- Application Number
- Application Date
- Closing Date
- 2 Spring Gardens Road, Widcombe, Bath
Replacement of existing front timber doors replaced with double glazed composite doors to match existing replacement of existing rear doors with double glazed uPVC doors to match existing at No. 2, 4, 6, 10 & 12 Spring Gardens Road & No. 24 Spring Crescent.
We are therefore opposed in principle to the replacement of traditional style timber joinery with composite equivalents, and feel that this would neither preserve nor enhance the character or appearance of the conservation area, and would instead constitute a notable loss of historic fabric and detailing. Composite doors are typically polymer-based; the Character Appraisal notes that the “increasing prevalence of uPVC glazing and doors erodes the character of pre-1950 unlisted buildings” and is featured as one of the principle risks to this area of the conservation area.
The replacement of the existing timber doors with composite would have a directly negative impact on the streetscape overlooking the river, and establish a precedent for the removal of traditional timber joinery with resulting detriment to the distinctive appearance and character of the area. No justification is provided for their replacement.
We additionally refute the claim that the proposed doors would match those existing due to the much-reduced scale of the 6-pane glazing and the loss of the central door panel. They would be visually ‘heavier’ in profile and fenestration, and are clearly a standardised door design ill-suited to the specific joinery characteristics and detailing of the area.
We query that no elevations, existing or proposed, have been provided of the proposed door replacements across the rear elevations. The application form appears to indicate that the rear doors are also timber, and may also be a retained traditional feature shared across the terrace, albeit concealed from public view.
We maintain that this application constitutes the significant removal of remaining historic detailing and the further erasure of the area’s distinctive character which would neither preserve nor enhance the character and appearance of the conservation area. This application is contrary to the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990, Section 16 of the NPPF, and Policies B1, BD1, CP6, D1, D2, D3, and HE1 of the Core Strategy and Placemaking Plan and should be refused or withdrawn.