15th July – 11th August 2013
Week 29 – 32
13/02625/LBA & 13/02626/AR – The Huntsman Inn, 1 Terrace Walk, City Centre, Bath BA1 1LJ
External alterations for replacement of the existing external signage scheme.
Display of 1no externally-illuminated fascia sign, 1no non-illuminated fascia sign, 1no externally-illuminated hanging sign, 1no internally-illuminated brass menu case, 1no non-illuminated brass plaque and 1no internally-illuminated brass lantern to replace existing signage.
OBJECT Bath Preservation Trust strongly opposes the ‘hague blue’ colour proposed for the lower section of the building. It is visually jarring and obscures the fine architectural detail of the listed building at this level. The colour is highly inappropriate and at night it is likely to seem quite sinister and will deter people using North Parade Passage. We very much regret that the current scheme, which is a more low key and a discreet renovation, has not been retained.
The hanging sign to the North Parade Passage is considered detrimental to the street scene and in overly large as proposed. Furthermore, no information is given as to the materials to be used for this sign; an omission which this agent continues to make in their applications. This information should be clarified prior to any permission as use of modern materials and vinyl is not acceptable
The amount of illumination proposed is thought to be enough to devalue the visual amenity of the street scene. The Trust objects to illuminated signage in the conservation area and within the world heritage site and as such this scheme is deemed harmful to the historic setting of the listed building and its environs. The floodlighting to the upper levels of the front elevation is particularly aggressive; whilst the lower floor of the building is shrouded in a black skirt, the upper floors are lit so as to look like monolith rising from nowhere. We appreciate that there is some scope for a subtle and sensitive light scheme to highlight this facade but to floodlight it is excessive. The trough lighting on the objectionable hanging sign is unnecessary and the illumination in the menu box should be removed from the proposals.
Lastly, the new brass lantern, we feel, ought to be black in colour not brass and the family brewers plaque serves only to clutter the facade, is superfluous and causes undue harm in attachment to the historic fabric of the building. 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
In summary, the trust is disappointed that an opportunity to improve the street scene and the treatment of the exterior of this listed building has not been taken. By virtue of the aggressive illumination, the inappropriate colour scheme and the lack of information this application is contrary to Section 12 ‘Conserving and Enhancing the Historic Environment’ of the NPPF and Local Plan Policies BH2, BH6 and BH17 and should be REFUSED.
13/02628/LBA & 13/02630/AR – The Huntsman Inn, 1 Terrace Walk, City Centre, Bath BA1 1LJ
External alterations for redecoration to exterior and new external signage & Display of 1no non-illuminated fascia sign, 1no externally-illuminated hanging sign and sign written text to replace existing signage.
OBJECT Bath Preservation Trust strongly objects to this application on a number of the proposals, the most concerning of which is the intention to paint the currently unpainted ground floor ashlar stonework. We regret the lack of thought which this shows with regards to the custodianship of a listed building. The applicants are in fact very lucky that this section of the facade remains unpainted as this will mean any water ingress behind the paint on the upper floors can percolate out through the lower band of stone without causing excessive damage. However, once this is painted over there will be no way for moisture to escape the stone causing salts to build up which will eventually lead to the spalling and erosion of the facade. Furthermore, we would anticipate that this would likely cause issues of rising damp within the building. By way of the direct consequences of the painting of this section of stonework, this application constitutes an unacceptable level of harm to a listed building. We regret that an opportunity has not been taken to enhance this building by the removal of the paintwork from the building.
This element of the proposals aside, the Trust objects to illuminated signs on listed buildings, within the Conservation area and in the World Heritage Site, therefore, whilst we appreciate that the existing hanging sign is illuminated, we regret that an opportunity has not been taken to remove the illumination, and in doing so enhance the conservation area. The trough lighting is deemed unnecessary, especially given that a street light sits immediately above the position of the hanging sign. Aside from this element of the hanging sign, it is hard to comment further as no design is provided within the application, nor are the materials to be used stated. The sign should be constructed of timber and be traditionally sign-written. As we so often state, the use of modern materials is not appropriate upon a listed building, particularly in such a sensitive historic area. Lastly, the sign as proposed is overly large and should be reduced.
In summary, the trust is disappointed that an opportunity to improve the street scene and the treatment of the exterior of this listed building has not been taken. By virtue of the painting of the stonework, the illumination and the lack of information this application is are contrary to Section 12 ‘Conserving and Enhancing the Historic Environment’ of the NPPF and Local Plan Policies BH2, BH6 and BH17 and should be REFUSED.
13/02642/LBA & 13/02647/AR – Crystal Palace, 10 – 11 Abbey Green, City Centre, Bath BA1 1NW
External alterations to redecorate the exterior and replace external signage. Display of 1no externally-illuminated fascia sign, 1no non-illuminated fascia sign, 1no externally-illuminated hanging sign, 1no internally-illuminated brass framed menu case, 1no non-illuminated brass plaque, 1no non-illuminated corporate logo, and 2no internally-illuminated brass half lanterns to replace existing signage scheme.
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 here is, in itself, enough to be of detriment to the visual amenity of the area, the proposed signs, by virtue of the materials, colour, amount and position are also incongruous & harmful.
To take each element of the proposal in turn:
Whilst we appreciate that the existing hanging sign is illuminated, we regret that an opportunity has not been taken to remove the illumination, and in doing so enhance the conservation area. The trough lighting is deemed unnecessary, especially given that a street light sits immediately above the position of the hanging sign. Aside from this element of the hanging sign, it is hard to comment further on the sign as no design is provided within the application, nor are the materials to be used stated. The sign should be constructed of timber and be traditionally sign-written. As we so often state, the use of modern materials is not appropriate upon a listed building, particularly in such a sensitive historic area. Lastly, the sign as proposed is overly large and should be reduced.
We are opposed to the words of ‘The Crystal Palace’ traversing the building, and in doing so obscuring the fenestration of the front elevation of the listed building. We would suggest that the ‘THE’ be removed, so that the old arrangement, which sits more comfortably, could be retained. Again, no information as to materials or fixings [as intended] has been provided. Without contrary detail, it must be assumed that the method of fixing the new extended lettering is likely to cause damage to the stonework of the listed building.
The need for this box is appreciated, though the illumination should be kept to the minimum.
Family Brewers Plaque
This sign is superfluous and serves only to add visual clutter to the facade and to the street scene.
Signwritten Lettering to Gable End
Despite a long and still visible city-wide tradition of such painted signage, we do hold some concern over such a scheme in this location. We would suggest that the hanging sign would be enough to advertise this already well known pub to passing trade, and that if the LPA is minded to consent this element of the proposal, the impact of this element could be lessened by the simplifying of the ‘offer’ as well as through muting the colours as proposed, ensuring that the elaborate lamp bracket on the adjacent LB remains visible.
With a cartouche already proposed to adorn the hanging sign it is not understood why another is required to the front of the building. The hanging sign clearly displays the Brewery’s name; therefore, this element of the proposals is objectionable for adding clutter to the elevation and degrading the visual amenity of the street scene.
Given the amount of signage proposed, this addition into the streetscape would be a further visual (and physical) intrusion by this one business. That an A-board is deemed necessary displays the inefficiency of the proposed scheme. A-boards do nothing but add visual & physical clutter and reduce the visual amenity of the conservation area and world heritage site. Therefore, we object to this element of the proposals, which we note is included on the application form but omitted from the ‘visuals’.
These lanterns as proposed seem surplus to requirement considering the retained arc of single bulb illumination across the front of the elevation, and the existing street light on the building. These additions to the building will add further incongruous illumination in this area and therefore they are deemed unacceptable.
In conclusion, it has been shown that the excessive number of additions to this building’s frontage will add visual clutter of the street scene. We note that minimal to no information on materials and fixings has been provided within the application, so the full impact of these proposals cannot be determined. However, on the information provided, it is clear that this application 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.
13/02742/LBA – Ground & Basement, 2 Johnstone Street, Bathwick, Bath BA2 4DH
External works to front lightwell including replacement timber screen, removal of paint from stonework and associated works.
COMMENT Bath Preservation Trust welcomes the removal of paint from masonry in cases where it is causing historic stonework to degrade. We would hope that a test patch of the Peelaway system will be carried out to establish application times and results, prior to any large, visible areas being cleaned. We are pleased that an opportunity has been taken to better preserve this listed building, but would say that more detail is needed on the relationship of the frameless glazed door to the arch of the entrance steps, particularly the method of fixing, so as no unnecessary damage is permitted.
13/02710/FUL – 2 Devonshire Buildings, Bear Flat, Bath BA2 4SP
Installation of lean-to glazed roof to facilitate the conversion of internal courtyard into habitable space.
OBJECT The Trust feels that not enough grounds for the proposed works are given beyond a desire to extend living space, which is insufficient to outweigh the inevitable harm to the listed building. Although we appreciate that these works will not be visible from the street, these works constitute a significant loss of plan form and historic fabric. Since accommodation is adequate, there is no justification that the building is not viable without this extension of living space, and no other justification has been put forward. Furthermore, the inner courtyard appears to be an interesting feature which adds to the character of the building, and which may well appeal to future residents as an asset.
The works by virtue of their damaging the rationale and fabric of a listed building are inappropriate and therefore, contrevene Section 12 ‘Conserving and Enhancing the Historic Environment’ of the NPPF as well as Local Plan policies D.1, D.2, BH.1, BH.2, and BH.6.and should be REFUSED.
13/02769/FUL & 13/02770/LBA – 13 Vineyards, Walcot, Bath BA1 5NA
Internal and external alterations to facilitate the conversion of 2no. flats and 1no. maisonette to a single dwelling, including alterations and refurbishment.
COMMENT Bath Preservation Trust is generally supportive of these proposals and is pleased that some of the original layout will be reinstated by the proposed works. We do not think that sufficient justification has been provided for with the removal of the historic partition wall in the basement, although we welcome the intention to keep the original dresser unit. We are concerned about the removal of the chimney breast in the basement, both in terms of the loss of historic fabric and structurally. Lastly, we regret that seemingly the work has started on this listed building prior to determination.
13/02811/LBA – Crystal Palace, 10 – 11 Abbey Green, City Centre, Bath BA1 1NW
Internal alterations and works to rear elevation.
COMMENT With regard to the front elevation, where it is stated that only minor repairs are to take place, it would be good to have more detail on the restoration of elements of the stonework which are proposed.
13/02784/FUL – 4 Larkhall Place, Larkhall, Bath BA1 6SF
External works to include the construction of stone canopy to front elevation and associated works.
SUPPORT The Bath Preservation Trust supports the external alterations proposed. Removing the unsympathetic additions and alterations will greatly improve the character and appearance of the listed building. The removal of the front porch and balcony would be a considerable enhancement, and reinstating the traditional sash windows and stone mullions to the first floor following the removal of the modern casement window will improve the architectural interest of the listed building. We are particularly pleased to see proposals for sensitive repairs and cleaning to the exterior of the building. It is in the best interest of the listed building and the continued care and conservation of the stone by removing the paint from the masonry. Our only comment relates to the aluminium rainwater goods; while they are acceptable as a substitute for cast iron we would prefer them to be painted a dark colour to match the neighbouring fascias.
Beau Nash revised scheme. FAO Richard Stott, Case Officer.
Although this is definitely an improvement, the Trust still feels this scheme does not do enough to protect the fabric and setting of the listed building. Bath Preservation Trust is of the opinion that the hanging sign should be omitted altogether, since there is not one there at present, it will cause damage in attachment, and because of its height and inappropriate materials will detract from the character of the building and the street scene.
Furthermore, the fascia letters seem to be unchanged and are still crammed into the provided space. Without scale drawings showing the detailed relationship of this element of the proposals with the fascia, its impact cannot be successfully determined. The individual signage letters should be mounted on to a single back board to be attached to the building fascia, to reduce the amount of damage which would be caused by individually affixing each letter to the historic fabric.
13/02880/LBA – The Boater, 9 Argyle Street, Bathwick, Bath BA2 4BQ
Internal and external alterations to form new customer toilets, office and trade kitchen, and alterations to the front elevation.
COMMENT Bath Preservation Trust welcomes the proposed reinstatement of a central panel in the shop front which will give the appearance of double doors as it will improve the historic character of the building. However, whilst the lowering of the central panel window is an improvement, in the planning drawing it does not appear to line up with any of the other architectural features, whereas in the signage application, it appears as if it lines up with the main door panels, which is more appropriate. We will withhold comments on the proposed signage, in anticipation of our response to the dedicated advertising application. There do not seem to be any details for the proposed lantern, which we have objected to in the past.
Internally, the approach does not fully recognise the principles of heritage conservation, and it is to be hoped that the LPA will keep a watching brief on this works, and are not intimidated by the frequent references to the more drastic alterations allowed for in previous granted applications.
Lastly, etched glass to all the windows on the second floor does not sound acceptable; we regret this element of the proposals and ask that it be removed.
13/02816/AR – The Co-operative Unit A, Westpoint, Avon Street, City Centre, Bath BA1 1UN
Display of 2no externally-illuminated fascia signs and 1no non-illuminated projecting sign.
OBJECT The Trust maintains its objection to the use of illumination within the Conservation area and in the World Heritage Site of Bath. While the amount of illumination is, in itself, enough to be of detriment to the amenity value of the area, we also object to the projecting sign. The excessive number of additions to the shop frontage will also add to the visual clutter of the street scene. The application therefore fails to comply with Local Plan Policies, BH6 and BH17, the Planning (Listed Buildings & Conservation Areas) Act 1990 and Section 12 ‘Conserving & Enhancing the Historic Environment of the NPPF and should be refused.
13/02909/FUL – Hill House, Richmond Hill, Beacon Hill, Bath BA1 5QT
Erection of single storey four bedroom house following demolition of existing bungalow (Amendment to previously approved scheme 12/00204/FUL with demolition consent 11/03543/CA).
The Trust considered that the previously permitted proposal was not visually intrusive and did not have an adverse impact on its immediate surroundings or on wider views across Lansdown. We welcomed the plans to achieve high standards of energy efficiency. In our view, the revised design is if anything an improvement over its predecessor and we welcome the care which has been taken to ensure that the new building sits unobtrusively within its surroundings. As with the previous application, we consider that if permission is granted all permitted development rights should be removed so that the design will not be compromised at a later date by unsympathetic extensions and alterations.
13/02938/FUL & 13/02939/LBA – 16 Hatfield Buildings, Widcombe, Bath BA2 6AF
Erection of a new garden room in place of an existing rear courtyard.
OBJECT This proposal includes the removal of a window which appears to be original, although its historic significance is not assessed, and also the removal of the stone cill and wall below to form a doorway. The Trust objects to these proposals as they are not in keeping with conservation principles on the grounds of loss of plan and the irreversible loss of historic fabric. There is no reasonable justification for the alteration since there is already access into the space via an existing door, furthermore, this outdoor space may be valued by future generations. The proposed alterations which irrevocably compromise this listed building’s structure and character are unacceptable and are therefore contrary to Section 12 ‘Conserving and Enhancing the Historic Environment’ of the NPPF as well as Local Plan policies BH.2 and BH.3 and should be REFUSED.
13/02678/LBA – East, 2 Milsom Street, City Centre, Bath
External alteration to shop front for the display of 1no. non illuminated projecting sign
OBJECT The lack of intelligible information on the proposals leaves considerable doubt as to what is proposed. However it would appear that the works, by virtue of the introduction of an inappropriate hanging sign and the use of unsympathetic materials, would be detrimental to the historic interest of the listed building, the setting of adjacent listed buildings and the conservation area. This application therefore, fails to comply with Section 12 ‘Conserving & Enhancing the Historic Environment of the NPPF and Local Plan Policies BH.2, BH.6 and BH.17 and should be REFUSED
13/02983/AR & 13/02984/LBA – The Boater, 9 Argyle Street, Bathwick,
External alterations for replacement lanterns, and the display of 1no. non-illuminated fascia sign, 1no. non-illuminated hanging sign, 1no. non-illuminated hand written panel sign, 1no. non-illuminated hand written gate sign, 1no. internally illuminated menu case and 3no. Parasols
SUPPORT Bath Preservation supports this sensitive and well considered application to renew the signage of a much admired listed building. We are pleased at the care taken by the applicants in realising the importance of a sedate scheme in this historic location and thank them for bearing heed to our previous comments relating to previous signage proposals.
We are pleased that the hanging sign and shop front panels are to be traditionally sign written, and that the current amenity board and alarm box are to be removed as this will improve the appearance of the street scene. That an opportunity to improve and conserve the facade of this historic building has been taken should be commended.
13/03006/AR – Halifax Plc, 38 Southgate Street, Bath
Display of 3no. non illuminated fascia signs, 1no. non illuminated projecting sign and 2no.internally illuminated ATM collars2 no ATM Collars.
OBJECT Although the new signage replaces the existing, the Trust regrets that the applicant has not taken the opportunity to improve the standard of signage and reduce the impact of visual clutter on the street scene. Despite there being little illumination in the proposed alterations, the use of incongruous materials such as powder coated aluminium and Perspex is disappointing. These materials are not sensitive or appropriate and do not reflect the traditional palette of Bath. By virtue of the materials and excessive number of additions to the frontage, this scheme imposes too heavily on the street scene and therefore, negatively impacts visual amenity. As such it fails to comply with Local Plan Policies D2, D4, BH1, BH6 and BH17 and Section 12 ‘Conserving & Enhancing the Historic Environment’ of the NPPF and should be REFUSED.
13/03110/LBA – 3 Brunswick Place, City Centre, Bath BA1 2RQ
Internal and external works including repair and renovation of Georgian townhouse, maintaining current subdivision. Conversion of the sub basement into habitable space, removal of a non original lean to extension, addition of an external stair to the front lightwell, and reinstatement of original roof form with new central dormer window to the rear. Amended internal layouts and new services throughout.
COMMENT Bath Preservation Trust broadly supports the intention of the application to renovate this Georgian townhouse. In particular we commend the quality of the application and the assessment of the impact on proposals on the historic fabric of this listed building. The cleaning of the front elevation and removal of the cementicious mortar to the rubble stone rear elevation are to be commended, as if carried out carefully they will greatly improve the appearance and longevity of this stonework.
However, we do have some reservations over two elements of the proposals. In particular we are concerned about the loss of historic fabric in removing the historic partition creating the corridor to the garden. There is no justification for such a considerable destruction of historic fabric and plan form. Perhaps if only a section were to be removed to open up the space on this floor the proposal would be slightly less objectionable.
Lastly, there is a mention of tanking to the sub-basement in the related plan drawing. Vaults, basements and cellars constructed in porous Bath stone may over time suffer some degree of damp, but the severity of this very much depends on the external circumstances. Trying to achieve 21st Century living standards in an 18th Century below ground room is removed from conservation principles. This part of a building is best used for ancillary facilities or storage space to serve the habitable areas of the house, as originally intended. Unfortunately, as there in little information provided in the application relating to the specifics of this tanking system we must hold reservations on this proposal. The Trust does not support methods such as chemical injection or cementitious tanking. These impermeable materials do not allow the permeable traditional building fabric to breath or moisture to pass through; thus, moisture is displaced or trapped and frequently this can lead to problems elsewhere (especially if tanking is applied externally). In addition, these approaches have a short life span and are known to fail over the passage of time.
13/02942/FUL – Building Adjacent To 25 James Street West, City Centre, Bath
Erection of a three-storey terraced house to provide five three bed flats with internal garages demolition of four existing vacant workshop buildings at 26-28A James Street West
COMMENT Although the current description of the application proposals is misleading as the building reads as a terrace of small houses rather than a single house, Bath Preservation Trust is broadly supportive of these proposals. We are pleased to see a scheme of works to remove the current unsightly accretion or poor quality buildings on this site as this will no doubt improve the appearance of the conservation area and world heritage site.
However, we do hold some concern over elements of the proposals. Whilst we understand the justification of the developers for using the same footprint as is currently occupied by the buildings on the site to bring forward the front of Unit 5 and a portion of Unit 4 to the pavement, we believe this to be problematic. The fact that the corner of the block directly abuts the pavement means long views down the street will be obscured. We believe the scheme would be more successful and less intrusive if the frontage of the block was set back and parallel to the pavement along its entirety. Alongside this we also query the appropriateness of the low stone dividing walls to the front elevation.
Lastly, we would ask that the materials to be used are secured prior to permission rather than clarified by way of condition. We must emphasise the importance of language used surrounding materials and ask that natural Bath ashlar and slate are to be used.
13/02952/FUL – Green Park House Unoccupied, Green Park Road, City Centre, Bath
Construction of a 190-bed hotel incorporating coffee shop, restaurant and associated facilities and works together with a temporary urban garden following demolition of Green Park House
COMMENT Bath Preservation Trust notes that these proposals are presented as a re-submission. However, we are concerned that no mention of the scheme to regenerate the Bath Quays Waterside area has been made. How this development interact with this project will be crucial and if Green Park Road is to be closed or re-aligned, which we believe to be under investigation, this may require reconsideration of elements of these proposals.
If no material change has been made to the details of the application, in particular with regard to layout, orientation, form, height and scale, our comments stand as per our response to the original application.
13/02482/FUL – 9 Freeview Road, Twerton, Bath
Subdivision of existing property to form 2no. Dwellings
OBJECT Bath Preservation Trust objects to this application on the grounds that no real justification is given for dividing this sizable family home into two much smaller dwellings. No evidence is provided to show that this home with a large garden is unsalable or unattractive to people wishing to rent. Whilst we appreciate that an Empty Homes officer has approved this development, we do not see why, without evidence, public money should be used to facilitate a poor application with inadequate information and drawings. No floor plan as existing for the first floor is provided so no real assessment of the proposals internally can be made. Furthermore, the alteration of the front window into an entrance door will degrade the balance of the house frontage, as well as the balance of a potentially pleasant group of houses behind green open space. For these reasons this planning application is contrary to Local Plan policies D.2, D.4 and HG.12 and should be REFUSED.
13/03017/LBA – 10 Clarence Street, Walcot, Bath BA1 5NS
External alterations to move drainpipe from one side of the front door to the other
COMMENT Bath Preservation Trust welcomes the good intention of the applicant to relocate the drainpipe on the facade of this listed building to enhance its facade. This a small piece of work which will do much to improve the appearance of this listed building which is in line with good conservation principles. However, we would ask that a scale drawing of the building be provided showing the existing and proposed position of the drain pipe. Alongside this the material should be specified prior to consent, and we would ask that the material be cast iron, and that under no circumstances should a plastic replacement be considered.
13/03034/FUL & 13/03035/LBA – Caroline House, 2 Long Acre, London Road, Walcot Bath, Bath And North East Somerset
Internal and external alterations for the refurbishment of the existing 17 flats, insertion ofadditional flats at ground and third floor level and insertion of kiosk at ground floor level (Useclass A1/A2) and associated works
SUPPORT Bath Preservation Trust strongly supports this application. The London Road is very much a gateway to Bath and is in need of regeneration in certain areas. Indeed the Trust has carried out a piece of work on the regeneration of London Road and as such we are pleased to see this renovation of this vacant building come forward. This will go a long way to enhance the appearance of this stretch of the road and in doing so much improve the conservation area and world heritage site of Bath.
13/03036/FUL & 13/03037/LBA – 3 Long Acre, London Road, Walcot, Bath, Bath And North East Somerset
Change of use of 3 and 4 Long acre from community use (Use Class D1) and Shop (use class A1) to 8 flats (Use Class C3) and associated works
SUPPORT Bath Preservation Trust strongly supports this application. The London Road is very much a gateway to Bath and is in need of regeneration in certain areas. Indeed the Trust has carried out a piece of work on the regeneration of London Road and as such we are pleased to see this renovation of an unloved and dilapidated pair of buildings come forward. This will go a long way to enhance the appearance of this stretch of the road and in doing so much improve the conservation area and world heritage site of Bath.
The design is considered and restrained and avoids the pastiche. We are pleased to see the design has incorporated a visual reminder of Number 4’s former use as a shop in the proposals for the stonework on the front elevation, as this is an important aspect of the history of the building and of the area. We have noted the noise concerns raised by the Environmental Health Officer, but believe this to be an issue which would nullify all future residential use along the London Road. A simple solution to further protect future inhabitants would be to install shutters into the window boxes of the building as this will go some way to cheaply and sustainably reduce the impact of traffic noise on the building.
We would question the use of the TORC stone cleaning method on the painted areas of stonework as this may constitute an over treatment and suggest that the Peel Away system may be more appropriate. We would ask that a test sample is carried out in order to determine the best method.
We commend the applicant for taking on the challenge of restoring a listed building in an advanced state of degradation, and for the sensitive approach to preserving historic fabric, adapting it to improve the thermal efficiency and bringing it in line with sustainable energy principles.
Designed by Ice House Design