BATH HERITAGE WATCHDOG

Next Meeting

The next meeting will take place on Monday 6 September at the Royal Oak, starting at 6:30 pm

Latest

Planning Services - Last updated 5th September 2010.

The council has prepared a leaflet which announces changes to planning services from 13 September.  The information in the leaflet is also available on-line, though not exactly in the printed format.

These are significant changes to existing adopted council policies and we don't think that it is appropriate to impose them without a proper public consultation.  Until such consultation takes place we suggest that everybody who is disadvantaged by the new arrangements (eg documents too large to download, documents with illegible print because of the scanning resolution, documents difficult to assess when not to the original drawn scale, inadequate provision of public terminals etc) reports that problem to their Ward Councillor so that the scale of the public dissatisfaction can be properly represented to the council.

Scaffolding - Last updated 5th September 2010.

So many examples of scaffolding fixings damaging listed buildings with an unnecessarily intrusive method of fixing now exist that it is reaching epidemic proportions.  So we have decided to create a new Scaffolding page as a permanent record.

Another winter like the last one with frequent occurrences of rain followed by hard frost could show the folly of leaving deep holes in Bath stone ashlar:  frost damage can be expensive to repair.  If that leads to disputes between building owners and scaffolding companies, then our ever-growing photo archive might be of assistance.

Included on our new page are some new examples of listed buildings damaged without planning consent: The Circus;  Green Park Buildings;  Stall Street;  another Stall Street;  Union Street.

The latest though is someone who really should know better.  B&NES has allowed scaffolding to be erected with drilled fixings into The Guildhall.

Public Realm - Last updated 5th September 2010.

After our report in the last update about problems in the public realm we bring some good news and some bad news.  The good news is that the public art has been cleaned.  The bad news is that the seat is still unusable.

The very bad news is that there are now safety concerns about Victoria Bridge.  We have updated our News Summary page and have added some background on the bridge.

Porter Butt - Last updated 22nd August 2010.

We noticed the news item in The Chronicle announcing that the former pub has been given a new lease of life.  The problem though is that planning permission for change of use has not yet been granted;  nor have the signs on the outside got listed building consent.  We have photographs, but do not intend to give this unlawful business any free advertising here.

The last we heard heard from Enforcement was that the work taking place was essential repairs, authorised by conservation officers, to replace rotted timbers in floors and roof supports which currently make the building dangerous.  Opening a retail outlet without planning permission is not what is usually regarded as essential repairs!

Unless enforcement action is taken over this particular abuse of planning legislation, it will set a precedent for any other premises in B&NES.  Attempting to enforce any similar situations in the future will leave the council open to accusations of favouritism or bias.

Theatre Royal - Last updated 22nd August 2010.

We appreciated the opportunity to discuss the proposed improvements to the Theatre Royal with the Theatre management and the architects, and as a result we were able to mostly support the planning applications when they were submitted, though we had a few reservations.  So we were disappointed to discover that although we asked to have a preview of the lighting scheme before it was finalised, revised drawings were lodged without letting us know.

This week, the BBC local TV news gave us a quick peek inside the building and the removal of the hoardings round the front gave us our first view of the modified entrance.  We recognise that we are looking at work still in progress, and have put some first impressions on the News Summary page.

Enforcements.

We have added three more photo supported entries to our Enforcements page:  a currently empty shop at No.36 Gay Street, the Panasia Bar in George Street, and Jika Jika in Princes Buildings.  All of them seem to have significant unauthorised work taking place inside.

Great Western Railway - Last updated 15th August 2010.

Following the publication of the sifted list of potential new World Heritage Sites on the DCMS Website, the timetable of the review of the nominations has now been made available.  It makes it clear that there is time for public support to encourage DCMS to put Watchdog's nomination of the GWR on the final Tentative List.  Details of what you can do to help are on our Brunel's GWR page.

Meanwhile, support for the GWR bid is being given wider attention.  It is mentioned in the current issue of Heritage Railway magazine.

The GWR World Heritage nomination has also attracted the attention of those associated with the Swindon Railway Festival, and Watchdog has been offered display space at the festival to promote their WHS bid.  We will take up that offer.

Locally Important Buildings - Last updated 15th August 2010.

After we published the news of the loss is the "Institute Building" also known as the Oldfield Methodist Church Hall or the Moorland Road Tin Church, accompanied by a photo montage on our News Summary page, a local resident has been in touch to tell us that we were wrong about the date that work started, and that there is documentary proof that nothing had happened on the site until a few days after the planning permission had expired.

This means that on the day that work started, there was no planning permission to demolish the hall, and there isn't planning permission to build anything on the site.  This, along with the fact that there is no record on-line of the conditions that had to be met before development commenced having been fulfilled means that the demolition took place without planning permission, which makes its loss even more galling.  It also means that the plot cannot be honestly advertised or sold as land with planning permission.

Bath Press Site - Last updated 15th August 2010.

We put our initial observations from the June exhibition on the Bath Press page, and we note from the description in the recent Chronicle article that some of what we wished for has been incorporated in the latest designs.  Watchdog's remit is the character and appearance of what is proposed, and its impact on Bath's World Heritage Site reputation, and that is what we will focus on when the planning application becomes publicly available.  Whilst we recognise that others will have much wider concerns (as the comments on the news item make clear), we will not be arguing their case for them.

August Development Control Committee - Last updated 8th August 2010.

We attended the August DCC to comment on the planning applications for Green Park.  Why we did so, and what happened can be read on our Green Park page.

Before that, the Minutes of the 7th July 2010 meeting were accepted by the Committee as a true record.  Except that they are not a true record.

Item 17 says that "The Chairman stated that Members would make their best endeavours that a public consultation area be provided".  No doubt there were some at the meeting who wished that is what the Chairman had said, but in fact the DCC Chairman was briefer and more positive, saying "We shall ensure there is a proper reception." (NB.  We noted down the words spoken exactly, and still have our notes).  The Chairman did not attempt to correct this error in the Minutes when the "true record" motion was put to the vote, even though we had pointed out the error on this website as soon as the draft minutes were available.

Then in Item 21 where the minutes describe the discussion on the Western Riverside applications, there is a summary of the Senior Professional's PowerPoint presentation which includes: "provision of family housing at the rear of Victoria Terrace, Lower Bristol Road".  In fact, at the rear of most of Victoria Terrace is part of Dorset Street, and the residents there will be pleased to know that there are no plans to replace their dwellings with new family housing.  The properties along the Lower Bristol Road are Victoria Buildings.  The Senior Professional got this right, the Minutes reported it wrong.  There are no council procedures available for the public to ask for corrections to the minutes, so we are reporting these errors here.

Kingsmead House - Last updated 8th August 2010.

From the exhibition

Comparing the scale of the existing building (red outline) with the suggested building (white silhouette)

Watchdog discussed the impressions of the Kingsmead exhibition at the meeting on 2nd August, and reached a consensus view among our members who went along.  Those comments have been sent to Scott Brownrigg.

For those who didn't get to the exhibition, despite its announcement in The Chronicle, the exhibition boards have been reproduced on the Telereal Trillium website.  Be warned though that the download file link shown on that page fetches nearly 9 megabytes of file, which is unrealistic for a dial-up connection and is a significant size for anybody with a capped broadband service.  If you do read the file, it contains all the exhibition boards in sequence.  We haven't spotted a deadline for comments in the documentation, but recommend that anybody who wants to have an input into the consultation process does so by mid-August to make sure those views are taken into account.

The Jubilee Inn - Last updated 8th August 2010.

We have just been notified that there are new drawings for the Jubilee Inn proposals.  Our initial comments are on our Comments page, and we were unenthusiastic.  Unfortunately because of a fault in the on-line planning system we are unable to say what the changes are at this time.

Northumberland Place - Last updated 1st August 2010.

The Chronicle has published an article enthusing about the restoration of Northumberland Place.  Normally we would wholeheartedly have supported such initiatives, and indeed Northumberland Place does look much better after the effort lavished upon it.

But oh dear!  The make-over has been accompanied by a forest of "A" Boards in Union Street, which not only looks tacky, but are a positive hazard to navigation, as a brief period of observation proved.  They are an obstacle to mothers with push chairs, they forced a rather tricky detour for one user of a mobility scooter trying to go in the opposite direction to a tide of oncoming pedestrians also diverting around the obstacle.  A pedestrian more interested on texting on a mobile phone than watching what was ahead almost tripped over them.  All in 10 minutes.

Residents know what is along Northumberland Place, and tourists are more likely to explore out of curiosity than if they are faced with garish advertisements (that actually only cover some of the businesses) which cheapen the exploration experience and degrade photographs.  We did a quick one-day mid-week count of "A" Boards in the main tourist areas: Stall Street through to Milson Street, Upper Borough Walls to Argyle Street and around the Abbey.  We counted 120 such advertisements, which is a ridiculously large number for such a small area.

It is time these were controlled, perhaps by requiring advertising consent for any in a Conservation Area, which seems a reasonable approach rather than treat it as a criminal issue;  yet it is a criminal offence, under the Town Police Clauses Act 1847, Section 28:  "Every person who places or leaves any furniture, goods, wares, or merchandize, or any cask, tub, basket, pail, or bucket, or places or uses any standing-place, stool, bench, stall, or showboard on any footway, or who places any blind, shade, covering, awning, or other projection over or along any such footway, unless such blind, shade, covering, awning, or other projection is eight feet in height at least in every part thereof from the ground ..." for which the penalty is a fine or up to 14 days in jail.

Scaffolding - Last updated 1st August 2010.

Continuing our concerns that scaffolding companies are damaging listed buildings with an unnecessarily intrusive method of fixing, we have spotted holes drilled into the facade of Wood's Grade I masterpiece, The Circus.  We have put pictures on the scaffolding section of our Enforcements page.

We have asked English Heritage for their guidance on whether such holes require listed building consent, and whether English Heritage distinguish between grades of listed building where such drillings might be acceptable, but have had no reply so far.

Herman Miller Building, Lower Bristol Road - Last updated 18th July 2010.

We have been asked on a number of occasions if we have any news on the Lidl application.  Until now, apart from some movement on the sign-off of conditions attached to the Listed Building consent, nothing appeared to be happening, but it was not obvious why.

We have now established that there was what can best be described as a planning impasse, which has now been released by updated Government guidelines.  Consequently, a new planning application has now been lodged, which should eventually lead to permission being granted, provided the snag that we spotted, that some of the drawings submitted do not match the Listed Building consent already granted, is resolved.  We have put the latest position on our News Summary page.

Western Riverside - Last updated 11th July 2010.

Planning applications 06/01733/EOUT (for the whole site outline) and 06/04013/EFUL (for Phase 1A) were considered by the DCC on 7th July.  We attended, and have added a report of what happened on the Western Riverside page.

Two items not directly connected with the Western Riverside were taken at the beginning of the DCC meeting:

•  The Bath Preservation Trust spoke to present an "Item from the public".  The subject was the transfer of staff to Lewis House, scheduled for October.  The concern was that the current plans show no Reception Area, which implies that the facilities to view paper plans would no longer be provided, with all the associated problems of poor quality scanning and impractical download sizes that reliance on on-line services would bring.  The question was "Are these assumptions correct?"  Two answers were provided:  The Development Manager said that Planning Services had not yet been finalised; the DCC Chairman was more positive, saying "We shall ensure there is a proper reception." (NB.  We noted down the words spoken exactly;  the draft minutes which say "best endeavours" are wrong because those words were not used nor implied).

•  The Senior Professional was asked for a verbal update on Major Projects.  He responded indicating that apart from the Western Riverside which the Committee would be dealing with later in the agenda, there was no significant news.

Skew Bridge Arches -Last updated 11th July 2010.

Now that the completion of the work has been reported in the Chronicle, Watchdog is free to tell the story of how this project came about.  We are very proud of our part in it.  Read the full story on our Brunel page.

Case Officers - Last updated 4th July 2010.

We notice that despite all the claims made that the reduction in planning officers was as a result of reduced workload and that the target number of case officers is the correct number (a claim which we did not believe for a second!), there are still occasions where a consultant has been employed instead of in-house staff.

The latest example is the planning application for 376 Wellsway, which not only had a consultant case officer, but that consultant didn't understand the area and didn't follow the normal rules.  Twice he accepted a total redesign of the proposed development as just an amendment to an application, when the changes were so radical that the application should have been withdrawn and a resubmission made.  Then when the decision was made, he made it for reasons that no resident could accept as factual:  he appeared to be unaware of the adjacent Conservation Area and the planning policies that it should bring to the decision making process (or else he knew but ignored it);  and he thought a gull-wing roof was in the context of Bath, when any resident would know that there isn't one on a dwelling anywhere else within the World Heritage boundary.  So much for the homogeneity of the World Heritage Site, being destroyed bit by bit by ignorance!

It is time there was an explanation for the continued use of consultants when permanent staff with useful local knowledge have been dispensed with on barely credible workload figures.  And it is time there was an explanation of why such consultants are given such poor oversight that they are allowed to take liberties that would not be permitted from in-house staff.  It is just not good enough.

Victoria Works - Last updated 4th July 2010.

We have been informed that the Victoria Works, formerly The Belvoir Castle, has closed its doors for business.  We are sorry this has happened, though we are not surprised when most of the activities that guaranteed a good footfall (skittles league, pool league, cribbage league, CAMRA tours etc) were discontinued on change of name.

The important thing though is to ensure that the owners do market it as a public house before any proposals for change of use are put forward.  This is what we fought for when there was a planning application to turn the building into flats, and we will fight for this again.  We know that the business was financially viable before the last change of licensee, and we know that there were at least two bids for the business last time, so as a minimum the losing bid(s) last time should be given a chance to run it as a pub before the condition in the Local Plan that it must have been effectively marketed as a public house without success can be said to have been met.

Enforcements - Last updated 27th June 2010.

Section 7. No person shall execute or cause to be executed any works for ... a listed building ... unless the works are authorised.
Section 9.(1) If a person contravenes section 7 he shall be guilty of an offence.

Section 331. Offences by corporations
(1) Where an offence under this Act which has been committed by a body corporate is proved to have been committed with the consent or connivance of, or to be attributable to any neglect on the part of-
(a) a director, manager, secretary or other similar officer of the body corporate, or
(b) any person who was purporting to act in any such capacity,
he as well as the body corporate shall be guilty of that offence and be liable to be proceeded against accordingly.

Bearing in mind that the council has staff employed to ensure that work on listed buildings only takes place if the necessary planning permissions are in place, we were particularly saddened to see that work started on the Guildhall before the planning application covering the work had even been validated.  Somebody must have authorised it, and that somebody has committed a criminal offence (see box right, where the relevant passages from the applicable legislation make it clear that it is a personal crime as well as a corporate one).

This shameful example of a "Do as I say, and not as I do" attitude will make the job of the Enforcement team, already undermanned as a result of recent staffing cuts, much more difficult if other offenders try to use it as a precedent.

The Guildhall is Grade I listed and the planning application is available for public comment until 23 July, so we expect to see work halted at least until the decision is reached, after that date.

Western Riverside - Last updated 27th June 2010.

Planning application 07/02879/EFUL for the enabling works on the Western Riverside site was granted planning permission on 22 June 2010, based on the drawings submitted in 2007.  This creates a complete can of worms, which we explore in some detail on the Western Riverside page.

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.)

Bath Transport Package - Last updated 20th June 2010.

We commented that a warning of imminent road works has been posted at St James Rampire (ie the roadway outside Abbey Church House), and our recollection is that this location was to be turned into a transport interchange between the BRT route and the regular city buses.  We wondered how the council could justify the expenditure at this time.

Since then we have be contacted by the council, who have explained that the work to St James Rampire was part of the Civitas Renaissance initiative, and it is EU funded.  We are happy to put the record straight.

We remember being consulted over a Civitas initiative for the High Street and Orange Grove area (which isn't on the council's web page we notice), and we remember the exhibition of Collective Transport at Green Park (which according to the Civitas website was an exhibition covering all the Renaissance initiative, but we don't remember it like that).  We dug deeper and found on the Civitas website the information on the measures at St James Rampire.

We also spotted that the Alternative Fuels initiative which the council says applies to the Park and Ride buses, is shown on the Civitas list as being trialled on the BRT buses (the objective says " ... on the new Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) route in Bath" and the measure to be implemented says "To identify hybrid articulated vehicles suitable for use on the Bath BRT system", so there is no room for ambiguity).  In view of the specific legal advice that the Transport Package had to be implemented in its entirety or not at all, we will be keeping an eye on any subsequent trials to ensure that they are based on the existing double-decker buses, and EU money is not used to introduce articulated Park and Ride vehicles under the guise of such trials.

Finally, are we the only ones to spot the gap in the joined-up thinking?  As a result of the cancellation of the previous Government's housing targets, 2000 additional homes will no longer be built at Newton St Loe, according to The Chronicle.  Yet those 2000 homes would have been part of the demand for the expanded capacity of the Park and Ride at Newbridge, and there is no suggestion yet that the Transport Package is to be re-evaluated as a result of this cancellation.

Oldfield Park Flats - Last updated 20th June 2010.

The application for a scheme very similar to that refused planning permission in 2007 has been refused permission.  Considering that the DCC rejected it then on the grounds that "The proposed development, by reason of its inappropriate design, incorporating a predominance of flat roofs, would be incongruous in this prominent location and out of character within its context. This would be harmful to the character and appearance of this part of the Conservation Area and World Heritage Site" this latest refusal on similar grounds is welcomed.

The interesting guidance that came out of this resubmission was that the applicant claimed that granting planning permission for an area of flat roof on a nearby school indicated that flat roofs were acceptable in the area, and English Heritage soundly rejected this idea, pointing out that the role of each site in the street scene has to be judged on individual merits and none can be used to justify another.  The report adds that deliberately introducing "a new architectural statement which is more dominant and eye-catching than its neighbours" has a detrimental effect on a Conservation Area and the World Heritage Site.  Given that we occasionally see planning applications claiming to be no more ugly than something inappropriate nearby (this is our rewording of the beguiling weasel words normally used), or claiming to add vibrancy to an area that in truth really wouldn't benefit from it, this clarity from English Heritage is very welcome.  We hope future decision makers bear it in mind when it is appropriate.

Bank Account - Last updated 13th June 2010.

We have moved our bank account.  The latest details are on our Fund Us page, and we ask that anybody who has their own note of the (now outdated) details updates their records with the new information.

Bath Spa Station - Last updated 6th June 2010.

As expected, planning application 10/01383/LBA for a new lift in Bath Spa station has been given planning permission without any thought being given to the practicality of the scheme for the number of passengers that are likely to use it.

However, this is only the grant of planning permission.  That happened before with the previous design of lift.  But the final arbiter on whether the station can be operated safely rests with the Office of the Rail Regulator.  They rejected the first design of lift as unsafe, and we will not be at all surprised if they do the same with this latest pathetic attempt.

Green Park - Last updated 23rd May 2010.

The DCC last discussed planning applications for an office block and hotel at their meeting on 16th December 2009, when they refused permission for both the hotel and office block, though they did grant permission for the demolition of the existing building once contracts are in place for constructing approved replacements.

New applications for a hotel and offices have now been lodged, which we will study in detail before making formal comments, but we offer a "first impressions" on our new Green Park page.

Woolley Valley - Last updated 23rd May 2010.

After the protest on the Guildhall steps on 19th May, reported in The Chronicle, the council has issued a stop notice and asked for the excavations to be reversed, but as reported on the on-line Chronicle, the chicken sheds are regarded as "chattels" and no order for their removal has been made, despite the claim on the website of an active protest group that he council have inspected them and established that they are embedded in the ground and are not therefore moveable as the definition of "chattels" requires.  Finally, in Saturday's Daily Mail, the issue was brought to national attention, including some research by their reporter showing that what is happening in Woolley has happened elsewhere as the same developer takes advantage of "areas with toothless councils", which is hardly a ringing endorsement of the actions B&NES have taken so far, particularly when coupled with the observation "All the odds should have been against the developers".  On the same day, The Times also carried a similar article.

Former Labour Exchange - Last updated 25th April 2010.

The 25th April 2010 marks the 68th anniversary of the first raid of the Bath Blitz.  The former Labour Exchange building on the corner of Milk Street and James Street West is the only remaining building in Bath to show the type of damage that was inflicted in the blitz and the  "Make do and Mend" ethos of WWII that made the ruin reusable, and for that reason it was listed.  It is currently occupied by the Genesis Trust, a charity that has brought the building into use with the utmost respect for its listed character.  So is is with disappointment that we read in the papers of the February Cabinet meeting that this building is still the preferred location for the proposed "wet house".  In making that statement, Cllr Pritchard made no forecast of what would happen to the Genesis Trust once evicted.  Nor did he recognise that this building cannot be made suitable for any residential use without destroying the reason why it was listed.

Charlton Buildings - Last updated 25th April 2010.

Planning application 09/04913/REG13 was passed to the Secretary of State with a recommendation to approve, which the Secretary of State did.  Since the article appeared in the Chronicle forecasting a reduction in planning staff because of a reduction in the numbers of applications (a claim which our own statistics do not support), we have been watching for examples of where in-house staff were not used as case officers, and this application is one where a consultant was employed.  We have examined this person's report (see our analysis on the Charlton Buildings page), and we are not impressed.

Consultants always cost more than in-house staff, so from a public perspective whoever authorised this one did not make good use of council cash which we are told is in short supply.

Notre Dame University Summer School - Last updated 18th April 2010.

After our report of a project in Frome, we received an e-mail from the University, advising us that the Summer School in Frome is unlikely to go ahead because the take-up of places has been disappointingly low.  Many of the students who might have taken part have been daunted by the economic downturn, and see their current priority as earning money during the summer break rather than spending money on a voluntary project abroad.

The tutors are considering whether it would be possible to use a small Bath example as a university classroom exercise to maintain interest in the area, so that this year's gap is just a temporary interruption.  Watchdog will support such a classroom exercise if we can.

New signs - Last updated 18th April 2010.

At about the same time that an article appeared in The Chronicle announcing a new owner for Bath Rugby, some new signs were noticed on some of Bath's signposts.

These are of the same type and materials as the existing signs, so we assume that they are not the most expensive case of fly-posting in history, but are officially sanctioned.  Pointers to civic amenities and to attractions listed in guide books (the Magna Carta excepted) are easy to justify, but we have just been reminded in the press that Bath Rugby is in private ownership and is a commercial business (and it is looking for alternatives to the Rec).  Which leaves the question of what criteria are used to decide what commercial advertising goes on these sign-posts?  Can we look forward to other signs pointing to "Sally Lunn's in North Parade Passage" or "Starbucks in Stall Street" or "Sainsbury's in Green Park"?  If not, isn't the council laying itself open to accusations of favouritism?  This is public realm policy, and it should have been open to public consultation.

World Heritage Day - Last updated 18th April 2010.

Following our mention last week of two informative walks listed on the Bath Festivals website, the Kennet and Avon Canal walk on 14th July to celebrate 200 years since the canal opened in Bath, and the GWR 175 walk on 21st July to celebrate 175 years since the Act of Parliament which authorised the building of the Great Western Railway (both walks starting at 7pm) we have been sent the associated Festivals leaflet (available from the Festivals Box Office).  On it are details of two further informative walks:  Bath Chronicle 250 on 7th July celebrates two and a half centuries of one of the oldest provincial newspapers; and "The Wheels of Industry" on 28th July explores the industrial heritage consequent on the arrival of the railway to Bath (again both starting at 7pm).  The leaflet shows that the proceeds go to the Friends of the Museum of Bath at Work, and we are happy to give that worthy cause some publicity.

Meanwhile, for those who did not get along to any of the World Heritage Day events, you missed a real treat from the Ermine Street Guard re-enacting Roman military activities.  It was educational and entertaining.

Festivals Box Office - Last updated 18th April 2010.

While we are on the subject, we noticed a letter in last Monday's Western Daily Press (12 April), when Keith Davis praised the council for rapid repairs to the Box Office building.  We believe in credit where credit is due, so we contacted Mr Davis for more details, and we reproduce his Before and After photographs on our News Summary page.

Enforcements - Last updated 11th April 2010.

We have received a number of responses from Enforcement recently stating that changes in colour of shopfronts, which we had reported to them, would not be pursued because the new colour would be considered acceptable if the applicant had raised a listed building application.  We appreciate that after the cuts in numbers, Enforcement must be struggling to deal with everything reported to them, and in many cases we agree that we would not have objected to the colour if a listed building application had been raised, but we have real concerns about the implications if this is a policy that will be more widely adopted in future.  News spreads, and if shop owners believe that they will get away with it, fewer and fewer will go through the proper procedures of applying for permission.

PPS5 has just come into force, and in the guidance notes it says "painting exposed surfaces ... can be visually and physically damaging and is likely to require listed building consent, as may a change in external paint colour." which is slightly stronger than the equivalent guidance in the superseded PPG15.  Enforcement are unlikely to recognise which surfaces need to breathe through paint and which ones need to be sealed by it.  The advantage of permitting repainting through the planning process is that the methods and finish can be conditioned if considered important, as well as a decision being made on the colour.

There is also a future risk that something completely unacceptable (painting a door in The Circus with lilac and orange stripes, for instance) might be considered permissible in an appeal process because the council has not previously enforced planning legislation on anybody else who repainted with a significant change of colour without permission.  We think that Enforcement should be careful of the precedents it is setting:  A standard form letter instructing the offending premises to raise a listed building application for the change of colour or else return the paintwork to its former colour should not be arduous.

Notre Dame University Summer School - Last updated 11th April 2010.

In 2009, students from Notre Dame University visited Bath and produced a masterplan for the Western Riverside as their Summer School Project.  We reported their visit on this website at the time.  The results of the students' work were presented to the Mayor, the Chairman of the Council and members of the public, and their drawings were made available to the public for two weeks afterwards in the Bath Society Hall.  The University has now been in touch, to let us know that they submitted their work to the Congress for the New Urbanism's Charter Awards, where it gained an "Honourable Mention" which they are very pleased about because most of the CNU awards go to American schemes that have been or will be built.  We are told that there is world-wide interest in CNU awards, which will be good for the University, and will bring Bath to a wide audience.  The summary information that gained the award is also on-line, as is the background information video, now made available on YouTube.

We have been told that the 2010 Summer School will feature a project in Frome, and we hope to renew our contact with the university during that time.

Western Riverside - Last updated 28th March 2010.

In February we reported that a Freedom Of Information dispute had been referred to the Information Commissioner's Office appeals procedure, and that the ICO report and decision was that the council was instructed to answer the question What is the latest financial model and viability assessments relating to the Bath Western Riverside project?.  We understand that instead of answering the question, the council has appealed against the ICO ruling.  Given that such an appeal would have taken about as much effort as answering the question, we are left wondering exactly what the council is so desperate to hide from the public?

We also understand that Bath Rugby is examining the possibility of building a stadium somewhere on the Western Riverside site.  Again, Watchdog's main concern is that the style and appearance should be compatible with the World Heritage Site, and we will reserve judgement until more details become available.  We would be happy to discuss preliminary ideas with Bath Rugby, in confidence if that is their wish, and would welcome an approach by an e-mail.

Scaffolding - Last updated 14th March 2010.

As a result of our report of scaffolding on the Assembly Rooms fixed by bolts into the exterior of the stonework, we were informed that there were sound safety reasons for it.  So we looked up the safety standards - BS5973 which advises on what resistance to twisting pressures from the wind must be withstood, and TG20:08 which provides the mathematics for validating that.  Although these standards refer to "ties", there is no absolute requirement to drill into the stonework for mechanical fixings provided there is adequate bracing and wedging.  Furthermore, the BS specifically warns that if fixings to the facade are proposed "it is also crucial to assess whether the building fabric can support such loadings", and some of the buildings where drilled fixings have been used, this assessment should have ruled out such fixings:  crumbly ashlar held together by 200 year old lime mortar is designed to support the weight of the walls and roof as gravity acts on it, not to withstand gales blowing scaffolding away from a building frontage to which it is bolted.  We believe some of the scaffolding that was bolted to the facades of some of the buildings we photographed, would simply have pulled the ashlar blocks out of the wall if such gales had occurred.

We think that all proposals to bolt scaffolding to listed buildings should have the exact type, number and position of such fixings shown in the listed building application, along with evidence that those positions can withstand the maximum leverages shown in the safety standards, giving the Heritage Environment Team the opportunity to refuse permission for such fixings or to condition alternatives before any scaffolding is erected.

Cotswold Way Obelisk - Last updated 14th March 2010.

Watchdog objected to the obelisk, not because we thought there was anything particularly wrong with the design, but because the location chosen, close to the side of the Abbey, would be inappropriate.  English Heritage levelled a similar criticism, and as a result the application (10/00197/REG03) was withdrawn on 11th March.  We now wait to see if the proposal is re-submitted, hopefully identifying a more acceptable location. We suggested two alternatives, but they are not the only ones we would consider acceptable.

Planning - Last updated 7th March 2010.

We continue to have quoted to us the justification for the reduction in the planning staff numbers being a reduction in the number of planning applications.  But we wonder how old, and how accurate, the statistics being quoted are.

Our own figures show that in the first two months of this year we have considered whether to comment on more planning applications than for the equivalent period last year, and we wrote and submitted comments on 28 more this year, up to the 1st March, so the number affecting Listed Buildings or Conservation Areas has gone up.  And although we raised slightly more Enforcement questions in the first two months of 2009 than we have in 2010, the number accepted as worth pursuing is greater in 2010 than in the equivalent period last year.

So our assessment is that the sections of Planning that we deal with are having more work to do now than a year ago, and yet they are facing cuts.  They are going to be overwhelmed, we think.  Something has got to give, and that will be either the turn-round time on their work, or its quality.

Even worse, if the current staff face the reduction in numbers forecast, then expertise is going to walk out the door; and when later the Cabinet realise they have made a mistake and add the numbers back, it will almost certainly be untrained novices who walk back through it.

So we remind the council of its planning obligations.  PPG15 (with our added underlining) 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 is 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.  The above obligations apply equally to planning applications, pre-application consultations and enforcement investigations.

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 appropriate heritage organisations informed of our findings.

Southgate - Last updated 7th March 2010.

A different case officer than in the past;  the same outcome.  We commented on the Debenhams shopfront application, pointing out that the materials proposed would not be durable and the style proposed was the minimum necessary to fill the void, and even then some of the glass is to be covered in translucent film to make it even duller.  This cheap and nasty offering is really not suitable for the "flagship" business in a prestige development.

The Case Officer nevertheless describes it as "an uncomplicated shopfront utilising modern materials that is appropriate given the use of the site, and will result in a subtle main entrance" and gave permission.  We simply show on the right what happens to these "modern materials" after a few months exposure to the British weather since installed for Phase 1, and expect to take similar "we told you so" photographs of Debenhams in due course.

Vision for Bath - Last updated 7th March 2010.

The Vision for Bath was never offered for public consultation, and even if a researcher knows what they are looking for tracking down a complete picture is difficult.  But we do know that the Major Projects team are enthusiastic about it, and that there are sketches around of a landscape of steel and glass buildings.  So we wonder what the team will make of the recent BD Online article that effectively forecasts that such buildings will end up as pariah buildings that nobody will want to let.  Perhaps it is time for  a rethink of the "it must be good if it is flashy" attitude.  We look forward to the Busometer officially being regarded as a pariah, as well as being the most hated building in Bath.

Listing Success - Last updated 28th February 2010.

Following hot on the heels of our success in getting two Brunel designed bridges listed (see "Heritage" below), we have now heard from English Heritage that they have accepted our application to list the northern boundary wall of St. James Cemetery on the Lower Bristol Road.  The full story with photographs can be found in the Success Stories section of our News page.

Heritage - Last updated 21st February 2010.

In anticipation of a future significant anniversary - 175 years of the Great Western Railway - Watchdog has been in discussions with Network Rail to encourage the maintenance of the Brunel assets through Bath to have it at its best  for the occasion, and we have also been researching what parts of Brunel's original constructions are not yet listed.  This has now resulted in a significant success.  Thanks to some detailed research and a well presented case, English Heritage has added two more structures to the listed Brunel heritage in Bath.  Details and photographs appear on our Brunel's GWR page.

It is not too late for Bath to start planning how to celebrate the 175th 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.

The Museum of the Great Western Railway in Swindon is keeping track of 175th Anniversary events around the country, so we are providing a link to their list rather than trying to track anything outside Bath.

Magna Carta - Last updated 21st February 2010.

There has been a considerable amount of protest in the local press recently (both the Western Daily Press and the Chronicle) about the destruction of the Magna Carta extract in the side of the former Bonham's Auction House in John Street.  Unfortunately, this is all too little, too late.  The time for the press to get interested in preserving Bath's heritage under threat is before planning permission is granted, when it might just influence the decision.  The council comment at the end of the Western Daily Press item (unfortunately not on-line) that permission was granted to avoid the expense of an appeal, suggests that what decision is made depends on what is cheap rather than what is right.  If the unnamed spokesman was telling the truth (and it does sound believable) then the council has admitted its failure to evaluate that planning application in accordance with the current legislation.  How many other permissions have been granted for the same dubious reason, we wonder?

It is possible that the building owners are now beginning to appreciate the damage to their potential trade that the removal of the Magna Carta might cause, because they now have a new planning permission, to light up the building's exterior with what we regard as an excessive number of lights.  The applicant claims that such illumination is normal for a city centre location - except that this is actually located in a low luminosity back street!

Sainsbury's, Odd Down - Last updated 21st February 2010.

We alerted UNESCO of the permission granted for this site, because we established that it would be very visible from a number of popular viewing points.  We have since been thanked by UNESCO for our support of the World Heritage Convention, and a sharp reminder has been sent to DCMS that it is their responsibility under the Convention to inform UNESCO of projects that may have an impact on the Outstanding Universal Value of the property, before decisions that are difficult to reverse have been taken.  We wonder whether B&NES bothered to inform DCMS before putting the application on the DCC agenda?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.