BATH HERITAGE WATCHDOG

Next Meeting

The next meeting will take place on Monday 8 February at the Royal Oak.

Latest

Shopfronts - Last updated 7th February 2010.

Watchdog has been commenting on as many shopfront applications as possible, because a good or bad shopfront can have a significant impact on the street scene.  Following our dismay at being proved right about one that was unsuitable, which we reported on our Southgate page last week, we are delighted to see that one that we supported turned out as good as we hoped, and we have added a Success Stories section to our News Summary page to show you the photograph.

Enforcements - Last updated 7th February 2010.

Enforcement action on the signs on the Subway outlet in Westgate Street was suspended when the refusal of permission went to appeal.  The appeal verdict has now been received, and it is a split decision; some of the signage is declared acceptable and some is not, see the Enforcements page.

We have also reported Juice Moose to Enforcement.

Sainsbury's, Odd Down - Last updated 7th February 2010.

We were puzzled when we heard that the planning application resulted in a tied vote at the DCC, and for the first time that we can ever remember, the Chairman used his casting vote to approve, instead of having it refused which would have been the default result.  Perhaps we have discovered why.  On the council website is a news item showing that Sainsbury's were waving money at a cash-strapped council.  S.106 agreements are perfectly legal (the reference is to a clause in the planning legislation) but they are not supposed to override the fact that the plans as presented did not comply with policies in the Local Plan.  Furthermore, permission refused can be overturned by an appeal or the applicant modifying the plans to make them more acceptable;  permission granted can only be overturned by the High Court.  The members of the DCC who objected on the basis that the application was not in accordance with the Local Plan must feel that the Chairman got his priorities wrong.

Scaffolding - Last updated 7th February 2010.

Continuing our concerns that scaffolding companies are damaging listed buildings with an unnecessarily intrusive method of fixing, we have started a rogues gallery on this website, and we are urging Enforcement and the Historic Environment Team to discourage such practices.

New Website facility - Last updated 7th February 2010.

Following the success of the idea of putting decisions made during the week on the new Decisions page instead of having them read out at Watchdog meetings so that they can be minuted, it has been decided that the same approach should be taken for the list of new applications where we have yet to decide on whether to comment or not.  Again it has been decided that the list should appear on the website instead, so a new page New Ones has been added to the Comment section;  anybody wishing to make individual comments will find a link there to the council's on-line system.

Park and Rides - Last updated 31st January 2010.

Watchdog attended the VeraCityBath public meeting on 27th January.  We have put a summary of events on our Park and Ride page, along with background information.

Planning - Last updated 31st January 2010.

Following our concerns about the threat of unsustainable cuts to planning services, we have done some research and then we took action.  We don't know how much planning officers are paid, so we could not interpret the savings in the budget papers prepared for next week's meeting in terms of specific staff numbers, but the planning reductions seem severe and we have no reason to doubt the numbers that appeared in the Chronicle recently.  We worry about the workload of the Historic Environment Team in particular, because they not only have the planning proposals when submitted to deal with (and some require a site visit), but they also have pre-application advice, and conditions on permissions granted (usually about demonstrating methods and materials) to deal with for most of them.  It is also notable that the majority of the enforcement issues we have raised concern listed buildings which the team need to investigate, and where appropriate, pursue.

By contrast, we have examined the paperwork to go before the Cabinet meeting on 3rd February and as far as we can see there are no adjustments being proposed to the Major Projects Team budget, and therefore we have to assume that this team is not subject to cuts.  Surely a team that has wasted significant amounts of money on a South Quays scheme that fell foul of the Government’s flood protection legislation, and even more money on the Western Riverside Scheme that has fallen foul of both UNESCO and the EC, should be subject to stringent cuts?  In value for money terms, the proposals before the Cabinet seem to have their priorities wrong.

We also researched the council's planning obligations.  PPG15 states:
2.13  Local Planning Authorities are urged to ensure that they have appropriately qualified specialist advice on any development which, by its character or location, might be held to have an adverse effect on any sites or structures of the historic environment.
A.5  Authorities should have adequate specialist expertise available to them for the discharge of their responsibilities for listed buildings and conservation policy generally.  The availability of advice from English Heritage, and from the national amenity societies on certain categories of listed building consent application, does not relieve authorities of the need to ensure that they have their own expert advice suitably deployed to enable them to deal both with day-to-day casework and with longer-term policy formulation. 

Our judgement was that with the apparent level of reductions proposed, the Heritage Environment Team would not have the manpower to discharge the council's obligations for the historic environment.  Therefore we have let a number of people and organisations know the impending problems.
•  We have written individually to each Executive member plus other councillors who have an interest in the Historic Environment.
•  We have alerted the various heritage organisations:  English Heritage, the Georgian Group, the Victorian Society (all of which are statutory consultees), and SAVE.
•  We have alerted ICOMOS and UNESCO, and have copied this correspondence to DCMS with a reminder that UNESCO will be looking for a comment on this issue when the Report on World Heritage is submitted on February 1st.

We shall continue examining planning applications closely and will assess whether the "appropriately qualified specialist advice" was available and if "expert advice" was "suitably deployed", to ensure that our national and international heritage is appropriately protected;  and we will keep the above heritage organisations informed of our findings.

Southgate - Last updated 31st January 2010.

We commented on all the planning applications for Southgate shopfronts, each time pointing out the importance of getting the style and materials right, and every time the Case Officer ignored us.  We take no pleasure in saying "we told you so" but the problems we forecast are starting to appear.  So we have added a new section to our Southgate page in the hope that the shock value might lead to an improvement in standards.  This is, after all, a prestige development.

Core Strategy - Last updated 24th January 2010.

Watchdog submitted a united response to the Core Strategy, but encouraged members to put forward their own views separately if these were additional to the main points.  The Council has said that it will publish all the comments received, and when they do that, we will provide a convenient link to that information.  Meanwhile, the Bath Preservation Trust has placed their position on their website, and in various levels of detail their views are all available from this link.  The BPT opinions are similar to our own.

"To Let" - Last updated 24th January 2010.

The annual forest of "To Let" signs has reappeared.  What the tourists think of the impression given, that a very large number of houses have been abandoned simultaneously by residents, we can only speculate.  The signs are largely unnecessary, because the students they are aimed at can search on-line or use University lists.  This year, a Facebook group has been started, to put pressure on estate agents to take the signs down.  Watchdog doesn't have a Facebook presence, but is happy to provide the link to those who do.

Planning - Last updated 24th January 2010.

Following our concern last week that requests by ward councillors to have planning applications openly debated by committee can be blocked by the chairman of the committee, one of the cases has been featured in The Chronicle, but the other one hasn't.  If Cllr David Dixon feels that the way his request was treated merits registering a complaint, perhaps the Ward Councillors of the other might liaise with him to see if they too should go down that path.

Meanwhile, we have been keeping an eye on planning applications affecting listen buildings since the article appeared in the Chronicle which suggested that such cases could be handled by non-specialist officers.  We have spotted two so far where this might be happening already:  one has been allocated to a consultant planning officer (and we have to wonder why a consultant is needed when according to the council, the in-house staff should have spare capacity);  the other was allocated to a member of the in-house staff who has not previously dealt with listed building applications.  We will dig deeper.

Finally, during all the debate about what did and did not happen when the Newbridge Park and Ride application went before the DCC, we were assured that although in law the Chairman was entitled to use a casting vote in the event of a tie, it was Council policy that he shouldn't and the motion should be lost by default.  So it is with some surprise that we read in The Chronicle that in the case of the Sainsbury's Odd Down application, the Chairman cast his deciding vote in favour of the application.  The group leading the Judicial Review must be rubbing their hands with glee at this hole through the Council's argument!

Consultation - Last updated 17th January 2010.

In a spectacular "Own Goal" the Core Strategy expects to increase the available office space and attract office workers to Bath, and yet the council announces plans to move most of its office workers out.  A look round Bath shows plenty of empty office buildings already, so there is no shortage of accommodation.

If the council demonstrates by its own actions that Bath isn't good enough or cheap enough for B&NES staff, how do they expect to attract inward investment from commercial companies?

The deadline for commenting on the Core Strategy, 15 January 2010, has now passed, and we have to assume that having been extended once, it is unlikely to be extended further (the council website now shows the consultation as closed but the Core Strategy document itself is still on-line).  We hope that everybody who wanted to have an influence on the future got their comments, criticisms and suggestions in by the deadline.

We received a few grumbles about how difficult some members found the comment facilities.  The "print and use" form was designed to be completed in handwriting, and the on-line form made it difficult to keep an electronic copy of what was said on a home computer.  We understand that the Council did not design the consultation system, they simply use a facility that a number of Local Authorities use.

Watchdog was lucky in that a forms designer created for us a version of the comment form that could be completed on-screen on a home computer and either printed or e-mailed, but we recognise that most would not have been so lucky.  So if you tried to comment and found the facilities provided a hindrance or a deterrent, let the council know (contact Communications and Marketing at the Guildhall, Bath) and perhaps they can improve the consultation comment facilities in the future.

In our last update before Christmas we brought to your attention another consultation, about public conveniences.  This is a subject where members of the public generally hold strong views, so we mention it here. This page gives the background, and this second link gives access to the consultation documents.  The consultation ends on 5 February 2010, so if you want your views heard, make them now!

Annual Report - Last updated 17th January 2010.

Last week we produced a quick summary looking back over 2009 and contemplating the future.  Judging from our post-box, readers found this interesting, so we have put it on its own page rather than delete it or have it clutter up this quick summary front page.

In our mail came support for our view that planning, especially when it involves Conservation Areas or Listed Buildings, is important and that the users of the planning system do not see any evidence that the current staffing levels are by any means generous.  This view is also reflected on the Letters Page of the Chronicle.

We have also received information on two recent planning applications which have horrified the separate Ward Councillors to the extent that they asked for the decision to be taken by Development Control Committee if in the Case Officer's view they should be permitted, in order to turn the collective wisdom of the committee onto the pros and cons.  In both cases, the Chairman of the DCC refused the requests to put the decisions before the Committee Members, and in both cases the Case Officer then granted permission:  decisions that ignored all the very obvious evidence evidence of unsuitability that had worried the Ward Councillors.  Whilst there is no guarantee that the DCC would not have passed them, at least the Ward Councillors could have addresses the decision makers (as could the public), and the discussion before the vote would have given an insight into how the decisions were reached.  All this was denied by one man.

We have checked the council's rules on delegation, and it is a fact that the Chairman of the DCC does have the sole right to decide whether or not a planning application goes before the Committee, regardless of who asks and how strong the argument.  That is the policy that the council decided (apparently to meet a timescale target regardless of the accuracy of the decisions made), and that is what happened.  But it is totally wrong.  It means that Ward Councillors who are elected to represent the views of their Ward, are rendered totally powerless if the Chairman of the Committee chooses to ignore them.  Effectively the voters in High Littleton have elected somebody who can disenfranchise the electorate in every other Ward in B&NES.  This policy needs an urgent review. Ward Councillors should have the right to have planning applications decided by Committee, not be reduced to begging.

The Council's published guidance (Local Code Of Conduct For Councillors And Officers Dealing With Planning Matters) states "The process should leave no grounds for suggesting with any justification that a decision has been partial, biased or not well-founded in any way". These refusals by the Chairman to put these applications before the Committee does give such grounds.  Elsewhere in the Code of Conduct it says: "It is essential for the proper operation of the planning system that local concerns are adequately ventilated".  By arbitrarily silencing the Ward Councillors, this part of the Code was also breached.

So we are left to speculate why the Chairman failed to heed the Code of Practice and decided not to put the decisions to the committee.  Could it be because the council is short of money and it doesn't want to run the risk of refusing applications where there is likely to be the cost of an appeal against such refusals?  And what of the Case Officers?  Were they really so poor at evaluating the Local Plan policies on these occasions, or had they been instructed by their managers to give applicants a larger benefit of the doubt to avoid the possibility of an appeal?  Or are there other less obvious possibilities?  We shall probably never know.

It is recommended that the Audit Commission starts looking into the quality of planning decisions as well as whether or not a decision was made within the target time.

Firs Field

Watchdog decided some time ago not to take a view on the question of whether Bath Rugby should stay on the Recreation Ground until such time as any planning applications were raised making it clear exactly what was intended and then we would comment on planning grounds.  However, we did do some research when the idea of a land swap between the Recreation Ground and Firs Field became a hot topic.  This is what we discovered.

The high court ruling on the status of the Recreation Ground was expressed in terms of "that piece of land conveyed ..." so regardless of who owns the land and who administers it, the whole of the land conveyed remains covered by the covenant that it must remain an open space.  Thus any proposed land swap might change the responsibilities of any particular set of trustees, but it doesn't change what the land can be used for.  It would still be conveyed "in trust" so removing it from the hands of the current set of trustees would require setting up another Trust to administer the section of Recreation Ground land separated out.

The condition of the land known as Firs Field is equally fixed by covenants recorded in the Land Registry records.

Funds to purchase the land were raised by public subscription.  That subscription had two objectives:
•  For part of the land to be used for an Ecclesiastical Charity by Combe Down Parish Church;
•  For the remainder of the land to be gifted to the Parish Council for use as a Recreation Ground.

Accordingly, the land was purchased on 3 March 1919 by the Vicar of Combe Down Parish Church for £750.  The vendors imposed a covenant, which the church agreed to:
•  Not to keep pigs on the land;
•  Not to erect any buildings unless it is to be used as a library or an institute, or one to use as a pavilion appropriate for a public park or recreation ground.

On 9 February 1920, the land was divided in accordance with the wishes of the public subscription, and the majority of the land  was conveyed to Monkton Combe Parish Council.  The council agreed to binding covenants:
•  For the Council and their successors to use it for ever for the purpose of a public recreation ground;
•  For the Council and their successors for ever hereafter to support, maintain and improve the land conveyed as and for the purpose of a Public Recreation Ground.

On 10 February 1920, the remainder of the land was conveyed to a Trust, with the Vicar and two Churchwardens as Trustees.  The Trustees were required to let the land to the Church Army, and when the time came that the Church Army had no further use for the land, it should be gifted to Combe Down Parish Council in trust for the perpetual use of the inhabitants of Combe Down as an addition to the Public Recreation Ground.

On 1 June 1965, the successors to the original Trustees accordingly conveyed the land to the Parish Council of Monkton Combe.

Local Government reorganisations have since placed the assets of Combe Down and Monkton Combe in the hands of B&NES, but as all the covenants stipulated the Parish and their successors, B&NES is also restricted by these covenants "for ever".

So we don't see the benefit of the land swap proposed.  Firs Field must be maintained for ever as a Public Recreation Ground (despite the spin doctors saying that the land swap is necessary to save it from being built on), so there is no point it transferring it to a charitable trust (except from the council's point of view they can transfer the cost of supporting, maintaining and improving the land to the Trust).  The Recreation Ground has been defined as the specific area of land "as conveyed" by the High Court, so a transfer of ownership does not remove the restrictions on the land.  So if the land swap goes ahead, it makes very little difference apart perhaps from the council transferring the responsibility for cutting the grass in Firs Field.  This is all from public records.  Anyone can check and confirm we are right.

The council must have the deeds and know this, so why are they wasting public money pursuing this nonsense?
And why has Bath's MP been lobbying the Charity Commission to agree to a swap, without doing the basic research to discover that it would be of no benefit to Bath Rugby or the residents of Combe Down?

Recent Headlines

(Application links here go to other pages where more information is given, plus a link to the planning documents. Entries are listed with the most recent updates at the top.)

Green Park - Last updated 10th January 2010.

The DCC discussed these planning applications at their meeting on 16th December.  See the News Summary page for details.  Just before Christmas, the formal letters of refusal were issued.

Holburne - Last updated 10th January 2010.

On 18th November, the DCC considered this application and voted to grant permission.  There is more information on the Holburne page.  On 31 December the recommendation to approve was sent to GOSW for the Secretary of State's decision, because the Holburne is a Grade 1 Listed Building.

Enforcements - Last updated 20th December 2009.

New:
L K Bennett have repaired their lettering, see our Enforcements page.

Previously:
We are grateful to the Institute of Historic Building Conservation for bringing this news item to our attention, and full marks to Richmond Council for pursuing the case through the courts.  Whilst we would not expect all enforcement cases we raise to end up in court (councils have the options of negotiating reparations or initiating court proceedings and negotiation is often sufficient), we do think that for serial offenders like Belushis (who have now added the installation of exterior projection equipment to their other offences), court proceedings might be the only way to prevent further damage being made to the listed building.  The linked news item is heartening, because it does show that courts do take such offences seriously.

Heritage - Last updated 12th December 2009.

We are also grateful to have had a future significant anniversary - 175 years of the Great Western Railway - brought to our attention.  It appears that Swindon Council has a number of events planned, but it is not too late for Bath to start planning how to celebrate the anniversary (after all Bath has the only part of the GWR that is within a World Heritage Site and some of Bath's Brunel structures are unique, so it should do something to mark the occasion).

Watchdog will happily contribute suggestions and support to event organisers, but we recognise that we have neither the manpower nor authority to take the lead.

Thornbank Place - Last updated 22nd November 2009.

On 18th November, the DCC considered this application and voted to refuse planning permission.  See the News Summary page for more information.

Rockery Tea Gardens - 15th November 2009.

The DCC decided to delegate to permit on 28th October (see the News Summary page) but the permission letter will not be issued until a S106 agreement has been reached.  Part of that agreement will be money to remove nearby roadside parking, but the council will also have to give the public formal notice of the necessary traffic orders.  So this is by way of a reminder that residents should watch for notices advising of the proposed traffic orders, and when they appear they have the right to object to them.

Old Orchard - Last updated 8th November 2009.

A new planning application, a "Non-Material Amendment" to the planning permission already granted, has been lodged.  It creates nearly as many problems as it solves.  See the News Summary page for Watchdog's assessment of the planning application.

Architectural Style - Last updated 18th October 2009.

A long while ago, we reported on the Congress of New Urbanism movement in America.  They are at the forefront of a growing backlash against "modern" glass and steel buildings scarring old-style urban centres in America, and they campaign to preserve reusable heritage and have new developments that blend into their neighbourhoods.  It seems from a recent survey that their position is gaining support in Britain.

We have also been informed that at the current rate of usage of structural steel in buildings across the world, iron ore will start to be in short supply in about 50 years time.  We have no way of checking this estimate, but if it is true then the New Urbanists will eventually see a return to brick, stone and timber building materials out of necessity due to a shortage of the current alternatives.  They might even see steel framed buildings dismantled before the end of their life if their raw materials become more valuable than the buildings themselves.

Bath Rugby - Last updated 4th October 2009.

Permission was given to Bath Rugby to erect their temporary replacement stands with associated works to earth bank and area of concrete terracing, subject to the work not starting until arrangements had been made to protect any archaeological remains and the nearby trees.  However, the works were started, and completed, without council officers being given the chance to ensure that the protection they asked for was actually provided.  Consequently, the applications to sign off the conditions was refused, and our interpretation of the conditions is that the club do not therefore have permission for the East Stand or the earth works.  We will watch with interest what happens next.

Firs Field - Last updated 4th October 2009.

We have retained on-line our research into the covenants protecting Firs Field, but have moved it further down the page to make room for the normal update.  In a nutshell, the Firs Field land is already protected as an open space, so the suggestion that the land swap proposal will be necessary protect it is not true.

Western Riverside - Last updated 27th September 2009.

Finally, almost a year after we first expressed our concerns that the Western Riverside contract might not comply with EC Procurement directives, the Chronicle has got the council to admit that they are indeed under investigation.  Yet despite that and the assurance that no Government money will be forthcoming until the issue is resolved, the council still maintain that Phase 1 can continue.  We remind them that if they do continue with Phase 1 and the EC complaint is upheld, they lay themselves open to claims for damages from any other company who might have tendered for the business.  More information is on the Western Riverside page.

University of Notre Dame - Last updated 27th September 2009.

Students from this American University came to Bath in May this year for their Summer School and as a training exercise they put together a masterplan for the Western Riverside and gave a public presentation of it.  This week, the tutors returned for a few days to make arrangements for next year's Summer School, when at the invitation of Frome Parish Council they will be investigating the potential for developments in Frome.

Watchdog met them while they were visiting and were told that the University hopes to formally publish their 2009 proposals for Bath in book form if they can find sponsors, but meanwhile, some of the photographs and drawings have been placed on the University website.  For those with broadband who are interested, this document (17 Mbytes) gives a lot of information.  For those with a dial-up connection, this link leads to a more practically sized subset.

Any person or organisation prepared to help sponsor the 2009 document can use this e-mail to make contact.

Beau Street, Gainsborough Building - Last updated 27th .September 2009.

We were pleased to report in May that the invasive weeds had been removed.  Unfortunately, they have grown back, and some have roots that are known to severely damage stonework.  The latest pictures are on the News Summary page, and we hope that another site clean-up is carried out before real damage is done.

Brunel - Last updated 27th September 2009.

In Bristol, the 150th Anniversary of Brunel's death was given a mark of respect by dimming the lights on the Clifton Suspension Bridge and on the SS Great Britain.  These were reported on the local television news.

Bath also has important reminders of Brunel, but apart from our tribute on our website, we couldn't find any reference to the anniversary.  Why not? 

Guildhall, Bath - Last updated 19th September 2009.

The council's plans to replace the Victorian woodwork and service windows in the Guildhall with cheap and tacky mass-produced furniture that gives so little protection to the staff that they will then need panic alarms, has now been approved by the Secretary of State.  More details are on the News Summary page.

Canal Bridge - Last updated 19th September 2009.

The existing buildings on the Canal Bridge at Widcombe are beyond repair and planning permission was given to demolish them, subject to a successful planning permission for replacements.  

The first application was refused permission, and a subsequent appeal failed.  A second application was much better, but we could not support it because of discrepancies between drawings and some obvious omissions.

A second set of drawings were submitted three months after the originals, but because these were never identified on the on-line planning files as revised drawings superseding the originals, we did not update our comments.  Nevertheless, we note that most of our objections were addressed and we are satisfied that the scheme given planning permission on 16 September is acceptable.

City of Culture - Last updated 12th September 2009.

An article on the front page of the Western Daily Press on 12 September (unfortunately not available on-line, but a cut-down version can be read on the Chronicle website) painted a very confused story about whether or not Bath is being considered as an entry from which the next UK City of Culture will be chosen.

Cleveland Pools - Last updated 12th September 2009.

We have not created a Cleveland Pools page for this website, because the Cleveland Pools Trust website carries all the latest news, but for those who could no attend any of the open days, we have put together a collection of photographs with a brief description of each.

Consultation - Houses in Multiple Occupation - Last updated 9th August 2009.

This consultation is now closed.  We have heard from a few people who have let us know that they contributed before the deadline of 7 August.  We can only hope that those running the consultation take notice.

Englishcombe Inn - Last updated 2nd August 2009.

We have taken a good look at the new planning application - 09/02098/FUL - and we are pleased with the revisions.  So we have written a comment in support of it, which has recently been included in the on-line documents.

Hayesfield School - Last updated 26th July 2009.

On 6th July 2009 the new building on the Hayesfield School site was given permission.  We have updated Hayesfield page.

The School is holding a public meeting at 6.30 p.m. on Thursday 30th July in the School Hall to give local residents the opportunity to meet the building contactors and discuss the construction plans, and the timeframe for the new Sports Hall and Performing Arts Suite.  The invitation says All Welcome.

UNESCO Visit - Last updated 19th July 2009.

Until now, we have been looking at the summary of the Mission Report on Bath.  However the full report is now on-line, giving a much greater insight into how the Mission presented Bath to the Committee in Seville.  There are some errors and misunderstandings in that full report, and out of courtesy we should communicate the details to UNESCO before making them public on this website.

There is still no formal report by UNESCO of the discussion on Bath (there is always a delay publishing the minutes because they need to be made available in several languages) but our unofficial feedback is that the meeting did not disagree with the recommendations attached to the report from the UNESCO Mission to Bath.  Until we receive the formal minutes, we will leave our commentary on the Western Riverside page.

Bristol Airport - Last updated 19th July 2009.

Normally we would not comment on something as far away as Bristol, but we do wonder whether the greatly increased number of planes that would fly over Bath leaving their exhaust in the air could bring a risk of acid rain to damage heritage buildings.  Are there any meteorologists reading this who could advise us whether this is a real risk?.

Herman Miller Building, Lower Bristol Road - Last updated 12th July 2009.

The previous planning application was refused, but a new application that corrects the defects in the last one has now been submitted.  See the News Summary page for information.

Brougham Hayes - Last updated 10th May 2009.

It looks as though work is about to start on the Brougham Hayes development, because some notices have been erected.  See the News Summary page for more information.

Wells Road - Last updated 10th May 2009.

The planning application to build a prefabricated dwelling on land behind 54 Wells Road has been refused permission.  See the News Summary page for more information.

World Heritage Day - Last updated 26th April 2009

Various members reported back their experiences of the events they attended on 18th April.

Those who attended the Better Bath Forum found it well attended and interesting.  The notes of the meeting are available on-line and we are pleased to see that specific councillors have been tasked with taking the conclusions forward.
Those who attended the Cotswold Way Walk were left stranded when the guide decided that the numbers were not sufficient to make it worthwhile.  We disagree.  It was a scheduled event and it should have taken place, even if only one person wanted to go (the actual attendance was rather more than that).
On one of the walks the Mayor's Guides took, the guide was badly briefed and conveyed wrong information.  No such criticism was levelled at the others that members attended, so this appears to have been a one-off.
One of the Abbey Tower Tours had been cancelled, and the Watchdog members who had booked it had to go back for a later one.

Watchdog members reported that apart from the Better Bath Forum, the numbers attending the events were disappointingly low considering that the weather was fine, and we wonder if the council's events should have been given greater publicity.

The Cornmarket - Last updated 26th April 2009.

The Cornmarket in Walcot Street is a listed building in a fragile state, affected by subsidence and held up by scaffolding.  So it is with some surprise that despite the announcement of plans for the building in The Chronicle, the only planning application lodged is for change of use.  See the News Summary page for more information.

Granville Road - Last updated 26th April 2009.

The decision on the demolition of Ensleigh Lodge and its replacement with a mixed use property was taken by the 21 January 2009 DCC meeting.  They came to a rather complicated decision that is a departure from the Development Plan, so the agreement of the Secretary of State would be needed.  However, the applicant refused to accept the conditions proposed, so the application was returned to the April DCC for a new decision, and that decision was to refuse permission.

GWR through Bath - Last updated 19th April 2009.

Watchdog has not been provided with a schedule of repairs to the historic fabric of Brunel's GWR, so each piece of work completed is a pleasant surprise when we spot it.  We report our latest discovery on the Brunel's GWR page.

Rear of 12-14 Great Bedford Street - Last updated 22nd March 2009.

This application was for the erection of a new surgery annexe, which was decided at the 18th March Development Control Committee meeting.  The committee granted consent.  Yet on 11th March, the same day that the report to committee was dated, a new drawing was lodged.  In order for the Government guidelines on public consultation to be met, the case officer should have alerted the committee of the date of the last update to the planning documents, and the committee should have deferred their decision to allow the public to consider the significance of the changes.  Neither happened.

Belushi's, corner of Green Street and Broad Street - Last updated 22nd March 2009.

On 16th March, the planning application for listed building consent for the external illumination plus the repainting of the shopfront (which was done without planning permission), was refused consent.  We have therefore moved the case back to our Enforcements page.  The second, full planning application has not yet been determined, so we have also left the entry on the News Summary page.

Phillips Auction House, Old King St - 8th March 2009.

Watchdog acknowledges that the planning permission will stand, even though it was an appallingly bad decision, and we notice that only after that decision was made are the revised drawings now available on the public website (look for the eight drawings dated 29 January 2009).  Two things stand out:  There is enough surviving wall space to have retained at least part of the Magna Carta if only the case officer had conditioned it; and the structure on the roof which has previously been refused planning permission because it is inappropriate for the conservation area has been sneaked back in and approved.  Watchdog recommends that everybody who objected to the planning application should formally complain to the council (see the News Summary page for more information) about the failure of the planning office to give you the opportunity to comment on the revisions.

Bath Press - Last updated 22nd February 2009.

Since the workshops about the Bath Press site revealed a considerable amount of support for retaining the front of the building, a crack has appeared at one end.  See the Bath Press page for more information.

Newark Works - Last updated 22nd February 2009.

We have been out with a camera now and again, keeping an eye on the progress of the emergency repairs and we now believe that all the necessary emergency repairs have been completed.  We have added our last  photo on the Newark Works page along with our thanks to the council officers involved.

Hampton Row - Last updated 8th February 2009.

Both the new development and listed building applications have been refused permission.  See the News Summary page for more information.

Friends Meeting House - Last updated 1st February 2009.

Following the write-up of the committee meeting in last weeks update, we received an e-mail from a member of the public who had also attended the meeting, letting us know that we had missed the significance of something that happened.  On reflection we agree, and we have added a new comment  ^[12], renumbering those that follow.  See the Friends page for what we added.

Bailbrook House - Last updated 4th January 2009.

The remainder of the Bailbrook House planning applications been approved.  See the Bailbrook page for more information.

Warminster Road - Last updated 28th December 2008.

Despite its formal designation as an open space in the local plan, somebody wanted to build on the field separating Bathampton from the Warminster Road.  On 23 December, planning permission was refused.  See the News Summary page for more information.

Somerset Place - Last updated 19th October 2008.

One more of the Listed Building planning applications has been given consent on 14th October.  See the Somerset Place page for more information.

Parade Gardens - Last updated 19th October 2008.

The council raised its own planning application to erect an existing statue of King Baldud (currently held in the council's store) in the Parade Gardens.  We supported the idea of placing this statue on public view, but questioned whether the location chosen is appropriate.  It was subsequently confirmed that the plans are to place the statue beside the river, facing Grand Parade.  We did not object formally, but did suggest that a better location within the gardens should be chosen instead.  On 24th September, planning permission was granted.  We still have our reservations about the wisdom of placing a valuable statue under trees where it is likely to collect a large amount of bird droppings.

Somerset Buildings - Last updated 5th October 2008.

There is a new planning application to demolish the current TR Hayes building in front of Hedgemead Park and to replace it with a larger two storey building  See the News Summary page for more information.

Lyncombe Vale Road - Last updated 21st September 2008.

A new planning application to add a an extension onto an existing dwelling and to replace an existing garage with a much larger one has been lodged.  On 15th September 2008, planning permission was refused.  See the News Summary page for more information.

Former Hayesfield Playing Field - Last updated 3rd August 2008.

In a previous update we noted that the Chronicle published an article on the emerging plans for the former Hayesfield Playing Field at Odd Down and announced a public exhibition.  Some Watchdog members went, so we can now bring you some details of what the exhibition covered.

At first sight, these plans are compatible with the mixed use constraint in the council's Local Plan "Land is allocated for retail development (use class A1) ... For convenience shopping only: ... Hayesfield School playing fields at Odd Down as part of a mixed use development".

Watchdog welcomes the approach of consulting before finalising plans and has provided feedback to the exhibitors.

Wellsway (Oldfield Park Motors) - Last updated 3rd August 2008.

The case officer refused planning permission, and we support that decision.  See the News Summary page for more information.

Malthouse, Lower Bristol Road - Last updated 13th July 2008.

We have kept an eye on the " cow shed" that appeared in the curtilage of this listed building.

It looks as though it is almost finished now, but it looks nothing like the drawings that were given planning permission. We have updated the pictures on the Camden Mill page.

Tesco, Upper Bristol Road - Last updated 29th June 2008.

We have had some enquiries following the Chronicle news item about Tesco opening on the Courthouse Garage site asking what planning permission was granted.  Planning application 06/00047/FUL gave permission for a "convenience store" which in planning terms could be any company's store, and Tesco want it to be theirs.  Planning permission was granted in June 2007, and there is nothing the public can do to change anything now.

Sustainability - Last updated 15th June 2008.

Whilst exploring the complex network of links spreading from the Congress of New Urbanism movement in America's website, we found a speech given by the Prince of Wales at the National Building Museum in Washington DC. In it there is a lot of good old fashioned common sense about the need for sustainability in the built environment, and designing for the benefit of the occupants.  It is quite a long speech, but it is well worth persevering with it.  You can read it here.  It rather puts the mistakes of the Western Riverside design into perspective.

Victoria Park - Last updated 8th June 2008.

Watchdog's Bouquets section seems to have had a wide audience.  BBC Bristol got in touch and asked if they could use some of our pictures for a new item.  We agreed, and you can see the result on the BBC website.

Bathwick Street - Last updated 1st June 2008.

Revised drawings have been lodged which could possibly invalidate comments made before 2nd May, and if that includes you, you should comment again.  See the News Summary page for information.

Other Snippets

Farmers Market  [19/4/08]
The last definite news was simply that the fate of the Farmers Market was deferred until after Christmas, but the lack of any information since is not good news.  Our enquiries last Saturday revealed that the stallholders we spoke to had no updates, but they also confirmed that the takeover bid by Envolve had not been withdrawn either.  There is a limit to how long such an impasse can carry on, so we are making an offer that if supporters of the market decide to mount another demonstration, we will publicise it on this website if they contact us and request it.

Shop Fronts and Signs
We have been taking a closer look at this issue.  There seems to be a complete lack of consistency when the council consider such applications.
Ladbrokes in Westgate Street ([16/3/08] now approved) and the latest application for Westgate Buildings are examples of how to get it right.
[16/3/08] Jolly's application for unacceptable shop signs has been refused.
[10/5/08] New signs for the Grade II* listed Huntsman in Terrace Walk are also inappropriate, and the advertising application might possibly have been approved in error, although there is no excuse for the listed building being approved.  See the News Summary page for more information.

Tailpiece

We have decided to offer a definition that those who take an interest in planning applications might find helpful.  Whenever a planning application refers to a "Landmark Building" you can assume that it is too tall, and deliberately ugly so that it sticks out like a sore thumb.  We recommend that as a matter of principle you lodge an objection to every "landmark building" in every planning application you find one in.

We have spotted a couple of interesting properties for sale:  54 Wells Road and 2 Lambridge Buildings Mews.  Both were the subject of repeated planning applications until eventually the Case Officer granted permission even though both should have been refused as over-developments of the sites.  And now both are up for sale.

We wonder if there was no real intention to build what the planning applications described, it was just a business expense necessary to sell a property with planning permission that was bought without it, and thus make a bit of profit.  We hope that case officers learn from this, and pay more attention to what is right for the location rather than whether they can accommodate the applicant's aspirations.