Provision of access road, parking and drop-off area including new permissive pedestrian and cycle route and landscaping on land off Church Lane (Resubmission)
OBJECT The application site is located within the Green Belt, the Cotswold Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty, and landscape setting of the City of Bath World Heritage site which is of Outstanding Universal Value. The Trust retains its position in objection to this application for access and parking, which would be inappropriate development in the green belt that would harm the character of the open countryside.
There is a presumption that permission for development in the green belt would not be given except in very special circumstances. We do not consider that the application effectively or clearly demonstrates ‘very special circumstances, as required by the NPPF and the B&NES Local Plan, nor has the case been adequately made for any overriding public benefit as to outweigh harm. Other less prominent locations may exist and arrival at any ‘only solution’ should be fully supported by evidence.
The proposed car park and associated access route is in a prominent position and would introduce inappropriate hard landscaping materials and lighting. In our view the development would be visually detrimental and have an adverse impact on the rural character and openness of the green belt. The development would neither preserve of enhance the natural beauty of the AONB, and harm the landscape setting of the World Heritage Site.
The Trust therefore objects to this application. The development would be inappropriate and contrary to the NPPF, specifically p7, p8, p14, p17, p79, 80, 87, 88, 115, 116, 125, 126, 131, and 137. It would fail to comply with PPG2 and Local Plan Polices D2, D4, BH1, NE2, GB1 and GB2 and should therefore be refused.
12/00249/LBA – Flat 3, 12 The Circus, City Centre, Bath
Internal alterations for the installation of a new electric boiler with an unvented mains pressure water cylinder and separately controlled electric under floor heating
COMMENT The Trust takes no particular view over whether a gas or electric heating system would be best based upon their ‘green’ credentials, but would take preference for whichever system could demonstrably have the least impact upon the historic fabric, character and architectural significance of this important historic building. Regrettably, however, this application provides too little information about what is proposed to make a proper assessment of the impact. While a suspended ‘dark wood composite / laminate’ floor is suggested, there is no detail about the depth and profile of such a floor and how it will be fixed, or the impact upon interior features, such as skirting boards and fireplaces. The plan provided gives a general indication of where the heating pads will be located and their general size, but seem more an approximation than anything specific. There is also a lack of information about method of installation.
We recommend that the applicant is required to submit additional information in support of this proposal.
12/00506/AR – 3 Milsom Place, City Centre
Display of 1 no. internal illuminated window signage, 1 no. internal non-illuminated window signage and 1no. pin mounted signage with downlights.
OBJECT The Trust will continue to object to illuminated advertising in the conservation area and the World Heritage Site, in our view there is no justification for the illumination of lettering at this sensitive location in the City. Many of the proposed materials, which include acrylic, stainless steel, chrome, are also undesirable and incongruous to the vernacular of Bath, and the character of this listed building.
The proposed ‘totem’ sign, which we presume is to function as a menu-box, is considered to be an unnecessary addition. It will only serve to clutter the public realm at this location, particularly if potential patrons gather around the box, obstructing and blocking pedestrian passage at this point. If a menu-box is demonstrably essential then an alternative location ought to be proposed, preferably one where readers would stand in Carluccio’s area and not in a public route. The pin-mounted and suspended signs will also be an intrusive and brash addition to this listed building, and we suggest that sign-written lettering on the glass would be less invasive and more traditional.
This signage, by virtue of its illumination, materials and quantity will be intrusive and harmful to the special character and appearance of this listed building and this sensitive location in the public realm. This application is contrary to policies BH1, BH2, BH6 and BH17 of the B&NES Local Plan, the NPPF and the Planning (Listed Buildings & Conservation Areas) Act 1990 and should be refused.
12/00775/LBA – Flat 1, 14 Westgate Buildings, City Centre, Bath
Internal and external alterations for the replacement of the current gas central heating system to include the provision of valiant boiler, controls and flue and replacement of the current heaters with new slim line radiators.
COMMENT The Trust is supportive in principle of measures to improve the energy efficiency of historic buildings. This application however fails to demonstrate whether alternative options have been explored in the process of arriving at this solution. Though the Design and Access statement suggests that the applicant has considered the impact the proposed flue will have upon the appearance and significance of this listed building, this is not articulated sufficiently, and neither does it justify the benefit to outweigh any harm. An options appraisal would be helpful. However, we recognise and support the applicant’s suggestion that the flue be finished in the same colour as the stone work and will use lime mortar, and further suggest that the flue itself is of a muted colour of black or dark grey. This building is located in a significant and sensitive part of the City and reflects the Outstanding Universal Values of the World Heritage Site. When considering the position of a boiler flue in sensitive historic areas the vertical discharge through existing stacks is the least intrusive option. If the air brick is redundant then this should be repaired with a Bath stone infill.
12/00724/LBA – Jews’ Burial Ground, Greendown Place, Combe Down, Bath
Repair and restoration of the Bath Jewish Burial Ground, Prayer House and tombs.
COMMENT The Trust broadly considers this to be a sensitive and comprehensive application which will help to reveal the historic significance of this burial ground. With regard to the , proposed new window we would suggest that the applicant gives consideration to either draught-proofing the new sash window or installing slim-profile timber double glazing in the new window, rather than the proposed single glazing. We recognise that as a non-domestic building that is unlikely to be in regular use, and as such there is a less pressing need for energy efficiency, though if the proposed electric heater will be in regular and prolonged use, this will improve the energy efficiency of this building without compromising its special historical and architectural character.
12/00356/REM – Theatre Royal, Sawclose, City Centre, Bath
Removal of condition 1 of application 09/00463/FUL to allow open ended permission (Change of use of the public highway for the siting of 4 tables and 20 chairs outside the Egg Theatre, Theatre Royal Bath)
OBJECT The Trust commented upon application 09/00463/FUL to say that any permission for siting of tables and chairs at this location should be conditioned as a temporary permission. As such, we object to this application which seeks to repeal this condition and allow indefinite permission for the siting of outdoor seating in the public realm. Whilst the Bath Preservation Trust supports outdoor seating in the city centre in principle, and believes that the appropriate provision has the potential to enhance the vitality of the city, the provision of outdoor seating should not compromise the quiet ambience, residential amenity, and enjoyment of the World Heritage site, nor harm the visual amenity value of the townscape or the character or appearance of the Conservation Area, nor detract from the setting of listed buildings.
The condition for temporary consent provides the LPA with the opportunity to monitor and review the permission and the impact that it may have on the character of the area. This is necessary in order to prevent any adverse change in the nature of the outdoor seating (and its impact), as could be dictated by any change in the occupancy of the premises. This application must be refused to maintain this permission as temporary.
Permanent seating risks harm to the character of the Conservation Area and World Heritage Site. This proposal is therefore contrary to policies BH1, BH2, BH6 and BH17 of the B&NES Local Plan, the NPPF and the Planning (Listed Buildings & Conservation Areas) Act 1990 and should be refused.
12/00558/FUL – Bowling Green and Tennis Courts, Royal Avenue, City Centre
Erection of temporary ice rink 23rd November – 7th January for five consecutive years 2012/3 – 2017/8.
12/00637/FUL – Land at Rear of 79 London Road West, Bailbrook Lane, Lower Swainswick
Erection of four detached dwellings
OBJECT The Trust recognises the urgent need for housing within the City, and also the critical role that windfall sites provide in meeting that need. As such, we do not object to the principle of development for housing at this location, which with an appropriate quantity and style of development would not unduly compromise the landscape at this location. However, we remain unconvinced that this application proposes a form of development that is either appropriate for the area or meeting the housing need of the City.
Looking at the grain of development around this site, it is characterised by detached housing set in large plots and gardens, which mostly respond to the highway. The proposed development of this site places four large villas in close proximity and with a single shared entrance, creating a sense of ‘cramming’ at this location, without achieving a particularly high density of development which would benefit the City. The Trust suggests that either a reduction in the size of the dwellings, or a reduction in the number of dwellings, would allow a more comfortable arrangement and relationship with the existing urban fabric.
We are also underwhelmed by the proposed architecture of these dwellings, which claims to amalgamate a number of period styles within Bath. This is not reflected in the result. which is incongruous and alien to its context. The Trust would not object to a more subtle contemporary approach. This application is contrary to policies D2 and D4 of the B&NES Local Plan and should therefore be refused.
12/00721/LBA & 12/00720/FUL – 15 Lansdown Place, East Lansdown, Bath
Internal and external alterations including the erection of a single storey rear extension and replacing all the front elevation windows with multi-pane sashes.
COMMENT The Trust commends the principle of restoring glazing bars to this property. However, we do not feel that the 6-over-6 glazing pattern proposed in this application is necessarily appropriate for the windows on the first-floor primary facade of this building. It is clear that the cills of these windows have been lowered since the building was originally built, and as such using a 6-over-6 pattern would be distorted and uncharacteristic. Use of a 6-over-9 glazing arrangement would maintain traditional proportions which would be more sympathetic to the character of this listed building.
The proposed windows are to be single glazed. While we consider this entirely appropriate from a conservation perspective, we would like the applicant to consider the installation of slim-profile double glazing as an alternative which in the Trust’s view would help to enhance the energy efficiency of this building without harming the aesthetic and historical significance of the building.
12/00887/FUL – Rose Cottage, Pipehouse, Freshford, Bath
Provision of 1no. dormer window, 2no. velux windows and erection of link to outbuildings.
OBJECT The Trust recognises the amendments and alterations which have been made to the design scheme, which constitute a marked improvement. However, we remain unenthusiastic about the appearance of the stair tower and the impact upon this building, and our concerns relate primarily to design elements which we have previously objected to.
The reduced scale and more sympathetic massing of the stair-tower is certainly an improvement. We recognise that there is evidence for a stair-tower having previously existed, yet in spite of these revised designs the tower, as designed, remains a large and incongruous element. We are unsure that the contemporary design solution is appropriate to this building, with the glazing of the gable-end appearing excessive and uncharacteristic in contrast. We would encourage a more modest approach that harmonises with the shape of the original stair-tower. This could be a conical cap, though bridging to the roof would be a further design challenge. We are still concerned that the amount of glass proposed at this level would be visually intrusive into views, and may have a harmful effect on the visual amenity of the Green Belt, with potential issues surrounding light pollution resulting from the quantity of glazing proposed. We do not wish to comment upon the remainder of the proposed alterations which are considered to be uncontentious.
We welcome the applicant’s decision to remove the dormer from the south roof-pitch. While the Trust considered the revised design proposed in the last application to be more sympathetic, we prefer the decision to keep this pitch as uninterrupted and retain the symmetry of the primary facade.
The Trust on balance welcomes the amendments, though continues to object to the proposed rear roof extension which would have a detrimental impact on the character and significance of the listed building and would be contrary to policies D2, D4, BH1, BH2 and BH6 of the B&NES Local Plan, and paragraphs 125, 132, 133, 134 of the NPPF.
12/00843/FUL – 2 Greenway Lane, Lyncombe, Bath
Renovation and extension to existing building within the grounds to form a two bedroom residential unit with living accommodation and 2no. car spaces
OBJECT This application is fundamentally flawed since it posits the existing structure as having been a dwelling. This has not been the case since it was previously used as an outbuilding for the residents at number two. The Trust considered that the original proposal for 5 dwellings at this location constituted an over-development of the site that would neither preserve nor enhance the character and appearance of the conservation area and detract from the special qualities of the landscape setting to the World Heritage site. The addition of a further dwelling on top of this will only exacerbate the issue. This application also poses a threat to theSNCI, since the Wildlife Protection and Enhancement Scheme required by conditions 15-17 of application 10/03082/FUL is likely to be compromised by this additional dwelling.
We also do not consider that cedar cladding is a sympathetic choice of material given its incongruous appearance. If timber cladding is to be used it should be from an indigenous species, such as oak, and should be left to weather naturally.
The proposals contained in the three applications, would detract from the character and local distinctiveness of this part of the Conservation Area. This application is contrary to policies D2, D4, NE4, NE9, BH5 and BH6 of the B&NES Local Plan and paragraph 118 of the NPPF and should therefore be refused.
12/00652/LBA & 12/00651/AR – Red Lion 468, Wellsway, Bath
External alterations for the display of 1no. sign of individual built up letters, 2no. globe lanterns, 1no. post sign and 3no. car park signs.
OBJECT The Trust will continue to object to illuminated advertising and signage in the Conservation Area and World Heritage Site, especially when proposed upon historic listed buildings. The proposed halo illuminated lettering will be incongruous and ultimately unnecessary, causing harm to the special character of this building. We are also disappointed by the selection of materials, which include vinyl graphics, ‘brushed silver effect’ d-bond, aluminium and acrylic. These are inappropriate for a building of this age and character, and the cumulative use of these materials across seven signs will present significant harm to the character of this building. We urge the applicant to use more traditional materials and means of advertising, such as sign-written lettering, and materials which better reflect the local vernacular and the significance of this building.
The proposed signage, by virtue of its design, materials and proposed illumination will be harmful to the special character of this listed building and will neither preserve nor enhance the conservation area. This application is contrary to policies D2, D4, BH1, BH2, BH6 and BH17 of the B&NES Local Plan, paragraphs 132 and 134 of the NPPF and the Planning (Listed Buildings & Conservation Areas) Act 1990 and should be refused.
12/00615/FUL – Woodlands Cottage, Bennett’s Lane, Walcot, Bath
Use of strip of land adjacent to Woodlands Cottage for the parking of 2no. cars.
OBJECT The strip of land which this application seeks to use for parking currently forms quite an attractive verge to this quiet road. It’s green and slightly unkempt nature brings a distinctive character to this lane. Excavation of the site would transform the appearance of the street-scene at this location, giving it a harder and more urban appearance which will degrade the special character of the conservation area at this location. Furthermore, the proposal to erect bollards and chains to prevent unauthorised parking will create an ugly and utilitarian look to the parking space, as wells as interrupting the public realm.
Should the local authority be minded to approve this application, it should be conditioned that the stone retaining wall is built in natural Bath stone. We are doubtful that this will provide any meaningful parking relief at this location, and object to the detriment it will have to this attractive street-scene. These proposals will neither propose nor enhance the character of the conservation area at this location and are contrary to policies D2, D2 and BH6 of the B&NES Local Plan, paragraphs 137, 138, of the NPPF and the Planning (Listed Buildings & Conservation Areas) Act 1990 and should therefore be refused.
12/00917/FUL – 29 Upper Oldfield Park, Oldfield Park, Bath
Erection of a single storey granny annex following demolition of existing garage.
COMMENT While the Trust does not object to the principle of this development, we do urge the applicant to provide firmer details about the materials which are proposed for this development, which are currently somewhat vague. Specifically, we would like to see more specific information about the type of stone proposed, the roofing material and the type of timber proposed for the ‘faux’ garage doors. This information ought to be submitted and consulted on, rather than dealt with by Condition. We would also suggest that any permission should be conditioned so that the dwelling remains ancillary to the main building.
12/00536/FUL – Quasar, The Ambury, City Centre, Bath
Conversion and change of use of existing former laser battle centre building to 10no. student flats with associated external alterations, cycle and refuse storage.
COMMENT The Trust does not wish to comment upon this application more than to say that natural Bath stone must be used in the exterior cladding which is proposed, and this must be secured by Condition.
12/00771/FUL – 4 Edgar Buildings, City Centre, Bath
Use of pavement for the siting of 2no. tables and 8no. chairs from 17:00 to 22:00 Monday to Sunday
COMMENT The Trust considers that this application should provide further information in the interest of preserving the character of the conservation area. The application does not make clear the intended siting of these tables and chairs, though it does appear that the intention is that they would be situated in the middle of the pedestrian pavement, rather than at the edge towards Edgar Buildings. This position will leave them marooned in the middle of the pavement, creating an obstruction for pedestrians and likely an uncomfortable experience for patrons. We would also like to see greater detail provided with regard to the material of the proposed table and chairs, though it would appear that contemporary plastic chairs are proposed. This would be detrimental to the character of the conservation area, and we would prefer to see more high quality and traditional materials used in any proposed seating in the public realm.
12/00690/FUL – King Edwards School, North Road, Bathwick, Bath
Over cladding of the main King Edward’s School Building fronting North Road
COMMENT The Trust wishes only to comment upon the apparent lack of detail within this application, specifically in relation to the proposed materials. We have no objection in principle to re-cladding of the school buildings, though considering the purpose of this application the absence of specific information about the materials and methods of the cladding proposed is curious. More detail needs to be provided, in order that a proper assessment of the impact upon the conservation area can be made. Information about the material texture and colour ought to be submitted, and consulted on, rather than dealt with by Condition.
12/00908/LBA – Woodland Place, Bathwick Hill, Bathwick, Bath
Restoration of railings at frontage of 3, 4 and 5 Woodland Place plus side railings between 3 & 4 and 4 & 5 Woodland Place to the original design
COMMENT The Trust supports the principle of restoring railings to these buildings, which will enhance the special architectural and historic character for which they are listed. However, we regret that deficiencies within this application prevent us from offering our full support. Firstly, the application lacks a proper heritage impact assessment, which is necessary in any intervention to a listed building to appraise the impact upon the character and historic fabric of the building. We also regret that the drawings provided are blunt in their detail, and the proposed style of the railing is unclear. We would recommend that the applicant is encouraged to submit additional information in support of this proposal prior to determination.
12/00707/FUL – Castle Farm Barn, Midford Road, Midford, Bath
Erection of a temporary agricultural dwelling and an extension to cattle shed
OBJECT The Trust objects to the principle of erecting a dwelling, either temporary or permanent, at this location, which would constitute inappropriate development in the green belt and would have a detrimental impact upon the Cotswold AONB. Both local and national policy state that ‘very special circumstances’ must be expressed to outweigh the harm that the otherwise inappropriate erection of a dwelling would have upon the openness and permanence of the green belt. This application has not articulated anything which would be considered ‘very special circumstances’, and as such these proposals should be considered as inappropriate development which will harm the openness of the green belt and will prejudice in favour of further development of this site in future. This application is therefore contrary to policies NE1, NE2, GB1 of the B&NES Local Plan paragraph 88 of the NPPF and should be refused.
12/00982/FUL – 31 St James’s Square, Lansdown, Bath
Erection of a new conservatory plus associated alterations following demolition of existing conservatory.
COMMENT The Trust recognises the alterations which have been made to this application, but note that our original concerns regarding the relocation of the existing window have not been addressed and so we reiterate our comments again. This application seeks consent to reposition the original sash widow on the ground floor (rear) to the first floor (rear). The Trust queries this as a possible solution to retaining this significant feature, as the aperture above appears to be of a different size. The loss of this window would be of particular concern, and the removal of original windows in their original position is normally resisted. The Trust is content with the revised design approach to the extension but this contemporary intervention should not result in the loss or damage to the historic building fabric.
12/00524/OUT – Crescent Office Park, Clarks Way, Odd Down, Bath
Erection of a residential care home with associated car parking and servicing
COMMENT The Trust considers the principle of developing a residential care home at this location to be acceptable; however, we reserve concerns about the use of an Outline application for these proposals, which seem more advanced than is appropriate for a typical Outline application. The footprint of the proposed building seems very precise for an outline application – if plans are this far developed then is it not appropriate for a full planning application to be be submitted? This would allow for a full and proper assessment of the impact. We are concerned that the bulk and massing of a three storey building on the foot print indicated would be unduly prominent in the local townscape. In addition we anticipate there may be issues in relation to natural light and landscaping which would need to be addressed carefully and in detail in a full planning application.
12/00803/LBA – Cedar Park Care Centre, 27-28 Oldfield Road, Oldfield Park, Bath
External alterations for the demolition of a section of party/boundary wall constructed in ashlar stone and construction of a concrete retaining wall and replacement of ashlar stone wall in same position using stone from existing wall.
COMMENT The Trust supports these proposals in principle, as the wall is visibly leaning and unstable at present. Provided that the existing ashlar blocks are retained and reused, repairs to the wall will benefit this listed building as a whole. However, we regret the absence of a design and access statement or heritage impact assessment to accompany this application, and as such cannot offer our full support.
12/00616/LBA – 6 Walcot Buildings, Walcot, Bath
External alterations for the cleaning of front elevation with nebulous water jets and pointing with lime base mortar.
COMMENT The Trust welcomes these measures in principle, since the primary facade of this building is currently suffering considerably from staining and deposits. We are also supportive of the desire to protect the historic period ‘WALCOT FRUIT& POTATO STORES’ signage, an aspect of the building which reveals the past use and history of the building and reinforces local distinctiveness. However, we remain concerned about the detail of these proposals. No pre-cleaning survey has been undertaken, and there is no indication that one is intended to be undertaken as part of the methodology. This is an essential part of the process to determine the condition of the stone and to be able to make an informed decision to select an appropriate cleaning method. We also reserve some concerns about the selected cleaning method of nebulous water jets. Perhaps a softer method, such as an intermittent spray or water washing, should be undertaken initially, to prevent damage to the stone.
12/01201/LBA – 2 Brock Street, City Centre, Bath
External alterations for the replacement of sash windows with Georgian bars, and raising of first floor cills
SUPPORT The Trust is supportive of these proposed measures which will help to restore and reveal the special character and historic significance of this listed building in this critical location within the City. There is a clear, reasoned and justified aim for the restoration of the fenestration and we consider it entirely appropriate to restore the cills to their original height whilst also restoring a traditional 6-over-6 glazing bar pattern.
The proposed windows are to be single glazed. While we consider this approach entirely appropriate from a conservation perspective, we would suggest that the applicant to consider the installation of slim-profile double glazing as an alternative, which in the Trust’s view would help to enhance the energy efficiency of this building without harming the aesthetic and historical significance of the building.
12/00980/FUL – Summerfield School, Lime Grove Site, Lime Grove Gardens, Bathwick
Erection of 13no. dwellings with associated parking and landscaping following demolition of existing school buildings (resubmission)
OBJECT The Trust welcome’s the principle of developing this site for residential development, which is an appropriate use for the site and will contribute to Bath’s immediate housing need. The Trust does not object to the demolition of the existing Summerfield School building, which is of no significance and has only a neutral contribution to the conservation area. We recognise and welcome the applicants’ efforts to revise their application in order to make improvements and to address issues and challenges which were raised in the last application (11/02928/FUL), however on reviewing the revised design scheme the Trust regrets that many of the issues and problems raised before remain.
Site Layout & Urban Design: Though the site layout and urban design has been revised, it is not radically different from the first proposals, and so consequently in our view many of the same problems remain. While less pronounced than the last design, there is still a sense of this having a suburban cul-de-sac feel, and the grain remains fractured and inconsistent. While the application argues that the three-storey building at the end provides a focal-feature as an end point, we remain unconvinced and consider that the termination at this end of the site still lacks focus. This is in part because the architecture of this end building is felt to be uninteresting and detached from the rest of the scheme, and also because the glancing arrival at this point will lead visitors and residents to first see a parking space and a blank boundary to the site, rather than anything of interest. The site would benefit from a greater sense of intimacy, as is a common characteristic in smaller pockets of development in Bath.
The reduction in the number of dwellings has allowed greater flexibility to deliver a well designed site, though in place of housing, the site now feels dominated by vehicles and parking provision. This creates a particularly fractured grain at the south of the site. Given the central location of this site, and its nearby transport links, the provision of over two parking spaces for each dwelling is considered to be excessive, and not conducive to sustainable living patterns.
We previously commented regarding the green space allocated to the east of the site. While in this proposal it seems less obviously a patch of undevelopable land with no special purpose, we would like to see more detail about the intended landscaping plan for this area of the site, which is still lacking.
Design: The applicant has clearly taken efforts to introduce a more homogenous style to the buildings and architecture in the site, and seeks to reflect classical architectural styles and principles. We do not object to this in principle, but remind the applicant that a high level of design quality and commitment to using high quality materials is required to achieve this with any success.
We note that upon the roof of the terrace of houses there is nothing to delineate the boundary between one house and another. The use of roof ridges (currently only employed on the ends of these terraces) would help to break up the terrace and introduce a sense of rhythm, which would be appropriate.
The width of the roof is also a concern. A mansard style of roof is not alien to Bath in itself, and neither are terraces with a deep dwelling footprint, though typically the roof is expressed as an m-shape rather than as one solid mass, which creates interest and articulation to the roofscape. These proposed dwellings stretch across the entire depth of the terrace, giving them an unusual and uncharacteristic bulky appearance more akin to a Dutch barn than a Bath terrace.
Materials: The Trust considers the material palette proposed by this application to be an improvement, which is broadly more coherent in itself and reflective of the Bath vernacular. However, there remains some vagueness about the materials which are proposed. We would insist that natural Bath stone and natural slate is used in the development. We would also welcome further detail about the materials proposed, such as for the fenestrations and shared surface area.
Recommendation In principle we welcome the redevelopment of the site to provide housing. On balance, however, the Trust considers that this development fails to respond to the local context, achieve sustainable development, would neither preserve nor enhance the character of the City of Bath Conservation Area and may have a detrimental impact upon the setting of adjacent listed terraces. The proposal is therefore contrary to policies D2, D4, BH1, BH2 and BH6 of the B&NES Local Plan, the NPPF (specifically paragraphs 6-14 and chapters 7 and 12) and the Planning (Listed Buildings & Conservation Areas) Act 1990 and should therefore beREFUSED.
12/00987/LBA – Grosvenor House, Grosvenor Place, Lambridge, Bath
Internal and external alterations to include the replacement of two ‘modern’ dormer windows with traditional sash dormer windows
COMMENT The Trust recognises the need to replace these windows. Given that they are very apparently not original to the building, there is no issue of loss of historic fabric to consider. Nonetheless, we are concerned that the design of the proposed sash windows is perhaps equally as incongruous to the special character of this terrace of listed buildings. We urge the applicant to revise their proposals to a design that defers to the history of the building more appropriately.
The proposed windows are also to be single glazed. While we consider this entirely appropriate from a conservation perspective, however we suggest the applicant to consider the installation of slim-profile double-glazing as an alternative which in the Trust’s view would help to enhance the energy efficiency of this building without harming the aesthetic and historical significance of the building.
Designed by Ice House Design