Planning Design and Access and Heritage Statement DS 001

Transcription

1 Planning Design and Access and Heritage Statement DS 001 New single bedroom dwelling incorporating existing structure at 142 Ringswell Gardens, Bath This statement should be read in conjunction with the following plans and details submitted with this Full Planning with Listed Buildings Application drawing nos. AL(0)001, AL(0)002, AL(0)003, AL(0)004, AL(0)005 & AL(0)007, Ecological Statement ES 001 and Flood Risk Assessment FRA 001. Note: AL(0)006 is in the Appendix of this Design & Access Statement. 1.0 The Site The site plot is located and approached off Ringswell Gardens and consists of a storage building believed to be constructed in the late C19. The plot which the building stands on extends beyond the rear of the garden of 6 Grosvenor Place and consists of a piece of land approximately 18.2m deep by 7.2m wide. The storage building extends the full width of the site and is approximately 3.7m deep. The building has remained derelict for many years and is compromised with much overgrown brambles and undergrowth weakening its structure. To the left of the site is the rear garden of 5 Grosvenor Place which extends from the rear of the terrace all the way back to Ringswell Gardens. To the right, is a further extensive plot of land which, like the application site, extends beyond the rear of the gardens of 7-9 Grosvenor Place. This site to the right hand side has more recently been made into a carparking area. The application gross site area is 130m2 within its site boundary.

2 2.0 The Historical Location 1. The land pertaining to this application is located beyond the original boundary of the rear garden of No.6 Grosvenor Place, a Grade 1 Listed terrace by Bath Architect John Eveleigh. The original concept design of circa 1790 was for this sweeping, shallow curved terrace to be arranged symmetrically around a singular central entrance which lead into communal pleasure gardens, known as Grosvenor Gardens Vauxhall, at the rear. The main terrace fronting the London Road was to have right angled terraces at each extent which returned to the river thus enclosing both the rear gardens to the terraces as well as the leisure and communal pleasure garden facilities. (See Map 1). The current application site lies within the Grosvenor Gardens land, which was planned in late 18 th century to consist of bowling greens, a firework labyrinth, a swimming bath, general gardens and boating and fishing facilities. Map 1 c1793

3 2. The historical reference map of 1808 below would suggest that the 2 right angled side terraces were never completed with only the front terrace and the communal leisure and garden facilities being built. (See Map 2). Map 2 c1808 Remains of the existing stone boundary walls which defined the original extent of the rear gardens of the Grosvenor Place terrace and the boundary of Grosvenor Gardens can still be found today. Photo showing historic wall on right hand side and extended boundary of the application site

4 3. The Grosvenor pleasure gardens were short-lived. Historical reference maps by Cotterell and Spackman of 1852 and Ordnance Survey in 1886 would suggest that by that time they had already been replaced with apportioned land plots and associated buildings for mainly nursery use. A lane was formed in the position of the current west end of Ringswell Gardens and some of the previous order to the gardens at the rear of the terrace became lost as a few individual houses extended their plots to their rear. No s 3, 5, 6 and 13 were houses which did this, however the remaining houses retained the original strong rear garden wall line. Map 3 by Ordnance Survey dating to c1904 clearly shows this, as well as the existence of a store building or possibly coach house/stable at the end of this extended garden. (highlighted in red). The general development pattern of this period was for any additional buildings to be sited outside the line of the original rear garden boundary to the Grosvenor Place terrace. Map 3 c1904

5 4. An historical Ordnance Survey reference map of 1951, which preceded the listing of the Grosvenor Place terrace in 1955, suggests a nursery use behind the historic line of the main gardens. This map also clearly shows evidence of more buildings being constructed in an ad-hoc pattern outside of the original garden rear boundary line. The small building located to the rear of the garden to No.6 (highlighted in red), remains as one of the larger structures along this lane, now known as Ringswell Gardens. (See Map 4). Map 4 c1951

6 5. By 1965 the initial phases of the Ringswell Gardens housing estate had been built. The Ordnance Survey map of that date clearly shows the new road linking both ends of the terrace and to the eastern end generally following the line of the rear gardens where little expansion of gardens beyond the historic garden line had occurred. On the western end of the road and particularly beyond No.14 Grosvenor Place, the road bends to incorporate the less formal additions which had appeared over the last century to include stores, coach houses and stabling. (See Map 5). The application site, highlighted in red on the map below, is one such addition. Map 5 c1965

7 6. The 3d model below (Map 6) of the terrace reflects the current line and structures located within the rear gardens of the listed terrace today. It is clear that most of the main rear garden boundaries to the listed Grosvenor Place terrace reflect the original 1793 extent lines, beyond which the less formal communal gardens were envisaged. The thick red dotted line is a notional representation of the original rear gardens extent as noted in the above commentary. Some of the outbuildings and developments at the rear of No s: 1, 2, 3, 11, 12, 14 & 15 Grosvenor Place as well as Coach Cottage on the corner clearly fall outside the above-mentioned line. With the exception of No.14 which is a car workshop, all serve a residential purpose and all appear to have developed less formally to the listed terrace beyond it given that the sites which they stand on were never part of the terrace s gardens. From a Planning and Conservation perspective, it is precisely this unobtrusive and ad-hoc character which we envisage should be preserved. Most of the plots which fall beyond the historic red line, like the proposed site at the rear of No.6 Grosvenor Place, are in separate ownerships. In the case of No.6, the proposed development takes its cue from the adjacent new and historic structures, (No s 11 and 12 being the new ones and No s 14 and 15 being the historic structures) which are built up to the historic garden line. The ownership boundary line of No.6 is unusual because it actually crosses this historic boundary line (shown dashed in red) by approximately 5m. This has been sensitively considered in the proposed design and is kept as garden and amenity space (which was its original intended function) and clear of all structures. Map (the proposal site is shown in red tint)

8 3.0 Previous Planning History The Site was the subject of Planning Application No. 10/03517/FUL for a large Studio Dwelling which aimed to keep the form of the existing store building and to extend it, across its full width by some 300% deeper into the site. Whilst the principle of the development was considered to be acceptable, this application was refused on for a number of reasons including siting, design, limited natural light, lack of carparking and, due to its siting and particularly its size, the fact that it would unacceptably alter the character of the garden of 6 Grosvenor Place leading to an adverse impact on the setting of the Listed terrace and the Conservation Area. The reasons for refusal are shown below: This application was then subject of a Planning Appeal APP/F0114/A/11/ which was dismissed on Whilst the principal of residential development on this site was again accepted, the Planning Inspectorate dismissed the appeal mainly on the grounds of the impact of the proposal on the Listed Grosvenor Place terrace, noting that with few exceptions any buildings at the bottom of gardens are clearly domestic in scale and appear to be ancillary to the listed terrace. Refer to Appendix 2 for the Appeal Decision. Due to the design and size (some 300% larger than the existing building on the site), the previous proposal was clearly visible from the road and, noting that the character of this part of the Conservation Area was one where the appearance was of large rear gardens running down to Ringswell Gardens, the proposed design was considered to be what the Inspector referred to as a residential intrusion and incongruous and harmful to the setting of the listed terrace. The proposal site has changed ownership since the Appeal and SR Architects are now challenged with reviewing an alternative proposal for this site. Nothing within the Appeal Decision suggested that, fundamentally, the site would not be suitable for a dwelling of any kind and notwithstanding the historical analysis provided above, which proves that the gardens of the listed terrace were never actually designed to

9 stretch to Ringswell Gardens, we have taken a fresh approach and provide herewith an alternative, innovative design solution encompassing all comments to date to enhance this maligned, derelict and disused site. Initial contact was made at the end of February 2012 with BANES Senior Planning Officer Suzanne D Arcy, the original case officer who determined the previous application and dealt with the later appeal. It was verbally confirmed that the principle of a dwelling on the site was accepted (as in fact had been noted within the Case Officer s Assessment and the Appeal documents), however it was made clear that any new application would need to consider the design very carefully, would need to reconsider size, as the previous application was significantly larger than what existed, and that carparking would ideally need to be incorporated; quite a complex conundrum given the site and constraints. We initially sought a meeting to discuss this further as part of pre-planning application discussions but this was not able to occur due to the Case Officer concerned going on maternity leave. Following extensive historical analysis as well as review of recent planning precedents in the vicinity, a design was submitted to BANES as a Pre-Planning Application (12/03168/PREAPP) in September The aim was to address the main reasons for the refusal of the previous application with a revised design which was considerably smaller than the previously rejected application noted above, and 3d models and perspective views were provided demonstrating that the new design would cause no visual distraction or harm on the listed terrace. Some useful design advice was provided by the officer dealing with this pre-application in Suzanne D Arcy s absence (Rachel Tadman) which has been duly followed in this Full Application. Informal opinion from the pre-application was that from a Conservation viewpoint which was based entirely upon a subjective interpretation of the Appeal Decision, the site would never be suitable for any form of residential dwelling. This sentiment was at complete odds with all the previously documented evidence as well as, we would suggest, what was actually stated within the Appeal Decision itself. The stance seemed equally unusual also given that the entire surrounding area is one of residential dwellings. Attempts were made to meet with the Conservation Officer to discuss the application further and understand the logic behind such a diversion to all previously documented thoughts. It was understood that whilst the design was considered a significant improvement to what was previously submitted and acceptable in principle with a few suggested modifications, a conversion of such buildings to residential was undesirable due to the precedence that any approval might set in the vicinity. It was accepted however that each site is considered on its own merits and that the best course of action would be to submit a new formal Full Planning Application as such decisions could not be made at Pre-Planning Application level and, if necessary, the right of an Appeal would still remain. This Full Planning Application submission therefore follows this advice provided by BANES during the Pre-Planning Application process and all such suggested modifications have been applied to the revised proposal.

10 4.0 This Proposal This proposed development is for a high quality, single bedroom, compact single storey dwelling with provision for a parking space and garden amenity on the existing plot. The scheme has been developed following the comments from BANES case officer on the previous application scheme in that the principle of development is acceptable however on the basis of any revised proposal needing to be a positive response to the reasons for refusal on the previous application (See reasons as above). In addition, the comments provided on the design within the later preplanning application have also been taken into consideration and amendments have been made taking on-board this advice given in respect of design amendments. In light of this, the submitted scheme s key design features are as follows: 1. The building has been sited away from each side boundary which, coupled with careful internal planning of the dwelling, enables each of the rooms to have adequate natural daylight and with views out into a privatised garden. It should be noted that the previous application design extended the full width of the plot and had to rely on roof lights in order to achieve a good degree of natural light and ventilation which was considered poor and contrary to Policy D.2. The submitted redesign also takes into account the comments and concerns made by neighbours in relation to the previous design which extended the full width of the plot. 2. The submitted redesign carefully reduces the scale and width of any extension. The extended area now proposed is some 55% less in area terms compared with the previously rejected application. Coupled with the carefully articulated design, this reduces the impact on the street scene and responds sympathetically to the character of the area which, as noted within the Appeal Decision, is defined by the appearance of large gardens running down to Ringswell Gardens. 3. The design retains the footplate and form of the existing store building at the front but provides a sensitive subservient extension behind it which is low in scale and clad with appropriate finishes, including a green roof which allows the building to fuse into its garden landscape setting. This directly responds to the comments made within the Appeal Decision that the buildings at the bottom of the gardens are clearly domestic in scale and appear to be ancillary to the listed terrace. In terms of scale and form, the extension is commensurate with other garden additions in the listed terrace. (see also 3d diagram Map 6 above and Planning Precedence below) 4. A carparking space has been designed and incorporated into the plot in line with the advice provided by highways at the time of the Appeal and adjusted to take into consideration some of the detail noted within the Pre-Planning Application advice. The existing store, whilst of poor quality and never part of the original Grosvenor Place design, is still likely to be considered as curtilage listed and therefore a very sensitively detailed and inconspicuous opening

11 within the stone wall has been designed and incorporated. The intent would be to carefully remove a part of this stone wall to form the opening into the site and to re-use the same stone as slips within a concealed metal framework which opens as inconspicuous double gates. Such a design has been used in similar sensitive locations within old brickwork and stonework structures in the UK (see image below) but the intent is to create the least visual intrusion to what already exists here. Such a detail was referred to in the Pre-Planning Application and has been considered to be acceptable in principle. Refer to drawing AL(0)007 Proposed Gate Details for more information and further detail. 5.0 Scale As noted above, the existing pitched roof is partly renewed like-for-like at the existing levels ensuring that there is no height increase and all extensions are subservient and lower than the existing store form, thus limiting disruption of the setting and view from No.6 house and garden, from the listed terrace as well as from Ringswell Gardens. In terms of area of development it should also be noted that this design increases the existing gross external area contained by the existing store (approx. 24.1m2), by some 24.1m2. The previous rejected planning application (10/03517/FUL) noted a proposed internal dwelling footprint area of 8.65m x 9.5m which represented a total gross internal area of circa 82m2. This submitted proposal, with a total internal area of 37m2, reduces the scale of the new addition by some 55% which, with careful design in both plan and section, has resulted in a form which will not look like a residential intrusion into the existing landscape, nor be incongruous, nor harmful to the setting of the listed terrace. The character and appearance of the surrounding Conservation Area would, in fact, be considerably improved as our photomontage drawings showing

12 the before and after images clearly prove and the site would once again and after a long period of time finally be brought back into meaningful use. 6.0 Landscaping The building has been sited to allow soft landscaping to wrap around the whole of the additions. This did not occur with the previous rejected application and was considered to be one of the design failings as noted in the Case Officers report and Appeal Decision. The new design now retains the sense of a continuous and long garden for the extent of the existing plot and up to the existing store building; and we have, in fact, removed part of the store to one side to make way for the parking space which allows the garden to extend yet further and when the gate is open, all the way up to Ringswell Gardens. This echoes a similar character and pattern to the plots which have now been developed with large garages in the rear gardens and which the Planning Inspector referred to within the Appeal documentation (see Appendix 2). This new and revised proposal would therefore no longer appear out of place nor harmful to the setting and character of the area. There are no trees of any significance affected by the proposal or considered as a constraint. Two cherries currently flank the existing building off the highway and their canopy spreads clear the existing low roof. Consideration of trenching for services and the opening and future use of a vehicle hardstanding to the left of the current entrance is likely to involve the loss of the left hand cherry tree. We would be happy to replace this lost cherry in a different location and with a specimen to be determined by the BANES arboricultural officer. Tree protection will be provided for the cherry on the right hand side during construction works and as existing wall structure this area will remain intact this is unlikely to be affected. 7.0 Planning Precedent Recent planning applications in the area clearly suggest that the notion of building on land at the rear of Grosvenor Place is considered acceptable in principle provided these are domestic in scale and appear to be ancillary to the listed terrace and therefore not harmful to the setting. This is in-line with the comments by the Planning Inspectorate during the appeal for this site. In reviewing similar precedents in the area, it should be noted that BANES have recently accepted: i) under Application 12/04225/FUL the extension and alteration of an existing outbuilding to incorporate a studio room at the rear of 25 Grosvenor Place. This studio would be located within only 20m of the basement flat, (this compares with the circa 30m between the rear of the new proposed dwelling and the basement flat at 6 Grosvenor Place). Indeed, both the ridge and the eaves heights of the consented application at 25 Grosvenor Place are higher than the heights within the revised proposal we submit herewith and we are interested to note

13 that the Case Officer s Assessment notes the outbuilding will be clearly visible from Ringswell Gardens which runs to the rear of the site and will not harm the appearance of the surrounding streetscene Listed Building Consent has been granted for the development and the conservation officer has raised no objection to the application. No. 25 Grosvenor Place The photograph above shows the consented outbuilding which we would suggest is rather more visible from the road to our proposal and is clearly rather more of a residential intrusion with more impact on the Listed terrace than the submitted design put forward for 142 Ringswell Gardens. ii) On a larger scale, and within approximately 100m of the application site, BANES have also approved the construction of 2 new large, modern and detached houses in excess of 2600sq ft each under application 09/03715/FUL. This application, located some 27m from the main rear elevation of Percy Place which is also a Listed terrace and within the Conservation Area, and involving houses with further floor levels would have a significantly greater impact in the surroundings than the modest extension to the store which is proposed at 142 Ringswell Gardens and which involves a circa 40sq m building set some 32 from the rear elevation of Grosvenor Place. The case officer noted within the delegated report for the referred consented houses that this distance combined with the lower level of the proposed dwellings mean that they are visually separate from the listed terraces and would not significantly affect their settings. The new dwellings would therefore not detract from the character and appearance of these terraces as listed buildings. The photograph below shows an image of one of the consented properties against the backdrop of the listed terrace. Again, we would suggest that could prove to be regarded as having rather more impact on the conservation area than rather more of

14 a residential intrusion than the submitted design put forward for 142 Ringswell Gardens. Sundale, Percy Place iii) At 193 Ringswell Gardens, and again within approximately 100m of the application site, is another example of an approved new build residential building set immediately behind the listed terrace and, in this case, within what would have been the rear gardens of the original terrace. BANES application 06/02862/FUL refers. 193 Ringswell Gardens Clearly, if such a visible interventions as noted within the approved schemes above are not considered to be residential intrusions and or harmful to the existing listed terraces and the appearance of the surrounding streetscene and Conservation Area, then to suggest as noted within the Pre-Planning Application advice, that this modest proposal for 142 Ringswell is not acceptable for those noted concerns needs careful

15 review. This will not be consistent with any of the suggested examples above nor numerous other similar examples which have listed building consent around the city and World Heritage Site. We fully appreciate that each site needs to be carefully considered on its own merits and that Pre-Planning Applications represent officer s informal opinions which are not binding. We would hope that with the suggested revisions made to the scheme, the same view be expressed by the Conservation officer involved might be reconsidered as such a diversion from established principles is unlikely to be upheld within an Appeal. It is our view that this unusual site, with a clearly established and historical built form on it, and historically within separate ownership, is unlike any other site within this area. Worth noting too is the fact that the current building already has its own existing water, gas and electric services within the store making it unique and quite unlike any other similar building in the vicinity. It certainly cannot therefore be used in any way as a precedence for greenfield or other local sites being put forward to the Council for similar applications, if indeed that was the concern behind the Pre-Planning Application comments. The design put forward for its re-use is well considered, sensitive to its location and should, like the other precedents noted above for equally unusual sites, be recommended for approval. Refer to AL(0)006 Proposed Wider Site Plan in the Appendix 1 for location and details of the above mentioned approved planning applications Conclusions There is a recognised housing shortage in the UK and there is also a demonstrable need for additional housing to address this shortage. This brownfield site is occupied by one dilapidated structure which has not been used for decades and which sits within a good sized plot surrounded by residential buildings within a residential area. If a meaningful use cannot be found for it then it will remain neglected. The opportunity exists for BANES to recognise this site as one which could provide a desperately needed, modestly sized and energy efficient home in a sustainable location within an existing settlement which will also contribute towards the goals of providing more dwellings and reducing carbon emissions. It is considered that, although this development will only provide an additional small dwelling, the resulting new dwelling will provide a good quality, well designed house which will help, even in a small way, to meet the identified housing need within the locality. From a Planning and Conservation perspective, and based upon the historical feedback reviewed and received, this site is clearly contentious in terms of any decision to make this into a dwelling and requires a very carefully considered design and approach. As such, the building has been arranged such that any addition necessary to allow it to function as a dwelling has been kept to an absolute minimum with sensitive additions inserted that follow historical patterns and which resembles the grain and character of the existing urban fabric within this part of the Conservation Area. Historic evidence proves that whilst the store might be curtilage listed, the plot that it

16 stands upon does not actually fall within the historic formal garden of the listed terrace; it instead it falls within the less formal communal gardens where developments have previously emerged in an almost ad-hoc manner and fashion over time, resulting in the diverse character of the area. This may also suggest the reasons for the planning approval of the two storey development further to east of the site which was considered acceptable at the time of consideration, although the design today is clearly questionable and agreed by all, including ourselves, to be completely out of character. We have recognised that any design still needs to respect its context and sit sensitively within its historic and adjacent listed setting which we feel is achieved with the proposed design, fully complying with BANES Local Plan Policy BH.6 relating to development in a Conservation Area. The careful use of scale, form and materials will enable the dwelling to fuse into its urban setting and provide a positive contribution for a high quality, small scale sustainable dwelling close to the centre of Bath whilst restoring a maligned, derelict and disused site.

17 Appendix 1: Proposed Wider Site Plan

18 Appendix 2: Appeal Decision

19