- Application Number
- 17/06016/FUL
- Application Date
- 11/12/2017
- Closing Date
- 25/01/2018
- Address
- 11 Hampton Row, Bathwick
- Status
- Object
Alterations to the roof to form a double pitch and install double glazed sash windows to front of houses.
Our Response
The Trust objects to this application on the basis that the application itself is substandard, it fails to provide adequate detail of the proposals, nor any justification for the change in roof profile nor an assessment reviewing the impact of the change in roof on the special architectural interest of the listed building.
The history of this site and the decisions already made are somewhat confusing but it appears that No.10 was granted a single pitch roof (as separate to Nos 11-14) on the basis that the building had a more shallow depth and a single pitch (i.e. just one ridge line) would match that of next door at No.9. The rest of the row, as agreed in the planning applications 14/04368/FUL and 14/04369/LBA were to be a double pitch roof (as in an M roof with central gutter) to take account of the double room depth and central spine of the buildings and to ensure the external appearance of the buildings matched their original appearance. The restoration of these assets to an external appearance as close as possible to their original appearance was a fundamental principle of the granting of permission for their development. Moreover, the applicant has included old roof drawings from No.10 Hampton Row in his current submission which is unacceptable and inaccurate as this building was always (as above) to have a single pitch roof and is a shallower front to back depth.
We fail to understand how a single pitch roof (single ridgeline) can conserve and/or enhance the assets. These buildings originally had double pitch roofs and this typical Georgian roof pattern is part of their special interest. Arbitrarily altering this traditional character to the roofscape, especially given these buildings are regularly viewed from above and make a particular contribution to the conservation area and the WHS, is unacceptable. We note omissions and inconsistencies with the drawings submitted relating to chimneys etc. The original agreed approach to reinstate historically correct double pitch M roof should be adhered to and this very poor application refused.
The proposed scheme would be harmful to the special interest of the designated heritage assets, would neither preserve nor enhance the character and appearance of the conservation and would detract from the special qualities of the WHS. The scheme would be contrary to the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) sections 16, 66 and 72, Section 12 (Conserving and Enhancing the Historic Environment) of the NPPF, policies B1, B2, B4, and CP6 of the B&NES Core Strategy and policies CP6, D.2, HE1, B.4, B.2 of the Placemaking Plan. We would therefore strongly recommend the application be withdrawn or refused.
The history of this site and the decisions already made are somewhat confusing but it appears that No.10 was granted a single pitch roof (as separate to Nos 11-14) on the basis that the building had a more shallow depth and a single pitch (i.e. just one ridge line) would match that of next door at No.9. The rest of the row, as agreed in the planning applications 14/04368/FUL and 14/04369/LBA were to be a double pitch roof (as in an M roof with central gutter) to take account of the double room depth and central spine of the buildings and to ensure the external appearance of the buildings matched their original appearance. The restoration of these assets to an external appearance as close as possible to their original appearance was a fundamental principle of the granting of permission for their development. Moreover, the applicant has included old roof drawings from No.10 Hampton Row in his current submission which is unacceptable and inaccurate as this building was always (as above) to have a single pitch roof and is a shallower front to back depth.
We fail to understand how a single pitch roof (single ridgeline) can conserve and/or enhance the assets. These buildings originally had double pitch roofs and this typical Georgian roof pattern is part of their special interest. Arbitrarily altering this traditional character to the roofscape, especially given these buildings are regularly viewed from above and make a particular contribution to the conservation area and the WHS, is unacceptable. We note omissions and inconsistencies with the drawings submitted relating to chimneys etc. The original agreed approach to reinstate historically correct double pitch M roof should be adhered to and this very poor application refused.
The proposed scheme would be harmful to the special interest of the designated heritage assets, would neither preserve nor enhance the character and appearance of the conservation and would detract from the special qualities of the WHS. The scheme would be contrary to the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) sections 16, 66 and 72, Section 12 (Conserving and Enhancing the Historic Environment) of the NPPF, policies B1, B2, B4, and CP6 of the B&NES Core Strategy and policies CP6, D.2, HE1, B.4, B.2 of the Placemaking Plan. We would therefore strongly recommend the application be withdrawn or refused.