Plans for three holiday lets near railway arches in Bath hit the buffers

Plans to build three holiday lets on derelict land near the railway arches at Lyncombe in Bath have been refused.

The site behind 48 Wells Road and to the rear of Oak Street has been disused for many years and is subject to fly-tipping.

The planning application that was submitted to Bath & North East Somerset Council said the development, to be known as Oak Street Arboretum, would be accessed from the public footpath that runs from Wells Road to Oak Street. A timber walkway from the footpath into the site was also proposed.

The plans showed the units would be in one building on columns sharing a communal space facing the arches, and the application said there would be no overlooking of any neighbouring properties.

The proposal for the building showed facing bricks to match the railway arches, set onto a timber frame.

Of the 19 trees on site, five would be removed with new trees proposed at the boundary with the rear of Oak Street and a mix of evergreen and wildflower meadow planting.

The application said the arches would act as a buffer so the site could not be viewed from the city centre and only really be seen from the footpath at the rear.

Widcombe & Lyncombe councillor Alison Born objected to the plans, saying she’d discussed the application with fellow ward councillor Stuart Bridge and the chair and planning lead on the Widcombe Association.

Councillor Born said: “While we recognise that having a derelict piece of land in this location creates some challenges, we are not convinced that the proposed development of three holiday lets is the right solution for this site.

“We note that the building would be immediately adjacent to and below the railway line which is likely to be very noisy and would be unlikely to provide high-quality accommodation.

“We are also concerned that this development could limit the potential of the railway arches to support light industry. We note that the development of the Premier Inn on the other side of the viaduct may create opportunities for such businesses and would want to avoid action that would limit that potential.”

Councillor Born also highlighted the “complexity” of access to the site and the opposition of local residents to the proposals.

B&NES Council planners gave four reasons for refusing the scheme.

They said the loss of trees and the design, siting, scale, massing and materials failed to maintain the character and appearance of the surrounding area, as well as “less than substantial harm” to the significance of this part of Bath Conservation Area which is not outweighed by public benefits.