Birmingham Road Masterplan

1

Contents 1. Overview – Community engagement activities……………..3 2. Engaging Lichfield – Methodology…………………………......4 3. Key recommendations for the Birmingham Road site…….6 4. Towards a Birmingham Road site design code………………10 5. Results from building surveys…...……………………......…….15 6. Results of public realm surveys.........................................20 7. Engagement process snapshot.........................................26

2

1. Overview – Community engagement activities October 2022 June 2022 Online engagement

1. Digital Survey April-June 2022 Online fixed-point survey on favourite buildings and public spaces (Wide).

South Staffordshire College c0design workshop

2. South Staffordshire College Co-design Workshop 1 31 October 2022 Discussion and co-design workshop with students (Deep).

November 2022

February 2023

Christmas Fayre event; ‘drop-in’ space

Three Spires engagement event

3. Lichfield engagement event 2

5. Lichfield engagement event 3

22 November 2022 Visual preference surveys and discussions (Deep).

February 25th 2023 Public realm preferences with consultation on Frog Lane house renders (Deep).

4. ‘Drop-in’ space October 2022 -March 2023 Permanent display with preference surveys (Wide).

6. Stakeholder interviews (Deep) October 2022 – March 2023

3

2. Engaging Lichfield – Methodology •

This report presents the key recommendations for the design of the Birmingham Road site following ‘wide’ and ‘deep’ community engagement with residents and stakeholders in Lichfield, between April 2022 to March 2023.

•

The results have emerged from online comments on the Create Communities platform, three community engagement events and workshops, interviews with Lichfield stakeholders, and an open ‘drop-in’ space for members of the public to leave comments.

•

The output will make up the design brief and we suggest turning it into a concise, site-specific design code to ensure the site is delivered following the community’s brief as closely as possible.

Create Communities digital map survey: engaging ‘wide’ •

We identified fixed points on a digital map with a representative selection of buildings and places that represent a cross section of the character of Lichfield. Respondents were asked questions about the fixed points. There were 5,747 responses to this part of the survey.

Community engagement events: engaging ‘deep’ •

We held three in-person engagement events and workshops in Lichfield talking to members of the public on Lichfield and the Birmingham Road site through visual preference surveys and discussions. A total of approximately 300 people attended.

Stakeholder interviews: engaging ‘deep’ •

One-to-one interviews were also held with several key stakeholder organisations and individuals in Lichfield, discussing Lichfield’s character and potential for the Birmingham Road site. In total we held 12 interviews.

4

2. Engaging Lichfield – Methodology ‘Drop-in’ space •

A ‘drop-in’ space was setup in Lichfield District Council offices, which presented visual preference surveys used in the workshops, alongside a map where people could post comments. In total we received 56 written comments and 426 survey responses.

Engagement in numbers:

Online Engagement 5,747 responses

Engagement workshops Approx. 300 attendees total

‘Drop-in’ space 56 written comments, 426 survey responses

Stakeholder interviews 12 interviews 5

3. Key recommendations for the Birmingham Road site The following recommendations are based on responses and data gathered from all engagement activities. Many of these themes were heard repeatedly in the online and in-person engagements and key stakeholder interviews.

1. Buildings: heritage, heritage, heritage – people continue to want a development that ‘fits in’ with Lichfield.

•

The top eight buildings deemed most appropriate for the Birmingham Road site were heritage buildings. Recommendation for materials were red brick, with 51 per cent preference for red brick Flemish bond. Stretcher bond engineering brick was the least popular material with just 5 per cent of preferences.

•

Larger sash windows, referred to as ‘Georgian’ windows, were a preferred characteristic of four of the top eight buildings.

Georgian door surrounds, cornicing and string courses characterise these buildings and should be used. Simple, good proportions are another key characteristic of these buildings, all featuring a clear division of bays to produce symmetrical facades (see section ‘Towards a Birmingham Road site design code’).

•

The emerging Frog Lane renders are provably popular and these designs should be rolled out across the wider site. Image 1 (neo-Georgian) had 84 per cent support, with image 2 (neo-Italianate) at 71 per cent.

•

Caution should be taken with any ‘contemporary’ design. Some residents were open to contemporary architectural styles, but visual preference surveys showed recent Lichfield development was unpopular. These buildings often have asymmetric facades, use non-traditional materials such as cladding, UPVC, and stretcher bond engineering bricks, which should be avoided.

2. Create smaller residences for younger residents to live and work in Lichfield.

•

Affordability for younger ages was a key concern raised in discussions. 15 from 141 written submissions raised housing affordability, alongside numerous in-person discussions. Use a range of narrower, terraced buildings, which could be split level or mansion block typologies.

6

3. Key recommendations for the Birmingham Road site (cont.)

3. Birmingham Road site should be made up of fine-grained streets with larger plot coverage.

•

The fine-grained street pattern of our indicative masterplan received 81 per cent support. Our indicative coarse-grained masterplan (with ‘blocks in space’) received 67 per cent support, showing a public preference for a mesh of welldefined, connected streets, rather than a ‘blocks in space’ layout with larger less defined public space.

•

Use an enclosed, greened street to guide people through the Birmingham Road site onto Castle Dyke or the shopping centre. This could resemble a ‘boulevard’ that connects public realm across from Lichfield City Station to Lichfield’s historic centre via Castle Dyke. Protecting views of the Cathedral will also signpost the way for visitors.

4. Focus on the quality of public spaces, not its quantity.

•

Public realm should be well enclosed by quality buildings with clear building frontages onto public space and enclosed private spaces at the backs of buildings.

•

Smaller public space was preferred by 93 per cent of respondents compared to larger public space. The two favourite public spaces in our survey had high enclosure, ranging in size roughly between 20m x 20m to 40m x 40m. More enclosure with retail or dining spaces can facilitate more human-scaled spaces for gathering, socialising and ‘watching life go by’, as residents asked for.

•

Greenery should be prevalent with 94 per cent preference for trees in public realm, over no trees. Use ‘friendly’ street furniture (benches, small stalls, outdoor dining etc.) rather than ‘unfriendly’ clutter (metal bollards, bins, signposts etc.) in public space to complement greenery.

•

Some park space is a popular wish. This should be accommodated with accessible greenery, that is well maintained, containing usable amenities (a bandstand was often raised by residents). This space must not be illegible, with dysfunctional features, and poorly maintained.

7

3. Key recommendations for the Birmingham Road site (cont.)

5. Changes to bus station must ensure good access to Lichfield City Station and centre.

•

A major concern raised was the importance of the bus station. Residents reiterated the Birmingham Road bus station’s current site was the ideal location. It is recommended that any change of location maintains good access to Lichfield City Station, and Lichfield centre.

6. Provide amenities for younger age-groups.

•

Lack of leisure and retail options for younger age groups was a key concern for people of all ages. Activities for the young, (but also all age groups), were strongly desired on site. This could be an entertainment hub (with indoor activities such as bowling, darts etc.) or family activities, like swimming, as well as more affordable casual dining options, and retail offerings.

•

These amenities should not be provided in buildings that harm the fine-grained street pattern and heritage-inspired designs that residents strongly preferred, but rather remain in keep with the site and Lichfield’s centre.

7. Make the site a gateway to Lichfield: create a street that links the station to Castle Dyke.

•

The Birmingham Road site should not be a barrier to the centre of Lichfield. Verbal and written responses frequently asked for the creation of a clear and picturesque thoroughfare from the southwest of the site running northeast to Castle Dyke.

•

Create a wide, raised table or surface level crossing with pedestrian priority lights linking the station to the site. A safer, calmer crossing outside Lichfield City Station was strongly desired (11 written comments). This would play a key role in drawing visitors into the city and providing safe, legible access to Lichfield from the train station.

8

Towards a Birmingham Road Site Design Code

9

4. Towards a Birmingham Road site design code Following the key recommendations, we outline very general design principles for the Birmingham Road site. These principles focus on producing simple, well proportioned buildings with simple detailing, that use popular preferences for historic materials. The Frog Lane renders referred to in key recommendation 1, (especially the neo-Georgian image) achieve much of this, were popular with residents and should serve as a foundation going forward.

Buildings •

Windows should have vertically orientated panes, whose openings occupy 15-35 per cent of the wall. Avoid horizontal windows that look squat (except for attic storeys).

•

Windows should be timber framed, double-hung sash (e.g. 6 over 6) or casement style. Victorian segmental arch windows can also be used. Avoid tilt windows in aluminium or UPVC.

•

Doors should be wood, panelled, and can use transoms with well-proportioned door surrounds, in keep with Lichfield’s historic buildings.

•

Correctly positioned and sized cornicing that form a kicked or radiused eave, should be used.

•

String courses must be flush with the bottom of window sills.

•

Use correct lintels: simple masonry lintels or gauged brick arches with with or without keystones, using the correct proportions.

•

Windows can use surrounds and mouldings that match existing types found in Lichfield.

•

Mansard rooves or hipped rooves which can have correctly proportioned dormers that are sized in relation to the windows below

•

Materials should be be of good quality that reflect Lichfield’s historic palette. Historic Flemish bond red brick, was the most popular material. Other materials can be used that add texture and interest to the building such as render, glazed or terracotta 10 brick, and different brick arrangements, such as dogtooth.

4. Towards a Birmingham Road site design code No cornicing or string courses

Stretcher bond engineering brick

Inactive frontage

Correct use of materials, cornicing, window and door surrounds, lintels, and sills.

Hipped roof, symmetrical bays with vertical window panes.

No lintels, poorly visible sill

For neo-traditional architecture it is essential to avoid poor imitations that miss core components of traditional design, e.g the image above.

For contemporary buildings use good quality materials with well-designed, well proportioned detailing.

11

4. Towards a Birmingham Road site design code Site layout and public realm •

A legible street-network will underpin human-scaled, coherent, route finding from Lichfield City Station, to Lichfield centre. Each street should connect to another and form a legible hierarchy of primary, secondary and tertiary streets.

•

The masterplan must be designed in accord with the public preference for a ‘finer-grained’ site layout suggested in indicative Masterplan Type A, not the ‘blocks in space’ indicative Masterplan Type B.

•

Ensure clear distinctions between private and public realm: public fronts should face onto other public fronts, while private backs should face onto private space or other private backs. This should reduce the need for blank walls.

•

Following this, avoid at all costs blank spaces or dead zones that produce ‘fortress-like’ space.

•

Any public square should aim to be between 20m x 20m to 40m x40m, framed by buildings with vertical emphasis, and have friendly furniture (greenery, parasols, planters etc.). Unfriendly clutter (bins, bollards, hostile vehicle measures etc.) should be minimised or avoided.

•

Public squares should aim for between 1:2 to 1:3 height-to-width ratios to ensure reasonable sense of enclosure.

•

Ensure adequate places to sit and gather in comfortable and relaxing spaces that are not exposed to the elements, but rather enclosed and secure.

•

Large squares (60m x 60m and over) with horizontally emphasised buildings of blank or inactive facades must be avoided.

12

4. Towards a Birmingham Road site design code •

Following discussions at the engagement events, the site can feature some park space, which can be on the southern part of the site. This space should avoid dysfunctional features, poor entrances and visually inaccessible spaces, and a lack of gathering points.

Blank spaces with inactive frontages must be avoided.

Private backs or public fronts? Public realm should have clear fronts and avoid exposed street furniture.

Southgate Place, Bath, is Lichfield residents’ favourite public space featuring active facades, clear fronts, friendly furniture, enclosed seating and rhythmic, vertical buildings – made for gathering.

13

Results from Building Surveys

14

5. There is a clear preference for what buildings on Birmingham Road should look like Building preferences from engagement event 2 (number of likes) 15

13

13 12

12

7 6

4

5 BEACON STREET SAMUEL JOHNSON ERASMUS DARWIN 20 ST JOHN STREET BIRTHPLACE HOUSE

LICHFIELD CATHEDRAL SCHOOL

CHAPTER HOUSE, GARRICK THEATRE MONKS CLOSE

PREMIER INN, SWAN ROAD

3

3

EGO RESTAURANT, BIRD STREET

SCOTT PLACE

15

5. There is a clear preference for what buildings on Birmingham Road should look like •

Data gathered from our online platform Create Communities revealed clear preferences in building types deemed suitable for the Birmingham Road site.

Suitability of buildings for Birmingham Road Site

Most popular

Erasmus Darwin House Dr. Johnsons Birthplace 20 St John Street Highly inappropriate

20 Beacon Street Donegal House

Not appropriate

Registry Office

Somewhat appropriate

Lichfield Cathedral School The Guildhall

Very appropriate

Ego Mediterranean Restaurant Lichfield Garrick Theatre

Total # responses: 5,747

Three Spires Shopping Centre Least popular Scott Place 0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

16

5. There is a clear preference for what buildings on Birmingham Road should look like Fixed Point

Results

Quotes

How appropriate do you think this nature of building would be for our Birmingham Road Site? (365 responses)

7%

63%

23%

63% (231) Very appropriate 26% (94) Somewhat appropriate 7% (26) Not appropriate 4% (14) Highly inappropriate

4%

How appropriate do you think this nature of building would be for our Birmingham Road Site? (364 responses)

55%

32%

55% (201) Very appropriate 32% (115) Somewhat appropriate 9% (32) Not appropriate 4% (16) Highly inappropriate

‘Classic Georgian facade which is the character of the city and is attractive because of the use of brick and stone’

9% 4%

‘The style is traditional and fitting for the city’ ‘Window proportions, brick or sandstone elevations preferable to plaster. Deep overhangs suggest shelter.’

17

5. There is a clear preference for what buildings on Birmingham Road should look like Fixed Point

Results

Quotes

How appropriate do you think this nature of building would be for our Birmingham Road Site?

(549 responses)

‘Too boxy, too modern, too angular’

39%

5%12%

44%

5% (27) Very appropriate 12% (67) Somewhat appropriate 39% (214) Not inappropriate 44% (241) Highly inappropriate How appropriate do you think this nature of building would be for our Birmingham Road Site?

(553 responses)

11%

27%

39%

11% (61) Very appropriate 27% (151) Somewhat appropriate 39% (214) Not appropriate 23% (127) Highly inappropriate

23%

‘Ugly cookie-cutter modern building that distracts from and hides Lichfield's beautiful Georgian architecture’

‘Totally out of keeping with surrounding buildings’ ‘Yet another ugly modern building in direct contrast with Lichfield's beautiful Georgian architecture.’

18

Results of Public Realm Surveys

19

6. Some public realm is much more popular than others •

Preferences for public realm were also surveyed, both online and at engagement event 3. The Create Communities platform asked for residents’ favourite spots in Lichfield. The top two public realms from online engagement were Bird Street and Minster Pool.

Fixed Point

Quotes ‘A variety of independent shops ‘Local food, local people - best place in Lichfield.’

‘The buildings have character. In keeping with the historical ‘feel’ of the place.’

‘Pedestrian friendly with flat surfaces for walking and cycling and welcoming alfresco dining.’

‘A beautiful green space, lined by trees. It is accessible by car and foot and provides seating.’

‘The brickwork pattern reflects other buildings in the area.’

‘Car park does not distract from the ‘historical heart’ of Lichfield.’

20

6. Some public realm is much more popular than others •

The least popular spots on our online engagement platform were Birmingham Road and St John Street junction, and the area around the Premier Inn on Swan Road.

Fixed Point

Quotes ‘First sight off the train’ with ‘eyesores’.

‘An empty, overgrown site across from the station that has been boarded up for several years.’

The Premier Inn and its associated car park as well as other surrounding buildings are ‘not in keeping with the rest of Lichfield.’

‘They present a wall of modernity that obscures the nature of the city.’

‘Could be anywhere in the UK.’ 21

6. Some public realm is much more popular than others •

At our third event, two masterplans were shown, one with a street-based ‘fine-grained’ layout and the other with a ‘coarse-grained’ ‘blocks in space’ layout.

Title

Masterplan Type A - ’fine-grained’

Masterplan

Preferences

Characteristics

Likes: 35 Dislikes: 8

• ‘Fine-grained’ street pattern based on series of well-defined urban blocks.

• Through routes defined by streets with widths ranging from 3.5m to 15m width.

• Smaller public spaces composed of series of more enclosed public spaces.

• Well-enclosed. Green and open spaces defined by buildings.

• Little and often green spaces.

35

8

81 per cent approval

Likes: 22 Dislikes: 11 Masterplan Type B – ‘blocks in space’

22

11

67 per cent approval

• ’Blocks in space/ coarse grained masterplan based on larger-scale block development connected by less enclosed, plaza-type public realm.

• Space not streets. No street pattern: through-routes defined by larger open spaces.

• Less-enclosed spaces with buildings defined by green/open space.

• Fewer but bigger green spaces.

22

6. Some public realm is much more popular than others •

Most respondents preferred the ‘fine-grained’, street-based indicative masterplan. 81 per cent of respondents to Masterplan A favoured the ‘fine-grained’ masterplan, compared to 67 per cent for Masterplan Type B.

•

Respondents also preferred more enclosed, human-scaled public realm with vertically emphasised buildings. In visual preference surveys 80 per cent of respondents preferred a vertically arranged series of buildings (a ‘flotilla of ships), compared to large, horizontally arranged buildings (‘single cruise liner’).

•

People want lively, active facades with friendly street furniture. Our surveys also showed 92 per cent of respondents preferred active facades and friendly furniture (stalls, planters, and parasols) over inactive facades and unfriendly furniture (bins, posts and bollards).

•

Engagement event 3 presented stall visitors images of different public realms to gauge their preferences, with overall findings presented below.

23

6. Some public realm is much more popular than others Most popular public realm at engagement event 3 (by number of likes) • ‘Open space capable of supporting boutique style temporary street markets, food outlets etc.’

• ‘Got to be in keep with Lichfield’s style.’

• ‘Ensure well connected, with views through to Lichfield Centre.’

• Open space for markets and festivals/outdoor dining.’

56

40

28

27

16

15 11 7 5 3

SOUTHGATE PLACE

NEAL'S YARD

HLAVNÉ NAMESTIE

HAMSLADE GREEN

PERSHING SQUARE

GOOSE GREEN

BATTERSEA

STADHUISPLEIN

LONDON BRIDGE KOOPMANSTRAAT

24

Engagement Process Snapshot

25

7. Event 1: South Staffordshire College workshop •

Three members of Create Streets held a 1 hour co-design workshop with 12 students at South Staffordshire College on 31 October 2022. Students discussed what they wanted to see on the new site, followed by thoughts on how it could be designed through sketches.

Key Themes •

There is not enough for young people to do. The standout concern from younger (and older) generations is the lack of entertainment, retail and leisure options for younger people. Lichfield has a strong offering of boutique, artisanal and smaller businesses, however these were felt not to cater younger ages. Tamworth is a popular place to visit instead. ‘The town is for elders and infants. There is nothing for our age group.’ ‘There is nothing to keep you here after you graduate.’ ‘The town is very boring.’

•

Younger people want to stay in Lichfield but feel they cannot afford to. All students said they did not consider it a possibility to stay, live and work in Lichfield as renting and housing was too expensive. They were conscious that new housing was often retirement homes, and were frustrated that smaller houses and flats were not being built. ‘We want to live here but can’t afford it.’ ’If I had enough money I would move to Lichfield.’

•

Lichfield’s traditional architecture is popular with the young. The favourite areas of Lichfield remain it’s historic places, such as the central areas, and around the Cathedral. ‘I enjoy the main street of Waterstones etc.’

•

Lichfield’s contemporary buildings and places are less popular. ‘I don’t like the new buildings. I like the local architecture. All the new homes look the same.’ ’Three Spires, I forgot what that was.’ ‘New development is underwhelming’.

26

7. Event 1: South Staffordshire College workshop (cont.)

•

Lichfield lacks formal and informal public spaces for young people. Alongside a lack of a retail and dining options for younger ages, attendees said there was a lack of public space for young people to congregate, both informally to socialise, such as parks or squares, as well as formally for events or performances, such as rehearsal space, entertainment hubs, studios etc.

‘There is nowhere for us to sit outside.’ ‘Activity centre – studio, darts, games.’ ‘Performance space: St Mary’s Hub isn’t built for us.

GarrickTheatre is expensive, outpriced for amateur dramatics.’

27

7. Event 2: Lichfield Christmas Fayre •

Three members of Create Streets held a pop-up stall for 3 hours at Lichfield Christmas Fayre on 22 November 2022.

•

Stall visitors were shown a series of visual preference surveys on building and house types, as well as holding discussions and posting comments on the Birmingham Road site.

Key Themes •

Buildings should be in keep with Lichfield’s character. Lichfield residents overwhelmingly prefer the traditional vernacular of Lichfield which is predominantly Georgian. In visual preference surveys, 74 per cent preferred traditionally facaded buildings: ‘Whatever goes in, if it’s super-modern people will be unhappy.’

•

New buildings do not need to be identical to what is present but their materials, coherence, symmetry and level of texture needs to have comparable qualities. Some stall visitors were also open to modern styles of architecture, but only if it was done well and still in keeping with the wider historic Lichfield vernacular. Recent examples of new development, such as the Premier Inn site, were widely viewed negatively: ‘There is room for something a little modern but a lot of new development looks terrible.’

•

There is a strong desire to see some open public space ‘to watch life go by.’ Stall visitors said the city lacked public spaces where people can gather and engage in communal public life. An open space that could be used for performances and other public events was desired, while also being an attractive public square for retail and food, where one can ‘watch life go by’.

‘Greenery, trees and terraces: not just somewhere to walk through, but to spend time.’

28

7. Event 2: Lichfield Christmas Fayre (cont.)

•

Site should act as a clear gateway to the city. People were frustrated by an unattractive and unclear travel route from the bus and train stations through the site into the centre. Residents also hoped the opportunity would be taken to create an attractive, exciting and welcoming entrance to Lichfield as you leave Lichfield City Station: ‘Having something that really leads people in directions, well signposted in a visual way.’ ‘Link Lichfield back to the train station and make it enjoyable to come by train and walk over.’ ‘It’s about creating those wow moments.’

•

Make the site traffic free with Birmingham Road traffic slowed. Stall visitors expressed a desire for the site to be traffic free, although there were concerns about a lack of parking in Lichfield in general. It was important for residents that pedestrians were prioritised, with better connection and crossing points for people coming from Lichfield City Station. ‘It’s difficult to cross the road – make it easier to connect from the station.’ ‘Fix the crossing.’

29

7. Event 2: Lichfield Christmas Fayre (cont.)

30

7. Results from ‘drop-in’ space The ‘drop-in’ space received 51 comments via post-it notes, 426 responses to visual preference surveys. 5 responses were submitted by email.

Visual preference survey results in the ‘drop-in’ space broadly followed themes reported during in-person engagement events: •

Traditional buildings were preferred to contemporary buildings. Erasmus Darwin house was the most popular, with 88 per cent of respondents liking it (26 responses). 5 Beacon Street received 87 per cent support from respondents (24 responses), and Samuel Johnson’s Birthplace received 85 per cent (26 responses).

•

Recent development proved the least popular. New buildings in Lichfield were markedly less popular, with Ego Mediterranean Restaurant receiving 81 per cent disapproval (27 responses), and Scott Place receiving 70 per cent disapproval (26 responses).

•

Historic red brick in Flemish bond was by far the most popular material for housing, with 38 per cent of all materials preferences, from a choice of 8 materials (53 responses).

•

The least popular material was painted brick, with the most dislikes (11), and no likes. Glazed brick was also unpopular with 2 likes and 11 dislikes, as was cladding with 7 likes and 10 dislikes.

•

Pedestrianisation was popular. The transport preferences survey revealed strong support for the Birmingham Road site to be pedestrianised with 96 per cent in favour of pedestrianising the site (24 responses).

•

Cycling is seen as unsafe. A survey on barriers to cycling in Lichfield also found 44 per cent of responses cited safety of routes as the main barrier to cycling more (39 responses).

31

7. Results from ‘drop-in’ space Key themes •

Major concern about the location of the bus stop. As with other engagement events, the bus station emerged as a key concern in comments submitted by residents, who want to see it remain on site, or in the near vicinity.

•

Residents want leisure options such as swimming pool, gym, indoor sports etc. Lichfield is frequently seen as lacking leisure facilities. ‘A leisure centre/ affordable housing.’ ‘The sports centre should go Birmingham Road site for ease of access for everyone in the area and less use of cars.’ ‘Swimming pool next to bus station, gym/fitness above bus station.’

•

Houses should have affordable 1 and 2 bedroom units for younger age groups. A consistent concern from residents has been the need for smaller homes. ‘1 & 2 bed houses on spare land.’ ‘A coach park for visitors plus 2 bedroom houses opposite St John’s Almshouses.’

•

Shared open spaces for gathering a popular idea. Residents also expressed a desire for more communal public space, in which public events and activities can be held: ‘A shared open space which can be used by all age groups with activities e.g table tennis potential for pop up areas for community/ charity events/ no parking keep pedestrianised.’ ‘Market on the corner with vintage farmer/specialist/craft stalls each day, like Spitalfields in London.’

•

Calm Birmingham Road to make the site a gateway to Lichfield and pedestrianise the development. Comments showed residents are fearful of cars on Birmingham Road, which severs the site from the Lichfield City Station. Comments also expressed a preference for site to be pedestrianised: ‘Calming of Birmingham road to reduce barrier effect.’

•

There is some opposition to all development. following other engagement events, a minority of residents feel the site is not appropriate for any significant development at all (7 per cent of comments). ‘Not housing or flats – it is in the wrong location if no other commercial use can be found then convert it into a park/green space to welcome visitors to Lichfield.’

‘Open park and not to be built on – bus station to remain where it is, links easily with station.’

32

7. Images from ‘drop-in’ space

33

7. Results from stakeholder interviews One-to-one interviews were also conducted with key stakeholder organisations in Lichfield and members of the council taskforce for the Birmingham Road site.

The key themes emerging from these discussions are highlighted below: •

Lichfield should focus on what makes it distinct and shouldn’t attempt big retail-led development. Lichfield’s unique selling point (USP) was recognised as being its heritage and independent businesses. It was felt to be a mistake to try to mimic e.g. Burton-on-Trent, with big retail-led development, which would damage the unique qualities of Lichfield, while also likely to struggle owing to nearby competitors such as Tamworth: ‘Lichfield shouldn’t be trying to position itself as a retail competitor. What makes Lichfield unique is its history – this can exist alongside a robust retail offering.’

•

Lichfield needs to attract younger demographics through housing and amenities offering. Another theme raised was the unsustainability of Lichfield’s demographics, with a lack of affordable housing, amenities and jobs for younger ages preventing the next generati0n from laying roots in the city. ‘In many ways Lichfield isn’t sustainable from a housing perspective, there’s not enough employment, Lichfield has a high number of commuters out.’

•

Chances for new work spaces to cater to artisanal retail strengths. It was observed that new retail and commercial premises could cater to the local, artisanal businesses that characterise Lichfield by providing spaces for smaller coworking and creative studios.

•

New retail units should also be able to accommodate contemporary retail requirements. While wanting to protect Lichfield’s small businesses, the need to provide affordable casual dining and contemporary retail offerings means some new units should have the capacity and flexibility to host businesses such as Nando’s, Zizzi’s, Pizza Express etc: ‘I was in Canterbury not so long ago – that was really vibrant with lots of independent shops, but also Zizzi’s, Prego, Nando’s.’

34

7. Results from stakeholder interviews (cont.)

•

Open spaces that can host street markets and public performances. There was a strong feeling that Lichfield lacks quality public gathering and events spaces, with several interviews highlighting the need for new public realm that can function as a space for markets, events, performances and ‘pop-up’ economic activity. ‘Open exhibition space could double as different things – it could be public space – but also an auditorium made from steps.’

•

Find an engaging name for the development that is meaningful to Lichfield residents. Some stakeholders expressed concern over the number of consultations that had already taken place, noting the public were sceptical of further consultations. It was suggested that the public can be given greater connection to the site by voting on a new name for the development. ‘It’s important to think of a better name than Birmingham Road Site.’

•

Reflecting Lichfield’s heritage is very important, but Birmingham Road site is not necessarily Georgian. Most stakeholders interviewed were eager to see Lichfield’s strong Georgian heritage reflected in new designs. One notable point raised is the context of the Birmingham Road site was not Georgian, but actually faces medieval buildings with St John’s Almshouses to the west, and Victorian buildings of the station to the south, and on Frog Lane to the north.

35