Conservation area residents fear cost of improvement guidelines

HOUSEHOLDERS in a Hull conservation area are concerned about the potential costs of proposed new planning regulations that would determine what alterations they can make to their homes.

The city council is considering whether to impose new guidelines that would require residents in the Avenues and Pearson Park conservation area to gain planning permission before installing solar panels, and them remove or replace brick chimney stacks, front doors, porches and tile roofs.

The restrictions would be in addition to existin g requirements concerning alterations to windows and access to roads.

Hide Ad
Hide Ad

The new “Article Four” directions will be considered by the council’s planning committee next week and have been requested by the Avenues and Pearson Park Residents Association, whose members are concerned about the impact of UPVC doors and other modernisations on the area’s “special character”.

But some residents fear they may not be able to afford improvements in keeping with the Victorian design of many of the properties, and their homes may suffer neglect as a result.

The chairman of the residents’ association, Stephanie Wilson, who lives in Marlborough Avenue, said: “We want to preserve as many of the original features of our 19th century houses as we are able to within reason. We fear the degradation of UPVC particularly.”

Addressing the fears about costs, Mrs Wilson added: “That is a concern, but we have done a lot of research looking at timber windows and discovered it’s a completely economic option, especially if you take into account the durability of the materials because UPVC doesn’t last. People will be replacing it before they replace timber.

Hide Ad
Hide Ad

“We’re not as sure about roofs, but we’ve been promised by our builder he can source slate so it shouldn’t be a problem.”

The most recent opinion survey, completed in February, saw a response rate of only 19 per cent of the 1,275 homes polled.

The majority of those who did reply were in favour of the new regulations, but many raised concerns about the potential costs.

Two respondents said grants should be made available to support any work if the restrictions are imposed.

Hide Ad
Hide Ad

Another said: “I don’t support any further Article Four directions unless the prices fall into line with work that could be carried out without it.

“Although I do to some extent support the continuation of the conservation area, I am unable to grasp how it looks better to see rotting, shabby windows because of the inability of many to afford what is required.”

One resident, a mother of two who lives in Park Avenue, was not sent a questionnaire, but said: “It does change the look of the area if you have non-traditional features, but for some people it would have financial implications for making those sort of changes.

“We can’t always afford those sort of changes.

“Yes, in an ideal world it would be nice to have absolutely the original features, or as close as possible, but for some people that might not be possible. It’s a tricky one; it’s about trying to get a balance between aesthetics and people’s budgets.”

Hide Ad
Hide Ad

Others said part of the area’s appeal was that not all houses looked the same.

One said: “Apart from the trees, the whole charm of the Avenues area is its wide diversity of buildings, so why try and repair them all in the same way?”

Another replied: “We would be better encouraging current restoration and use of premises. For instance, who’s going to notice doors, or for that matter, windows? Enough!”

As well as Pearson Park on the south side of Princes Avenue, the area covers the north side of this road, the four main avenues running east to west and two smaller streets running in between.

A report said the area’s “essential character” was formed in 1910.

Related topics: