APPENDIX 3
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
'a
-l
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
b*>
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
a--:.
,s -J
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.
2a"W
studio eleven harbord road cromer norfolk NR27 OBP
tel 01263 511269 rnobile 0??48 590681 email bernard@studio-eleven.co.uk
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.
3-f
studio eleven harbord road cromer norfolk I{R27 OBP
tel 01263 511269 mobile 07748 590681 email bernard@studio-eleven.co.uk
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
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.
"3*?
studio eleven harbord road cromer norfolk NR27 OBP
tel 01263 511269 mobile 07748 590681 email bernard@studio-eleven.co.uk
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.
,
,.)
{:\
t> * .,t
studio eleven harbord road cromer norfolk NR27 OBP
tel 01263 511269 mobile 07748 590681 email bernard@studio-eleven.co.uk
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.
"3 '-.'1
studio eleven harbord road cromer norfolk NR27 OBP
tel 01263 511269 mobile 0?748
5906E1
email bernard@studio-eleven.co.uk
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.
? 'lLt
studio eleven harbord road cromer norfolk NR27 OBP
tel 01263 511269 rnobile 0?748 590681 email bernard@studio-eleven.co.uk
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.
3"-tt
studio eleven harbord road cromer norfolk NR27 OBP
tel 01263 511269 mobile 07748 590681 email bernard@studio-eleven.co.uk
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.
r.A
\"/ -IJ
studio eleven harbord road cromer norfolk NR27
OBP
tel 01263 511269 mobile 07748 590681 email bernard@studio-eleven.co.uk
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
a
-13
studio eleven harbord road cromer norfolk NR27 OBP
tel 01263 511269 mobile 0??48 590681 email bernard@studio-eleven.co'uk
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.
'1--f H
\
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.
a.-
t"?
/
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
3*rl*