76 Greenway Lane, Lyncombe, Bath
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.
We note that this application is a variation on application 20/04911/LBA which has already been granted listed building consent. However, BPT maintains its comments as previous:
There are some concerns regarding the visibility of the ‘glazed’ link which would connect the boundary wall with the new dwelling. The vertical metal cladding panels of an unspecified finish would create a more visually solid connection jutting up from behind the boundary wall rather than being “light touch”. We note that in the proposed elevations, the metal-clad link now sits at a higher level in relation to the central portico than previously proposed in application 20/04911/LBA, but note that there is no reference to, or associated justification of, this revision. There appears to be a disparity between this link as presented in the proposed elevations and the indicative elevations in the D&A Statement (see pp. 10-11).
The proposed internal construction concept (as shown in indicative sections in the D&A Statement) continue to indicate 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 recognise the scheme continues to propose 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 maintain that the proposed infill of the side access would not 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.