Brighton and Hove City Council ruling on flat’s double glazing set to prove expensive for landlord

The Argus: Council ruling on flat’s double glazing set to prove expensive for landlord Council ruling on flat’s double glazing set to prove expensive for landlord

A council has been accused of hypocrisy after forcing a private landlord to remove newdouble glazed windows – after an authority-owned house had similar work done.

Planning chiefs told 65-year-old Randolph Morse to remove double glazing at his flat in Clifton Street, Brighton, because it was “inconsistent with the rest of the street”.

He claims the work will leave him thousands of pounds out of pocket.


MORE:


Mr Morse said: “I believe it is a case of ‘do as we say, not as we do’ for the council.

“In 2009 it submitted a planning application to make alternations to a property at 40 Dyke Road which said it would retain the domestic appearance of the building with only minor adjustments to existing wood windows.

“I’ve been down there with a builder and we were sure they are alsoUPVC, which completely contradicts what they have told me for my property. It is a lot of wasted time and money.”

He replaced the old, single glazed windows of the flat in November with new and more energy efficient UPVC doubleglazed models.

But just weeks after installing them at a cost of £3,000, council bosses said he needed planning permission as his property fell within a conservation area.

Despite presenting Brighton and Hove City Council with a 40- strong petition signed by neighbours who supported his new windows, last week his retrospective application was rejected and he nowfaces a further £7,000 bill to replace the windows.

He added: “They said the windows weren’t consistent with the rest of the street – but the street has absolutely no consistency whatsoever.”

Brighton and Hove City Council said Mr Morse was welcome to appeal the decision.

A spokeswoman said: “The council owns 40 Dyke Road and the building is leased to Seaside Homes. The property was refurbished and converted to self-contained housing units in 2012.

“Within the refurbishment works the windows were replaced, on a like for like basis, with timber frames incorporating a double glazed unit, all of which are in keeping with the requirements for this conservation area and comply with building regulations.”

Comments (11)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

3:16pm Thu 6 Feb 14

Terry K says...

Landlord has to put his hand in his pocket, what a shame!. No new car now then.
Landlord has to put his hand in his pocket, what a shame!. No new car now then. Terry K

3:18pm Thu 6 Feb 14

Valerie Paynter says...

When this gentleman purchased the property documents (I am advised) would have specified that it is in a Conservation Area.

I think Council Tax billings should identify properties billed as being Listed, within Conservation Areas, etc. to help prevent this kind of careless mistake.

A lot of people have invested a lot of money in reinstatement of original features, renovation of old wrecks to save them and in taking huge pride in the creation and maintenance of original appearance of old areas.

Too many have got away with wrecking original architecture of note, with stuffing in ugly, repulsive, inapproriate and unmatched UPVC windows willy nilly. And Randolph Morse took his cue from the wrong set of values and without looking into things properly.

All works involving window changes require planning consent. Nobody should be allowed to put in crap or unsustainable and unrecyclable UPVC windows that goes toward undoing all the hard work of bringing properties up to the high conservation level that increases the value of areas and properties,

Timber double glazing is cheaper and just as available these days and should always be considered in pre-planning discussions with planning officers. Still free advice if you go to them.
When this gentleman purchased the property documents (I am advised) would have specified that it is in a Conservation Area. I think Council Tax billings should identify properties billed as being Listed, within Conservation Areas, etc. to help prevent this kind of careless mistake. A lot of people have invested a lot of money in reinstatement of original features, renovation of old wrecks to save them and in taking huge pride in the creation and maintenance of original appearance of old areas. Too many have got away with wrecking original architecture of note, with stuffing in ugly, repulsive, inapproriate and unmatched UPVC windows willy nilly. And Randolph Morse took his cue from the wrong set of values and without looking into things properly. All works involving window changes require planning consent. Nobody should be allowed to put in crap or unsustainable and unrecyclable UPVC windows that goes toward undoing all the hard work of bringing properties up to the high conservation level that increases the value of areas and properties, Timber double glazing is cheaper and just as available these days and should always be considered in pre-planning discussions with planning officers. Still free advice if you go to them. Valerie Paynter

3:31pm Thu 6 Feb 14

sound_man says...

So a "green" council is against windows that prevent heat energy escaping a privately owned homed that is rented out.
Planning officers seem to be somewhat strange in certain approaches. Dyke Road is full of many different types of property all different in appearance so I don't understand how a flat with modern windows "brings down" an area.
Whilst we want areas to look old, the older a property, the less efficient it is with energy consumption.
So a "green" council is against windows that prevent heat energy escaping a privately owned homed that is rented out. Planning officers seem to be somewhat strange in certain approaches. Dyke Road is full of many different types of property all different in appearance so I don't understand how a flat with modern windows "brings down" an area. Whilst we want areas to look old, the older a property, the less efficient it is with energy consumption. sound_man

4:23pm Thu 6 Feb 14

heartthrob says...

not sure timber double glazed units are cheaper. perhaps post a couple of links the chap in the article says it will cost him 7K rather than 3K to replace
not sure timber double glazed units are cheaper. perhaps post a couple of links the chap in the article says it will cost him 7K rather than 3K to replace heartthrob

5:19pm Thu 6 Feb 14

sussexram40 says...

Valerie Paynter wrote:
When this gentleman purchased the property documents (I am advised) would have specified that it is in a Conservation Area.

I think Council Tax billings should identify properties billed as being Listed, within Conservation Areas, etc. to help prevent this kind of careless mistake.

A lot of people have invested a lot of money in reinstatement of original features, renovation of old wrecks to save them and in taking huge pride in the creation and maintenance of original appearance of old areas.

Too many have got away with wrecking original architecture of note, with stuffing in ugly, repulsive, inapproriate and unmatched UPVC windows willy nilly. And Randolph Morse took his cue from the wrong set of values and without looking into things properly.

All works involving window changes require planning consent. Nobody should be allowed to put in crap or unsustainable and unrecyclable UPVC windows that goes toward undoing all the hard work of bringing properties up to the high conservation level that increases the value of areas and properties,

Timber double glazing is cheaper and just as available these days and should always be considered in pre-planning discussions with planning officers. Still free advice if you go to them.
"All works involving window changes require planning consent."
That's not true. Most don't,

If you aren't in a Listed Building or in a conservation area, you certainly don't need planning consent to install new windows as long as they don't make a material alteration to the appearance of the building.
[quote][p][bold]Valerie Paynter[/bold] wrote: When this gentleman purchased the property documents (I am advised) would have specified that it is in a Conservation Area. I think Council Tax billings should identify properties billed as being Listed, within Conservation Areas, etc. to help prevent this kind of careless mistake. A lot of people have invested a lot of money in reinstatement of original features, renovation of old wrecks to save them and in taking huge pride in the creation and maintenance of original appearance of old areas. Too many have got away with wrecking original architecture of note, with stuffing in ugly, repulsive, inapproriate and unmatched UPVC windows willy nilly. And Randolph Morse took his cue from the wrong set of values and without looking into things properly. All works involving window changes require planning consent. Nobody should be allowed to put in crap or unsustainable and unrecyclable UPVC windows that goes toward undoing all the hard work of bringing properties up to the high conservation level that increases the value of areas and properties, Timber double glazing is cheaper and just as available these days and should always be considered in pre-planning discussions with planning officers. Still free advice if you go to them.[/p][/quote]"All works involving window changes require planning consent." That's not true. Most don't, If you aren't in a Listed Building or in a conservation area, you certainly don't need planning consent to install new windows as long as they don't make a material alteration to the appearance of the building. sussexram40

7:07pm Thu 6 Feb 14

catlovers says...

We have a flat which is not in a conservation area, but needed a planning application to change back to wooden sash windows from aluminium. So planning applications are now required for most instances. Pembroke & Nash Sash Windows did the application as part of the works, but it pays to check with the council as we did, or we could have been in the same predicament. None of the plastic companies who quoted mentioned anything about planning applications which seemed to be the case here. Pays to do your homework!
We have a flat which is not in a conservation area, but needed a planning application to change back to wooden sash windows from aluminium. So planning applications are now required for most instances. Pembroke & Nash Sash Windows did the application as part of the works, but it pays to check with the council as we did, or we could have been in the same predicament. None of the plastic companies who quoted mentioned anything about planning applications which seemed to be the case here. Pays to do your homework! catlovers

7:50pm Thu 6 Feb 14

brighton bluenose says...

sound_man wrote:
So a "green" council is against windows that prevent heat energy escaping a privately owned homed that is rented out.
Planning officers seem to be somewhat strange in certain approaches. Dyke Road is full of many different types of property all different in appearance so I don't understand how a flat with modern windows "brings down" an area.
Whilst we want areas to look old, the older a property, the less efficient it is with energy consumption.
Christ! The point is that it is a Conservation Area and unless this guy is a complete moron (or an arrogant tw@t) then there is no doubt he knew about this so he should have sought advice from the council and got the correct permission - he deserves everything he gets!!
[quote][p][bold]sound_man[/bold] wrote: So a "green" council is against windows that prevent heat energy escaping a privately owned homed that is rented out. Planning officers seem to be somewhat strange in certain approaches. Dyke Road is full of many different types of property all different in appearance so I don't understand how a flat with modern windows "brings down" an area. Whilst we want areas to look old, the older a property, the less efficient it is with energy consumption.[/p][/quote]Christ! The point is that it is a Conservation Area and unless this guy is a complete moron (or an arrogant tw@t) then there is no doubt he knew about this so he should have sought advice from the council and got the correct permission - he deserves everything he gets!! brighton bluenose

10:48pm Thu 6 Feb 14

sound_man says...

brighton bluenose wrote:
sound_man wrote:
So a "green" council is against windows that prevent heat energy escaping a privately owned homed that is rented out.
Planning officers seem to be somewhat strange in certain approaches. Dyke Road is full of many different types of property all different in appearance so I don't understand how a flat with modern windows "brings down" an area.
Whilst we want areas to look old, the older a property, the less efficient it is with energy consumption.
Christ! The point is that it is a Conservation Area and unless this guy is a complete moron (or an arrogant tw@t) then there is no doubt he knew about this so he should have sought advice from the council and got the correct permission - he deserves everything he gets!!
"Deserves everything he gets" Now I'm no fan of private landlords. I'm really not. But I do know the area and I don't think it makes any difference.
[quote][p][bold]brighton bluenose[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]sound_man[/bold] wrote: So a "green" council is against windows that prevent heat energy escaping a privately owned homed that is rented out. Planning officers seem to be somewhat strange in certain approaches. Dyke Road is full of many different types of property all different in appearance so I don't understand how a flat with modern windows "brings down" an area. Whilst we want areas to look old, the older a property, the less efficient it is with energy consumption.[/p][/quote]Christ! The point is that it is a Conservation Area and unless this guy is a complete moron (or an arrogant tw@t) then there is no doubt he knew about this so he should have sought advice from the council and got the correct permission - he deserves everything he gets!![/p][/quote]"Deserves everything he gets" Now I'm no fan of private landlords. I'm really not. But I do know the area and I don't think it makes any difference. sound_man

11:13pm Thu 6 Feb 14

Valerie Paynter says...

heartthrob wrote:
not sure timber double glazed units are cheaper. perhaps post a couple of links the chap in the article says it will cost him 7K rather than 3K to replace
I spoke with him after planning. I meant to write cheaper than in the past (timber). His costs will include scaffolding. And timber double glazing gives equivalent performance to the plastic nasties. This was confirmed at Planning by the officer speaking.
[quote][p][bold]heartthrob[/bold] wrote: not sure timber double glazed units are cheaper. perhaps post a couple of links the chap in the article says it will cost him 7K rather than 3K to replace[/p][/quote]I spoke with him after planning. I meant to write cheaper than in the past (timber). His costs will include scaffolding. And timber double glazing gives equivalent performance to the plastic nasties. This was confirmed at Planning by the officer speaking. Valerie Paynter

11:17pm Thu 6 Feb 14

Valerie Paynter says...

sussexram40 wrote:
Valerie Paynter wrote:
When this gentleman purchased the property documents (I am advised) would have specified that it is in a Conservation Area.

I think Council Tax billings should identify properties billed as being Listed, within Conservation Areas, etc. to help prevent this kind of careless mistake.

A lot of people have invested a lot of money in reinstatement of original features, renovation of old wrecks to save them and in taking huge pride in the creation and maintenance of original appearance of old areas.

Too many have got away with wrecking original architecture of note, with stuffing in ugly, repulsive, inapproriate and unmatched UPVC windows willy nilly. And Randolph Morse took his cue from the wrong set of values and without looking into things properly.

All works involving window changes require planning consent. Nobody should be allowed to put in crap or unsustainable and unrecyclable UPVC windows that goes toward undoing all the hard work of bringing properties up to the high conservation level that increases the value of areas and properties,

Timber double glazing is cheaper and just as available these days and should always be considered in pre-planning discussions with planning officers. Still free advice if you go to them.
"All works involving window changes require planning consent."
That's not true. Most don't,

If you aren't in a Listed Building or in a conservation area, you certainly don't need planning consent to install new windows as long as they don't make a material alteration to the appearance of the building.
It was confirmed at Planning either in the meeting or in my conversation with the council lawyer and senior development mgr after that all replacement window work requires a planning consent, regardless of where they are. You are mistaken.
[quote][p][bold]sussexram40[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Valerie Paynter[/bold] wrote: When this gentleman purchased the property documents (I am advised) would have specified that it is in a Conservation Area. I think Council Tax billings should identify properties billed as being Listed, within Conservation Areas, etc. to help prevent this kind of careless mistake. A lot of people have invested a lot of money in reinstatement of original features, renovation of old wrecks to save them and in taking huge pride in the creation and maintenance of original appearance of old areas. Too many have got away with wrecking original architecture of note, with stuffing in ugly, repulsive, inapproriate and unmatched UPVC windows willy nilly. And Randolph Morse took his cue from the wrong set of values and without looking into things properly. All works involving window changes require planning consent. Nobody should be allowed to put in crap or unsustainable and unrecyclable UPVC windows that goes toward undoing all the hard work of bringing properties up to the high conservation level that increases the value of areas and properties, Timber double glazing is cheaper and just as available these days and should always be considered in pre-planning discussions with planning officers. Still free advice if you go to them.[/p][/quote]"All works involving window changes require planning consent." That's not true. Most don't, If you aren't in a Listed Building or in a conservation area, you certainly don't need planning consent to install new windows as long as they don't make a material alteration to the appearance of the building.[/p][/quote]It was confirmed at Planning either in the meeting or in my conversation with the council lawyer and senior development mgr after that all replacement window work requires a planning consent, regardless of where they are. You are mistaken. Valerie Paynter

10:52am Fri 7 Feb 14

Seventh Circle says...

Valerie Paynter wrote:
When this gentleman purchased the property documents (I am advised) would have specified that it is in a Conservation Area.

I think Council Tax billings should identify properties billed as being Listed, within Conservation Areas, etc. to help prevent this kind of careless mistake.

A lot of people have invested a lot of money in reinstatement of original features, renovation of old wrecks to save them and in taking huge pride in the creation and maintenance of original appearance of old areas.

Too many have got away with wrecking original architecture of note, with stuffing in ugly, repulsive, inapproriate and unmatched UPVC windows willy nilly. And Randolph Morse took his cue from the wrong set of values and without looking into things properly.

All works involving window changes require planning consent. Nobody should be allowed to put in crap or unsustainable and unrecyclable UPVC windows that goes toward undoing all the hard work of bringing properties up to the high conservation level that increases the value of areas and properties,

Timber double glazing is cheaper and just as available these days and should always be considered in pre-planning discussions with planning officers. Still free advice if you go to them.
Why do you have to needlessly rub salt into his wounds in such an obnoxious way. There are many benefits to installing upvc windows as well, such as low maintenance and easy to clean.
At least he's trying to improve the property, when many landlords don't.
I suggest the only thing that's 'ugly and repulsive' is you so wind your neck in and shut up........ you nasty piece of work.
[quote][p][bold]Valerie Paynter[/bold] wrote: When this gentleman purchased the property documents (I am advised) would have specified that it is in a Conservation Area. I think Council Tax billings should identify properties billed as being Listed, within Conservation Areas, etc. to help prevent this kind of careless mistake. A lot of people have invested a lot of money in reinstatement of original features, renovation of old wrecks to save them and in taking huge pride in the creation and maintenance of original appearance of old areas. Too many have got away with wrecking original architecture of note, with stuffing in ugly, repulsive, inapproriate and unmatched UPVC windows willy nilly. And Randolph Morse took his cue from the wrong set of values and without looking into things properly. All works involving window changes require planning consent. Nobody should be allowed to put in crap or unsustainable and unrecyclable UPVC windows that goes toward undoing all the hard work of bringing properties up to the high conservation level that increases the value of areas and properties, Timber double glazing is cheaper and just as available these days and should always be considered in pre-planning discussions with planning officers. Still free advice if you go to them.[/p][/quote]Why do you have to needlessly rub salt into his wounds in such an obnoxious way. There are many benefits to installing upvc windows as well, such as low maintenance and easy to clean. At least he's trying to improve the property, when many landlords don't. I suggest the only thing that's 'ugly and repulsive' is you so wind your neck in and shut up........ you nasty piece of work. Seventh Circle

Comments are closed on this article.

click2find

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree