Thanks to everyone that has signed the petition at change.org so far and the many comments. If possible please also submit your comments to the case officer John Davey (or else we will assume we can on your behalf) here: Bath and North East Somerset Council bit.ly/1b0CzM8 or if you prefer to email [email protected] A sage Friend of Bath Milestone (and Bath Boundary Stone!) with, it would seem, far greater wisdom than those who control development in BANES has sent the following salient points of objection. Let me know if you are not convinced after reading! And, if you are, please consider putting your own comments to the case officer Mr Davey before 5th December Application Summary Application Number: 13/04571/LBA Address: Private Garden, Lark Place, Upper Bristol Road, Lower Weston, Bath, Proposal: Alteration to include the re-location and re-paint of the Mile Marker. Case Officer: John Davey Submission Type: O - Objection Comments: Dear Mr Davey I wish to record my strong objection to the proposals being made under Planning Application (Ref: 13/04571/LBA), which include the re-location and re-painting of the Grade II Listed Milestone (List Entry Number: 1394763). The “Historic Statement” forming part of the Application documents neither compels nor convinces, peppered as it is with vague statements such as “the only record that could be found...” “presumably...” “it is believed that...” “may have been...” “does not appear to have been...” “it appears that...” “perhaps...” “The relevance...is therefore irrelevant(!)” “who knows the route...” “it appears..may have...relocated...” “unlikely to be the original position...” The author of the Historic Statement has attempted to cast doubt on historical facts. Facts which, thank goodness, the Bath Heritage Watchdog have been able to provide bases for in their letter of objection dated 13 November 2013. I wholeheartedly endorse the comments made by the Bath Heritage Watchdog in their letter of objection. There are many compelling reasons for maintaining the milestone in the location it has occupied for 200+ years, not least of which is that the milestone is a Grade II Listed Building (conveniently ignored in the Application), sited in a Conservation Area, which is in a World Heritage Site. Whilst on the subject of maintaining monuments in their historical locations, I strongly urge you to take into consideration the boundary stone which is embedded in the same wall as the milestone, some 1.75 metres away to the west. The boundary stone was picked-up on the 1885 survey carried out by Ordnance Survey and is shown on 1886 O.S. Mapping, designated B.S., adjacent to the M.S of the milestone. The boundary stone marks the historic boundary between the Parishes of Weston and Walcot. The Parish boundary is recorded on the “Plan of the Titheable Lands in the Parish of Walcot in the County of Somerset” dated 1841 and also on the “Map of the Parish of Weston in the County of Somerset” reduced and published by J.H. Cotterall (Land Surveyor), Bath, dated 1846. The boundary stone also marks the point where the “City, Parliamentary and Municipal Boundary (Bath) Boundary” turned through 90 degrees from a north-south direction to run east-west along the upper Bristol Road. I consider this boundary stone is of a similar historical significance and importance to the milestone and should be accorded similar protection from being tampered with; you cant juggle with historic boundaries to suit the convenience of developers. B&NES Planning & Transport Development Dept., Historic Environment Record Officer is aware of the boundary stone and an entry in B&NES HER is being created under SMR No: MBN 30453. Although the milestone is Grade II Listed it has not been entered in B&NES HER. This has now been rectified and an entry is being created under the SMR Number: MBN 30452. I would take issue with the “Historic Statement” where it states that a length of the retaining wall, which houses both the boundary and milestone, required removing to accommodate the development of Cork Place. It is clear from comparing the 1886 and the 1904 O.S., maps that the present Cork Place (Nos: 1-8)together with Cork Street was built in the intervening period (1886 – 1904). The eastern end of the terrace (No.8)was built to terminate at the return to the western end of the existing retaining wall, without disturbing the wall or the milestone. In terms of the 1 mile measurement of the milestone from the Guildhall, the Bath Heritage Watchdog have explained the accuracy with which the milestone was located and my own research gives credence to this. In his book “Bath Administerd - Corporation Affairs at the 18th Century Spa,” Trevor Fawcett describes how, from the mid 1700s onwards the Corporation began to strictly regulate weights and measures and to this end they invested in various accurate devices such as weighing scales,volumetric measures and linear measures. Among the devices acquired and in use at this time was a survey measuring wheel, to accurately determine distances between various key points in and about the City. Tables of measured distances were printed in Bath guidebooks and used to calculate sedan chair fares. The 1827 map of the roads administered by the Bath Turnpike Trust show that the roads radiated from Bath with the common focal point being the Guildhall. The map also indicates 1 mile intervals measured from the Guildhall along the various roads including what is now the Upper Bristol Road. It would be reasonable to assume that the milestone in question would have been associated with the turnpike system. I contend that there is sufficient evidence to establish that the milestone remains in its original location where it has been for 200+ years and its relocation is considered to be detrimental to the special architectural and historic interest and character of the listed asset and adjacent listed buildings. This is contrary to S16 and S72 of the Planning (Listed Buildings & Conservation Areas) Act 1990, Section 12 “Conserving & Enhancing the Historic Environment” of the NPPF and Local Plan Policy BH2 and BH6. On this basis alone the Application should be refused. The matter is compounded by the reason for the Application which is to facilitate the construction of an 8.5 metre wide private driveway from a housing development onto the Upper Bristol Road. I and many members of the local community consider that this proposed driveway is inappropriate in this location and will increase the risk of both pedestrian/vehicle and vehicle/vehicle collisions along the Upper Bristol Road. On the basis of the foregoing the Application should be judged to have no merit and rejected.
Posted on: Fri, 29 Nov 2013 19:54:22 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015