states that for a development of this size 40% of housing should be affordable. The developer is proposing a 10% affordable housing contribution at 80% of market rent, however it is worth stated that Oakland Group are prepared to reduce their target development margin to 15% (which they consider to be the ‘minimum acceptable target return’). If they are compliant with Policy CP9 (40% affordable contribution at 60% market rent) Oakland Group will have an estimated deficit of -£1.68m, compared to a surplus (profit) of £2.50m if their proposed ‘viable scheme’ is approved (10% affordable contribution at 80% of market rent).
I strongly believe that Oakland Group should not be exempt from this policy simply because they won’t be able to turn a profit.

Housing Mix – Policy CP10 – The current proposal does not match the needs of the local community, due to the over reliance on 1 and 2 bed flats. Newbridge is a family orientated area, and where possible developments should provide affordable housing for more families and include an element of 3 and 4 bed housing, which is currently not the case. As the development is a ‘build to rent’ scheme there is the possibility that these flats could be rented to more students or become holiday rentals.

Local Character and Distinctiveness – Policy D2 – The current design does not compliment the local character of Newbridge Road. The computer generated image (visualy [sic] verified montages part 9), submitted in the documents section of the planning application, shows the development to be much more imposing that those buildings within the surrounding area.

Bath Design Policy – Policy BD1 – The current plans (including height and density) fail to respect the current character of the surrounding properties. There is no single structure along Newbridge Road that even comes close to the size of what is proposed in this planning application. The height of the Block B, which will be situated next to 157 Newbridge Road, means that the Block will overlook the gardens of both 157 and 155 Newbridge Road. There is currently minimal vegetation between Block B and 157 Newbridge Road, therefore as well as Block B overlooking both properties, there is a high chance it will block out sunlight and cast a significant shadow over both gardens towards the latter part of each afternoon.

Streets and Spaces – Policy D4 – This policy states that ‘large areas of surface parking should be avoided’, however over 50% (66 spaces) of the proposed parking is allocated to car park 3 and 4, which is one large area of parking surface. The car parks are joined under Osborne Road bridge. Car park 1 has 37 spaces, which can also be considered to be a large area of parking surface in relation to what is already available in the Newbridge area.

Oakland Group are also proposing the inclusion of a cycle path, however this is not entirely relevant, as it relies on BANES to connect the proposed cycle path to existing cycle paths. It is more realistic that there is a cycle route contribution included in the S106 agreement, however it has already been stated in the Viability Report that ‘we consider the Cycle Route contribution to be excessive given that a substantial CIL payment is to be levied against the proposed development’. This would suggest that Oakland Group are not that positive about having to complete it themselves.

Hartwells Garage – Policy SB15 – The current ‘development requirements and design principles’ for Hartwells Garage state that “residential develop of around 80-100 of dwellings, which could include a variety of specialist older persons housing types but not student accommodation where this would prejudice the achievement of Policy DW.1 and B1 in respect of boosting the supply of standard market and affordable housing”. This proposal fails this principle as for a development this size to offer ~10 flats deemed ‘affordable housing’ is unacceptable in a city with high rental costs, as well as being limited to 1-2 bed flats.

PBSA – The Newbridge area needs more affordable housing, of mixed sizes, not more student accommodation. In the Statement of Community Engagement document, it is stated that during the consultation period 85% of respondents responded negatively to question 3.b, “please indicate your thoughts on the following elements: 186 student managed facility”. It is also stated that “there is strong demand for purpose built student accommodation”, however no proof is provided to back this statement up. The last few years have seen an explosion of PBSA built in Bath (as of winter 2018, over 7,500 bedspaces are available on and off campus and a further 500 bedspaces are in the development pipeline with planning permission), it would be extremely interesting to see what the capacity rates are for those PBSA to understand if there really is a “strong demand for PBSA”. Oakland Group’s point of view seems to go against the view of BANES, who state in their ‘Local Plan 2016-2036 – Options Consultation, Winter 2018’ document that, “There seems to be an ongoing demand for HMOs as they generally provide cheaper accommodation than PBSA”.

In the Viability Report it is stated, “It is clear from our assessment that the value of the site is greater for student accommodation than it is for a private residential sale or rental scheme. We therefore recommend that a mixed-use scheme is promoted with student accommodation being the dominant use to assist in the delivery of a viable scheme”. This statement alone is hugely concerning, due to the fact that Oakland Group see student accommodation being absolutely necessary for this development to succeed financially, regardless of what the views are of the local community in and around Newbridge or if the demand does in fact exist for PBSA. Oakland Group have previously withdrawn a planning application in 2014 for PBSA on the same site, and with the Local Plan 2016 – 2036 indicating that in the future PBSA could be restrict to on campus only, it could be seen as trying to get approval prior to the adoption of the new Core Strategy.

Student Parking – It is stated in the Framework Management Plan (FMP) that, “No students will be allowed to park on site. Students will sign up to tenancy agreements which will prevent them from bringing their vehicle to the city. Students will not be permitted to keep a motor vehicle within 3km of the site”. The FMP also states that an “experienced management company” will be appointed, part of their role will be the “management of car parking” and will consist of a small team (the FMP states that staff are likely to include an Accommodation Manager, Student Manager and Maintenance Operatives). A 3km radius from the proposed development site includes Upper Weston to the North, Walcot to East, almost reaches Odd Down to the South and almost reaches Corston to the West, an area of 28.3km2. It would be absolutely impossible for a management team to police an area that size, which means that there is a high possibility that an area that is already saturated with parked cars, due to the RUH, Newbridge Primary School and Industrial Estate, will become even more overrun.

Retail Unit – A retail unit has been included in the plans, it is questionable whether there is a requirement for a retail unit on this part of Newbridge Road considering the proximity to cluster of retail units on Chelsea Road. There was a convenience store located at 153 Newbridge Road which has recently closed for the second time in quick succession, which should be an indicator that demand is not there for a new retail unit in the foreseeable future.
23/05/2019
Lyn Massey 28 Avon Park, Newbridge, Bath, Bath And North East Somerset, BA1 3JP O 29/05/2019: I have objections against the planned proposal for this site my main objection is do we really need more student accommodation in the area when what is needed is affordable homes there is already a huge problem with parking in the area which this application would have a further negative impact on. This proposed site is also close to the local school where there would be significant safety concerns on children walking to and from school 29/05/2019
Victoria Hirst 23 Avon Park, Newbridge, Bath, Bath And North East Somerset, BA1 3JP O 06/06/2019: This scheme will not benefit my local community. It will make my children’s journey to school more dangerous, both during and after completion. The council cannot replace sharp jagged and deadly railings on the opposite side of the road to the site. So can they say they are putting the safety of children first!!
Parking is hugely over subscribed,especially when people come home from work, so the Students won’t bring their cars and the roads won’t be used! This is fake news, with no guarantee. We need affordable properties to buy and rent. Time for the new council to show how different they are and listen to the community surrounding this development and not lining the pockets with developers money and lies.
06/06/2019
Richard Morris Flat 1, 115 Newbridge Road, Newbridge, Bath, BA1 3HG, O 03/06/2019: I object to this planning application on the grounds that it will increase traffic and make it dangerous for the children to go to school as this planning is right opposite an infant and junior school.
This will increase the danger of polution in the local area.
03/06/2019
Mick Stanley 5 West Avenue, Oldfield Park, Bath, Bath And North East Somerset, BA2 3QE O 16/05/2019: The city needs affordable housing, not more student accommodation. It would be so bad if the builders provided sufficient parking, but they never do because that means they'd have to build less units and therefore reduce their profit margin. Banes council never seems to insist that the agreed levels of affordable housing are included with any developments, and its the people of Bath who ultimately pay for it. Bath Spa University and Bath University both have acres of land which they could use to build student accommodation on. That would solve the issue of buy to let landlords buying up all the cheaper houses in Bath and making a fortune out of them, as well as reducing the number of miles that students would have to drive to get to uni. Just the reduction in driving would go some way towards reducing the air pollution in Bath. 16/05/2019
Pam Norris 44 Rudmore Park, Newbridge, Bath, Bath And North East Somerset, BA1 3JA O 16/05/2019: Having studied the plans, I feel I have to object strongly to the application. Student accommodation with no parking, that means those with cars will have to use Newbridge Road and other side streets - which are already being used by those that work at the RUH. The combination of other accommodation does not offer enough for families. Surely the location opposite Newbridge Infants and Juniors would be better for proper family homes. Also at a previous meeting there was talk of a coffee shop, Chelsea Road already has three is that not enough? Please dismiss the students and concentrate on homes for families. We already have too many student builds and Crest has the franchise on apartments. 16/05/2019
C Swift 43 Devonshire Buildings, Bear Flat, Bath, Bath And North East Somerset, BA2 4SU O 16/05/2019: This is a residential area and it needs affordable housing for local people. There is no need for more student accommodation. There is plenty of land at Bath Spa University site to build student accommodation if the University wants it. There would FAR too many people on a site of this size proposal, which is not in keeping with the local area and it would present a huge increase in traffic in relation to both residents and visitors, deliveries and such-like. 16/05/2019
Janet Taylor 26 Westfield Park, Newbridge, Bath, Bath And North East Somerset, BA1 3HS O 16/05/2019: Building over 200 homes with 117 parking spaces is Lunacy as they will all be trying to join an already busy road . This site is wholly unsuitable for students. Several houses in the area are now HMO with students . I thought Bath Council were limiting numbers of students in residential roads. Please reconsider use of this site and build affordable homes for Bath families who are forced to move outside the city and consequently add to the daily congestion on our roads

16/05/2019
Matt Thrower 6 Audley Grove, Lower Weston, Bath, Bath And North East Somerset, BA1 3BS O 03/06/2019: As I'm sure you are aware, parking and traffic issues are a constant issue in Bath. They're particularly bad along the upper bristol road, where I live, and where this application is being considered.

I am very concerned that such a large number of additional dwellings in this area is going to cause enormous problems for local residents in terms of traffic and parking, making a bad situation worse.

There is a presumption among planners that students will not bring their own cars. However in my experience - I was once a student at Bath University - that presumption is false. Bath in particular, with its good reputation, attracts large numbers of overseas students and those from relatively wealthy backgrounds, who are more able to afford their own car. Combined with the isolated position of the campus, this makes it very tempting for students to run a vehicle instead of getting the bus.

The number of bedrooms is thus out of proportion with the parking spaces provided, meaning there will be significant overspill onto adjoining roads. It will also mean a significant amount of traffic on the road outside Newbridge Primary School at the exact same time as the school run and commuter rush hour.

On this basis, I feel I must object to the planned application.
03/06/2019
Hannah Sime 156 Newbridge Road, Newbridge, Bath, BA1 3LE, O 03/06/2019: The current plans massively overdevelop the current site. There are many reasons why I am objecting, but to summarise:

The road facing building section is far too high and overbearing. It will overshadow the road, making the section where children walk and cross for the school much darker. The current building makes this section very open, the proposed development completely changes the feel of this section of road.

The height of the roadside section is much higher than the adjoining houses and doesn’t fit with the current buildings on the road. It in no way enriches the character of the area and will sit incongruously against the surrounding buildings.

Despite what the developers have said, there will be a significant increase in traffic and in a section of road that is used for the children to walk to Newbridge Primary School. It’s already a dangerous section of road, this will only increase the dangers. The proposed entrance is very close to the bridge road, and even without this increase that is already a problem area with cars manoeuvring. The idea that students can be monitored and will not bring any cars is totally unrealistic. The area is already overloaded with parking problems due to the proximity to the hospital, and is very busy at the school drop off and pick up times.

With the proposed build, there will be a significant increase in noise, not only from the increased traffic, but from the amount of people they are trying to squeeze onto a small site.

Much has been made of the proposal including a cycle path, but the cycle path doesn’t link into anything else.

The development doesn’t include the council’s ideal number of affordable housing, this plainly shows that the developers are looking for high levels of profit over what the area needs. The area needs a mix of housing, not blocks of small flats.

There is no need for any further off-campus student accommodation in Bath. There are many PBSAs already approved in Bath and not all of them are full. With the new emerging local plan policies looking to restrict new schemes to university campuses, this seems like they are trying to push this through just before it comes in.

I think most people are positive towards development of the site, but the Newbridge area is full of families, and the proposed buildings will massively overdevelop the site. What is needed is family housing with the correct proportion of affordable housing. If this is mixed with using the rear section to extend the Maltings Industrial Estate, this could be achieved.
03/06/2019
Paul Davies 24 Charmouth Road, Newbridge, Bath, Bath And North East Somerset, BA1 3LJ O 03/06/2019: The plans submitted are very worrying on a high number of issues. Other than lining the pockets of the developers it's hard to see what Bath will gain from this kind of development and if awarded I don't think history will remember the decision to permit this build favourably.
* As many others have commented - is there a genuine need for more student housing outside of campus? I understand existing purpose built student accommodation is already struggling to be filled by students and Bath is rightly looking to restrict pbsa outside of campus areas.
* Newbridge road is already a busy road and the site being opposite a large primary school, will only increase traffic, therefore increasing pollution, congestion and reducing safety.
* What about Bath's alleged green aspirations? Bath's cycle friendlyness is a joke; a step in the right direction would be to provide true cycling infrastructure connecting newbridge to town, to help encourage the less brave cyclists to ride more than drive - plus it's a rare part of Bath that's flat! I see the planner explicitly does not want to contribute to such thoughts.
* Parking - everyone's saying it - is hard enough to park on my street (Charmouth) currently, this won't improve with this development.
* Affordable housing: Should be at least 40% according to Bath policy CP9; this proposes barely 10%
* The buildings are very large and not keeping with the area at all - I thought Bath was in a conservation area?
* An alternative I wouldn't mind seeing is having some kind of modern (350kw) electric car charging station, as I believe Bath is lacking this service and is hindering people's take up of electric vehicles - something Bath is also allegedly interested in promoting. In short there are many good uses for the land that would make the area better; adding a boat load more PBSA abodes ain't one though.
03/06/2019
Andy Mclean 195 Newbridge Road, Newbridge, Bath, BA1 3HH, O 03/06/2019: I object to the lack of parking proposed in an already congested area where residents struggle to park due to hospital staff using Newbridge road as an overflow staff car park. I am also concerned about the increase in the volume of traffic directly opposite the school which my children attend. I accept that further housing is required in Bath but this is not the area for student accommodation. Newbridge is a family orientated residential area so affordable housing and family homes would be more appropriate.
03/06/2019
Philippa Lane 120 Newbridge Road, Newbridge, Bath, BA1 3LD, O 07/06/2019: I object to this development proposal for the following reasons:
1. It does not comply with the council's core strategy and local placemaking plan in that (a) it provides for substantial student accommodation rather than just residential accommodation for 80 to 100 people and (b) it will not be sympathetic to the Victorian context of terrace housing.
2. An influx of students would undoubtably disturb the local community which is largely made up of young families. It would also put a strain on local amenities.
3. It provides for vehicular access to Newbridge Road which (a) is already a busy major route into the city and (b) is close to Newbridge Primary School. There is therefore a concern as to road safety for all road users including school children.
4. It would increase the strain on parking in the area. Although parking for the students would apparently be prohibited it is difficult to see how this could possibly be enforced.
07/06/2019
George Pritchard 5 Lyme Gardens, Newbridge, Bath, Bath And North East Somerset, BA1 3LW O 07/06/2019: I object for the following reasons:
- Policy CP6 – Huge box of a monolithic building which is out of character and scale to the other surrounding housing. The buildings are too tall along Newbridge Road and will create a dark, tall, unattractive corridor along this major route in to Bath. This is unacceptable.
- D2 – Local Character and Distinctiveness; Totally not in keeping with the local area which is residential and family, not cramming as many people as possible in to large buildings.
- D4 – Streets and Spaces: the cycle path doesn't go anywhere and the developers want BANES to deliver the rest of the cycle path at cost to the council.
- CP9 Affordable Housing – Fails. Is there even any provided? Looks all like rentals and exceedingly small ones at that not suitable for families.
- CP10 – Housing Mix – Fails. The supposed residential element of the scheme is not a proper mix of housing for families. These small units will become holiday lets or more student lets so the scheme fails on providing residential housing for the local community.
- There is already too much PBSA to be filled and you can find many of the rooms for holiday lets on Booking.com. the balance between PBSA on and off campus needs to be redressed.
- There are current other PBSAs in for planning, Twerton Park has lots of support which is in start contrast to this scheme because this scheme does not benefit the local community in any way.
- The car park is arguably more unattractive than the current building and adds nothing to the area.
- Parking provision is totally unacceptable and it is a total fallacy to say you can stop people bringing cars and this is totally unenforceable.
- Very concerned about the access road on this already busy and dangerous bend in the road especially with local children walking to school.
- Buses stopping here to collect the large volume of students will block the already busy major route.
- Additional traffic associated with this site - which there will be - will impact the levels of fumes in the air.
- Students need to be accommodated on campus to stop additional traffic and journeys.

This is a chance to do something green and sustainable and benefit the local community and the city - this scheme provides no benefits for anyone except the developers.
07/06/2019
Indigo On Behalf Of Standard Life Assurance Limited Not Given O Documents Tab 05/07/2019
David Milliner 59 Third Avenue, Oldfield Park, Bath, Bath And North East Somerset, BA2 3NZ O 07/06/2019: wrong side of river is away from main complex's on the lower Bristol road this should be for local workers not students?? 07/06/2019
Sacha Hunter 11 Charmouth Road, Newbridge, Bath, Bath And North East Somerset, BA1 3LJ O 07/06/2019: I object to this application on the basis that it is contrary to local policy through over-development of the site, excessive scale, massing and depth of the roadside blocks, inappropriate housing mix and typology and issues relating to the provision of a ‘road to nowhere’ bike route, lack of green space including allotments and parking resulting in loss of amenity to local residents.

Overdevelopment of the site
The scale and massing of both the rear blocks and the roadside terrace are entirely out of keeping with the character of the local area, which is largely domestic ‘human-scale’ townscape of detached, semi-detached and terraced buildings of mixed 19th and 20th century scale and design, all set within generous external spaces including front and rear garden plots, giving a sense of permeability to the public realm. In particular the proposed roadside residential blocks are excessively deep, leading to buildings of monolithic bulk which will impact harmfully on the distinct character and appearance of the local area. They are also one storey too high when set against local height norms and will be over-dominant and incongruous within the streetscene. Hence the only conclusion can be that the proposals result in over-development of a suburban site that will impact harmfully on local character and amenity.
In policy terms, the scheme fails to be of an appropriately scaled built grain, fails to reinforce or contribute positively to local distinct character or the historic townscape context, fails to be safe, comfortable, varied and attractive (D1) and is therefore contrary to Development Plan policies CP6, D1,D2, D3, HE1, BD1. The site specific policy SB15 specifically references the need for the scheme to be of a comfortable scale to assimilate locally, this proposal clearly fails on this count.

Housing typology and mix
The provision of PBSA in this area is unacceptable given the overprovision of expensive student PBSA’s in other parts of the city (the overprovision is evidenced by the fact that PBSA’s are letting rooms out to tourists and visitors to the city on a year around basis). The Planning Authority must be vigilant to ensure that developments are sustainable; overprovision of a particular housing type for a particular and highly variable demographic group skews the housing mix within the city and leads to the possibility of vacant sites needing to be repurposed, possibly through demolition and rebuild, unless conditions are imposed to ensure any agreed PBSA are constructed with the flexibility be repurposed into other types of accommodation (apartments etc).
The site and the local area infrastructure cannot comfortably accommodate the amount of PBSA proposed, and it is against the spirit and purpose of policy SP15 for the site to be dominated by student accommodation. This element should be reduced or dropped from the proposals.
The proposal for rental apartments of 1 and 2 bedrooms fails to produce an appropriate mix of housing for the needs of the community in the local and wider area (which includes a large amount of families), especially given that 175 rental apartments are due to be on the market at Roseberry Place imminently and the sales market is still awash with apartments for sale at BWR. How many small apartments does one area need? What about family homes? The proposed apartment typology is contrary to the spirit of SP15 which looks to provide a good mix of market and affordable housing.
The lack of affordable housing at the 40% rate required by local policy is also being ignored in favour of more profit for the developer. I question what will happen if these apartments fail to be let out to tenants due to market conditions (and being the wrong type of housing for the area)? Will they become more student accommodation or holiday lets, yet again bringing unwanted extra use activity and transient groups to what is a long established well-knit local community? Such groups (students, visitors) usually fail to integrate, respect or invest emotionally, physically or financially in their community, thus these proposals run the risk of devaluing and impacting harmfully on the health and vitality of the local community.

Open space and car parking
The scheme proposes an excessive amount of car parking to overtake green space that could become a meaningful and beneficial public realm, instead of the predominance of hostile hard landscaping currently proposed. I question whether the car parking required by policy could not be located in the lower levels of Blocks A, B, C and D as ground floor or even underground parking? If this was achieved, the finger of land to the east of the site could become part bike route, part public/residential amenity space and/or allotments. In this way the more harmful aspects of the development to the local community could be a little mitigated by some meaningful public benefits. Whilst it is not a subject that is governed by policy, the impact of students bringing cars (regardless of their ‘promise’ not to) to the local area is a very real concern in an area already constrained by increased commuter and RUH parking. Should some PBSA be agreed on this site, then I would urge the officer to require a cast iron guarantee that local residential amenity will not be eroded as a result of an influx of cars to the local area. The access constraints of an already very busy primary school within 100m of the site is also a serious consideration.
The promise of a bike route through the site is meaningless unless it goes somewhere, and it is unlikely B&NES can deliver a cycle route to their connected parts of the old Midland Rail line at the current time of budget cuts. The developer should be required to deliver the STR route onwards to join the Bristol Cycle Path (using the old railway line space currently to the west of the site) so that the cycle path is more than just a ‘road to nowhere’.

For the reasons detailed above I urge you to refuse this application. The scheme completely fails on many counts to bring any benefits to the local community, it fails to assimilate with or respect local townscape character in its scale and appearance and it constitutes serious over-development bringing no public benefit to mitigate this harm. It appears the importance of optimum profit for the developer and associated investors overrides any other consideration on their part. There is a real opportunity here to create a new residential quarter and public realm that complements and enhances the Newbridge area and its communities; sadly this scheme totally fails to deliver this.
07/06/2019
Hannah Williams 155 Newbridge Road, Newbridge, Bath, BA1 3HQ, O 07/06/2019: Whilst I understand and support the need for additional housing, particularly affordable housing, I have the concerns about the proposal in its current format. I support some development of the site to provide much needed family housing and to improve it's current aesthetic, but oppose the plans as they are currently proposed. This site is the wrong location for such a development and too small for the number of residents and students the plans are suggested to cater for. Newbridge is a family orientated area and developments should provide affordable housing for more families and include an element of 3 and 4 bed housing, which is currently not the case. As the development is a ‘build to rent’ scheme there is the possibility that these flats could be rented to more students or become holiday rentals.

I object to student accommodation in such a residential area; clearly this is a theme that is felt across the city including the council seeing as I understand there is/was a progressing debate that would prevent more building of student accommodation unless it's within the boundaries of the universities. Furthermore, I understand that recently built purpose-built student accommodation is only partially full, which raises the question of why more is needed.

Large numbers of students returning to the accommodation after the regular, weeknight activities that each University promotes, will definitely increase noise levels and cause a disturbance to residents, many with young children, on Newbridge Road; this would surely also be a concern for those living in the new residential flats also on the site?

Whilst parking will not be provided for the students, there will be no way to police students and due to the freedom from permit parking locally, students will be freely able to park on nearby streets and put further strain on the already limited space. The plans don’t mention what resource, or finance for resource via the council enforcement teams, would be made available to ensure students do not bring vehicles to the area nor detail how they could legally enforce this.

The drafted drawings do not give a clear picture of what residents can expect to see on completion of the works; in particular, the height of the buildings. Block B, which will be situated next to 157 Newbridge Road, means that the Block will overlook the gardens of both 157 and 155 Newbridge Road. There is currently minimal vegetation between Block B and 157 Newbridge Road, therefore as well as Block B overlooking both properties, it will block out light.

Dispute what the proposal documents suggest on paper, the traffic along Newbridge Road is already significant and the additional 110-120 vehicles regularly entering and leaving the site will only add to this, particularly at what is already a busy and tricky junction, especially at the rush hour at either end of the working day. At the exhibition I was informed that significant work had gone into researching the planned vehicle routes, but as someone who uses the road daily as both a driver and pedestrian, I am concerned about the poor visibility for motorists and how this poses a risk to pedestrians, particularly with the high footfall around the primary school.

07/06/2019
Mark Jewitt 80 Newbridge Road, Newbridge, Bath, BA1 3LA, O 07/06/2019: The scale of this development is completely out of keeping with the surrounding neighbourhood, where most properties are 2 storey with the occasional loft conversion or third storey. The scale of likely occupancy as compared with parking provision within the development will additionally disadvantage local residents where parking will become extremely difficult, and the associated amenity reduced. A smaller scale development more in keeping with the physical appearance of this neighbourhood, and the city itself would be much more appropriate assuming the provision of adequate parking for the resulting new residents were included. 07/06/2019
Richard Kitteridge 10 The Furlong, Lansdown, Bath, Bath And North East Somerset, BA1 9AY, O 07/06/2019: I strongly object to the overdevelopment of the Hartwells site as it is out of keeping with the area and raises great concerns for the health and safety of children at the local schools.
Parking is already a big problem and would certainly get worse.
Students would be better accommodated on university grounds where they could enjoy student life without it affecting others.
An increase in affordable housing for all age groups would be more appropriate.
07/06/2019
Vee Kitteridge 10 The Furlong, Lansdown, Bath, Bath And North East Somerset, BA1 9AY, O 07/06/2019: I object to the proposal as I believe

it is overdevelopment for the size of the site and is out of keeping with the character of this family residential area

student accommodation life is incompatible with family life

parking is already an issue and will be adversely affected when students have to park their cars in adjoining roads

children will be at greater risk when crossing busy side roads

health and safety risks will increase due to more vehicle emissions

Newbridge Road is already a busy road, particularly at peak times and this will become even worse

there is a lack of affordable housings for all age groups, rather than a shortage of student accommodation in this area

I question for whose benefit this overdevelopment is for - certainly not the residents of the local area






07/06/2019
Abbie Gometz Davies 24 Charmouth Road, Newbridge, Bath, Bath And North East Somerset, BA1 3LJ O 07/06/2019: I am writing to object to the proposed development of the former Hartwell's Garage.

There is a diverse range of reasons for this objection; in no particular order:

1.) The proposed development is simply too big. The density of accommodation and the potential number of new residents in the immediate area is not something that would benefit the neighbourhood. The associated automobile traffic generated by the nearly 300 units would be potentially be dangerous for the existing residents, including, but not limited to, the children of the area - many of whom need to cross the main road on their way to school every morning.
2. If Bath Council is serious about reducing congestion and pollution, then they need to look more sustainable modes of transport and do everything in their power to ensure fewer cars are on the roads. This development would be counterproductive in this regard, especially when considering the already oversubscribed parking issues on the surrounding roads, exacerbated by the RUH workers and parents of Newbridge Primary school.
3. The proposed development goes against the Council's regulations. I fail to see how 186 student apartments and 104 1-2 bed flats corresponds to the 80-100 limit that the Council has previously identified as upper limits of new developments. Added to this is the fact that these new buildings will not be very communal or socially-minded. More affordable housing for the elderly who wish to downsize would be an advantage, as well as more sensible family homes. More green space and communal areas would also be welcome. There are some fantastic developments happening around the country, as well as in places like the Netherlands, which the Council and the developers would do well to look at for inspiration.
4. The proposed buildings are not in keeping with the surrounding neighbourhood. House in the area are two stories high, and do not destroy the views to the other side of the river. As a resident of Charmouth Road, I am concerned about the prospect of losing my views of the green hills on the other side of the river. One of the best things about Bath, in my opinion, is the low rise nature of the city and the constant reminder that you're only a few minutes from open, green spaces. This development would ruin that for many of us in the area.

Therefore, in the strongest possible terms, I object to the proposed development of the former Hartwell's site.
07/06/2019
Rob Barron 27 Rosslyn Road, Newbridge, Bath, Bath And North East Somerset, BA1 3LQ O 04/06/2019: Hello. I do not support this application. I feel that there is excessive student accomodation in the area already, particularly along the southern river corridor. The Lower Bristol Road railway arch side is now full of parked cars - I presume these are students' cars. Further student accomodation at Hartwells could lead to similar issues on Newbridge Road, Osborne Road, Charmouth Road and Rosslyn Road. All these roads already have very limited parking.
I am concerned that the presence of a large block of student accomodation would lead to an increase in HMO in the area, often for further student accomodation. This, in my opinion, would have a negative impact on the community and subsequently on property values.
I am concerned about pedestrian safety on the Newbridge Road, primarily for primary school children. There is a real risk from cars turning off Newbridge Road into the Hartwells development. This risk is heightened because the access point follows the narrow section of the pavement, so parents are less able to control younger children ahead of them.
Could you tell me what other options have been put forward for the site? And how it intends to link to the disused railway line green space?
Regards
Rob
04/06/2019
Sarah Darch 3 Lyme Gardens, Newbridge, Bath, Bath And North East Somerset, BA1 3LW O 05/06/2019: I object to this application on a number of issues;-
1. The applicant has paid scant regard to CP9 and tries to attenuate the inclusion of student accommodation by offering a meagre 10% of affordable housing. The need for more affordable housing for local families has already been acknowledged by the Council, so they should follow their own advice and ensure Oakhill fulfil their social obligation to provide Social Rent and Shared Ownership dwellings on this site.
2. The current design is completely out of keeping with the surroundings. To say the proposal "will not detrimentally affect views in & out of Bath or stick out too much within the existing buildings on Newbridge Road" is disingenuous to say the least.
3. The increase in traffic, which will be an inevitable consequence of this proposal as it currently stands, is of concern both in terms of parking in the area and also the safety of residents. Not only will there be the inevitable increase in pollution but also the increase in vehicles will have an important impact on the local primary school.
4. If Oakhill really cared about their neighbours they should have included a Construction Management Plan in their application. It's absence is confirmation they have little or not regard for the comments made to them during their consultation presentations. As your own environmental health officer has admitted this development will have an "unreasonable impact from construction noise and dust". A CMP is therefore vital and should be vigorously policed by the Council.

05/06/2019
Toby Bishop 191 Newbridge Road, Newbridge, Bath, BA1 3HH, O 07/06/2019: 1. This is an area which attracts young families. The lifestyles of young families and students are materially different. Introducing a significant number of students would be likely to lead to disharmony in the community.
2. The most cohesive use of the site would be:
a) for family and affordable housing; and
b) as a business park to encourage small to medium sized businesses and generate jobs in the area.
3. Bath appears to be well served by off campus student accommodation, it is not clear there is a need for more.
4. Parking and road safety issues demonstrate this proposal amounts to overdevelopment of this site:
a) the provision of 115 parking spaces for more than 400 people is inadequate;
b) Providing an insufficient number of parking spaces is not realistically going to achieve the aim of promoting sustainable transport when the surrounding area has unrestricted parking. It is instead likely to overburden the local street parking, causing further disharmony and potentially requiring a residents parking scheme passing the expense on to the local authority and residents.
5. The additional vehicle use and access appear to introduce unnecessary risk. Charmouth Road (opposite the site) is the access road to the local primary school. The proposal introduces vehicle access either side of it. The addition of 115 (or more) cars accessing this site at a point where 100s of children aged 4 to 11 cross the road appears dangerous.
07/06/2019
Joanne Masani 44 Newbridge Hill, Newbridge, Bath, BA1 3PU, O 07/06/2019: Looking at the proposed plans for the Hartwell site, I am disappointed at the level of overdevelopment. The area does not need more student accommodation. There is a lack of affordable housing for young families and young people in general. I am also concerned that the proposals will have an extremely detrimental impact on parking for local residents, which is already very difficult. There would be a great opportunity to enhance the community with an appropriate development on such a large site. 07/06/2019
Carol Hinton 255 Newbridge Road, Newbridge, Bath, BA1 3HJ, O 07/06/2019: We do not need more student housing in this part of the city. There is no provision for student parking at all and you have no way of controlling student car use. This lack of parking will cause further clogging of already very busy roads with pressure from RUH staff that park in neighbouring streets.

I believe the increasesd traffic will compromise the safety of the children walking to the local school just opposite the site.

The plans for up to 5 storeys is completely out of character for the surrounding area.

I would have thought affordable housing for small families, given the local amenities, would be much more beneficial and in keeping with the area. Maybe the area could also be utilised to accommodate local shops, an outdoor market or eating establishments, something that would be useful to this area.
07/06/2019
Avondale And Osborne Road Residents Association Not Given O Documents Tab 07/06/2019
Clare Frances Tozer 6 Mortimer Close, Upper Weston, Bath, Bath And North East Somerset, BA1 4EN O 07/06/2019: I object to the proposed outline of development for the Hartwell's Garage site and give the following reasons/comnments:-

*We don't need any more student accommodation in Bath - we have enough; Bath is becoming (or has become) "'student-ville".
*Bath has a lack of family and affordable housing: why not concentrate on using the site for this purpose?
*Why not consider using the rear part of the site to extend the business park; units to encourage and support local young adults to start up a business; artisan workshops?
*Need to consider increase in traffic and how that will impact Newbridge Road which is already very busy.
*Whatever happens on this site, parking provision will need to be included; on-street parking isn't going to work.
*With potential further increase in traffic, consideration needs to be given to the safety of children walking to and fro school (Newbridge Juniors). The proposed gated entrance so close to Osborne Road Bridge is of concern in this respect.
07/06/2019
Dan Kitteridge 130 Newbridge Road, Newbridge, Bath, BA1 3LD, O 04/06/2019: I wish to object to the proposed re-development of the Hartwells site on Newbridge Road. This latest version of the planning application bears a striking resemblance to the developer’s previous proposal which was only recently rejected by BANES planning department. The developer appears to have paid little, if any, attention to the previously raised objections and instead appears be solely motivated by the capital gains that this project will potentially achieve.
Parking allocation on site has been underestimated whilst the developer’s proposals of a regulated parking scheme for residents (ie. students not being allowed to park cars in the surrounding area) is unrealistic and cannot hope to be practically let alone legally enforced. As a result, local households in the Newbridge area, many of whom own in excess of 1 car/household, (contrary to what the developer suggests) will face yet more parking difficulties in an area which is already saturated. The increase in traffic volume as a direct result of this proposal will further exacerbate the busy congestion which regularly affects the area. In addition there are a number of safety concerns for local residents as a result of increased traffic flow which this proposal would result in. I strongly object this proposal and hope that the planning department will reach the same conclusion as before.
04/06/2019
C Buckley 85 Newbridge Hill, Newbridge, Bath, BA1 3PT, O 04/06/2019: I object to this development on the grounds of the scale of the development, the lack of social housing, the traffic safety issues, the noise, air pollution and the complete missed opportunity for a "sustainable future for the site."
The planned height of the buildings is contrary to the local residential setting.
The scheme constitutes overdevelopment and will have a negative impact on the local area. The scale of the development will completely restrict the views over Innox Park and reduce the local amenity.
There is insufficient affordable housing contrary to planning requirements.
The proposal will massively increase traffic flow within the area, the junction appears inadequate, problem parking will be exacerbated, noise and air pollution issues will increase.
The ASHP heating will need to have large external condensing plant that will create significant noise, particularly at night.
The submitted energy statement is inadequate with vague detail and contentious information. It is unclear whether the scheme complies with the SCR1 and CP2. There is zero energy producing renewables on the site and the all-electric proposal appears to be a cheap fix and lost chance. On a significant south facing site in Bath, there is no solar energy inclusion either for hot water or electricity, instead the site-wide plan for a shared electric powered domestic hot water system is the only token solution, founded on inaccurate science. The quoted SCOP for the domestic hot water is 2.60 (p39, App. D) i.e. 260% whilst the recent Government figures for similar assets range from 110% to 130%. See link below. This has a major impact on the provisional CO2 calculations.
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/788715/2019_ETL_Criteria_Air_to_Domestic_Hot_Water_Heat_Pumps.pdf

This important site in Bath warrants a much more considered approach and this application should be rejected.
04/06/2019
Joanne Rowntree 9 Old Newbridge Hill, Newbridge, Bath, BA1 3LX, O 04/06/2019: I am objecting due to concern for the amount of student accommodation and the effect this will have on the link let local community. The site needs to be developed but we need affordable accommodation for local people and not more student accommodation. There is enough already in the city, this proposal will increase issues with car parking in an area which is already busy - the proposal doesn't have enough spaces for cars to be parked on site. Cars will be then parked on an already busy road, increasing the risk of accidents. A local school is a cross from the development the increased volume of traffic will increase the risk to these children if childhood asthma, something this council has committed to reduce. This proposal doesn't factor in the local community and it's needs 04/06/2019
Jacqui Kitteridge 130 Newbridge Road, Newbridge, Bath, BA1 3LD, O 04/06/2019: I object to this application for a number of reasons.
The site is being overdeveloped for financial gain, does not fit with the demographic of the local community and it is disappointing to see the developers have not made any significant changes since the consultation event when a number of concerns were raised by local residents.
This proposed development will add significantly to the traffic and congestion on Newbridge Road. I am concerned about the impact this will have on the safety of the children who walk to and from the local primary school and also those who walk to the local secondary schools.
Parking is another huge concern. The developer has very clearly not considered or does not care about the impact on local residents. There are obviously not enough parking facilities to accommodate the number of potential residents in this development. They state that most students do not have cars and those that do will not be allowed to park in roads outside of the development. This cannot be policed which the developers will be well aware of. Newbridge is already at capacity for parking. The RUH staff park here as they cannot park at their workplace and commuters also park here to avoid the excessive car parking charges in town. A further influx of cars into an already saturated area is really not an option.
04/06/2019
Mrs V.A.J. Osmond 51 Rosslyn Road, Newbridge, Bath, Bath And North East Somerset, BA1 3LQ O Documents Tab 06/06/2019
Sara Reynolds 37 Avon Park, Newbridge, Bath, Bath And North East Somerset, BA1 3JP O 07/06/2019: The application does not take into account the demographic of the local area, there is an increased need for affordable housing as opposed to student accommodation. Concerns were raised when the plans were shared with the community for feedback and despite contacting the developers directly since then, they have been unable to show how the feedback received is reflected in the planning proposal. The amount of accommodation proposed does not reflect the size of the site and the parking incorporated is no way adequate. There are existing issues with parking in the area that this will only increase the pressure on. There is already numerous student accommodation throughout the city and nearer to the university sites, and therefore this development is not needed or appropriate for this site. 07/06/2019
Polly Stewart 8 Osborne Road, Newbridge, Bath, Bath And North East Somerset, BA1 3JR O 07/06/2019: I am concerned about parking problems following the development of yet more student accommodation. We are already having issues trying to park cars in the local areas due to businesses in the area.
Also concerned about safety for our children trying to get to and from the local primary school. Newbridge Road is already extremely busy and adding more junctions will make it unsafe.
Would be so much better to have affordable family housing which is in keeping with the current residential houses.
07/06/2019
Mr C Tozer 112 Newbridge Hill, Newbridge, Bath, BA1 3QB, O 07/06/2019: The site development proposal seems to be over developed (very high density) with access to the rear part of the site
on a bend and very near Osborne Road Bridge entrance leading possible safety issues for traffic/pedestrians(including school children with or without parents) on Newbridge Road -The density of the development would lead to more vehicles coming and going from the site.

Also due to the density of the development the impact on the local community needs to be considered e.g. overflow parking in an area where on street parking is already difficult and impact on local service such as access to doctors surgerys.

Concerns over possible delays to traffic along Newbridge Road at peak times if a large number of students are using bus services.

We do not need any more student housing - priority should be given to housing for the local community and also to provide affordable housing. Reduced density housing should be provided in keeping with the surrounding area providing much needed houses.

As this site was used for business consideration should be given to using the rear of the site for continued business use.
The business park at the back of this site could be expanded to provide much needed business units providing more services to the community.

07/06/2019
Bernard Cue 201 Newbridge Road, Newbridge, Bath, BA1 3HH, O Documents Tab 05/06/2019
John Branston 34 Second Avenue, Oldfield Park, Bath, Bath And North East Somerset, BA2 3NN O Documents Tab 07/06/2019
Petroleum Enforcement Authority Lewis House, Manvers Street, Bath, BA1 1JG, R 07/06/2019: Bath & North East Somerset Council is the Petroleum Enforcement Authority (PEA) for the storage of petroleum spirit within the Authority, with enforcement duties undertaken by the Trading Standards and Environmental Health Services. I am an authorised Petroleum Officer. In 2007 the Trading Standards Service inherited petroleum storage enforcement from Avon Fire Brigade (AFB), now Avon Fire & Rescue Service.

The records provided by AFB for Hartwells of Bath, Newbridge Road, Newbridge, Bath, BA1 2PP at the site where planning permission is now being sought, record 3 x petrol and 1 x diesel underground storage tanks which were filled in 2005 using Resin Generated (RG22) foam.

I have looked at the documents supplied by the applicant and note that the Geo Environmental Site Assessment Report dated 20th January 2016 acknowledges the existence of the 4 underground storage tanks that to my knowledge still remain in situ in the ground.

I would like to take this opportunity to bring to the Planning Officer's attention that although the report identifies the existence of the redundant underground petroleum spirit storage facilities, often, depending on the age of the site, other infrastructure may once have existed at the former petrol filling station site that we are not aware of e.g. a previously decommissioned tank farm. We are not in a position to confirm the historical location of any other tank(s), lines and/or pump facilities and/or whether or not the facilities were safely removed from the ground.

I draw the Planning Officer's attention to the Association for Petroleum and Explosives Administration (APEA) Blue Book on the Design, Construction, Modification, Maintenance and Decommissioning of Filling Stations. If there is any doubt over the historical petroleum storage facilities, the Planning Officer should liaise with the Petroleum Enforcement Authority at Bath & North East Somerset Council and/or if necessary seek guidance from Bath & North East Somerset Council Environmental Health Pollution Control Team about the historical storage of petroleum spirit at the site.

I would also draw the Planning Officer's attention to the Dangerous Substances and Explosive Atmospheres Regulations 2002 (DSEAR). I remind the landowner of their responsibilities with regard to derelict petrol tanks under Section 73 of the Public Health Act 1961.

The applicant may also wish to be aware of the Petroleum Enforcement Liaison Group (PELG) publication Petrol filling stations - Guidance on managing the risks of fire and explosion, known as the Red Guide I draw the applicant’s attention to Chapter 8.6 on decommissioning.

It is the Petroleum Officer’s opinion that all redundant underground storage tanks and any remaining petrol storage infrastructure should be removed from the ground by a competent contractor used to dealing with redundant petroleum infrastructure, should planning permission for the works be granted.

This news article highlights the dangers of dealing with redundant petrol tanks Highgate explosion
07/06/2019
Stephanie Hobbs 80 Holcombe Vale, Bathampton, Bath, Bath And North East Somerset, BA2 6UX O 04/06/2019: No no no no no!!!!

This is an awful plan. My friend works for a student landlord and they are already stuggling to find students to fill accommodations. There will be extra DISGUSTINGLY STINKY OLD RICKETY BUSES fuming the streets.

There is no need for this to happen. Its appalling what is happening all over the city.

There is not enough commodities in the area for this.

04/06/2019
Ewan Fairweather Penn Hill Road, Lower Weston, Bath, Bath And North East Somerset, BA1 3RT O 04/06/2019: Another awful looking building in this Heritage City on one of the main roads into the city. Why can it look like Berkley Homes development opposite Green Park Station that blends in with Georgian Architecture. Equally Ashford Homes on Bathwick St produced development which in 200years will look like it has been part of the city
Even if only the front line properties on Newbridge Road are enhanced there must be better Architectural ideas than this modern structure which will be dated in 30years BANES-try not ruin this city
Newbridge Infants and Juniors Schools opposite is already a rat run and parking a premium for dropping off. This will increase pressure in this area and surrounding streets
04/06/2019
Viivika Houston 5 Osborne Road, Newbridge, Bath, Bath And North East Somerset, BA1 3JR O 04/06/2019: Newbridge is already very busy, too many cars and lack of parking spaces. There is nowhere to park your car on our road during the working hours despite not having any housing on the opposite side of the road. The people I have spoken to on our road (no 6, 7, 15) have complained about the same issue. It is challenging to walk the children to Newbridge school as the pavements are narrow and too much traffic over the small Osborne Rd bridge and Newbridge Road. Another concern is the students in the area. I have experienced that houses no 3 and 4 have got problems doing their recycling. Bins are all over the front, messy and not organised, it is not good to look at. We have experienced the whole street being covered with litter as they do not put their rubbish in provided wheelie bins and the seagulls break the bin liners. I object having this area overdeveloped and there is no need having more students who do not care about their premises and litter the area, plus bringing extra cars. 04/06/2019
Brynley Hurle 154 Newbridge Road, Newbridge, Bath, BA1 3LE, O 04/06/2019: The amenities in the local area do not support the size of the development (even with the planning proposal inclusions).

The Newbridge Road area is already a very busy road and to add more cars to the area would cause more standstill cars (already at standstill during the main commuting hours) and even more pollution in a primarily residential area including junior schools.

The plans for up to 5 storeys is completely out of character for the surrounding area.

The lack of parking will cause further clogging of already busy roads, adding to existing parking pressure from RUH staff who already park on Newbridge Rd and in neighbouring streets. This parking pressure already endangers lives.

Student accommodation in a purely residential area won’t work for anyone; not least the students.
04/06/2019
Jane Hurle 154 Newbridge Road, Newbridge, Bath, BA1 3LE, O 04/06/2019: I object to this application. The volume of housing and therefore additional residents is too large and will disrupt this family residential area. The site is directly opposite a junior school thoroughfare where young children are walking and I worry about the danger of the additional cars and traffic. The site will overburden the already limited parking which is already at breaking point due to RUH staff who legitimately require the spaces. 04/06/2019
John Taylor 28 Charmouth Road, Newbridge, Bath, Bath And North East Somerset, BA1 3LJ O 04/06/2019: I wish to raise the following objections and concerns, some of which have been discussed in detail in the responses already made by Highways, Housing, the Fire Service, FoBRA, BANES Allotment Association and Bath Preservation Trust:

1. The development would make the site too congested. It would be an unpleasant space in which to live because of the proximity of the Hanson concrete plant. The Acoustic Design Consultant’s report (page 11) notes that only the ground floor of the development would be protected from noise levels of 71 decibels by the construction of a 3 metre high shielding wall.

2. The proposed architectural styles for the Newbridge Road frontage do not fit with any of the existing house styles on Newbridge Road. The proposed height of the buildings when viewed from Charmouth Road in particular will be totally out of keeping with the area. The height of the existing Hanson concrete batching tower has been used as a justification for the overall height of the development. The tower is a single small structure at the eastern side of the site. It is not visible from the houses on Charmouth Road. Constructing such enormous blocks along the whole western frontage of the development will significantly damage the outlook for all thirty houses on Charmouth Road (the skyline will disappear). The existing terraced properties along Newbridge Road are mostly two stories plus roof, which may be used as attic space. This site should face the same height restrictions in order to improve the built environment. In addition there is no relief from the bulk of this construction approach. There are no breaks in the frontage to allow the views on the southern slopes to be appreciated. The block has an especially massive appearance when viewed from the junction of Rosslyn Road and Newbridge Road. (These comments are reinforced when viewing the computerised visuals submitted by Oakhill in the Visually Verifiable Montage document.)

3. The whole scheme is bleak visually. There is no green space. (This is discussed at length in the BANES Allotment Association submission.) Oakhill’s attempt to buy themselves out of a commitment to providing such space is unacceptible.

4. In the Design and Access Statement Issue 3 (page 12) the tarmac covered concrete deck over the cement works is labelled on the map as:
‘Hanson owned building area with flying freehold controlled by the Hanson yard outside of the application boundary’
This is not described in the text as a constraint. However, does this mean that the car parking in this area, which is shown on all plans, will be subject to the continued consent of Hanson? Will future occupants find that they have been misled about the permanency of parking arrangements should Hanson decide to reclaim the area?

5. The twin high pressure sewer is also shown on that map (Sewer Easement). That is described in the text as:
‘… a total sewer protected width of 15m, running through the entirety of the site east to west on the approximate line of the former railway line.’
This is approximately the same area proposed on page 13 as the extension of National Cycle Route 4 through the site. Although I would welcome such a route, there is no guarantee that it would be possible to develop the entire section of this missing link from Brassmill Lane towards the city centre. This would be very difficult to the east of the proposed development, after the former railway line crosses Station Road. In addition, there will be no access to the new link except from the gated site. It will not benefit the roads north of Newbridge Road because access to the site is restricted by the gates. (The gradient of the link ramp between the two levels for residents is also extremely steep for cyclists.)

6. The proposed main entrance to the left of the new frontage (when viewed from Newbridge Road) will be dangerous. The proximity of Rosslyn Road junction and the one way (and narrow) bridge from Osborne Road already cause difficulties, without the problems caused by traffic entering Charmouth Road at school times. Traffic turning left out of the development will immediately come to the bus stop, which is frequently used. The detailed traffic survey provided by the developers seems to ignore the difficulties of peak traffic flow, especially when Newbridge Primary School is open i.e. between 8:30 and 9:00 and 3:00 – 4:00. Newbridge Road is already very congested at normal rush hour time (inwards in the morning and outwards in the evening). What effect will the gated access shown in the plans have on traffic flow, especially if traffic is simultaneously trying to enter and leave the site? Traffic is often backed up from the Windsor Bridge to Charmouth Road if there is the slightest obstacle to traffic flow e.g. loading, several buses arriving at a stop at the same time, a breakdown etc.

7. In 2018-2019 B&NES Councillor for Transport publicly made a commitment to developing safe routes to school and encouraging children and parents to walk and cycle. This development’s design will discourage children from walking and cycling because of the extra traffic it will generate and the potential for conflict between users described in the previous paragraph. There is no mention of the closeness of a large primary school in the plans, with the only vehicular access to the school being from Charmouth Road, which is directly opposite the development. The proposed scheme will put ‘Vulnerable Road Users’ at greater risk.

8. The developer seems to assume that none of this accommodation will be for families. Presumably that is why the response from Education was neutral. There will be little impact on school numbers because no families will be living on the site. The submitted plans for the entire range of accommodation (both student and residential) are very small and cramped.

9. There is the potential for significant pollution from the site, both from general emissions from such a huge over development and from the low level car park, where all emissions will gather in the cutting. The figures given in B&NES June 2018 Air Quality Annual Status Report (page 33) show that there are already levels between 36-40 µg/m3 at the monitoring sites on Newbridge Road and Newbridge Hill (sites DT34 and DT35. Will a development of this size push the levels over 40 µg/m3?

10. This site cannot safely accommodate the number of student flats being proposed. There is no need to provide further student accommodation given the additional blocks which have already been built or are planned both north and south of the river. A search of accommodation websites already shows that some of the existing accommodation for students is always available for holiday lettings.

11. It will be impossible to prevent students from parking on neighbouring roads, where parking space is already difficult because of the primary school and proximity to the RUH. There is no legislation which would enable the management company from preventing students from parking vehicles on surrounding roads. (I note that the Highways submission recommends that the developer pay for a residents’ parking scheme for the neighbourhood in order to control such unauthorised parking.)

12. There is no commitment from the developer to provide affordable housing for Bath residents. (This is born out by the damning response to the application from Housing.)

Oakhill Group has submitted plans for this site before. They were overwhelmingly rejected by the local community. This new application has hardly changed and all previous objections to this development still stand. This should be a golden opportunity for the developer to contribute to the built environment in a World Heritage City by:
a)providing additional industrial space (this is at a premium in Bath) on the lower part of the site, which has existing easy access from the adjoining Maltings estate and
b) offering a mix of affordable and social housing for families, older couples and young professionals on the upper part of the site in a design which enhances the locality.

Oakhill Group had the opportunity to produce an innovative scheme on a difficult site, but it has chosen a proposal that seems to be driven by developer desire for maximum profit, rather than meeting the needs of the city and providing a balanced and responsible return. The current scheme has nothing about it which is worth recommending. Innovative and profitable alternatives exist, for example the Bioregional Homes initiative for One Planet Living.
04/06/2019
Geraldine Best 24 Combe Park, Lower Weston, Bath, Bath And North East Somerset, BA1 3NR O 05/06/2019: Policy CP6 – the scheme does not reinforce and contribute to specific local context, and fails to create a safe, inspiring, attractive place. This is largely due to its massing which creates monolithic buildings which are out of character to the local domestic scale, fine grained townscape. This is particularly true at the Newbridge Road elevations. Towards the more industrial rear of the site, there is more capacity for buildings of bulk. Therefore quantum of development is unacceptable.
Policy D1 – General Urban Design Principles: the development fails to:
Look varied, safe or attractive
Enrich the character of Newbridge or contribute positively to local character and history
Respond positively to local topography or townscape context
D2 – Local Character and Distinctiveness; by way of scale and massing of the double depth frontage buildings, the scheme constitutes overdevelopment and harms local character.
D3- Urban Fabric: fails to be of an appropriate grain, reflecting local character by way if its massing and overdevelopment.
D4 – Streets and Spaces: the provision of the cycle path is NOT a benefit to be weighed against harm in the planning judgement as it’s a road to nowhere, as it depends on B&NES to deliver the rest of the path. The only way the cycle path can be a meaningful benefit is if the S106 includes a requirement that the applicant must deliver the rest of the cycle path at their own cost….otherwise it is meaningless.
Policy HE1 – the area contains many non-designated heritage assets, namely attractive Victiorian and Edwardian villas, and rows of older terraces. The scheme will sit incongruously amongst this attractive mixed townscape, its massing and depth out of context and alien.
CP9 Affordable Housing – the lack of affordable housing is contrary to this policy…..the developer cites viability reasons for the lack of affordable housing, yet invariably developers ‘idea of what constitutes acceptable profit is excessive (check the viability report).
CP10 – Housing Mix – the scheme fails to propose a proper mix of housing to meet the needs of the local and wider community. 1 and 2 bed rented flats does not produce long-term housing in a mix of sizes and therefore is contrary to this policy. No doubt rental flats will not all be leased out and may become holiday lets or more student accommodation.
B1 setting of conservation area and non-designated heritage assets; the scheme fails to maintain or enhance the local character and distinctiveness that forms the setting of the conservation area (site is not in a CA but in the setting).
BD1 – Bath Design Policy – the proposed height and scale fails to respect and respond to local character. Use of bronze cladding fails to respond to and actually jars with local palette
Policy SB15 – does it respect and conform to the site specific policy?
80-100 dwellings which should boost supply of standard market and affordable housing – no!
Facades and roofs to integrate with surrounding context – No!
Be of a comfortable scale to assimilate locally – not achieved!
Question the need for more PBSA (Purpose Built Student Accommodation) given what which has already been approved in Bath (Student Castle, Lower Bristol Rd (Pickfords), Bath Cricket Club, Green Park, Brougham Hayes, Twerton Mills , Twerton Bakery site etc) – need to look at accommodation versus need figures…..many PBSA are not full and renting out rooms to visitors and holiday makers (e,g Green Park and Student Castle).
Emerging Local Plan policies to 2036 will look to restrict approval of new PBSA schemes to uni campuses only, showing the lack of appetite for more PBSA in the city centre. These developers look to be trying to get this through quickly before the new Core Strategy is adopted which will include this restrictive policy relating to PBSA’s.
05/06/2019
Katy Hancock 8 Rosslyn Road, Newbridge, Bath, Bath And North East Somerset, BA1 3LH O 05/06/2019: Policy CP6 – the scheme does not reinforce and contribute to specific local context, and fails to create a safe, inspiring, attractive place. This is largely due to its massing which creates monolithic buildings which are out of character to the local domestic scale, fine grained townscape. This is particularly true at the Newbridge Road elevations. Towards the more industrial rear of the site, there is more capacity for buildings of bulk. Therefore quantum of development is unacceptable.
Policy D1 – General Urban Design Principles: the development fails to:
Look varied, safe or attractive
Enrich the character of Newbridge or contribute positively to local character and history
Respond positively to local topography or townscape context
D2 – Local Character and Distinctiveness; by way of scale and massing of the double depth frontage buildings, the scheme constitutes overdevelopment and harms local character.
D3- Urban Fabric: fails to be of an appropriate grain, reflecting local character by way if its massing and overdevelopment.
D4 – Streets and Spaces: the provision of the cycle path is NOT a benefit to be weighed against harm in the planning judgement as it’s a road to nowhere, as it depends on B&NES to deliver the rest of the path. The only way the cycle path can be a meaningful benefit is if the S106 includes a requirement that the applicant must deliver the rest of the cycle path at their own cost….otherwise it is meaningless.
Policy HE1 – the area contains many non-designated heritage assets, namely attractive Victiorian and Edwardian villas, and rows of older terraces. The scheme will sit incongruously amongst this attractive mixed townscape, its massing and depth out of context and alien.
CP9 Affordable Housing – the lack of affordable housing is contrary to this policy…..the developer cites viability reasons for the lack of affordable housing, yet invariably developers ‘idea of what constitutes acceptable profit is excessive (check the viability report).
CP10 – Housing Mix – the scheme fails to propose a proper mix of housing to meet the needs of the local and wider community. 1 and 2 bed rented flats does not produce long-term housing in a mix of sizes and therefore is contrary to this policy. No doubt rental flats will not all be leased out and may become holiday lets or more student accommodation.
B1 setting of conservation area and non-designated heritage assets; the scheme fails to maintain or enhance the local character and distinctiveness that forms the setting of the conservation area (site is not in a CA but in the setting).
BD1 – Bath Design Policy – the proposed height and scale fails to respect and respond to local character. Use of bronze cladding fails to respond to and actually jars with local palette
Policy SB15 – does it respect and conform to the site specific policy?
80-100 dwellings which should boost supply of standard market and affordable housing – no!
Facades and roofs to integrate with surrounding context – No!
Be of a comfortable scale to assimilate locally – not achieved!
Question the need for more PBSA (Purpose Built Student Accommodation) given what which has already been approved in Bath (Student Castle, Lower Bristol Rd (Pickfords), Bath Cricket Club, Green Park, Brougham Hayes, Twerton Mills , Twerton Bakery site etc) – need to look at accommodation versus need figures…..many PBSA are not full and renting out rooms to visitors and holiday makers (e,g Green Park and Student Castle).
Emerging Local Plan policies to 2036 will look to restrict approval of new PBSA schemes to uni campuses only, showing the lack of appetite for more PBSA in the city centre. These developers look to be trying to get this through quickly before the new Core Strategy is adopted which will include this restrictive policy relating to PBSA’s.
05/06/2019
Nigel Gardner 9 Osborne Road, Newbridge, Bath, Bath And North East Somerset, BA1 3JR O 05/06/2019: The lack of affordable family accommodation in Newbridge and Bath as a whole is a real issue - the universities need to provide accommodation if they wish to expand further, Parking and the pressure upon resources are a further issue, 05/06/2019
Philip Jackson 158 Newbridge Road, Newbridge, Bath, BA1 3LE, O 05/06/2019: There is no doubt the existing site is a mess. However the proposal to build so many houses without enough parking spaces for the cars means that there will be even more cars trying to park on newbridge road. There is already a massive issue with Children struggling to cross roads safely with the current level of cars, let alone more. Surely if a development is to be allowed it must be done with adequate car parking provision for all of the properties. 05/06/2019
Zoe Francis 39 Newbridge Hill, Newbridge, Bath, BA1 3PR, O 20/05/2019: i strongly object to this proposal. This is a residential area and this land should be used to build low rise affordable starter and family homes that are desperately needed in Bath - not more student accommodation. There is already going to be a large student block in Locksbrook and this is a step too far! High rise jam packed student blocks should be built on university campuses to reduce the traffic and parking issues partly caused by the c20,000 students in Bath. Use this land wisely for the council tax payers of this city! Families live in this neighbourhood and it should be kept that way. 20/05/2019
Samuel Fynn Flat 3 , 1 - 8 Rosslyn Close, Newbridge, Bath, Bath And North East Somerset, BA1 3JU O 18/05/2019: I find the prospect of this development hugely worrying. The community of Newbridge is a well balanced, family oriented ecosystem supporting local businesses and schools. Any further influx of students will undoubtedly change the peaceful environment here for the worst, and the buildings themselves would be out of character, unsightly and unwelcome. The increase in traffic would no doubt clog up the roads in an already struggling network, and the ‘retail area’ would suck income from the community businesses.
I strongly oppose this development, and I feel that this demonstrates that generally speaking Bath has enough existing off campus student accommodation, and my feeling is that people do not want more. What about more affordable housing?... what about existing residents lives?... what about the homeless?.
Approving his application would be a huge mistake for Newbridge, and indeed for Bath.
18/05/2019
Mrs Tracy Medd 124 Newbridge Road, Newbridge, Bath, BA1 3LD, O 18/05/2019: I am in support of redeveloping the old Hartwell's site for housing. However, in the heart of a residential area within very short distance of a large primary school, the demand is for affordable family homes with adequate parking, NOT large-scale student housing and 1-2 bedroom flats, of which a small number will be designated 'affordable' homes. We already have a number of large-scale student developments in the area and a parking crisis on/ around Newbridge Road, in addition to a severe lack of affordable homes. This proposal does absolutely nothing to address these issues, in fact, quite the opposite! 18/05/2019
James Richardson 18 Avondale Road, Newbridge, Bath, Bath And North East Somerset, BA1 3EG O 19/05/2019: I am objecting to this application on the ground below:
1. The impact on parking in the local streets. It is already difficult for residents in Avondale and Osborne Roads to find parking spaces, so the fact that there will be no parking provision for students means they will park their cars in the surrounding streets - yes students do have cars!
2. Impact on the traffic on Newbridge Road. The site entrance and exit onto Newbridge Road will impact on children walking to Newbridge Primary school. Also traffic trying to take a right turn from the site onto Newbridge Road is a safety concern
3. Bath does not need more private student accommodation. BANES should adopt the Oxford model of insisting the Universities build new student halls only on campus.
4. Bath needs more affordable housing for first time buyers, not more student accommodation.
5. The impact on the local area of nearly 200 student flats will be detrimental in terms of noise and anti-social behaviour.
19/05/2019
Jessica Savory 2 Partis Way, Lower Weston, Bath, Bath And North East Somerset, BA1 3QG O 20/05/2019: I object to the proposed plans for several reasons. More student housing, especially on this scale, is unnecessary. There have been numerous developments, both on and off site, so there is now plenty. It is also a very family orientated area and adding that many students would spoil this eg. Noise late at night.
The lack of car parking spaces is also an issue. The local roads are already at a log jam with parking and would not be able to accommodate the extra. The extra pollution in the are from the cars would also be an issue, especially because of the primary school across the road. The extra cars would also make it more dangerous for children walking to school.
There is not enough family and affordable housing in the area and that should be a priority.
20/05/2019
Lucy Taylor 28 Charmouth Road, Newbridge, Bath, Bath And North East Somerset, BA1 3LJ O 05/06/2019: I object to these plans.
The new blocks are not in keeping with the terraced houses and semi detached houses in the neighbourhood on one of the main approaches to a World Heritage city centre.

The buildings are too high.

There is no social or affordable housing in this scheme.

The developer has missed the opportunity to provide down sizing accommodation for families wanting to relinquish their family homes for something smaller, but not as small as the poky accommodation available in these plans. The recommendations not only have to be fit for purpose now but need to be sustainable for future generations. The uptake of student places is decreasing in some university towns yet the population is ageing. Any sort of rented accommodation needs to be flexible to meet current need. How accessible is this development for anyone with a disability? The connection between the top and bottom sites is extremely steep.

There is no green space anywhere on the site. It looks like one mass of hard concrete and stone.

The cycle provision is only accessible through the lower level of the development. What will happen when it ends at Station Road. How will residents on Newbridge Road and neighbouring roads be able to access this if the new development is gated?
The A4 is often very congested and cars frequently restrict visibility for pedestrians. Near misses are a regular occurrence, particularly when cars are overtaking buses. No consideration has been given to the 400 children attending the primary school. I agree with the many objections already posted about the dangers posed by the new entrance next to Osborne Road bridge.
There is little consideration for clean air policies, especially as the nearby school population is so vulnerable to lung damage from unnecessary emissions.

This was an ideal opportunity to build a car free complex as the site has excellent bus links to Bath and Bristol city centres, just including some regulated visitor parking and car share/car club vehicles.

05/06/2019
Kate Scully 25 Newbridge Road, Newbridge, Bath, BA1 3HE, O 05/06/2019: I don’t believe that there is enough parking for that many residents. Students do own cars! Don’t we need family homes with gardens more than extra student housing!? 05/06/2019
Paul Miche 25 Charmouth Road, Newbridge, Bath, Bath And North East Somerset, BA1 3LJ O 05/06/2019: Dear Sir/Madam,
I am writing to convey my concern for the proposals to the development of the Hartwells Site into accommodation for both residents and students. I object to these proposals on the basis that:
1. The size and scale of the proposed accommodation is impractical, and I see this as an attempt to over develop the site.
2. With all the student accommodation that has been provided in recent years, I am surprised that there is a need to develop more. If there is still a need to develop further student accommodation this should be on or in the ground of the universities, rather than in residential areas.
3. We already have a serious problem with residents parking in the area which is in the process of being addressed by the local council. I think it unlikely that you have considered realistically the potential further impact that accommodation of amount proposed will have on the area.

4. The A4/Upper Bristol Road is already well used throughout the day and is very busy at peak times. On some recent occasions it has become gridlocked on the section of road adjacent to the existing Hartwells Garage. What provisions would be put in place to manage this already difficult situation with additional mostly heavy traffic that will be arriving and departing from the site?
Poor planning in this area will cause chaos, adding to an already difficult situation. A prime example of recent inadequate provision of this type would be the development on Windsor Bridge & Lower Bristol Road!
It is for these reasons that I object to the proposed planning.
Kind Regards
Paul Miche


05/06/2019
Emma 15 Penn Gardens, Lower Weston, Bath, Bath And North East Somerset, BA1 3RZ O 05/06/2019: I object to this application mainly on the grounds of the proximity of the development to the local primary school. Some very young children already have to cross a dangerous and busy Newbridge Road to get to school. Additional parked cars and traffic will make this even harder for them and increase the likelihood of accidents.

Additionally, many houses in the area don't have a driveway and are reliant on the limited parking that is available on-street. Increased parking difficulties will drive families out of these areas, and increase instances of illegal and unsafe parking.
05/06/2019
Christine Dunne 11 Osborne Road, Newbridge, Bath, Bath And North East Somerset, BA1 3JR O 05/06/2019: More student accommodation in an already student-over-populated area;
Already limited parking for residents in the area.
Highway Safety as this is main walk to school route for children to Newbridge school.
05/06/2019
Hannah Watson 24 Audley Avenue, Lower Weston, Bath, Bath And North East Somerset, BA1 3BL O 13/05/2019: I am really concerned about the amount of traffic and congestion this development will bring to Newbridge Rd, Charmouth Rd, Lyme Gardens and Lyme Rd as residents and visitors of the development look for parking spaces. The presence of increased vehicles in the area (during construction and after completion) where there is a primary school should be considered a health and safety risk. 13/05/2019
Julie Box 16 The Weal, Upper Weston, Bath, Bath And North East Somerset, BA1 4EX O 04/06/2019: I object to these plans this area could be used for so much more that would actually benfit bath and Newbridge areas not more student accommodation when we have so much already. Newbridge has a school very close parents parking plus ruh staff and residents the area is always busy as it. This would just add to chaos in school runs and pick up times no one I know from the school and area thinks this is a good idea. It would be much better to put use of space to benefit residents and child of Newbridge not more student accommodation 04/06/2019
Nasreen Robinson 24 Westfield Park, Newbridge, Bath, Bath And North East Somerset, BA1 3HS O 04/06/2019: Negative impact on - Adequacy of parking/loading/turning
- Highway safety
And Layout and density of building is not in keeping with the area (3-5 storeys are too high).
04/06/2019
Hannah Brownell 144 Locksbrook Road, Newbridge, Bath, Bath And North East Somerset, BA1 3EJ O 08/05/2019: Newbridge Road is already busy during peak hours, this will just add more traffic and safety concerns for the school children. Parking around the area is dreadful in fact the whole of Bath dreadful due to student cars being left, bath really doesn’t need anymore student accommodation. Why does any spare space need to have students on it. I object to this my points above, safety of the children is my concern too many cars around 08/05/2019
Javier Rivas 21 Avondale Court, Newbridge, Bath, BA1 3ET, O 09/05/2019: To Whom it May concern,

With this letter I would like to express my opinion on why I think the proposed application for the Hartwell's site is a bad idea.

First of all is the issue with parking. In my opinion the proposed application does not consider enough parking spaces given the number of houses and flats that it wants build. Parking in Avondale Road and Osborne Road is already a nightmare, not just because there are no spaces there (luckily I have private parking in Avondale Court) but because there is no parking spaces for residents. They are always forced to park partly (sometimes fully) on the pavement on Avondale Road. Therefore, if you use a mobility scooter or a pushchair (which I do for my toddler) you are forced to walk on the road, which creates a safety concern. On top of that, when driving up Osborne Road the right turn into Avondale Road has so many parked cars on both sides of the narrow road that to turn your car is actually quite difficult and more often than not I see debris on the road where turning cars have collided with parked cars. This again results in another safety concern. Given how close the Hartwell garage is from these two roads and the very limited parking spaces the planning application proposes to build I believe the problem will get even worse.

Second, the proposed application does not address the need for houses in the area. The area needs more family homes, not flats. I know the area lacks family homes because it took my wife and I over three years to find an affordable and decent sized family home in the area. I experienced first hand how little supply and how much demand there is, during our search for a home in the area many houses would come up for sale and sell within a day. This lack of supply of family homes is forcing families out of Bath into neighbouring towns (such as Chippenham, Box, Corsham, Frome, Keysham, etc.). I have a number friends that wanted to stay in the area but were forced to move with their families to these towns because of the lack of good affordable family homes in the area.

Third is the issue of aesthetics. The area this side of the river does not have buildings that are as high as what the proposed application intends to build. At the moment the area looks quite tidy and uniform, and while I agree that the Hartwell site does not look good nor fit within the area a five storey high building will look even worse. In order to keep with the theme of the area I believe the Hartwell site should be developed exclusively into family homes that sit right with the aesthetics of neighbouring homes.

Thank you very much for taking the time to read this letter.

Bets regards,

Javier
09/05/2019
Ann Thomas 7 Osborne Road, Newbridge, Bath, Bath And North East Somerset, BA1 3JR O 06/06/2019: We do not need more student accommodation in the city, especially in a residential area.
This development will create more parking problems on local roads, such as Osborne rd and Avondale rd already used as a car park for Lovehoney employees and other workers in the city.
Increased traffic in the area which could be hazardous to children walking to and from Newbridge Primary School.
Why not use this area to enhance the business on the industrial estate and provide parking for employees in the area.
06/06/2019
Joel Marsh-Trim 203 Newbridge Road, Newbridge, Bath, BA1 3HH, O 06/06/2019: I nearly 15 and I have lived on Newbridge Road all my life. It would be nice to have more green space on our road, but this plan doesn't really have any.
I have to cross Newbridge Road every day and some days I wait about 4 minutes before there is a safe gap in the traffic. This development will make the journey for us school children less safe due to the increase in traffic.
06/06/2019
Jenny Newman 230 Newbridge Road, Newbridge, Bath, BA1 3LG, O 06/06/2019: Over intensive use of site. Lack of parking. Too many student lets. Not enough affordable housing. Difficult access on to major road, or very narrow minor road at rear. This will involve a major change to the Newbridge area which will cease to be a leafy suburban area (with a major road dividing it) and turn it into a major student area (as Oldfield Park has become). Reduce student accommodation and increase the number of affordable housing, increasing the size of houses / flats and ensuring gardens and open spaces are included in the plans. 06/06/2019
Nigel Lansdown 3 Avondale Road, Newbridge, Bath, Bath And North East Somerset, BA1 3EG O 04/06/2019: I wish to object to the planning application as I feel there is already more than sufficient existing and new student accommodation planned around Bath without the need for more.
Newbridge is a very family based area with the development out of keeping with the local area both in appearance and proposed use.
The proposed usage will lead to even more parking problems effecting local roads which already suffer from non resident working parking and students WILL bring cars and the no cars restriction cannot be enforced by the developer.
Although the sire needs developing this needs to be for affordable housing for the young to help locals get on the property ladder and not for rental to line the developers pockets with no benefit to the local community.
The close proximity to Newbridge primary school and on route for Oldfield pupils will see an increased risk for accidents with entrances and increased traffic
04/06/2019
Mrs Brenda Rees 37 Marshfield Way, Fairfield Park, Bath, Bath And North East Somerset, BA1 6HD O 04/06/2019: I would just like say ,no to more students housing we really have too many
We need accommodation for local young families who are now having to move
further afield ,it just seems so unfair not to also cater for the local inhabitants
Yours Mrs B Rees .
04/06/2019
Micky Hoyle 15 Lyme Road, Newbridge, Bath, Bath And North East Somerset, BA1 3LN O 04/06/2019: In principle I am supportive of a redevelopment of the area. In particular I would like to see the area redeveloped as housing for families and key workers as I recognise Bath desperately needs more housing for both. Over the last 5 years there has been significant investment in University accommodation both at Bath University and the Bath SPA site aswell as in the town centre, areas which are better suited for student needs. I feel that current proposal is a rehash of the one put forward 5 years ago, with very few amendments.

Parking - Lack of spaces

The proposal of the number of 114 parking spaces to 104 residential flats is simply inadequate. Also the assumption that the 186 students will not bring their cars is unrealistic. I have no confidence in any commitment from the developers to impose this, as it would not be legally binding or enforceable, and would result in students using neighbouring residential roads where there is already a lack of residential parking. No allocation has been made for bicycle parking/storage.

Safety - Proposed road layout design.

The proposed new road development is dangerous. The position of the entry and exit to the site is located on the outside corner of a bend on the very busy A4 Newbridge Road. Not only does the design risk increased road traffic accidents between vehicles and cyclists, it also increases the risk of pedestrians being killed or injured. A lot of pupils from Newbridge Primary School currently use the route from Osborne Rd over the bridge to Newbridge Road at which point they walk along Newbridge Road to the traffic light pedestrian crossing as part of the commute to and from school. The insertion of the entry and exit road to the site adds another crossing for these children and families for them to reach the traffic lights – an additional crossing where drivers will already be pre-occupied (and stressed) entering or exiting the proposed redeveloped site on a dangerous corner of a busy road.

Impact on local infrastructure

There is no investment in the local infrastructure to accommodate the increase of 300+ new residents to the local area, bar some very limited landscape gardening and speculation that bus services may be extended.

If some of the proposed occupants do intend using local bus services, more buses will be needed to get students to and from the University. In turn this would require an update to the current bus stop with greater standing room and insertion of a shelter on the south side of Newbridge Road. However, linked to the inadequate width of the current pavement, that modification would also have to ensure it did not compromise the safety of pedestrians (including families walking to and from school) using that stretch of pavement.

The proposed design of the flats and in particular the 5 storey student block at the bottom does not reflect the character of the neighbouring housing stock, and would ruin the character of the neighbourhood.


Noise and Disruption.

The impact on local services is outlined above. However, the proposal to house students and create such a large number of flats on such a small plot also risks changing the character of the neighbourhood. The influx of students and density may also increase the noise and disruption to what is a relatively quiet residential area as we understand for example that one of the few proposals we did learn from the developers was for late night bus services, increasing the risk of noise and anti-social behavior at unsocial hours

Furthermore given the experience of housing students elsewhere in the city we would be interested in understanding the measures proposed by the developer for refuse handling and refuse collection at the site, and the scope and opportunities for local residents to raise concerns about unsocial and/or anti social behavior once the site is up and running.

The outline proposal put forward has not taken into consideration any of the previous concerns that residents have put forward at previous planning applications, where a clear preference for 2/3 bedroom family homes (more in keeping with the local character of the neighbourhood.)
04/06/2019
Olivia Manco 18 Newbridge Gardens, Lower Weston, Bath, Bath And North East Somerset, BA1 3LT O 04/06/2019: This development will bring an unwelcome increase in traffic to the area and increased parking on residential side streets. 04/06/2019
David Thraves 66 Rudmore Park, Newbridge, Bath, Bath And North East Somerset, BA1 3JB O 04/06/2019: I am a local resident (next turning left after the Hartwell site when leaving Bath) and we already experience parking issues due to hospital staff and visitors, parking where I live. There are times when finding a parking space is an issue, and if the planning application for the Hartwell site has limited parking, this will clearly exasperate the problem further, and especially so when you consider the number of student accommodation included within the application. A number of the students will inevitably have cars (clearly evident from the Lower Bristol Road student accommodation sites) and visiting family will further restrict local resident parking at weekends. A 'ban' of student vehicles will be very difficult to enforce, and especially so when you consider how busy our already stretched police force is.

Affordable accommodation is desperately needed in Bath. In recent years we have seen a surge in relatively expensive student accommodation builds, whereas affordable or social housing, often plays 2nd fiddle to the more profitable projects. With local schools already established in the area, it would make the project more acceptable and appealing if affordable and social family housing was given more consideration. A mix of family, single and elderly housing would be more justifiable and defensible. A project with this type of housing in mind, would reduce vehicle pollution due to the fact that the schools are within easy walking distance, and with adequate public transport available on Newbridge Road and a cycle path to the city centre, offer affordable car free transport to schools and city centre.

On a positive note, trees and landscaping are always welcomed. As previously mentioned, the retention of the cycleway is a useful addition, and the sustainable transport route is a positive proposal. Any added flora/botany is desirable.

I hope that the planning authority give due consideration to my concerns. I must say, they are not just mine, because having spoken to many local residents, I can honestly say I am speaking for many more people than just myself. Local residents have genuine and serious concerns over this planning application, some of which I have attempted to convey above.
04/06/2019
Kelly Tyndale 1 Rosslyn Road, Newbridge, Bath, Bath And North East Somerset, BA1 3LQ O 04/06/2019: •Lack of family and affordable housing.
•Over development of site.
•No need for more off campus student accommodation.
•Concerns about gated entrance so close to Osborne road bridge and the impact on children walking to school and Osborne traffic.
•Worries about parking and unenforceable contracts preventing students bringing cars and making the current parking in the are even worse. Considering the Hospital staff and patients wish to park in the area as well. Residents find it difficult as it is to park.
04/06/2019
Charlotte Walters 17 Combe Park, Lower Weston, Bath, Bath And North East Somerset, BA1 3NP O 04/06/2019: This area is in my opinion not appropriate for student accommodation. This is a built up family area that would not benefit from overcrowding student accommodation. There has already been huge student development in the local area and I feel the space could be used for a greater purpose. 04/06/2019
Jane Carnegie 37 Apsley Road, Newbridge, Bath, Bath And North East Somerset, BA1 3LP O 04/06/2019: Newbridge is a family-orientated area. Student life and family life are not compatible and it would be a bad idea to build student accommodation on the Hartwells site. It is also naive to think that students will not bring their cars to Bath, whatever agreement they make at the time of renting their accommodation not to. We already have problems with hospital staff parking in Apsley Road and along Newbridge Road and more cars will only make the problem worse. We need more family accommodation and perhaps an extension of the business park onto the bottom part of the site. 04/06/2019
Lesley Houston 26 Charmouth Road, Newbridge, Bath, Bath And North East Somerset, BA1 3LJ O 04/06/2019: I object to the huge scale of the planning and the fact that it includes student housing.
*We do not need more student housing in Bath; that which we do have does not have full occupancy.
*What we do most definitely need is more social housing and homes affordable by 1st time buyers.
*I believe the access road planned will make the main road, especially with the bend to the West if the property, more dangerous especially for the children from the local primary school; being on the pavements and using the crossing
* I do not believe the buildings planned for the main road should be as high. The planned height would change the open, rural feel of the space, especially in terms of view. There is plenty of space for height further down.
* There is no proper attempt to solve our issue with too many cars on the road especially into town
04/06/2019
Mr D Winch 16 Ivy Grove, Southdown, Bath, Bath And North East Somerset, BA2 1AP O 20/05/2019: WE NEED HOUSING FOR LOW INCOME HOUSE/FIRST TIME BUYERS, NOT MORE STUDENTS. YOU PROMISED THIS!! WE DO NOT NEED MORE HOUSING FOR STUDENTS.
HOW THE HELL CAN EMPLOYERS ATTRACT POORLY PAID STAFF WHEN THEY CANNOT AFFORD TO LIVE HERE? COUPLED WITH YOUR BADLY THOUGHT-OUT 'CAZ' ADDING TO THE TRAVEL WOES/COSTS OF THESE LOW PAID PEOPLE - WHO WILL HAVE TO TRAVEL IN TO BATH FOR WORK - YOU THEN MAKE SURE THAT THEY CANNOT FIND A PLACE TO LIVE HERE EITHER. ARE YOU THAT IGNORANT??!!
THE BATH SKYLINE IS ALREADY RUINED WITH THE NEW BLOCKS ALONG THE RIVER SIDE AND LOWER BRISTOL ROAD. YOU DO REMEMBER THAT THE 'WORLD HERITAGE' COMMITTEE THREATENED TO REMOVE OUR 'WORLD HERITAGE SITE STATUS' IF THIS VISUAL DAMAGE TO THE CITY CONTINUED? STOP IT! NO MORE STUDENT HOUSING ANYWHERE IN THE CITY. THE UNIVERSITIES CAN USE THEIR OWN LAND TO CREATE ACCOMMODATION, NOT OURS! BUILD AFFORDABLE HOUSING INSTEAD, PERHAPS WHERE THE OLD PRINT WORKS WAS AS WELL: YES, WE'VE NOT FORGOTTEN ABOUT THAT EITHER. OH YES, WE'LL BE KEEPING A CLOSE ON YOU FOR THAT FUTURE DEVELOPMENT TOO!
20/05/2019
Keith Goverd Bailiffs Cottage, The Green, Compton Dando, Bristol, Bath And North East Somerset, BS39 4LE O 06/06/2019: Policy CP6 – the scheme does not reinforce and contribute to specific local context, and fails to create a safe, inspiring, attractive place. This is largely due to its massing which creates monolithic buildings which are out of character to the local domestic scale, fine grained townscape. This is particularly true at the Newbridge Road elevations. Towards the more industrial rear of the site, there is more capacity for buildings of bulk. Therefore quantum of development is unacceptable.
Policy D1 – General Urban Design Principles: the development fails to:
Look varied, safe or attractive
Enrich the character of Newbridge or contribute positively to local character and history
Respond positively to local topography or townscape context
D2 – Local Character and Distinctiveness; by way of scale and massing of the double depth frontage buildings, the scheme constitutes overdevelopment and harms local character.
D3- Urban Fabric: fails to be of an appropriate grain, reflecting local character by way if its massing and overdevelopment.
D4 – Streets and Spaces: the provision of the cycle path is NOT a benefit to be weighed against harm in the planning judgement as it’s a road to nowhere, as it depends on B&NES to deliver the rest of the path. The only way the cycle path can be a meaningful benefit is if the S106 includes a requirement that the applicant must deliver the rest of the cycle path at their own cost….otherwise it is meaningless.
Policy HE1 – the area contains many non-designated heritage assets, namely attractive Victiorian and Edwardian villas, and rows of older terraces. The scheme will sit incongruously amongst this attractive mixed townscape, its massing and depth out of context and alien.
CP9 Affordable Housing – the lack of affordable housing is contrary to this policy…..the developer cites viability reasons for the lack of affordable housing, yet invariably developers ‘idea of what constitutes acceptable profit is excessive (check the viability report).
CP10 – Housing Mix – the scheme fails to propose a proper mix of housing to meet the needs of the local and wider community. 1 and 2 bed rented flats does not produce long-term housing in a mix of sizes and therefore is contrary to this policy. No doubt rental flats will not all be leased out and may become holiday lets or more student accommodation.
B1 setting of conservation area and non-designated heritage assets; the scheme fails to maintain or enhance the local character and distinctiveness that forms the setting of the conservation area (site is not in a CA but in the setting).
BD1 – Bath Design Policy – the proposed height and scale fails to respect and respond to local character. Use of bronze cladding fails to respond to and actually jars with local palette
Policy SB15 – does it respect and conform to the site specific policy?
80-100 dwellings which should boost supply of standard market and affordable housing – no!
Facades and roofs to integrate with surrounding context – No!
Be of a comfortable scale to assimilate locally – not achieved!
Question the need for more PBSA (Purpose Built Student Accommodation) given what which has already been approved in Bath (Student Castle, Lower Bristol Rd (Pickfords), Bath Cricket Club, Green Park, Brougham Hayes, Twerton Mills , Twerton Bakery site etc) – need to look at accommodation versus need figures…..many PBSA are not full and renting out rooms to visitors and holiday makers (e,g Green Park and Student Castle).
Emerging Local Plan policies to 2036 will look to restrict approval of new PBSA schemes to uni campuses only, showing the lack of appetite for more PBSA in the city centre. These developers look to be trying to get this through quickly before the new Core Strategy is adopted which will include this restrictive policy relating to PBSA’s.
06/06/2019
Dan Best 24 Combe Park, Lower Weston, Bath, Bath And North East Somerset, BA1 3NR O 06/06/2019: Policy CP6 – the scheme does not reinforce and contribute to specific local context, and fails to create a safe, inspiring, attractive place. This is largely due to its massing which creates monolithic buildings which are out of character to the local domestic scale, fine grained townscape. This is particularly true at the Newbridge Road elevations. Towards the more industrial rear of the site, there is more capacity for buildings of bulk. Therefore quantum of development is unacceptable.
Policy D1 – General Urban Design Principles: the development fails to:
Look varied, safe or attractive
Enrich the character of Newbridge or contribute positively to local character and history
Respond positively to local topography or townscape context
D2 – Local Character and Distinctiveness; by way of scale and massing of the double depth frontage buildings, the scheme constitutes overdevelopment and harms local character.
D3- Urban Fabric: fails to be of an appropriate grain, reflecting local character by way if its massing and overdevelopment.
D4 – Streets and Spaces: the provision of the cycle path is NOT a benefit to be weighed against harm in the planning judgement as it’s a road to nowhere, as it depends on B&NES to deliver the rest of the path. The only way the cycle path can be a meaningful benefit is if the S106 includes a requirement that the applicant must deliver the rest of the cycle path at their own cost….otherwise it is meaningless.
Policy HE1 – the area contains many non-designated heritage assets, namely attractive Victiorian and Edwardian villas, and rows of older terraces. The scheme will sit incongruously amongst this attractive mixed townscape, its massing and depth out of context and alien.
CP9 Affordable Housing – the lack of affordable housing is contrary to this policy…..the developer cites viability reasons for the lack of affordable housing, yet invariably developers ‘idea of what constitutes acceptable profit is excessive (check the viability report).
CP10 – Housing Mix – the scheme fails to propose a proper mix of housing to meet the needs of the local and wider community. 1 and 2 bed rented flats does not produce long-term housing in a mix of sizes and therefore is contrary to this policy. No doubt rental flats will not all be leased out and may become holiday lets or more student accommodation.
B1 setting of conservation area and non-designated heritage assets; the scheme fails to maintain or enhance the local character and distinctiveness that forms the setting of the conservation area (site is not in a CA but in the setting).
BD1 – Bath Design Policy – the proposed height and scale fails to respect and respond to local character. Use of bronze cladding fails to respond to and actually jars with local palette
Policy SB15 – does it respect and conform to the site specific policy?
80-100 dwellings which should boost supply of standard market and affordable housing – no!
Facades and roofs to integrate with surrounding context – No!
Be of a comfortable scale to assimilate locally – not achieved!
Question the need for more PBSA (Purpose Built Student Accommodation) given what which has already been approved in Bath (Student Castle, Lower Bristol Rd (Pickfords), Bath Cricket Club, Green Park, Brougham Hayes, Twerton Mills , Twerton Bakery site etc) – need to look at accommodation versus need figures…..many PBSA are not full and renting out rooms to visitors and holiday makers (e,g Green Park and Student Castle).
Emerging Local Plan policies to 2036 will look to restrict approval of new PBSA schemes to uni campuses only, showing the lack of appetite for more PBSA in the city centre. These developers look to be trying to get this through quickly before the new Core Strategy is adopted which will include this restrictive policy relating to PBSA’s.
06/06/2019
Elisabeth Osborn 137 Newbridge Road, Newbridge, Bath, BA1 3HG, O 06/06/2019:
I agree in principle to redeveloping the site for residential use. However, the proposed figure of up to 104 new homes exceeds the upper limit of development as defined in the core strategy [80 – 100 homes]. I would expect the development to be restricted to the numbers set out in the core strategy.
I am totally opposed to the additional accommodation for students on top of the residential provision. The reasons for my objection are as follows:
This represents an overdevelopment of the site, significantly beyond its capacity.
In addition, the core strategy, Policy SB15, specifically excludes student accommodation from this site. I fully expect this to be reflected in any planning decision for the site.
The residential mix proposed [1+2 bed units] is inappropriate for this site. This is a family based neighbourhood, near to 2 primary schools, the RUH and local community facilities, and the development should be providing much needed family accommodation. There should be affordable provision within this. The proposed mix is likely to become short term lets to students/holiday visitors which is not appropriate. Such a mix is in contravention of policy CP10
The proposal does not meet the required provision of affordable homes set down in CP9. This is unacceptable.
The proposal only provides parking for the residential elements, and includes no student parking at all. This is totally unacceptable. As a long term resident of Newbridge Road, I can confirm that the student rental accommodation in the houses adjacent generate parking requirements. Many students are also car owners and of the 186 student places, a proportion will have cars and will use local streets as parking. I do not accept the developer’s assertion that no students will be permitted to have cars. This is unrealistic, unenforceable and misleading.
The additional traffic generated by the residential development and compounded by the student car owners and the necessary additional public transport will exacerbate airborne pollution on Newbridge Road. The road is a key access route for vehicles from the west into Bath and at peak times carries large numbers of slow moving traffic. Bath’s air quality problems must be taken into account when considering developments which are likely to have detrimental effect on air quality. Of particular concern, is the proximity of Newbridge school to Newbridge Road.

The 3 storey blocks proposed for the terraced frontage are excessive and do not fit the context of the site. Adjoining houses, even the larger detached Villas along this part of Newbridge Road do not reach 3 storeys. The building is too big for its site and should be 2 storeys to match the street.
The proposals indicate parking along the disused railway line. We would object to any proposal for lighting this car park. There is considerable bat activity along this green corridor which is currently dark at night. The developer will need to demonstrate an appropriate balance of public safety and the specific needs of nocturnal wildlife. The railway corridor, combined with the river corridor are important ecological greenways that connect the rural hinterland to the centre of the city. Any car parking must include a substantial area of good quality, well managed and non illuminated ecological planting.
06/06/2019
Nick Perkins 30 Charmouth Road, Newbridge, Bath, Bath And North East Somerset, BA1 3LJ O 06/06/2019: There is no need for further student accommodation. Parking is already a major issue on our road and further housing will impact that greatly. 06/06/2019
Tom Osborn 137 Newbridge Road, Newbridge, Bath, BA1 3HG, O 06/06/2019:
I agree in principle to redeveloping the site for residential use. However, the proposed figure of up to 104 new homes exceeds the upper limit of development as defined in the core strategy [80 – 100 homes]. I would expect the development to be restricted to the numbers set out in the core strategy.
I am totally opposed to the additional accommodation for students on top of the residential provision. The reasons for my objection are as follows:
This represents an overdevelopment of the site, significantly beyond its capacity.
The core strategy, Policy SB15, specifically excludes student accommodation from this site. I fully expect this to be reflected in any planning decision for the site.
The residential mix proposed [1+2 bed units] is inappropriate for this site. This is a family based neighbourhood, near to 2 primary schools, the RUH and local community facilities, and the development should be providing much needed family accommodation. There should be affordable provision within this. The proposed mix is likely to become short term lets to students/holiday visitors which is not appropriate. Such a mix is in contravention of policy CP10
The proposal does not meet the required provision of affordable homes set down in CP9. This is unacceptable.
The proposal only provides parking for the residential elements, and includes no student parking at all. This is totally unacceptable. As a long term resident of Newbridge Road, I can confirm that the student rental accommodation in the houses adjacent generate parking requirements. Many students are also car owners and of the 186 student places, a proportion will have cars and will use local streets as parking. I do not accept the developer’s assertion that no students will be permitted to have cars. This is unrealistic, unenforceable and misleading.
The additional traffic generated by the residential development and compounded by the student car owners and the necessary additional public transport will exacerbate airborne pollution on Newbridge Road. The road is a key access route for vehicles from the west into Bath and at peak times carries large numbers of slow moving traffic. Bath’s air quality problems must be taken into account when considering developments which are likely to have detrimental effect on air quality. Of particular concern, is the proximity of Newbridge school to Newbridge Road.

The principle of re-establishing a terraced frontage to the street is welcomed. However, the 3 storey blocks are excessive and do not fit the context of the site. Adjoining houses, even the larger detached Villas along this part of Newbridge Road do not reach 3 storeys. The building is too big for its site and should be 2 storeys to match the street.
The proposals indicate parking along the disused railway line. We would object to any proposal for lighting this car park. There is considerable bat activity along this green corridor which is currently dark at night. The developer will need to demonstrate an appropriate balance of public safety and the specific needs of nocturnal wildlife. The railway corridor, combined with the river corridor are important ecological greenways that connect the rural hinterland to the centre of the city. Any car parking must include a substantial area of good quality, well managed and non -illuminated ecological planting.
06/06/2019
Hannah Samuel 30 Charmouth Road, Newbridge, Bath, Bath And North East Somerset, BA1 3LJ O 06/06/2019: There is no need for further student accommodation away from the university campuses, parking is already a major issue in the area and extra housing will put additional strain on the surrounding roads. Entrances to the site could impact children walking to school and cause an accident. 06/06/2019
Bath Preservation Trust Bath Preservation Trust , 1 Royal Crescent, City Centre, Bath, Bath And North East Somerset, BA1 2LR O 06/06/2019:

19/01854/OUT Hartwells of Bath Newbridge Road, Newbridge Bath BA1 2PP
Outline application with all matters reserved except for access and layout.
OBJECTION
The Trust welcomed the opportunity to comment on this scheme at the public consultation stage, but felt it had to object on the basis of the inclusion of student housing, insufficient affordable housing and the scale of the proposed blocks. The Trust notes the lengthy design details included with the submission, but will only comment on the two matters for which approval is sought at this stage: layout and access. However, it must acknowledged that the questions of scale (and therefore height) and massing are difficult to separate from the layout.
Student housing
The scheme still includes a large amount of student housing and the Trust urges the Council to rigorously test the assumptions made in the viability assessment. It is difficult to accept that this level of student housing is necessary , only a relatively short time after viability assessments must have been made when the site was allocated for “80-100 dwellings (not student housing)” in the Placemaking Plan 2015, as set out in Policy SB15 (Hartwells Garage). All the constraints and site specific restrictions were set out in that policy and are not new.
Policy SB15 requires that there be no student housing on this site “where this would prejudice the achievement of Policy DW.1 and B1 of the Placemaking Plan.” The Trust notes that officers gave an opinion in 2018 (as stated in the DAS 1.4.4) that the student housing element would not prejudice the delivery of current housing requirement. However, this was caveated by the comment that “Whether the site can satisfactorily accommodate the quantum of development proposed is a separate matter…” The DAS does not include any further comments by the officers, if any were made.
The emerging West of England Joint Spatial and Bath Local Plans both require that an additional 300 homes are found in Bath, through windfall sites and intensification of existing allocated sites, such as Hartwells. Any additional capacity achieved through intensification of development on this site should therefore be devoted to helping Bath reach this new target and should not be used for student housing. It is important to note that this site is not the full SB15 site, as the concrete batching plant is excluded. No doubt additional development will come forth on that site in due course, so it could be argued that the amount of housing on the application should be lower than maximum of 100 specified by SB15.
The Trust therefore continues to object to the inclusion of student housing on this site as this would be contrary to the requirements of PMP Policy 202 and SB15.1, and the application does not include any evidence that this would not prejudice the achievement of the aims of policies DW.1 (District-wide spatial strategy) and B1 (Bath Spatial Strategy).
The Trust’s position is that the layout would leads to a quantum and scale of development which is too great and therefore this layout should not be approved, for the following reasons:
Impact on setting and Universal Value of World Heritage Site
The Newbridge Road is a key route into the World Heritage Site from the west. There is a pleasant progression along this route, lined with good quality late Victorian residential buildings of modest scale on the north side and early C20th semi-detached dwellings on the south, (as acknowledged in the Design and Access Statement 2.3.5). These terraced and semi-detached houses are universally 2 storeys with pitched roofs, and some have prominent dormered/gabled roofs. The building frontages are set back, with individual front doors and small front gardens and there is a low scale and spacious quality to the street scene. There are many notable views of ridges and hillsides in all directions, over and in between the houses. Opposite the application site a terrace of 2 storeys is set back about one storey above the road with verdant frontage planting.
The application site is on a bend which also marks the edge of the Bath Conservation Area and a stand of trees, on the application site, forms an important marker in the views towards and out of the Conservation Area. The loss of these trees to form a wider access is a matter to be approved at this stage.
The Trust agrees with the general conclusions of LVIA, as shown on the Visually Verified Montages (VVMs), that the impact of the proposal on long distance and medium distance views from the surrounding viewpoints looking into the city would not significantly harm the Universal Value or setting of the WHS. However, as shown by VVMs 7 and 8/9, there would be a significantly adverse effect on the WHS, for the reasons explained below.
The City of Bath World Heritage Site Setting SPD (2013) Chapter 5, states that one of the important characteristics of the WHS setting are “The views afforded from the city to the green hillsides, woodland and open spaces and conversely the opportunities provided by the surroundings to view the city and its surrounding landscape.”
Views to hills and wooded ridges are a key feature along the Newbridge Road. There are many views, looking both west (leaving the city) and looking east (arriving) as well as to the south and the north. These multiple views play an important role in appreciating the valley floor setting of the historic core of the city. The existing buildings on the application site are low and widely spaced. The views obtained across the site from Newbridge Road towards the Twerton slopes and ridges beyond are an important feature of the site and they make a contribution to the spacious character of the area. They also play an important part in the natural progression to the urban city centre and historic core of Bath. These views have been underplayed by the applicants, but the DAS Part 4 para 5.30 acknowledges the loss of these views.
The Trust is concerned that these views would be substantially lost, due to the solid layout of the frontage blocks. The view through the narrow gap between the frontage blocks would be blocked by the student blocks beyond. A very narrow view over the carpark might remain, but it will continue to be dominated by the redundant (?) unsightly concrete batching tower and subject to future proposals when that part of the site is brought forward for development. Whilst the existing use was a “detractor” the buildings and the forecourts are low scale and open. The Trust does not therefore agree that the proposed layout is justified because it will replace a detractor.
The Trust notes that a freestanding frame along the frontage is proposed – if this is part of the “layout” then the Trust objects to this alien object in the street scene. Perhaps its only function is to put down a marker for the future development of the car park?
The Trust therefore objects to the layout as it would harm the setting and significance of the World Heritage Site Setting, contrary to the requirements of Policy B1.1.a and Policy B4 of the PMP. It would also be contrary to the policies set out in Section 16 of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) particularly paras: 184, 196.

Impact on the character of the area, including the adjacent conservation area
The Trust also objects to the proposed layout, as its deep plan blocks and poor quality frontage treatment along the Newbridge Road would be completely at odds with the residential character of the area. The layout would therefore be contrary to the aims PMP Policy SB15.2 and the text in para 203 of SB15, which require that the site has “an active frontage” and be “be sympathetic to the Victorian context of the terraced housing along the road”. The layout fails to achieve either of these.
A finger of the site extends under the road bridge along the former railway line to the east and this is within the Conservation Area. It is distinctly different to the industrialised character of the main site, being wide, tranquil and overgrown. It should be seen as part of the future linear cycle route/public park and the Trust seriously questions the use of this area as an overflow carpark, which will be remote, without natural surveillance. (This point has also been raised by the Council’s Highways officer). The former railway embankments are very wide at this point and their use for open overflow parking would prejudice the creation of a high quality linear urban park and would be harmful to the peaceful, overgrown character of the former railway land, which is in the Conservation Area.
There is a row of trees along the site frontage which although slightly formal in their planting, creates a soft element to the frontage. The loss of one, possibly two trees on the frontage would harm the character of the area – the Trust cannot see why a new bus shelter could not be located away from the trees. The NE corner of the site contains a significant cluster of mature trees (G28) which contributes to the street scene and would help soften any new development on the Hartwells site. Unfortunately these trees (category B) are to be felled to make way for the new vehicle access. This corner of the site is on a prominent bend in the road at the very beginning of the Conservation Area. The deep plan blocks would be seen at an angle and would be an alien feature within the setting of the Conservation Area and would detract from the pleasant and consistent linear terraced character of the street scene within the Conservation Area.
Policy SB15 requires that the development should be sympathetic to the context of the Victorian terraced housing. The massing and deep plan of the blocks serves will increase the impact of the height of the blocks on the street scene. The screening device over the entrance to the car-park is also an anomaly in the street scene and achieves nothing in design terms to reduce the impact of the proposed open car-park.
In choosing an apartment block layout (for which approval is sought at this stage) the design is forced to incorporate flats at ground floor, with a single north aspect facing Newbridge Road. There is an indicative line on the ground floor plan showing some form of separation between the building and the pavement, but it is unclear whether this will be private or public space. The integration of the building base into the street scene is an important layout matter and should not be left as detail to be sorted out later. The Trust urges that reconsideration be given to a layout with an active frontage (i.e. front gardens and front doors) along the Newbridge Road, to integrate the frontage with the residential character of the street.
The proposal is therefore contrary to the specific requirements of PMP Policy SB15, and also to the more general requirements of PMP policies BD1 (Bath design policy), DW1 (6) (cultural and heritage assets), D1 (general urban design principles)(c) and (d) and Policies D2 (local character and distinctiveness) and D3 (urban fabric) as well as HE1 (historic environment).
Means of access for pedestrians, cyclists and cars
The application is not clear about whether the pedestrian route into the site from the Newbridge Road would be publicly accessible at all times. A long flight of stairs and one lift would be a real barrier to the public and the spaces surrounding the lift and stairs would not be naturally supervised. Cyclists will not use this lift – it would be quicker to cycle along the road!
The Trust is also concerned that there is a very poor relationship with the proposed new cycle route/public park, whose edge along the southern boundary of the site, would be dominated by car parking and overspill car parking, all requiring lighting and 24 hour security. This means of access should not be approved it is demonstrated that security for these areas can be provided whilst providing an attractive public cycle and walking route. It is unrealistic to expect that the application site would be open and permeable as shown on the cross sections.
The southerly route to the site through the trading estate into the site will be heavily used by the site’s occupiers. Although the applicants state they have a permanent right of way, at the moment the estate is gated and is locked at night. Will occupiers of the site be able to walk or cycle through the trading estate at any time? The route through the estate is unlit and there is no pedestrian provision. This means of access should not be approved until the Council is completely satisfied that this will be a permanent, safe and practical route to the site for 24/7.
Policy D3 (urban fabric) (a) requires that “developments provide safe and high quality routes, ideally providing new green infrastructure”– this scheme does not do that.
Lack of a vision for the ST route
It should be noted that the ST route as shown on the Policies map bisects the site at a higher point than the route shown on the submitted plan No -002. Has the Council given up on the possibility that the route might be used for other types of ST? There is no indication of this in the draft Local Plan. The applicants have bent the route southwards in order to build the student blocks. Is a 3.5m wide route with a sharp bend, enough for other forms of ST transport? If the possibility of other forms of ST (which might need a straight line) has been abandoned, where is the vision now for this wide linear public space? As commented by the Council’s Parks and Green Spaces officer, this space “has the potential to be a recreational facility that can contribute to meeting the requirements of Policy LCR6 and the Green Spaces Strategy.” This highly dense layout has produced a series of small service courtyards, dominated by recycling bins, bike lockers and bike stands and likely to be overshadowed significantly especially in winter. The layout gives very little potential for attractive spaces, either hard or soft. The residents will depend on the adjacent linear route for any contact with natural green spaces and this application should not be approved until a plan for the whole of the route is produced and agreed through genuine public consultation with the all the communities who will use it.
In this respect the Trust considers that the proposal would be contrary to PMP Policies ST2 and ST2A.

06/06/2019
David Chaplin 27 Charmouth Road, Newbridge, Bath, Bath And North East Somerset, BA1 3LJ O 06/06/2019: I have several concerns on the proposed development on the old Hartwells Garage site. This is a significant development that has the potential to permanently change the local neighbourhood given the bulky design (particularly on the frontage of Newbridge Road) and the number of new residents likely to be living there with knock-on effects for the local infrastructure. Therefore it is important that the potential problems and of the views of the local residents can be investigated in detail and openly before any planning application can proceed further so I would suggest that it is referred to the committee.

The doubts raised by your Highways department as set out below probably exemplify why the application needs to be subject to far greater scrutiny before proceeding further.

Highways and parking
The primary problem is highways and parking management. Your own Highways department has questioned and seeks clarification on the following;

“Policy SB15 of the adopted Placemaking Plan also sought that the scheme would provide a connection between Newbridge Road and the STR to the south. The current layout provides a pedestrian connection, however, due to the elevation changes a cycle link through the site is not provided. It also appears that the site could be gated and no access for members of the public would be possible. This issue should be clarified by the applicant, and opportunities to provide this link should be explored.”

“The highway authority has previously identified this issue when reviewing University applications, and the current lack of bus capacity now highlights that this is a significant issue that needs to be addressed. It is expected that none of the students would have access to private car use, and there would be large groups travelling to and from University campus sites at particular times. Given the significance of the concerns, the principle of significant student numbers at this location and their ability to travel to the University sites is now questioned” (p2).

This seems to me to be a fairly serious concern raised by your professional officers that at the very least requires further investigation given the possible safety infrastructure concerns.

As for parking they state:

“No parking is proposed for the student accommodation that has been included as part of the scheme. The highway authority made a response to an earlier planning application at the site, see number 14/03977/OUT, and made detailed comments relating to the lack of parking for that student scheme. Local residents also raised significant concerns in response to the proposals. Given the location of the site, with the Royal United Hospital nearby and the vulnerability of the local streets to unacceptable parking, the highway authority needs to be certain that student parking would not overspill into these adjacent streets.”

Again your department has raised serious potential difficulties with parking management and is aware of one of the objections raised in the previous aborted, untested application.

In addition the parking proposals are for unallocated parking for the residential flats, which would make management much less rigorous, and also that residential flat occupiers could apply for an additional permit which “does mean that the parking provision for the two bed apartments is not fully in accordance with the adopted minimum parking standards”.

Finally, they have raised concerns about the proposed access from the Maltings Industrial estate and the servicing of the site from Newbridge Road, in particular the servicing of the proposed café retail unit.

Other doubts
Aside from the Highways issues there is some uncertainty as to whether the proposed use of the plot for student accommodation is contrary to your own planning policy SB15. While your Planning department has no objection to that use in principle that agreement in principle is subject to the development meeting other requirements such as “density, design, height and mass” which I would say the schme as proposed does not meet.

The application also proposes that, to make the scheme viable, only 10% of the accommodation is designated for rental under affordable rent guidelines whereas Policy CP9 requires a 40% affordable housing contribution. Accordingly, they state that the development should be “subject to independent testing of the submitted viability appraisal.”

Finally, while the creation of home for rent may be welcome, on the face of it there do not seem to be many safeguards regarding the use of the flats and student bedsits once they are built. Given the residential nature of the area, it would seem to be prudent that conditions should be attached to ensure that the flats are only available on long term rents and not become holiday lets.
06/06/2019
Michael Marten 140 Newbridge Road, Newbridge, Bath, BA1 3LD, O 15/05/2019: We object to the Application on the basis that this is a residential area. More student apartments are unnecessary as we
understand more accommodation for them will be built at the University next year. Also Newbridge Road at Hartwells corner is currently very safe and it was safe to access to Hartwells. Access to and from the proposed site could cause a safety issue with the constant busy traffic to and from Bristol and Bath centre.
15/05/2019
Kelly Davidson 233 Newbridge Road, Newbridge, Bath, BA1 3HJ, O 15/05/2019: The proposed plans are far too large for the area, with already limited parking the number of properties proposed will create further traffic and parking problems.

There is a need for truly affordable family home in the Bath area and requires 3 or more bedrooms. There remains a number of vacant purpose built student accommodation in the area indicated there isn’t a demand.

The elevation is too high and not in keeping with the area
The access onto the site isn’t sufficient a
15/05/2019
Karen Carter 54 Rosslyn Road, Newbridge, Bath, Bath And North East Somerset, BA1 3LH O 09/05/2019: Raised all of the following concerns but the developers are unfortunately still going ahead.

1) Congestion on an already very busy road, leading to more road safety concerns, especially considering there is a busy primary school opposite.
2) Exit onto Newbridge Road from Rosslyn Road will become even more dangerous especially when turning right onto Newbridge Road due to increase in traffic. This is a blind corner.
3) More pollution due to increased traffic congestion on already gridlocked Newbridge Road at peak times
4) car parking issues. The roads surrounding this proposed development are already congested with hospital parking. This will be made all the more worse with student / residents who do not have a designated parking space. Also, impossible to police apart from local people having to pay for parking permits which they shouldn't have to do.
5) Noise pollution and anti-social behaviour due to a large increase in the number of students coming back late at night, making noise.
6) The development is veiled as "residential", but 1-2 bed apartments are not what local families are looking for. They will be purchased and rented out to students. Why can't the site be for the proper housing mix of residential, family housing to deal with the current shortage of family housing.


09/05/2019
Vicky 43 Langdon Road, Southdown, Bath, Bath And North East Somerset, BA2 1LS O 09/05/2019: Why are you looking into building yet more student accommodation,
We need affordable accommodation for single people or young couples / families
09/05/2019
Penny Redmond 13 Charmouth Road, Newbridge, Bath, Bath And North East Somerset, BA1 3LJ O 09/05/2019: This area already has problems with parking ~ adding possibly 300 or more people with associated cars just makes the situation even more difficult. Currently it is almost impossible to park outside my own home. With the extra student accommodation and students attending the new design school in addition to staff at RUH and Newbridge School parking in the area is extremely difficult for residents. In reality this area needs permit parking!
In addition creating a new entrance off Newbridge Road would be adding to the dangers associated with the 3 streets nearby turning onto Newbridge Road.
09/05/2019
Rebecca Marsh 203 Newbridge Road, Newbridge, Bath, BA1 3HH, O 09/05/2019: Oh where to start?! Bath does NOT need more student accommodation, especially in a wholly residential area as Newbridge is.
Affordable homes and families is what the site invites. But we know student accommodation is a lucrative business and that's why the 'home' element is so minimal. This site is virtually opposite a primary school, in a residential area, somewhere families would love to live. The area offers nothing to a transient population yet is one that settled families would suit perfectly.
The design of the site also provides insufficient parking. The developers tell us that the already nightmarish parking situation in the area (we are already the RUH overflow carpark) would not be made worse, as students would sign an agreement that they wouldn't bring a car. That's not legal, or enforceable, so pointless in reality. We cannot expect the surrounding streets to cope with yet more parked vehicles. We already see cars parked too close to junctions, on kerbs, and basically in every possible space available. In the time I have been living opposite the bottom of Apsley Road I have witnessed a large number of accidents (I’d happily give you details of these if you want to know the frequency!), where visability is so poor and cars fight to get out of junctions. The Hartwells site would add to this local issue significantly. The safety of the residents and the local children walking around these junctions is already massively called into question.
The entrance to the site is just after a bend on the A4, this is dangerous as the visibility is poor and the pavement is VERY busy with school children twice daily. They already run the gauntlet on a busy road. Newbridge Road is already heavily congested, especially at the start and end of the working day, the road cannot cope with the current demands, letalone those of another c200 people in one space. Add to this the current stretch of pavement is also the closest bus stop and only pedestrian crossing (we’ve tried to get a second crossing elsewhere in the past but alas the council haven’t provided), it’s all too much for one stretch of road to cope with.
The physical design of the proposal bears no resemblance to the period properties on the street, or indeed any building locally, it's like every other quick built student development, whilst the current Hartwells building is in no way attractive, I feel it would effectively maintain the blot on the street rather than enhance it. Families in the area have had to battle planning when trying to develop their homes, as they cannot afford to move, the council routinely reject small adaptations (such as dormers) citing them as not having a precedent set locally. Well, we also do not have a multi-storey student build in Newbridge, so the ‘no precedent = no approval’ should apply equally here.
Much is being made of the ‘cycle link’ incorporated on the site. But link to where? This is not stated. Because basically all it does is join the path from Brassmill Land to the path behind Kaynton Mead, a path which then terminates and you’re back on the street on Station Road. Well, hardly a cycle ‘network’ is it. More a link up of two paths, and that seems to be as much as they can offer the local community?
Please BANES, say no to yet more student accommodation, approve something for the families that want to make the city their home, and use this site to start addressing the massive shortfall of affordable homes in Bath.
09/05/2019
Anna Penn Lea Road, BATH, BA1 3RQ O 09/05/2019: This area will suffer hugely from more student accommodation. I have children at Newbridge school and the area is already really busy with cars and buses. I have friends who live in the nearby streets and struggle to park near their homes. This is absolutely not what Newbridge needs or deserves. 09/05/2019
Delia Masanotti Coronation Road, Lower Weston, Bath, Bath And North East Somerset, BA1 3BH O 09/05/2019: I am very concerned about the above proposal on many grounds.

The site is very close to a school and a crossing that has lots of children crossing.
Having an increased number of residents in that area (You are suggesting 200 new dwellings which would house at least 200 people, of which 186 students?) - in both cars and as pedestrians just makes this part of the street dangerous for crossing as more cars coming in and out. More houses on an already skinny pavement.

Newbridge simply does not have the space and infostructure to accommodate that many new residents, let alone students. The surrounding streets are very family oriented with young children and it is a very quiet area at night. So many students would completely change the make up of the community and alter the neighbourhood.

Parking space is another major issue. The parking situation in the surrounding streets is already dire and traffic congestion at peak times is at an all time high. How how would you accommodate 200 extra cars?! Bath is already over populated. Creating 200 more dwelling places in an already cramped city is ludicrous. I do not believe it enriches the area. It creates noise pollution, traffic pollution and overcrowds the local area.

It is clear that there is a massive shortage of family housing in this area but this does absolutely nothing to help that. A massive student site with 3 to 5 storey houses which are certainly not family based and would not meet the need of a family.
Of course a solution for the site needs to be found but not this - we need family homes not student accommodation.
09/05/2019
Rachel Sayles 5 Rudmore Park, Newbridge, Bath, Bath And North East Somerset, BA1 3JA O 09/05/2019: I think the properties proposed are too high. I am very concerned about the traffic implications with coming and going. There is too much going into this area which is very close to a school. 09/05/2019: I think the properties proposed are too high. I am very concerned about the traffic implications with coming and going. There is too much going into this area which is very close to a school. 09/05/2019
Sean Hawkins 233 Newbridge Road, Newbridge, Bath, BA1 3HJ, O 09/05/2019: I have a number of objections to the application:

- the additional traffic impact of a relatively high density development in such close proximity to Newbridge school will create obvious dangers and exacerbate existing pressures during pick up and drop off times.

- the development does little to increase affordable housing stock and family accommodation in keeping with the make up of the area and already identified needs.

- with student accommodation inevitably comes hygiene, parking and anti social behaviour issues. It’s particularly out of keeping with the nature of the area
09/05/2019
Alison Brazington 46 Gainsborough Gardens, Lower Weston, Bath, Bath And North East Somerset, BA1 4AJ O 09/05/2019: The area can not sustain this type of development. Affordable family homes would be a much better option. 09/05/2019
Kelly Shellard 47 Highland Road, Twerton, Bath, Bath And North East Somerset, BA2 1DY O 09/05/2019: There is enough student accommodation in Bath we need more affordable homes in Bath. Dangerous amount of parking due to student cars as there is no consequence for them parking on the streets in other areas of Bath. 09/05/2019
Russ Read-Barrow 15 Apsley Road, Newbridge, Bath, Bath And North East Somerset, BA1 3LP O 09/05/2019: Concerned about the impact this will have on the property values in the area, and the increase in cars / lack of parking for that many residents. 09/05/2019
Katherine Runacres 11 Kennington Road, Newbridge, Bath, Bath And North East Somerset, BA1 3EA O 09/05/2019: There is NO need for students accommodation on Newbridge Road. There is plenty of space on the Bath Spa Uni campus for more student accommodation. There is no provision in the plan for student parking - only for the residential units that are being built. We need affordable homes for first time buyers and young families, NOT students. 09/05/2019
Craig Robson 140 Southlands, Upper Weston, Bath, BA1 4EB, O 10/05/2019: The city is over run with students and their accommodation. We do not need more. As for the 3-4 story flats they will be an eye soar. why not build 3-4-5 bedroom homes with gardens. Preferably Social housing sceme. Use the site to rehome the Homeless as their are far to many on our streets. 10/05/2019
Chloe Middleton 3 Pennsylvania View, Lansdown, Bath, Bath And North East Somerset, BA1 9DW, O 22/05/2019: My biggest concern would be the amount of traffic this would bring to an already congested area and so close to a primary school.
Secondly is there not already enough student accommodation in Bath? If students are not allowed to park on site, the local community will have more vehicles to accommodate on these already busy, narrow roads that adjoin Newbridge Road.
Finally, I believe we should be providing affordable housing for our younger people who have always lived in Bath rather than forcing them to leave the city due to lack of space and increasing house prices.
22/05/2019
Simon Pearcey 10 Rosslyn Road, Newbridge, Bath, Bath And North East Somerset, BA1 3LH O 07/06/2019: There are a number of aspects about this planning application that I feel make it unsuitable.

Parking
104 rental homes which range from 1 person to 4 person units (totalling 259 beds) with only 113 spaces provided. The Education Services assessment included in the planning application forecasts this will result in 6 children. Leaving this as 253 beds. 113 parking spaces are proposed (including 4 disabled spots). This leaves potential for up to 140 cars on the local streets Additionally, 186 student beds are provided with zero parking provision.

The proposed "enforcement" for student housing lacks credibility even before taking into account the inability to identify students that are breaching the car ownership restrictions, as there are no residential parking restrictions enforced in the area.

This gives the potential for 326 extra cars over spilling into the surrounding area. Given that parking in all streets in the surrounding area is at capacity, due to a combination of hospital staff, hospital visitors and commuters, it is very unlikely that enforcement surveys would be able to detect any difference. There is no proposal within the application to introduce a residents parking scheme into the affected neighbourhoods, which would provide a more effective control mechanism than "a survey".

Transport link
While the sustainable transport link is an attractive proposition, there has been no formal agreement with Sustrans or the local authority that binds this specific planning application into a wider committed piece of work to complete the missing links. The potential cost of installing a new bridge across the river is likely to make the link untenable for such a short stretch. In addition, the proposed exit of the new link onto Station road, however will expose cyclists to a much busier road, with the potential for accidents, as this is already a blackspot for cyclists.

Road safety
The proposed site access road is likely to present road safety issues on Newbridge Road in conjunction with the bus stop located in a position that obscures the traffic coming from the left.

Affordable Family Housing
As many people in the comments have called out, Bath has an over-supply of student accommodation, what Bath actually lacks is affordable family homes, and this proposal does absolutely nothing to address that.
07/06/2019
P Brimble 94A Newbridge Road, Newbridge, Bath, BA1 3LD, O 07/06/2019:
I wish to object to the current application.
Newbridge is a residential area already experiencing problems with parking. Students will bring cars whatever the restriction and there is not enough provision on the site. More traffic will cause a really safety issue so close to Newbridge school and other children walking to school and accessing buses.
There is a real lack of affordable housing in Bath and this site would be ideal for this and could offer an ideal site for actively aging population who are keen to downsize thereby freeing up more family homes.

07/06/2019
John Carter 190 Newbridge Road, Newbridge, Bath, BA1 3LE, O 07/06/2019: The application is very similar to a previous application in 2014 that was withdrawn after overwhelming negative feedback from nearby residents. What has changed since then? The original objections remain valid.

The plan does not provide suitable family and affordable housing in an area which is substantially residential.

It would be better to use the lower, rear part of the site to extend the business park ie retain for commercial use, for instance as a technology business park, to provide jobs in the area.

Bath students are already well served with accommodation in town off campus; the on campus accommodation has been extended a great deal lately and this means there is no need to place more students in this part of town. In any case any further student accommodation that is needed ought to be placed nearer the universities or on campus itself.

The area is family oriented and much of the local population is either mature or young families. As anyone who lives in Oldfield Park knows, a student influx brings with it a high number of additional vehicles and resultant parking difficulty (as well as general mess and rubbish on streets). Additional cars parked in streets around the site would cause parking and noise nuisance; and importantly, make crossing the road with young children more dangerous. The popular junior school is situated in the road opposite the site.

It would be much preferable to use the site to develop a few attractive family houses with appropriate landscaping and vehicular access, in keeping with the styles in place in Newbridge Road; possibly with range of small shop/café outlets and medical and dental centre. A development similar to that of the development in Hortsmann Close would be more suitable.

As regards specific contraventions from planning policy, there are several:

• Policy CP6 – the scheme does not reinforce and contribute to specific local context, and fails to create a safe, inspiring, attractive place. This is largely due to its massing which creates monolithic buildings which are out of character to the local domestic scale, fine grained townscape. This is particularly true at the Newbridge Road elevations. The size of development is unacceptable.
• Policy D1 – General Urban Design Principles: the development fails to:
• Look varied, safe or attractive
• Enrich the character of Newbridge or contribute positively to local character and history
• Respond positively to local topography or townscape context
• D2 – Local Character and Distinctiveness; by way of scale and massing of the double depth frontage buildings, the scheme constitutes overdevelopment and is detrimental to local character.
• D3- Urban Fabric: fails to be of an appropriate grain, reflecting local character by way of its massing and overdevelopment.
• D4 – Streets and Spaces: the provision of the cycle path is NOT a benefit to be weighed against harm in the planning judgement as it’s a road to nowhere, as it depends on BANES to deliver the rest of the path. The only way the cycle path can be a real benefit is if the S106 includes a requirement that the applicant must deliver the rest of the cycle path at their own cost….otherwise it is meaningless.
• Policy HE1 – the area contains many non-designated heritage assets, namely attractive Victorian and Edwardian villas, and rows of older terraces. The scheme will sit incongruously amongst this attractive mixed townscape, its massing and depth out of context and alien.
• CP9 Affordable Housing – the lack of affordable housing is contrary to this policy…..the developer cites viability reasons for the lack of affordable housing, yet invariably developers ‘idea of what constitutes acceptable profit is excessive (check the viability report).
• CP10 – Housing Mix – the scheme fails to propose a proper mix of housing to meet the needs of the local and wider community. 1 and 2 bed rented flats does not produce long-term housing in a mix of sizes and therefore is contrary to this policy. No doubt rental flats will not all be leased out and may become holiday lets or more student accommodation.
• B1 setting of conservation area and non-designated heritage assets; the scheme fails to maintain or enhance the local character and distinctiveness that forms the setting of the conservation area (site is not in a CA but in the setting).
• BD1 – Bath Design Policy – the proposed height and scale fails to respect and respond to local character. Use of bronze cladding fails to respond to and actually jars with local palette
• Policy SB15 – this application does NOT respect and conform to the site specific policy for (i) 80-100 dwellings which should boost supply of standard market and affordable housing (ii) Facades and roofs to integrate with surrounding context (iii) Be of a comfortable scale to assimilate locally
• Question the need for more PBSA (Purpose Built Student Accommodation) given what has already been approved in Bath (Student Castle, Lower Bristol Rd (Pickfords), Bath Cricket Club, Green Park, Brougham Hayes, Twerton Mills , Twerton Bakery site etc) – need to look at accommodation versus need figures…..many PBSA are not full and renting out rooms to visitors and holiday makers (e,g Green Park and Student Castle).
• Emerging Local Plan policies to 2036 will look to restrict approval of new PBSA schemes to uni campuses only, showing the lack of appetite for more PBSA in the city centre. These developers look to be trying to get this through quickly before the new Core Strategy is adopted which will include this restrictive policy relating to PBSA’s.

07/06/2019
Kate Carter 190 Newbridge Road, Newbridge, Bath, BA1 3LE, O 07/06/2019: The application is very similar to a previous application in 2014 that was withdrawn after overwhelming negative feedback from nearby residents. What has changed since then? The original objections remain valid.

The plan does not provide suitable family and affordable housing in an area which is substantially residential.

It would be better to use the lower, rear part of the site to extend the business park ie retain for commercial use, for instance as a technology business park, to provide jobs in the area.

Bath students are already well served with accommodation in town off campus; the on campus accommodation has been extended a great deal lately and this means there is no need to place more students in this part of town. In any case any further student accommodation that is needed ought to be placed nearer the universities or on campus itself.

The area is family oriented and much of the local population is either mature or young families. As anyone who lives in Oldfield Park knows, a student influx brings with it a high number of additional vehicles and resultant parking difficulty (as well as general mess and rubbish on streets). Additional cars parked in streets around the site would cause parking and noise nuisance; and importantly, make crossing the road with young children more dangerous. The popular junior school is situated in the road opposite the site.

It would be much preferable to use the site to develop a few attractive family houses with appropriate landscaping and vehicular access, in keeping with the styles in place in Newbridge Road; possibly with range of small shop/café outlets and medical and dental centre. A development similar to that of the development in Hortsmann Close would be more suitable.

As regards specific contraventions from planning policy, there are several:

• Policy CP6 – the scheme does not reinforce and contribute to specific local context, and fails to create a safe, inspiring, attractive place. This is largely due to its massing which creates monolithic buildings which are out of character to the local domestic scale, fine grained townscape. This is particularly true at the Newbridge Road elevations. The size of development is unacceptable.
• Policy D1 – General Urban Design Principles: the development fails to:
• Look varied, safe or attractive
• Enrich the character of Newbridge or contribute positively to local character and history
• Respond positively to local topography or townscape context
• D2 – Local Character and Distinctiveness; by way of scale and massing of the double depth frontage buildings, the scheme constitutes overdevelopment and is detrimental to local character.
• D3- Urban Fabric: fails to be of an appropriate grain, reflecting local character by way of its massing and overdevelopment.
• D4 – Streets and Spaces: the provision of the cycle path is NOT a benefit to be weighed against harm in the planning judgement as it’s a road to nowhere, as it depends on BANES to deliver the rest of the path. The only way the cycle path can be a real benefit is if the S106 includes a requirement that the applicant must deliver the rest of the cycle path at their own cost….otherwise it is meaningless.
• Policy HE1 – the area contains many non-designated heritage assets, namely attractive Victorian and Edwardian villas, and rows of older terraces. The scheme will sit incongruously amongst this attractive mixed townscape, its massing and depth out of context and alien.
• CP9 Affordable Housing – the lack of affordable housing is contrary to this policy…..the developer cites viability reasons for the lack of affordable housing, yet invariably developers ‘idea of what constitutes acceptable profit is excessive (check the viability report).
• CP10 – Housing Mix – the scheme fails to propose a proper mix of housing to meet the needs of the local and wider community. 1 and 2 bed rented flats does not produce long-term housing in a mix of sizes and therefore is contrary to this policy. No doubt rental flats will not all be leased out and may become holiday lets or more student accommodation.
• B1 setting of conservation area and non-designated heritage assets; the scheme fails to maintain or enhance the local character and distinctiveness that forms the setting of the conservation area (site is not in a CA but in the setting).
• BD1 – Bath Design Policy – the proposed height and scale fails to respect and respond to local character. Use of bronze cladding fails to respond to and actually jars with local palette
• Policy SB15 – this application does NOT respect and conform to the site specific policy for (i) 80-100 dwellings which should boost supply of standard market and affordable housing (ii) Facades and roofs to integrate with surrounding context (iii) Be of a comfortable scale to assimilate locally
• Question the need for more PBSA (Purpose Built Student Accommodation) given what has already been approved in Bath (Student Castle, Lower Bristol Rd (Pickfords), Bath Cricket Club, Green Park, Brougham Hayes, Twerton Mills , Twerton Bakery site etc) – need to look at accommodation versus need figures…..many PBSA are not full and renting out rooms to visitors and holiday makers (e,g Green Park and Student Castle).
• Emerging Local Plan policies to 2036 will look to restrict approval of new PBSA schemes to uni campuses only, showing the lack of appetite for more PBSA in the city centre. These developers look to be trying to get this through quickly before the new Core Strategy is adopted which will include this restrictive policy relating to PBSA’s.

07/06/2019
Sharon Champneys 189 Newbridge Road, Newbridge, Bath, BA1 3HH, O 07/06/2019:
I object to this scheme as it is out of keeping with the local community.
The local plan following the last failed proposal five years ago was designed to stipuate that the site was set asside for 80-100 homes, yet this scheme will only provide short-term rental accommodation and student flats.

I am also worried about the additional traffic caused by all these new residents leaving during rush hour. It is already hard enough to get out of our drive when I leave for work. There are also problems with cars dropping off for the primary school which will only be exacerbated when the cars from the appartments are added to the mix.

I also object to the developers' inability to listen to the feedback from the local community 5 years ago. We feel let down by the half-truths told during the half-hearted so-called public consultation. For example, thoe consultation said specifically that the development would contain an affordable housing element. Yet the submitted plans completely omit this.
07/06/2019
Jenny Stephens 119 Newbridge Road, Newbridge, Bath, BA1 3HG, O 07/06/2019: The Hartwells site is prime brownfield land that would be perfect for development to residential accommodation. However I believe the proposed scheme is too dense and has the wrong mix of tenure and type.
The street front plans are sensitive you the residential nature of the area and the plans to green and widen the pavement are positive. The site is in an area which is predominantly family homes, close to a large primary school. There is a known requirement in the area for more family houses and accommodation for older people.
The proposed mix includes a large percentage of student residential, that while lucrative in the short term for the developer may not deliver quality long term homes. Some students in the area is no bad thing, but the concentration proposed is not in keeping with the overall gel of the area- surely areas closer to the centre would be more suitable? And already plentiful.

The new routes through the site are much needed and new links to the sustrans cycle path should be encouraged.

Overall, I encourage development, but with a lean away from student housing and towards family and affordable homes and flats for older people.
07/06/2019
Nicholas Carter 54 Rosslyn Road, Newbridge, Bath, Bath And North East Somerset, BA1 3LH O 07/06/2019: Strongly object due to: significant increase in traffic and pollution, and increased risk of road traffic accident and access problems in an area adjacent to primary school.
Parking and noise levels will be detrimental to a residential area.
Over development which is incongruous to existing residential housing,
The area that is designated a car park in the plans hosts a range of wildlife, including deer.
07/06/2019
A Adams 247 Newbridge Road, Newbridge, Bath, BA1 3HJ, O 08/06/2019: I object to this proposal for a number if reasons. Firstly, the proposed number of dwellings appears much too high for the space available and is not what the area needs. First time buyer or affordable family homes would be much more suitable for this site. I strongly believe that any further student accommodation in the City should be built on any of the campuses of the Universities.
Secondly, the influx of cars and subsequent parking issues are not appropriate for the site or the local area. I live on Newbridge Road so know how busy it can be, at peak times the road coming to a standstill with the volume of traffic trying to use the route! The roads around the Newbridge area are already used as an overspill car park for the RUH. Even if the proposal that students would potentially not be allowed to bring cars to this new site, that will not be enforced and local roads will be further clogged/saturated. Existing residents should not be penalised so their parking needs are compromised yet further.
The access point for this development is too close to the junction with Charmouth Road which is the site of our local primary school. As many families walk their young children to and from school - some children using the route independently, I feel the increase in traffic, especially at peak times - and including near the narrow pavement towards the small bridge (as you travel towards Bath) will be dangerous to both driver and pedestrians.
I know that local families have failed to be granted planning permission to alter/extend their homes as these relatively small changes were not ‘in keeping’ with the current view coming in to Bath / yet I believe the look of this proposed site is not in keeping with the local area and the types of homes that stand here.
I object to the proposed plans.
08/06/2019
Sarah Saprey Toron, Weston Lane, Lower Weston, Bath, Bath And North East Somerset, BA1 4AA O 08/06/2019: Policy CP6 – the scheme does not reinforce and contribute to specific local context, and fails to create a safe, inspiring, attractive place. This is largely due to its massing which creates monolithic buildings which are out of character to the local domestic scale, fine grained townscape. This is particularly true at the Newbridge Road elevations. Towards the more industrial rear of the site, there is more capacity for buildings of bulk. Therefore quantum of development is unacceptable.
Policy D1 – General Urban Design Principles: the development fails to:
Look varied, safe or attractive
Enrich the character of Newbridge or contribute positively to local character and history
Respond positively to local topography or townscape context
D2 – Local Character and Distinctiveness; by way of scale and massing of the double depth frontage buildings, the scheme constitutes overdevelopment and harms local character.
D3- Urban Fabric: fails to be of an appropriate grain, reflecting local character by way if its massing and overdevelopment.
D4 – Streets and Spaces: the provision of the cycle path is NOT a benefit to be weighed against harm in the planning judgement as it’s a road to nowhere, as it depends on B&NES to deliver the rest of the path. The only way the cycle path can be a meaningful benefit is if the S106 includes a requirement that the applicant must deliver the rest of the cycle path at their own cost….otherwise it is meaningless.
Policy HE1 – the area contains many non-designated heritage assets, namely attractive Victiorian and Edwardian villas, and rows of older terraces. The scheme will sit incongruously amongst this attractive mixed townscape, its massing and depth out of context and alien.
CP9 Affordable Housing – the lack of affordable housing is contrary to this policy…..the developer cites viability reasons for the lack of affordable housing, yet invariably developers ‘idea of what constitutes acceptable profit is excessive (check the viability report).
CP10 – Housing Mix – the scheme fails to propose a proper mix of housing to meet the needs of the local and wider community. 1 and 2 bed rented flats does not produce long-term housing in a mix of sizes and therefore is contrary to this policy. No doubt rental flats will not all be leased out and may become holiday lets or more student accommodation.
B1 setting of conservation area and non-designated heritage assets; the scheme fails to maintain or enhance the local character and distinctiveness that forms the setting of the conservation area (site is not in a CA but in the setting).
BD1 – Bath Design Policy – the proposed height and scale fails to respect and respond to local character. Use of bronze cladding fails to respond to and actually jars with local palette
Policy SB15 – does it respect and conform to the site specific policy?
80-100 dwellings which should boost supply of standard market and affordable housing – no!
Facades and roofs to integrate with surrounding context – No!
Be of a comfortable scale to assimilate locally – not achieved!
Question the need for more PBSA (Purpose Built Student Accommodation) given what which has already been approved in Bath (Student Castle, Lower Bristol Rd (Pickfords), Bath Cricket Club, Green Park, Brougham Hayes, Twerton Mills , Twerton Bakery site etc) – need to look at accommodation versus need figures…..many PBSA are not full and renting out rooms to visitors and holiday makers (e,g Green Park and Student Castle).
Emerging Local Plan policies to 2036 will look to restrict approval of new PBSA schemes to uni campuses only, showing the lack of appetite for more PBSA in the city centre. These developers look to be trying to get this through quickly before the new Core Strategy is adopted which will include this restrictive policy relating to PBSA’s.
08/06/2019
Kirstin Courtney 35 Newbridge Hill, Newbridge, Bath, BA1 3PR, O 08/06/2019: Policy CP6 – the scheme does not reinforce and contribute to specific local context, and fails to create a safe, inspiring, attractive place. This is largely due to its massing which creates monolithic buildings which are out of character to the local domestic scale, fine grained townscape. This is particularly true at the Newbridge Road elevations. Towards the more industrial rear of the site, there is more capacity for buildings of bulk. Therefore quantum of development is unacceptable.
Policy D1 – General Urban Design Principles: the development fails to:
Look varied, safe or attractive
Enrich the character of Newbridge or contribute positively to local character and history
Respond positively to local topography or townscape context
D2 – Local Character and Distinctiveness; by way of scale and massing of the double depth frontage buildings, the scheme constitutes overdevelopment and harms local character.
D3- Urban Fabric: fails to be of an appropriate grain, reflecting local character by way if its massing and overdevelopment.
D4 – Streets and Spaces: the provision of the cycle path is NOT a benefit to be weighed against harm in the planning judgement as it’s a road to nowhere, as it depends on B&NES to deliver the rest of the path. The only way the cycle path can be a meaningful benefit is if the S106 includes a requirement that the applicant must deliver the rest of the cycle path at their own cost….otherwise it is meaningless.
Policy HE1 – the area contains many non-designated heritage assets, namely attractive Victiorian and Edwardian villas, and rows of older terraces. The scheme will sit incongruously amongst this attractive mixed townscape, its massing and depth out of context and alien.
CP9 Affordable Housing – the lack of affordable housing is contrary to this policy…..the developer cites viability reasons for the lack of affordable housing, yet invariably developers ‘idea of what constitutes acceptable profit is excessive (check the viability report).
CP10 – Housing Mix – the scheme fails to propose a proper mix of housing to meet the needs of the local and wider community. 1 and 2 bed rented flats does not produce long-term housing in a mix of sizes and therefore is contrary to this policy. No doubt rental flats will not all be leased out and may become holiday lets or more student accommodation.
B1 setting of conservation area and non-designated heritage assets; the scheme fails to maintain or enhance the local character and distinctiveness that forms the setting of the conservation area (site is not in a CA but in the setting).
BD1 – Bath Design Policy – the proposed height and scale fails to respect and respond to local character. Use of bronze cladding fails to respond to and actually jars with local palette
Policy SB15 – does it respect and conform to the site specific policy?
80-100 dwellings which should boost supply of standard market and affordable housing – no!
Facades and roofs to integrate with surrounding context – No!
Be of a comfortable scale to assimilate locally – not achieved!
Question the need for more PBSA (Purpose Built Student Accommodation) given what which has already been approved in Bath (Student Castle, Lower Bristol Rd (Pickfords), Bath Cricket Club, Green Park, Brougham Hayes, Twerton Mills , Twerton Bakery site etc) – need to look at accommodation versus need figures…..many PBSA are not full and renting out rooms to visitors and holiday makers (e,g Green Park and Student Castle).
Emerging Local Plan policies to 2036 will look to restrict approval of new PBSA schemes to uni campuses only, showing the lack of appetite for more PBSA in the city centre. These developers look to be trying to get this through quickly before the new Core Strategy is adopted which will include this restrictive policy relating to PBSA’s.
08/06/2019
Katherine Ward 19 Clarence Place, Newbridge, Bath, Bath And North East Somerset, BA1 3EW O 08/06/2019: I echo many of the other objections to this planned development.
1. No more student accommodation! Bath is already over-run with student developments, at the expense of building affordable homes for local families. Bath is becoming a city where you can only afford to live if you are a London commuter, or a student. I do not object to the site being used for residential purposes but these should be affordable homes for local families, not 'pack them tight and get as much money as possible' student developments
2. the planned development is beyond the capacity of the site. Too many flats, the buildings are too tall and out of keeping with the local area.
3. traffic and parking... always an issue in Bath. As with the similar proposed development on Locksbrook Road, I simply do not believe the developer's assertion that students will not be allowed cars. It is unenforceable and preposterous to assume that nearly 200 students will all meekly abide by the 'no car' rule. And what about all their visitors - parents and friends staying? They will all bring cars and more traffic to the site, potentially causing disruption and accidents to the school children crossing nearby to Newbridge School
4. the over-development will be damaging to the nearby bat corridor and other ecology in the old railway track
08/06/2019
Katy Lunt 39 Horstmann Close, Newbridge, Bath, Bath And North East Somerset, BA1 3NX O 08/06/2019: Major concerns for safety of roads near a school.
Parking already at breaking point in this area and proposed spaces for the development are no where near enough.
08/06/2019
Dr Alice Marsh Garden Flat, 109 Newbridge Road, Newbridge, Bath, BA1 3HG, O 23/05/2019: This is proposal is for an enormous number of dwellings on relatively small site on an already busy main road. Parking on Newbridge Road is already extremely difficult for those of us living on the road itself. I live at 109 Newbridge Road and there are frequently no spaces near my home. I often need to park on Foxcombe Road, Chelsea Road, Apsley Road, Rosslyn Road, Warwick Road, Kennington Road and sometimes Avondale Road and Newbridge Hill if needed. I need my car for work. I cannot understand where the site will provide parking for all the students and new home buyers who will live there and how its possible to prevent student bringing their cars.
There is also already major congestion on Newbridge Road in both directions at rush hour with queuing to join the A4, queuing to access Bath by the Upper Bristol Road and Midland Bridge. This congestion already causes problems for emergency vehicles. Parking and traffic queuing is also increased greatly by school pic up and drop off for Newbridge Primary and there are often a lot of small children crossing the side streets on both sides of Newbridge Road at this time. Will traffic be queuing to get in and out of the Hartwell site also if this goes ahead or will it be using existing roads from Brassmill and Locksbrook areas? The wait to turn right off many of the side streets on the south side of the Newbridge Road is already considerable in the mornings, especially as there is trades traffic from all the business unit first thing in the morning too. This puts too much pressure on Newbridge Road to carry traffic. I think another river bridge from Brassmill by way of the bus depot would help ease this issue both ways. Is there a requirement for the developer to contribute to infrastructure like this if they are contributing to traffic?
This number of dwellings seems too much for the other infrastructure also e.g. schools, dentists, doctors, supermarkets etc?
Also the city needs affordable office space so local businesses can continue to operate here! We also need more homestores like B&Q, a special needs play park and probably another supermarket and affordable homes for RUH staff. Will there be a proper allowance for this?
Thank You
Alice Marsh
23/05/2019
Maria Bez 34 Rosslyn Road, Newbridge, Bath, Bath And North East Somerset, BA1 3LH O 06/06/2019: I object to the overdevelopment of the Hartwell's site. It will have a detrimental affect on our Newbridge community. In particular, I would also draw your attention to CP9 Affordable Housing (see below). This is not AFFORDABLE housing. I outline the following planning matters which concern me:

Policy CP6 – the scheme does not reinforce and contribute to specific local context, and fails to create a safe, inspiring, attractive place. This is largely due to its massing which creates monolithic buildings which are out of character to the local domestic scale, fine grained townscape. This is particularly true at the Newbridge Road elevations. Towards the more industrial rear of the site, there is more capacity for buildings of bulk. Therefore quantum of development is unacceptable.

Policy D1 – General Urban Design Principles: the development fails to:
Look varied, safe or attractive
Enrich the character of Newbridge or contribute positively to local character and history
Respond positively to local topography or townscape context

D2 – Local Character and Distinctiveness; by way of scale and massing of the double depth frontage buildings, the scheme constitutes overdevelopment and harms local character.

D3- Urban Fabric: fails to be of an appropriate grain, reflecting local character by way if its massing and overdevelopment.

D4 – Streets and Spaces: the provision of the cycle path is NOT a benefit to be weighed against harm in the planning judgement as it’s a road to nowhere, as it depends on B&NES to deliver the rest of the path. The only way the cycle path can be a meaningful benefit is if the S106 includes a requirement that the applicant must deliver the rest of the cycle path at their own cost….otherwise it is meaningless.
Policy HE1 – the area contains many non-designated heritage assets, namely attractive Victiorian and Edwardian villas, and rows of older terraces. The scheme will sit incongruously amongst this attractive mixed townscape, its massing and depth out of context and alien.

CP9 Affordable Housing – the lack of affordable housing is contrary to this policy…..the developer cites viability reasons for the lack of affordable housing, yet invariably developers ‘idea of what constitutes acceptable profit is excessive (check the viability report).

CP10 – Housing Mix – the scheme fails to propose a proper mix of housing to meet the needs of the local and wider community. 1 and 2 bed rented flats does not produce long-term housing in a mix of sizes and therefore is contrary to this policy. No doubt rental flats will not all be leased out and may become holiday lets or more student accommodation.
B1 setting of conservation area and non-designated heritage assets; the scheme fails to maintain or enhance the local character and distinctiveness that forms the setting of the conservation area (site is not in a CA but in the setting).

BD1 – Bath Design Policy – the proposed height and scale fails to respect and respond to local character. Use of bronze cladding fails to respond to and actually jars with local palette
Policy SB15 – does it respect and conform to the site specific policy?
80-100 dwellings which should boost supply of standard market and affordable housing – no!
Facades and roofs to integrate with surrounding context – No!
Be of a comfortable scale to assimilate locally – not achieved!
Question the need for more PBSA (Purpose Built Student Accommodation) given what which has already been approved in Bath (Student Castle, Lower Bristol Rd (Pickfords), Bath Cricket Club, Green Park, Brougham Hayes, Twerton Mills , Twerton Bakery site etc) – need to look at accommodation versus need figures…..many PBSA are not full and renting out rooms to visitors and holiday makers (e,g Green Park and Student Castle).

Emerging Local Plan policies to 2036 will look to restrict approval of new PBSA schemes to uni campuses only, showing the lack of appetite for more PBSA in the city centre. These developers look to be trying to get this through quickly before the new Core Strategy is adopted which will include this restrictive policy relating to PBSA’s.
06/06/2019
Isbael Wyber 22 Rosslyn Road, Newbridge, Bath, Bath And North East Somerset, BA1 3LH O 06/06/2019: The proposed plans are not in keeping with the rest of the properties in Newbridge. They are frankly, an eye sore! The proposed high density accomadation has highly inadequate parking provision. The area is so close to the RUH we are already at breaking point with parking, residents often getting driveways blocked. Furthermore the rush for parking spaces leads to illegal and dangerous driving. 3 point turns being performed on junctions for instance. Many children walk to school in the area, primary and secondary they are already at risk, additional strain on the infrastructure is unacceptable. We don't need more students in the area who don't have a long term contribution to the local community and need to use polluting transport to get to thier place of study, we need nurses and teachers to be able to afford a house and work in the area without using a car to get to work. If this went ahead what provision has been made for additional patients at local GP surgeries? This plan represemts a mamassive over development that really isn't in the interest of the local community. 06/06/2019
Sandra Marsh Greenacres, Upper Weston, Bath, Bath And North East Somerset, BA1 4NP O 06/06/2019: There are too houses
Being planned for this site, which will impact
On the traffic using Newbridge Road.
06/06/2019
Rachel Loxston 5 Westfield Park South, Brassmill Lane, Newbridge, Bath, Bath And North East Somerset, BA1 3HT O 06/06/2019: I wish to object to this planning application for the following reasons:

The site specific planning policy SB15 for the site in the Core Strategy and Placemaking plan states that it should be considered for:
Residential developments of around 80-100 dwellings, which could include a variety of specialist older persons housing types but not student accommodation, where this would prejudice the achievement of Policy DW.1 and B1 in respect of boosting the supply of standard market and affordable housing.
The proposed development clearly includes a substantial element of student housing and therefore goes against this clear policy aim. There is a clear need for affordable housing in Bath and this application does not meet this need.

Whilst the developers have indicated students will not be allowed to bring their cars this does not appear to be enforceable and it is reasonable to assume they will consequently park in the surrounding areas. There are already significant parking problems in the Newbridge area due to local employment, limited off street parking and commuters into Bath; these problems will only increase once the new Bath Spa Locksbrook Campus opens in the autumn.

The location of the lower car park access route raises significant road safety concerns. Trying to join Newbridge Road from both Osbourne Road bridge and Rosslyn Road is already problematic and to introduce another junction into such a small area, and in such close proximity to a school access route (Charmouth Road) seems high risk. It also means children will have to cross another road to access the pelican crossing.

I do not have access to any data but it appears employers’ value industrial space in the Newbridge area as occupancy is high. To populate the space with purely residential properties reduces opportunities for local economic growth and future employment.
06/06/2019
Charlie Pritchard 5 Lyme Gardens, Newbridge, Bath, Bath And North East Somerset, BA1 3LW O 06/06/2019: I am at secondary school and live in the local area. I believe they should not put 200 students on the Hartwells site because it would not be fair to put 500 students in this area. This is because there would be no room for cars and other transport devices the students use. This will also not be good for the environment as more cars will be added to an already packed area. As there is a primary school near by it might not be safe for all the young kids to walk around the area. Another reason is students are different to families as they are awake at different hours which could keep school kids and working adults awake late in to the night which wouldn't help anyone. Finally there is not enough physical space for the students to go as Hartwells is quite a small area to fit this amount of people and it would have to be really high up. 06/06/2019
Christian Bubb Flat 5 , 18 Horstmann Close, Newbridge, Bath, Bath And North East Somerset, BA1 3NZ O 06/06/2019: Concerns over parking issues affecting road access, number of cars above allocated parking, traffic (highway safety) and management of the site.

06/06/2019
Jon Gates 152 Newbridge Road, Newbridge, Bath, BA1 3LE, O 06/06/2019: Much is made in the application of the Pedestrian/Cycle track across the southern side of the site. This is only of use if, and only if, the council builds the links to the East and West of the site. Without this route all cycle traffic will be added to that already on Newbridge Road as far as Station Road (to the East) and Apsley Road (to the West) from were they can access existing cycle/pedestrian routes.
Whilst there is the potential to access the riverside path through the Maltings there is no indication that a right of way has been granted for cyclists. This route would be across what is essentially a car park and service space. It has no pedestrian pathways so is unsuitable for pedestrians.

In the Viability Report, the Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) and S106 contributions are detailed. The CIL is set at a value commensurate with the impact that each of the units will have on the city’s overall infrastructure. Nevertheless the developers are arguing that they should not pay the cycle route contribution despite this being a major rational of their proposal. I object to their intention to pass this cost onto the, already overstretched, Council Infrastructure budget.

I am surprised that the developer persisted with a scheme that was clearly not viable from the earliest stages of the development unless it went against the guidelines such as:
a) Providing student accommodation in a city with a surfeit of student accommodation but lack of family and sheltered accommodation. This may never fully be used for its proposed purpose;
b) Fails to provide the 40% of affordable housing and offers a reduction to 10% or even 0% to be viable;
c) Proposes passing the CLS for the pedestrian/cycle track to the council.
06/06/2019
Lynda Holloway 132 Newbridge Road, Newbridge, Bath, BA1 3LD, O 06/06/2019: I strongly object to this application which is an overdevelopment of the site.

The type of accommodation included in the current application does not provide what is most needed in the city. Bath has a far greater need for affordable and social housing than of yet more off-campus student accommodation. This site is in a residential area and would be ideal for family homes rather than small flats. It is just a couple of minutes walk from a primary school so families living there could walk children to school, avoiding the need for more vehicles doing the school run.

Newbridge Road already has a high volume of traffic and parking pressure without the prospect of adding the vehicles connected with almost 300 residential units. Although the developers say that
students would not be allowed cars, this would be unenforceable.

The Newbridge Road access to and exit from the site by a large number of vehicles would cause problems with its planned position near to a bend in the road and a crossing used by so many school children.


The scale and massing of the proposed buildings is not in keeping with the area and will affect the character of it.


06/06/2019
Ollie Hayes 101 Faulkland View, Peasedown St. John, Bath, Bath And North East Somerset, BA2 8TP O 06/06/2019: Silly idea!!

Parking is difficult already in the area!

We don’t need more student accommodations in Bath especially in Newbridge!!
06/06/2019
Newbridge Primary School Newbridge Primary School, Charmouth Road, Newbridge, Bath, BA1 3LL, O 06/06/2019: We are very concerned about the impact this proposal will have on the traffic and roads in the area and the danger this could pose for the children and families who attend our school.
The proposal will lead to around 400+ more people and will therefore see a large increase in traffic on an already busy road. Children attending our school will be facing the dangers of extra junctions and this increased traffic and will mean the walk to school will come with increased danger.
Naturally the increase in people means the increase in car numbers and will exacerbate the parking issues which already exist. Poor parking already means that children have to walk into roads to look around cars and users of wheelchairs or pushchairs often find themselves trapped by blocked pavements. More cars can only result in further parking issues and really does run the very serious risk of an accident happening as children try to navigate the roads.
In addition to the very obvious risks of accidents that arise from so much more traffic there is also the ongoing concern of pollution these extra cars will bring. We are already aware of the worrying levels or air pollution around our school and this can only get worse with many more cars in the area. The dangers of this are not as obvious as a child running in front of a car it is unable to see but is a real concern that should be considered for any future development particularly where so many children are impacted.
The safety, health and well-being of our children should surely be at the forefront of anyone’s thoughts when making such a large change to their local environment? These proposals very clearly put the safety and well-being of children at risk.
06/06/2019
Hayley Hornby 9 Homelea Park West, Newbridge, Bath, Bath And North East Somerset, BA1 3HR O 06/06/2019: My objection is based around the road safety and congestion around the Newbridge Road area, particularly around Charmouth Road. This area is already extremely busy, with parents dropping off children and collecting from Newbridge school, I feel the safety of children will be highly compromised. Also, the amount of parking on the proposal would not be enough to accommodate the residents of the new buildings suggested.

I also oppose the need for more student accommodation, there are so many being built in Bath at the moment and what we really need is affordable housing for families, who will remain long term.

The sheer size of the development is concerning and doesn't need to be so over crowded. This is unfair on the residents already living in the area.
06/06/2019
Keziah Rutherford 1 Homelea Park West, Newbridge, Bath, Bath And North East Somerset, BA1 3HR O 09/06/2019: I am concerned about the number of new vehicles this development will bring so close to the school and consequent toad safety concerns for my children. 09/06/2019
Jacob Mclean 195 Newbridge Road, Newbridge, Bath, BA1 3HH, O 09/06/2019: I object because it will look too built up and will not fit in with this area. why not build something that will benefit the local community? I don’t think student accommodation is right in my residential area. It will not be safe for Newbridge school as there would be more traffic. 09/06/2019
Nicola Gallagher 29 Westfield Park, Newbridge, Bath, Bath And North East Somerset, BA1 3HS O 05/06/2019: I strongly object to the plans because:

It is a massive over-development of the site, aiming to accommodate up to 450 people.
Building huge student blocks in a residential area is totally unnecessary and unacceptable especially when there is a lack of family housing and affordable housing in the area.
The style of buildings are totally out of character for Newbridge.
There is not sufficient parking for the site thereby causing even more parking problems throughout Newbridge.
The additional traffic in the area will cause more pollution whilst the local children walk to/from school.
Access to/from the site raises many concerns over safety.


05/06/2019
J Vale 10 Charmouth Road, Newbridge, Bath, Bath And North East Somerset, BA1 3LJ O 06/06/2019: I object to this development. The parking situation on Charmouth Road, Lyme Road and Lyme Gardens is at breaking point. We are already dealing with over 400 children and families travelling to the school every day and this additional traffic, on foot and by car will have a hugely detrimental effect on the neighbourhood.

The pollution caused by the site being developed (how many years will it be going on?) and subsequent pollution from the residents' additional cars will be detrimental to community health.

Why is there a bare minimum of green space. Can B&nes buy this site from the developers and create another park, we are really limited in this area for green spaces that our children can play in. In Charmouth Road, where the gardens small there are 4 people who have allotments. This indicates the potential desire and need for allotment space as indicated in the Banes Allotment Association objection.

Why does B&nes policy not require allocation of on-site car parking for students? There will be many of cars parked on the surrounding streets, just look at the on-curb parking outside the student developments on the Lower Bristol Road. Students have a transient connection to the neighbourhood they live in. With many hundreds of additional students with this attitude it will fundamentally change the family dynamic of this neighbourhood. To have so many students living in this community will be detrimental.

Britian has the smallest space per person in residential accommodation. Why are we allowing these developers to produce tiny flats or rooms that adhere to the bare minimum requirements. We should have good quality, decent size housing that is affordable for families.
06/06/2019
Laurence Howard 44 Cedric Road, Lower Weston, Bath, Bath And North East Somerset, BA1 3PB O 06/06/2019: I wish to raise the following concerns:
The frontage on the main road seems out of character with the surrounding area, two story buildings rather three would be more appropriate.
The number of dwellings seems out of step with the location and is overdeveloped in my opinion.
The housing mix isn't varied enough - why no 3 and 4 bedroom dwellings?
I am concerned that if all the dwellings are rental properties, what stops them becoming holiday lets on AirBnB? It also means the population is more likely to be temporary and transitional, rather than permanent homes. Just rental properties does not benefit the local community. We need a variety of housing for purchase as well.
Why do we need more student flats, and in such numbers? I am concerned about the level of late night noise that this number of students will bring to a quiet residential area.
The number of parking spaces does not seem enough and will put immense pressure on parking for local residents.
I am in favour of the site being developed, but the balance has to be correct for the area. Cramming in as many dwellings as possible to increase profits for a developer should be low on the list of priorities. Remove the student accommodation and have more family homes of a variety of sizes that will help to improve the community of this residential area.
06/06/2019
Gregg Wyber 22 Rosslyn Road, Newbridge, Bath, Bath And North East Somerset, BA1 3LH O 06/06/2019: The proposed development will cram an additional ~500 residents to a very compressed area within an already busy part of Newbridge Road. The A4 serves as the main traffic artery for people commuting between Bath and Bristol and this whole area serves as a carpark-overflow for the Royal United Hospital. As a resident of Rosslyn Road for almost 15 years, I have observed a quiet residential road become a congested, noisy and dangerous car park and rat-run. Because of the volume of cars parked daily in Rosslyn Road, Newbridge Road and Newbridge Hill, trying to turn into, or out-of Rosslyn Road is now a genuine safety hazard due to the poor visibility and the necessity to be on the wrong side of the road at the approach to the junction due to parked cars. This problem is not isolated to Rosslyn Road. As there is clearly insufficient parking (117 parking spaces for circa 500 residents) in the proposed new development, this will increase the traffic problems in the surrounding residential area. Every day there are cars parked illegally, inconsiderately and dangerously in Rosslyn Road and B&NES have failed to address this problem. Add to this, the increased traffic which will enter and leave the proposed site delivering on-line grocery, retails and fast-food orders via a dangerous junction where primary school children are tyring to cross, this is an accident waiting to happen.

Over the past five years Bath has changed beyond recognition due to the unprecedented rate of development of student accommodation. This has driven a demonstrable increase in the sales of flats previously rented to the student population, indicating there is no demand for additional student accommodation in Bath
06/06/2019
Tim Eggington 11 Rosslyn Road, Newbridge, Bath, Bath And North East Somerset, BA1 3LQ O 06/06/2019: I want to object in the strongest possible terms to this proposed development. This development has already been declined once and this re-submission has taken no account of the objections raised before and the design is even more overbearing and alien that the previous one. The design is totally out of keeping with the local environment. It almost seems that the architects have tried deliberately to use materials that jar with surrounding houses. The height and scale of the building on the road side are completely out of context and the monstrous scale of over-development of the land behind is simply breathtaking. This town needs proper affordable housing and welcome as the students may be they should be housed on campus to avoid the pollution and traffic congestion associated with off-campus accommodation - there is already too much student accommodation locally and it is severely disrupting the existing community. The developers know full well that the residents of this development will park their cars in the already congested local side roads and they have created an oppressive and cramped cramped site without sufficient open and recreational space for the inmates. The Council should be generating imaginative ideas to bring employment into the town and not squandering industrial land on banal and unwanted chicken coops simply to profit landowners. 06/06/2019
Anna Dawson 192 Newbridge Road, Newbridge, Bath, BA1 3LF, O 06/06/2019: Bath Design Principle 1: New developments within the city respond appropriately or sensitively to its context. It is felt from the artists impressions that the facade of the planned development on the Upper Bristol Road side of the site is not in-keeping with the surrounding Victorian and Edwardian dwellings.
Policy SB15 vision: Seeks that a residential development is sympathetic to the Victorian context to terraced housing on the the Upper Bristol Road and conscious of its appearance from high ground. The proposed development based on artists impressions does not appear in-keeping with its Victorian context and the scale of its facade is incongruous with its surroundings and appears considerably taller and more dense than surrounding buildings.
Policy SB15: Development requirement and design principles paragraph 2 states that a development on the Upper Bristol Road street frontage should be defined by an attractive frontage. Whilst this is a subjective assessment the current proposal is not in-keeping or as attractive as the historic dwellings surrounding it and gives the impression of appartment style dwellings rather than houses.
Policy SB15: Development requirements and design principles also refers to the need to maintain a dark corridor for bats. There is concern that the residential development will emit considerable light affecting the habitat for bats.
Policy SB15: Development requirements and design principles also refers to the need for access to the disused railway line as a cycle route. There have also been recent discussions related to alleviating congestion by using the disused railway line for a future tram system. Whilst congestion in Bath remains a challenge, it is deemed unwise to obstruct the current line of the disused railway to enable future transport upgrades.
Adequacy of parking: This is already a concern locally with discussions regarding controlled residents parking ongoing. Furthermore, the proposal raises the prospect of over 100 (ref Statista.com cars per UK household 2015) additional vehicles that require the provision of parking. The potential congestion and additional traffic that this may deliver may also pose highway safety concerns for children and their parents attending Newbridge Primary School.
06/06/2019
Robert Hardman 10 Lyme Gardens, Newbridge, Bath, Bath And North East Somerset, BA1 3LW R 06/06/2019: I will be glad to see the garage go
I have no objections to student accommodation being here. I think students will be a positive contribution to local community.
It is also on a easy bus route to Bath Spa.
I am sure that the council leases with the universities about student numbers and have an idea of how many places are needed.
It is also a good bus route to Bristol airport for potential tourist letting in the summer.
I would like to see other accommodation targeted at retired people and the area developed as tenants who are CAR FREE but some parking spaces for visitors. Yes, put it into the contract when places are let or sold.
(Resident parking permits need to be set up in this area as already we are getting hospital staff parking here and it won't get better.)
However these plans look like someone is trying to maximise profit and cram as many dwellings in as possible. This is a good site and what places are built must be high quality, with spacious rooms and somewhere where most people would say, "I would like to live there". It should be possible that many of them have good views.




06/06/2019
Lyndon Hoyle 15 Lyme Road, Newbridge, Bath, Bath And North East Somerset, BA1 3LN O 06/06/2019: The outline application is better than it was 5 years ago. It has helpfully reduced density and now has an improved people to parking ratio. However, my objections are:

Safety - The access road to the main car park is on the corner of a bend on the A4. That means that eastbound vehicles on the A4 turning into the site will be crossing a road on a blind bend, particularly as cars travelling westbound are often speeding above the 30 miles per hour limit. There is therefore a significant risk of a motor vehicle accident. There is also a consequential hazard for pedestrians walking across the access road (many of whom will be children in the mornings and afternoons going to and from school) from those vehicles turning into the development, anxious to cross the busy road on a blind corner. On option may be to move the access road to the main car park westbound by approx 100 metres and accept the additional infrastructure cost and reduction in the numbers of dwellings as a result. Also, if the access road was moved opposite Charmouth Road, the development might invited to fund the installation of traffic lights for that junction and which in turn could include a pedestrian crossing, effectively moving the current crossing 30 metres eastbound. In turn and again to reduce hazard the current bus stop near the access road might also be moved eastwards.

The parking provision (114 places) is insufficient for the numbers of people housed in the residential dwelling (at least 105) and student accommodation (186). I am aware the intent will be that places at the student accommodation would be conditional on the students not bringing a car on site. However, common sense and experience from elsewhere in Bath tells me that a significant proportion of students will still bring cars and park them nearby whether permitted or not as such conditions shall not be enforced. Those cars would also be parked on the local roads, exacerbating a problem with limited parking that has already led to the residents in Lyme Road, Lyme Gardens and Charmouth Road asking the council to undertake a beat survey - the first step on the path to a possible residents parking scheme.

The current problems with parking are particularly acute at school drop off and pick up times, often creating hazards for Newbridge school children. The increased pressure from students and residents of this development parking on the nearest local roads would only make that problem worse. Therefore, the solution is to either increase the numbers of car parking places to recognise reality, reduce the numbers of student dwellings, or the development fund a residents parking scheme for local roads such as Charmouth Road, Lyme Road and Lyme Gardens as part of the application.


Lyndon Hoyle
06/06/2019
Diane Pearcey 10 Rosslyn Road, Newbridge, Bath, Bath And North East Somerset, BA1 3LH O 06/06/2019: There are a number of aspects about this planning application that I feel make it unsuitable.

Parking
104 rental homes which range from 1 person to 4 person units (totalling 259 beds) with only 113 spaces provided. The Education Services assessment included in the planning application forecasts this will result in 6 children. Leaving this as 253 beds.
113 parking spaces are proposed (including 4 disabled spots). This leaves potential for up to 140 cars on the local streets
Additionally, 186 student beds are provided with zero parking provision. The proposed "enforcement" for student housing lacks credibility even before taking into account the inability to differentiate between students that breach the car ownership restrictions, as there are no residential parking restrictions enforced in the area.
This gives the potential for 326 extra cars. Given that parking in all streets in the surrounding area is at capacity, due to a combination of hospital staff, hospital visitors and cummuters, it is very unlikely that enforcement surveys would be able to detect any difference.

Transport link
While the sustainable transport link is an attactive proposition, there has been no formal agreement with Sustrans. The potential cost of installing a new bridge across the river is likely to make the link untenable for such a short stretch.
I would dispute that the current stretch of road (along Brassmill Lane) used by Sustrans route 4 is 'busy'. The proposed exit of the new link onto Station road, however will expose cyclists to a much busier road, with the potential for accidents, thus presenting a major safety issue.
Station road is currently an accident blackspot for cyclist due to the road layout and the number of parked cars.

Road safety
The proposed site access road is likely to present road safety issues on Newbridge Road. Given its proximity to a busy bus stop, it will be difficult for any car exiting the site to have a clear view of traffic coming from the left.
06/06/2019
K Pritchard 5 Lyme Gardens, Newbridge, Bath, Bath And North East Somerset, BA1 3LW O 06/06/2019: I object based upon the following points:

· In light of the clean air concerns, the Hartwells site is best suited to housing for families who can walk to existing schools, jobs and local amenities, or an extension of the business park to bring more jobs in to the area. National Planning Policy Framework 2012 states that ‘Planning policies should aim for a balance of land uses within their area so that people can be encouraged to minimise journey lengths for employment, shopping, leisure, education and other activities.’ Again this does not support accommodating students so far away from the Universities or amenities that they will use.
· Initially, the draft of policy SB15 was solely for residential accommodation. Oakhill have only ever had the intent of PBSA for this site and purposefully lobbied to get this policy wording changed. So, were the initial viability assessments that were produced in their representations to change the wording of this policy on the Local Plan in accordance with the updated approach in national policy?
· Policy SB15 – How does this boost the supply of standard market and affordable housing when the nature of the (purely for rental) dwellings severely impacts the sort of people that would want to live there? Who is going to want to live in a tiny unit next to hundreds of students? These will become let out to other students or be Air b’n’bs, again creating a transient populate that will not contribute to the residential area nor the city.
· The emerging local plan will only allow PBSAs on campus so there already recognition of the issues caused by PBSAs not fitting with residential areas, as proven already in other areas of Bath.
· Number of student beds in PBSAs already outstrips demand. There have been PBSA approvals of Chivers House, Cricket Club and now PBSA applications are in for Twerton Park and Locksbrook Road. You can find rooms to let in PBSAs (Twerton Mill, Green Park House, Student Castle) on Booking.com.
· Appendix D Traffic flow diagrams - show peak AM as 745-845 and peak PM as 1545-1645 – as we know this is outside of the peak times associated with the school and RUH commuter parking. Therefore, this significantly underestimates the traffic at school drop off & pick up times, which is known by members of the local council to be chaotic and an accident waiting to happen. This is a highways and road safety issue. Peak student movement times also coincide with peak school times.
· Parking overspill - As part of the prior application, the BANES Highway Officer said if there were to be parking overspill in the nearby streets, then that would indeed be an issue. This means, it has already been acknowledged by the council that any parking overspill is indeed an issue.
· Cars associated with the site - Documents provided by Oakhill state that parking management will be secured through planning conditions and/or a Section 106, this is incorrect. Previously, a Section 106 could have been used to propose car free housing. However, there is now a case which says you can no longer do this via a Section 106, outside of London. You could possibly do it via a planning condition but this has not been proven to be effective. Therefore, there is absolutely no way of policing the impact of additional car parking associated with the site. Additionally, BANES does not have a good record in policing and enforcing existing conditions on car ownership, see Twerton Mill, planning enforcement reference 17/00168/NONCOM.
· Car ownership levels – it has been stated by Oakhill that car ownership levels are low for rental properties in the area, however they have omitted to specify what exact 'area' that is. This could therefore include the city centre where car ownership levels are low and would bring down the levels for the figures they are using. The reality is, that in this location there are higher car ownership levels than they have suggested as they have ‘averaged’ them out. They have also omitted to provide any data for car ownership levels for students.
· Accidents – Oakhill documents are saying that the area is safe in terms of accident levels but this is misleading as they are only using police data which purely takes account of personal injury data i.e. this is very limited information. The pedestrian crossing was put in because the curve in the road makes this stretch dangerous and only recently there has been an accident at the junction of Charmouth Road and Newbridge Road whereby a vehicle collided with the school safety railings.
· Number of parking spaces – The council have standards for the number of car parking spaces to be provided for any development and for this category of accessibility Oakhill had the choice to reduce the number of parking spaces by 10-25%. It is therefore notable – especially in light of consultation feedback - that they have reduced the number of parking spaces by the highest allowable amount even though there is high car ownership in the immediate local area and there are huge concerns regarding parking in local streets.
· Highways issues – the Highways report refers to a development of this density having no impact on the local area for highway safety and traffic flow, if the parking were managed - it is utterly naïve to think that this will have no impact. Parking cannot be managed or enforced, for reasons previously stated. Oakhill make statements about Management companies, but what is the likelihood of this working? Contractually, who would the management company be and for how long? If the car park is leasehold from Hanson concrete works below, where is the permanency in this situation? In short, Oakhill just cannot future proof the highways or parking issues in any way. In all likelihood, this site would be built then promptly sold for a profit and where does that leave us with Oakhill’s promises of managing the development and enforcing parking management?
· There have not been any real alterations in response to community input – see the Statement of Community Engagement for which the Appendices were originally omitted from the set of submitted documents. I had to email BANES Planning who then emailed Walsingham to specifically request them. In the appendices you can see the vast swathes of objections which contrasts starkly with the conclusion submitted by Creatrix PR about a level of supposed ‘neutrality’ in the community.
· I, and many other close neighbours of Hartwells, have concerns over the validity of the Community Consultation. There has been no evidence provided of the 494 letters sent to local residents and of approximately 20 people I have spoken to who are close neighbours of Hartwells, only 1 received notification.
· Document submitted is called ‘Viability Summary Report’ – if this is a summary, where is the full documentation?

In short, if this were permitted, it would be an irreversible decision and would detrimentally change the nature and character of this residential area forever.
06/06/2019
Kesavan Ramanujam 208 Newbridge Road, Newbridge, Bath, BA1 3LF, O 07/06/2019: The large number of properties to be built especially student accommodation will lead to more noise and increase traffic problems in an already busy road. Bath has enough student accomodation. More housing only for families to be allowed please. 07/06/2019
Tobias Prutton 6 Charmouth Road, Newbridge, Bath, Bath And North East Somerset, BA1 3LJ O 07/06/2019: THIS APPLICATION IS NOT IN KEEPING WITH THE LOCAL AREA
THERE IS INSUFFICIENT PARKING AND IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO STOP STUDENTS BRINGING CARS AND PARKING ON THE SURROUNDING STREETS. I FIRMLY BELIEVE THAT THIS WILL RESULT IN THE INTRODUCTION OF RESIDENT PARKING IN THE AREA THUS PUSHING ADDITIONAL COSTS ONTO THE EXISTING RESIDENCE.
I BELIEVE THIS ADDITIONAL STUDENT ACCOMMODATION DOES NOT MEET THE PLANNING POLICIES FOR THE CITY.
THIS WILL INCREASE TRAFFIC AND RISK TO THE LARGE NUMBER OF CHILDREN THAT ATTEND NEWBRIDGE PRIMARY SCHOOL.
07/06/2019
Vicky Miche 25 Charmouth Road, Newbridge, Bath, Bath And North East Somerset, BA1 3LJ O 07/06/2019: Dear Sir/Madam,

I am writing to convey my concern for the proposals to the development of the Hartwells Site into accommodation for both residents and students. I object to these proposals on the basis that:

1. The size and scale of the proposed accommodation is impractical, and I see this as an attempt to over develop the site.



2. The city is becoming over saturated with student accommodation. With all the student accommodation that has been provided in recent years it is surprising that there is a need to develop more. If there is still a need to develop further student accommodation this should be on or in the grounds of the universities, rather than in residential areas.

3. Residents parking is an issue in this neighbourhood. We already have a serious problem with this which is in the process of being addressed by the local council. I think it unlikely that you have considered realistically the potential further impact that accommodation of the amount proposed will have on the area.


4. The A4/Upper Bristol Road is already well used throughout the day and is very busy at peak times. On some recent occasions it has become gridlocked on the section of road adjacent to the existing Hartwells. I am concerned that this already difficult situation will be worsened with additional heavy traffic vehicles that will be arriving and departing from the site. In addition to this there is a school nearby adding extra danger to children on their walk to school.

Poor planning in this area will cause chaos, adding to an already difficult situation. A prime example of recent inadequate provision would be the development on Windsor Bridge & Lower Bristol Road!

It is for these reasons that I object to the proposed planning.

Kind Regards

Vicky Miche
07/06/2019
Indigo On Behalf Of Standard Life Assurance Limited Brassmill Enterprise Centre, Brassmill Lane Trading Estate, Newbridge, Bath, BA1 3JN, O Documents Tab 14/06/2019
David Clayton 92 Newbridge Road, Newbridge, Bath, BA1 3LB, O Documents Tab 21/06/2019