It’s beautiful up here: Brighton i360 soars to tallest structure in Sussex – Brighton & Hove Independent

It’s official. Brighton i360 tower has become the tallest building in SussexEleanor Harris, the i360’s chief executive, said: “The i360 is now the tallest structure in Sussex – taller than Shoreham Power Station, which previously was the tallest structure, and Sussex Heights in Brighton and Hove, which was the tallest building, and other famous landmarks such as Chichester Cathedral and the Gatwick Air Traffic Control tower.

Source: It’s beautiful up here: Brighton i360 soars to tallest structure in Sussex – Brighton & Hove Independent

Brighton i360 is now the tallest building in Sussex (From The Argus)

BRIGHTON’S i360 is now officially the tallest building in Sussex after pushing past the 120m mark. The viewing tower is not due to be completed until next summer but has now shot above Shoreham Power Station, which was the tallest structure in the county, and Sussex Heights in Brighton, also once the tallest building. Other towering structures in the county that the i360 now dwarfs include Chichester Cathedral and the Gatwick Air Traffic Control tower.

Source: Brighton i360 is now the tallest building in Sussex (From The Argus)

SHBL planning permission for shoddy render refused

Reason 1 The proposed render, by reason of its texture and in the absence of large scale details demonstrating how the render would be installed, would adversely impact upon the appearance and character of the existing building, the surrounding Regency Square Conservation Area and the setting of nearby listed buildings. Furthermore, the proposed render system has significant potential to discolour and deteriorate over time. The proposal would therefore be contrary to policies QD1, QD2, HE3 and HE6 of the Brighton & Hove Local Plan.Reason 2 The proposed window cills, by reason of their profile, depth and material, would represent an inappropriate detail which would conflict with the key character and appearance of the building. The proposal would therefore have an adverse impact on the character and appearance of the existing building, the surrounding Regency Square Conservation Area and nearby listed buildings, contrary to policies QD1, QD2, HE3 and HE6 of the Brighton & Hove Local Plan.

Source: Planning register | Brighton & Hove City Council

Section 20 concerns: EWI vs Cladding

SHBL have informed us that RLF (the consultants appointed) have recommended EWI and that, therefore, they have accepted that recommendation without reasonable questions or due diligence.

  1. Our research leads us to wonder if a block constructed of site poured concrete and without a cavity is best served by EWI:
  2. Cloaking the building in such materials will impact on its ‘respiratory health’ and we are not satisfied that the structures ‘fenestration’ of balconies and windows is ideal for the manner in which EWI is secured and aesthetically detailed.
  3. We already have massive issues with condensation and leaks
  4. If water ingress will continue to blight Sussex Heights even after we have spent an estimated 700 thousand pounds on EWI and that the structure will look visually undesirable.

As a rain-screen solution would:

  1. cost around a million pounds,
  2. comes with a lifetime of building warranty,
  3. would be bereft of any particular ongoing maintenance costs
  4. provide a cavity and chimney thermal draft to keep the pre-existing structure dry

how RLF can possibly be recommending EWI as the best long term solution for The Building (as opposed to those Shareholders not wanting to pay a little more to get a lot better)?

The alternative, a carefully designed and sympathetic rain-screen solution, would make Sussex Heights a ‘sexy’ landmark structure in the very heart of Brighton.

It was originally covered in shimmering two-tone mosaic. It was doused in Joltec 20 years ago because some of the mosaic was de-laminating and because the structure was perceived to be allowing for water ingress (which was, of course, condensation in the most part which was worsened with the ‘shrink-wrap’ effect of the Joltec.

law of unintended consequences

What are the potential unintended consequences of installing solid wall insulation?
The main unintended consequences identified from the review can be categorised into two areas: 1) the risk of overheating in buildings with SWI and 2) changes to the distribution of moisture in a building following an intervention. Both of these can have severe effects on occupants’ health, as well as the building itself. The research suggests installing external rather than internal insulation can help to moderate the excesses of internal temperature swings. However, poor installation of either can lead to problems with water ingress, condensation, and mould growth. The majority of the unintended consequences observed, have been linked to shortfalls in the quality of the workmanship, as well as mistakes in the initial assessment of the buildings when assessing their suitability for the application of wall insulation.
What additional considerations need to be taken when insulating heritage buildings?
Heritage buildings are considered to be complex systems that exhibit a delicate equilibrium between thermal mass, air leakage, building envelope properties and heating regime. Many traditional buildings were built to be ‘breathable’ and so installing impermeable insulation materials and vapour barriers increases the likelihood of moisture problems. Natural insulation materials (such as cellulose or sheep’s wool) may prove more suitable. Both external and internal wall insulation may be unsuitable for heritage buildings due to the loss of historic detail.