Agenda item - BH2018/00209, Flat 51, 4 Grand Avenue, Hove - Full Planning

Installation of glass balustrading to existing balcony railings.
RECOMMENDATION – GRANT

Ward Affected: Central Hove

            Installation of glass balustrading to existing balcony railings

            Officer Introduction

(1)          The Principal Planning Officer, Stewart Glassar, introduced the application and the accompanying listed building application BH2018/00210 and gave a presentation by reference to plans, visualisations and photographs.

 

(2)          The main considerations of this application relate to the impact of the proposed development on the appearance and character of the Grade II Listed Building. The applications were revised applications of BH2015/00406 and BH2015/00407, with an amended placement for fixing for the balustrade. It was considered that the new balustrade was likely to cause some harm to a heritage asset but its 8^th floor position would limit its visibility. The harm would be further offset by the removal of the existing non-original balustrade and the increased safety of the new balustrade.

 

 

Public Speakers

 

(3)          Mr de Silva and Mr Friel spoke on behalf of the Building Management Board enfranchised by the leaseholders of the building and laid out their objection to the application. The proposed balustrade would form a visual focal point around the building. It was a steel frame block and there were already issues with corrosion below the balcony. Granting planning permission would create a precedent for the numerous other front facing balconies in the building.

 

(4)          Dr Murray, the applicant, spoke in support of the application. A similar project was approved three years ago and had only not commenced as he had not been able to agree a design with the Building Management Board. Dr Murray had explored alternative options for making the balcony safe for his four grandchildren including installing temporary screens which could be removed when the balcony was not in use. Temporary screens would not provide the same protection as the proposed glass screen and would be more visible from the street. Other aspects of the building had been changed to meet modern health and safety concerns such as the windows in the lobby and the front doors of all the flats to be consistent with fire regulations.

 

 

(5)          In response to Councillor Miller, Dr Murray stated that the glass would go all the way around the balcony and would reach from the floor of the balcony to several centimetres over the top of the existing balustrade.

 

 

(6)          In response to Councillor Mac Cafferty, Dr Murray stated that there was a gap between the glass and the railings to allow for the front of the glass to be cleaned from inside the balcony.

 

 

Questions to the Planning Officer

 

(7)          Councillor Morris asked where the railings and glazing would be attached and if a condition could be added to ensure that the material used would be rust resistant.

 

(8)          The Planning Officer stated that the new balustrade would be attached to the sides of the balcony rather than being fixed vertically to avoid damaging the waterproofing on the floor of the balcony which was the ceiling of the flat below. There was currently no condition on the types of materials used but the Committee could include an additional condition.

 

 

(9)          Councillor Gilbey asked how convinced officers were that the health and safety benefits of the scheme would overcome the harm to the Grade II Listed Building.

 

 

(10)       The Planning Officer stated that alterations to listed buildings fell into two categories substantial harm or less than substantial harm. When considering a scheme which did less than substantial harm to a building public safety was one of the balancing factors which should be taken into account.

 

 

(11)       Councillor Moonan asked if the existing railings had planning permission.

 

 

(12)       The Planning Officer responded that the existing railing did not have planning permission and the benefit of its removal had been taken into account when Planning Officers had granted permission for a similar scheme three years ago. Removal of the railing as part of this scheme would save the public from the expense of pursing enforcement action to have the railing removed.

 

 

(13)       Councillor Mac Cafferty stated that he was concerned that the precedent set by granting approval would lead to the building being negatively impacted in the same way Sussex Heights had been by mismatched work on balconies. He asked if the Council could set out guidance for the rest of the building.

 

 

(14)       The Planning Officer responded that the Local Authority would have to be consistent in its decision making and that any decision made would be used by applicants in the future to challenge the Council. However the location of the balcony, the health and safety concerns and the removal of the existing non-original railings were all unique to this flat in the building and so would limit the impact of this decision on future applications.

 

 

(15)       The Planning Manager stated that as 4 Grand Avenue was a listed building in a conservation area any alterations to the balconies would always need permission.

 

 

(16)       Councillor Littman stated that he was surprised that the Heritage Officer had placed so much emphasis on the removal of the existing railing when in other parts of the report this was seen as a minor consideration.

 

 

(17)       The Planning Officer responded that in heritage terms the removal of the existing non-original railing which did not have planning permission was important but in a wider planning context the railings could be removed through enforcement action.

 

 

(18)       The Planning Manager stated that various departments were consulted by the Planning Officer who then weighed up their feedback to produce the final report.

 

 

(19)       In response to Councillor Theobald, the Planning Officer stated that while there was a significant history of applications for Flat 51 there was not for the building as whole.

 

 

(20)       Councillor Theobald asked the Planning Officer how much reflection there would be from the glass on the balcony.

 

 

(21)       The Planning Officer responded that while there would be some reflection form the additional glass there was already a large amount of glazing on the front of the building.

 

 

(22)       Councillor Morris asked how much weight the decision on the previous application had on officer’s recommendation to grant permission.

 

 

(23)       The Planning Officer stated that the previous decision had impacted the recommendations as there had to be a consistency with decision making. There would have had to have been significant variation in the application for officers to be able to go against their previous decision in the recommendations but it was always open to the Committee to go against officer recommendations.

 

 

(24)       Councillor Miller asked where the letters of support had come from as if they had come from other residents in the block it may suggest similar schemes were being considered. He also asked the Planning Officer to confirm that the glass used would be clear and not tinted.

 

 

(25)       The Planning Officer stated that the Committee could add a condition to ensure that only clear glazing could be used.

 

 

(26)       The Planning Manager confirmed that the letters of support had not come from other residents in the building and where likely from the Applicant’s friends and family as they were from outside of Brighton & Hove.

 

 

(27)       Councillor Gilbey asked the officer to confirm that the previous planning permission had only expired a matter of days before the meeting.

 

 

(28)       The Planning Manager confirmed that the permission had expired in the week before the meeting. She also stated that although the Local Authority had granted planning permission it was not the building manager and any scheme would have to be agreed with the management board.

 

 

Debate and Decision Making Process

 

(29)       Councillor Mac Cafferty stated that he would not be supporting the application; the building was designed to have harmonious balconies as part of its façade. He stated that his overriding concern was with the precedent that this decision would set and the potential harm alterations to other balconies could cause.

 

(30)       Councillor Morris stated that he was sympathetic to Councillor Mac Cafferty’s concerns and felt that there was a need for stronger regulations around the alterations of balconies as had been introduced in other parts of Europe.

 

 

(31)       Councillor Littman stated that while he understood the motivation behind the application he would not be supporting the officer recommendations. He felt that the heritage comments were not as strong as they could have been and that the Committee needed to be mindful of its role in preventing harm to listed buildings.

 

 

(32)       Councillor Miller agreed with Councillor Littman that the harm to a listed building was understated by the report and he was concerned by the potential precedent set by granting permission and would not be supporting the officer recommendations.

 

 

(33)       Councillor Gilbey stated that she supported the officer recommendations. The report noted the unique attributes of the balcony which would limit the precedent set by the decision and the benefits of the scheme to public safety and heritage.

 

 

(34)       The Chair stated that she would be supporting the recommendations as the heritage officers did not recognise significant harm.

 

 

(35)       A vote was taken and on a vote of 7 For, 3 Against and 1 Abstentions planning permission was granted with the additional conditions for the material used in fixings to be as resistant to rust as possible and for the glazing to be clear.

 

 

121D.1RESOLVED – 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 conditions and informatives set out in the report with the additional conditions for the materials to be submitted and the fixings to be as resistant to rust as possible.