Design Review - Annual Report 2010

The Design Advisory Service

2010

design review and enabling

@

Cover Image: Westport Lake Visitors Centre – highly commended in the 2009 NSRP Design Awards

Foreword Urban Vision North Staffordshire is an Architecture and Built Environment Centre and is a full member of the Architecture Centre Network.

Urban Vision receives funding from a number of sources (see below) and works in three main areas: o Design Advisory Service o Education and Training o Creative Engagement It is the first of these – the Design Advisory Service - that is the focus of this report.

Urban Vision North Staffordshire (UVNS) has been providing a comprehensive range of independent design advice since the organisation began in 2004 and has ran a design review panel since the outset. Since 2007 UVNS has been a joint delivery partner, alongside Midlands Architecture and the Designed Environment (MADE), of the region-wide West Midlands Design Review Service.

The aims of the design advisory service are to improve design quality, raise awareness of the benefits of good design and to improve understanding of how to achieve it.

Contents

1.0 INTRODUCTION

3

2.0 THE POLICY BACKGROUND

4

2.1 2.2 2.3 2.4 2.5

THE NATIONAL PICTURE THE REGIONAL AND SUB-REGIONAL PICTURE THE IMPORTANCE OF GOOD DESIGN IN AN ECONOMIC DOWNTURN DESIGN REVIEW NATIONALLY NATIONAL RECOGNITION OF URBAN VISION’S PANEL

3.0 THE DESIGN ADVISORY SERVICE 3.1 3.2 3.3 3.4

DESIGN REVIEW DESIGN ENABLING THE ADVANTAGES OF A SUB-REGIONAL SERVICE FUTURE DIRECTION: DESIGN REVIEW PLUS

4.0 MONITORING THE SERVICE

4 4 5 6 7

8 8 11 12 14

15

4.1 WHAT ARE WE REVIEWING? 4.2 WHAT ARE WE RECOMMENDING?

16 19

5.0 THE EFFECTIVENESS OF THE SERVICE

23

5.1 PRIMA 200: A DESIGN REVIEW PANEL CLIENT CASE STUDY 5.2 THE URBAN DESIGN SPD: A DESIGN ENABLING CASE STUDY

24 30

6.0 OVERALL ASSESSMENT

32

7.0 SERVICE IMPROVEMENT PLAN

33

8.0 REFERENCES

36

APPENDIX A: A LIST OF DESIGN REVIEW SCHEMES TO MARCH 2010

37

APPENDIX B: PROJECTED MEETINGS DATES FOR 2010-11

42

2

1.0 Introduction Urban Vision’s Design Advisory Service has been operating in North Staffordshire for over five years and we are beginning to see the fruits of the hard work and financial resources that have been invested in this initiative. The 2009 North Staffordshire Regeneration Partnership Architecture and Urban Design Awards - images from the eight short-listed schemes are used throughout this report - show that we have started to raise design quality, but there is still some way to go to ensure that it continues improving and the economic prosperity that this will help to bring is encouraged and nurtured.

The purpose of this report is firstly, to show how the design advisory service which was funded primarily by Advantage West Midlands, with significant contributions from Renew the Housing Market Renewal Pathfinder, Stoke-on-Trent City Council, and Newcastle under-Lyme Borough Council is fundamental to the wider role of Urban Vision North Staffordshire in improving the quality of design in the sub-region; secondly, to update the progress of the service in the previous year including an analysis of the effect that it is having on the built environment and finally, to set out some guidelines for future enhancement and refinement of the service.

This report is a follow up to The Design Advisory Service: design review and enabling in North Staffordshire 2008/09 (UVNS, 2009) and Design Reviewed 2007 – how we do design review in North Staffordshire (UVNS, 2008).

Figure 1: Blue Planet, Chatterley Valley: winner of the 2009 NSRP Design Award

3

2.0 The Policy Background The following section addresses the need for a design advisory service in North Staffordshire by looking at the national, regional and sub-regional pictures before focussing on the need for good design in the aftermath of recession. There is also a brief look at where the Urban Vision Design Review Panel fits into the nationwide network of panels.

2.1 The national picture Following the publication of the report of the Urban Task Force’s Towards an Urban Renaissance (ODPM, 1999) the importance of delivering high quality architectural and urban design has been increasingly recognised and the Commission for Architecture and the Built Environment (CABE) have produced an extensive body of evidence to support this from By Design urban design in the planning system: towards a better place (DETR & CABE 2001) to Good design: the fundamentals (CABE, 2009). This culminated in the importance of good design being enshrined in national planning policy when in 2005 the Government issued PPS1: Delivering Sustainable Development (ODPM, 2005). This establishes good design as integral to good planning and has been supplemented by further policy including PPS6: Planning for Town Centres (ODPM, 2005) and PPS3: Housing (DCLG, 2006).

In addition to the Government policy statements referred to above, the fusion of the Housing Corporation and English Partnerships to form the Homes and Communities Agency (HCA) has resulted in a doubling of the already strong commitment to good design shown by both of its constituent parts. The excellent Urban Design Compendium 1&2 (English Partnerships and The Housing Corporation, 2008) uses the South East Design Review Panel as one of its case studies highlighting examples of good practice in the field of urban design.

Finally, CABE’s national design review panel was established in 1999 and has advised on around 4000 reviews. This has more recently been supplemented by the National Schools Panel and the London 2012 and the Crossrail panels that focus predominantly on the capital.

2.2 The regional and sub-regional picture The increased focus on quality design is evident in the Regional Spatial Strategy for the West Midlands (DCLG, 2008). This highlights the role of good design in providing successful physical and economic regeneration throughout and provides a strong framework with policies UR3: enhancing the role of the city, town and district centres and QE3: creating a high quality built environment for all being the most relevant.

Furthermore, the West Midlands Economic Strategy delivery framework, Connecting to Success (AWM, 2008) identifies Urban Vision North Staffordshire as being jointly responsible (along with MADE) for delivering both design review panels and design enabling region-wide in order to help raise the design, quality and environmental performance of the built environment in response to action 2.6.2 (p.65) which states:

4

“Ensure that the physical environment of our region adds value to our population’s quality of life and well-being via the forward planning of activity.”

Underlying the Regional Spatial Strategy is the joint Newcastle-under-Lyme and Stoke-onTrent Core Spatial Strategy adopted in October 2009. This document was presented to the Urban Vision Design Review Panel on a number of occasions and makes many references to the importance of good design throughout with CSP1: Design Quality providing the policy basis. Finally, the Urban Vision Design Review Panel is referred to specifically in the CSS:

“Each Local Planning Authority will continue to use the Urban Vision North Staffordshire Design Review Panel to provide specialist advice on major planning applications.”

The final piece in the policy jigsaw is the joint Newcastle-under-Lyme and Stoke-on-Trent Urban Design Supplementary Planning Document which has been approved by both local authorities for formal public consultation in April-May 2010. The key role played by Urban Vision in this process is discussed in detail in Section 5.2 of this report.

2.3 The importance of good design in an economic downturn The Centre for Cities report Cities Outlook 2010 (Centre For Cities, 2010) identifies Stokeon-Trent as being a city with a declining population, a low-skill workforce and a low wage economy. It has the lowest private sector job growth and one of the lowest number of new business start-ups in the country. The need to foster economic growth in such straitened times is ever more apparent.

Professor Michael Parkinson et al in The Credit Crunch and Regeneration: impact and implications (DCLG, 2009) highlights the vulnerability of areas of regeneration such as the North Staffordshire conurbation to the effects of the credit crunch and states:

“…economically and financially marginal places, projects and people are most vulnerable in the flight to quality and the avoidance of risk.”

Which is essentially saying that uncertainty has led many large developers, particularly in housing, to retreat to areas of greater economic stability. It does however point out that “The public sector is currently keeping the wheels of regeneration turning” and North Staffordshire, as a priority area of regeneration, has already had a commitment from the Homes and Communities Agency to invest in housing in the sub-region in order to capitalise key regeneration projects at City Waterside, Burslem and Middleport AMI and the former colliery sites at Silverdale and Chatterley Whitfield. Other large regeneration proposals continue in the city, including the new bus station and neighboring East West Precinct redevelopment. Urban Vision primarily through its design review panel has been involved and has an ongoing commitment to remain involved in all of these major regeneration areas.

It is vital that design quality is upheld despite the economic pressure to compromise and it is especially vital in vulnerable areas undergoing regeneration. In fact, in a time of shortage it is more important to ensure that scarce resources are invested wisely because poorly designed development will not deliver value for money.

5

Figure 2: Housing in Stoke-on-Trent: a scheme that prioritises design quality – Lock 38 shortlisted for the 2009 NSRP design award - and one that does not.

2.4 Design review nationally There is an emerging consensus that good design is vital in achieving sustainable physical and economic regeneration and good quality design advice - in the form of review and enabling - is a mechanism to help deliver this. What has been unclear until recently is the national coverage of design review and therefore where the service provided by Urban Vision fits into the national picture. The publication of the Survey of Local and Regional Design Review Panels, their Location, Type and Impact (CABE, 2009) has clarified this.

This survey undertaken by CABE and supported by the Royal Institute of British Architects (RIBA), the Royal Town Planning Institute (RTPI) and the Landscape Institute (LI) has discovered a vibrant and expanding sector. Aside from the CABE national design review panels there are: •

6 Regional Panels - covering 270 Local Planning Authorities

•

11 Sub-regional Panels - covering 78 Local Planning Authorities

•

64 Local Panels – each operating in only one Local Planning Authority

6

Of all the panels 71% have been established in the past five years with the majority of the longer established panels operating in just one local authority area.

The sub-regional design review panel managed by Urban Vision North Staffordshire has been in operation since October 2004 and has met on 60 occasions making it one of the oldest such panels in the country. Since 2007 when a regional panel covering the remainder of the West Midlands was established by MADE it has formed a part of a region-wide service, Design Review West Midlands. It was recognised in the recent nationwide review of design review panels that the West Midlands is unique in having its regional design review delivered by two separate but closely linked panels.

This dual panel arrangement allows for a more concentrated impact in the North Staffordshire regeneration area as the Urban Vision Design Review Panel is involved in all of the major developments in the sub-region. It has also allowed for the development of a combined design advisory service incorporating both design review and design enabling elements, as described in greater detail in the following section.

2.5 National recognition of Urban Vision’s panel Urban Vision’s design review panel is featured twice in CABE’s most recent guidance Design Review: principles and practice (CABE, 2009).

Firstly, the report features UVNS as a case study of a sub-regional panel and secondly as a result of David Wilson Homes being featured as a scheme promoter, citing their development at Silverdale Colliery – a scheme that has been before the UVNS panel on two occasions – as a positive experience of the design review process.

This guidance report can be downloaded from CABE’s website at: http://www.cabe.org.uk/publications/design-reviewprinciples-and-practice

Figure3: The Ashes in Endon – highly commended in the 2009 NSRP Design Award

7

3.0 The Design Advisory Service Urban Vision North Staffordshire provide a multi-level design advisory service, incorporating design review and design enabling elements. Though this is a holistic service and the boundaries are not always clear-cut, for the purposes of this report it has been separated into its constituent parts and these are discussed below.

3.1 Design review Urban Vision’s well-established design review panel, which could perhaps more accurately be termed a design advisory panel, remains the cornerstone of our design advisory service. The panel has always considered strategic planning documents, design briefs and options as well as the master plans and individual building proposals that followed, and we have actively sought to increase our involvement in these areas. The focused geographical area in which we work, an area that is currently subject to significant regeneration, makes this long-term involvement with key proposals possible. We feel that this intensive and continuous involvement has proven to be extremely valuable in maintaining the profile of design as a critical to successful regeneration and in maintaining and improving design quality as proposals move towards implementation.

Design Review Procedure The design review panel terms of reference define the details of the conduct of panel meetings, membership, criteria for referrals, the information required and the feedback process. A copy of the updated Terms of Reference is downloadable at www.uvns.org In order to maintain consistency all reviewed proposals are subject to the same processes and procedures to ensure all parties are kept well informed and that deadlines are met. It is because of the rigour of such procedures that it has been possible to expand the design review service with the provision of interim panel sessions when required. The value of careful programming and adherence to procedures is illustrated by the fact that Urban Vision has always managed to produce detailed formal comments on proposals within just five working days of the panel meeting.

Figure 4: Design Review Panel meetings in progress

8

Design Review Panel Membership The UVNS Design Review Panel currently comprises 27 members from a broad range of built environment professions, including architects, urban designers, planners, landscape architects and artists.

Design Review Panel Member List 2009-10 Chair Ted Cullinan

Architect

Vice Chairs Joe Holyoak

Architect/Urban Designer

Jon Phipps

Architect/Urban Designer

Alistair Sunderland

Architect

Geoff Wright

Planner/Urban Designer

Panel Members David Ainsley

Architect

Julian Baker

Architect

Jerry Birkbeck

Landscape Architect/Planner

John Bishop

Architect

Hugh Cannings

Architect

Dave Chetwyn

Planner/Heritage

Francis Collella

Landscape Architect

Annie Coombs

Landscape Architect

Rosemary Coyne

Sustainability/Landscape Architecture

Caroline Foxhall

Art and Regeneration

Bob Ghosh

Architect

Hilary Hughes

Artist

Chris Jones

Urban Designer

Dryden McNair Lewis

Architect/Urban Designer

Yaser Mir

Social Inclusion

Colin Morrison

Sustainability

Noha Nasser

Architect/Urban Designer

Patrick Redmond

Architect

Kevan Spink

Urban Designer/Landscape Architect

Michael Taylor

Heritage and Conservation

Tony Whitehead

Architect

NoĂŤlle Wright

Architect

Figure 5: Urban Vision North Staffordshire Design Review Panel Members

9

To date Panel membership has been open-ended, but in order to provide adequate refreshment and to comply fully with the guidance contained in CABE’s Design Review Panel: principles and practice (2009) this situation will change in 2010. Appointment to the Panel will be by invitation and will initially be for a period of four years, though this may be extended by agreement.

It is proposed that 25% of the Panel (seven members) stand down each year and that these are selected either by mutual agreement due to relocation, increased pressure of work etc. or by persistent non-attendance. If there are not enough candidates voluntarily standing down then a decision will be made by the Panel Manager in order to improve the balance of disciplines represented with criteria including length of tenure being invoked.

With regard to the selection of new Panel members efforts will be made to identify and approach individuals with the required skills and experience to replace those standing down and/or fill gaps in the current Panel. Suitable candidates will be identified from existing professional networks, professional institutes and recommendations, if after this process there are still insufficient candidates then we will advertise appropriately.

Design Review Reports The design review report structure has evolved since the start of the Urban Vision design review panel almost five years ago to reflect comments from panel members, those attending the panel and representatives of the Local Planning Authorities. Perhaps the most fundamental change made was the inclusion of ‘Recommended Actions’ at the end of each report back in 2005 and this has now become standard practice. There have been no changes to the report structure in the last year and the survey of panel applicants undertaken for this annual report (see section 4.2) indicates that they are widely considered to be effective.

It should be noted that if a scheme is returning to panel it is not always necessary to complete a detailed report and the further comments of the panel and recommendations are typically included in a letter. At all stages the prime function of the report – to inform the applicants and improve the design of the proposal – is at the forefront of our thought.

All design review reports that are in the public domain, i.e. all of those that were not reviewed at pre-application stage, are available for download on our website at: http://www.uvns.org/designreviewpanel/reviewarchive.php

Figure 6: The Online Design Review Panel Archive

10

3.2 Design enabling Since the organisation was founded Urban Vision’s professional staff team have been involved with many large projects in the sub-region in a design advisory capacity, providing what is essentially localised enabling service. This can be separated into two separate but interlinked strands and these are described below, with an example of each.

Direct enabling This is essentially the role that Urban Vision’s staff play in the development of key regeneration schemes, masterplans and other strategic planning documents and has in the past included work in Stoke-on-Trent City Centre, the University Quarter and Newcastle-under-Lyme Town Centre. The largest example of this has been the project management of the Newcastle-under-Lyme and Stoke-on-Trent Urban Design Supplementary Planning Document (SPD).

Urban Vision project managed the production of the Urban Design SPD on behalf of a client group comprising Stokeon-Trent City Council, Newcastle-underLyme Borough Council, RENEW North Staffordshire and Advantage West Midlands. The design guide was produced

by Tibbalds Planning and Urban Design and will be part of the two local authorities’ Local Development Frameworks once it has been formally adopted in 2010. The involvement of Urban Vision in the production of this important document is evaluated in section 5.2 of this report.

Figure 7: A Design SPD consultation event at the School Of Art, Burslem

Enabling using the panel There are many examples of the way that Urban Vision has used the design review panel in an enabling capacity, at a stage prior to the commissioning of a design team. Over the last five years we have reviewed many briefs and guidance notes ensuring that good quality design is embedded in the process from the outset. Often this is part of an ongoing involvement with a particular project and written into the brief is a requirement to present to design review panel at key stages.

An example of this can be seen in the work we have been doing in Longton. Urban Vision have led the Visioning Longton project since 2007 working closely with the community scoping ideas for the regeneration of what is the eastern portal to the potteries. This work has included the staging of a ‘Visioning Panel’ held at Longton Town Hall in March 2008 where selected members of our design review panel took part in a workshop to scope ideas for the town. This was instrumental in the decision to commission a masterplan for the town and the design review panel have continued their involvement by reviewing the masterplan brief in 2009 and have the first review of the emerging masterplan scheduled for Spring 2010.

11

3.3 The advantages of a sub-regional service The relatively compact geographical area covered by the Urban Vision North Staffordshire Design Advisory Service (the shaded area on the map opposite) has a number of advantages, it enables us to operate in a way that regional panels covering a far wider area are unable to achieve.

It means that we can:

Be involved in some capacity in all major initiatives We have been involved already and will continue to be involved in each of the major regeneration initiatives in North Staffordshire including the ÂŁ282 million education-led regeneration UniQ, the ÂŁ250 million redevelopment of the East West Precinct in the city centre and various major housing-led regeneration initiatives from City Waterside to Silverdale.

Be involved in the development of key strategic planning documents This includes the Core Spatial Strategy, the emerging North Staffordshire Design Supplementary Planning Document and a raft of Area Action Plans and master plans. Our relationship with RENEW, the housing market renewal pathfinder, has strengthened and presentation to design review at key stages has been written into all recent brief documents.

Visit almost all design review sites prior to the meeting.

This was highlighted by panel members and applicants alike as being a significant advantage over other panels where it was not possible. It is clear that panel members who have had the opportunity to visit the site are able to make more effective comments, especially with regard to the context of the proposed development.

The detailed map of North Staffordshire reproduced overleaf shows where we have already reviewed development proposals and provides some indication of the intensity of our involvement in the sub-region and the extent to which the design advisory service can affect real change via an improvement in overall design quality and the significant economic regeneration benefits that will follow.

12

Mapping is reproduced from Ordnance Survey material with the permission of Ordnance Survey on behalf of the Controller of Her Majesty's Stationery Office Š Crown Copyright.

Unauthorised reproduction infringes Crown copyright and may lead to prosecution or civil proceedings. 100044061 (Urban Vision North Staffordshire).

Figure 8: Location of proposals presented to design review panel NB: The map focuses on the conurbation and excludes reviewed schemes located outside of this.

13

3.4 Future direction: design review PLUS In 2010 Urban Vision will be seeking to maximise the potential benefits of the design review panel in line with the evaluation conducted in 2009. The last report highlighted three key areas in which design review potentially benefited schemes, the most obvious being via direct changes to the design of the proposals but the other, equally important benefits relate to changes made to strategic documents and the CPD training that attendance at such an expert forum offers - not only to panel members and presenters but also to observers. This work also ties into CABE’s Engagement with Regional Design Review programme and funding has been secured to deliver the following programme in 2010-11. Many of the following events will be delivered alongside MADE. Observers’ Programme This programme is designed to encourage attendance at each design review panel by up to two observers. These will be people who make decisions about the design and commissioning of development as well as relevant stakeholders, for example within health and education. At the meeting observers will receive an induction pack including agendas and background information including this report, following the meeting they will be sent copies of the final design review reports (in confidence) and invitations to other activities showcasing and explaining design review. Observers’ feedback will inform the design review evaluation process.

Design Review Induction Event This is training seminar for 25 or more professional architects, town planners, and developers scheduled for May 2010. It will explain the regional design review, presenting evidence to show its effectiveness and highlighting how to get the most out of it. Existing literature, film and research on design review will be disseminated, including material produced by CABE. We will also be holding a mock design review panel, looking at a scheme from outside of the region that has already been through design review.

Peer Review This comprises, five training seminars (2 in North Staffordshire delivered by UVNS and 3 regional examples delivered by MADE) for individual local planning authorities from across the region involving review of two directly comparable examples of built developments, one of which had been through design review and another which had not. The events will include site visits, and an analysis of the design qualities of each. A final report will disseminate findings.

Open Panel A specially selected design which will be open to the representatives, councillors encouraged. It is envisaged

review meeting organized by MADE and supported by UVNS public, cross-sectoral local authority officers, private sector and community representatives. Media involvement will be that around 50 people will be involved.

Visioning for High Quality Places symposium MADE will organise a regional symposium to demonstrate how design review can help embed convincing visions of the future of places in Local Development Framework documents. UVNS will provide a 30 minute case study-based presentation at the proposed symposium, using our experience in reviewing planning policy documents to integrate design at all levels of Local Development Frameworks. CABE staff will be consulted in the development of material and the delivery of the event.

14

4.0 Monitoring the Service This section includes a brief description of the methodology adopted followed by an analysis of the data. The monitoring methodology adopted is separated into three distinct strands: What are we reviewing?

This is essentially a quantitative analysis of the measurable outputs of design review. The analysis of key outputs is reliant upon a robust design review database and this was designed and implemented during 2007. Once the basic information is inputted for each scheme being reviewed a simple analysis of the core data from the design review database is all that is required to answer the key questions about the design review service in North Staffordshire. These key questions have been identified as: 

Where are our reviewed schemes?



At what stage are proposals reviewed?



How many proposals are reviewed each year?



How have the type of schemes reviewed changed?



What sort of schemes are we reviewing?

What are we recommending?

This is simply an analysis of what the panel is saying and how often we are saying it.

This has been drawn for the resource of over 200 design review reports and shows what the deficiencies are in the proposals that are brought before panel.

How effective is our service?

Following on from the case studies included in the 2009 evaluation report this section includes a detailed client case study, looking at Prima 200 and their 11 design review sessions over 5 different schemes since 2006. There is also a detailed analysis of Urban Vision’s involvement in the production of the Newcastle-under-Lyme and Stoke-on-Trent Urban Design SPD.

Figure 9: Swan Square, Burslem – shortlisted for the 2009 NSRP Design Awards

15

4.1 What are we reviewing?

The following section contains a full analysis of the first five years of Urban Vision’s Design Review Service and sets out to address the questions referred to above.

Where are our reviewed schemes?

The chart shows that almost two thirds of the schemes reviewed are in the Stoke-onTrent City Council area (121) almost one-third from the Borough of Newcastle-under-Lyme (73) and in the last year an increasing number of schemes from Staffordshire Moorlands District Council (22). It should be noted that some of the strategic documents cover more than one local authority area.

At what stage are proposals reviewed?

The chart opposite shows all schemes that have been to design review panel since it began in 2004 and shows clearly that the majority have now been reviewed at the pre-planning stage (green). However, it is expected that this situation has changed over time - with more now being reviewed earlier - and so the data has been broken down further overleaf.

16

How many proposals are reviewed each year?

The table above shows that in the five years since the design review service has been in operation there was initially an increasing number of proposals reviewed by the panel and this has now reached a plateau at around 40 schemes per year. It should be noted that this is not an entirely accurate measure of the work undertaken as these schemes vary considerably in size and complexity.

How have the type of schemes reviewed changed?

The table above shows the design review panel in North Staffordshire is increasingly seeing more preliminary schemes (green) and less live applications (red) – indeed there were only two of these in 2009-10. This can partly be explained by the increase in use of the design review panel to report on strategic documents and proposals but is also as a result of the service having become embedded in the sub-region. Both of these developments are welcomed as they are in line with good practice in design review and the agreed direction that the service should be taking, i.e. influencing the design process at an early stage before key decisions have been made and positions have not become entrenched.

17

What sort of schemes are we reviewing?

Since 2004 we have reviewed a broad range of proposals at design review panel, with as might be expected residential schemes being the most common at around a third of all schemes reviewed. There has been a noticeable decline in the number of housing schemes coming through design review as might be expected in the current economic environment.

To interrogate this the charts overleaf show housing as a percentage of all schemes reviewed and it can be seen that other public sector development; education, healthcare and community buildings have been filling this void.

Residential schemes at review

Education, Healthcare and Community schemes at review

18

Figure10: Knutton terraces heritage works - shortlisted for the 2009 NSRP Design Award

4.2 What are we recommending?

The illustrated table overleaf shows the top 12 most recommended actions, this is an update for the work carried out for the last report and shows that although the recommendations are broadly similar there are some important additions.

19

1 2 3 4 5 6 20

7 8 9 10 11 12 21

In order to get a full impression of the scope of recommendations made by the Urban Vision Panel, the table below sets out the frequency of all recommendations made.

It can be assumed that the frequency of the recommendations made by the panel reflect the common weaknesses of the proposals put forward for review and that using the most recommended actions as a checklist might be a good starting point for potential developers in North Staffordshire, or indeed anywhere!

Figure 11: Bridgewater Bridge – shortlisted for the 2009 NSRP Design Award

22

5.0 The Effectiveness of the Service The Design Advisory Service report produced in 2009 contained an analysis of the effectiveness of the service conducted using two questionnaire surveys, firstly of design review panel users and also of design review panel members. See The Design Advisory Service: design review and enabling in North Staffordshire 2009 (UVNS, 2009) for more details.

This revealed applicants that were coming to review increasingly of their own volition, and more and more at pre-application stage, supporting the quantitative analysis earlier in the report. It also revealed that they were almost all happy with the service that was provided and felt that it was effective. The survey of panel members supported what we at Urban Vision had been increasingly convinced of, namely that the design quality of schemes coming to the panel had improved and that this was as a result of the presence of the design review system. In addition to the surveys the last report included five case studies of individual development proposals, analysing each to see how their design quality improved as a result of design review.

Together, both of the surveys and the case studies helped to develop the service improvement plan included in the last report and an analysis of how this has been responded to is included in Section 4.4 of this report.

In order not to merely duplicate or update this work but instead to interrogate it in a more systematic way the analysis of the Panel’s effectiveness this year we will focus on one client who has had multiple schemes through the design review process at Urban Vision.

Figure 12 Cauldon Care CoVE – shortlisted for the 2009 NSRP Design Awards

23

5.1 Prima 200: a design review panel client case study Prima 200 is a Local Improvement Finance Trust (LIFT) company serving the areas covered by NHS North Staffordshire and NHS Stoke-on-Trent and is a part of Prime PLC. They have been responsible for developing a range of Primary Care Centres across the sub-region and five of these have been through the design review process, see the map below.

Prima 200 Proposals at UVNS 1

Mill Rise Village

At design review panel in April 2006, October 2006 and in March 2007 Completed June 2009

2

Shelton Primary Care Centre

At design review panel in May 2006 Completed April 2008

3

Cobridge Primary Care Centre

At design review panel in November 2008 and again in March 2009 Planning permission granted 2009

4

Meir Primary Care Centre

At design review panel in July 2009 and again in September 2009 Currently pre-planning

5

Biddulph Primary Care Centre

At design review panel in December 2009, January and March 2010 Currently pre-planning

As a result of Prima 200 bringing forward a number of key community facilities and development of an on-going relationship with the design review process in north Staffordshire they have been selected as a ‘client case study’. This initially comprises of a brief description of each of the schemes and is followed by an analysis on the impact of design review on each one individually and an assessment of the change in relationship between the design review panel and the developer.

24

1 Mill Rise Village

DRP035

The scheme is located in the Housing Market Renewal Pathfinder’s Knutton and Cross Heath Area of Major Intervention (AMI), involved eight partner organisations and was completed in June 2009. This was the first Prima 200 proposal to come to the Urban Vision panel in April 2006 and returned in October 2006 and again in March 2007.

Prima 200 worked with Newcastle-under-Lyme Borough Council, RENEW, English Partnerships and the Housing Corporation (now HCA) to develop a master plan for the site which also includes a housing development. Phase 1 involved the development of a modern primary care centre with extra care apartments First Review At the initial review the design review panel were supportive of the development of such a facility in this location but had reservations about the monolithic nature of the building.

They felt strongly that the scheme would benefit from some detailed urban design analysis so that the benefits of the site could be maximised – specifically making the most of the elevated position, the southern aspect and the position on the main road.

Second Review The scheme was represented to panel as a live planning application and there was disappointment that the earlier recommendations had not been taken on board. The panel felt that the design was being hampered by the procurement process and that the jointventure design and build approach had led to a development of a single building on the site when perhaps greater separation was more suitable.

Third Review Mill Rise Village returned to panel for the final time as a pin-up proposal when the scheme was resubmitted for planning approval and although the prime concern over the procurement had not been addressed the panel welcomed the alterations to the public open space and the improvements to the architecture of the extra care element but felt that the building still fell short of the aspiration to become a landmark development.

Overall With the benefit of hindsight it can be seen that the Mill Rise Village development perhaps came to design review too late in the process, when key decisions about procurement had already been made and as a result it was not possible to respond to the most pressing of the panel’s demands. There were however a number of improvements made as a result of the panels involvement and these are welcomed.

25

2 Shelton Primary Care Centre

DRP036

Shelton PCC came to panel in May 2006 and was opened in April 2008. This three-storey centre serves 15,000 patients in one the country’s most deprived communities.

The building accommodates three general practices and provides a host of services, including outpatient clinics which reduce the need for many patients to visit a hospital.

Prima 200 worked with British Waterways to masterplan the site, which includes a new housing development to the rear of the new centre. The project also involved the renovation of the Wharfinger’s Cottage, known as Lock House, which is now Prima 200’s Head Office.

Design Review The Shelton Primary Care Centre came to design review panel on one occasion, at a relatively late stage, as a live planning application. Although the panel were supportive of the contemporary architecture and the relevant palette of materials there was a concern over the lack of urban design analysis and the subsequent relationship of the building to the site, the report stated:

“The Panel were concerned that this significant proposal had been allowed to reach such an advanced stage in the design process before it was presented for design review.“ Overall It can be seen that as a result of the timing of the review the scheme was already at a stage where making fundamental changes, such as variations to the site layout, would have not been economically viable and whilst the panel appreciated the need for the integrated development and the clean contemporary design - that was considered to be a significant improvement on the earlier Mill Rise Village proposal - there was a feeling that an opportunity to tie the building into the street more successfully had been missed.

26

3 Cobridge Primary Care Centre

DRP117

The proposals for a Primary Care Centre in Cobridge initially came to design review in November 2008 and a radically redesigned scheme was represented in March 2009. An analysis of this process is included in last years Design Advisory Service Report (UVNS, 2009).

Commissioned by NHS Stoke on Trent the new Health Centre in Cobridge will bring a number of health care facilities under one roof, offering a wider range of services to treat more people outside of hospital.

First Review The scheme was initially reviewed at an early stage and, in a similar way to the Shelton Primary Care Centre over two years previously, the Panel welcomed the provision of the combined facility and the clean contemporary architecture but here were however major concerns over the appropriateness of the scale and massing of the proposed building and its location on the large block on the site. There was also concern over the location of the car parking which dominated the street frontage and did not place the church in a suitable setting.

Second Review When the revised scheme was re-presented to Panel in March 2009 there was unanimous support for the way that the earlier recommendations had been responded to. The Panel were particularly supportive of the way that the new layout both repairs the street edge and places the church in an improved setting - aided by the evident use of an experienced landscape architect - and the relocation of a substantial amount of the car parking across Grange Street onto a newly acquired site.

Overall Cobridge Primary Care centre provides a clear example of the benefits of early attendance at design review and a open and responsive attitude to the process. The revised scheme is more responsive to context and in the opinion of the panel manages to successfully “recreate a village centre for Cobridge�.

27

4 Meir Primary Care Centre

DRP138

The analysis and early stage proposals for Meir Primary Care Centre first came to Urban Vision’s design review panel in July 2009 and returned again just two months later as a more developed scheme.

The proposed building is located on a key corner site in the heart of Meir and in line with other similar schemes it is proposed that it will bring seven GP practices together and a range of additional health services onto one site.

First Review Analysis and early ideas for a proposed Primary Care Centre in Meir were presented to panel in July 2009 and the panel were supportive commenting that the location, siteplanning, scale and massing were broadly appropriate. There were some specific suggestions about the future development of the design focussed mainly around accessibility and connectivity.

Second Review Just two months after the initial review a more developed design solution was presented to a panel containing one member who had been involved in the earlier review. Overall, the panel were very pleased with the response to the report, they felt that each of the six recommendations had been responded to well and were broadly supportive of the architectural design approach that had been followed in working up the scheme. There were however some concerns over the way that this had been expressed in detail and suggestions made to improve this in key areas.

Overall The initial analysis and design ideas were well received from the outset and the response to more detailed comments has been encouraging. It is thought that this scheme has benefited greatly from the experienced gained from the earlier primary care centres and shows the benefits of a long term engagement with design review.

28

5 Biddulph Primary Care Centre

DRP150

Wharf Road a back land site currently occupied by a car park in the centre of Biddulph was identified as the location of a new Primary Care Centre tasked with amalgamating three existing GPO practices and a range of other healthcare services.

Early analysis and scale and massing ideas were presented to panel in December 2009. The scheme was developed and returned to panel just one month later for a second review and finally appeared as a pin-up item on the agenda in March 2010.

First Review The panel appreciated the very early stage at which these proposals were presented and after due consideration felt that the approach adopted in the scale and massing option 5 was appropriate for the site. There were recommendations made about the use of the sloping topography, the entrance(s) to the building and the design of the outside space.

Second Review The second review, at the very next meeting of the design review panel highlighted one of the problems of re-reviewing schemes in that the panel did not contain any of the members who had sat in December. The temptation not to go back to matters already covered in the earlier review was not wholly averted and this led to a longer and more difficult review than anticipated. When limited to the previously made recommendations however the panel felt that these had been responded to well but required further detailed design work.

Pin-up Review At the brief pin-up consideration of the scheme in March 2010 the panel remained broadly supportive of the scheme but had some concerns over the detailed design, specifically in connection with the signposting of the entrance, the softening of the elevations, the effectiveness of the glazed section and the number of materials specified.

Overall With hindsight the gap between the first reviews was probably not sufficient and the briefing of the second panel could have been more explicit. This led to some difficulty with members of the second panel disagreeing with some of the earlier advice and this was regrettable.

However, this was resolved and a way forward emerged.

29

5.2 The urban design SPD: a design enabling case study The Newcastle-under-Lyme and Stoke-on-Trent Urban Design Supplementary Planning Document is a joint initiative of two local authorities to provide comprehensive urban design guidance for the whole of their areas. The initiative was supported by both Renew North Staffordshire the Housing Market Renewal Pathfinder and Advantage West Midlands.

The Process The brief was produced by Urban Vision North Staffordshire acting for a client group comprising Renew North Staffordshire, Stoke-on-Trent City Council and Newcastle-underLyme Borough Council. A working group was formed which consisted of the client group, CABE, English Heritage, Advantage West Midlands and Urban Vision: this group were actively involved in the selection of consultants Tibbalds Planning and Urban Design to undertake the work, and gave detailed advice on drafts, procedure, and reference material at key stages throughout the process.

Consultation As the urban design guidance was to be formally adopted as a Supplementary Planning Document (SPD) it was considered essential to involve prospective users well in advance of the formal public consultation stage, as part of a front-loaded consultation process.

This process helped to instil a sense of ownership in the emerging guidance and will ensure that many prospective users are aware of the document and how it works..

Figure 13: SPD consultation in progress

Training In parallel with the production of the urban design guidance Urban Vision were commissioned to deliver an urban design skills training programme for officers and members from the two local authorities and regeneration professionals. This programme was designed around the production of the urban design guidance and enabled prospective users of the guidance from the public and private sectors to have an input from the outset, and to influence the focus and contents of the document. Consultation and training events facilitated user feedback on urban design issues in the area, on the strategic urban design vision and principles, and on understanding and using the document. At certain stages in the process specific user groups – planning officers, elected members, or private practitioners and developers - were involved in consultation events to the exclusion of other groups.

The document The guidance has been produced in an interactive pdf format, so that it can be used as a computer-based reference tool by planning officers, architects and developers. The interactive format enables easy navigation via a series of hyperlinks on each page giving instant access to related parts of the document. The electronic format provides a comprehensive search facility for any given subject. It is also sustainable as it eliminates the need to print hard copies.

30

The Urban Design Supplementary Planning Document comprises four main components.

The urban design vision and strategic principles set out the broad aims of the guidance and the fundamental principles against which development proposals should be assessed. Then the process for securing good design is explained, including how to prepare a design and access statement.

Then character area guidance is provided for the eight town centres, the canal and river network, and the local transport corridors.

Figure 14: The Urban Design Guidance SPD

Finally, thematic guidance is given for residential and employments development, historic and rural areas, and for the public realm. Once formally adopted the guidance will be available in the form of a 20 page printed summary with a CD insert containing the interactive pdf.

Evaluation In several ways the production of the Newcastle-under-Lyme and Stoke-on-Trent Urban Design Supplementary Planning Document has been a model of best practice. 

It is the product of strong collaborative working between two local authorities, and key regional and national agencies, over the duration of the project.



The role of Urban Vision as independent project managers and advisors helped in fostering the relationship between the partners.



The advisory partnership helped secure one of the country’s best urban design consultancies to prepare the guidance.



It benefits from extensive front-loaded consultation and testing with all the key user groups, as a result of the training and consultation programme led by Urban Vision.



It is in a convenient, attractive and well-illustrated electronic format, which makes the guidance accessible and useable for planning officers and design professionals alike.



It is probably unique in its scope, ranging from the strategic sub-regional level to the level of house extensions and materials, which is a result of the efforts which have gone into ensuring the guidance is locally distinctive rather than merely generic.



The issues and opportunities surrounding sustainable development were integrated throughout the document as a cross-cutting theme, which over time will help embed these considerations ever more firmly into the design process.

Overall The involvement of Urban Vision provided an enabling resource with expertise in the field, local knowledge and continuity of support, which maintained co-ordination and consistency over what became a two-year plus project period. Alongside this the involvement of CABE, English Heritage and Advantage West Midlands provided a continual input of advice at critical stages, which ensured that the original intentions were not overwhelmed and the client group’s aspirations were eventually fulfilled.

31

6.0 Overall Assessment It can be seen that the design advisory service continues to play a crucial role in the campaign to raise design quality in North Staffordshire. Again, the influence of the design review panel in particular, combined with the integrated approach to design enabling and review is appreciated by local authorities, applicants and built environment professionals alike. The benefits go beyond the individual schemes reviewed, they affect the policy framework that forms the basis for all new development and the professional training affects on all involved is crucial, if difficult to quantify.

The proof of the long-term value of Urban Vision’s independent design advisory service and the rise in design quality that it has helped foster can be illustrated by looking at the standard of the short-listed schemes for the inaugural North Staffordshire Regeneration Partnership Architecture and Urban Design Award that illustrate this report. The shortlist tells only part of the story however as several other high quality developments failed to make it that far. Standards are rising and despite the current economic downturn they continue to rise, this is vital if the sub region is to become an economic success story.

Figure 15: Some of the long listed schemes from the 2009 NSRP design award

32

7.0 Service Improvement Plan This section contains a response to the most recent service improvement plan followed by some identified areas of improvement for 2010-2011.

A response to the 2009 service improvement plan The data analysis and surveys undertaken for the last report led to a service improvement plan and a response to this 1. The display of drawings could be better organised – we will investigate this further and potentially purchase a display system suitable for both pinning paper drawings and boards.

Since the last report we have been liaising more directly with applicants about their display requirements and have when required assembled display boards prior to the panel meeting. In addition, we have used more electronic presentations and this has raised an issue over the speed/capacity of the design review laptop which will be addressed.

2. Timekeeping – This could be significantly improved as sessions regularly overrun and meetings continue far beyond the allotted time. Some panel members complained of overly crowded agendas and although an attempt has been made to address this by limiting the number of schemes to be considered at each meeting and by being more flexible with time slots this will be continually monitored.

Efforts have been made to limit agendas and inform Chairs about the time constraints, with some limited success. A note to chairs which covers this and a number of other issues will be distributed at the first suitable opportunity.

3. Attendance of representatives of the LPA – Both panel members and applicants raised this issue and both felt that it was beneficial. It was however noted that one of the local authorities concerned regularly sent planning officers to attend design review meetings and this was welcomed. It is understood that time pressures do not always allow for this and so further efforts will be made to liaise more closely with the relevant case officers prior to the meeting so as to get a better briefing on the planning issues prior to or during the review. Furthermore, the potential to market the design review process to local authorities as valuable CPD will be fully explored.

We will continue to invite representatives of the LPA to relevant meetings and in addition are about to embark on a formal Design Review Observers Programme aimed at introducing as many built environment professionals as practicable to the process.

4. Continuity of panel members on revisited schemes – Both panel members and applicants expressed a wish for greater continuity between panels when schemes returned for a second review. Although this is desirable it is extremely difficult to arrange given the complexity of arranging panel member attendance and the notice periods required. We will continue to do this wherever the periods of notification are adequate and the relevant panel members availability allows.

33

Again, this has posed some difficulties during the last year but these are inevitable when schemes return to panel for a second review and the panel does not include any of the original members. When this does occur clear guidance has been given by the design review panel manager to limit the scope of the second review to the changes and developments made since the initial presentation and this has had some success.

5. Feedback on effectiveness – Some panel members requested feedback on schemes that they had reviewed and although this is often given verbally there is no formal procedure in place. The case studies included in this report go some way towards providing feedback on some schemes but a panel trip to completed DRP schemes for local authority officers, members and design review panel members will be organised in 2009.

There were two Peer Review events held in 2009 when local authority officers visited schemes that had been through design review and compared and contrasted these with similar developments that had not. These events were considered very successful by all who attended and we will be running two similar events during 2010. Invitations will be extended to design review panel members.

6. Strengthening the panel – We are confident that we have a strong multidisciplinary panel in place already but in 2009 we will be looking to supplement this by appointing a further panel member with expertise in the field of sustainable design, to supplement Rosemary Coyne and a panel member experienced in the field of social inclusion, in direct response to the CABE publication Inclusion by Design: equality, diversity and the built environment (CABE, 2008).

Two new panel members, Colin Morrison and Yaser Mir, were appointed during 2009 to provide the skills and experience identified above, both have attended panel meetings and are scheduled to attend more in the current year.

Overall, it is felt that the procedural aspects of design review have largely been ironed out over the duration of the seventy five meetings that we have held thusfar, although there are some matters that need continual attention and these are highlighted in the 2010-11 service improvement plan described overleaf.

Figure 16: A design review panel meeting in progress

34

Service Improvement Plan 2010-11 The following points concentrate on two main areas. Firstly, improving the way that the design review process is managed – although as described above most of the operational issues have now been resolved there is always a need to continue to improve the delivery of the service. Secondly, and it could be argued most importantly, the service improvement plan is focussed on extracting the maximum value from the design review process, increasing the impact and engaging with as wide an audience as possible.

1. Strengthening and refreshing the panel - The terms and conditions included in the appendix to this report show the proposed method of achieving this in a gradual and managed way, enabling the panel to retain its character whilst introducing new people and strengthening identified areas. For example, in light of the likely involvement with a number of school developments in 2010-11 we will be looking to include more panellists with experience in this field. We will also be seeking to secure the membership of a suitable highways engineer.

2. Improving the guidance to panel members and chairs - Some new and improved terms and conditions along with some additional guidance will be issued to all panel members during 2010. These documents will be clear and concise and should prove useful to existing as well as new panel members. In addition this form part of the information distributed to design review applicants and observers prior to the meeting.

3. Learning from design review - Following the conclusions in last years report highlighting the wider value of the design advisory service in raising the design agenda and providing valuable professional training for all involved, the CABE funded programme described in Section 3.3 as Future Direction: design review plus has been developed. This will involve a range of publicity, training and observing opportunities with a view to involving as many built environment professionals in the process as possible.

4. Reflection and analysis - A body of work is emerging that not only empirically describes the value of the design review process but also, via a series of case studies, looks at the impact of the process and suggests ways that this might be improved.

The annual reports have provided the main vehicle for reflection and analysis and will remain so, but it is intended to supplement this with a web-based resource. As time passes the number of schemes that have been through the design review process that are complete increases and it is suggested that the 2011 report will focus on these developments.

5. Improving the web-based resource – As discussed above the annual report will continue to be available for download at www.uvns.org but it is also intended to include the case studies of schemes that have been through the design review process on-line so that the maximum value can be extracted from them. In addition to this the Urban Vision e-bulletin which will be issued monthly from April 2010 will contain news of schemes coming to design review and links to relevant further information.

35

8.0 References AWM:

Connecting to Success: West Midlands Economic Strategy Delivery Framework May2008/09 (AWM, 2008)

CABE:

By Design urban design in the planning system: towards a better place (DETR & CABE 2001)

CABE:

Inclusion by Design: Equality, diversity and the built environment (CABE, 2008)

CABE

Design Review: principles and practice (CABE, 2009)

CABE:

Shape the Future: Corporate Strategy 2008/09 – 20010-11 (CABE, 2009)

CABE:

Survey of local & regional design review panel their location, type and impact (CABE, 2009)

CABE:

Good design: the fundamentals (CABE, 2009)

Centre For Cities:

Cities Outlook 2010 (Centre For Cities, 2010)

DCLG

Planning Policy Statement 3: Housing (DCLG, 2006).

GOWM

Regional Spatial Strategy for the West Midlands (DCLG, 2008)

HCA

Urban Design Compendium 1&2 (English Partnerships and The Housing Corporation, 2008

ODPM

Planning Policy Statement 1: Delivering Sustainable Development (HMSO, 2005)

ODPM

Planning Policy Statement 6: Planning for Town Centres (ODPM, 2005)

Parkinson et al:

The Credit Crunch & Regeneration: Impact and implications (DCLG, 2009)

Urban Task Force

Towards an Urban Renaissance (ODPM, 1999)

UVNS

Design Reviewed 2007 – how we do design review in North Staffordshire (UVNS, 2008)

UVNS

The Design Advisory Service: design review and enabling in North Staffordshire 2009 (UVNS, 2009)

36

Appendix A: a list of design review schemes to March 2010 .

Meeting Ref.

DRP1 28/10/2004

DRP2 9/12/2004

DRP3 3/02/2005

DRP4 10/3/2005

DRP5 28/4/2005

DRP6 9/6/2005

DRP7 16/7/2005

DRP8 28/7/2005

DRP9 22/9/2005

DRP10 20/10/2005

DRP11 17/11/2005

DRP12 15/12/2005

DRP13 19/1/2006

DRP14 16/2/2006

DRP15 16/3/2006

Details of reviewed proposals

DR001

Newcastle Town Centre Public Realm Strategy

DR002

Development of 419 dwellings Greenhead Street, Burslem, Stoke-on-Trent

DR003

Business and employment park Chatterley Valley, Stoke-on-Trent

DR004

Masterplan of former Chatterley Whitfield colliery, Stoke-on-Trent

DR005

Proposed 90-bedroom Hotel Barleston, Stoke-on-Trent

DR006

Project Brief for Conversion of Grade II* Listed Building, Burslem, Stoke-on-Trent

DR007

Mixed-use residential & commercial development George Street, Newcastle-under-Lyme

DR008

Mixed-use residential and office development St Ann's Works, Marsh Street, Hanley,

DR009

Development of 146 dwellings, Cliffe Vale Pottery, Shelton New Road,

DR007

Mixed-use residential and commercial development George Street, Newcastle-under-Lyme

DR010

Development of 36 detached dwellings, Stone Road, Trentham, Stoke-on-Trent

DR011

Development of 101 apartments, former Zanzibar night club, Newcastle-under-Lyme

DR002

Development of 419 dwellings Greenhead Street, Burslem, Stoke-on-Trent

DR012

Relocation of Newcastle College, Knutton Lane, Newcastle-under-Lyme

DR013

Development of 92 apartments with commercial floorspace, The Midway, Newcastle-under-Lyme

DR015

Extensive external alterations to existing building, Stafford Street, Hanley, Stoke-on-Trent

DR014

Residential development at Crane Street / Woodall Street, Cobridge, Stoke-on-Trent

DR016

Retail development with a primary care centre and Health Club Alexandra Pottery, Tunstall

DR017

Mixed use commercial and residential development, Marsh Street, Hanley,

DR018

Development of 27 residential apartments Corn Mill, Myatt Street, Hanley,

DR019

Master Plan of former Silverdale Colliery site, Newcastle-under-Lyme

DR009

Development of 146 dwellings, Cliffe Vale Pottery, Shelton New Road,

DR020

Proposed office development, Upper Huntbach Street, Hanley, Stoke-on-Trent

DR021

Biddulph Area Action Plan preferred options, Biddulph, Staffordshire Moorlands

DR014

Residential development at Crane Street / Woodall Street, Cobridge, Stoke-on-Trent

DR022

Proposed university postgraduate research institute Keele University, Newcastle-under-Lyme

DR023

Proposed public realm improvements, Burslem town centre, Stoke-on-Trent

DR024

City Waterside masterplan Hanley, Stoke-on-Trent

DR025

Residential development at the former Eagle pottery, Hanley, Stoke-on-Trent

DR026

Development of 103 apartments, nursery and cafĂŠ, College Road, Shelton, Stoke-on-Trent

DR027

Proposed extra-care flats with day centre facilities, former Meir Primary School, Stoke-on-Trent

DR028

Development of 40 residential apartments, Rutland Road, Longton, Stoke-on-Trent

DR029

Area Action Plan preferred options for Knutton and Cross Heath, Newcastle-under-Lyme

DR008

Development of residential and offices, St Ann's Works, Marsh Street, Hanley

DR016

Retail development with a primary care centre and Health Club Alexandra Pottery, Tunstall

DR031

Residential redevelopment of nursing home St Augustine’s, Cobridge Road, Stoke-on-Trent

DR007

Mixed-use residential & commercial development George Street, Newcastle-under-Lyme

DR011

Development of 101 apartments, former Zanzibar night club, Newcastle-under-Lyme

DR032

Proposed residential development, Hanford test centre site, Stone Road, Stoke-on-Trent

DR033

Proposed industrial and logistics development Radial Park, Sideway, Stoke-on-Trent

DR022 DR023

Proposed university postgraduate research institute Keele University, Newcastle-under-Lyme Proposed public realm improvements, Burslem town centre, Stoke-on-Trent

37

DRP16

DR034

Proposed expansion of Keele University, Newcastle-under-Lyme

20/4/2006

DR035

Proposed primary care centre with extra-care, Lower Milehouse Lane, Newcastle-under-Lyme

DRP17

DR036

Proposed primary care centre, Planet Lock Wharf, Shelton, Stoke-on-Trent

DR037

Conversion and extension of former pottery works to residential, Falcon Pottery Hanley

DR038

Development of a casino and hotel, Waterloo Road, Hanley, Stoke-on-Trent

DR039

Development of 20 eco-apartments, Scotia Road, Tunstall, Stoke on Trent.

DR040

Newcastle-under-Lyme Town Centre Area Action Plan draft design policies

DR033

Proposed industrial and logistics development Radial Park, Sideway, Stoke-on-Trent

DR042

Proposed Caring Centre of Vocational Excellence, Cauldon Campus, Stoke-on-Trent

DR043

Proposed retail development, Biddulph, Staffordshire Moorlands

DR044

Proposed development of a large foodstore, Clough Street, Hanley

DR045

North Staffordshire Core Spatial Strategy Preferred Options Report

DR046

Proposed Business Centre at Lymedale, Newcastle-under-Lyme

DR031

Residential redevelopment of nursing home St Augustine’s, Cobridge Road, Stoke-on-Trent

DR047

Residential development, site of former Hanley pottery works, Stubbs Lane, Hanley

DR048

Proposed residential development, Ridgeway Road, Hanley, Stoke-on-Trent

DR049

Proposed residential development, former Simpson’s pottery, Cobridge, Stoke-on-Trent

DR017

Mixed use commercial and residential development, Marsh Street, Hanley,

DR050

Proposed residential development, Brunswick Street, Newcastle-under-Lyme

DR051

Consideration of architectural lighting of Regent Theatre. Hanley. Stoke-on-Trent

DR035

Proposed primary care centre with extra-care, Lower Milehouse Lane, Newcastle-under-Lyme

DR053

Proposed mixed-use development, former Etruria works, Shelton, Stoke-on-Trent.

DR054

Preliminary Design Brief for former Portmerion Site. London Road, Stoke

DR012

Relocation of Newcastle College, Knutton Lane, Newcastle-under-Lyme

DR027

Proposed extra-care flats with day centre facilities, former Meir Primary School, Stoke-on-Trent

DR042

Proposed Caring Centre of Vocational Excellence, Cauldon Campus, Stoke-on-Trent

DR039

Development of 20 eco-apartments, Scotia Road, Tunstall, Stoke on Trent.

DR055

Development of 307 dwellings, Scotia Road, Tunstall, Stoke-on-Trent.

DR056

Preliminary consideration of brief for the North Staffordshire Urban Design SPD

DR057

Proposed leisure village of 800 timber lodges including four wind turbines, Maer Hills

DR059

Proposed residential development, Furlong Passage, Burslem, Stoke-on-Trent.

DR012

Relocation of Newcastle College, Knutton Lane, Newcastle-under-Lyme

DR035

Proposed primary care centre with extra-care, Lower Milehouse Lane, Newcastle-under-Lyme

DR061

Proposed external re-modelling, Staffordshire University. Stoke-on-Trent.

50/04/07

DR066

City Centre Public Realm design competition: consideration of six shortlisted entries.

5/4/2007

DR055

Development of 307 dwellings, Scotia Road, Tunstall, Stoke-on-Trent.

DRP30

DR060

Proposed public realm improvement works, Swann Square. Burslem, Stoke-on-Trent

DR063

Development of 66 dwellings on the former bus depot site, Newcastle-under-Lyme

DR065

Proposed employment development, Goldendale West, Chatterley Valley, Stoke-on-Trent

DR033

Proposed industrial and logistics development Radial Park, Sideway, Stoke-on-Trent

DR058

Stoke-on-Trent transportation strategy urban design proposals

DR064

Proposed residential units, Ivy House Mills site, Hanley, Stoke-on-Trent

DR051

Proposed residential development, Brunswick Street, Newcastle-under-Lyme

DR067

Proposed contemporary eco-dwelling, Bignall End, Newcastle-under-Lyme

DR068

Development of sheltered residential accommodation, High Street, Wolstanton

18/5/2006

DRP18 15/6/2006

DRP19 20/7/2006

DRP20 3/8/2006

DRP21 17/8/2006

DRP22 21/9/2006

DRP23 19/10/2006

DRP24 16/11/2006

DRP25 14/12/2006

DRP26 18/01/07 18/1/2007 DRP27 15/2/2007

DRP28 15/3/2007

DRP29

19/4/2007

DRP31 17/5/2007

DRP32 7/6/2007

38

DRP33 20/6/2007

DRP34 19/7/2007

DRP35 16/8/2007

DRP37 20/9/2007

DRP38 4/10/2007

DRP39 18/10/2007

DRP40 15/11/2007

DRP41 13/12/2007

DRP42 24/1/2008

DRP43 7/2/2008

DRP44 21/2/2008

DRP45 6/3/2008

DRP46 20/3/2008

DRP47 17/4/2008

DRP48 15/5/2008

DRP49 19/6/2008

DR040

Newcastle-under-Lyme Town Centre Area Action Plan

DR045

North Staffordshire Core Spatial Strategy Preferred Options Report

DR069

Proposed retail and leisure development, Trentham Lakes, Stoke-on-Trent

DR070

Development of 220 residential units, former Victoria Ground site, Stoke-on-Trent

DR071

Proposed residential-led mixed-use scheme, Shearer Street, Stoke-on-Trent

DR062

Proposed residential-led mixed-use development, Royal Doulton site, Burslem, Stoke-on-Trent

DR072

Proposed residential development, Beasley Place, Chesterton

DR073

Development of 54 residential units, Lower Milehouse Lane, Newcastle-under-Lyme

DR074

University Quarter – masterplan

DR074

University Quarter – shared facilities

DR074

University Quarter – further education college

DR074

University Quarter – sixth form college

DR075

Development of 28 dwellings, Liverpool Road, Newcastle-under-Lyme

DR076

Proposed development of apartments, the White House, Clayton Rd, Newcastle Under Lyme

DR077

Staffordshire Moorlands Core Strategy, Issues & Options

DR078

Proposed retail-led mixed-use development, Spode pottery site, Stoke-on-Trent

DR079

Proposed relocation of the Olympus Engineering works to Garner Street, Hanley

DR080

Stoke-on-Trent City Centre Area Action Plan, preferred options

DR081

Proposed development of apartments, Belmont Works site, Stoke-on-Trent.

DR082

Consideration of retail development options, Crown Works site, Longton

DR083

Development of 96 residential units, former Bristol Street Motors site, Newcastle-under-Lyme

DR012

Relocation of Newcastle College, Knutton Lane, Newcastle-under-Lyme

DR017

Mixed use commercial and residential development, Marsh Street, Hanley,

DR084

Proposed Longton Masjid Community Centre, Longton, Stoke-on-Trent.

DR085

Conversion and extension of existing building to include 27 apartments Newhall St, Hanley.

DR008

Mixed-use residential and office development St Ann's Works, Marsh Street, Hanley,

DR011

Development of 101 apartments, former Zanzibar night club, Newcastle-under-Lyme

DR062

Proposed residential-led mixed-use development, Royal Doulton site, Burslem, Stoke-on-Trent

DR087

Proposed new national call centre facility, Festival Park, Stoke-on-Trent

DR088

Consideration of development options, Woodhouse Street site, Stoke-on-Trent

DR083

Development of 96 residential units, former Bristol Street Motors site, Newcastle-under-Lyme

DR089

Proposed housing-led, mixed-use development, Top Bridge pottery, Middleport, Stoke-on-Trent

DR090

Proposed replacement principal borough cemetery, Newcastle-under-Lyme

DR091

Development of Newcastle Sports Village, Liverpool Road, Newcastle-under-Lyme

DR093

Development of a large eco-warehouse plus offices Chatterley Valley, Newcastle-under-Lyme.

DR092

Consideration of infill housing development, Butts Green, Abbey Hulton, Stoke-on-Trent

DR038

Development of a casino and hotel, Waterloo Road, Hanley, Stoke-on-Trent

DR096

Proposed large foodstore, Biddulph, Staffordshire Moorlands

DR095

Development of out of town office park, Blythe Bridge, Staffordshire Moorlands

DR097

Visioning Longton

DR098

Proposed 300 unit retirement village, Blackshaw Moor, Staffordshire Moorlands

DR101

Proposed neighbourhood centre including housing, Ingestre Square, Blurton, Stoke-on-Trent

DR100

Contemporary single dwelling, Blythe Bridge, Staffordshire Moorlands

DR102

Redevelopment of the East West Precinct, Hanley, Stoke-on-Trent

DR103

Proposed development of large retail outlets, Waterloo Road, Hanley, Stoke-on-Trent

DR105

Proposals to develop 100 extra-care units and offices, Bilton Works site, Stoke

DR104

Development of two hotels and a foodstore, Georgia Pacific site, Newcastle-under-Lyme

DR106

Development of extra-care units and a new village hall, New Road, Madeley

DR099

Proposed 'Concept Living Pod' single dwelling at Brookwood, Pipegate

39

DRP50

DR107

Proposed extra-care housing development, London Mill, Leek

17/7/2008

DR108

Consideration of the Fegg Hayes and Chell Heath masterplan options, Stoke-on-Trent

DRP51

DR109

Newcastle-under-Lyme Town Centre Supplementary Planning Document

DR110

North Staffordshire Design Guidance Supplementary Planning Document

DR111

Newcastle-under-Lyme town centre public realm improvements

DR112

Sustainable refurbishment of apartments, Lauder Place North, Bentilee

DR073

Development of 54 residential units, Lower Milehouse Lane, Newcastle-under-Lyme

DR113

Development of 70 houses at the former Clanway brickworks site, Tunstall, Stoke-on-Trent.

DR114

Development of a foodstore, Liverpool Rd, Newcastle-under-Lyme

DR068

Development of sheltered residential accommodation, High Street, Wolstanton

DR045

Newcastle-under-Lyme and Stoke-on-Trent Core Spatial Strategy

DR115

Proposed infill development of 46 houses, Meir, Stoke-on-Trent

DR101

Proposed neighbourhood centre including housing, Ingestre Square, Blurton, Stoke-on-Trent

DR102

Redevelopment of the East West Precinct, Hanley, Stoke-on-Trent

DR116

Draft City Centre Public Realm Strategy, Stoke-on-Trent

DR117

Proposed primary care centre, Cobridge, Stoke-on-Trent

DR104

Development of two hotels and a foodstore, Georgia Pacific site, Newcastle-under-Lyme

DR120

Development of a community farm, Knutton, Newcastle-under-Lyme

DR119

Consideration of Draft Knutton Masterplan Options, Newcastle-under-Lyme

DR121

Consideration of Silverdale Colliery master plan, Newcastle-under-Lyme

DR123

Proposed new fire station and community facility, Hanley, Stoke-on-Trent

DR123

Proposed new fire station and community facility, Newcastle-under-Lyme

DR124

Proposed residential development, Wesport Road, Burslem, Stoke-on-Trent

DR122

Consideration of Canal Quarter Masterplan, Hanley, Stoke-on-Trent

DR125

Meir Area Regeneration Framework options, Stoke-on-Trent

DR126

Proposed new training facility for Stoke City, Trent Vale, Newcastle-under-Lyme

DR127

Consideration of proposals to develop a training facility for Stoke City

DR128

Development of a drive-through restaurant, Liverpool Road, Newcastle-under-Lyme

DR129

Consideration of Middleport masterplan draft options

DR130

Proposed office-led, mixed-use scheme, site of Majestic Building, Hanley, Stoke-on-Trent

DR117

Proposed primary care centre, Cobridge, Stoke-on-Trent

DR131

University Quarter masterplan design workshop event

DR132

Consideration of emerging Middleport masterplan

01/05/09

DR076

Proposed development of apartments, the White House, Clayton Rd, Newcastle Under Lyme

DRP62

DR133

Detailed proposals for Cauldon Campus, Stoke-on-Trent College

21/05/09

DR134

Early proposals for Burslem Campus, Stoke-on-Trent College

DRP63

DR135

Proposed residential development, Uplands Mill, Biddulph

18/06/09

DR136

Consideration of design principles for new city centre bus station, Stoke-on-Trent

DRP64

DR110

North Staffordshire Design Guidance Supplementary Planning Document

DR137

Consideration of the city waterside east masterplan, Stoke-on-Trent

DR138

Proposed primary care centre, Meir, Stoke-on-Trent

DR073

Residential development, Lower Milehouse Lane, Newcastle-under-Lyme

DR139

Consideration of Stoke-on-Trent City Centre Central Business District Masterplan

DR140

Consideration of proposals to develop houses at land off Ashbourne Road, Leek

DR141

Consideration of proposals to develop contemporary semi-detached houses, Alton

7/8/2008

DRP52 21/8/2008

DRP53 18/9/2008

DRP54 16/10/2008

DRP55 20/11/2008

DRP56 11/12/2008

DRP57 22/1/2009

DRP58 19/2/2009

DRP59 19/3/2009

DRP60 16/04/09

DRP61

2/07/09

DRP65 16/07/09

DRP66 20/08/09

40

DRP67

DR143

Consideration of 8 shortlisted schemes for the NSRP Design Award

DR144

Development of 88 extra-care units, former British Trimmings Mill, Ball Haye Road, Leek.

DR138

Proposed primary care centre, Meir, Stoke-on-Trent

DR145

Development of 120 residential units, Churchill Pottery, Cobridge, Stoke-on-Trent

DR121

Consideration of Silverdale Colliery master plan, Newcastle-under-Lyme

DR146

Development of a foodstore and various residential and business, Churnet Works Site, Leek

15/10/09

DR147

Development of a health and wellbeing centre, Brunswick Street, Newcastle-under-Lyme

DRP70

DR148 aDR148

Consideration of Leek town centre masterplan

bDR147

Development of a health and wellbeing centre, Brunswick Street, Newcastle-under-Lyme

DR149

Proposed development of ‘Chesterton Vision’ youth facility, Newcastle-under-Lyme

DR150

Proposed primary care centre, Biddulph, Staffordshire Moorlands

DR151 aDR151

Keele University relocation of student accommodation on to campus

bDR150

Proposed primary care centre, Biddulph, Staffordshire Moorlands

DR144

Development of 88 Extracare units, former British Trimmings Mill, Ball Haye Road, Leek.

DR152

Conversion of listed industrial building to BREEAM Centre for Sustainable Refurbishment, Longton

DR153

Proposals to convert and partially redevelop the Compton Mill site, Leek

DR147

Development of a health and wellbeing centre, Brunswick Street, Newcastle-under-Lyme

DR154

Burslem Quadrant - urban design guidance

DR155

Consideration of revised draft City Centre Public Realm Strategy, Stoke-on-Trent City Council.

DR150

Proposed primary care centre, Biddulph, Staffordshire Moorlands

10/09/09

DRP68 17/09/09

DRP69

19/11/09

DRP71 10/12/09

DRP72 21/01/10

DRP73 18/02/10

DRP74 18/02/10

Consideration of Cheadle town centre masterplan

Keele University relocation of student accommodation on to campus

41

Appendix B: projected meetings dates for 2010-11 It should be noted that these meeting dates may be subject to change and it is always worth contacting Urban Vision for confirmation. We may also hold additional meetings as required.

Thursday 22nd April 2010 Thursday 20th May 2010 Thursday 17th June 2010 Thursday 15th July 2010 Thursday 19th August 2010 Thursday 23rd September 2010 Thursday 21st October 2010 Thursday 18th November 2010 Thursday 16th December 2010 Thursday 20th January 2011 Thursday 17th February 2011 Thursday 17th March 2011

42

Urban Vision North Staffordshire is an architecture and urban design centre.

We work with partners to promote high quality architecture and urban design in and around the North Staffordshire conurbation as a means of: * * * *

Bringing about successful, physical, economic and social regeneration Creating a better and more sustainable urban environment Improving the image of the area Raising the quality of life for the citizens of today and tomorrow

Urban Vision is a not-for-profit company limited by guarantee and a registered charity. It is a full member of the UK's Architecture Centre Network.

Urban Vision North Staffordshire Burslem School of Art Queen Street Burslem Stoke-On-Trent ST6 3EJ T: 01782 575321 E: info@uvns.org www.uvns.org