Flat 5, 33 Great Pulteney Street, Bathwick, Bath

33 Great Pulteney Street forms part of a Grade I series of three late 18th century terraced houses that have since been merged into one ‘block’ of apartments in the 1980s, situated within the Bath conservation area and World Heritage Site. It forms part of the wider streetscape setting of numerous clusters of Grade I terraced buildings along Great Pulteney Street to form a cohesive architectural whole that creates an intentional visual thoroughfare between Pulteney Bridge and the Holburne Museum as part of an unfinished mid-18th century aspirations to extend the city to the east of the River Avon. It is therefore a significant evidential aspect of Bath’s Georgian Town Planning OUV as a World Heritage Site. Despite 33 Great Pulteney Street’s lack of surviving historic windows due to a narrative of Victorian and 1930s replacements, the frontage of Great Pulteney Street as a whole remains paramount in its aesthetic, architectural, and historic value; the architect Thomas Baldwin was responsible for the homogenous design of the façade, but the actual structures were built individually, resulting in different internal layouts and features along the terrace.

In principle, the Trust is supportive of the installation of secondary glazing to improve the thermal performance and residential comfort of a historic building and ensure its long-term, sustainable use. The installation would have a limited material and visual impact.

However, we maintain some concerns regarding the proposed solid frame secondary glazing for installation. Despite the existing windows’ non-historic post-1930s origin, including the window subject of this application, they retain a traditional 6-over-6 timber sash profile of relatively fine articulation with regards to glazing bar width. The secondary glazing appears to be of a significantly chunkier profile, particularly along the top rail. We therefore question how visible this form of secondary glazing would be from outside of the building, and note that no elevational drawings or sectional window drawings have been provided with which to assess this impact. The limitation of the proposed secondary glazing application to just one window within the principal elevation of 33 Great Pulteney Street would serve to further highlight any proposed visible differences from the rest of the terrace, particularly in its ground floor position open to unobscured public view.

We therefore strongly recommend that existing and proposed measured window details are provided to best assess the difference in glazing bar thickness and any resulting visual harm. We also note that a frameless alternative may be more appropriate within this location, such as the use of magnetically-mounted secondary glazing.