Agenda item - BH2017/00636 - Sussex Heights, 14 St Margarets Place, Brighton - Full Planning

Installation of render to all elevations, and associated works.

RECOMMENDATION – GRANT

Ward Affected: Regency

Installation of render to all elevations, and associated works.

Officer Presentation

1)               The Principal Planning Officer introduced the application and gave a presentation with reference to plans, photographs and a sample material. It was explained that the current small tiles were covered with a membrane and there was existing damage to these. The applicant had completed a comprehensive survey to determine the urgency of the repair work and it was explained that a further waterproof membrane could not be guaranteed by the manufacture for a year. The proposed material had been applied on buildings in a marine environment and it was considered a durable product that was appropriate to cover the existing tiles. The Principal Planning Officer explained that the product had been used on the Van Alen Building in June 2016. It was noted that both the Heritage team and CAG were satisfied with the application and that it would not harm the appearance.

2)               It was stated to the Committee that the Officers were proposing the removal of condition 4 regarding the maintenance scheme. It was explained that it was not possible to predict how often the building would need to be maintained and it was possible that specialist paint could be applied on the render if the building became discoloured.

Questions for Officers

3)               In response to Councillor Morris the Principal Planning Officer explained that currently some of the windows were PVC and others were not. As part of the scheme all of the window sills would be plastic and the fire risk of these would be assessed through Building Regulations.

4)               In response to Councillor Miller it was explained that the Officers were recommending the removal of condition 4 as it was unknown how long it would be until the building discoloured and, therefore, it would be unreasonable to condition a maintenance plan. The Senior Solicitor added that conditions needed to be precise and reasonable. If the appearance of the building became an issue then the Council could serve an amenity notice.

5)               In response to Councillor Hyde it was explained that the building was built in the 1960s and the tiles applied began to break and they were not replaced. A membrane was applied on top of these.

6)               In response to Councillor Yates it was noted that areas would need to be repaired and replaced before the render was applied. The work would be costing approximately £1,000,000 and was not a cheap option; however, all the options had been explored and this would be the most appropriate.

7)               Councillor Mac Cafferty noted that there should be a proposed maintenance plan which would be complied with by the applicant regardless of whether the cleaning was needed as it was a prominent building within the city. The Officer responded and explained that it was difficult to propose a condition as it could not be predicted when the building would weather and need repainted.

8)               In response to Councillor C. Theobald it was stated that the previously refused application was for an insulation render. It was also noted that the details of the 16 letters of support were published online.

9)               In response to Councillor Hyde the Planning Manager clarified that condition 5 covered the protection of peregrines when the proposed scheme was being completed and during maintenance work in the future.

10)            In response to Councillor Miller the Principal Planning Officer noted that the render had been used on similar buildings in the UK, including; Camber Sands, Torquay and Bognor Regis. It was clarified that due to the location of the building the material would discolour; however, it was not possible to predict when this would happen.

11)            In response to the Chair the Planning Manager clarified that the location of residents submitting letters of support and objection were no longer published in the agenda; however, the information was available online. This had been agreed at the Planning Members Working Group but this could be discussed again if Members felt it was necessary.

Debate and Decision Making Process

12)            Councillor Inkpin-Leissner noted that the Van Alen building was exposed to the sea; therefore, the material must be resilient. He noted that he would be supporting the Officer’s recommendation.

13)            Councillor Yates agreed with Councillor Inkpin-Leissner and added that Members needed to be mindful that the repair work needed to be completed and it was an appropriate solution. He explained that it would enhance the street scene and would; therefore, be supporting the Officer’s recommendation.

14)            Councillor Morris noted concerns for the material potentially being flammable; however, he would be supporting the Officer’s recommendation.

15)            Councillor Miller noted that the same render on Bognor Regis hotel had become discoloured and was not aesthetically pleasing. He noted that he would welcome an application for a smooth render as it would be easier to maintain.

16)            The Chair put the proposal of the removal of condition 4 to the Committee and this was refused unanimously.

17)            The Chair then put the application to the vote, and the Officer recommendation that the application be granted was carried by 7 votes in support, 1 refusal and 3 abstentions.

44.11    RESOLVED – That the Committee has taken into consideration and agrees with the reasons for the recommendation, and resolves to GRANT permission for the reasons set out in the report.