APPENDIX 12
Sheringham - PF/14/0887 - Partial demolition of hotel and erection of six
residential apartments and single-storey rear extension to hotel; Burlington
Hotel, The Esplanade, Sheringham, NR26 8LG for McDermott
Minor Development
- Target Date: 10 October 2014
Case Officer: Miss J Medler
Full Planning Permission
CONSTRAINTS
Conservation Area
Residential Area
RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY
PLA/19901395 PF
Velux rooflight north elevation - window west gable (4th floor)
Approved 22/10/1990
PLA/19970888 PF
Change of use from hotel rooms on second and third floors to eight self-contained residential flats
Approved 02/09/1997
PLA/19741025 PF
Proposed erection of fire escapes
Approved 15/11/1974
PLA/19970134 LE
Demolition of outbuildings
Approved 11/04/1997
THE APPLICATION
Is for the demolition of the west wing of the existing hotel to allow for the construction of six
residential apartments and single storey rear extension.
The single storey rear extension would allow for the re-siting of the hotel bar and toilet areas at the
upper ground floor level.
Car parking would be provided at the lower ground floor level and consist of 12 car parking
spaces. There would be an additional six floors above the car parking level containing the six
apartments. The extension would be no taller than the ridge height of the existing hotel which is
approximately 20m in height. There would be a lift serving each floor.
The vehicular access remains unchanged. The site being served by the private drive to the rear off
The Boulevard and The Esplanade.
The external materials to be used on the front and rear of the extension consist of terracotta red
and natural stone coloured clay modular panels on the external walls, with contrasting string, head
and cill courses. The west facing gable and projecting pier adjacent to the west gable would be
constructed in smooth red facing brick, and buff coloured brick for the string, head and cill
courses. All external windows and doors are to be grey powder coated metal frames. The roof
material would be zinc, with an upstanding seam.
REASONS FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
At the request of Councillor Smith having regard to the following planning issue(s):
1. Design
2. Impact upon Conservation Area
3. Retention of local business
146
TOWN COUNCIL
Object on the grounds that the extension is unacceptable as it is out of keeping for this iconic
building and not sympathetically designed and also there should be better use of the proposed
materials.
REPRESENTATIONS
One letter of objection has been received from a local resident on the grounds of the proposal
being inappropriate and out of keeping with the adjacent hotel, unsympathetic cheap design,
materials out of keeping with the locally listed building.
Two letters of support received.
In the supporting information submitted with the application the agent has advised that the reasons
for considering redevelopment are as follows:
· The current premises, as a hotel, are only used at a maximum of 60% potential for specific
time-slot periods of the year.
· The main clientele of the business are an ageing population of coach party type holiday
accommodation and occasional wedding type functions.
· With the ongoing demands of clientele requirements for updated facilities and expected
standards of comfort, plus the ever increasing demands of regular updates regarding health
and safety, environmental health and fire standards, the large premises have an
ever-increasing annual drain on financial resources set against a declining market.
· The external fabric of the buildings detailing mixture of red brick and stonework is suffering
from the harsh climate of salt laden air and strong northerly winds. Serious finances are
required to meet the cost of repair of the decay and erosion of areas of external walls, roof and
original timber windows.
The agent's conclusion in respect of addressing the above points is as follows:
· A self-financing exercise is required in order to bring the current property up to the standards
required and expected of the current day hotel.
· A smaller hotel accommodation is needed to meet the current declining demands.
· Redevelopment of under-utilised areas of the hotel into self-contained luxury apartments for
sale will release capital required for the overhaul needed.
The supporting statement from the Agent is attached at Appendix ….
The agent has responded to the original consultation response from the Highway Authority and
does not agree with the views expressed. The agent has advised that they would be willing to
agree to signage on the site prohibiting the use of a right turn along this private access land when
exiting the site.
The agent has submitted an amended plan showing the proposed means of access to the
development.
CONSULTATIONS
County Council Highways (Original comments) - Access is proposed via the existing unmade
access tracks to the side and rear of the site, which appear to be outside of the applicants control.
These unmade access tracks are generally unsuitable for two way traffic movement due to their
limited width, particularly at their intersections with the adopted highway. At the junction with The
Boulevard, the access opening measures 4.6m, however, only 3.7m of that width is available for
use given the presence of planted borders and a manhole cover, this would be insufficient to allow
two way movement, resulting in vehicles potentially waiting or reversing on The Boulevard, to the
detriment of the free flow of traffic and therefore highway safety.
A similar situation exists at the access with The Esplanade. The proposed development would be
considered to engender an additional 48-60 daily movements associated with the 6 units (TRiCS
database details 8-10 daily movements for a single residential property), which would take place
over the narrow unmade access routes entering the adopted highway over substandard access
147
points which are outside of the applicant's control. As the application is currently presented, I
would recommend refusal on the grounds of intensification of use of substandard accesses and I
would request that this is considered to be a holding objection to allow investigation of the potential
for access improvements.
Comments following receipt of amended plan - Thank you for the amended consultation received
recently relating to the above development proposal, which now details means of access for the
proposed development. With consideration of this revised proposal, together with the
correspondence regarding improvements to the access points and internal signage, I am now able
to revise my response. Should your Authority be minded to the grant of consent a condition
regarding upgrading of the vehicular accesses is required.
Conservation and Design - Have made a number of detailed comments and have raised a number
of concerns (see Appendix ...).
English Heritage - Object. The Burlington Hotel is an important building in the Sheringham
Conservation Area and the proposed development will have a major impact on the Conservation
Area. The proposal would result in harm to the historic significance of the Burlington Hotel and the
Sheringham Conservation Area through partial demolition of the building and new development in
terms of paragraphs 132 and 134 of the NPPF. The Council should also consider if the design
could be substantially amended so as to make the new building more appropriate for the
conservation area, but as the application stands we would recommend permission is refused. The
full and comprehensive response from English Heritage is contained in Appendix...
Environmental Health - No objection subject to advisory notes being imposed on any approval
regarding asbestos removal and demolition.
HUMAN RIGHTS IMPLICATIONS
It is considered that the proposed development may raise issues relevant to
Article 8: The Right to respect for private and family life.
Article 1 of the First Protocol: The right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions.
It is considered that refusal of this application as recommended may have an impact on the
individual Human Rights of the applicant. However, having considered the likely impact and the
general interest of the public, refusal of the application is considered to be justified, proportionate
and in accordance with planning law.
CRIME AND DISORDER ACT 1998 - SECTION 17
The application raises no significant crime and disorder issues.
POLICIES
North Norfolk Core Strategy (Adopted September 2008):
Policy SS 1: Spatial Strategy for North Norfolk (specifies the settlement hierarchy and distribution
of development in the District).
Policy SS 3: Housing (strategic approach to housing issues).
Policy EN 4: Design (specifies criteria that proposals should have regard to, including the North
Norfolk Design Guide and sustainable construction).
Policy EN 8: Protecting and enhancing the historic environment (prevents insensitive development
and specifies requirements relating to designated assets and other valuable buildings).
Policy EN 13: Pollution and hazard prevention and minimisation (minimises pollution and provides
guidance on contaminated land and Major Hazard Zones).
Policy CT 5: The transport impact on new development (specifies criteria to ensure reduction of
need to travel and promotion of sustainable forms of transport).
Policy CT 6: Parking provision (requires compliance with the Council's car parking standards other
than in exceptional circumstances).
MAIN ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION
1. Principle of development
148
2. Design
3. Impact upon the Conservation Area
4. Impact upon neighbouring properties
5. Highway safety and car parking
APPRAISAL
The site is located within the Residential Policy Area (Policy SS3) of Sheringham where
appropriate residential development is permitted providing the proposal complies with other
relevant Development Plan policies.
Officers are mindful of the continual maintenance requirements of a building of this period and
scale, and that this is a local business and employer which contributes to the local economy. Such
a development as proposed would allow the capital from the sale of the apartments to be used to
improve and update facilities and address the condition of the building.
The principle of an extension to the hotel to provide residential accommodation is acceptable in
this location, in accordance with Policy SS3 of the Core Strategy.
However, the Burlington is an iconic building in the Sheringham Conservation Area, commanding
a prominent position over the eastern end of The Esplanade. It is referred to in the Sheringham
Conservation Area Appraisal (Draft Summer 2013). Whilst this is only a draft document and not
adopted it recognises the Burlington as worthy of being included on the District Council's
provisional local list, and worth submitting for national listing. The building has been selected in the
Draft Conservation Area Appraisal for local listing due to its positive contribution to the townscape.
Notwithstanding that this document is only in draft the Burlington is considered to be an important
building in the town. Any alterations to the existing building therefore requires careful consideration
in terms of design, scale, massing, materials and relationship to surrounding neighbouring
dwellings.
The Committee will note the consultation responses received from the Conservation and Design
Officer and English Heritage. The Conservation and Design Officer explains the difficulties and
constraints that have come to light in seeking a development proposal that would co-exist
comfortably with the existing building. There are significant doubts over whether a successful
'dialogue' would be established between the existing and proposed elements. The Conservation
and Design Officer has highlighted that it is rare for them to object to the principle of a
contemporary approach. However, there are two main factors of concerns regarding the proposal
as follows:
·
·
Alongside the existing building, the proposed roofscape would feature a relatively complicated
arrangement of wedge shapes which would surely emphasize the impact of the extension at
high level. Particularly with the building being so visible from a number of vantage points, it is
difficult to imagine how this grouping of mono-pitched roofslopes would subserviently
complement the original building.
Similarly, with no space available to create a separating link, the new build would have to ‘plug’
directly into the existing elevations with their strong vertical rhythm and well-defined bays. In
practice this becomes extremely difficult as soon as an extra storey is introduced as floor
levels and openings no longer correspond or sync. That is very much the case here. Whilst
overall the extension would have a vertical emphasis, the rhythm and definition up through the
floors and across the main façade appears on the whole to juxtapose uneasily with the host
building – certainly it seems to offer much stronger horizontal desire lines principally through
the proposed balconies.
There are also concerns that the main focal point of the building would be compromised by the
new work. It is not considered that the proposal would be subordinate or respectful of the existing,
but would have an assertive presence taking centre stage and working against the original notion
of balance. This is a major concern and as a result it is not considered that the proposal would
preserve or enhance the appearance and character of the conservation area.
149
Officers have no doubts over the considerable time and effort that the agent and applicant have
put into the submitted proposal. The agent has been undertaking informal discussions with
Officers since April 2013. More recent informal discussions took place with the agent prior to the
submission of the application this year, when the agent was advised that Officers would be unable
to support the proposal primarily on design grounds. Matters regarding the impact of the proposal
on the privacy and amenities of the occupiers of neighbouring dwellings and car parking were also
discussed.
A recent meeting has taken place between Officers, the agent and applicant to discuss Officer
concerns. At that meeting possible amendments to the scheme were suggested. These were
primarily in relation to simplifying the roof design and continuing the horizontal rhythm of the
existing building, along with balancing the front elevation with a bay of proportions to that of the
existing building. The agent advised that these suggestions were not practical and did not work in
terms of the proposed layout. It was therefore suggested by Officers that it may be the case that
too much accommodation is being sought. However, it is recognised that a reduction in the
number of units proposed may have an impact in terms of the viability of the scheme as a whole.
Unfortunately, Officers, the agent and applicant have been unable to reach agreement in terms of
the acceptability of the design of the scheme, as submitted.
Whilst the principle of the proposal is acceptable the difficulty for Officers and the agent has been
how to best achieve such a proposal in design terms which is appropriate for the significance of
the building.
The Council has to consider whether the proposal will preserve or enhance the character and
appearance of the Conservation Area.
In terms of considering the design of the proposal the NPPF is also a material consideration and
there are relevant paragraphs which have been considered as part of this application, as follows:
Paragraph 58 of the NPPF states that "Planning policies and decisions should aim to ensure that
developments:
·
·
·
will function well and add to the overall quality of the area, not just for the short term but over
the lifetime of the development and
respond to local character and history, and reflect the identity of local surroundings and
materials, while not preventing or discouraging appropriate innovation; and
are visually attractive as a result of good architecture and appropriate landscaping".
Paragraph 61 of the NPPF states that "planning policies and decisions should address the
connections between people and places and the integration of new development into the natural,
built and historic environment"
It is not considered that the proposal complies with the requirements of the NPPF as above.
Paragraph 64 states that "permission should be refused for development of poor design that fails
to take the opportunities available for improving the character and quality of an area and the way it
functions".
English Heritage are in agreement with the Conservation and Design Officer as you will note from
their consultation response contained in Appendix.... English Heritage consider that the proposal
would result in harm to the historic significance of the Burlington Hotel and the Sheringham
Conservation Area contrary to the requirements of paragraphs 132 and 134 of NPPF.
Furthermore, they do not consider that the information submitted fulfils the requirements of
paragraph 128 of the NPPF. Paragraph 128 of the NPPF requires applicants to describe the
significance of any heritage assets affected by a development including any contribution made by
their setting.
150
English Heritage state that the Council may consider if the new housing provided by the
development might deliver a degree of public benefit as noted in paragraph 134 of the NPPF.
However, English Heritage does not consider it necessary to deliver such benefit through the
design proposed which would result in harm to the heritage asset. English Heritage also refer to
the Council considering if the design could be substantially amended to make the new
development more appropriate for the Conservation Area.
Whilst this proposal would create 6 new dwellings Officers are in agreement with English Heritage
that the degree of harm that would be caused to the heritage asset would outweigh the benefits of
providing new housing in this case. As explained earlier in this report informal discussions had
taken place with Officers prior to the submission of this application. Whilst Officers have made
suggestions the agent considers that the scheme as submitted is the most appropriate in order to
bring the development forward. This is not a view shared by Officers or the consultees. It is not
considered that the proposal is acceptable in design terms or in accordance with Policy EN4 of the
Core Strategy. It is considered that the proposal would result in harm to the heritage asset of the
building and the Conservation Area contrary to Policy EN8 of the Core Strategy.
Furthermore it would fail to preserve or enhance the character and appearance of the
Conservation Area.
In terms of impact upon neighbouring dwellings the extension would be six storeys with a ridge
height no higher than that of the existing Burlington building. The orientation of the building on the
site means the front elevation faces north over The Esplanade and the rear elevation faces south.
Whilst there are balconies to the front of the proposed building they are serving bedrooms apart
from the upper ground floor which would serve a bedroom and living/dining/kitchen. Whilst the
front elevation has the sea views it also has a northerly aspect. Understandably, the agent has
designed the apartments so that the main living/dining/kitchen areas to the remainder of the
apartments takes advantage of the southerly aspect. However, by doing this the southern facing
balconies would significantly increase the potential for overlooking of private garden areas to the
surrounding neighbouring dwellings. Whilst the balconies have side walls this is not considered to
be sufficient to prevent overlooking from taking place. Whilst it is understood that any extension to
the Burlington in this location would require windows on the southern elevation it is the level to
which overlooking could occur that is being considered. The neighbouring dwellings which are
located directly to the south of the area of the Burlington to be extended are between
approximately 25-27m away. In accordance with the Design Guide when considering Amenity
Criteria, which is the guidance on acceptable distances between dwellings, an additional 3m
should be added to the Amenity Criteria guidance for each additional storey when considering
proposals for flats. The guidance would therefore suggest up to 33m between the properties to the
south and the Burlington. This means there would be a shortfall of between 6 - 8m in terms of
amenity criteria. There are therefore concerns regarding the current scheme in terms of
relationship to neighbouring dwellings, but it is not considered insurmountable as it may be
possible to reduce the impact by altering internal layouts and external fenestration.
The Committee will note that following the receipt of an amended plan detailing means of access
to the proposed development that the Highway Authority now have no objection to the application
subject to a condition for the existing vehicular accesses to be upgraded.
In terms of car parking the proposed six units would require 12 car parking spaces as proposed.
The proposal is therefore in accordance with Council's car parking standards.
In conclusion, there is no objection in principle to an extension of the building in order for funds to
be raised to help maintain this important building in the Conservation Area, and to improve
facilities in order to allow the hotel to continue to function as a business and local employer.
However, whilst Officers are mindful of this situation consideration also has to be given to the
significance of the impact that such a proposal would have on the town's built environment. The
public benefits of such a proposal have therefore been carefully considered in accordance with
paragraph 134 of the NPPF. However, it is concluded that the proposal as submitted would cause
significant harm the heritage asset contrary to the requirements of the Development Plan and
151
NPPF.
In addition, it is considered that the proposal as submitted would be detrimental to the privacy and
residential amenities of the occupiers of neighbouring dwellings.
The proposal is therefore considered to be contrary to Development Plan policies and the
requirements of the NPPF.
RECOMMENDATION: Refuse on the following grounds:
The District Council adopted the North Norfolk Core Strategy on 24 September 2008, and
subsequently adopted Policy HO9 on 23 February 2011, for all planning purposes. The
following policy statements are considered relevant to the proposed development:
SS 1 - Spatial Strategy for North Norfolk
SS 3 - Housing
EN 4 - Design
EN 8 - Protecting and enhancing the historic environment
It is the opinion of the Local Planning Authority that the proposal would result in an
unacceptable and inappropriate form of development in this location.
By virtue of the design the applicant has failed to demonstrate that the proposal would not
result in significant harm to the historic significance of the Burlington Hotel and the
Sheringham Conservation Area.
The applicant has also failed to demonstrate that the proposal would not have a significant
detrimental impact upon the privacy and amenities of the occupiers of neighbouring
dwellings to the south, south west and west of the site.
The proposal is therefore considered to be contrary to the above Development Plan
policies and paragraphs 128, 132 and 134 of the National Planning Policy Framework.
152
APPENDIX
bernard smith
architect
6
$ffiI$[Rtr'
August 2414
1
Ms Jo Medler
Planning Officer
NI{DC
Holt Road
Cromer
Norfolk
NR
Dear
Jo
3 AU6 2014
PLANNING DIVISION
\
The Burlington Hotel, The Esplanade, Sheringham NR26 8LG
I confirm having recently made an on-line Planning Application for the
above project.
Srithin the application information, you will see that I refer to this
covering letter, which will contain the required "design, access and
heritage statement".
The information submitted together with the application form and the
required. checking fee included drawing numbers 1301/30 to 40 inclusive.
These drawings cover the site location plan at a scale of 1:1250 and L:200
scale drawings of the existing site, floor plans and elevations and proposed
floor plans, section and elevations.
As you are aware, we have gone through an extensi.ve informal preapplication exercise beginning with my meeting on site with Andy Mitchell
and Phil Godwin in April 2013. Since that date, there have been email
correspondence and further meetings, including those with Nicola Baker,
Chris Youngs and yourself, following the retirements of Steve Oxenham
and Chris. As you are aware, I have produced a series of drawings,
sketches, alternatives, coloured elevations as submitted under drawings
13}ll}l-24 inclusive, as well as a 1:200 scale desi.gn model, to help identifu
the design process and thinking behind my proposals.
studio eleven harbord road cromer norfolk NR27 OBP
tel 01263 511269 mobile 0??4E 5906E1 email bernard@studio-eleven.co.uk
153
bernard smith
architect
I am attaching the relevant emails which
document those meetings and
discussions to explain the conclusions that we came to, prior to my Client
instructing me to submit an application. These form and explain the
varj.ous parts of the process which has resulted in the decj.sion to make
subtle changes to the feasibility sketch proposals, and arriving at the
curr:ent final design submitted.
I respect the views made between you, Nicola and Chris. However, I
remain convinced that this proposal is the way forward to a successful
redevelopment of this si.te, for the reasons which I have previously stated,
and will be highiighted in the attached "Design, Access and Heritage
statement".
I would ask you a1l to support this proposal in favour of the "hybrid"
design option which I examined in sketch drawing number l3}ll24, which
responded to your suggested alternatives. I explained in my email dated
31.t March why I felt this was the weaker option, and did not provide
either or practical or aesthetical solution to my brief.
I shall
be on holiday from Thursday evening for the following two weeks.
Before I leave, I shall send in further supporting drawing and
photographi.c information, together with a revised model which complies
with the finalised drawings submitted.
Please do not hesitate to contact me if you require any further information
or clarification of the information and drawings submitted.
Yours sincerely
Bernard Smith
studio eleven harbord road cromer norfolk NR27 OBP
tel 01263 511269 rnobile 07748 590681 ernail bernard@studio-eleven.co.uk
154
bernard smith
architect
The Burlington Hotel, The Esplanade, Sheringham NR26 8LG
"Design, Access & Heritage Statement":
"Heritage":
The Burlington Hotel, situated within the deemed "conservation area of
Sheringham", was built in the early 1890's, as one of three substantiai
hotels. These included the Sheringham Hotel built in 1889, sited at the
junction of Holt Road and Weybourne Road, and the Grand Hotel, sited
further along the Esplanade, opposite The Leas.
\n'ith the development and expansion of the railways to the North Norfolk
coast in 1887, so Sheringham became ever-more popular as a holiday
resort. This surge in hotel development supplied a need for holiday
accommodation for the wealthy middle and upper class Londoners
travelling to enjoy the healthy sea air.
Sadly, by the 1960's and 70's, smaller guest houses within and around the
town provided more affordable and popular accommodation that the larger
hotels could not compete with due to staffing and running costs. This
substantially cut the usage of the 3 main hotels in the town. The
Sheringham Hotel was subsequently turned into flats, and sadly, the
Grand Hotel went through a steady decline of varying uses as apartments
etc. before it was deemed no longer viabie, and subsequently demolished.
The site of the Grand Hotel was redeveloped with 5 blocks of flats of
substantial inferior architectural quality by comparison to the
magnificence of the original structure. The original putting green and
amenity land to the west of the Burlington was also sold off, and
rerdeveloped in the 1970's with 3 further self-contained properties of totaliy
unsympathetic design to the originai composition which once graced the
Esplanade frontage facing sea-ward. In a nutshell, this once dominant
Victorian/Edwardian architecture was totally ruined, leaving only the 6storey Burlington Hotel to the east, standing as a dominant structure to
the Sheringham roof-line from ail approaches to the town. To the west of
it stands a disastrous architectural assortment of redevelopment.
studio eleven harbord road cromer norfolk NR27 OBP
tel 01263 5]1269 mobile 07?48 590681 email bernard@studio-eleven.co.uk
155
bernard smith
architect
The Burlington Hotel was originally designed as a symmetri.cal frontage to
the main entrance. For whatever reason, only the lower and upper ground
flools to the west end were built, and the 4 further floors of construction
abo',re were never compLeted. As safety and emergency exits became a
requirement in the 60's/?0's, so the out of character staircase structure
was added to the west end of the property;
The property has very imposing detailed north and east elevations,
comprising of traditional Norfolk red brick in lime mortar, rubbed and
gauged brick lintels, arched window heads at the upper ground floor level
with Lime or Portland stone detaii embellishment with window cill and
string coursing, quoining and key-stones to the arched openings to the
front elevation. All windows and doors are traditional painted timber
joinery with sash-windows throughout. At eaves level is a traditionai
white-painted timber and plastered stepped coving detail. The roof is
constructed with red plain-tiles roof covering of a steep 45deg pitch. The
left hand projecting square bay to the ieft-hand end of the north elevation
is capped by a Dutch-style gable. What was designed as the centrai bay
has splayed bay windows over 3 floors flanking the entrance door, accessed
by the series of steps. The roof-iine above is punctuated by white-painted
timber dormer windows giving light to the accommodation at roof-]evel.
This detail is repeated along the east-facing roof slope. Tall chimney
stacks terminate the roof-line of the gable ends, as well as others within
the roof slopes.
The south and west elevations become slightly more utilitarian in detail
losing the stone and eaves level detail embellishment. Over the years, in
the course of general repair, maintenance and alterations, an assortment
of unsympathetic replacement windows have been introduced to both of
these elevations.
The stone detailing has deteriorated badly due to the harsh salt-laden
corlosive weather conditions from the north, east and west. In places, the
brickwork and lime mortar is also deteriorating. This became evident
when one of the large central stacks was blown over during the severe
weather in December 2013. The windows to the north and east elevations
are in need of continual maintenance as they too suffer from the harsh
exposed weather conditions.
studio eleven harbord road cromer norfolk NR27 OBP
tel 01263 511269 rnobile 0??48 590681 email bernard@studio-eleven.co.uk
156
bernard smith
architect
Reasons
o
o
.
.
for considering redeuelopment needs:
The current premises, as a hotel, are only used at a maximum of 60%
potential for specific time-slot periods of the year.
The main clientele of the business are an ageing population of coach
party-type holiday accommod.ation and occasional wedding-type
functions.
With the ongoing demands of Clientele requirements for up'dated
facilities and expected standards of comfort, plus the ever-increasing
demands of regular updates regarding health & safety, environmental
health and fire standards, the large premises have an ever-increasing
annual drain on financial resources, set against a declining market.
The external fabric of the building's detailing mixture of red brick and
stonework is suffering from the harsh climate of salt-laden air and
strong northerly winds. Serious finances are required to meet the cost
of repair of the decay and erosion of areas of externai walls, roof and
original timber windows.
Conclusion:
.
A self-financing exercise is required in order to bring the current
property up to the standards required and expected ofthe current-day
.
A smaller hotel accommodation is needed to meet the current declining
.
hoteI.
demands.
Redevelopment of under-utilised areas of the hotel into self-contained
luxury apartments for sale will release capital required for the overhaul
needed.
"Design"
From the very frrst informal meeting between myself, Andy Mitchell and
Phil Godwin, held on site, on 23rd April 2013, it was stated that"The
Burlington Hotel is a key building in the Sheringham Conseruation Area
and the presumption of the LPA should be to retain it rather than lose it,
unless there was an outstanding tuew building which contributed euen more
positiuely to the character of the Conseruation Area and the sea front."
At that meeting, all parties agreed the foliowing:
.
Acknowledged the importance of this building as the only remaining
substantial period in-use hotel in Sheringham.
studio eleven harbord road cromer norfolk I{R27 OBP
tel 01263 511269 mobile 07748 590681 email bernard@studio-eleven.co.uk
157
bernard smith
architect
Agreed that the present building was important to Sheringham because
of its prominence, scale, massing and the quality of detailing of the
north and east elevations.
Accepted the importance of this building in architectural merit to the
gr:neral composition of the town's architecture and acknowledged the
d,rminance of this 6-storey structure when viewed from many vantage
positions surrounding Sheringham, even though the scale and mass of
this property was out of character with the main mix of buildings in and
around the town particularly since the loss of The Grand and
Sheringham Hotels.
Agreed that there wouid be strong objections locally against total
redevelopment which wouid probably be difficult to argue against.
Agreed that there had been an original design intention to build over
and extend the building to the west to create a matching symmetricai
p.rojecting gabled bay and front elevation centralized on the main entry
p,rsition.
Agreed that it was now looking a somewhat tired vision of its original
self, badly in need of urgent repair because of the external
deterioration.
Agreed that the whole frontage of The Esplanade had suffered badly
since the late 60's/early 70's with the demolition of The Grand Hotel
and the poor design and out of character quality of the replacement
biocks of flats, and subsequent new properti,es built on original amenity
space land originally used as putting greens to the west of both hotels,
as well as to the south of The Burlington.
Agreed that this is an extremely important site to the seaward-facing
frontage of Sheringham, and any approved replacement building would
be required to reinstate the scale and purposeful detailing of the
existing structure with a high class design.
Agreed that the running of the present building produced a very poor
carbon footprint and that would be practical benefit in any new building
having to meet current standards required, as weII as take full
advantage of designing in all renewable energy options in line with
Government targets.
Acknowledged that there would most likely be local strong resistance
from local residents, Sheringham Town Council and Sheringham
Preservation Society, particularly on the back of other recent
arrimonious and contentious matters in the town, as well as possible
Planning resistance, if any suggestion was put forward to Iosing this
existing dominant building.
studio eleven harbord road cromer norfolk NR27 OBP
tel 01263 511269 mobile 07748 590681 email bernard@studio-eleven.co.uk
158
bernard smith
architect
It
was accepted and acknowledged that a number of suggested
alternative uses put forward for the building previously had met with
some adverse public responses. The need for such proposals to come
forward reflected the problems associated with the running and
fi.nancial requirements for such a large property.
It was confirmed that The Burlington Hotel was one of a number of
buildings in Sheringham that were to be deemed as "Local Listed
Buildings" in the new Local Policy Document , and that although this
categorisation did not carry the same legal weight protection of "Listed
Buildings", would however provide much more protection when faced
with inappropriate alterations and potential demolition.
It was agreed that the prominence and scale of the building, together
with the north and east elevations, were the only significant
architectural features.
It was agreed that the existing east elevation has numerous window
openings over 5 floor levels which would make it difficult for any
neighbour objections to overlooking from any proposed redevelopment,
irrespective of whether it be the existing or a proposed new structure.
It was agreed that the Planning Dept officers might have problems in
accepting whole-scale demolition and redevelopment rather than partdemolition and conversion/part-new build. Any new development would
need to be of suffi.cient merit to justifu demolition.
It was understood that Phil Godwin was against the total demolition
and redevelopment of the site, but would be happy to support
demolition of the flat roofed elements to the west with total
redevelopment of this part of the site (possibly with a suitable change of
character to the choice of finishing materials as a contrast to the
existing, subject to suitable design proposals). Also suggested that the
south and west elevations to the rear were of no significant importance
if changes were considered necessary.
It was accepted that there would be high costs associated in
conversion/refurbishment/rep air of the existi.ng buiiding fabric, but
hoped that to demolish and redevelop the elements to the west might
lead to a viable project.
Phil Godwin stated that in the event of an application being made to
totally redevelop the whole site, the design and detailing would need to
be not equal to, but a substantial improvement on the existing, to have
any chance of gaining his support.
studio eleven harbord road cromer norfolk NR27 OBP
tel 01263 511269 mobile 07748 590681 email bernard@studio-eleven.co.uk
159
bernard srnith
architect
.
We aII agreed upon the following initial design thoughts:
o to provide on-site parking at the existing lower-ground level,
accessed from the rear
o locate 5/6 floor levels of self-contained apartments to the east
portionihalf of the site to the same scale and height as the
existing east wing of the hotel. Given the higher ceiling levels
at present, it might be possible to introduce an additional
floor level within the current overall height to ridge level.
o locate hotel accommodati.on to the remainder of the site, wi.th
reducing roof heights stepping down to maximum 2 storeys of
any building mass sitting directly on the west boundary
o create a landscaped amenity/apartment entrance courtyard
to the south
o there are two optionai ways forward:
1. FilI in the incomplete
2.
o
corner along the lines of the
original desi.gn concept.
Demolish the 2-storey part of the hotel to the west and
start again with a new building which serves the
purpose of the required brief, and makes a positive
architectural statement reflecting the present, whilst
complimenti"ng the existing.
We were generally agreed that option 2 was preferred.
Design conclusion:
The subsequent feasibility design process and responses is well
documented in the accompanying series of emails, as too is the difficulties
I've faced with the change in Planning personnel and subsequent differing
opinions to those initially given, as stated above.
I wrll pr6cis the reasons behind my decision to consider, but reject,
option
r
1:
Taking Chris Youngs' suggested sketch idea to its natural symmetrical
conclusion would require a west wing to be returned along the
boundary, and this would not work as it then creates serious
overiooking to the adjacent property to the west.
studio eleven harbord road cromer norfolk NR27 OBP
tel 01263 511269 mobile 07748 590681 email bernard@studio-eleven.co.uk
160
bernard smith
architect
o
.
o
.
.
To continue an extended building envelope on the same wall and roof
planes immediately dictates that the same openings, materials and
details have to be continued to match the existing. That creates
numerous problems of finding materials that wiII be an exact match but
the result being to accentuate the areas of decay to the existing
building, making it look even more "tired".
How ever much one tries, it will be impossible for an "extended
building" not to stand out against the existing, thereby defeating the
whole purpose of this approach. The window patterns and giazing bar
detailing wiil not comply with the current required standards, so these
could not be an exact match. This solution is one that is immediateiy
dictated by the elevations and does not suit the change of use
requirements within. The associated additional cost in achieving this
"fagade approach" is prohibitive to the purpose of the exercise. The
existing floor to ceiling heights within do not suit the domestic
requirements, as well as lose the opportunity for an additional floor
level which is also critical to the {inancial requirements. This approach
fails on practical, aesthetical and financial grounds.
On-site parking is both a policy requirement and a must in this
instance, particularly as it can be accommodated. However, it is totally
impractical to assume that the current lower-ground plan area can be
gutted and a structural soiution be found to support the structure
above.
I can take on board Chris Youngs'reservations regarding the raised
front entrance area and his concerns how this might interfere with the
"{Lowing" of the entrance steps to the hotel etc.
The model was produced as a representative design tool at the
preliminary stage. A number of design and detailing ideas have already
developed from this. Items such as the retractive bli.nds developed as
an idea showing the possibility to add some interest and sculptured
detailing to the elevations.
studio eleven harbord road cromer norfolk NR27 OBP
tel 01263 511269 mobile 0?748
email bernard@studio-eleven.co.uk
161
5906E1
bernard smith
architect
I will pr6cis the reasons behind my decision to favour and submit
option 2:
e
The parking solution actually dictates the position of both vehicle and
pedestrian access.
Therefore the design solution is dictated by the site area available and
tire positioning of certain primary elements.
Your comments about concerns that the bar area being moved to the
south and losing sea-views are not real.ly a planning issue. In actual
fact, that solution maintains part of the existing seating area to the
north which connects through to the south, with the bar becoming
central to both.
The added advantage is that the proposed design then offers a southfacing aspect, with an area to sit outside and be sheltered from the
ncrtherly winds. Given the distances between the properties to the
south, the window to window policy criteria can be achieved,
particularly as there are no active amenity areas directly behind this
site. The area is mainly a pedestrian thoroughfare and parking.
Re-siting of the bar and toilet area also gives the opportunity to improve
the current utilitarian rear elevations by linking the proposed new
design and detailing across the existing south elevation.
Your suggestion to use that area for a further apartment, and keep the
b;lr where it is, fails on grounds of practicality and access.
The height of the new structure was given careful consideration during
the preliminary discussions. My initial thoughts were to keep the
roofline of the new structure subservient to the existing. In the course
ol'preliminary discussion, it was agreed that this was the wrong
approach. It was agreed that this new building should match the
existing in height. It was even suggested that it might be feasible to
take the new building a further storey higher to provide a "stop-end" to
the existing. One further suggestion by PhiI Godwin was to introduce a
rc,of element that would terminate the west end with the same roof
pitch as the hip to the east. An extensive series of design sketches were
pr:oduced to examine all of the options discussed. I am satisfied that the
final design submitted provides the correct balance and detail elements
tc relate posi.tively, and in harmony, with the existing structure.
There was some considerable discussion regarding whether or not to
create a break between the existing and the new. This could have either
been a physical break, ie a minimum 900mm "gap", or a visual break
using a vertical glazing detail. It was agreed that neither worked on
the grounds of practicality or visual enhancement.
studio eleven harbord road cromer norfolk NR27 OBP
tel 01263 511269 rnobile 0?748 590681 email bernard@studio-eleven.co.uk
162
bernard smith
architect
The existing natural stone string course detailing, and the cornice at
eaves level, are returned around the north-west corner to the west
elevation. I feel it is important to keep this detailing undisturbed and
intact. Therefore I have purposefully set the frontage of the proposed
new building 563mm back from the existing north elevation to work in
with the detailing and brick bonding used. This leaves the existing
detailing undisturbed, as well as creating an effective "break between
old and new" in answer to the above point.
Another important point discussed questioned the connection between
the old and the new at roof level, particularly given the prominence of
the two large chimney stacks on the existing west gabie. I have
resolved this detail by cutting back the glazed corner of the new "penthouse" upper level of the top , and setting it back to a position that can
return against the new separating party wall which will be set back
113mm from the north face of the chimney stack. I am confident that
this proposed detail answers that concern, which was always a detail
matter in my mind needing careful consideration.
The proposal now submitted has a lower-ground floor area
accommodating the required parking. I propose using the salvaged
facing bricks from the demolished end wing to construct an enclosing
wall to the entire lower-ground new build, including the wall up to, and
enclosing, the bar terrace, garden terrace to the upper'ground f1oor
flats, and terminating with a curved end connecting back to the north'
west corner of the existing.
Above that level sit 6 further floors situated between the existing upperground floor, and top of gutter, levels. These provide 2 smaller
apartments at the upper-ground floor levei, and 4 further identical
apartments above. The 4th floor apartment has an additional maisonette
floor area within the roof-space, corresponding to that in the existing
building.
The vertical pedestrian access stair and lift is sited in the projecting bay
to the right of the front elevation. This element offers a visual counter
balance to the existing projecting bay to the left side of the hotel. The
entrance level is approached via a ramped access and sited under a
triangular glass canopy supported on a galvani.sed miid steel column
support.
The front and rear facades have projecting balconies which are
supported on paired galvanised mild steei structural columns which
also give support to the projecting roof overhangs. The balconies have
load-bearing clear glass balustrade panels with stainless steel
handrails.
studio eleven harbord road cromer norfolk NR27 OBP
tel 01263 511269 mobile 07748 590681 email bernard@studio-eleven.co.uk
163
bernard smith
architect
The materials proposed for the front and rear elevations comprise of
trmacotta red and natural stone coloured clay modular panels, with
contrasting detail "string, head and cill courses", all with open recessed
jc,ints, as shown on the coloured drawing no.1301/42, all supported on a
hidden metal framing system.
The materials proposed for the west facing gable elevation, and the
projecting pier adjacent to the existing west gable wall, comprise of a
smooth red facing brick, complete with a lime-coloured mortar and brick
bond to match the existing. A smooth buff coloured facing brick is to be
used as contrasting detail "string, head and cili courses" as shown.
All external doors and windows are to be constructed with a grey
p,rwder coated metal framing system to be agreed.
The new building is covered with a zinc clad, up-standing seam system,
of inter-connecting mono-pitch roof slopes, with tapered projecting ridge
and eaves detailing, and specialist integral guttering and eaves
detailing. To the rear slope is constructed a mono-pitch south-facing
dormer window. An area of the south slope, to the sides and bel.ow the
dormer, will also be fitted with a specialist solar panel system to be
selected.
The new bar and toilet area is covered by a flat roof, finished with the
same materials described above, complete with a mono-pitch dormer
roof-light as shown on the drawings.
The existing building has a very strong vertical and horizontal rhythm
between the openings and the natural stone string coursing. The
proposed design continues this same rhythm with the manner in which
the glazed openings, balconies and structural support systems have
been designed together with the choice of materials and detailing used.
So whereas this is a completely new building in terms of it's use, design,
and choice of materials, I have worked to an end-result which has a
ver5r strong connection with the design and detail elements of the
existing. My aim has been to create a balance and harmony that works
between the two, providing a new building which responds to the
requirements of the 21*t century whilst respecting the manner and
purpose with which it was built for the latelgth/eariy 20th centuries.
studio eleven harbord road cromer norfolk NR27
tel
OBP
01263 511269 mobile 07748 590681 email bernard@studio-eleven.co.uk
164
bernard smith
architect
"Access":
The design caters fully for all needs for disabled access. The access to the
entrance of the building is served by a ramp that complies with Building
Regulations. There will be a flat threshold at the entrance door to
facilitate wheelchairs. A lift provides vertical access to each floor level
within the apartment block. Each apartment is on a si.ngle floor level
vvithout steps. The only exception to this is the top 4th floor flat which has
the additional maisonette level accessed via a staircase, which can be
fitted with a stair tift. All door opening widths will cater for wheelchair
access.
This "Design, Access and Heritage Statement" is to be read in conjunction
u;ith Architects drawing numbers 1301/ 30 to 42 inclusiue, together with
the 1:200 scale model, photos of the satrle, and photos of the existing
building and street fron"tage.
Bernard Smith Dip Arch (NELP) Dip Arch (Hons) (Thames)
August 2074
studio eleven harbord road cromer norfolk NR27 OBP
tel 01263 511269 mobile 0??48 590681 email bernard@studio-eleven.co'uk
165
I
DESIGN & ACCESS STATEMENT for The Burlington Hotel, The Esplanade,
Sheringham. NR26 8LG
General Location and Site Context:
The Burlinglon Hotel, sited on the sea-front, is the last surviving active hotel of three, built in
Sheringham in the late l gth/early 20th century. to serve the increasing tourism demands which
grew with the arrival of the railways to the North Norfolk coast. It is a prominent 6-storey
structure dominating the roof-line of the town from all approaches. It sits within the town's
"Conservation Area" and has been included within the recently introduced "Local Listings"
categorisation.
Proposed Development:
There is a distinct decline in the demand for this type of hotel accommodation, used mostly by
the more senior age groups with bus-tour type holidays. as well as the occasional wedding-type
function. The hotel is running at an average maximum capacity of 60Yo. The external building
fabric is in need of extensive repairs with decaying brick and stonework, as well as slipping clay
plain-tiles and structural concerns regarding the tall chimney stacks. This is due to the harsh
weather conditions with no protection from the salt-laden atmosphere of the North
Sea. Internally. the accommodation needs modernising to bring it up to the standards
required. The annual running and heating costs continue to escalate. This proposed
development seeks to address these problems with a self-funding exercise. The options have
been discussed at considerable length, through informal dialogue with the Planning and
Conservation officers. The resulting conclusion is to support the current proposal to demolish
the incomplete and partly redundant, west wing of the original design. This will result in re-siting
the bar and toilet areas to the rear of the upper-ground floor levei in current under-utilized
kitchen and storage areas. as well as extending to the rear which will also over-haul and improve
the appearance of the utilitarian appearance of the rear elevation which is inferior in quality to
the detail standard of the south and east elevations. The cleared site area to the west will be redeveloped to provide 6 self-contained luxury apartments with parking below at the current
Iower-ground levei. These will be sold for private use to fund the work required to the remaining
structure.
Layout:
The proposed new-build apartment block is located largely within the footprint of the
demolished building area. The lower-ground parking area covers the available site area to the
west of the existing gable. The proposed height and profile of the new-build follows that of the
existing building. The extension and alterations to the rear of the existing building are governed
by the available site area, existing window openings to the rear, the need to provide on-site
parking spaces below, and the need to maintain an alternative means of escape.
166
\
Scale:
Having agreed the principles for redevelopment of the site during the course of the informal preapplicati,ln exercise, the scale of the new development is largely governed by the profile of the
existing east wing of the existing hotel.
Landscaping:
The curr,:nt site is largely devoid of landscaping as it responds to the utilitarian and practical
needs o1'the hotel use. The proposed new development offers the opportunity to provide
appropriate landscaping at the upper-ground floor level to compliment the proposed design, offer
a softened appearance to the site, and generaily improve upon the current lack of planting
Appeara rce:
The design of the building The materials proposed for the front and rear elevations
comprise of terracotta red and natural stone coloured clay modular panels, with contrasting detail
"string, head and cillcourses", allwith open recessed joints, as shown on the coloured drawing
no. 130 i r42, all supported on a hidden metal framing system.
*
*
Th: materials proposed for the west facing gable elevation, and the projecting pier adjacent
to the existing west gable wall, comprise of a smooth red facing brick, complete with a limecoloured mortar and brick bond to match the existing. A smooth buff coloured facing brick is to
be used as contrasting detail "string, head and cill courses" as shown.
*
All external doors and windows are to be constructed with a grey powder coated metal
framing system to be agreed.
t
The new building is covered with a zinc clad, up-standing seam system, of interconnecting mono-pitch roof slopes, with tapered projecting ridge and eaves detailing, and
specialist integral guttering and eaves detailing. To the rear slope is constructed a mono-pitch
south-fasing dormer window, An area of the south slope, to the sides and below the
dormer. will also be fitted with a specialist solar panel system to be selected.
*
The new bar and toilet area is covered by a flat roof, finished with the same materials
described above, complete with a mono-pitch dormer roof-light as shown on the drawings.
+
The existing building has a very strong vertieal and horizontal rhythm between the
openings and the natural stone string coursing. The proposed design continues this same rhyhm
with the manner in which the glazed openings, balconies and structural support systems have
been de:;igned together with the choice of materials and detailing used.
*
Sc r.l'hereas this is a completely new building in terms of it's use, design, and choice of
materials, I have worked to an end-result which has a very strong connection with the design and
detail elements of the existing. My aim has been to create a balance and harmony that works
between the two, providing a new buiiding which responds to the requirements of the 21't
century whilst respecting the manner and purpose with which it was built for the latel9th/early
2Oth centuries.
167
/
Access:
Vehicular access remains unchanged, with access via the private drive to the rear, served via The
Boulevard and The Esplanade. The design caters fully for all needs for disabled access. The
access to the entrance of the building is served by a ramp that complies with Building
Regulations. There will be a flat threshold at the entrance door to facilitate wheelchairs. A lift
provides vertical access to each floor level within the apartment block. Each apartment is on a
single floor level without steps. The only exception to this is the top 4th floor flat which has the
additional maisonette level accessed via a staircase, which can be fitted with a stair lift. All door
opening widths will cater for wheelchair access.
l4 August
2014
168
EXTRACT FROM MINUTES OF DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE MEETING 27 NOVEMBER
2014
(143) SHERINGHAM - PF/14/0887 - Partial demolition of hotel and erection of six
residential apartments and single-storey rear extension to hotel; Burlington
Hotel, The Esplanade for Mr S McDermott
The Committee considered item 9 of the Officers’ reports.
Public Speakers
Mr L McGinn (Sheringham Town Council)
Mr B Smith (supporting)
The Senior Planning Officer read to the Committee the comments submitted by
Councillors B J Hannah and Councillor R Smith. The local Members supported the
need for investment in the hotel but had raised concerns regarding the design of the
proposed extension. Councillor Smith had raised additional concerns regarding the
impact on the privacy and amenities of surrounding residents.
The Senior Planning Officer reported that Officers had no objection to the principle of
the extension and acknowledged that the applicant was attempting to fund
improvements to the hotel building. Negotiations had taken place with the applicant’s
agent but concerns remained in respect of the design and impact on the
Conservation area and impact on residential amenities. Officers considered that the
proposal, as submitted, would result in significant harm to the heritage asset and
recommended refusal of this application.
The Chairman referred to a communication which had been sent to all Members by
the agent.
Councillor R Shepherd stated that The Burlington was an icon and the last true
seaside hotel. He stated that neighbours and residents had been fairly positive about
the proposal, but he took on board the concerns of the Town Council and local
Members. He suggested deferral to consider the roof design which was causing the
most concern.
Councillor J Perry-Warnes stated that holidaymakers required modern, up-to-date
facilities and it was necessary for cater for them. He stated that he was very much in
favour of the application and there was nothing wrong with the design. He proposed
approval of this application.
Councillor R Reynolds considered that a ridge design would be more appropriate for
the roof and that the small windows on the new extension should be similar in design
to those at the eastern end of the existing building. He supported deferral of this
application to negotiate amendments to the design.
Councillor B Smith stated that he had no objection to the general design of the
extension but was concerned at the mixture of roof pitches. He understood the
economic issues and did not wish to see the loss of another hotel. He supported
deferral to negotiate with regard to the roof.
Councillor Mrs A C Sweeney stated that she liked the design but agreed with
Councillor Reynolds’ comments. She was concerned with regard to balconies on the
rear and considered that balconies would be better located on the north facing the
sea.
Development Committee
1
169
27 November 2014
EXTRACT FROM MINUTES OF DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE MEETING 27 NOVEMBER
2014
Councillor Mrs P Grove-Jones considered that The Burlington was the only building
of worth on the Esplanade. She was in favour of this application but considered that
the roof pitches should be reconsidered. She agreed that there was a need for the
extension to bring the hotel back to profitability.
Councillor Mrs A R Green supported the application.
It was proposed by Councillor R Shepherd, seconded by Councillor Mrs P GroveJones that consideration of this application be deferred.
The Development Manager stated that there was the possibility of an appeal against
non-determination if this application were deferred. Officers, the applicant and agent
shared the view that there was a need to secure the future of the building.
Discussions had previously taken place with regard to the roof and the rhythm of the
fenestration, but he considered that it would be acceptable to discuss it further.
The Planning Legal Manager advised the Committee to be specific as to the reasons
for deferral.
Mr Smith (architect) stated that he took on board all that had been said. He
explained that the design of the roof had been the result of discussions with Officers,
including the former Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager. He stated that
he was happy to discuss the matter.
Councillor R Reynolds stated that he would like to see the ridge running right through
to achieve a balance. He also considered that the windows should be balanced with
the existing windows.
Councillor Mrs V Uprichard stated that the hotel and the extension looked like two
separate buildings and she considered that effort should be made to unify the
frontage. She considered that amendments to the fenestration could help to achieve
it.
The Development Manager stated that it appeared that Members wished to see a
more harmonised roof in a more traditional form. Also, the windows on the right hand
side of the front elevation should have a relationship with the rest of the building.
The overarching concern was in relation to the general design in the Conservation
Area. Overlooking and loss of privacy were also issues that needed further
consideration during any discussions.
It was proposed by Councillor R Shepherd, seconded by Councillor Mrs P GroveJones and
RESOLVED unanimously
That consideration of this application be deferred for design
negotiations in respect of the roof and windows and to address issues
of overlooking and loss of privacy, in accordance with the views
expressed by Members.
Development Committee
2
170
27 November 2014
NORTH NORFOLK DISTRICT COUNCIL
INTERNAL MEMORANDUM
PLANNING DIVISION
To:
Jo Medler (Development Management)
Your Ref:
PF/14/0887
From:
Chris Young (Conservation & Design)
Re: Six residential apartments & rear extension, Burlington Hotel, Sheringham.
The building in question is an imposing 5½ storey structure which dates back to the 1890s and
was originally conceived as a symmetrical composition. Although the end third was never fully
built, it is nonetheless still one of the most prominent buildings in Sheringham and can be seen
for miles around – a fact compounded by the loss of the other large hotels nearby. With the
surrounding buildings now of more modest scale, it represents one of the last vestiges of High
Victoriana within Sheringham. Particularly with its ornate detailing and (in part) imported
materials, it certainly makes a positive contribution to Sheringham’s sea front.
At the same time, the sheer scale of the building, and the softness of its materials in such a harsh
environment, ensures that it has an enormous ongoing want of repair. Most visibly demonstrated
through the recent collapse of one of the chimneys, it is clear that the current hotel use cannot
support the building moving forward. It is against this backdrop that so much architect and officer
time has gone into trying to find a satisfactory and viable solution over the last couple of years or
so. Far from serving up an obvious answer, however, these discussions have merely demonstrated
how many constraints are involved and how difficult the task is to create something to co-exist
comfortably with the existing building.
Stepping away from this for the time being, the obvious starting point would be to simply
reinstate the part of the building which was never built. However, not only would this be
prohibitively expensive to build by today’s standards, but it would also simply recreate the
existing problems faced by the building. With it also not offering a viable layout for the adopted
business model, it is accepted that this is not a sensible way forward. Having explored various
alternatives, the submitted scheme heads down a more contemporary route and has been
conceived as an extension rather than a reinstatement. It also proposes a general move away from
the existing vulnerable materials and puts forward a palette of materials which would in part
complement and in part contrast. Set under an intersecting series of zinc roofs, the end result
would clearly be a significant and dramatic composition in its own right.
In considering this kind of application, it is important that subjective matters of taste are laid to
one side and the proposals looked at objectively. Hence, there is rarely a C&D objection to the
principle of a contemporary approach providing it is carefully thought though and respectful of
the host building. Whilst there can be no question marks over the former, there do remain
significant doubts over whether a successful ‘dialogue’ would be established between the existing
and proposed elements. Instrumental in these doubts are two main factors: 171
•
•
Alongside the existing building, the proposed roofscape would feature a relatively
complicated arrangement of wedge shapes which would surely emphasize the impact of the
extension at high level. Particularly with the building being so visible from a number of
vantage points, it is difficult to imagine how this grouping of mono-pitched roofslopes would
subserviently complement the original building.
Similarly, with no space available to create a separating link, the new build would have to
‘plug’ directly into the existing elevations with their strong vertical rhythm and well-defined
bays. In practice this becomes extremely difficult as soon as an extra storey is introduced as
floor levels and openings no longer correspond or sync. That is very much the case here.
Whilst overall the extension would have a vertical emphasis, the rhythm and definition up
through the floors and across the main façade appears on the whole to juxtapose uneasily with
the host building – certainly it seems to offer much stronger horizontal desire lines principally
through the proposed balconies.
Although less significant, there are also secondary concerns around the impact of the
development down at a human level. Not only would we lose a significant part of the original
building (which in itself is probably not a sustainable ground for objection), but the main focal
point of the building (i.e. the entrance) would tend to be compromised by the new work. As
existing, the hotel sends out two curved walls which visually draw the eye up the stairs into the
central entrance (which in turn is then perfectly framed by two bays). As proposed, however, a
new ground floor garden/patio area and an access ramp would be framed by a new enclosing wall.
This would be a much stronger means of enclosure which would project just as far out as the
existing walls and would, in conjunction with the triangular canopy, compete with and block
views of the entrance (depending upon your approach).
Taking these concerns together, there is an overriding sense that the proposed addition, far from
being subordinate or respectful of the existing, would actually have an assertive presence which
would not only see it taking centre stage within the locality, but would tend to work against the
original notion of balance. Given the size of the current building, and the way it already
dominates the skyline and neighbourhood, this has to be a major concern. Particularly with the
building lying within the Sheringham Conservation Area, we are obliged to pay special regard to
preserving and enhancing the appearance and character of this designation. In this case, C&D are
far from convinced that this would happen if an approval were granted (not helped in part by the
scale and outline nature of the submitted plans – the model is, however extremely helpful in
bringing the scheme to life). Instead, it is considered that this scheme would result in “less than
substantial harm” being caused to the heritage asset as defined by the NPPF.
Therefore, in accordance with para 134 of that document, it is necessary to weigh up any
identified harm against any public benefits which might accrue - in this case the restoration of the
existing building and the associated contribution to economic development and tourism. Whilst
these are certainly not something to be downplayed, it is argued that the lasting legacy on the
town’s built environment would be more significant due to the sheer scale of the new build. In
reaching this conclusion, it is acknowledged that the current situation cannot continue as it is –
otherwise the hotel will continue to decline further. However, it is still unclear at this stage
whether there is any common ground to take such a scheme forward.
15th August 2014
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179