Comments on Planning Applications Submitted to Hackney Planning Authority

The Hackney Society Comments on Planning Applications submitted to Hackney Planning Authority 19 November 2004 Page 1 of 11

London and Quadrant Housing Trust applications for windows replacements

The Hackney Society, Studio B12, 3 Bradbury Street, London N16 8JN Tel: 020 7254 0212 Fax: 020 7275 8971 e-mail: [email protected] Registered charity no. 1074596 Company limited by guarantee no. 4574188 The Hackney Society Comments on Planning Applications submitted to Hackney Planning Authority 19 November 2004 Page 2 of 11

The Hackney Society: Planning Group Report

To: Tyler Sharratt, Planning Officer, Fast Track Team, London Borough of Hackney

cc. Meave Melvin, Buildings at Risk Officer, London Borough of Hackney

1. SUMMARY

Applicant: London and Quadrant Housing Trust Osborn House, Osborn Terrace London SE3 9DR

Application Sites and 19, 25, 48, 72, 107, 122, 128, 134, and 148 references: Osbaldeston Road (Refs. 2004/1995; 2004/1992; 2004/1993; 2004/1994; 2004/1990; 2004/1996; 2004/1989; 2004/1997; 2004/1999) 48 Filey Avenue (Ref. 2004/1893) 84 Kyverdale Road (Ref. 2004/1998) 8 and 73 Forburg Road (Refs. 2004/2004/1892; 2004/1896) 27 Fountayne Road (Ref. 2004/1897) 39 Cazenove Road (Ref. 2004/1890) 37 and 63 Chardmore Road (Refs. 2004/1887; 2004/1894) 33 Alkham Road (Ref. 2004/1891) and any other similar applications by London and Quadrant.

Application for: Replacement of timber sash windows with uPVC windows.

1.1. The Hackney Society objects to the current planning applications to install uPVC windows at its properties in the Cazenove area, because we believe that the replacement of traditional timber-frame sash windows with plastic disrupts the historic and architectural unity of these terraces; and because uPVC windows are an unsustainable product.

1.2. We understand that the applicants have accepted the principle that front elevations should be upgraded using traditional timber-frame sash windows, but that they are proposing to replace rear elevation windows with plastic ones.

1.3. We object to any application to replace rear elevation windows with uPVC windows. We believe that replacements to all elevations should be appropriate timber-frame windows, in order to demonstrate (a) a consistent approach both within individual properties and to unity with neighbours; and (b) for reasons of sustainability, which are explored below.

1.4. We would be particularly anxious to retain any examples of original coloured glass where these occur at any elevations of the properties.

1.5. We support the concerns of the Cazenove Area Action Group in these respects.

2. INTRODUCTION

2.1. In June 2003, the Hackney Society Planning Group raised objections at Planning Committee to the Council’s applications to replace metal and other original windows with uPVC windows in the Council’s 600-odd blocks across the Borough as part of its Decent Homes Strategy.

2.2. These objections were noted in LBH Planning Update of 30/6/03 as follows:

“The Hackney Society … raised objections both to the visual impact of the windows as well as the wider environmental implications associated with uPVC. Members urged that the use of uPVC should be re-considered for subsequent phases of the “decent homes” programme and the issue should be addressed as part of the wider policy debate on sustainability.”

2.3. We have subsequently understood that the London Borough of Hackney will actively consider alternatives to uPVC windows in future phases of its Decent Homes strategy.

2.4. We were also very pleased when last year the Crown Estate reconsidered its windows refurbishment programme for its properties in Gore Road (further to expressions of concern by local residents and groups which included the Hackney Society), and to upgrade its properties using traditional materials. **

2.5. In addition, other boroughs and social and affordable housing providers have recognised that uPVC windows are an unsustainable product.

2.6. For example, we understand that the London Borough of Camden has specified that its own housing stock will not be refurbished with plastic windows. The Peabody Trust made a commitment some three years ago to install alternatives to plastic windows in its new-build properties. Southern Housing Group (SHG), a significant provider of affordable homes and a registered social landlord in Hackney, has made commitments in 2004 to sustainable standards of development and the use of environmentally friendly materials and components. The Group’s Design Brief (May 2004) stated that SHG’s preference was for timber windows for low-rise dwellings; and its recently published Sustainability Strategy 2004–2007 stated that preference should be given to timber windows instead of uPVC windows.

2.7. Further to this, we would urge Hackney Council and other social and affordable housing providers to acknowledge the environmental implications of using uPVC windows — particularly where they would be most inappropriate in the refurbishment of historic properties.

2.8. We set out our objections below.

3. OBJECTIONS

4. ARCHITECTURAL INTEGRITY

3.1. The replacement of traditional timber sash windows with uPVC windows at any elevation of these properties would disrupt architectural integrity and streetscape unity in the Cazenove area.

3.1.1. The character or appearance of buildings and the historic streetscape can be radically harmed by changes to windows.

3.1.2. Designs of replacement windows (and the materials used) should therefore be appropriate to buildings’ designs and — particularly in the

case of flats or terraces — should respect unity and integrity with neighbouring dwellings.

3.1.3. Design decisions should be determined strictly by giving these considerations due weight. If there is no alternative but to replace windows, these replacements should match existing fittings, taking special account of the size, profile and pattern of glazing bars, casements and cills; the arrangement of panes; and how they open.

3.1.4. The properties currently under consideration for replacement windows are generally single properties within late Victorian or Edwardian terraces, which were constructed at that time as part of the rapid expansion of middle-class dwellings in Upper Clapton.

3.1.5. While the formats and detailing vary between the specific properties, each was built in a unity of decoration and fenestration with its neighbours in the terrace. Any alterations to the fenestration or outward appearance of individual dwellings therefore has an impact on all adjacent properties.

3.1.6. In the main these are handsome pattern-book dwellings which should be upgraded sensitively. Many retain their original features such as decorative canopied entrances, colour-glazed sash windows and chequer-tiled pathways. For example, Forburg Road is a delightful Edwardian street enhanced (as are most of the roads under consideration) by avenues of trees.

3.1.7. Unfortunately many of the neighbouring properties to those being considered have already had their glazing replaced by aluminium or uPVC double-glazed windows. Installation of these windows erodes the character of sash window fenestration by imposing straight lines where windows should be domed; they impose thicker glazing bars; dispense with, or clumsily try to replicate, lattice panes; and are thereby generally ugly. In addition, the positioning of uPVC glazing units in window openings designed for sashes is often further forward than with the original fittings (sometimes flush or almost flush with brickwork), which results in variant reflections and thereby subtler changes to unity and appearance.

3.1.8. Other inappropriate alterations to these type of properties include canopied entrances that have been filled in, and styles of doors that jar with their surroundings. In addition, many have had ugly roof extensions added which result in the loss of buildings’ original integrity of design.

3.1.9. Notable properties that have been altered insensitively are the terraced properties at 48 and 50 Filey Avenue which have been joined together clumsily, such that front doors have been replaced by window openings, whilst retaining pedimented entrance decoration; the entrance tiling has been left carelessly smashed; and an ugly brick wall has been constructed to provide a joint frontage to the properties.

3.1.10. Sash windows were, and remain, efficient and appropriate ways of fenestrating terraces such as these.

3.1.11. In respect of this, while we recognise that London and Quadrant, like other social housing providers, is obligated to take account of the latest Building Regulations 2000 (Part L 2002 ed.) relating to energy efficiency and insulation, we urge the Trust to either repair and upgrade existing sash windows (e.g with secondary glazing), or replace windows with energy efficient timber-frame sash windows.

3.1.12. We would be particularly concerned to preserve any examples of original coloured or stained glazing within repaired or replaced sash windows.

3.1.13. Due acknowledgement should be taken of the Interim Guidance Note on the new Building Regulations produced by English Heritage. This Guidance stresses that the integrity of historic buildings should not be compromised, and also refers to —

“… buildings or groups with distinguishing local or architectural characteristics which are often regarded as commonplace until they vanish. For example, in recent years inappropriate window replacements have taken their toll on many previously harmonious and well-proportioned vernacular buildings.” (1)

and later states

“Window openings and frames establish the character of a building’s elevation. They should not generally be altered in their proportions or details, as they are conspicuous elements of the design … The importance of conserving traditional fenestration and its detailing cannot be stressed enough …” (1)

3.1.14. We therefore recommend that the loss of traditional timber-frame windows at all elevations of the terraces in the Cazenove area should be

resisted in line with the above guidance. We believe that all windows in any particular property should be repaired or replaced in a unified manner, because all elevations are important to a building’s integrity.

3.1.15. We object to any applications made by the applicant to replace windows at rear elevations with uPVC windows. We do not accept that it would be appropriate to install rear windows of different materials or designs from those at the front, because the overall appearance of a property (including, in these cases, traditional fenestration) is an important part of the visual environment and amenity of neighbouring dwellings.

3.1.16. We hope that responsible housing associations such as London and Quadrant will help take a lead by replacing or upgrading sash windows with equivalent timber-frame sash windows, so as to prevent the further erosion of the character of Upper Clapton’s built heritage. While we recognise that the properties in question are not currently within a Conservation Area, we suggest that the Council may wish, as part of its ongoing review, to confer CA status in future.

3.1.17. SUSTAINABILITY CONSIDERATIONS

3.2. Taking into account whole life-cycle costs as well as unit costs, uPVC windows are unsustainable. In its new Community Strategy 2005–2015 “Mind the Gap” Hackney Council has made a commitment to working for a Sustainable Borough.

3.2.1. Life-cycle costs are of crucial significance as part of global initiatives to reduce critical levels of waste pollution, particularly in land-fill sites. This is reflected in Government recycling and waste management targets and addressed in Hackney Council policy.

3.2.2. There are wide-ranging environmental reasons why the use of uPVC windows is highly questionable. Campaigning groups such as Greenpeace and Friends of the Earth have campaigned for many years against the manufacture and use of PVC, since it is highly polluting in both production and disposal, creating the emission of poisons which are a major pollutant and health hazard throughout its life-cycle. UPVC is an unsustainable product over its whole life-cycle, depending for its creation on limited reserves of crude oil, and toxic additives which mean that it cannot be recycled or disposed of adequately either by incineration or land-fill.

3.2.3. Various reports, including by the European Union and the Department of the Environment, have been produced which highlight the problems of PVC, and International agreements have been reached to restrict the use of organochlorines as used in PVC manufacture. As a result, many organisations, both in Britain and worldwide (e.g. Nike, Lego and IKEA), are now operating directives committed to decreasing or avoiding altogether the use of PVC because of its environmental impact.

3.2.4. In addressing the energy efficiency of its buildings, the whole life energy costs entailed in replacing its windows should therefore be addressed by London and Quadrant. This should take into account not only the projected energy savings when they have been replaced, but the energy required and pollution created in production of new products and disposal of old products.

3.2.5. As the energy used in constructing a window frame is embodied in the building for which it is made, the replacement of window frames for any reason other than complete failure is a waste of that energy. The initial consideration therefore should be how to upgrade windows to an acceptable standard whilst consuming the minimum resources of energy. If it is at all practical, ways to upgrade the existing windows should be explored.

3.3. UPVC windows do not last as long as timber windows and are not maintenance-free.

3.3.1. Because it has been so heavily promoted, the uPVC windows industry has seemingly benefited by appearing to be the automatic choice to fulfil the latest Building Regulations requirements to limit heat loss through the fabric of buildings and measure up to standards of thermal transmission values.

3.3.2. A key part of the sales pitch for uPVC windows is that they are maintenance-free: that once fitted they will last forever, unlike windows constructed from traditional materials. This has been shown to be a myth. A report commissioned for the Environment and Heritage Service of Northern Ireland (2), stated that the success of sales of uPVC windows is demonstrably at odds with their technical and environmental qualities. Particularly as compared to traditional wood-frame windows the report says that:

 uPVC remains a weak material. It tends to bend under its own weight, which is why uPVC frames are bulky and require internal steel strips to strengthen them;  uPVC windows do not weather attractively: prolonged exposure to ultra-violet light from the sun ‘chalks’ the surface, making it grainy and dirt-retentive;  uPVC window-frames need to be cleaned every six months, or dirt embeds itself in the material;  Pollution and sunshine eventually combine to yellow the surface and attack the structure, making the frames increasingly brittle and prone to cracking.

3.3.3. In addition, condensation and mould problems can be caused in older buildings not designed for such sealed systems, despite integral ventilation; and the bulkier design of uPVC window frames reduces glazed areas and therefore light penetration. This can result in an increased use of interior lighting and a consequent increase in energy use.

3.3.4. Such concerns therefore further argue against uPVC as a sustainable or energy-efficient product. In contrast, timber-frame windows, can last for centuries when properly maintained; they use a minimal amount of finite resources; can be easily repaired; and (unlike uPVC windows) biodegrade or can be recycled at the end of their useful life.

4. CONCLUSION

4.1. Through its pledge in its Community Strategy to work for a Sustainable Borough, Hackney Council has an opportunity to require housing providers to upgrade their homes to a decent standard through appropriate refurbishment — using designs of a quality which respect buildings’ historic integrity; and which help create a sustainable environment.

4.2. Equally, we suggest that the necessity to undertake an upgrade at its properties offers an opportunity for London and Quadrant to adopt a far-seeing and responsibly ‘green’ policy on window replacement, and thereby join with other Local Authorities such as Camden and housing providers such as Peabody Trust and

Southern Housing who have indicated a commitment to sustainable PVC-free purchasing.

4.3. For the above reasons, we oppose these applications, and urge the Council to refuse proposals for uPVC windows at any elevations of these properties.

Yours sincerely

Malcolm Smith for the Hackney Society Planning Group

References:

** Crown Estate properties in Victoria Park Conservation Area (Gore Road, London E9). We understand however that there are still concerns being expressed by local residents both about the appropriateness of designs being used for replacement windows, and about the level of consultation on this matter. (1) Building Regulations and Historic Buildings English Heritage, September 2002. (2) Framing the View: Window Frames for a Sustainable Future Environment and Heritage Service Northern Ireland, January 2000.

The Hackney Society, Studio B12, 3 Bradbury Street, London N16 8JN Tel: 020 7254 0212 Fax: 020 7275 8971 e-mail: [email protected] Registered charity no. 1074596 Company limited by guarantee no. 4574188