- Application Number
- 19/00255/LBA
- Application Date
- 21/01/2019
- Closing Date
- 28/02/2019
- Address
- First Floor, 10 Argyle Street, Bathwick
- Status
- Object
Removal of 2 no. first floor rear windows and replacement with French doors. Creation of timber decking to rear roof to create new terrace.
Our Response
We object strongly to this scheme on the basis of harm to the special interest and fabric of this listed building and to the setting of multiple listed buildings. The introduction of French doors in place of sash windows would harm the architectural significance of this rear façade, and given its visibility within the historic riverside public realm and the fact that these rear elevations form a backdrop to the iconic views of Pulteney Bridge, it should not be regarded as a secondary elevation. The removal of historic fabric to create the doorways is also unacceptable.
We do not accept that the introduction of human activity and the associated paraphernalia (furniture etc) at this level is at all acceptable from a visual and residential amenity point of view and in terms of the general appearance of the listed terrace within the conservation area. Many listed building contain similar outrigger with flat roof arrangements, and should a precedent be set this could allow ongoing cumulative harm to the OUV of the World Heritage Site. The applicant has provided no justification or detail of public benefit that would be outweighed by the harm identified.
We note that this application has been filed under a different address to that of 10 Argyle Street, of which it is a part, and this means that the long history of this site is not attached to this particular application. This long history includes a refusal for this exact same proposal in 2013, the detailed policy case against the proposal remains the same, no additional justification has been provided that outweighs the harm identified by the case officer in the 2013 scheme. In addition we note that the Design & Access Statement omits the 2013 refused application in the recent planning history section. We also note that the building of the terrace parapet has been the subject of an enforcement investigation in that the applicant has failed to fulfil conditions relating to materials.
The proposed scheme would neither preserve nor enhance the special interest of the listed building and would fail to maintain or enhance the character of the conservation area. It would therefore detract from the special qualities of the WHS. The scheme would be contrary to the Planning (Listed Building and Conservation Areas) Act 1990, Section 16 (Conserving and Enhancing the Historic Environment) of the NPPF, policies B1, B4, and CP6 of the B&NES Core Strategy and policies CP6, D2, HE1, BD1, B.4, B2 of the Placemaking Plan. We would therefore recommend the application be refused.
We do not accept that the introduction of human activity and the associated paraphernalia (furniture etc) at this level is at all acceptable from a visual and residential amenity point of view and in terms of the general appearance of the listed terrace within the conservation area. Many listed building contain similar outrigger with flat roof arrangements, and should a precedent be set this could allow ongoing cumulative harm to the OUV of the World Heritage Site. The applicant has provided no justification or detail of public benefit that would be outweighed by the harm identified.
We note that this application has been filed under a different address to that of 10 Argyle Street, of which it is a part, and this means that the long history of this site is not attached to this particular application. This long history includes a refusal for this exact same proposal in 2013, the detailed policy case against the proposal remains the same, no additional justification has been provided that outweighs the harm identified by the case officer in the 2013 scheme. In addition we note that the Design & Access Statement omits the 2013 refused application in the recent planning history section. We also note that the building of the terrace parapet has been the subject of an enforcement investigation in that the applicant has failed to fulfil conditions relating to materials.
The proposed scheme would neither preserve nor enhance the special interest of the listed building and would fail to maintain or enhance the character of the conservation area. It would therefore detract from the special qualities of the WHS. The scheme would be contrary to the Planning (Listed Building and Conservation Areas) Act 1990, Section 16 (Conserving and Enhancing the Historic Environment) of the NPPF, policies B1, B4, and CP6 of the B&NES Core Strategy and policies CP6, D2, HE1, BD1, B.4, B2 of the Placemaking Plan. We would therefore recommend the application be refused.