Appeal 6001929

The appeal is dismissed.

The appeal is dismissed.

In the banner, the title of the appellant has been corrected from that stated on the application form.

The appeals relate to the same site and the same proposed scheme. Unless stated otherwise, and despite the differences in the planning permission and listed building consent regimes, I have dealt with both appeals together. This is to avoid unnecessary duplication.

The appeal site comprises a single house within the Grade II Listed building known as 83-101 Church Road1 (the Listed Building). It is also within the Bath Conservation Area (the CA). Consequently, in reaching my decisions, I have exercised my statutory duties under section 66(1) - for appeal A, 16(2) - for appeal 1 Official list entry reference: 1395682 Appeal Decision 6001928 and 6001929 B, and 72(1) - for both appeals, of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act, 1990 – as amended (the Act).

The Government’s relevant procedural guide for planning appeals2 advises that the appeal process should not be used to evolve a scheme. Therefore, even if the appellant is agreeable to omitting bathroom 3, these appeals are dealt with on the basis that the proposed scheme is that indicated on the plans the Council determined the applications against – which include bathroom 3. Moreover, without amended proposed plans being provided, it has not been possible to establish that the changes would not result in a substantial difference to the scheme, or to determine that it would be procedurally fair to accept such an amendment.

In the absence of compelling evidence to the contrary, I proceed on the basis that the ridge heights of the existing house on the appeal site, are as indicated on the submitted plans.

The main issues are: • For both appeals: Whether the development and works would i) preserve the Listed Building - [address], or any features of special architectural or historic interest which it possesses, and ii) preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the Bath Conservation Area. • For Appeal A – The effect of the development on the living conditions of the occupiers of neighbouring properties, with particular regard to outlook within the rear gardens.

The Listed Building comprises 10 terraced houses. According to the associated official list entry, it dates from the early to mid-18th century, and was designed by [name] the Elder, to house [name] quarry workers.

That being the case, and even if there was an earlier house on the appeal site, the significance of the Listed Building is mainly derived from its historic interest as an early example of a dedicated housing scheme for locally employed industrial workers. It is also from the architectural and historic interest of its surviving fabric - which includes elements of high-quality neoclassical design detailing, limestone ashlar walls, and historic fireplaces and chimney breasts, as well as from the remaining evidence of its early plan form.

Like many of the houses within the Listed Building, the house on the appeal site has been subject of internal and external alterations, and it has a rear extension. Nevertheless, the extensions and alterations that have been taken to the Listed Building, do not wholly undermine the intrinsic heritage merit of the asset.

The evidence indicates that despite the need for strengthening works to its main front and rear walls, the house on the appeal site is in a reasonable state of repair. Consequently, and because it retains distinctive features that are characteristic of 2 Procedural Guide: Planning appeals – England. For appeals relating to applications dated on or before 31 March 2026. Appeal Decision 6001928 and 6001929 the wider Listed Building, it makes a positive contribution to its significance – this is despite the previous extensions and alterations that have been undertaken.

The Bath CA encompasses much of the City, which became an increasingly fashionable resort in the Georgian era. Bath’s 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.

Although only a single house, the age, proportions, design detailing and dressed limestone walls of much of its exterior are characteristic of the neo-classical architecture which is prevalent within the CA. As a result, and notwithstanding the more modern additions and alterations to the property, the appeal site continues to make a small positive contribution to the character and appearance of the CA as a whole, and to its significance as a designated heritage asset.

In principle, the proposed external materials - which include local stone, slate roof tiles and painted timber joinery, would relate well to the exterior materials that are commonly found within and are distinctive to the Listed Building. However, to facilitate the wide opening between the snug and the kitchen/dining room, and the doorway openings to bedroom 2 and bathrooms 2 and 3, it would be necessary to remove sections of ashlar stone within the main historic rear wall of the house. The scheme would also require the removal of a fireplace and chimney breast within the existing sitting room. Such works and development would result in the loss of historic fabric and erode the contribution that this makes to the significance of the Listed Building.

The removal of the single-storey conservatory and kitchen extension, would to a small extent, improve the integrity of the Listed Building. However, this is only part of the proposed scheme. The replacement extension would obscure all the ground-floor level ashlar wall as well as more than half of the first-floor level ashlar wall to the rear of the house. Moreover, due to its large scale, this extension would read as a bulkier and more dominant addition than that which it would replace, and it would detract from other parts of the exterior of the house that contribute to the special interest of the Listed Building.

In addition, at ground-floor level, a wide glazed opening would be formed in the rear wall of the extension. The size, design and proportions of which, would be incongruous with the more classically proportioned retained window that would serve bedroom 3 and other similar windows within the remainder of the Listed Building.

No compelling evidence has been provided from which to conclude that the staircase within the house has not always been in the existing position. However, and in the absence of compelling evidence to the contrary, I proceed on the basis that the small projecting stubs in the walls of the existing sitting room and bedroom 1, are likely to comprise the edges of former room dividing walls. The new internal walls that would separate the hallway from the sitting room and which would be constructed to form bathroom 1 and the edge of the stairwell, do not correspond with these former wall positions. That being the case, I cannot establish that the Appeal Decision 6001928 and 6001929 construction of these walls or the re-siting of the staircase would help to reinstate the historic plan form of the building. Instead, the new internal walls would further conceal the early plan form of this house within the wider Listed Building.

For these reasons, the scheme as a whole would cause harm to the significance of the Listed Building.

The internal works would have no material effect on the character or the appearance of the CA. Moreover, the extension would be undertaken to the rear of the house, where boundary walls and other surrounding buildings mean that it would not be visually prominent from outside of the appeal site. Nevertheless, the previously identified harm to the Listed Building from the proposed extension, would also result in some residual harm to the character and appearance of the CA.

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

The modest scale of the scheme, which relates to a single house within the wider Listed Building and the CA, means that the harm that would be caused to the significance of each of these designated heritage assets would be to 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 will lead to less than substantial harm to the significance of a designated heritage asset, this harm should be weighed against the benefits of the proposal, including, where appropriate, securing its optimum viable use.

The staircase within the house is steep and has fairly narrow treads. Nevertheless, and even if it does not accord with current building regulations standards, I found it to be navigable without undue care, and have no reason to doubt its structural integrity. Moreover, while the enlarged, altered and reconfigured house would afford the appellant and future occupiers with enhanced and modernised living accommodation, I do not doubt that the existing accommodation provides adequate living conditions. Consequently, any benefit that would result from enlarging and enhancing the living accommodation, would be a private rather than a public benefit, as set out in the Government’s Planning Practice Guidance3.

Economic benefits would arise during the implementation of the works and development. However, if the scheme was not undertaken, I do not anticipate the cessation of use of the house or that maintenance to it would cease. Furthermore, I am not convinced that the proposed scheme is the most appropriate and least harmful way of securing the public benefit that would result from the strengthening of the front and rear walls 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 each of them. Overall, the public benefits would not outweigh the harm that would be caused to the significance of the Listed Building or the CA. 3 Paragraph:020 [name]: 18a-[phone] Appeal Decision 6001928 and 6001929

For the reasons given, the development and works would not i) preserve the Listed Building - [address], or any features of special architectural or historic interest which it possesses, or ii) preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the Bath Conservation Area. Consequently, the scheme would fail to satisfy the requirements of the Act and the provisions of the Framework, which seek to conserve and enhance the historic environment. It would also conflict with policy HE1 of the [name] & Placemaking Plan4 and policy CP6 of the Core Strategy5. Collectively, and amongst other things, these seek to ensure that listed buildings are sustained and enhanced, and that the historic environment is protected.

The rear gardens of numbers 85 and [address] (no. 85 and no. 89) are not especially large. However, they are of a sufficient size to enable users of these spaces to secure a good standard of outlook which encompasses the open space above and around them.

The development would be visible from the rear gardens of nos. 85 and 89. Nevertheless, and even though the extension would be 2-storey, and its ridge and eaves would be higher than the kitchen and conservatory it would replace, it would not project as far back into the rear garden of the appeal site. Furthermore, despite the proposal to construct the extension immediately adjacent to the shared boundary with no 89, it would only be alongside a small section of the garden of this neighbouring property, and its roof would slope back up and away from it. As a result, occupiers of number 89 would continue to be able to secure a good standard of outlook from most of their rear garden. Similarly, because the extension would be several metres back from the appeal site’s shared boundary with no 85, the development would not be unduly prominent from within the rear garden of that neighbouring property.

For these reasons, the development would not harm the living conditions of the occupiers of neighbouring properties, with particular regard to outlook within the rear gardens. Consequently, and in respect of this main issue, it would comply with policy D6 of the [name] & Placemaking Plan. Amongst other things, this seeks to ensure that appropriate levels of outlook are maintained.

I accept that other houses within the Listed Building have been granted planning permission and/or listed building consent for significant alterations and/or extensions in the past. However, I have not been provided with enough information about these schemes to enable me to understand the basis for their authorisation. Moreover, from the plans provided, these schemes appear to have been materially different, and therefore not readily comparable, with that subject of these appeals. Consequently, these other extensions and alterations, do not lead me away from my previous findings. 4 Bath and [name] – Bath and North East Somerset Local Plan 2022-2029 – [name] & Placemaking Plan – District-wide Strategy and Policies – adopted 2017 5 Bath and North East Somerset Council – Bath and [name] – part 1 of the Local Plan – adopted 2014 Appeal Decision 6001928 and 6001929

Notwithstanding my findings on the second main issue, the development subject of appeal A would cause harm to the significance of the Listed Building and the CA. These harms and the associated development plan conflict are prevailing considerations, and there are no material considerations, either individually or in combination, that outweigh them. I therefore conclude that appeal A should be dismissed.

Moreover, for the reasons previously given, I also conclude that appeal B should be dismissed.