TOPIC:

The planning application to demolish the so-called 'pillar' which divides the space between the little Victorian annex room with its own fireplace and the 'stage' area, is now pinned to a post outside the pub.

Everyone I have spoken to says that they will regret the loss of cosy intimacy that the demolition of this bit of wall will destroy, and all of the musicians who regularly play at The Bell have told me that they believe that the benefits of a slightly clearer sight-line between the dais and the customers (who turn into 'audience' for a few hours a week) will be hardly worth the £10,000+ that it is bound to cost when architect's fees, planning fees, structural engineer's reports, loss of income etc. is taken into consideration.

The management have saved a few quid on a proper historical survey that this sort of application requires, though, by persuading everyone to refer to the bit of wall as a 'pillar'.

Simon has also suggested that this 'pillar' is made from modern materials, and was built some time after the early Victorian extension was tacked onto the side of the original 1700 back wall to create a cosy little side room, plus a large room above. Well, I ask you to consider the following - nobody on the Board wants to consider it, but someone needs to before it is gone forever.

The 'pillar' is the 1700 back wall, and the two holes either side of it are the position of the back door on one side and a window on the other. I know that I have already said this, but can you imagine anyone knocking down 2.5 tons of rubble masonry, having to dispose of it and then bringing in 2.5 tons of concrete blocks which they then build in its place? Any builder which did that would soon be out of business.

Aside from a proper historical survey which isn't tainted by the sort of speculation mentioned above, do you really want to destroy that space with its own fire-place, rather than make a decent job of the toilets beforehand?

Thanks for your comments Bushy. There is a diversity of opinion on the pillar with many supporters of the change as well as those who would like to keep intimacy of the fire area. I personally am a fan of the latter. The drawings that were widely on show both in the pub and the members meetings were well received and overall there was support to amend the pillar from both members and regulars. The balance very definitely being to make the changes. I am sure you understand that we will never get universal agreement on improvements within the pub. The pillar amendment has now gone to the planners for consent. At this point we will then need to obtain quotes for the work. All of this will take time. Simon Emery is the premises lead and we have asked for clarification on the age of the pillar as there are differing views on how old it is. We do listen to everyones views and appreciate you comments and I will make sure they are included in the overall opinion seeking that we are planning on. thanks Clare

How old it is could be easily established before demolition, but will not be if the application is approved on the basis that it is relatively recent by taking unfounded and irrational speculation based on what suits the plans for 'improvement' as the truth. See Kirsten Elliot's educated comment made to BANES (below) and please remember that you are custodians, not entrepreneurs.

06/01/2016: While I do not want to make a strong objection, I do have some concerns about this application. Firstly, I consider the historic statement inadequate. It appears to be a précis of the entry in our book Bath Pubs with further information supplied by us later (about Peter Hooper). It fails to do the building justice. In our opinion, the building is clearly seventeenth century, almost certainly with - as the D&A statement confirms - a gabled roof which has been altered in the eighteenth century (as many were.) This is a very old building which was probably part of the village which clustered round the parish church of Walcot, and deserves a better report than this.
I wonder where the idea has come from that this ‘pier’ is not an original part of the wall. It is the same thickness as the remaining wall on each side. Has an investigation been carried out to verify this assumption? I consider it more likely that the narrow opening was a window than a doorway, dating from before the addition of the back room. This is why the wall is so thick – it was the back wall of the original building. The gap may have been converted to a doorway when that room was added, although it seems very close to the fireplace for a doorway. I think it is more likely the doorway was opposite the door in the front.
As someone who goes to events at the Bell, I can see why the committee members wish to open it up, although I thought the purpose of the community buy-out was to keep it as it was. Not being a shareholder, that is not my concern. Buildings must change as circumstances do, and listing should not be a stranglehold. But I do feel that replacing the section of the old wall – which is what I believe it to be, although I stand to be corrected – with a pillar does lose some of the historic grain of the fabric which has, remarkably, survived.
I think this point needs to be answered before rushing into removing what may be a vital part of the building’s structure.
Finally, I wonder too where the sound desk, which at present is fixed to this section of the wall, will go. Will moving it mean a loss of standing space in the main bar? Will there be a structural alteration or construction for it to stand on? There is no indication of this in the application.

P.S. The peculiarity of a doorway being so close to a fireplace is easily explained when you remember that the fireplace was built along with the extension in Victorian times, and the back door to the original, core building simply opened onto the yard outside. This yard was greatly built up with infill (possibly using demolished stables and other outhouses) probably at the same time, which is why there has to be steps leading from the existing back door to the garden area. If you look at the stone cheeks at the foot of these steps, you will see that they are single pieces of Bath stone which correspond precisely to the recorded dimensions of the low wall which ran along the street outside to protect passengers from being splashed with mud. I believe they were used for these cheeks when the wall was demolished.

The original yard would have been much larger and more level, otherwise there would have been quite a problem in changing horses etc. when it was used as a coaching inn.

P.P.S. Here's a suggestion on how to improve the place with the same sort of money as it would take to demolish that wall: How about converting the Fringe Office into a micro-brewery and moving the Fringe into the room which is/isn't being used as a meeting-room above the bar, because it is too noisy to rent out for any other purpose? Imagine that - The Bell's own beer! (Jamie thinks this is a 'stupid' idea and assures me that it will never happen).

FWIW, documentation can been found here:

isharemaps.bathnes.gov.uk/projects/bathn...chValue=15/05465/LBA

Jamie showed me a little sample of material which lies behind the ash plaster on the 'pillar' tonight, and it is represented in the above sketch. There is a patch of red brick showing there beneath the plaster, also bonded with ash mortar.

The plaster (about 4 square inches) was taken from the internal cheeks of one opening, whereas it should have been taken from the centre of the opposite (rear side) face.

Of course, you could not expect to form an opening in a rubble wall with sharp edges without trimming the missing blocks up with something like red bricks, so let's see a strip of plaster removed right across the back area. The above is a serving (hatch) suggestion.

You haven't won your £20 yet, Simon!

This will make you laugh... maybe.

I was having a wee in La Belle Gents a couple of days ago, and a well-known infrequent regular stood beside me, looking up and down as he relieved himself against the stained stainless.

"I can't believe they have spent £37,000 on doing this toilet up," he said.

"Niether can I", was all I could squeeze out.

Where do these ridiculous rumours spring from?