V. Paynter 13 Clarendon House Clarendon Road Hove BN3 3WW 19.6.15 By email To: Planning.applications@brighton-hove.gov.uk cc: jonathan.puplett@brighton-hove.gov.uk

BH2015/01472 Clarendon & Ellen Estate, Clarendon Road, Hove

OBJECTION Dear Sirs, There are a number of issues that seem anomalous, negligent or mistaken. 1. The Red Line. See appendix 1 photos of the Conway Court low-rise area not included within the red line or this application, but which should be included and dealt with on an equal basis with the 5 towers and the Ellen Street low-rise flats and garages. Within them are the NHS clinic, Honeycroft nursery, Children’s Centre, Vallance Centre and an office. It was all constructed together as part of Conway Court and given ‘unit’ addresses at Conway Court. One reason for refusing application BH2014/03485 was failure to include the Ellen Street low-rises and garages strung between the central towers. What’s good for the goose is good for the gander (or cladding for none of them). Indeed the Conway Court tower flats part of the complex would look pretty stark adjacent to this little lot, some of it flint clad, without them also being included in the overall scheme/project. Dreadful in fact. 2. The Planning Application Form It is disappointing to see the same mistakes and misinformation from BH2014/03485 repeated for BH2015/01472. It is in fact pretty negligent.

It is irresponsible for applicant Gill Thompson to have failed to take Pre-planning advice (Item 5 ticked no).

It is irresponsible for plans to fail to incorporate areas to store and collect waste (Item 7 ticked no)

It is irresponsible for a BHCC Housing Dept. employee with a council email address to declare she is not to be a member of staff (Item 8 ticked no).

It is irresponsible for Walls to be described differently as between two applications for the same site. BH2014/03485 gave the walls as being “facing brick” – which is almost the truth. For BH2015/01472 the description is “brick” which is a fudge and hides the fact they are not load-bearing and that the building has a cavity with solid concrete panels behind them which are slotted into ring beams and frame to form walls.

It is irresponsible to fail to disclose how foul sewage is to be disposed of. To declare it is “not applicable” and then say “unknown” if proposing to connect to the existing sewage system is outrageous. There are now two site toilets within a site office compound within the Conway Court car park. Two toilets are in situ and a pipe comes out the back of them and under a paving slab which sticks up over it.

-2-

It is irresponsible to tick ‘no’ to the Biodiversity question at 13,

especially given the extraordinary negligence at 15 where it is declared there are no trees or hedges. There are and they are a major and pervasive concern. The estate is covered in them. Indeed the photo above is of a mature and once perfectly formed Whitebeam which the contractors damaged (possibly mortally) when backing into the carpark to offload the containers you see here. Please see Appendix 9 attached, being correspondence with Interim Head of Housing on this matter copy/pasted from email account.

Apparently this construction site will be unique in the construction trade in not having to dispose of trade effluents or waste! Who knew! The ‘no’ box was ticked for 16 and I frankly find it impossible to believe.

At 22 there is no mention of replacement windows – oddly. Just cladding and “new overlay roofing system” which is not explained or detailed in any way, shape or form anywhere else in this application. Please note site managers tell resident they are beginning to do the roof this week. So you won’t need to give planning consent for that bit of the application or to ask them to specify materials properly or anything as they gave themselves consent and the rest of us the middle finger. Nor will you be able to make any recommendation to the planning committee of any kind on that one.

No hazardous substances…..at 23. Really? They are using chemicals and renders and how are they not hazardous? Will render be sprayed on? That’s hazardous.

Certificate B says “See supporting documentation”….where? There is nothing in the working case file and frankly, with so many mistakes in the application past and present it is a worry that this may not be right.

3. The Planning Statement At 4.2 of the original it is stated that the applicants have “the full support of the Residents Association”. The 29th May revision now swaps “full” for “substantial”. And it remains untrue. The RA fails to meet with residents and only managed on a 2nd attempt to be quorate (less than a dozen people) on an estate of 332 flats for an AGM. When Gill Thompson was emailed and asked to justify the claim in her Planning Statement, she refused to answer and instead went to the housing team and got Eve Hitchens to ring me up and demand a meeting “to discuss your concerns”. Nobody else would be allowed to come…just me. “We cannot allow you to hold up the works”, she said. This was blatant intimidation, threatening behaviour and an interference with my right to make a response to a planning application for which I was lettered. No leaseholders were extended this ‘invitation’! And my emails to the Chair of the RA go unanswered too. Indeed their line to others now seems to be that they are relying on the 2-3 meetings held in the summer of 2014 by Gill Thompson and Perrin Horne which basically said it was happening, any questions? These were not convened Residents Association meetings and there was no voting. So the claim is fake. They cannot make the claim as no RA meetings whatsoever were ever scheduled or held to inform, discuss or ask. There is also the claim at 4.2 that the Hove Station Neighbourhood Forum supports – but as a founding member of it, a former member of its management committee and now an ongoing ordinary member, I can tell you the application and proposals have never been mentioned to the membership. The Forum are tasked with creating a neighbourhood plan and things have gone very quiet. The Existing Site and Context section is concerning. There is a huge stone slab detailing the ceremonial foundation stone laying of 2 April 1966 which began the construction of Conway Court. Above it is a larger dedication stone for the opening of the building itself on 13th July 1967. 2016 is the 50th anniversary of the foundation stone-laying at Conway Court. It is claimed that all the buildings are of “similar size and layout”. This is wrong. There are four buildings by Morgan and Carn, contractors Rice and Son, and one from another architect with different builders. The three central towers of Clarendon, Ellen and Goldstone Houses are nearly identical with ground floor areas being different and there are 6 different layouts common to each . Conway Court and Livingstone House are different from these and each other in flat sizes and layouts. All these have in common is two flats per floor in a separated towers…4 at Conway (71 flats) and 3 at Livingstone (54). The context views all avoid St. Barnabas – a grade 2* listed church adjacent to Conway Court. No mention either of the Listed Hove Station context either.

-3- It is claimed that “The buildings facades are generally in a poor condition. Some elements are at the end of their useful life”. Well these Bootle facades certainly were after their EWI cladding fell off on camera! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K5kHc77l0HM And ours will be too if they glue EWI onto our brickwork. The application does not say how it is to be affixed but site manager says glue and pin. Shouldn’t you be told? Within application documents? 2 April 2016 is the 50th anniversary of Conway Court’s foundation stone laying and the facades that went up have never been cleaned or repointed. They are in need of power washing and cleaning of moulds, algae and fungus and brickwork needs repointing inside balconies and around the walls. But they are in otherwise remarkably good condition in my opinion. If any external elements are at the end of their useful life, where is the proof? We have begged for evidence of a recent structural survey and building condition report. They do not exist!!!!! A thermal imaging picture or two is about it, along with a few pull tests on the masonry covering the ring beams. Wet patches are visible on areas of the brickwork where the cavity wall insulation slumped and got soaking wet. But not everyone is affected. Indeed it is not actually KNOWN which flats have suffered from the cavity wall insulation causing them internal damp and mould growth. Mine is not. As for my balcony doors and windows, they are fine. Having a wall of glass makes the balcony glass “wall” end of the room colder in winter it has to be said, but they are sound. Seals need replacing on a couple of windows. That’s it. And I am a tenant saying that, not a leaseholder. At the “meet the contractor” meeting on 8th May, a 5th floor Clarendon House tenant said that when she got the present plastic windows, she got damp and mould around them as they were so badly fitted. Many residents echo this. Their problems mostly exist in the vicinity of the window frames they tell me. But I only know of two or three who complain. And one woman on the fourth floor who has some mould beginning at floor level in her bedroom which is from the cavity wall insulation problem.

So: Cavity Wall insulation and ill-fitted dble glazing are a known source of damp and mould with EWI is not needed in order to deal with internal consequences. It is a maintenance job. I note that since Sussex Heights was refused its application for expanded polystyrene cladding and UPVC windows, a lady has now put in an application for triple glazed aluminium windows. The Clarendon & Ellen Estate was built with single glazed metal windows. Perhaps, instead of cladding and more UPVC (which created curtain/blind hanging problems internally), triple glazed metal windows chould be installed to reinstate the original appearance, and provide increased warmth and soundproofing (needed). Take out the cavity wall insulation and recognise that 50% of our flats are glass and only 50% outside wall in the main (with ring beams between floors). What is the point of putting EWI on the outside of my balcony wall? What is the point of putting EWI onto huge steel ring beams? To warm what? And is it intended it be put INSIDE balconies? Which bit? How? We have not been told – it isn’t in the application.

Why clad the 50% that is wall when you can “clad” the 50% that is glass by triple glazing with, say, metal and internal wood cills instead? Overheating along with condensation and mould in previously comfortable and dry homes is happening on too widespread a basis to be pooh-poohed. If BRE is being asked to investigate in Wales now and the Scottish Govt commissioned an investigation, there is CLEARLY an issue. Fenestration of the open stairwells will further reduce ventilation of central three buildings’ common parts core. Without a full structural survey, the whole project is ill-conceived and capable of doing more harm than good. Indeed there has been no analysis or planning – this is just a one size fits all rollout of a single scheme that is the new CWI in Primark clobber. Please see Appendices 2-4 and 5-8 concerning both the nightmare ugliness and squalor that rendered EWI could visit to a very high profile, high viz landmark set of tall buildings and the practical downside which is now becoming recognised by BRE. EWI is a duvet wrapped around buildings and in summer it means overheating. In winter it can mean condensation and mould for people who have never suffered with it.

-4- Here in Clarendon, Ellen and Goldstone Houses we have central internal corridors which have no access to ventilation unless fire doors to open stairwells are wedged open. In summer they get stiflingly hot. These three towers have 18 single aspect flats per building and they suffer and struggle with summer ventilation NOW, especially the east or west facing single aspect flats in the central towers. There is not even a fire door option for cooling the ground floor common parts hallway where we have just the steel entry doors front and back which cannot be wedged open. Entry and leaving provide the only air changes.

Corridors within the building core Open stairwell proposed to be glazed Installation of windows and louvred smoke vents to the open stairwells and rendered EWI maintenance Who will clean them? The council is happy to spend £6.4 million on cladding, windows etc. but what about afterwards? There will not be one penny for maintenance of them. With a bus depot behind us, a taxi rat run 24/7 along Clarendon Road, and Sackville Road being a major traffic artery, we are in a high pollution area. Windows filth up very fast from salt and grit and carbon. These proposed windows would add to the squalor that the proposed textured render would bring to these buildings and further compromise the appearance of the buildings within the area, presenting an incongruous factory appearance whilst further reducing core ventilation of common parts in the Clarendon, Ellen and Goldstone buildings. The ‘my’ hotel textured render in Jubilee Street is grubby with streaked with blackened areas smudged about its walls, as is the Van Alen and as is 1-3 Vallance Gdns (see Appendices 2-4). Brick does not get like that. Rendered EWI is very high maintenance and it would not be looked after.

Boxing in cast iron rain/balcony drainage pipes ….while ignoring replacement need for internal pipework that springs leaks and damages flats. How? Why? Why no drawings? What about the rusting of them? What about the balcony drainage at the base of each one on each balcony? Access for maintenance? Again, no real thought. No real plan. Make it up as they go along? Is this about cladding inside balconies? The application does not say and nobody is saying verbally. Please understand that render on cladding is fragile and cladding inside balconies would restrict use of them. Any damage not immediately repaired would invalidate the guarantee and water invasion (with subsequent staining) would be inevitable. No doubt Mears looks forward to all the repairs work! IS cladding going into balconies? We are unable to find out and it is not in the application. I note there is no interest in replacing internal pipework within the buildings which occasionally spring leaks and create damp and mould and condensation when it happens. It happened to me and it took several years to get BHCC to admit it and deal with it. And it gave me black mould in the crevices and recesses of some of my windows

-5- which I cannot access or get rid of to this day. I had to email the CEO on Christmas Day one year as water trailed down a pipe in my cupboard and travelled across the space above my flat to eventually stain my kitchen ceiling and drip down the ring beam from my living room ceiling before they reluctantly dealt with it. The flat above was excavated down to screed to find the leak between floors which I was told had probably gone on for years. So, again, where is the structural survey justifying these works? Actually identifying where issues are? I have now given you three reasons for damp, condensation & mould: CWI, ill-fitted UPVC windows letting in damp and the issue of leaking internal pipework, none of which EWI addresses.

4. Appearance Synthetic, self-coloured Render skin Newbuilds with silicon or acrylic rendered surfaces do not look good for very long. And the claims made for it in the Planning Statement are just not credible when there is so much evidence of crumminess in the city where it has been used. You get maybe 4-5 years and then smudges, streaks, water markings and staining appears. Here is what it looks like on St. Andrews School, built just 10 years ago over the former Co-op carpark, in Hove.

Where walls meet the ground (as at ‘my’ Hotel, where the join cannot be defended) dirt builds up and you see the breakup of the paper thin render. The Clarendon and Ellen Estate is incredibly high viz all over Hove and huge communal bins will make short work of render as they get thrown about by bin men and other items come into contact with them. There is simply no resilience comparison with brick which has lasted intact for 50 years. The through colour render is likely to attract graffiti too. It has happened on the recently clad Bristol Estate. A big, open, invitation. On estates you need robust surfaces and not the effete and precious, high maintenance EWI render that cannot be allowed any water entry points. These renders are thin skins. None of the three render colours suggested will enhance the appearance of the surrounding area. They will compete for attention and bully the setting of adjacent Grade 2* Listed St. Barnabas contrary to HE3 and HE6 of the Local Plan. The solid render is loud, stark and crude and erases the careful design of these buildings with masonry render over ring beams and gentle apricot infill brickwork. The original windows were metal, single glazed, and a return to that design with triple glazing would restore the original appearance (assuming cleanup of the brickwork also happens). Without a full structural survey, the whole project is ill-conceived and capable of doing more harm than good. Indeed there has been no analysis or planning – this is just a one size fits all rollout of a single scheme that is the new CWI problem being designed in (see Appendices 2-4 and 5-8 concerning both the nightmare ugliness and squalor that rendered EWI could visit to a very high profile, high viz landmark set of tall buildings and the practical downside which is now becoming recognised by BRE. EWI is a duvet wrapped around buildings and in summer it means overheating. Here in Clarendon, Ellen and Goldstone Houses we have central internal corridors which have no access to ventilation unless fire doors to open stairwells are wedged open. In summer they get stiflingly hot. These three towers have 18 single aspect flats per building and they suffer and struggle with ventilation NOW, especially the east or west facing single aspect flats in the central towers. There is not even a fire door option for

-6- cooling the ground floor common parts hallway where we have just the steel entry doors front and back which cannot be wedged open. Our cool spring has been very welcome in this regard. Heatwaves are nightmare. Historic and wider Context There is no Heritage Statement and there should be one. The request for CGI images of how the loud and proud rendered EWI would present within the setting of Grade 2* St. Barnabas is not enough. These buildings are the only tall buildings in this part of Hove. And there are none north of the railway so they are especially prominent in their views south. This means too that they are visible to most residents from upper storey windows and from street level within a few Conservation and Listed building areas.

The view of one of the Clarendon & Ellen towers from Stirling Place, looking up Connaught Terrace over the rooftops of Blatchington Road buildings

-7-

Views from inside Church Road Tesco. Views of this building are largest at the southern, Church Rd end of the shop.

Not a clear shot but these 5 towers are visible from Devil’s Dyke/over the Downs These are Landmark Buildings influencing a huge array of views

-8- 5. Trees and Landscaping Already scaffolding has gone up around Conway Court on top of landscaping and a couple of trees. At Clarendon House, Ellen House and Goldstone House there is a bigger problem due to the southern elevations being only about 17-18 feet from the boundary wall and pavement. The existing single storey temporary scaffold is 9 feet deep and already has cotoneaster branches sailing over it bigtime. The bushes are just 4 feet away and the 16foot deep construction scaffold cannot be erected without removing trees and bushes along the Clarendon Road frontage inside the boundary wall.

Clarendon Hse, south elevation temp scaffold 9f Clarendon Hse sth elevation temp scaff & 4 ft gap to bushes at foreground and ZERO gap at the far end of the phot

Cotoneaster branches over temp scaff Clarendon Hse 16 ft deep construction scaff east elevation of Conway Crt Whilst you have added Arboriculture and Parks and Gardens to the online list of Consultees I saw no evidence of their engagement within the case file. Further, it is incumbent on the applicants to produce a tree and landscaping survey and plan for their protection instead of lying on the application form and claiming there are no trees or bushes. Where is that document? These trees and bushes are carbon capture factories of huge significance and maturity. Clarendon Road is wider than neighbouring Livingstone Road and Shirley Street which makes it the access and egress of choice for lorries, taxis and motorists. The bus station is behind us. We are in an air pollution hot spot. Sackville Road is a major artery and traffic noise is 24/7 around here. The greenery buffers that. Their presence is compromised by this unplanned, rollout of the mania for EWI cladding that is just not thought out.

-9- Research is clear that mature trees grow faster with age and increase in usefulness for carbon capture as they age. http://www.usgs.gov/newsroom/article.asp?ID=3781#.VYl2vkazFXm Ripping out our mature trees and landscaping with some vague verbal indication of replacement for anything damaged (site manager to me) is not acceptable, nor is just smothering and killing it acceptable. The application violates QD16 and QD17 and QD27. The EWI cladding proposal will only provide 50% of the exterior of flats with carbon capture benefit, with that percentage further reduced by loss of natural carbon capture landscaping already in situ because they need their space for scaffolding. It’s mad. Why did they lie on both applications and say there were no bushes and trees? Why is there no tree survey? Plan? One Whitebeam tree has already been mortally damaged by having a branch carelessly and negligently ripped off. See Appendix 10 for correspondence from Mr. Odling-Smee, Interim Head of Housing.

6. Window drawings a) Flats The drawings provided in the application this time do not provide depth of cill information and misrepresent just how deep they would have to be to oversail the EWI. My existing external kitchen cill measures just over 11cms. The internal cill measures 16.25 cms. The one outside the balcony wall on the doorset windows is 7.5 cm. It is appalling that the applicants cannot or will not provide proper measurements for consultation purposes to ensure they are going to buy what fits. One size fits all again? As with the previous application there is a concern about how the proposed replacement windows will influence internal use of the space for curtains and blinds. No measurements provided means it cannot be commented on. The recently refused Sussex Heights planning application for EWI and replacement windows to oversail it provided a profile drawing which showed measurements of cill oversailing cladding. That application was not well detailed but that was one detail that was useful to look at and should be provided for this estate application. The appearance of the estate will be hugely affected by this added bulk. And the pigeons will roost on it. The window drawings provide no information whatsoever about trickle or extractor fan ventilation plans. Mears, at a “Meet the Contractor” meeting on May 8 said they would deal with that later. This is hugely important for residents to have input on. Open vents that we cannot close have been spoken of and we are in a wind tunnel and exposed to fierce and icy westerlies off the sea that have killed trees between Conway Court and Clarendon House. As with so much, we are left to glean what we may from builder and previously clad resident gossip. It is wrong and it should not be left to a Condition. There is no indication of how windows can or cannot be locked open just an inch or so on the tilt function, as they do at present, on one window per room. There is no indication of what lockability any windows will have full stop. At present my windows use a key. But I hear there are some windows that use a button action. What?? b) Stairwell openings The infill fenestration proposed for the stairwells of the central three towers (Clarendon, Ellen, Goldstone) should be shown to us as CGI images to allow a view of how they would appear design-wise. The line drawings do not do this. Further, these louvred windows should be imagined black with carbon and diesel grit from the taxis and buses – Clarendon Road is the access for buses to the Conway Street depot and is the access/egress of choice for taxis 24/7 as it is wider than Livingstone and Shirley and closest to Hove Station and the route round to Cromwell Road. My windows are never clean. The stairwell windows would filth up in no time and never be cleaned. It would be a lot of work and the cleaners are already stretched. So imagine them filthy. The existing non-flat windows are never cleaned and the stairwell windows would not be either. A resulting slum factory appearance is guaranteed. Infilling would also reduce ventilation to the core and EWI requires increased ventilation measures. In summer that open stairwell air source is accessed by residents who wedge open the fire doors to cool the building down.

-10-

7. Roof Will you be requesting a retrospective planning application for this part of proposed works, mentioned in this application? There is no detail except to say “overlay system”. Plus the roof is now safety railed at Conway Court and the site manager says they begin doing the roof there this or next week. It is objectionable to just go ahead regardless of the planning process and to fail to provide details for inspection and consultation. Is it the right thing for our rooftops? We’ll never know. But the leaseholders will have to pay towards it. We hear rumours about introducing combined heat and power but our unobstructed roof tops could take solar panels/photovoltaic arrays. Better that than EWI and the problems that introduces to our walls and homes. 8. EWI information – lack of Not given really, apart from saying it is rock wool. We heard metal brackets with slabs of solid EWI slotted into it. We hear gossip from contractors about gluing it on and pinning it afterwards. But the application does not bother to include any information about what is proposed. Just, oh, by the way we will EWI the building. How can you give planning consent for that? EWI has to be kept bone dry and applied bone dry but there is no information about how they intend to do this. On the Bristol Estate residents tell us the EWI was piled up outside in the rain and applied wet in the rain. (See appendices 5-8) . The guarantee will be invalid. This should not be left to a Condition. CWI may be partly removed “where it is a problem” said the site manager in conversation with me. But what lurks in those cavities that could eat into the walls and affect flats, if loss of breathability is introduced as a variable (The EWI duvet). The fixing method matters because they are going to pin through non load-bearing infill brick behind which there is a gap; and behind that, concrete panels are set into the frame to serve as walls. There is loose talk about that but how can you give consent for an unknown? Is it no-fines concrete? What is known? Why won’t they say? Is it going inside balconies or not? They won’t allow that information into the application. Why clad a balcony wall anyway? James Taylor, site manager, said they would clad inside balconies where there is a wall to flats. That is insane. I have one outside wall bit inside my balcony at the eastern end, a wall of glass facing south and a tiny bit of brick below the short box bay window end is that is outside wall to my living space. So clad that little squitty bit? That would look extremely weird. Plus rendered cladding has to be absolutely continuous to be waterproof.

NB There are no plans to remove the coping stones along the top of our internal balcony walls in order to put on bigger ones that could oversail the proposed EWI. At a meeting with leaseholders the question was raised and Mears said they would put aluminium flashing over the top of the EWI to seal it. Can we see some CGI’s of how THAT would look, please? How are flashings an effective waterproofing for EWI? Streaks of aluminium flashings along the width of every balcony, visible from the street, catching and reflecting the sun. Nice. Not! Again, there is a paucity of information on how they propose to install the EWI that affects the overall appearance and is a design issue. Flashings instead of bigger coping stones along balcony areas will look absolutely disgusting. This fails to comply with QD1, QD4, QD5

Slummifying this estate with make-it-up-as-you-go-along EWI rendered cladding and (off the peg?) windows will not enhance the setting of Grade 2* Listed St. Barnabas Church or close-by Grade 2 Listed Hove Station, or the Grade 2 Listed Buildings in the Willett Estate Conservation Area or the setting of Grade 2* Listed St. Andrews Church in the Old Hove Conservation Area or views across the Pembroke and Princes Conservation Area from the Church Road area or view from the Downs above and behind the estate. 9. Render The application says silicone. Gill Thompson at the May 8 meeting suggested a switch to acrylic. Whatever, it is paper thin, fragile, high maintenance and, with the EWI and windows, is going to cost £6.4m. The brick is better. Within the case file is a sample of the stucco-like textured render; but textured render is not on offer in the planning application. If the smooth finish is impossible to keep clean (see Wiltshire House, 1-3 Vallance Gdns), or waterproof

-11- (seeLancaster House), and the textured render of ‘my ‘ Hotel in Jubilee Street is scuffed and blackened round its bases as well as chipped and breaking up, what kind of huge visual impact is on offer in years to come if you do it to the Clarendon & Ellen Estate – a set of Landmark buildings which have quite a gentle place in the skyscape as they are and would be even better cleaned up. These are big stumps in the street and within the urban grain which is mostly low-rise. The textured render at ‘my’ hotel (like artex ceilings) can be seen to have trapped black particles in its ‘hook’s and bumps when looked at up close. And because we are in a high pollution area because of the bus depot, buses accessing via Clarendon Road and 24/7 taxis using Clarendon Road for preference (as wider than Livingstone or Shirley Streets), as well as having main artery Sackville Road adjacent to Conway Court, we have a lot of diesel and exhaust pollution coating everything, as well as the onshore salty winds depositing sticky salt on the windows which in turn attract and hold dirt. We have now had 3 colour options provided by the applicants and all of them are stark and harsh and not compliant with HE3 or HE6 or indeed HE10 (thinking of views to and from local heritage listed Europa House and the former Dubarry perfume factory (now Hove Business Centre, Microscape House and Dubarry House). Passengers entering Hove Station from the West or leaving it westwards see the entire line of estate blocks; and creating a moody presence or a shrieking one or one that looks like the city is in shock does the City no favours. It is hard to see how huge emotional reactions are not created by ANY solid unbroken colour going the length of this street to a height of 10 storeys. The use of all over render over EWI on these buildings does not comply with QD1 (does not make a positive contribution to the visual quality of the environment and it obscures all original architectural detailing). It gives a Disneyesque cartoon appearance to all tall buildings. It does not comply with QD2 because the existing height, scale, bulk and design of the existing building is already at variance with surrounding buildings and all-through single colour render actually emphasises and increases this appearance inappropriately – especially given the close proximity of all the other buildings. This estate is not set in its own parkland (say) where you could get an aesthetic statement effect of value. And it increases the opportunities for crime to take place, in the form of graffiti, given that the appearance is blank sheet of paper. Both QD2 and QD7 seek to discourage such opportunities. Graffiti arrived on the Bristol Estate where it had not occurred before after they were clad….on their new walls. One photo of the ‘my’ hotel in Appendix 2 shows a whiter shadow where either white graffiti or graffiti removal has occurred. My whole objection revolves around violation of QD4 so I need say no more on that again now. The strategic impact of an entire street-length of tall landmark buildings would end up as bad as the i360 will be if given rendered EWI. The visual impact of solid colour rendering of this estate would be intimidating, enervating and disturbing – providing a degraded street frontage for the hoards of commuters to walk past on their way to Hove Station and for all the rest of us living here, in violation of QD5. The bright pale banana colour currently on offer looks manic.

10. Issues of pressing importance not addressed by this application The internal pipework springs leaks from time to time in various places and this will accelerate over time. I suffered huge condensation issues with trickling water down exposed pipes in cupboards and mouldy walls in there too before the flat above was finally excavated to screed in order to find the interfloor leak in a water pipe and put me out of my misery. I don’t get condensation any more. But a legacy of black mould around the UPVC window frames persists as I cannot access the crevices and climb up to ceiling level to do it. The council refuses to replace these pipes and the life of the building is badly compromised as a consequence. The Estate perimeter low wall is also an earth retaining wall along Clarendon Road – behind which are the street-length of bush, shrub and tree plantings. The bricks fall out from time to time and a few get crudely cemented back into place – and I mean crudely. The whole lot needs repointing very, very badly. Indeed at the eastern end by Ethel Street visible cracking through the wall indicates a hazardous risk for anyone sitting on it. It could give way.

-12- Indicating a “Phase 2” sometime-in-the-future matchup of the Ellen Street low-rise with EWI clad tall buildings avoided also including any of the low-rise attachments to Conway Court (See appendix 1). Phase 2 may never happen and the mismatched buildings will look a right comedy. In conclusion, it is clear this is a rollout that benefits only Mears and its shareholders. It is short term gain, long term pain and it is irreversible. We have succeeded in wrenching a commitment to remove some of the CWI over the last 8 months, and today a letter from Mears arrived, dated 22 June, demanding access on 30th June and 1st July to conduct a building condition survey. Bit late that isn’t it? After 8 months of 2 planning applications? Will it provide flat numbers against findings which I do not for one second trust them to do correctly? Any chance of this report going online as further documentation? With identifiable flats so we can check what is said? After all these people claimed full support of the RA when no meetings or votes have taken place and declared we have no trees or hedges….. It would be outrageous to put it into a Condition, dealt with behind closed doors out of sight of residents. It is my understanding that this letter has only gone to Conway Court and to Clarendon House addresses. How can you give consent with so many unknowns? Please consider responses to this application in tandem with responses the first application which I have tried not to simply duplicate, in spite of there being no real change to the scheme. I wish to register my intention to speak at Planning as an objector. Yours faithfully, Valerie Paynter. Appendix 1 - Redline Appendix 2 - ‘my’ Hotel, textured render Appendix 3 - 1-3 Vallance Gdns, stained newbuild Appendix 4 - Lancaster Court, covered in damp patches post rendering over brick Appendix 5 - 8 Experts and EWI downside evidence Appendix 9 - Email from Patrick Odling-Smee on damaged tree Appendix 10 - Gallery of Vistas and views showing the estate in townscape context