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: -
•
•
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