Appeal 6000976

This appeal is dismissed.

The appeal site comprises a single house which forms part of the [name] listed building at 20-26 Thomas Street1 (the Listed Building). It is also within the Bath Conservation Area (the CA). Consequently, in reaching my decision, I have exercised my statutory duties under 16(2), and 72(1), of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act, 1990 – as amended (the Act).

As part of the appeal, amended plans have been provided showing a different proposed door design from that which was before the Council at the time the application was determined. However, the proposed amendments would not result in a substantially different scheme, and the Council and potentially interested parties have had the opportunity to comment on them at the appeal stage. Therefore, they would not be prejudiced by my decision to accept these amended plans.

Development Plan policies are not usually determinative in section 20 appeals. However, insofar as they are relevant to the proposed works and therefore capable of being material considerations, I have considered the development plan policies cited on the decision notice.

The main issue is whether the works would preserve the [name] listed building – [address] or any features of special architectural or historic interest which it possesses. 1 Official list entry number: 1395358

The appeal site comprises one of six modestly sized terraced townhouses that together form the Listed Building. According to the official list description, this Listed Building dates from circa the latter end of the Georgian period. The houses within it are mainly faced in dressed limestone, and, when viewed from [address], they have well-balanced proportions and fairly simple and harmonic design detailing that is characteristic of the Neoclassical style of architecture.

At the ground floor level, the street-facing front room window and the rear garden-facing back room window of the house on the appeal site appear to be centrally positioned in relation to the main parts of the rooms they serve. The fireplaces in these rooms also appear to be centrally located in their side walls. Consequently, the interior of both rooms has a pleasing sense of symmetry that is another typical characteristic of the Neoclassical style of architecture.

At ground floor level, the plan form of the house on the appeal site is 2 rooms deep, with a side hallway from which there are single-width doors to the separate front room and the slightly smaller back room. Although the front room is currently used as a hobby room, I do not doubt that it would have historically been used as the parlour, and that this room would have been kept separate from the remainder of the house. Moreover, I observed nothing to suggest that the dividing wall and skirting boards between these 2 rooms are not part of the early historic fabric of the house. That being the case, this floor of the house, reflects the early cellular plan form characteristic of many townhouses of that period, and contributes to its historic interest. Moreover, if several other houses within the Listed Building have had openings formed between the 2 raised ground-floor rooms, this increases the value that the remaining early cellular plan form makes to its special interest.

For these reasons, the historic fabric, form and architectural detailing, and remaining historic cellular plan form all contribute to the significance of the listed building as a whole.

The works would require the removal of a sizable section of wall that divides the ground floor level front and back rooms. I have no reason to doubt that this wall forms part of the early historic fabric of the building, and proceed accordingly.

Because the window in the front room does not fully align with that in the back room, and because of the differing widths of these 2 rooms, the centre of the proposed opening would not align with the midpoint of both windows and rooms. Although it would not reduce the balance of the back room, it would be ‘off-centre’ in relation to the main part of the front room and the front-facing window within it. As a result, the works would harmfully reduce the sense of symmetry and balance within the front room.

The retention of a substantial portion of the wall dividing the front and back rooms would mean that the historic plan form of this part of the house could still be understood to some extent. However, even though the sizable opening would have doors within it, such works would still erode the cellular plan form of this part of the house. They would also result in the loss of some of its historic fabric. Both of which are features that contribute to the special interest of the Listed Building.

Subject to detailed plans and specifications of the doors and associated hardware being agreed by the Local Planning Authority, I am satisfied that these doors would be sympathetic to other historic doors observed within the house - which contribute to its architectural interest. However, notwithstanding this consideration, and for the reasons previously given, the scheme as a whole would harmfully erode the integrity and significance of the Listed Building.

In line with paragraph 212 of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework), I give great weight to the conservation of the Listed Building.

Because the works would be modest in scale and relate to a single house, the harm that would be caused to the overall significance of the Listed Building would be towards the lower end of the scale of less than substantial. Nevertheless, these findings of harm carry considerable importance and weight.

Paragraph 215 of the Framework indicates that where a development proposal will lead to less than substantial harm to the significance of a designated heritage asset, this harm should be weighed against the public benefits of the proposal, including, where appropriate, securing its optimum viable use.

Although the windows serving the ground floor level front and back rooms afford users of those rooms with reasonable levels of daylight, the works would allow sunlight to flow between these 2 areas. They would also provide more flexibility in how the ground-floor space could be used. Therefore, and albeit to a very small extent, the works would enhance the living conditions of the appellant. Nevertheless, this would be a private rather than public benefit as set out in the Government’s Planning Practice Guidance2.

Economic benefits would arise during the implementation of the works. However, if the works were not undertaken, I do not anticipate the cessation of use of the house. Therefore, and because of the modest scale of the scheme, the associated public benefits would be small, and very little weight is attributed to them. Overall, the public benefits would not outweigh the harm that would be caused to the significance of the Listed Building.

Consequently, and for the reasons given, the works would not preserve the [name] listed building – [address] or any features of special architectural or historic interest which it possesses. That being the case, the works would fail to satisfy the requirements of the Act and the provisions of the Framework that seek to conserve and enhance the historic environment. In addition, these works would conflict with policies CP6 of the Core Strategy3 and HE1 of the [name] & Placemaking Plan4. Collectively, and amongst other things, these seek to ensure that listed buildings are sustained and enhanced, and that the historic environment is protected. 2 Paragraph: 020 [name]: 18a-020-20190723 3 Bath and North East Somerset Council – Bath and [name] – part 1 of the Local Plan – adopted 2014 4 Bath and [name] – Bath and North East Somerset Local Plan 2022-2029 – [name] & Placemaking Plan – District-wide Strategy and Policies – adopted 2017

The opening could be blocked up and the historic plan form reinstated in the future. However, there is nothing before me to indicate that there is a reasonable or likely prospect of this occurring. Moreover, much of the historic fabric that would be removed as part of the works is unlikely to be salvageable for this purpose.

The evidence indicates that in 2023 an opening was approved between the ground-floor front and back rooms at [address] East. However, it also reveals that the scheme involved the removal of a modern studwork and plasterboard partition. In that sense, that proposal was materially different from the appeal scheme. Furthermore, and even if similar openings exist in other houses of a similar period to that on the appeal site, I do not have enough information to understand the circumstances leading to these. That being the case, these other ‘openings’ do not lead me away from my previous findings.

The Bath CA encompasses much of the city. The Council’s Bath City-wide Character Appraisal Supplementary Planning Document5, indicates that the hot springs and the associated royal patronage during the Georgian era led to an increase in Bath’s popularity as a fashionable resort. Bath’s increasing popularity during that time led to a period of development that was characterised by Neoclassical architecture and frequent use of cut and dressed limestone blocks for the exterior walls of many of the terrace buildings within it. The pleasing beauty of much of the resultant architecture and the historic and cultural interest associated with this phase of the City’s development, contribute to the special quality of the CA as a whole.

The site is also located within the City of Bath World Heritage Site and the [name] of Europe World Heritage Site (the WHS’s), both of which are internationally recognised to be of outstanding universal value (OUV), and designated heritage assets of the highest significance. From the evidence before me, and pertinent to the appeal, the OUV and thus the significance of the WHS’s are primarily and variously derived from the; hot springs; Roman remains; collective beauty of many of the [name] era buildings and spaces, and its role as a historic grand international resort for recreation and health. As a result, the WHS’s have extraordinary historical, architectural and cultural value.

Albeit the appeal site comprises a single house, its age, design, proportions and exterior dressed limestone walls are characteristic of the neo-classical architecture that is prevalent within the CA and the WHS’s. As a result, the house contributes positively to the character and appearance of the CA as a whole and to the outstanding universal value of the WHS.

The internal nature of the proposed works would mean that the character and appearance of the CA as a whole would be preserved and its significance unharmed. It would also mean that no harm would be caused to the OUV of either of the WHS’s. However, these are neutral considerations that do not weigh in favour of the appeal scheme. 5 Bath & [name] – Bath City-wide Character Appraisal Supplementary Planning Document

For the reasons given, I conclude that this appeal should be dismissed.