Flat 1, 9 Henrietta Street, Bathwick
9 Henrietta Street forms part of a Grade I Georgian terrace 6-19 Henrietta Street by Thomas Baldwin, situated within the Bath conservation area and World Heritage Site. It faces onto 20-35 Henrietta Street, which is also Grade I listed and contemporary in design and age, whilst backing onto the gardens of multiple, individually listed late Victorian terraced dwellings along Grove Street. As part of an “incomplete, truncated terrace”, it forms part of the unfinished, speculative Georgian development of the Pulteney Estate, and is therefore a significant evidential aspect of the Georgian Town Planning and Georgian Architecture OUV of the World Heritage Site. It possesses strong group value as part of a “monumental ensemble[s]” of interconnecting, grandly articulated terraces. Whilst the terrace rear is of limited public visibility, it remains equally as significant as the principal frontage due to Bath’s defined backland character in which architectural and domestic change can be visually traced, a feature further recognised as part of Bath’s Georgian Architecture OUV as a World Heritage Site.
Considering the Grade I status of 9 Henrietta Street, its intrinsic group value as part of this listing, and its historic significance as evidence for the development of Georgian Bath and part of the intrinsic Georgian Architecture OUV of the World Heritage Site, the Trust is surprised at the sparsity of the provided D&A/Heritage Statement. In particular, whilst this application does not propose the creation of any new openings in historic fabric, it would result in the obscuration of what appears to be an original six-over-six sash window, and feature within the existing backland character of the listed terrace. We maintain that further assessment and justification is required to understand the impact on significance and suitably weigh the proposed harm to a listed building and the OUV of the World Heritage Site against the proposed public benefits of the development, in accordance with Paragraphs 184, 193, and 196 of the NPPF.
Furthermore, we are unsure as to how the addition of a new extension would “redress the balance of the considerable visual harm caused by the large two storey extension to the adjoining property (no 10)”, and emphasise that this application should be considered on its own merits. We would suggest that further explanation is provided as to how the extension would “provide a significant improvement to the overall appearance of the building and its neighbours”, considering the proposed concealment of an attractive original window and historic stonework.