Title 1 | home
Title 1 | Title 3 | Title 4 | Title 5 | Title 6 | Title 7 | Title 8 | Arlington House, Square & Carpark | Title 10 | Title 11 | Title 12 | Title 13 | Title 14
Arlington House, Square & Carpark
English Heritage Advice Report 15 March 2012
Page 1 of 9
Case Name: Arlington House, Square & Carpark
Case Number: 469369
Background
We have been asked to assess Arlington Square, including Arlington House and car park, for listing. The site
does not fall within a conservation area, but is bordered on two sides by Margate Town Centre Conservation
Area and is adjacent to the former Dreamland amusement park.
Asset(s) under Assessment
Facts about the asset(s) can be found in the Annex(es) to this report.
Annex List Entry Number Name Heritage Category EH
Recommendation
1 N/A Arlington Square,
including Arlington
House, and car park
Listing Do not add to List
Visits
Date Visit Type
29 November 2011 Full inspection
Context
We have been asked to assess Arlington Square, including Arlington House and car park, for listing. There is
a live planning application which seeks consent for demolition of the shopping precinct and car park, and their
replacement with a Tesco supermarket and other development (as yet in outline form). The proposals also
include alteration of the residential tower. The planning applicants are currently appealing to the Planning
Inspectorate for non-determination of the application, and this appeal will be held as a public enquiry, to begin
on 13 March 2012.
Assessment
CONSULTATION
The owners of the building, the listing applicant and the local planning authority (Thanet District Council) were
provided with copies of our consultation report. Representations were received from Professor Robert
Tavenor on behalf of the owners, the applicant and seven other individuals.
The representations received from the applicant and other individuals support the listing of the site; the points
raised and claims made which are relevant to the assessment of its architectural and historic interest are
summarised below:
* The development is little-altered and the quality of materials and detailing is high; the intactness and
condition of features such as the windows of the tower block and the cladding panels are indicative of their
quality, and the survival of interior fittings in the flats is uncommon.
* The integration of the residential block and the shopping centre is ingenious: the tower seeming to float
over the podium; the tower is architecturally striking, the 'jazzy' appearance of its saw-tooth profile, maximises
the sea views.
* The scheme has a claim to being the first example of a British post-war privately funded mixed-use
development. It combined residential, tourism, recreation, retail, parking and transport facilities, opposite a
major holiday beach. It may have claims to being the first 'park and buy' shopping centre of its kind;
Arlington's nearest parallel may be the Brunswick Centre, Bloomsbury.
* The Arlington scheme was an aspirational and forward-looking response to the needs of a British seaside
resort; it was pioneering for its time, especially in a seaside location.
English Heritage Advice Report 15 March 2012
Page 2 of 9
* Bernard Sunley was actively building mixed-use developments in the late 1950s and 1960s in the
Bahamas and Jamaica, and therefore is likely to have been influenced by retail models imported to these
countries from the USA, most notably the combination of retail and parking facilities. An example of the firm's
work abroad is the Sunley Building in Rawson Square, Nassau, Bahamas (1962), which combines a
shopping centre, offices and restaurants.
* The building is representative of its era and reflects the success of Margate as a resort in this period; it is
of architectural interest as one of a series of striking monumental architectural statements along the seafront,
including Margate Station, Dreamland Cinema, the Clock Tower and Turner Contemporary, which display
Margate's ambition and belief in its future.
* One response pointed out that the car park is on three levels, not two, as described in the consultation
report, as the resident's car park is on a slightly higher level than the upper deck of the main car park. This
point is acknowledged by English Heritage, however it is described as having two levels as in any one place it
has only a ground level, and a single upper deck above.
The representation received on behalf of the owners, does not support the listing of the site; the points raised
and claims made which are relevant to the assessment of its architectural and historic interest are
summarised below:
* Architecturally the Arlington site displays Corbusian and Brutalist influences, but in a seaside context;
comparisons with significant inter-war seaside flatted developments can also be made. A number of
examples are cited to illustrate these points.
* The development was not critically assessed in the architectural press (it was covered in two brief, factual,
reports), or nominated for architectural awards, and was not one of the inter- and post-war developments
singled out for mention in the 2007 book published by English Heritage: England's Seaside Heritage.
* In response the claim that the development was the first 'park and buy' shopping centre in Britain, the
example of Frederick Gibberd's 1951 Chrisp Street Market, Poplar, is cited – a pedestrianised shopping
precinct with on-street parking.
* The building does not have claims to special architectural or historic interest at a national level.
The relevant points raised in the representations will be considered in the body of the discussion below.
There are a number of listed buildings and structures in proximity to the Arlington site, and the issue of group
value was raised by both those in favour of listing and those against. In the case of this very substantial
development, the issue of group value, for which there are valid arguments on both sides, is secondary to the
primary considerations of intrinsic architectural or historic interest, and is therefore not explored in depth in
the discussion below. The impact that listing, or not listing, the building would have on its future use and
management is not relevant to this assessment, nor is the extent to which the building can, or should, be
refurbished, these issues therefore, although raised in the representations, are not covered below.
DISCUSSION
When considering buildings for listing, the over-arching criteria are special architectural and historic interest.
Housing developments of the C20 can rank amongst the country's finest architectural achievements, and the
best will warrant careful assessment for designation. The Arlington development is a mixed residential and
commercial one, so the factors relevant to the assessment of commercial buildings, as well as mid- to late
C20 residential developments, will apply. As set out in English Heritage's listing Selection Guide: Commerce
and Exchange Buildings (April 2011), selection of C20 retail architecture must be discriminating because of
the large quantity surviving, and the high degree of standardisation; however the survival of intact, high
quality, retail architecture from this period is rare, so the identification of such examples is important. As set
out in the Selection Guide: The Modern House and Housing (April 2011), when assessing these buildings for
designation, influence, imagination, scale, ambition and ingenuity, together with quality of craftsmanship or
the striking use of materials, are principal benchmarks. Planning and layout, decoration, relationship with
setting, and reputation of the designer are also considerations.
The Arlington development is comprised of three distinct building types: a car park, a tower block and a
pedestrianised shopping precinct; each in their way typical of their period. The massive post-war rise in car
ownership resulted in a great demand for town-centre car parks; a particular problem for seaside towns,
which were under immense pressure to cater for the visitors on whom their economy relied. Another result
was town centre congestion, the answer to which was seen as being the separation of pedestrians and cars;
a solution which manifested itself in various ways, including the creation of pedestrian-only shopping
precincts. The promotional supplement for the Arlington development produced by the East Kent Times,
claims the scheme to be 'Britain's first 'park and buy' shopping centre'. Although it may have been the first
use of the term 'park and buy' in the UK (it is not known to have been used elsewhere, and may well have
been an American import), the concept of combining retail with parking provision was not new in the early
English Heritage Advice Report 15 March 2012
Page 2 of 9
* Bernard Sunley was actively building mixed-use developments in the late 1950s and 1960s in the
Bahamas and Jamaica, and therefore is likely to have been influenced by retail models imported to these
countries from the USA, most notably the combination of retail and parking facilities. An example of the firm's
work abroad is the Sunley Building in Rawson Square, Nassau, Bahamas (1962), which combines a
shopping centre, offices and restaurants.
* The building is representative of its era and reflects the success of Margate as a resort in this period; it is
of architectural interest as one of a series of striking monumental architectural statements along the seafront,
including Margate Station, Dreamland Cinema, the Clock Tower and Turner Contemporary, which display
Margate's ambition and belief in its future.
* One response pointed out that the car park is on three levels, not two, as described in the consultation
report, as the resident's car park is on a slightly higher level than the upper deck of the main car park. This
point is acknowledged by English Heritage, however it is described as having two levels as in any one place it
has only a ground level, and a single upper deck above.
The representation received on behalf of the owners, does not support the listing of the site; the points raised
and claims made which are relevant to the assessment of its architectural and historic interest are
summarised below:
* Architecturally the Arlington site displays Corbusian and Brutalist influences, but in a seaside context;
comparisons with significant inter-war seaside flatted developments can also be made. A number of
examples are cited to illustrate these points.
* The development was not critically assessed in the architectural press (it was covered in two brief, factual,
reports), or nominated for architectural awards, and was not one of the inter- and post-war developments
singled out for mention in the 2007 book published by English Heritage: England's Seaside Heritage.
* In response the claim that the development was the first 'park and buy' shopping centre in Britain, the
example of Frederick Gibberd's 1951 Chrisp Street Market, Poplar, is cited – a pedestrianised shopping
precinct with on-street parking.
* The building does not have claims to special architectural or historic interest at a national level.
The relevant points raised in the representations will be considered in the body of the discussion below.
There are a number of listed buildings and structures in proximity to the Arlington site, and the issue of group
value was raised by both those in favour of listing and those against. In the case of this very substantial
development, the issue of group value, for which there are valid arguments on both sides, is secondary to the
primary considerations of intrinsic architectural or historic interest, and is therefore not explored in depth in
the discussion below. The impact that listing, or not listing, the building would have on its future use and
management is not relevant to this assessment, nor is the extent to which the building can, or should, be
refurbished, these issues therefore, although raised in the representations, are not covered below.
DISCUSSION
When considering buildings for listing, the over-arching criteria are special architectural and historic interest.
Housing developments of the C20 can rank amongst the country's finest architectural achievements, and the
best will warrant careful assessment for designation. The Arlington development is a mixed residential and
commercial one, so the factors relevant to the assessment of commercial buildings, as well as mid- to late
C20 residential developments, will apply. As set out in English Heritage's listing Selection Guide: Commerce
and Exchange Buildings (April 2011), selection of C20 retail architecture must be discriminating because of
the large quantity surviving, and the high degree of standardisation; however the survival of intact, high
quality, retail architecture from this period is rare, so the identification of such examples is important. As set
out in the Selection Guide: The Modern House and Housing (April 2011), when assessing these buildings for
designation, influence, imagination, scale, ambition and ingenuity, together with quality of craftsmanship or
the striking use of materials, are principal benchmarks. Planning and layout, decoration, relationship with
setting, and reputation of the designer are also considerations.
The Arlington development is comprised of three distinct building types: a car park, a tower block and a
pedestrianised shopping precinct; each in their way typical of their period. The massive post-war rise in car
ownership resulted in a great demand for town-centre car parks; a particular problem for seaside towns,
which were under immense pressure to cater for the visitors on whom their economy relied. Another result
was town centre congestion, the answer to which was seen as being the separation of pedestrians and cars;
a solution which manifested itself in various ways, including the creation of pedestrian-only shopping
precincts. The promotional supplement for the Arlington development produced by the East Kent Times,
claims the scheme to be 'Britain's first 'park and buy' shopping centre'. Although it may have been the first
use of the term 'park and buy' in the UK (it is not known to have been used elsewhere, and may well have
been an American import), the concept of combining retail with parking provision was not new in the early
English Heritage Advice Report 15 March 2012
Page 4 of 9
profligate use of space at a time when multi-storey, underground, and roof-top car parks were
well-established concepts which could have freed up seafront space for alternative uses. In contrast, the
early proposals for the shopping precinct suggested a more creative scheme than was actually built; the
inclusion of a theatre, restaurant and roof top garden made full use of the area above the single-storey shops,
expanding the mix of uses into cultural and leisure facilities and providing a green public space. As built, the
car park became a more sophisticated two-storey transport facility, however the precinct diminished in its
ambition, to the point where the flat roofs above the shops were entirely unutilised, and the public open space
was limited just to the internal piazza.
The tower block is the most architecturally successful component of the scheme, and it would have been a
key element in drawing attention to the development. It was a flagship scheme in what was hoped to be the
transformation of Margate into a modern seaside resort. The tower represented a modern way of living and a
modern way of building, whilst its gleaming white finish and creative capturing of the sea view, places it within
the established C20 architectural tradition of seafront flats. But building costs for tall towers are high, and for
a privately funded scheme such as Arlington, the tower was an architectural statement, rather than an
efficient and economical housing solution. It is possible that the ambitious scale of the tower was what
brought an end to the more creative, less commercial, aspects of the precinct. Perhaps with a more intensive
use of the site, the development could have successfully married the ideals of urban community-focussed
living, as explored in schemes such as the Brunswick Centre and the Barbican, with the particular needs and
traditions of its seaside resort location; however as it stands, the development falls short. Although clearly an
aspirational scheme in concept, in execution, its planning and layout lacks ambition and creativity. Despite
having some merit in terms of design, detailing and quality of materials, this is not sufficiently strong to meet
the necessarily robust designation criteria for buildings of this period.
Not withstanding the conclusion reached above, the significance of the Arlington development within the local
context is notable. The development is a prominent illustration of Margate's post-war, when it sought to
reinvent itself through striking and ambitious development schemes, of which Arlington remains the flagship.
Despite not meeting the criteria for national designation, as with many development schemes of its type, it
represents a response to wider cultural and social themes in the post-war period, married with the particular
needs and traditions of its location. Though often criticized for their uncompromising style, a growing
appreciation for the context within which they were built, means that developments such as Arlington are
increasingly valued as part of the evolving architectural and historic make-up of our towns and cities.
Although not reaching the high threshold for designation at a national level, the Arlington Square
development, including Arlington House and car park, has architectural and historic interest in a local context.
CONCLUSION
After examining all the records and other relevant information and having carefully considered the
architectural and historic interest of this case, the criteria for listing are not fulfilled. For this reason, despite
possessing local interest, Arlington Square development, including Arlington House and car park is not
recommended for statutory listing.
REASON FOR DESIGNATION DECISION
Arlington House, Square and associated car parks, a residential tower block, shopping arcade and car park,
built 1961-63 by Russell Diplock Associates, is not recommended for listing for the following principal
reasons:
* Planning and layout: the scheme fails to achieve a sufficient level of creativity and ambition in its
integration of forms or use of space, and is not innovative in its combination of building types and uses.
* Architectural interest: although not without some points of interest, the development does not display a
quality of architectural design and detail to distinguish it as being amongst the best examples of its type
nationally.
* Historic interest: the local significance of the development in marking a particularly ambitious phase in
the seaside town's post-war development, does not translate into historic interest at a national level.
Countersigning comments:
Arlington House, Square and car park is prominent example of a national trend towards providing integrated
commercial, residential and car parking that dominated town planning in the late1950s and early1960s. This
assessment has thoroughly examined the architectural and historic context and rightly concludes that while
certainly of local merit, it lacks the special architectural and historic interest that warrants statutory listing. P
Trevor. 17 February 2012
English Heritage Advice Report 15 March 2012
Page 5 of 9
Agreed also. As our advice sets out, this development has some good qualities and the tower is a striking
feature on the seafront. Nonetheless it falls short of the necessarily high bar for listing buildings of such
recent date, lacking the overall coherence and quality of integrated design required of this kind of mixed-use
development, and also without the high quality use of materials seen in contemporary listed examples.
Veronica Fiorato, 8th March 2012
Further Comments:
Agreed. This case has been carefully assessed and is in part informed by our wider corporate work in this
significant seaside town. I was involved in the site visit and have first hand knowledge of the site. While there
are some points of interest that endow the complex with claims to local interest, the architectural and
planning quality of tower and associated shops and car park fall short of the high threshold for listing post-war
housing nationally.
Emily Gee
15 March 2012
English Heritage Advice Report 15 March 2012
Page 6 of 9
Annex 1
Factual Details
Name: Arlington Square, including Arlington House, and car park
Location: Arlington House and 1-50 Arlington Square, Margate, CT9 1XP
County District District Type Parish
Kent Thanet District Authority Non Civil Parish
History
Arlington Square was built on Margate seafront in 1961-63 as a mixed commercial and residential
development. At the time of its construction the development comprised a 50-unit shopping centre, known as
Arlington Square, which included a two-storey supermarket and a pub; a 19-storey tower block with 142 flats,
known as Arlington House; and a two-level car and coach park with a petrol station. The architects were
Russell Diplock Associates, the developer was Bernard Sunley Investment Trust, and the contractors were
Bernard Sunley and Sons Ltd.
The site of Arlington Square had been occupied by Margate Sands Railway Station (opened in 1846), but
when this closed in the 1920s it was bought by Margate Borough Council. The site was then occupied by the
Casino Dance Hall, but following a major fire in 1946 it was cleared and used as a car and coach park. The
four and a half acre site was widely considered to be an eyesore, and following much secret negotiation
between the Council and Bernard Sunley Investment Trust, a scheme for its redevelopment was announced
at a press conference in March 1961; a 199-year lease was signed in May the same year.
In terms of visitor numbers, the immediate post-war period, up until about 1960, had been the highpoint of
Margate's success as a resort town, and it was observed that increasing numbers of visitors were arriving by
private motor car, rather than by public transport. It was considered that Margate's continued success could
be threatened by poor road transport links, and insufficient car parks. The Borough Surveyor of the time,
George E Sewell (active 1955-1975), was an enthusiastic exponent of the Council's plans to transform
Margate into a modern, car-friendly town; plans which at their most destructive, included the clearance of
Margate Old Town, and its replacement with two multi-storey car parks. Elements of the Council's
redevelopment scheme came to fruition, whilst others did not, however at the time of this drive for
development the former Casino Dance Hall site offered an ideal opportunity for an impressive scheme which
'would not cost the ratepayers a penny' (Thanet Times, 14 March 1961).
Drawings, which are thought to be those presented at the press conference of March 1961, show an earlier
version of the Arlington Square scheme. The perspective drawings are recognisable as a version of what was
finally built, however the plans reveal notable differences. As well as differences in the layout of the arcade,
the piazza and the position of the residential tower, these plans also included a first-floor theatre and
restaurant, and a rooftop garden with swimming pool; the swimming pool is shown with a glazed panel in the
bottom, presumably intended to cast light into the piazza below. The theatre, restaurant, garden and pool
never became part of the scheme as built. The earlier scheme also included 40 lock-up garages and 36 car
parking spaces for residents and a ground-level car park to the south with space for 325 cars.
In a special Arlington Square supplement, thought to have been produced in December 1963 by the East
Kent Times, the completed development was described as 'Britain's first 'park and buy' shopping centre'.
However by this time the parking facilities included in the scheme had been increased considerably from
those originally proposed with the inclusion of an upper deck over the ground floor car park. The parking was
not just for the use of shoppers and residents of the flats, it was also intended to provide parking for visitors
to Margate; there was parking for over 400 cars and over 100 coaches, a taxi rank, lavatories, a left luggage
office and office accommodation for the car park and coach station administration. Construction had been
divided into two phases. Phase I involved the provision of a new tourist information centre (this was not
located on the Arlington Square site, but just to the west) and the car park. Phase II saw the construction of
the shops, flats and a petrol station. It was required that the car park should be constructed in Phase I during
the winter months, in order that it should be ready for use at the start of the tourist season at Easter.
On the scheme's completion the flats were let, rather than sold, to residents on three, five or seven year
leases. An article which appeared in Concrete Quarterly suggested that they were aimed at retired couples,
English Heritage Advice Report 15 March 2012
Page 7 of 9
but also noted their convenience for commuters. In 1969 the arm of Bernard Sunley Investment Trust which
owned and managed the Arlington Square development went bankrupt, and the site was sold to the current
owners. At this time, the flats were sold to residents on long leases and the majority remain in owner
occupation. The Arlington Square shopping centre is believed to have enjoyed initial success. However, as
with many resort towns, Margate suffered significant decline in the later post-war period, and the shopping
centre suffered as a result. Some units remained in occupation until recently, however all are now empty.
The architects of the scheme, Russell Diplock Associates, were involved in the design of several large town
centre commercial redevelopments in the 1960s. A scheme designed in collaboration with Sir Basil Spence
for the redevelopment of St James' Square, Edinburgh, never came to fruition, however the practice's
scheme for the redevelopment of a 15 acre site in the centre of Brighton did. This multi-phase scheme, which
included a shopping centre (known as Churchill Square), offices and a car park, was commenced in 1963,
and formally opened in 1968. Later parts of the scheme were opened in the early 1970s, and the Brighton
Centre – a massive purpose-built conference centre - completed the development in 1977. Churchill Square
Shopping centre was substantially demolished and rebuilt in the 1990s.
Details
Arlington Square is a mixed commercial and residential scheme, built 1961-63, designed by Russell Diplock
Associates. It comprises a 19-storey tower, a shopping centre, and a two-level car park.
MATERIALS
The residential tower (Arlington House) is formed of a reinforced concrete frame, supported on concrete
piles, clad from the second floor to the 19th in precast concrete panels externally finished with white
calcinated flint. The windows are aluminium.
Most of the shop units have reinforced concrete frames, with brick and glazing infill. Some of the smaller units
near the car park have load-bearing brick walls. The upper deck of the car park is supported on reinforced
concrete columns.
PLAN
The Arlington Square site is bordered to the north by Marine Terrace and the sea front, to the west by All
Saints Avenue, to the east by the Dreamland amusement park and to the south by a railway line. The
southern half of the site is taken up by the two-level car park. To the far north the larger shop units in the
development look outwards onto Marine Terrace, and a pedestrian arcade, lined with smaller units, leads
south from Marine Terrace into a central open-air square, or, piazza; shops face into the piazza on all sides.
Arlington House stands on the west side of the piazza, and a further row of shops faces out to the west onto
All Saints Avenue. To the east of the square is a service yard accessed from the car park.
Arlington House is broadly rectangular in plan; the long sides facing to the east and west, the short sides to
the north and south. The concrete framework of the tower meets the ground, but the floor plan of the building
does not; at ground level a service road runs beneath, giving access to the rear of the shop units to either
side. The tower is accessed from All Saints Avenue; an entrance foyer beneath the upper deck of the car
park leads into a lift lobby at the base of the tower. The first floor of the tower was designed to provide
storage for the commercial units, however as built, the space was used to create additional flats. These flats
are accessed from an open walkway over the shop units beneath the tower. At each level, from the second
floor to the 19th, the tower plan comprises a spinal corridor which runs from north to south, with four flats
opening off the corridor to either side. To the south of the corridor is a lift shaft (which opens into the lobby at
ground floor) and a stair. There is a second stair at the north end of the building. The flats vary from one
another in layout, depending on their location on the plan, however each one has an 'enclosed balcony' which
protrudes out at an angle from the side of the building, giving a sea view to each flat.
EXTERIOR
The east and west elevations of Arlington House are defined by the distinctive 'enclosed balconies', which
together create the effect of four vertical 'waves'; and the continuous horizontal bands of windows which
stretch across the two façades. The north and south elevations are both slightly canted, with a central vertical
line of windows lighting the stair well and corridor. On the north elevation two further lines of windows bring
light into the flats on either side of the corridor. The calcinated flint originally gave the exterior of the building a
white finish, but this has become grey with a build-up of dirt and salts.
The Arlington Square shops are flat-roofed and all but one is single-storey. A horizontally reeded concrete
parapet runs above the outward-facing shop units, which are separated from one another by brick cross
walls, the ends of which provide a visual division between each unit. These brick cross walls are also used
English Heritage Advice Report 15 March 2012
Page 8 of 9
within the square. All of the shops are now boarded up or have roller shutters, so it is not possible to know
how altered the shop-fronts are, however the original frontages are likely to have been very simple, consisting
of low stall risers and large glazed shop windows and doors. A curved steel, concrete and glass canopy
covers the arcade leading into the square. The square is paved in pink and yellow concrete slabs, believed to
be original, however any street furniture has been removed. The square originally had a canopy around the
edge to protect shoppers from the weather, however this does not survive.
The upper deck of the car park is supported on wide, but shallow, six-sided columns, which taper
downwards. The underside of the deck is coffered. Ramps provide vehicular access from the ground floor to
first, and covered stair wells provide pedestrian access. The petrol filing station was located on the west side
of the car park; this is now an empty space. The car and coach park facilities were housed in simple brick
structures which remain beneath the car park deck.
INTERIOR
The communal spaces throughout Arlington House have tiled linoleum floors, and except where stated,
painted plaster walls.
An open porch leads from All Saints Avenue, through two sets of glazed hardwood double doors, into the
L-shaped foyer of Arlington House. The porch has white marble-clad cheeks and a metal box canopy with the
name 'Arlington House' along the edge (the lettering was originally internally illuminated). The faceted
columns which support the car park deck above are exposed within the foyer walls, interspaced with
plastered brickwork and full-height glazing, and a saw-tooth roof allows additional light into the space. Beyond
the half-glazed porter's office is the stair to the first floor and the lift lobby. The lifts are faced in black marble
(at ground floor only) and the stair balusters are straight steel rod with a plastic coated steel hand rail. Above
ground floor the stair wells are un-plastered (although in some cases painted), with exposed brickwork,
concrete blockwork and concrete frames. The stairs are untreated concrete with steel rod balusters and steel
hand rail.
The front doors to the flats are flush, stained, wood. A number of the flats have original fixtures and fittings,
the most notable element of which is the part-glazed divider unit between the kitchens and living rooms.
Selected Sources
Arlington Square, Margate (supplement), East Kent Times, circa December 1963
Building on Casino Site, Thanet Times, 14 March 1961
Central area development, Brighton, Architect and Building News, 12 July 1967
Seafront development, Margate, Builder, 20 November 1964
Tall Flats Enliven Seafront, Concrete Quaterly, Vol. vol 61, April-June 1964
Borough of Margate, Central Area Redevelopment Scheme, 1963
Early drawings of the Arlington Square scheme: two plans, and elevation and three perspectives; believed to
have been tabled at the press conference of March 1961
© Crown Copyright and database right 2011. All rights reserved. Ordnance Survey