Project logoWorld Heritage Emblem

BATH HERITAGE WATCHDOG

ICRAUnesco Logo            Copyright© Bath Heritage Watchdog - 2011.

Bath - A World Heritage Site

 

The 21st Century Sack of Bath

Background

Council Planning decisions are supposed to be guided by Government legislation, Government guidance notes, and Local Authority Planning Policies adopted after a consultation process with the Planning Inspectorate.

Bath has an Outstanding Universal Value that defines what makes it a World Heritage Site, and a World Heritage Management Plan that is supposed to ensure that it remains on the List of World Heritage Sites.  There is a Government commitment to look after World Heritage Sites and a Local Plan Policy enshrined in the Core Strategy (Policy B4) which states:  There is a strong presumption against development that would result in harm to the Outstanding Universal Value of the World Heritage Site, its authenticity or integrity.  This presumption applies equally to development within the setting of the World Heritage Site.

Despite these established procedures, there are a number of decisions where the policies that were supposed to guide the outcome were not heeded.  This has led to structures that should have been preserved being damaged or destroyed, or Conditions that should have controlled what happens after permission is granted being ignored and then not enforced, or designs that do not fit into the character of a Conservation Area being given inappropriate consents.

This page of the website picks out the worst offenders.

Quick Finder   (Follow links for more information)

Belvoir Castle   Newark Works   

 

Belvoir Castle

What should have been heeded

What Happened

From the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act, Section 1(5):
In this Act "listed building" means a building which is for the time being included in a list compiled or approved by the Secretary of State under this section; and for the purposes of this Act—
(a) any object or structure fixed to the building;
(b) any object or structure within the curtilage of the building which, although not fixed to the building, forms part of the land and has done so since before 1st July 1948,
shall be treated as part of the building.

From the National Planning Policy Framework

184   Heritage assets range from sites and buildings of local historic value to those of the highest significance, such as World Heritage Sites which are internationally recognised to be of Outstanding Universal Value. These assets are an irreplaceable resource, and should be conserved in a manner appropriate to their significance, so that they can be enjoyed for their contribution to the quality of life of existing and future generations.

191   Where there is evidence of deliberate neglect of, or damage to, a heritage asset, the deteriorated state of the heritage asset should not be taken into account in any decision.

194   Any harm to, or loss of, the significance of a designated heritage asset (from its alteration or destruction, or from development within its setting), should require clear and convincing justification. Substantial harm to or loss of:
a) grade II listed buildings, or grade II registered parks or gardens, should be exceptional;

 

 

From the Core Strategy and Placemaking Plan

Policy HE1 (5): Great weight will be given to the conservation of the District’s heritage assets.  Any harm to the significance of a designated or non-designated heritage asset must be justified.  Proposals will be weighed against the public benefits of the proposal; whether it has been demonstrated that all reasonable efforts have been made to sustain the existing use, find new uses, or mitigate the extent of the harm to the significance of the asset; and whether the works proposed are the minimum required to secure the long term use of the asset.

Policy HE1 (7b - Listed Buildings) The significance of listed buildings is required to be sustained and enhanced.  Appropriate repair and reuse of listed buildings will be encouraged.  Alterations, extensions or changes of use, or development in their vicinity, will be expected to have no adverse impact on those elements which contribute to their special architectural or historic interest, including their settings.

 

 

Policy D6: Amenity
Development must provide for appropriate levels of amenity and must:

a Allow existing and proposed development to achieve appropriate levels of privacy, outlook and natural light

b Not cause significant harm to the amenities of existing or proposed occupiers of, or visitors to, residential or other sensitive premises by reason of loss of light, increased noise, smell, overlooking, traffic or other disturbance.

c Allow for provision of adequate and usable private or communal amenity space and defensible space.

d Include adequate storage and functional arrangements for refuse and recycling

e Ensure communal refuse and recycling provision is appropriately designed, located and sized.

From the National Planning Policy Framework

160. The application of the exception test should be informed by a strategic or site-specific flood risk assessment, depending on whether it is being applied during plan production or at the application stage.  For the exception test to be passed it should be demonstrated that:

a) the development would provide wider sustainability benefits to the community that outweigh the flood risk; and

b) the development will be safe for its lifetime taking account of the vulnerability of its users, without increasing flood risk elsewhere, and, where possible, will reduce flood risk overall.

161. Both elements of the exception test should be satisfied for development to be allocated or permitted.

 

POLICY CP5: Flood Risk Management
Development in the District will follow a sequential approach to flood risk management, avoiding inappropriate development in areas at risk of flooding and directing development away from areas at highest risk in line with Government policy NPPF).

 

 

 

Building Regulations, Part M

6.3   On plots where wheelchair users have approached the entrance, they should also be able to gain access into the dwelling-house and entrance level flats.

7.1   The objective is to facilitate access within the entrance storey...into habitable rooms and a room containing a WC, which may be a bathroom at that level.
Part M is concerned with disabled access.  There are other constraints in Part M1 about widths of doorways, steepness of ramps and structures of stairs that don't apply to existing buildings but do apply to newly constructed buildings.

Building Regulations, Part B Volume 2

0.14   Building Regulations are intended to ensure that a reasonable standard of life safety is provided, in case of fire.

B1.   The building shall be designed and constructed so that there are appropriate provisions for the early warning of fire, and appropriate means of escape in case of fire from the building to a place of safety outside the building capable of being safely and effectively used at all material times.

B1.viii   Protected stairways are designed to give virtually 'fire sterile' areas which lead to places of safety outside the building.

 

 

A number of different comments pointed out that the skittle alley which would be demolished as part of the development would not be permissible under the Listed Building legislation.  The Case Officer in the brief to the Development Management Committee quoted the appropriate Sections from the legislation, evaluated them against the criteria in the legislation and concluded "the development is considered to result in unacceptable impact upon designated heritage assets, and this harm is not outweighed by any public benefits.  This application is therefore recommended for refusal".

Either the majority of the DMC members didn't read the recommendation, or else they had motives, not supported by the legislation, for blatantly ignoring it.

Several local residents and one Local Councillor contacted the Planning Casework Unit requesting that the DMC decision to Delegate to Permit be called in by the Secretary of State.  The outcome was the standard "The SofS believes the Local Planning Authority is best placed to make this decision" reply.  Significantly, it was sent with only the 18/02499/FUL reference on it.  The Local Councillor phoned the man who had sent it, and discovered that he had decided on the reply himself without consulting the SofS, he had never ever been to Bath nor taken the trouble to look up the details of the site in question, and he had no intention of changing his mind now that the letter had been sent out.  This was despite the argument that the application was for the total demolition of a listed building on the national list in a World Heritage Site and therefore by definition could not be regarded as being of only local interest.  No letter regarding 18/02500/LBA is likely to be sent.  Effectively the Planning Casework Unit has a policy that "the answer is no, regardless of the question", so it is not fit for purpose.

Some of the local residents have collected a photographic record of the skittle alley being deliberately neglected and being left to deteriorate as failing guttering and downpipes allow water damage to the stonework.  They are considering whether to pass this evidence to Historic England because the amount of failed guttering seems rather high in a relatively short timescale.

The skittle alley was in use (bringing both Home and Away teams as trade in the bar), but the teams playing there need to be assured that if they start the season on a particular alley, they can use it as a Home alley for the duration of the season.  The launch of the planning application clearly scared off one team who didn't renew their Home Alley place at the end of the previous season, and almost certainly the remaining team(s) will abandon the pub now that the final decision has been made.  Those who play in competitive skittles teams are very unlikely to consider the "Mickey Mouse" replacement alley offered in the planning application as a worthy replacement for the current challenging alley.

It is highly likely that had the planning application not been lodged, and if some minimal maintenance had been applied to the skittle alley, that teams would have continued to play there.  It was recognised as a challenging alley and those keen on skittles prefer challenging alleys to easy ones because it gives distinctions between evenly matched teams.

The residents of Park View made it abundantly clear in their objections that their natural light and their privacy would be harmed by the size and location of the development.

They also predicted that there would be noise and traffic impacts.

The proposed development removes almost the entire garden from the pub's amenity space and provided almost none to the intended residents of the proposed development.

Whilst the storage of waste and recycling is shown in the drawings, the functional arrangements for its collection are wholly inadequate.  The pub's collections from the kerbside requires taking full bins up a 1metre flight of steps, into the Beer Garden and through the new skittle alley to reach the street.  The new housing requires the full bins to be wheeled down a 1.2metre flight of steps and through a narrow doorway into the street.  Once in the street, the collection of bins will virtually block a narrow pavement, making it impassable to anybody with a pram or a wheelchair.

Belvoir FloodAlthough most of the flood risk advice is given in the context of increased risk due to climate change, there is evidence that even before climate change is taken into account the site has a high flood risk.  The picture on the right is from the Government website which shows the flood risk from rainwater run-off.  It shows that the garden of the Belvoir Castle is the lowest point in the area and has a very high risk of flooding, along with some of the gardens in Park View.  There is also a Government picture of the risk of river flooding which shows that Park View and the garden of the Belvoir Castle are at high risk of flooding from the stream on the opposite side of the road that flows beside the Regency Cleaners.

It is therefore impossible to build on the garden, especially adding a building that has a floor level above the enhanced risk from climate change, without significantly increasing the flood risk elsewhere.  The nearest properties to suffer the increased risk are the Grade II listed Park View.  It should also be noted that the only exit from the proposed flats is into a roadway which is lower than the flats and in times of flood is likely to be flooded to a significant depth.

Building Regulations are not a specific consideration for planning applications, but those making decisions ought to know the basics and not provide planning consent to designs that Building Regulations rule cannot be built as approved by planning decisions.

There are regulations that do not apply so rigorously to listed buildings as they do to new constructions, so the entrance doorway through a listed boundary wall would be accepted, but the 1221mm rise in floor level from that doorway to the residential floor is achieved in such a way that neither ramp nor stairs would comply with Part M1.  The applicants have been honest enough to admit that the flood-proof floor level above the entrance door level makes it incompatible with Part M, but honesty does not result in a requirement waiver.

Building Regulations Part B is concerned with protection against fire, and has various requirements for facilities (such as fire-proof doors and sprinkler systems) which are details in the construction.  But it also has expectations of "life safety" in the design which is a nice description of the expectation that in case of fire the residents ought to get out alive to a place of safety.

The problem with the drawings as approved is that the one doorway into the street is the only route to a place of safety, and the stairway doesn't give direct access to it, especially if the door to the plant room is open and thus blocking the only exit path that doesn't require a route through a flat.  There is an outdoor area from one flat into a courtyard, but anybody taking that route to the open air will find themselves trapped there, with no means of completely leaving the building without re-entering it.

The Belvoir Castle decisions also demonstrate planning procedural failures.  After the DMC granted "Delegate to Permit" permissions the planning applications were reopened for public comments and some members of the public did supply further comments.  This meant that procedurally the decisions had to be returned to the DMC to discuss and evaluate the points newly raised, and then either repeat the decision made before or make a different one.  That did not happen, and the officer who had been delegated to permit made no mention of the new points either.  Thus the additional comments made were overtly disregarded.

At the time this was written, we understand that one of the Local Councillors (who does not sit on the DMC) is currently exploring whether these procedural shortfalls require the Secretary Of State to call in the decisions for his own determination because the Local Authority did not correctly deal with them.

 

Go back to top index

 

Newark Works

What should have been heeded

What Happened

From the National Planning Policy Framework

184   Heritage assets range from sites and buildings of local historic value to those of the highest significance, such as World Heritage Sites which are internationally recognised to be of Outstanding Universal Value. These assets are an irreplaceable resource, and should be conserved in a manner appropriate to their significance, so that they can be enjoyed for their contribution to the quality of life of existing and future generations.

194   Any harm to, or loss of, the significance of a designated heritage asset (from its alteration or destruction, or from development within its setting), should require clear and convincing justification. Substantial harm to or loss of:
a) grade II listed buildings, or grade II registered parks or gardens, should be exceptional;

From the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act, Section 1(5):
In this Act "listed building" means a building which is for the time being included in a list compiled or approved by the Secretary of State under this section; and for the purposes of this Act—
(a) any object or structure fixed to the building;
(b) any object or structure within the curtilage of the building which, although not fixed to the building, forms part of the land and has done so since before 1st July 1948,
shall be treated as part of the building.

From the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act, Section 17(3):
Listed building consent for the demolition of a listed building may be granted subject to a condition that the building shall not be demolished before—
(a) a contract for the carrying out of works of redevelopment of the site has been made; and
(b) planning permission has been granted for the redevelopment for which the contract provides.

From the Core Strategy and Placemaking Plan

Policy HE1 (5): Great weight will be given to the conservation of the District’s heritage assets. Any harm to the significance of a designated or non-designated heritage asset must be justified. Proposals will be weighed against the public benefits of the proposal; whether it has been demonstrated that all reasonable efforts have been made to sustain the existing use, find new uses, or mitigate the extent of the harm to the significance of the asset; and whether the works proposed are the minimum required to secure the long term use of the asset.

Policy HE1 (7b - Listed Buildings) The significance of listed buildings is required to be sustained and enhanced. Appropriate repair and reuse of listed buildings will be encouraged. Alterations, extensions or changes of use, or development in their vicinity, will be expected to have no adverse impact on those elements which contribute to their special architectural or historic interest, including their settings.

Policy SB5 (Context) Buildings in the vicinity tend to form bold relationships with their surroundings; butting up to the river’s edge at the eastern end of the South Quays site, and forming a strong edge along the Lower Bristol Road. Many of these represent an important part of Bath’s industrial heritage, notably the Grade II listed Newark Works, curtilage listed buildings such as the Foundry, and the associated public realm. This site was previously occupied by innovative crane manufacturers, Stothert and Pitt.

Policy SB5 (5): The group value of the buildings on the South Quays site (particularly the Grade II listed Newark Works, curtilage listed buildings such as the Foundry, and the associated public realm) is important as a legacy of the city’s less well known industrial heritage. Any proposals for the site will need to be supported by an appropriate assessment of the historic, cultural and architectural value of the heritage assets. Proposals will need to demonstrate that the significance of heritage assets and their setting are preserved or enhanced or, in the case of demolition, that the harm arising is outweighed by public benefits arising from the proposals

Policy SB5 (15) Valued street furniture and artefacts such as rail tracks and setts should be retained.

In 2006, the council bought out the remainder of the leases of the properties in the Newark Works in order to leave the premises empty for James Dyson's application to destroy most of the heritage on site and build a school.
Dyson's schoolDespite the council granting planning permission for a building that was totally inappropriate for Bath, behind a "deathmask" of the listed Newark works, that inappropriate decision was foiled by the Environment Agency calling in the decision for the Secretary of State's ruling. Dyson then withdrew the application rather than argue his case.

Despite the site being obviously usable (because the businesses asked to surrender their leases were thriving until then) the council left it empty and earning no rent for the next 12 years.

In 2017, the council granted itself permission to make internal alterations to the Newark Works and to demolish the Foundry and Boiler House.  The legislation defining what constitutes a listed building is very clear that curtilage listed structures are to be treated as listed in the same way that the host structure is treated, and this is recognised in Policy SB5(5) which identifies the Foundry building as "important as a legacy". Yet no attempt was made to find an alternate use for these sound buildings or to have anything approved to replace them.  That part of the Bath Quays South development site was given permission in outline only with details to follow.  Therefore it was impossible to show any public benefit which outweighed the harm from demolition until permission is actually granted for a structure which will replace them.  This point was made in an appeal to the Secretary of State, who sent back the standard "The Secretary of State's policy is that the council knows best" letter, as he does with anybody who doesn't have a statutory right to have a decision called in.

The council then carried on in its cavalier fashion, grubbing up the rail tracks and setts (despite Policy SB5 (15) specifically requiring them to be retained).

In February 2019 they were guilty of allowing an illegal act of demolishing the Foundry and Boiler house before having anything approved to replace them.

Illegal demolition

In the above picture the fragment of pink wall is all that was left of the Foundry at the time the photo was taken. The rubble to the right of it is the demolished remainder of the building.

The destroyed Boiler HouseThe other pile of rubble pictured on the right is all that is left of the Boiler House.

 

Go back to top index