Agenda item - BH2015/03586 - Clarendon House, Conway Court, Ellen House, Livingstone House & Goldstone House, Clarendon Road, Hove - Council Development

Replacement of existing windows and doors with double glazed UPVC units to residential dwellings.

RECOMMENDATION – GRANT

              Replacement of existing windows and doors with double glazed UPVC units to residential dwellings.

(1)             The Planning Manager, Applications, Nicola Hurley, gave a presentation by reference to photographs, plans and elevational drawings. Reference was made to the earlier refused application which had included installation of insulated rendering to all elevations, new coverings to the roof and replacement of existing windows and doors with double glazed UPVC units. The current application sought permission to replacement of external doors and windows and doors to the blocks across the site. The proposed replacement windows and doors would be white UPVC framed units. It was noted that further representations had been received and had been set out in the “Additional Representations List”, but that no new matters were raised.

(2)          The main considerations in determining the application related to the resultant appearance of the proposed development (visual impact) and impact upon the setting of the heritage assets in the vicinity of the site, impact on amenity, and environmental sustainability. The proposed works would consist of the replacement of windows and balcony doors to Conway Court, Clarendon House, Ellen House, Goldstone House and Livingstone House. Integral ventilation systems were proposed to the kitchen window units.

(3)          At the time of the previous applications external insulation and rendering of all of the buildings on site had been proposed. It had been considered that this would have resulted in an unduly prominent appearance with a negative impact on the setting of heritage assets in the vicinity of the site (St Barnabus Church, Hove Station and the Hove Station Conservation Area). The current proposal would have a much less significant visual impact. It was proposed that, in conjunction with repair works which were underway at present, the UPVC windows and balcony doors to the five main blocks would be replaced with new units, of a similar design and appearance. It was considered that the replacement doors would result in a similar appearance to the existing and that there would be no significant harm to the heritage assets in the vicinity or to amenity. Protection of trees and planted areas could be secured by planning condition, therefore, the application was recommended for approval.

              Public Speakers and Questions

(4)          Ms Belogaska and Mr Croydon spoke on behalf of objectors to the scheme. Ms Belogaska stated that she was concerned that full surveys had not been carried out on all of the blocks, no one had visited her and in fact her own windows and a number of others had been replaced relatively recently and did not require replacement. It was of great concern that scaffolding had been erected and porta cabins had appeared on site in advance of this planning application being considered by the Committee. These works were not necessary and should be refused, a compelling case had not been made, nor had details of the specification or life expectancy been submitted. Mr Croydon concurred with all that had been said by Ms Belogaska, he was aware of a tenant whose windows had been replaced, some 20 years or so previously, those works had not been carried out to a high standard, the windows had been fitted badly and had given rise to draughts. The tenant in question was still experiencing problems. He had visited several flats recently with his surveyor and none of them had faulty windows. There seemed to be a determination to carry on with replacement of the windows to all flats regardless, this would be a waste of materials and money from the housing budget.

(5)          Councillor O’Quinn spoke in her capacity as a Local Ward Councillor setting out her objections to the proposed works. There seemed to confusion regarding works carried out to date and regarding when those works had been carried out. A number of her constituents had contacted her expressing concern that works were not required to all of the blocks, also in relation to the level of consultation that had taken place and the cost implications.

(6)          Ms Thompson spoke on behalf of the applicants, (the council) in support of its application. It was confirmed that surveys had been carried out across the site and had indicated that the existing windows had reached the end of their useful lives and were in a poor state of repair; even in instances where the windows appeared to be in a good condition internally cracks in the external rendering and around the sills had been identified and would give rise to damp/water penetration if that was not already the case. Photographs were circulated, showing the level of works identified as a result of the surveys carried out.

              Questions for Officers

(7)          Councillor Wares stated that there seemed to be confusion regarding any works previously carried out, when those works had been carried out , enquiring whether it was intended that all of the window units would be replaced and also the status of any works already commenced onsite. It was explained that with the exception of 5 flats which had leases which precluded this it was intended to replace the windows to the remaining 292 flats across the blocks on site.

(8)          It was clarified that none of the work currently being undertaken on site required planning permission. Scaffolding and portacabins had been erected on site and were being utilised in association with repair and maintenance works on site which were already under way and were not the subject of the current application. If however, permission was granted for this application this equipment would also be utilised for those works too.

(9)          Councillor Wares referred to the five properties to which the windows would not be replaced enquiring whether their appearance would then be at variance with the other properties on site. It was explained that those five properties were located across the site and would not stand-out from the other units to which replacement windows had been fitted.

(10)       Councillor Littman asked how it had been ascertained that all of the properties required work if surveys had not been under taken, also the standard of windows to be used, work could last long beyond its quoted “lifetime” dependent on the materials, used quality of fittings and finishes etc.

(11)       Ms Thompson explained that significant problems had been identified to all of the windows surveyed across the estate, which indicated that problems with the existing windows were widespread. The surveys undertaken had indicated that the existing windows had been in situ for over twenty years although it had not proved possible to ascertain the precise date at which they had been replaced. The windows would be third generation product manufactured and fitted to a high specification.

(12)       In answer to questions by Councillor C Theobald regarding the life of the proposed windows and their external appearance it was explained that they would have a like for like appearance with the existing but as technology had moved forward in the interim it was anticipated that they would have a lifetime of 30 years plus, although that was indicative rather than being absolutely guaranteed.

(13)       Councillor Inkpin-Leissner asked regarding the level of feedback obtained, expressing concern that a number of tenants had indicated that their windows had been replaced/did not require further works. It was indicated that in addition to the surveys carried out, a great deal of feedback had also been received. Councillor Inkpin-Leissner referred to the earlier decision of the Housing Committee, enquiring whether it would be appropriate for that to be revisited.

(14)       Councillor Cattell, the Chair stated that it would not be appropriate to consider the decision of another Committee, Councillor Miller stated that the earlier decisions of the Housing Committee had related to on-going maintenance works being undertaken on site and not to the specific detail of the application before the Committee that day.

(15)       Councillor Morris queried whether the application was invalid in consequence of the works that had commenced on site. The Planning and Building Control Applications Manager confirmed that it was understood that the equipment already on site related to works already being under taken, did not require planning permission and did not relate to the application before the Committee that day. The Planning Manager, Applications, Nicola Hurley, responded in answer to further questions that she was unable to provide further details in relation to the current works.

(16)       Councillor Wares referred to works being undertaken and sought confirmation that measures were in place to ensure that the works were completed. The Senior Solicitor, Hilary Woodward, explained she understood the works were to be completed as one project. If tenants/leaseholders had any issues regarding works that would be a matter for recourse under their tenancy agreements/leases.

Debate and Decision Making Process

(17)       Councillor Barradell whether fewer works would be carried out if subsequent surveys indicated that works were not required to all of the units. It was confirmed this lay outside the remit of this application which was for all of the units, with the exception of the five units referred to.

(18)       Councillor C Theobald referred to comments made that the replacement windows would be smaller than the existing. It was confirmed that it was understood that they would be of the same dimensions as the existing.

(19)       Councillor Miller stated that reference had been made to rights of light issues, but in his view this would be no different than was currently the case.

(20)       Councillor Littman stated that based on the information provided it appeared that significant work was required and he therefore considered that the proposals were acceptable.

(21)       Councillor Hamilton stated that having heard regarding the level of work required he considered that these works were necessary and acceptable, given that even in those cases where superficially the windows appeared to be sound closer inspection had revealed they were not. He supported the officer recommendation.

(22)       A vote was taken and on a vote of 7 to 3 with 2 abstentions planning permission was granted.

118.3    RESOLVED - That the Committee has taken into consideration and agrees with the reasons for the recommendation set out in section 11 of the report and the policies and guidance in section 7 and resolves to GRANT planning permission subject to the Conditions and Informatives set out in section 11.