Min decision could risk Unesco status
On July 28 Bath and North East Somerset Council’s planning committee passed the revised application for the Royal Mineral Water Hospital in Bath. Throughout the process there was little real scrutiny and rather a focus on holding members of the public to account who dared object to the rubberstamping of a development that flies in the face of the council’s own policies.
We will now have yet another luxury hotel – despite the council saying there is no need for them.
We will lose an important green space in the heart of the citydespite the council declaring a climate emergency.
We will hand over an important historical building to the whims of private profit – it isn’t the planning committee’s job to “regulate the market” apparently.
We will sacrifice the needs of local residents to the wants of multinational corporations – the impact on vulnerable neighbours barely got a look-in during the council’s deliberations.
As usual with politicians, they say one thing and do another.
We at Bath Campaigns fought long and hard against this inappropriate development whereas the council sees harm as necessary despite the legal duty to “do no harm”. When asked whether the development was illegal, the response was “no”, with a laugh and yet strangely the planning committee has always refused to engage
with any of the legal arguments we raised, always keeping to other areas. Ordinary campaigners are clearly considered an irritant to swat away.
We firmly believe that this development not only goes against the council’s own policies, but is wrong in law. However, to contest this requires a judicial review. And, as always, justice is only available to the rich. We have taken advice that a challenge is potentially winnable, but with court costs likely running to at least £20,000 (and being liable for the developer’s costs if we lose) this is not something we are able to pursue, whereas the developer has unlimited funds to counter any court action. We will continue to build on this campaign and demand that the council serves the wider interests of residents – there is certainly no shortage of issues to argue against.
Furthermore, we shall have to see how this planning decision affects the city in the future – it may have serious consequences. Liverpool has just lost its Unesco World Heritage designation due to a “serious deterioration” of the historic site; will this happen to Bath too, as the council, the precedent having been set, passes more unsuitable developments? After all, it’s not the planning committee’s job to “regulate the market”. Anyone might wonder exactly what it’s job is, then?
Film director Ken Loach has said in a statement: “In the controversy over the future of the Royal Min, it is reported that Bath’s planning chief, Sue Craig, ‘hits out at bullies.’ But she picks the wrong people.
The bullies are not those trying to protect the historic city centre from another eyesore. Nor those worried about more traffic and pollution. Or those angered by disregard for laws designed to protect listed buildings like the Min.
“And certainly not the defenceless residents, who see the small green space outside their windows under threat. Helen Wilmot movingly described it in her letter in last week’s Chronicle: garden birds, mature trees, a peaceful haven, to be wrecked for a towering modern block that will leave them in darkness.
“Doesn’t sound like a bully to me, Ms Craig. But the councillors and planners who sanction this destruction do. And so do the ruthless profiteers, the Fragrance Group, whose only interest in our city is how much money they can extract from it.
“We desperately need councillors who are not mesmerised by wealthy developers, but who recognise that the special quality of this city is the unity of its buildings. More and more modern additions destroy that. Liverpool has lost its Unesco World Heritage Site for this same reason. Decisions like the one at the Min take Bath down the same dangerous path. Think again!”
Bath Campaigns by email