Agenda item - BH2015/01472,Clarendon House, Conway Court, Ellen House, Livingstone House & Goldstone House Clarendon Road & Garages 1-48 Ellen Street, Hove - Council Development

Installation of insulated rendering to all elevations, new coverings to roof and replacement of existing windows and doors with double glazed UPVC units.  Installation of windows and louvered smoke vents to existing open stairwells to Clarendon House, Ellen House and Goldstone House and alterations including repair and remedial works.

RECOMMENDATION – REFUSE

Ward Affected: Goldsmid

Installation of insulated rendering to all elevations, new coverings to roof and replacement of existing windows and doors with double glazed UPVC units. Installation of windows and louvered smoke vents to existing open stairwells to Clarendon House, Ellen House and Goldstone House and alterations including repair and remedial works.

(1)             The Principal Planning Officer, Jonathan Puplett introduced the application and gave a presentation by reference to photographs, plans and elevational drawings. The application related to the residential development situated on the northern side of Clarendon Road. The development consisted of 5 multi-storey flatted blocks (Conway Court, Clarendon House, Ellen House, Goldstone House, Livingstone House), with two storey link buildings, single storey garages, boundary walls, trees and planting. The development’s primary frontage was into Clarendon Road, Ellen Road to the rear of the site was its secondary frontage. The differences between the previously refused application and the current one were highlighted. It was also noted that further comments had been received from the CAG re-iterating their earlier comments that independent external advice should be obtained concerning the likely durability of the proposed cladding before a decision was made on the scheme, also that sample colours should be received. Additional letters of objection had also been received and a joint letter of support from Councillors Horan and O’Quinn. These and the representations received from the CAG were set out in the circulated Additional Representations List.

(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 heritage assets, amenity and environmental sustainability.

(3)          It was considered that over the time brick faced blocks of the estate had retained a quality of appearance as had many other brick faced blocks across the city of a similar age. Overall, based on experience across the city it was considered that a brick faced finish was more likely to retain a quality of appearance than a through coloured render finish, although it was acknowledged that in either case regular maintenance would be required. Notwithstanding the additional information submitted to make the case that the building would not discolour or collect dirt it was considered that this could only be considered as speculation as there was no evidence available regarding how the material would actually wear at present. It remained of particular concern that although it was proposed that the remaining blocks would be rendered under Phase Two, no timescale for completion of the works had been given. Usually, a phasing condition would be applied to any comparable scheme requiring implementation of an entire scheme within a specified timescale but could not be done in this instance due to the uncertainties surrounding Phase Two.

(4)          Due to the scale of the individual blocks which already dramatically contrasted with the built form and the number of blocks affected by the application, the cladding would have a substantial effect on the street scene. The colour and texture of the brickwork allowed the blocks to recede in the view to some extent, whereas the starkness and uniformity of the render would make the estate the focal point in near and distant views. Ultimately, it was considered that the resultant appearance of the development would be unduly prominent and would harm the character of the area and the setting of heritage assets in the immediate vicinity of the site. Furthermore, prior to the implementation of Phase Two of the scheme, the development would result in a disjointed appearance with contrasting materials and finishes. Based on the information presented to date it was not accepted that the existing brick faced elevations and blocks could not be repaired and maintained. Overall due to the unduly prominent appearance which would result, and the disjointed appearance which the development as a whole would have prior to Phase Two being implemented, it was considered that the proposed development would result in a less appropriate appearance than the present appearance of the development. For these reasons the proposed scheme was contrary to policies QD1,QD2, QD3, QD14, HE3 and HE6 of the Brighton and Hove Local Plan; refusal was therefore recommended. It was considered that the existing brick faced appearance of the buildings should be retained, repaired and maintained if this was possible.

Public Speakers and Questions

(5)          Mr Croydon and Ms Paynter spoke on behalf of objectors. Mr Croydon stated that he was a builder with some 30 years experience who let a tenancy of one of the flats. In his view the works were superfluous in that the improvements required could be effected through normal repairs and maintenance. There was a long payback period, over 70 years and it was disappointing that following the earlier refusal a very similar scheme had been resubmitted. Ms Paynter showed photographs of the interiors of some of the flats and common areas, only a minimal level of work was required as there were no major problems with the existing fabric of the buildings. What was being suggested was not proportionate and would be detrimental both for residents and in terms of the impact on the neighbouring street scene.

(6)          Councillor O’Quinn spoke in her capacity as a Local Ward Councillor in support of the application. It was considered that the rendered cladding would make a significant difference to the look of the buildings and it was fitting that they be provided with a new lease of life in the manner suggested. A number of residents that she and her ward colleague, Councillor Horan had spoken to were keen for these works to be undertaken as they would eradicate problems of mould and damp and would bring energy savings for them. A number of those who had expressed their opposition to the proposals were leasehold tenants and were averse to them on the grounds of cost. The silicone component of the render mix would render it self cleaning and overall these works would improve the general appearance of the neighbourhood which was currently somewhat neglected.

(7)          Ms Thompson spoke on behalf of the applicants in support of the application and also responded to questions put by the Committee. Ms Thompson explained these works would use a state of the art material which would be maintenance free and would improve the external appearance of the buildings whilst also addressing internal problems such as mould and damp. The energy efficiency of the buildings would be improved and would therefore result in reduced heating costs for residents. These works would be similar to those effected to other estates elsewhere in the city but would have the advantage of being able to use the most up to date technical solutions.

(8)          Councillor Mac Cafferty referred to the textured surface and sought clarification as to how this would work in terms of being self-cleaning. He had concerns that the surface could actually attract dirt rather than to repel it.

(9)          Councillor Wares referred to estates which had already been treated across the city which were already showing signs of wear querying whether there was any evidence of this system being used elsewhere and how it had worn. It was explained that this cladding system was new and had not been used on most of the developments across the city. This was a new product which due to its silicone core was intended to provide a maintenance free finish.

(10)       Councillor Wares also asked whether assessments had been made of the costs pros and cons of using other materials or other solutions for instance a material which retained the existing brick clad appearance of the blocks. Councillor Wares also enquired regarding when it was anticipated that funding for Phase Two would be available, although this may not be strictly a planning consideration if not available it could result in works to the estate being completed only in part.

(11)       Councillor Barradell enquired regarding the statements which had been made regarding the “maintenance free” properties, seeking clarification as to whether regular maintenance checks would continue to be required. Ms Thompson confirmed that they would but that the manufacturers gave a 25 year guarantee for their product. Also, regarding the precise colour of finish now proposed.

(12)       Councillor Miller referred to the comments made by Councillor O’Quinn in relation to the feedback she had received from residents stating that number of residents also appeared to have objected to the proposals querying the breakdown between leaseholders and tenants. The Legal Adviser to the Committee stated that it was only appropriate to ask questions of speakers seeking clarification of matters they had raised.

(13)       Councillors Morris and Wares enquired regarding the rationale which had been applied by the Council in deciding to use to use this approach to funding its refurbishment and maintenance works across its estates. The Legal Adviser to the Committee, Hilary Woodward confirmed that this was not a matter for question/debate by the Committee as decisions on that matter had been made by another committee with other responsibilities. The Committee were required to consider and determine the application before them on planning grounds.

              Questions for Officers

(14)       Councillor Wares enquired regarding the fact that funding was not yet in place to fund the second phase of the development. If approval were to be given by the Committee and Phase Two did not take place what mitigation measures if any could be taken bearing in mind that a completion date for a scheme in its entirety was usually conditioned. The Planning and Building Control Applications Manager, Jeanette Walsh responded that if planning permission was granted officers would have to explore mechanisms which could be put into place to ensure completion of the works in their entirety. If that was breached thought would need to be given to whether and what could be done to achieve compliance.

(15)       Councillor Wares stated that in his view this created something of a conundrum. The Legal Adviser to the Committee, Hilary Woodward confirmed that if Members were minded to approve the application, it would need to be approved as minded to grant in order for consideration to be given to how this issue could be overcome.

(16)       Councillor Bennett enquired whether there were similar estates across the city where blocks were configured across the site in a similar fashion. She considered that the proposed treatment would make the blocks on the estate more dominant than currently.

       Debate and Decision Making Process

(17)       Councillor Barradell stated that she was unhappy with the colour of the surface treatment proposed and considered that it would have a detrimental appearance. Where similar treatments had been used elsewhere in the city they were already showing signs of wear and there was no evidence available to indicate how this material would wear overtime. The existing brick surfaces had lasted well beyond their anticipated time span.

(18)       Councillor Gilbey stated that one of the estates in her ward had received this treatment in part. It had not completed and in consequence half of the blocks had been treated and the remainder had not. This had remained the situation for some time and there was no indication that this would change.

(19)       Councillor Inkpin-Leissner considered that appearance of the estate was better as it was and that maintenance options which preserved its current appearance should be explored.

(20)       Councillor Littman stated that the existing estate was not attractive, however in his opinion this scheme was so similar to the previous one that the reasons for refusal had not been satisfactorily overcome. He also shared concerns which had been raised in relation to funding for Phase Two.

(21)       Councillor Wares considered that a compelling case had not been made to approve this scheme. He considered that insufficient other options had not been explored, in particular costings which would result in the exterior appearance of the buildings remaining unaltered. The costs were high and insufficient evidence was available to indicate how the buildings might wear in the longer term.

(22)       Councillor Morris stated that in the absence of any tangible proof of how the cladding material would wear he considered that the application should be refused.

(23)       Councillor Miller concurred stating that the proposals were costly and did not in his view provide sufficient benefits to outweigh the harm caused by the detrimental impact they would have on the surrounding street scene and in longer views.

(24)       Councillor C Theobald considered that other options should have been explored. Blocks completed using a similar system had not weathered well, it was not proven that this would be maintenance free or that it would require less maintenance than the existing brickwork.

(25)       Councillor Hamilton was concerned that the colour of the proposed finish would be out of keeping with the neighbouring streetscape and agreed that the arguments regarding maintenance and longevity of the surface treatment were untested.

(26)       Councillor Mac Cafferty considered that the textured surface of the render could prove problematic and that the finish it would provide would be poor. The blocks would have an overly dominant appearance, more so than currently, which would be unacceptable. He considered the finish indicated was poor and shared the concerns expressed by fellow Committee members.

(27)       A vote was taken and Members voted unanimously that planning permission be refused.

33.5       RESOLVED - That theCommittee has taken into consideration and agrees with the reason for the recommendation set out in section 11of the report and the policies and guidance in section 7 and resolves to refuse planning permission for the reasons set out in section 11.