June – July 2013

17th June – 14th July 2013

Week 25–28

Week 25

13/02287/FUL – City Of Bath College, Avon Street, City Centre

Alterations to the roof of The Forge Building, including replacing existing rooflight windows with rainscreen panels and replacement of existing roofing material

COMMENT The Trust welcomes in principle the proposals to re-roof The Forge Building in the interests of thermal efficiency. However, we are concerned that more information on materials is not given within the application. For example, ‘eternit panels’ does not imply a colour and nowhere is this clarified.  The colour of the elements to be replaced will be crucial to minimising the impact of the proposals on the view from Corn Street. Due to the insufficiency of information provided, any permission given should be well conditioned in relation to materials.

13/02349/LBA & 13/02354/AR – 23 Milsom Street, City Centre, Bath

Display of 2no non-illuminated fascia signs, 2no externally-illuminated hanging signs, internally-illuminated logo signs fitted internally on runner bars to 6no windows and reverse applied vinyl text displayed on 6no windows to replace existing signage

OBJECT The Trust objects to illuminated signs on listed buildings and within the Conservation area and in the World Heritage Site. While the amount of illumination is, in itself, enough to be of detriment to the visual amenity of the area, the signs, by virtue of the materials, colour, scale and position are incongruous; particularly in such a sensitive setting.

To take each signage element in turn:

The hanging signs are new, therefore new attachments (described as rawl bolts) will be required, which would damage historic fabric. Powder coated aluminium with a bright fret cut titanium logo is unacceptable and goes against the grain of Bath. Furthermore, the signs are over a metre deep, and a metre wide, which is much larger than is conventional and will likely obscure the architecture of this important listed building. The proposed lighting strips for these hanging signs will also be almost a metre long and therefore the amount of illumination proposed is totally inappropriate.

The proposed individual letters for the name of the premises on the stone fascias are to be attached by drilling into the stone and filling with specialist adhesive; this would result in approximately 60 new drill holes, damage which again is completely unacceptable. The drawings provided depict the height of the lettering filling completely the height of the fascia which shows a complete lack of sensitivity to the continued architectural legibility of the building. These letters should be reduced to sit more comfortably in the space. Lastly, the colour of the letters, as proposed, is objectionable. In such a prominent heritage setting the use of gold is deemed unsympathetic and the Trust suggests that a bronze colour would be more suitable. However, as no examinable colour sample has been included in the proposals other than the golden colour depicted in the drawings this has been hard to accurately analyse and comment upon.

Finally, in relation to the window vinyls, no scale drawings of the proposed vinyls have been provided therefore it is impossible to fully assess this aspect of the application. The corporate logos proposed at the higher level, fitted on steel runner bars and screwed into the internal plasterwork, are both superfluous and wholly detrimental both physically and aesthetically and should be removed from proposals. This element of the proposals demonstrates an unsettling lack of appreciation and understanding by the applicant of the nature of operating within a listed building. A refusal of permission by the council would serve to illustrate that commercial bodies, as well as individuals, should regard their wants subservient to the listed buildings in their custodianship.

It has been shown that the excessive number of additions to the shop frontage will not only add to the visual clutter of the street scene, but it is also expected that the method of fixing would cause wholly unnecessary damage to the fabric of the building. The application therefore fails to comply with Local Plan Policies BH2, BH6, BH17 and BH19, the Planning (Listed Buildings & Conservation Areas) Act 1990 and Section 12 Conserving & Enhancing the Historic Environment of the NPPF and should be refused.

13/02350/LBA – Lloyds Tsb Bank Plc, 16 Lower Borough Walls, City Centre, Bath BA1 1QX

External alterations for the display of new signage

COMMENT The Trust recognises the amendments and alterations which have been made to the design scheme, which constitute a marked improvement and take account of our previous comments.

While we are pleased to see the progression of the scheme to one of non-illumination as well as the reduction in size of the ATM headers, and the timber hanging sign which will be hung from the existing bracket, we remain concerned about the number of fixings and materials proposed for the lettered signage.

Specifically, we regret the use of stainless steel built-up letters, which are considered to be harmful to the listed building, and to the wider context of the conservation area. Their installation would necessitate the drilling of holes into the fabric of the facade which constitutes an inappropriate level of intervention. However, the absence of scale drawings has made the actual method of fixing impossible to assess. We would prefer existing drill holes to be used as any further drilling into the Bath Stone frontage would cause irreversible harm to the stonework.

13/02256/FUL & 13/02257/LBA – 139 Church Road, Combe Down, Bath, Bath and North East Somerset, BA2 5JL

Erection of detached dwelling and garage.  Alterations to existing vehicular access onto Church Road to enable access to proposed dwelling.

OBJECT Whilst Bath Preservation Trust does not object in principle to a dwelling on the plot of Combe Lodge’s garden, we object to the size and intrusion of the proposed development. Any new building on this plot should be subservient to the listed building, not only in design, but also in size. The design as currently stands leaves Combe Lodge with no real useable garden or amenity space and therefore, compromises its future occupancy. Although we appreciate that the boundary of the garden was extended in recent history, the resulting impact on the curtailage of the listed building is unacceptable; Combe Lodge was one of the first houses of status in Combe Down and thus its setting should reflect this. Whilst we appreciate the applicants’ connections to the local area, this is not a planning consideration and should not be treated as such.

13/02334/LBA – 13 – 14 Royal Crescent, City Centre, Bath BA1 2LR

External alterations to remove the paint from the walls to the front lightwell areas to both properties and mortar repairs as necessary.

SUPPORT: The Trust supports the removal of paint from Bath stone, when done with full consideration of the impact and carried out sensitively. Poultice removal is generally the least damaging method, and the one proposed in the application has a very high lime content, which sounds reassuring. One cause for concern is the proposed use of a hot high pressure spray; a pressure spray is being used to clean chewing gum off the pennant paving in Bath, and is removing the mortar from the joints. The system is described as adjustable, so should be a fine nebulous spray. We would suggest that this aspect is conditioned to ensure that it is not used unnecessarily.

13/02390/FUL & 13/02391/LBA – Countess Of Huntingdon Church, Trafalgar Road, Upper Weston, Bath

Conversion and extension of disused listed church to form three dwellings

SUPPORT The Trust welcomes this application for an ingenious and thoughtful conversion, albeit packing a good deal of accommodation into the space. The detail of the application, especially the design and access statement is to be commended, which serves to illustrate a sincere desire to get this conversion of a listed building right. Virtually all the historic fabric is being preserved intact, and the character of the building will still be paramount. A suggestion of damp proofing, with no details is a slight cause for concern, however, the application states that the cause has not been fully investigated yet.

Week 26

13/02023/AR  – East , 2 Milsom Street, City Centre, Bath BA1 1DA

Display of 1 no. non illuminated projecting sign.

OBJECT On the whole we are in favour of hanging signs if done well and in appropriate materials such as hand painted wooden signage appropriate to the listed facades. However these works, by virtue of the inappropriate introduction of an overly large hanging sign without details of position or fixings; the use of inappropriate powder coated aluminium and acrylic materials; and a lack of information leaving doubt as to what precisely is proposed, is considered detrimental to this prominent listed building, adjacent listed buildings and the conservation area. This application is therefore contrary to Section 12 ‘Conserving & Enhancing the Historic Environment of the NPPF and Local Plan Policies BH2, BH6 and BH17 and should be refused.

13/00977/FUL Street Record, Kingsmead Square, City Centre, Bath, Bath And North East Somerset

Use of highway for the provision of an alfresco dining/cafe society zone in the centre of Kingsmead Square by creation of areas of outside seating and performance space.

COMMENT Bath Preservation Trust has no objection in principle to the improvement of Kingsmead Square however we hold some serious concerns over the current proposals.

The focus of these concerns is centred on the intention to commercialise Kingsmead Square, which has hitherto been public open space. The proposal only just stops short of turning the public realm into private space. Kingsmead Square is a vibrant and much needed informal amenity space in the centre of Bath, providing a free access meeting point at all times during the day for locals, visitors and the students of City of Bath College alike. Furthermore, the fruit and vegetable stall is well-used, and not all the surrounding businesses are catering outlets. We would welcome proposals for improved informal seating to give a greater sense of ‘destination’ rather than ‘passage’ as is the case at present, but believe the current proposals go too far.

Whilst we appreciate that the proposals outline a management philosophy for the square this does nothing but add to the perception that this ‘breathing space’ within the city will become private regulated space. Whilst the new street furniture is to be maintained by the owners and regulated by the council, this addition of outside seating without doubt adds clutter to the street scene and may have a detrimental impact on the listed buildings of Kingsmead Square. As proposed the intensity of the development is not sensitive to the context of its surroundings as the concentration of tables around the tree is uncomfortable and too regimented. It would be regrettable to lose the open aspect of the square, with its fringe of tables, which allows the life of the city to flow naturally rather than be confined by an artificial order.

13/00983/EFUL – Sainsburys Supermarkets Limited Green Park Station, Green Park Road, City Centre, Bath BA1 2DR

Hybrid application comprising of a mixed use development comprising (1) full details of the following phases: the erection of new foodstore (A1); 214no. residential units (C3); 4no. commercial units (A1, A2, A3, A4 or A5); external works and subdivision of existing foodstore for mixed commercial use (A1, and A3 or A4); reconfiguration of petrol filling station to include new kiosk, canopy and pumps; new pedestrian footbridge and associated works to Stanier Bridge. (2) Outline with some matters reserved: for the erection of 66no. residential units (C3); 8no. commercial units (A1, A2, A4, A4 or A5) and 2,169sqm creative office space (B1). (3) Outline with all matters reserved: for 10,630sqm general office space (B1). (4) Associated works including roads, footways and cycleways, car parks, public realm, landscaping and infrastructure works following the demolition of existing retail unit.

OBJECT We are currently reviewing the extensive application by Sainsbury’s supermarket Ltd. for the development of the Green Park site. In view of the size and potential impact of these proposals, we hope to be able to submit a more detailed response after the consultation date closes.

Our potential objections are likely to relate to, but not remain exclusive to the following issues:

The predominant use of a ‘replicated Bath Stone’ material:  The Trust strongly objects to the use of this material as it is highly inappropriate in appearance. We hold the position that no synthetic version of Bath Stone is capable of replicating Bath Stone. The example precedent of this cladding in drawing 3220-DPL-04-01 ‘Existing Store: Store Conversion Elevations’ illustrates a lack of understanding of the aesthetics of Bath Stone construction.

The height of the proposed buildings:  The height of the proposed creative office space is some 15m compares with the 13.1m height at the top of the canopy of Green Park Station. The impact of this creative office space on the listed building is unacceptable as it detrimentally affects the site lines to and from the station. The Green Park train shed is a significant building both historically and architecturally, and a landmark of character in this area of Bath.  All new building should respect its importance, and not only be subservient in height and massing, but pulled back far enough to allow clear views of the roof structure. The proposed surrounding buildings will dominate and obscure the Station, and fail to take advantage of its grandeur in the newly created street approach.

The new Sainsbury’s store is also deemed to be excessive in height, an issue which is exacerbated by the siting of the car park on the roof of the store. We firmly believe that this will be visible from prominent locations in and around Bath and therefore find this element strongly objectionable.

The proposed terrace of town houses facing Norfolk Buildings should take its height cue from the existing terrace, in order to relate to it in any meaningful way. Instead, as proposed, it sits a full storey higher and therefore, will dwarf  and dominate the original listed buildings.

Light spill: The Trust believes it likely that the proposed car park on top of the roof of the new store will also be detrimental to the sight lines in to the Green Park site after dark, as any luminance installed in the car park will only serve to highlight the building and spill light into the surrounding area. All river corridor sites are prominent from the views into the city and the idea of illuminated car parking as part of the view late into the night is highly problematic.

Store vehicle access: Though we feel this issue to be outside our area of expertise  as Bath Preservation Trust, it ought to be highlighted that the proposed vehicle entrance to the store on Pines Way appears inadequate and potentially dangerous. As it stands this one entrance will likely be highly congested at peak times with the entrance, not only serving those travelling to the site solely for petrol, but also those wishing to visit the supermarket who will also be competing with delivery vehicles and pedestrians alike.

Over-development: The Trust feels that the commercial ambition for this site has become too great to the detriment of the neighbouring areas, as illustrated by the negative impact of the height and massing on Green Park Station and Norfolk Buildings.

 13/02453/AR Premier Inn, 4 James Street West, City Centre, Bath

Display of 1no. internally illuminated individual lettering sign, 1no. non-illuminated fascia sign, 1no. externally illuminated menu sign (behind glazed window), 1no. externally illuminated projecting sign and 1no. externally illuminated suspended sign.

OBJECT Although Bath Preservation Trust appreciates that the hotel is a contemporary building, its position in the World Heritage site, conservation area and the setting of the Grade II listed former labour exchange and Kingsmead North are strong and material considerations when assessing these proposals.

The Trust objects to illuminated signs on buildings within the Conservation area and in the World Heritage Site. While the amount of illumination is, in itself, enough to be of detriment to the visual amenity of the area, the signs, by virtue of the materials, colour, amount and position are incongruous. Powder coated aluminium and acrylic materials are not sensitive or appropriate and neither conserve or enhance the visual amenity of the street scene as they oppose the traditional palette of Bath. The excessive number of additions to the hotel frontage is deemed unnecessary as the hotel forms a dominant building on a prominent corner on a main arterial route in the city centre, thus the commercial benefit of such signage is lessened by its beneficial position.

The application therefore fails to comply with Local Plan Policies BH2, BH6, BH17 and BH19, the Planning (Listed Buildings & Conservation Areas) Act 1990 and Section 12 Conserving & Enhancing the Historic Environment of the NPPF and should be refused.

13/02300/FUL – 36 Charlcombe Lane, Larkhall, Bath

Erection of a first floor extension over an existing ground floor extension at the rear of the property. Provision of one off-road parking space and bike storage.

COMMENT Whilst there is no concerns about the proposed extension to this property due to the minimal effect on street scene, the parking space which will require excavation of bank, necessitating retaining walls will likely be detrimental. As it stands, the proposal does not discuss the construction and appearance of these retaining walls, but local precedents demonstrate impact of unsympathetic materials on the street scene, and the superiority of rubble-stone or even recon bath stone blocks. Therefore, much more information is required on the street level elements such as the parking space, bike store and treatment of existing pedestrian steps and the neighbour’s boundary.

13/02396/AR – Bath Urban Area, Generic Urban Areas, Dummy Street

Display of non-illuminated six sheet poster and temporary low level horizontal banner advertising at: B&NES Council car parks (Avon Street, Charlotte Street, Kingsmead, Manvers Street and Sports Centre); Park and Ride sites (Newbridge, Lansdown and Odd Down); and city centre compactor litter bins.

OBJECT We appreciate that the Council wishes to increase its revenue earning capability from commercial advertising. However, Bath Preservation Trust regrets a number of elements of this application. To take each in turn:

Avon Street Car Park:

As a result of a pre-application meeting with B&NES, the Trust was expecting that within the proposals for Avon Street car park, the 96 sheet advert would be removed in order to improve the amenity of the Green Park Road,  for which the trade-off was the locating of new advert banners on the car park structure. However, the application shows clearly that this 96 sheet advert will remain in place, thus it will continue to obscure the landscaping of that section of Green park Road so the addition of further advertising only serves to increase street clutter and reduce visual amenity rather than replacing the regrettably sited, overly dominant billboard. For this reason we OBJECT to the proposals at Avon Street Car Park.

Park and Ride proposals:

We regret that the opportunity has not been taken to provide interpretation and promotion of the city for visitors to the arriving at the park and ride sites, instead providing space for commercial advertising. However, we do not hold any strong objection to the proposals on these sites as the intention to place them in areas which are obscured and away from the historic centre is to be welcomed.

Compactor Bins:

Whilst the Trust appreciates that this planning application is not concerned with the installation of the bins, we strongly object to the placement of advertising on the side of these incongruous structures. We are highly dubious of the value to the advertiser of promoting their business on the side of refuse receptacles and therefore, remain concerned that these bins will introduce downmarket advertising into the public realm. Whilst it is noted that the 14 bins in the most sensitive locations in Bath will not be used for advertising, this will have to be tightly conditioned and regulated to prevent ‘creep’ if planning permission is granted. Furthermore, the proposed hypothecation by the applicant with regards to the income from these adverts to enforce the removal of A-frames in the city centre is neither explicit nor in fact a planning consideration and should not be treated as such. The protection of the public realm from incongruous signage and advertising is not a matter of choice or play-off in a World Heritage city. For these reasons we OBJECT to the proposal to site commercial advertising on the cities compactor bins.

This proposal negates the principles of reducing street clutter in the city and seeks to further appropriate the public realm for commercial gain to the detriment of the setting of the city’s listed buildings, conservation area and the World Heritage Site. Therefore these proposals contravene Section 12 ‘Conserving and Enhancing the Historic Environment’ of the NPPF and local plan policies D.2, D.4, BH.1, BH.2, BH.6, BH.15, BH.17 and BH.18

13/02414/FUL & 13/02415/LBA – Mcdonalds Weston Lock Retail, Lower Bristol Road, Westmoreland, Bath BA2 1EP

General maintenance work to Avon House to include replace cracked stone parapets to gable end, replace cracked chimney flues, clean roof tiles, replace cracked window cill and lintel, new and replacement guttering, repair deteriorated render, reinstate loose lead flashing at gable parapets, replace missing lead to front porch, repair damaged columns to front porch.

COMMENT  Bath Preservation Trust supports broadly the applicant’s intention to carry out maintenance on what is currently a rather run down listed building – maintenance which should be part of their duty as occupant of the premises. However, we do have some concerns about the level of detail provided within the application. The design and access statement is inadequate, as is the historic statement; Bath stone and lime mortar are referred to for the parapet repairs, but there are no details of materials or methods for the other elements such as the material for the rainwater goods which should not be UPVC, there are no details given on how the lime-based render is to be repaired which follows for the chimney pots, cills and lintels and the columns to the front porch. More detail is needed to have an informed response to this application and as such these details should be clarified and strictly conditioned if the works are to be consented.

 Week 27

13/02574/FUL & 13/02575/CA  – The Johnsons Group Ltd, James Street West, City Centre, Bath

Erection of student accommodation (sui generis) comprising 183 student bedrooms in studio/cluster flats; together with 2 no. disabled parking spaces; 54 covered cycle spaces; 2no. covered refuse/recycling stores; covered plant rooms; vehicular access from James Street West; new hard/soft landscaping treatment, following demolition of existing industrial/office buildings

COMMENT Bath Preservation Trust welcomes the demolition of the existing incongruous industrial/office buildings which do nothing to enhance or preserve the historic environment. Furthermore, there is a very real need for a larger provision of managed student housing across the city so as to relieve the pressure on family housing, which in turn goes some way to relieve the pressure to develop on the green belt.

The proposed development is situated in a particularly sensitive area of the city as it sits adjacent to the listed Green Park Station, in the view of Norfolk Buildings and must give material consideration to the proposals to develop the Sainsbury’s Green park development site. In view of this we commend the design of this development, feeling that the site must draw a difficult compromise between where to pitch its design and commercial viability. It should be noted that some admirable design features have been incorporated to lessen the massing such as the set back fourth floor and fifth floor as well as the sloping corners and pitched roofs of the points of the East and West elevations which face James Street West.

Unfortunately, the development toes the line of acceptability under the Building Heights Strategy which states that the overall height should not exceed the overall prevailing height of nearby Georgian buildings. Therefore, we do not feel able to support this development.

13/02450/FUL  – 25 Crescent Lane, City Centre, Bath BA1 2LU

Erection of 7 no. apartments and retail/commercial unit (Use Class A3) following demolition of former petrol station. (Amendment to previously approved scheme 09/00957/FUL).

OBJECT Bath Preservation Trust has no objection in principle to the development of this site and looked to support this application. However, we are concerned at the lack of clarity within the application.

It would appear, despite the design an access statement making the case that the only amendment was the introduction of chimneys and a decrease in the number of apartments, some significant material changes have been made to the last scheme.

The most obvious of these changes is that the parapet wall has been replaced with a glass balcony which changes considerably the character of this elevation. Furthermore, the dormer windows that were situated behind the parapet wall have now become much larger sliding doors to provide access onto the balcony. This change is likely to cause light spill at night and disturb the visual amenity of the houses on the Royal Crescent which this elevation faces. The issues of light spill and the breach of the privacy of the North Elevations and gardens of the Royal Crescent will be further exacerbated should what appears to be an increase in height of the proposed development be given permission.

The issue of the new glazing to the roof, as postulated by other stakeholders, should be made clear before permission is given. Whilst we have found no evidence that this area of the roof is to be glazed; drawing ‘1738/BR L-13K Sections’, paragraph 12.01 clearly states that ‘The roof construction consists of lead ‘flat roof’ areas above slate mansards on timber rafter construction supported by a steel frame’ and gives no further detail to suggest glazed roof areas, we feel this confusion could have been avoided had the drawings been more explicit.

In conclusion, we regret that this development now does not have a coherent set of plans on which to make a well informed judgement for an important development, in a crucially sensitive location within the conservation area and World Heritage site of Bath. This application therefore fails to comply with Local Plan Policies D.2, D.4, BH.2 AND BH.6 and should be REFUSED

13/02478/FUL & 13/02480/LBA – Ground And First Floor, 9 Sion Hill Place, Lansdown, Bath

Erection of single storey orangery

COMMENT The rather ornate design bears no relationship to the very plain elevation with which it will be associated. However, there will be no significant visual interference with architectural features and the proposal is on a small scale. Therefore, the Trust’s main concern is the method and attachments used to unite the proposed orangery with the historic stone, which should be kept to a minimum; ideally, the structure should be free standing and therefore reversible. It would be helpful to have had this information contained within the application.

13/02557/FUL & 13/02558/CA – 33 Oldfield Road, Oldfield Park, Bath BA2 3ND

Erection of eight dwellings following demolition of existing office building

SUPPORT  The Trust is supportive of these proposals to restore provide more housing stock within the city limits, which will relieve pressure for development on the green belt. The existing office building is unsightly and under used whereas the applicant has taken their lead from the surrounding residential buildings to inform their design. This thoughtful, restrained and considered approach is to be commended

13/02491/LBA – Arch 5 Twerton Railway Viaduct, Lower Bristol Road, Westmoreland, Bath

Internal and external alterations for refurbishment and associated repair and maintenance works at Arches 5 and 6

COMMENT The Trust supports the removal of the unsightly accretions from outside the arched vault, including the canopy, as this will without doubt be of benefit. We regret that this renovation is not planned to go further, and address the problems of cement pointing, and drainage issues, although cleaning out the channels will obviously help. We would ask that the case officer and/or the applicant consider that the glazing should be set back from the profile of the arched openings so as there to provide a reveal with a shadow line to preserve the historic precedent of the openings.

Week 28

13/02648/FUL & 13/02649/LBA – Royal Crescent Hotel, 16 Royal Crescent, City Centre, Bath

Reinstatement of a conservatory structure to the rear of the Royal Crescent Hotel and replacement of two conservatory structures located in the garden area (known as 13 Crescent Lane).

COMMENT The Trust is does not object to these proposals to reinstate the conservatory structure to the rear of the Royal Crescent Hotel given the clear historical evidence of the existence of such a structure previously.  However, we do have some concerns about forming a pair of doors by the removal of two sash windows and the stonework below them, which in the absence of any real evidence in the application, we must assume to be part of the original building. As it stands this aspect of the application constitutes an unacceptable loss of historic fabric and plan. These concerns could have mitigated with a far more detailed historic appraisal of this area, which unfortunately this application is lacking.

We also commend the replacement of the two conservatory structures located in the garden area as they are an improvement on those existing, and follow a thoughtful, restrained and considered design approach.

13/02650/FUL – Longview, Granville Road, Lansdown, Bath,

Erection of five detached dwellings following demolition of existing dwelling

COMMENT In view of the extant permission Bath preservation Trust does not wish to make any further comments on this development.

13/02425/LBA – 87 Lower Bristol Road, Westmoreland, Bath BA2 3BQ

Internal and external alterations for restoration works to St James’ Lodge, St James’s Cemetery to include taking down and re-building of the lean-to extension and one of the chimneys, replacement of two rear windows, repair and/or replacement of the cast iron rw goods, cleaning of the elevations, general repairs to the stonework, ceilings and internal walls, introduction of insulation to the walls, ground floor and ceilings and general upgrade of the services to the property including electricity, gas, water and sanitation

COMMENT In principle the Trust believes that restoring this interesting building for a dwelling is an excellent concept, and the proposed methods and materials sound satisfactory. However, we regret that a more thorough historical appraisal into the evolution of this building has not been carried out, given the amount of repair work proposed. Alongside this, more detail would be useful, particularly with regard to specification for cleaning, and there must be some reservations about the new windows, which appear to be off-the-peg. However, they are timber, and the point about avoiding secondary glazing in the main room is a valid one. We would be pleased to see a traditional joiner employed to give a more authentic feel to the new windows. A watching brief, which appears to be in place, would seem to be a satisfactory precaution, but otherwise the proposals seem acceptable, including the re-build of the extension.

Designed by Ice House Design