Appendix 1 – Informal Consultation Response and Analysis
Analysis of Representations
Total Number of Responses |
75 |
Q. Do you agree that the proposed Article 4 Direction will help preserve the distinctive character and appearance of the Queen’s Park conservation area? |
|
Number of Representations that Strongly Agree |
31 (41%) |
Number of Representations that Agree |
18 (24%) |
Number of Representations that neither Agree or Disagree |
7 (9%) |
Number of Representations that Disagree |
8 (11%) |
Number of Representations that Strongly Disagree |
11 (15%) |
Q. Which, if any, of the following works to the front of buildings should require planning permission within the Queen’s Park conservation area? |
|
None |
18 (24%) |
The change of colour to all front elevations of buildings, including eaves, guttering, downpipes, exterior woodwork, windows, doors, railings, as well as changing the colour of existing rendered surfaces and existing boundary walls/railings. |
25 (33%) |
The removal of render from existing front elevations facing the street/road. |
27 (36%) |
The painting of existing brick elevations facing the street/road |
30 (40%) |
The change of roofing materials |
24 (32%) |
Installing or enlarging rooflights to any roof slope visible from the street or road |
27 (36%) |
Installing, altering or replacing solar panels or solar thermal equipment on roof slope visible from the street or road |
21 (29%) |
Replacing or altering windows and doors visible from the street or road |
38 (51%) |
Changing existing wooden or metal balcony railings to a different material or pattern |
33 (44%) |
Erecting a front porch to the front of a building |
41 (54%) |
Demolishing or altering or erecting a front boundary wall, fence, gate or railings or changing wall finishes |
44 (58%) |
Providing or replacing a hard surface within the front garden of a house |
29 (36%) |
Removing traditional tiled surfaces to paths, steps and entrance thresholds |
36 (48%) |
Installing satellite dishes to the front of buildings |
48 (64%) |
The installation, alteration, removal or replacement of a chimney, flue or soil and vent pipe on the front of a dwelling house |
25 (33%) |
Other, please give details |
5 (7%) |
Summary of Comments Please use this space to provide comments on why you have taken this view on the proposed Article 4 Direction |
||
1 |
Painting images of Greta on house walls |
Noted |
2 |
Comprehensive Article 4 Directions are a powerful tool for preserving and enhancing the character of a Conservation Area. Works affecting chimneys, flues and soil and vent pipes should include waste pipes and gas pipes. External lighting, intruder alarms and CCTV on the front of buildings should also require planning permission. |
External lights, intruder alarms and CCTV on the front elevations on dwellinghouses have not been identified as having a deleterious impact on the local amenity. |
3 |
I have no objection in principle to planning controls on certain kinds of work, but I ticked no items on the list above - even those which seem justified to me - because I do not wish to be counted as 'in favour of tighter controls'. I believe that broader criteria of good architecture - including building performance - should be applied, rather than requiring that the conservation area should look Victorian in every detail. It is still the case that the planning function stresses aesthetics and largely ignores building performance and environmental impact. Traditionally, building performance has been a matter for Building Control. In a time of climate emergency, this situation has to change. Planners have heard this many times before, many are individually exasperated by it, and in Brighton and Hove I believe there have been modest efforts to make planning guidelines 'greener'. But bolder action is needed. There is massive support for the Green Party and Extinction Rebellion in this area. Queens Park could be a showcase for creative ways of preserving a historic district while aiming for a zero-carbon future. At the very least, no resident or owner should be prevented from installing solar panels or external wall insulation just because the property is in a Conservation Area. Climate change is not something that only happens on the other side of Egremont Gate. |
The installation, alteration or replacement of solar panels will not be controlled by the proposed Article 4 Direction due to lack of support from the consultation.
Council has a Planning Advice Note on Householder guidance on energy efficiency for historic buildings in conservation areas. The document aims to clarify how energy efficiency improvements can be made in a sensitive and effective way. |
4 |
Queen's Park itself is in poor condition for a key community asset and within a conservation area. Consideration should be given to 'minimum standards' to be upheld for prevention of drug use in the park etc. I do not agree that new windows should be timber, however would endose a change to UPVC sash effect windows - giving the correct look and feel but without the mainainence issues. Finally, the main issue with the area is the high level of HMO's. These need to be phased out, as well as having minimum standards of external appearance. 216 Queen's Park Road (externally) is a disgrace. |
HMO’s within the city have been addressed in the recently adopted Citywide Article 4 Direction for HMOs. The citywide HMO Article 4 Direction will come into effect on 3rd June 2020.
216 Queen’s Park Road is located outside of the Queen’s Park conservation area.
|
5 |
I think that while removing wooden sash windows is undesirable for appearances sake we have to be realistic. Sash windows in uPVC look pretty much the same unless you look very closely and are a practical and reasonably cost effective alternative.
|
UPVC is a non-renewable resource and current technology cannot match the fine detailing of historic timber windows, especially Queen Anne style multi-paned windows which are common throughout the Queen’s Park conservation area.
|
6 |
I am interested in the overall aesthetics and appearance. HMO‘s on my road do the area a disservice on this issue. |
HMO’s within the city have been addressed in the recently adopted Citywide Article 4 Direction for HMOs. The citywide HMO Article 4 Direction will come into effect on 3rd June 2020. |
7 |
The thought of having to ask permission concerning colour of the house fronts is just ridiculous. If visuals like that are under consideration why are the unsightly, and in summer, smelly, black and green bins allowed to remain on the front pavements in this conservation area?! |
A suitable colour scheme will accompany the Article 4 Direction providing a number of colour options for the painting of front elevations. This will be similar to other Article 4 Direction painting schemes covering conservation areas in the city. |
8 |
It is
absurd, in a situation where even the existence of humanity is at risk from
global warming, for the Council to do anything whatsoever that might make
insulating houses, or improving their energy efficiency harder or more
expensive. |
Council has a Planning Advice Note on Householder guidance on energy efficiency for historic buildings in conservation areas. The document aims to clarify how energy efficiency improvements can be made in a sensitive and effective way. |
9 |
I live
on Freshfield Road, just outside of the conservation area. I can see how
damaging to the environment the works currently being carried out on local
houses (for instance on my road - the Cuthbert pub for one particularly
dreadful example) can be to the ambience of an area and would hate to see the
small conservation area within Queens Park going further this way. I was an
owner occupier on Queens Park Terrace until a few years ago and recognise the
blight of some houses having plastic windows and cheap doors. |
Works proposed to trees within conservation areas with a diameter exceeding 75mm when measured at 1.5m from ground level require 6 weeks notification to Council prior to the works being carried out. |
10 |
Particularly
in relation to solar panels and any other climate friendly amendments, the
council has a responsibility to make it as easy as possible for residents to
make positive change. |
Council has a Planning Advice Note on Householder guidance on energy efficiency for historic buildings in conservation areas. The document aims to clarify how energy efficiency improvements can be made in a sensitive and effective way. |
11 |
Incremental changes may not seem to impact on their own but the impact of several over time do have an adverse effect |
Noted |
12 |
To help halt the loss of original frontages (gates etc) to the Edwardian and other houses around the park and to encourage the authentic restoration of original lost features . |
Noted |
13 |
Article 4 is incredibly restrictive, there is already planning permission required for many aspects of developing a house within the conservation area. The beauty of the area is unaffected by the colour or style of somebodys guttering or front door style, by the fact that it is tree lined, near the park etc, and has a view of the sea and sunset. Installing conservation style fittings, eg, replacement wooden sash windows etc comes at a huge cost that many cannot afford despite the postcode! A premium council tax is already in place in this area, are tenants to be penalised further when it comes to wanting to protect our home further by fitting affordable, robust style fittings. The front of these houses take a battering from the sea direction and being so high up, any wooden detailing is rotten despite any maintenance attempts. Article 4 would make it expensive, difficult and a long protracted process to make changes, when the street behind can do anything they want! Very unfair. |
Development proposed to require planning permission under the Article 4 Direction is currently allowed under the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 (as amended)
Council has a Planning Advice Note on Householder guidance on energy efficiency for historic buildings in conservation areas. The document aims to clarify how energy efficiency improvements can be made in a sensitive and effective way. |
14 |
The area’s appeal is due to a certain ‘look’ - another appeal of a seaside town is the idea of somewhere being durable. Keeping a similar aesthetic aids this. Also ostentatious displays of wealth only serve to divide an area that already has an ‘us & them’ undercurrent. |
Noted |
15 |
We live
on Queen’s Park Terrace and love our house and those along the road. Why
should we have to pay to apply for planning permission to make improvements
to the front of our house such as rotten windows or changing the colour of
the gutters? |
On 17th January 2018, the Central government revoked the exemption of planning fees for planning applications required under an Article 4 Direction.
Planning fees are set by the Central government and are standardised across England.
An Article 4 Direction does not necessarily mean that an application will be refused. It allows the Council some control over design and detailing. |
16 |
We live
in a modern world that is changing all the time. If we try to preserve
everything as it was, then like the dinosaurs we will become extinct. |
Noted |
17 |
A conservation area is meaningless if this range of alterations can be made to properties. The look of an area is the sum of the look of the buildings. |
Noted |
18 |
I think it’s important to preserve architectural features while balancing the need for modernisation and necessary change. |
Noted |
19 |
Because
it will become impossible for the average householder to carry out simple
works to their house when an Article 4 direction is in place. I completely
agree when it’s a homogenous terrace which has remained unchanged for years
such as Palmeira Square or the like, but this is totally unnecessary in this
conservation area - the restrictions of that are enough. |
As existing, there are very few additional planning restrictions on properties within conservation areas: · Demolish a building with a volume of 115 cubic metres or more. · To demolish any gate, fence, wall or other means of enclosure with: o a height of one metre or more if next to a highway (including a public footpath or bridleway), waterway or open space; or o a height of two metres or more elsewhere An Article 4 Direction does not necessarily mean that an application will be refused. It allows the Council some control over design and detailing. |
20 |
Article
4 is not necessary in this area, there is already a conservation order in
place which places enough restrictions on building and alteration work to
homes that people want to make. This is following reasons why I am against
this: |
As discussed above, there are very few additional planning restrictions on properties within conservation areas
The proposal to implement Article 4 Directions within the Queen’s Park conservation area was a recommendation of the Queen’s Park Conservation Area Character Appraisal adopted by Council in September 2018 and was prepared with the assistance of a community steering group. |
21 |
Orginal
features should be kept or refurbished if possible but as a resident I
understand the considerable cost this incurs. We have not been able to
replace metal windows back to original timber sash because of cost. This
means higher mantainance and loss of heat as metal windows are prone to high
levels of condensation. I do not consider painting of brick exterior front
facing as desirable for the area and it would be hard to then remove. |
Noted |
22 |
Planning permission is important to preserve the character of the houses facing Queens Park as a conservation area. |
Noted |
23 |
Whilst
I respect that some of the area has certain period features which would be
nice to keep, Tower Road should not be included in this as the majority of
the houses were built in the 1970/80s. This had led to unnecessary confusion
and potential cost. The area definition should be clarified. |
The boundaries of the conservation area were reviewed as part of the process of creating the Queen’s Park Conservation Area Character Statement in 2018. The assessment was as follows: There is a variation of architectural periods including the late Edwardian and inter-war period, the 1960s and 1970s. Although there is a degree of cohesion with the staggered 1960s dwellings, they are considered to be of neutral value. |
24 |
To preserve the look of our Victorian buildings and to control the amount of lighting filtering out and disturbing sleep patterns. Unsightly satellite dishes are also a hazard in high winds. |
Noted |
25 |
I love walking around the Queens Park conservation area, and adore the architecture in the surrounding area. Brighton has lost a lot of its character over the last century and although I respect the owners' prerogative to make changes to their own property, I think the overall feel of the area should stay as close to the original condition as possible. I think the consultation with residents is more important than with people like me, but I feel a great childhood attachment to this ward, and would love to live there myself one day! |
Noted |
26 |
As a resident of East Drive, I think we should act now to preserve the look of our lovely Housing stock. The Area has suffered a lot in the past with lots of front gardens lost for drives and inappropriate Windows being installed. There are lots of people in the summer who enjoy looking at the Houses around the park, I am also concerned about the Tennis Club on East Drive Planning to install 10 x 25ft hi steel flood lights! that would be clearly Visible, This dystopian plan for Galvanized steel posts with Flood lights would dominate the sky line when entering the park down North Drive and around, and would make a mockery of these Article 4 plans, also their plans have to be commented on by 21st Feb so probably trying to get them through before Article 4 plans could stop them. |
Noted
The planning application for lighting to the Queen’s Park Tennis Club is being assessed by the Development Management team. |
27 |
Comprehensive
Article 4 Directions are a powerful tool for preserving and enhancing the
character of a Conservation Area. |
External lights, intruder alarms and CCTV on the front elevations on dwellinghouses have not been identified as having a deleterious impact on the local amenity. |
28 |
The council have allowed some horrendous developments over the last 35 years, maybe they can do something to look after the existing character |
Noted |
29 |
Satellite dishes are an ugly addition to the front of a house specially when they go rusty |
Noted |
30 |
I have
no objection in principle to planning controls on certain kinds of work, but
I ticked no items on the list above - even those which seem justified to me -
because I do not wish to be counted as 'in favour of tighter controls'. |
Council has a Planning Advice Note on Householder guidance on energy efficiency for historic buildings in conservation areas. The document aims to clarify how energy efficiency improvements can be made in a sensitive and effective way. |
31 |
When graffiti and anti-social behavior occurs within Queen's Park itself, it gives an idea as to what the area could result in if the aesthetics are not properly controlled. I live on Queen's Park road (close to the park itself), and wish to see it maintain the character and charm it has as the rest of Brighton develops into a more modern city. Maintaining the historic character is advantageous for residents, renters, and tourists. |
Noted |
32 |
So much of Brighton and Hove character is being lost. We cannot afford to lose any more. If people want to live in a modern property, they should buy a modern property, not ruin a heritage one. |
Noted |
33 |
Queen's Park itself is in poor condition for a key community asset and within a conservation area. Consideration should be given to 'minimum standards' to be upheld for prevention of drug use in the park etc. I do not agree that new windows should be timber, however would endose a change to UPVC sash effect windows - giving the correct look and feel but without the mainainence issues. Finally, the main issue with the area is the high level of HMO's. These need to be phased out, as well as having minimum standards of external appearance. 216 Queen's Park Road (externally) is a disgrace. |
UPVC is a non-renewable resource and current technology cannot match the fine detailing of historic timber windows, especially Queen Anne style multi-paned windows which are common throughout the Queen’s Park conservation area.
HMO’s within the city have been addressed in the recently adopted Citywide Article 4 Direction for HMOs. The citywide HMO Article 4 Direction will come into effect on 3rd June 2020.
216 Queen’s Park Road is not within the Queen’s Park conservation area. |
34 |
I agree that the conservation area in this part of the city should be preserved and maintained for the benefit of local residents. Tighter controls are required. I disagree that satellite dishes should be on the front of building as they are unsightly. They should be high up on the roof. |
Noted |
35 |
I think that while removing wooden sash windows is undesirable for appearances sake we have to be realistic. Sash windows in uPVC look pretty much the same unless you look very closely and are a practical and reasonably cost effective alternative |
UPVC is a non-renewable resource and current technology cannot match the fine detailing of historic timber windows, especially Queen Anne style multi-paned windows which are common throughout the Queen’s Park conservation area. |
36 |
Any improvements/alterations which are more sympathetic to the original build materials should be encouraged e.g. the replacement of concrete roof tiles back to the original roof tiles |
Noted |
37 |
So much of Brighton’s architectural heritage has been lost / mismanaged. This needs to stop before this part of Brighton is list forever. It should be managed sympathetically not a fine revenue generating scheme for the benefit of the council. Features should be replaced / put back not just accept a fine as settlement if the desecration. |
Noted |
38 |
Queen’s Park is a distinct residential district from neighbouring Hanover, Kemp Town, etc. It’s a worthy ambition to retain this distinctness/uniqueness which adds to the vibrancy of the city as a whole. The urban environment and its aesthetic is worth maintaining: it aids wellbeing and has other benefits. I am particularly keen that front gardens are not paved over: these green oasis provide much needed havens for wildlife and are seemingly disappearing. |
Noted |
39 |
You
have already restricted what I can do with my property while all around the
boundary houses have loft conversion with large dorms. If you own a home in
the conservation area you cannot have but it ok for us to see everyone
else’s, so all the restrictions but non of the benefits. |
The boundaries of the conservation area were reviewed as part of the process of creating the Queen’s Park Conservation Area Character Statement in 2018.This document can be found on Council’s website.
The proposed Article 4 Direction will apply to all dwellinghouses within the boundary of the Queen’s Park conservation area.
|
40 |
Because
the distinctive architecture of the large houses around the park, the painted
wood, red brick, tiled roofs, garden walls, garden walls,railings, stained
glass, give the Conservation Area its character and charm. These elements are
repeated in some surrounding streets, especially Queens Park Terrace, and the
streets around St Luke's School, and are just as important |
Noted |
41 |
I live
in a 1970's terrace. These houses are pretty ugly from the front compared to
the surrounding area. I don't see why our houses or the flats in Atree Court
etc should be subject to the article 4 direction as there is nothing of value
to protect. All this will do is make our flats and houses look increasingly
more dated and ugly as time goes by or inflict very high costs on the owners
to require planning permission to make small changes. |
The boundaries of the conservation area were reviewed as part of the process of creating the Queen’s Park Conservation Area Character Statement in 2018.
The proposed Article 4 Direction will apply to all dwellinghouses within the boundary of the Queen’s Park conservation area. A map will accompany the Article 4 Direction.
|
42 |
Many of
the properties around Queens Park and in the local area have been changed in
the twenty years that we have been living in our house. This proposal is
closing the stable door after the horse has bolted. If there is a desire to
return the area to its previous appearance this proposal should be
retrospective. |
Noted |
43 |
I think that all original features should be kept. Taking away the front walls to make parking spaces would be detrimental to the appearance of this area. |
Noted |
44 |
The removal of original features or replacing them with a modern alternative esp upvc windows removes the character, street continuity, and diminishes that which makes QP different to other areas of Brighton it all becomes homogenised. There are so many special architectural features and details to buildings which is so lovely to see and appreciate and should be preserved for future generations to appreciate and enjoy |
Noted |
45 |
I think that so many alteration have already taken place that this is potentially too late. However, the points that I have ticked above I do feel would help maintain the future of the area. I do feel we need to be realistic that we live in modern times and need to look at more efficient ways of creating energy etc hence why I feel that solar panels should not be included. |
The installation, alteration or replacement of solar panels will not be controlled by the proposed Article 4 Direction due to lack of support from the consultation.
|
46 |
1. I
live on St Luke's Road and only part of the road is in a conservation area
and therefore the fact that a few houses are included has always been wrong.
I have no idea why my property is in a conservation area, given it's distance
from the Park or indeed why other properties on the same street are not and
equally why properties the same distance from my house on Queen's Park Road,
are not in the same conservation area. If this is due to the school then all
the properties opposite the school should be in a conservation area but of
course they are not. This demonstrates real irrational and arbitory decision
making at some point by the Council. I would argue that St Luke's Road needs
to drop out of the Conservation area. |
The boundaries of the conservation area were reviewed as part of the process of creating the Queen’s Park Conservation Area Character Statement in 2018.
The proposed Article 4 Direction will only apply to elevations facing a street or road, not to the rear of a dwellinghouse (unless it faces a street or road).
|
47 |
because the area is being ruined by ad hoc & nasty alterations. the worst is garish house colours. Too much change being made to the fronts & i think everything that impacts on the view from the front should be subject to regulations |
Noted |
48 |
It is important to keep the character/conservation of the area |
Noted |
49 |
I believe it is important to preserve the integrity of our architecture - too much of our local heritage/architecture has already been destroyed in the Kemp Town/Queens Park area |
Noted |
4 |
0As an owner occupier of a house in Queens Park, I am very aware of the character of the area. However, there needs to be a balance between planning restrictions and allowing owners to carry out works to their property. Controlling the colour of street elevations comes down to a subjective decision, and who, therefore is to say what is right and what is wrong. Is there any evidence of the original colour houses in a Victorian/Edwardian terrace were painted? Did the original designers have any objection to houses being painted different colours? I am not suggesting that all streets should look like Blaker Street, and there is no real evidence of this having happened in any other streets, so I feel that this is a restriction too far. There is such a mix of roof coverings already, that further restriction would not make any real difference, there would still be a mix and no real uniformity so I feel that this is too restrictive. Rooflights on the front slope - to impose a restriction on this would be to prevent owners carrying out internal alterations/conversions in the roofspace which simply require a rooflight rather than a full blown dormer. This is often done to provide additional space within a property for families which are growing and may not be able to afford to move to a larger proeprty. A simple conversion in the roofspace can often be the solution and to add even more planning restrictions to this would seem punitive. A simple flat unobtrusive rooflight is not harmful and in fact could be considered part of the organic growth of our City as families need to expand. This has been carried out in a number of properties along terraces in the area, and therefore any further rooflights in other houses would not be an issue - it might actually make the roof slopes more uniform! To restrict the installation and/or replacement of PV panels would be contrary to the Council's desire to reduce carbon emissions form homes, as this is one reasonably simple way of achieving savings when faced with an old house which does not lend itself to other less cost-effective means of reducing carbon emissions such as very expensive double-glazed timber sashes - as cheaper UPVC alternatives would not be allowed (which I agree with). I do not see the issue with replacing or providing a hard surface within the curtilage of a house - particularly the replacement. If this is required as it is in a poor state of repair, by restricting the replacement, it may be that owners just leave these untouched and therefore impact on the area by being in a poor state of repair. Please note that in the PDF issued with this consultation you mention "The erection, construction, maintenance, improvement or alteration of a gate, fence, wall or other means of enclosure". Surely restrictions shouldn't be placed on the maintenance of a gate, wall or fence? this is not reflected in the questions above, so there is an anomaly between the consultation document, and the list of elements above. I do support the principle of restrictions in Conservation Areas in order to protect their character, but there needs to be a balance between the need to look after, maintain and perhaps improve your property and restrictions which make this an impossibility and costly for owners. |
A suitable colour scheme will accompany the Article 4 Direction providing a number of colour options for the painting of front elevations. This will be similar to other Article 4 Direction painting schemes covering conservation areas in the city.
The installation, alteration or replacement of solar panels will not be controlled by the proposed Article 4 Direction due to lack of support from the consultation.
Council has a Planning Advice Note on Householder guidance on energy efficiency for historic buildings in conservation areas. The document aims to clarify how energy efficiency improvements can be made in a sensitive and effective way.
UPVC is a non-renewable resource and current technology cannot match the fine detailing of historic timber windows, especially Queen Anne style multi-paned windows which are common throughout the Queen’s Park conservation area. |
51 |
This is very much a case of shutting the stable door. Many of the properties have already had at least one of the list above developments done on their properties. Most hard standing was put in following the council's decision to impose parking controls in the area. If I want to change the wooden fence at the front of the property who is going to decide what is acceptable? Replacement of windows and doors can be very expensive so who is going to decide what is acceptable. The same arguments apply to most of these proposals. It seems like a bureaucratic hurdle is being erected to prevent householders from making relatively minor changes to their properties. |
Noted |