76 Greenway Lane, Lyncombe
76 Greenway Lane is an unlisted 1980s dwelling situated within the Lyncombe Vale area of the Bath conservation area and World Heritage Site. It is positioned to the north of Lyncombe Court, a Grade II early 19th century detached dwelling associated with the site of the King James Palace Pleasure Gardens. It is situated behind a 3m high coursed rubble stone boundary wall attached to Tivoli House, a Grade II, early 19th century detached dwelling. By merit of its ancillary and material attachment, the boundary wall is Grade II listed and works therefore must be considered with regards to maintaining its special architectural and historic interest. Considering its length, height, and largely unbroken form, the wall remains a significant feature of the Greenway Lane streetscape and is indicative of the area’s vernacular boundary treatment. It contributes positively to the appearance and character of the conservation area. The main entrance portico is a 1980s insertion and is therefore of little material interest.
There are some concerns regarding the visibility of the ‘glazed’ link which would connect the boundary wall with the new dwelling. The vertical cladding panels of an unspecified material would create a more visually solid connection jutting up from behind the boundary wall rather than being “light touch”. The proposed internal construction concept indicates that there could be comfortable scope for the slight reduction of the link’s height to better mitigate visual contrast with the established line and form of the boundary wall.
We would like to see an improved, resolved connection between the garage and the historic boundary wall, considering the current, awkward 20th century interaction with the wall’s coping. However, we do not feel that the proposed infill of the side access would appropriately offset the extension of the garage, as this would result in the unmitigated loss of historic stonework and the permanent removal of part of the original, unbroken extent of the boundary wall, of which there has already been significant erosion from the east. Considering the proposed expansion of the garage in depth and width behind the boundary wall to create a second parking space and facilitate parking manoeuvrability, we question the need for alterations to the boundary wall which would be of significant material detriment to the line of the historic boundary wall, with resulting visual impact to the streetscape of the conservation area.
We note that the LBA is primarily regarding works to the Grade II boundary wall, but have the following comments on the proposed new dwelling:
The Trust is not opposed to the principle of contemporary design or development. The use of a staggered form on this site would help to break up the roof line, bearing in mind its elevated site up the side of the valley wall. Considering Lyncombe Vale’s historic, designed rural character as an intended escape from Bath’s rural core, new development should complement and integrate with its wooded landscape context.
Considering the roof’s visual prominence as viewed from Greenway Lane, we would recommend that further material details regarding the proposed use of “clay tiles” are provided to ensure a complementary finish within its streetscape context.
We retain some concerns regarding the proposed volume of glazing on the southern elevation and the likelihood of increased lightspill and sun reflection/glare to the detriment of the rural and low density appearance and character of the Lyncombe Vale area of the conservation area and World Heritage Site.
The Trust is generally supportive of the integration of micro renewables and energy efficient measures where they will not significantly compromise the appearance and character of the historic environment. Therefore, we have some reservations regarding the proposed volume of PV panels on the south roof slope, considering the site’s elevated, hillside position. We therefore strongly recommend that further design details are submitted regarding the design, finish, and prominence of the panels, and highlight the need for compliance with Policy SCR2 of the Core Strategy and Placemaking Plan. The use of a reflective finish in this context would not be appropriate.