Agenda item - BH2018/02296 - Wish Court, Muriel House, Sanders House and Jordan Court, Ingram Crescent West, Hove - Full Planning

Replacement of existing timber and metal balcony balustrading with metal balustrading.

RECOMMENDATION – GRANT

Ward Affected: Wish

              Replacement of existing timber and metal balcony balustrading with metal balustrading.

              Officer Presentation

(1)          The Principal Planning Officer, Stewart Glassar, introduced the application and gave a detailed presentation by reference to photographs, site plans and elevational drawings. It was noted that the application site related to several blocks of flats situated on Ingram Crescent West. The main considerations in determining the application related to the impact of the proposal on the character and appearance of the host buildings and wider street scene, as well as the impact on the amenities of local residents.

(2)          The proposal did not include any additional balconies and as such was not considered to have a detrimental impact on the privacy of residents. A site visit had revealed that some of the existing balconies were and it was considered that replacement with robust metal units would return them to a safe standard of use. Aerial views were shown which indicated the location of all of the various blocks located across the site. The height, 1.1m, of the balustrading was acceptable and in accordance with national safety standards. Photographs were also displayed showing the works which had already been carried out at Jordan Court, to illustrate the finished appearance of the proposed treatment. It was explained that it was not considered that use of metal as a material would cause significant light nuisance (through reflection of sunlight or vehicle headlights), and it was considered to be in accordance with policy and approval was therefore recommended.

              Public Speakers

(3)          Councillor Nemeth addressed the Committee in his capacity as a Local Ward Councillor for Wish Ward in respect of the proposed balcony/balustrade treatment proposed to Ingram Crescent. He was accompanied by Mr Gage, the Major Projects Manager, Housing Programme Team who was on hand to answer questions.

(4)          Councillor Nemeth explained that extensive consultation had taken place with the residents who had supported the original proposals that a galvanised finish be used, they had not responded further as they had not been aware that conditions had been included subsequently which had required a painted finish to be provided. Those living on the estate had confirmed that their preference would be for the original proposal of a no-painted finish to be used. Councillor Nemeth stated that it had been indicated that by using this material as was without further paint treatment could save £2m over the projected life of the product.

(5)          Mr Gage explained that use of the finish proposed by conditions 1, 2 and 3 to be attached to any permission granted was considered onerous and would have additional cost implications, also that the manufacturers had given assurances that the life of treatment being used to replace the existing balconies had a life of 40-50 years without the need for them to be painted.

(6)          Councillor Robins asked whether the applicants had received confirmation in writing from the Institute of Corrosion that this was the case, stating that with the benefit of his expert knowledge he was very dubious that this would be the case or that use of galvanised material although robust would require no further painting or maintenance, particularly given the city’s marine environment.

(7)          Councillor C Theobald asked regarding the frequency of maintenance and re-painting required previously when more traditional materials were used, also whether colour applied would change over time and it was explained that was generally programmed in on a five year cycle.

(8)          Mr Gage responded that the treatment being used had been verified by the Galvanisation Association. Councillor Robins stated that whilst he was willing to support the treatment and finish now proposed he disagreed that it would have the lifespan indicated, nor that it removed the need for it be re-galvanised or painted, nor therefore, that the level of savings indicated were realistic or achievable.

(9)          Councillor Miller referred to the observations made by Councillor Robins and enquired why notwithstanding the claims which had been made why non-rusting stainless steel fixings were not proposed. It was explained that such treatment was not considered to be necessary, also that the cost of doing so was considered to be prohibitive.

(10)       Councillor Hyde enquired whether and how the materials used were to be sealed as she was aware that if the edges abutting the building were unsealed this could be problematic. It was confirmed that this would not be the case and that the balconies were purpose made.

              Questions of Officers

(11)       Councillor Hyde enquired regarding proposed conditions 1 and 2 and 3 it was confirmed that these had been put forward by officers as they were considered more appropriate than a galvanised, un-painted solution and the applicant had agreed to the imposition of the conditions.

(12)       Councillor Cattell, the Chair, sought clarification regarding the level of consultation which had taken place and it was confirmed that the residents association and groups representing the individual residential blocks had been extensively involved.

(13)       Councillor Miller enquired regarding the status of the works being carried out and it was confirmed that they were part-retrospective as some works had already commenced on site. Photographs of the work carried out at Jordan Court were shown.

              Debate and Decision Making Process

(14)       Councillor Cattell, the Chair, stated that it was very unfortunate that the works had commenced without proper advice and guidance having been sought from the Council’s own Planning Department first. In planning terms consideration needed to be given to use of the most appropriate design/town planning considerations.

(15)       Councillor Littman considered that there were three potential options: to grant with the conditions proposed, to grant but without the proposed conditions or to refuse the application.

(16)       Councillor Gilbey sought clarification of when the decision to apply brown paintwork had been made and it was confirmed that paintwork of that colour had been deemed the most appropriate at an early stage in the process.

(17)       There was brief discussion regarding whether to defer consideration of the application but it was considered that would not be appropriate.

(18)       The Legal Adviser to the Committee, Hilary Woodward, stated the Committee needed to make a decision based on planning rather than financial considerations. Members needed to consider whether a condition requiring a painted finish was necessary or not. If Members were of the view that it was not necessary to impose it those conditions could be removed and planning permission granted without them.

(19)       In consequence of the discussion which had taken place Councillor Hyde proposed that the planning permission be granted subject to removal of conditions 2 and 3 from any permission granted and that was seconded by Councillor Miller. A vote was then taken and the 7 Members of the Committee who were present when the vote was taken voted unanimously that planning permission be granted.

65.13    RESOLVED – That the Committee has taken into consideration and agrees with the reasons for the recommendation set out in the report and resolves to GRANT planning permission subject to the Condition1 and Informatives set out in the report.

              Note: Councillors Bennett, Daniel, Inkpin-Leissner (who did not attend the meeting, Mac Cafferty and O’Quinn were not present at the meeting during consideration or voting in respect of the above application.