no_to_hartwells_revised_plans

Ref. No: 14/03977/OUT

Dear Sir,
I would like to submit the following observations in response to the proposals made by Oakhill Group Ltd. To develop the Hartwell Garage site on Newbridge Road, Bath for student accommodation.

The National Planning Policy Framework 2012 has 12 core principles and I do not believe that these proposals have taken proper account of those principles. For example:

The first one talks about “empowering local people to shape their surroundings” clearly, Oakhill have ignored that one.

The second one says “not simply be about scrutiny, but instead be a creative exercise in finding ways to enhance and improve the places in which people live their lives;” I see no evidence that Oakhill have considered this.

The third states that “proactively drive and support sustainable economic development to deliver the homes, business and industrial units, infrastructure and thriving local places that the country need.” Oakhill is, in effect, building a large dormitory the inhabitants of which will be transitory citizens with no stake in the local community.

The fifth expects proposals to “take account of the different roles and character of different areas, promoting the vitality of our main urban areas”; the said area is almost entire private single family housing. Putting high density accommodation blocks in this area is out of keeping with the character of the area.

I think these proposals should undergo thorough scrutiny in the light of the document mentioned.


Should they go ahead then the problems about parking will occur. The suggestion in the plan that students will not be allowed to have cars holds no water. How will this be guaranteed? The roads in the area are already choked with parked cars and even more vehicles will be of detriment to the local community. People with babies and young children won’t be able to park near their house. Old, people will not be able to park near their house.

The pattern of available parking will change and make life more difficult for the locals. At the moment, each morning and evening there is a time of about 90 minutes when residents drive off to work leaving spaces which are taken by those who drive in and who work locally. There is a reverse pattern in the evening. If these parking spaces are filled by students, who do not follow regular working hours, then again, local amenities have suffered.

This area is generally, a quiet residential area with the main road only really busy during the time people go to work; the rush hour in the morning and evening. 300 hundred students will bring more noise, more traffic, more litter and inevitably this noise and traffic will occur in the evenings and into the night. This will be of detriment to the quality of life for many and most noticeably to those in the immediate vicinity of the proposed development.

Lastly, a successful attempt has been made to make the buildings at the front of the development ie the ‘townhouses’ match the surrounding architecture. However, the rest of the development, ie the ‘mew’ and the 5 storey student block is a horrible, functional, and is not in keeping with either its partner buildings or those in the immediate area.

All in all, I think this development should not go ahead.