Agenda item - BH2016/05563 - Tyson Place and St Johns Mount, Brighton - Full Planning

Installation of insulated render cladding to all elevations and replacement of existing windows and doors with uPVC windows and doors and associated elevations.

RECOMMENDATION – GRANT

Ward Affected: Queen’s Park

B           BH2016/05563 - Tyson Place & St John’s Mount, Brighton - Full Planning

Installation of insulated render cladding to all elevations and replacement of existing windows and doors with UPVC windows and doors and associated alterations.

1)               It was noted that the application had been the subject of a site visit prior to the meeting.

Officer Introduction

2)               The Principle Planning Officer, Jonathan Puplett, introduced the application and gave a presentation with reference to plans, photographs and elevational drawings. It was explained that the application had been deferred from the previous Planning Committee to have the opportunity to ask the applicant further questions regarding the materials. The Conservation Action Group (CAG) had discussed the application and was recommending that the Committee refused the application. It was explained that CAG had recommended brick to the applicant rather than render cladding as similar buildings in the area were render clad and were deteriorating.

3)               The application was not located in the conservation area but was located near three conservation areas, these were: Queens Park Conservation Area, East Cliff Conservation Area, and Carlton Hill Conservation Area.

4)               The Officers recommendation was to grant the application as the appearance was suitable for the area and there were no objections from the Heritage Officers.

Questions for Officers

5)               In response to Councillor Morris the Officer explained that there had been previous problems with cladding staining; however, it was a newer type of cladding and it would not stain.

6)               In response to Jim Gowans, CAG representative, the Officer noted that there were proposed repairs to the ground floor and the balconies. It was added that the balconies would have a brick finish.

7)               In response to Councillor Hyde it was explained that there was a general assumption that the applicant would maintain the buildings.

8)               The Solicitor clarified to Councillor Mac Cafferty that the Planning Authority could not condition the maintenance of the buildings.

9)               Councillor Russell-Moyle questioned whether Members could consider that the applicant had similar properties and these were not maintained. In response the Solicitor noted that if he was considering refusing the application, he must decide this on the facts of the application before him.

10)            In response to Councillor Russell-Moyle the Officer noted that the impact on the views from the conservation areas had been considered and the appearance would be acceptable. It was added that there were render finished properties in the area.

Questions for the Applicant

11)            In response to Councillor Miller the applicant, Ms Youngman, explained that the external cladding was significantly more cost effective. It was added that the applicant could use brick detailing on the cladding panels.

12)            In response to Councillor Russell-Moyle the applicant confirmed that the new cladding system had a 25 year guarantee and using abseiling cleaners would be the most cost effective way to maintain the cladding. The system was breathable and new windows and mechanical ventilation was to be installed.

13)            In response to Councillor Hyde it was confirmed that the 25 year warranty was backed by the insurance. It was also explained that there was more than one local abseiling company that could be used.

14)            In response to Councillor Morris the applicant explained that the drainpipes would be boxed; however, there would be access points in the boxing for maintenance.

15)            It was clarified to Councillor C. Theobald that it was the same system as Essex Place; however, a newer version of render. It was also clarified that the windows were 25 years old and therefore needed replacing.

16)            In response to Councillor Moonan that applicant explained that they had explored all options: internal cladding: previous internal cladding had reduced the room size significantly and was very costly; cavity claddings: it was disruptive and costly; and external insulation.

Debate and Decision Making

17)            Councillor Miller stated that he agreed with CAG that the new render would harm the views from the three local conservation areas. He noted that brick cladding would be more appropriate and encouraged the applicant to submit a new application. He added that he would not be supporting the application.

18)            Councillor Hyde noted that the buildings in the near vicinity were red brick and agreed with CAG that the cladding would be detrimental to the views from the conservation areas. She also noted concern for the maintenance of the cladding and would therefore not be supporting the Officer’s recommendation.

19)            Councillor C. Theobald stated that she would prefer red brick rather than the cladding; therefore, would not be supporting the Officer’s recommendation.

20)            Councillor Inkpin-Leissner stated that brick would be more suitable for the area and the cladding would be detrimental to the symmetry amongst the buildings; therefore, he would not be supporting the Officer’s recommendation.

21)            Councillor Morris explained to the Committee that he was satisfied with the use of abseiling companies maintaining the building and residents were in favour of the application; therefore, he would be supporting the Officer’s recommendation.

22)            The CAG representative noted that the red brick buildings were dominant in the surrounding areas of the proposal. He explained that although the site was not in a conservation area it would be visible from the three neighbouring conservation areas.

23)            Councillor Russell-Moyle noted that red brick would have been more suitable; however, the cladding would be beneficial for tenants. He explained that he was undecided and would be abstaining.

24)            Councillor Moonan explained that there were similar tower blocks that were rendered in the area and that maintenance was needed that would benefit the residents.

25)            Councillor Gilbey noted concern for the durability of the cladding; therefore, was undecided on her decision.

26)            The Chair explained that she would welcome a more suitable cladding for the area; however, a solution was needed for fuel poverty. She added that she would be voting against the Officer’s recommendation.

27)            Councillor Hyde proposed an alternative to the Officer recommendation to refuse the application on the grounds that the materials would not fit in with the brickwork in the immediate area, the adjacent properties and the streetscene, concerns regarding durability and the impact of the proposed development as an important backdrop from within the three conservation areas. Councillor Hyde agreed that the final form of the wording of the reason for refusal could be agreed by the Planning Manager in consultation with herself and the Seconder. Councillor Hyde’s alternative recommendation was seconded by Councillor Inkpin-Leissner.

28)            A recorded vote was taken on the proposed alternative recommendation by the 12 Members present. This was carried with Councillors Gilbey, C. Theobald, Bennett, Hyde, Inkpin-Leissner, Miller and Cattell in support, Councillors Mac Cafferty, Littman, Moonan and Morris against and Councillor Russell-Moyle abstaining.

109.1    RESOLVED – That the Committee had taken into consideration the recommendation set out in section 1 of the report but resolves to REFUSE planning permission for the reasons outlined by Councillor Hyde set out in paragraph 27 above.