Design Review Annual Report - 2009 by urban vision

1.0 Introduction 2.0 The Policy Background

3 4

2.1 The national picture........................................................................................................... 4 2.2 The regional and sub-regional picture ........................................................................... 4 2.3 The importance of good design in an economic downturn ....................................... 5 2.5 Design review nationally .................................................................................................. 6

3.0 The Design Advisory Service

3.1 Design Review .................................................................................................................... 8 3.1.1 Design Review Procedure ........................................................................................... 8 3.1.2 Design Review Panel Membership ............................................................................. 9 3.1.3 Design Review Reports ............................................................................................. 10 3.2 Design Enabling ............................................................................................................... 11 3.2.1 University Quarter (UniQ) .......................................................................................... 11 3.2.2 Stoke-on-Trent City Centre........................................................................................ 11 3.2.3 Green Housing Demonstration .................................................................................. 11 3.2.4 Visioning Longton ....................................................................................................... 11 3.2.5 Urban Design Supplementary Planning Document ................................................. 12 3.3 The advantages of a sub-regional service .................................................................. 12

4.0 Monitoring the service

4.1 What are we reviewing?.................................................................................................. 15 4.1.1 Where are our reviewed schemes? .......................................................................... 15 4.1.2 At what stage are proposals reviewed?.................................................................... 15 4.1.3 How many proposals are reviewed each year? ....................................................... 16 4.1.4 How have the type of schemes reviewed changed? ............................................... 16 4.1.5 What sort of schemes are we reviewing? ................................................................. 17 4.1.6 What are the panel recommending?......................................................................... 17 4.2 How effective is our service and how is this perceived? ......................................... 19 4.2.1 Why did they come to design review? ...................................................................... 19 4.2.2 Were they happy with the organisation? .................................................................. 19 4.2.3 How are the design review reports perceived? ........................................................ 19 4.2.4 Has the standard of schemes improved? ................................................................. 20 4.2.5 Perceived effectiveness and suggested improvements .......................................... 21 4.2.6 Further analysis required ........................................................................................... 22 4.3 What effect is the design advisory service having?.................................................. 23 4.3.1 Case Study One – a large educational building and a supermarket ...................... 23 4.3.2 Case Study Two – an edge of town retail development .......................................... 25 4.3.3 Case Study Three – a key strategic planning document......................................... 26 4.3.4 Case Study Four – an urban housing development ................................................ 28 4.3.5 Case Study Five – a primary care centre ................................................................. 29 4.4 Service Improvement Plan ............................................................................................. 31

5.0 Overall Assessment 6.0 References

32 33

Appendices Appendix A: A comprehensive list of design review schemes…………………………….33 Appendix B: Assessment criteria for design review .......................................................... 40 Appendix C: Design review eligibility criteria ..................................................................... 42

1.0 Introduction Urban Vision North Staffordshire is an architecture and urban design centre. We work closely 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 and economic 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 is a registered charity. Urban Vision is based at the Burslem School of Art in Stoke-on-Trent and is a full member of the UK's Architecture Centre Network. This report is a follow up to Design Reviewed 2007 – how we do design review in North Staffordshire published in early 2008. The purpose of this report is firstly, to show how the design review service which is funded by Advantage West Midlands, is fundamental to the wider role of Urban Vision North Staffordshire in improving the quality of design in the subregion; 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.

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 current economic downturn. 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 recent 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: “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 emerging North Staffordshire Core Spatial Strategy prepared jointly by Stoke-on-Trent City Council and Newcastle-under-Lyme Borough Council. This document has been presented to the Urban Vision Design Review Panel on a number of occasions (see later in this report for an analysis of this process) 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.”

2.3 The importance of good design in an economic downturn 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 £39.6 million into 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. Urban Vision primarily through its design review panel has been involved and has an ongoing commitment to remain involved in all of these four 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.

Figure 1: Why we need a design advisory service in North Staffordshire

2.5 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 recent 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

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, discussed above that the West Midlands is unique in having its regional design review delivered by two separate but closely linked panels. This dual panel arrangement (as illustrated by the map overleaf) 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.

Figure2: Map of the West Midlands region showing design review panel coverage NB. Urban Vision covers the three local authority areas in North Staffordshire (Stoke-onTrent, Newcastle-under-Lyme and Staffordshire Moorlands) shaded yellow on the map; MADE covers the rest of the region with the blue and red shaded LPAâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s having local authority panels.

3.0 The Design Advisory Service It has become increasingly apparent that what is being provided by Urban Vision North Staffordshire is 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 Visionâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s well-established and well respected design review 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 and we feel that the continuous involvement has proven to be extremely valuable.

3.1.1 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 Design Review Panel Terms of Reference is contained in Appendix 1. In order to maintain consistency all applications 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 3: A Design Review Panel meeting in progress

3.1.2 Design Review Panel Membership The UVNS Design Review Panel comprises 25 members from a broad range of built environment professions, including architects, urban designers, planners, landscape architects and artists. Design Review Panel Member List 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

Landscape Architect

Bob Crombie

Surveyor/Housing Specialist

Caroline Foxhall

Artist

Bob Ghosh

Architect

Hilary Hughes

Artist

Chris Jones

Urban Designer

Dryden McNair-Lewis

Architect/Urban Designer

Noha Nasser

Architect/Urban Designer

Patrick Redmond

Architect

Lisa Richards

Urban Designer/Planner

Kevan Spink

Urban Designer/Landscape Architect

Michael Taylor

Heritage and Conservation

Tony Whitehead

Architect

NoĂŤlle Wright

Architect

Figure 4: Urban Vision North Staffordshire Design Review Panel Members

Biographies of all panel members can be found on the Urban Vision website at: http://www.uvns.org/designreviewpanel/panelmembers.htm

3.1.3 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:

www.uvns.org/designreviewpanel/reviewarchive.htm

Figure 5: The Online Design Review Panel Archive

3.2 Design Enabling Since the organisation was founded Urban Visionâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s professional staff team have been involved with many large projects in the sub-region in a design advisory capacity. There follows a brief description of some of these.

3.2.1 University Quarter (UniQ) Urban Visionâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Architecture and Urban Design Advisor is a member of the UniQ working group. Early proposals for the masterplan, the design of the new sixth form college building, a new further education college campus and the development of three new shared facility blocks have been presented to design review panel already and there are plans to bring key individual elements to panel at appropriate times. Urban Vision are also involved in facilitating a design master planning workshop involving key members of our design review panel alongside the newly appointed design team. Finally, our involvement has expanded to include an advisory role in the potential eco-refurbishment of social housing blocks within the masterplan area.

3.2.2 Stoke-on-Trent City Centre Urban Vision have been represented on the steering group for the emerging city centre public realm strategy and an initial draft has been to design review panel in late 2008. We are currently working alongside Stoke-on-Trent City Council to develop the strategy and plan to review the final draft in due course. Urban Vision has also supported the City Council in its efforts to bring forward a high quality new central bus station by highlighting the strategic importance of its redevelopment and facilitating a best practice visit to Barnsley to visit the new Interchange.

3.2.3 Green Housing Demonstration Urban Vision have been working alongside Epic Housing Association in the ecorefurbishment of a block of social housing flats on the Bentilee Estate. Proposals for this were presented to the design review panel in 2008 and at present the housing association are considering rolling out the programme of refurbishment across the remainder of their stock. Urban Vision followed up this with an exhibition of sustainable housing development in early 2009.

3.2.4 Visioning 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 masterplan the town and the design review panel have continued their involvement by reviewing the masterplan brief in early 2009.

Figure 6: The new Stoke Sixth Form College building in the University Quarter

3.2.5 Urban Design Supplementary Planning Document Urban Vision is project managing the production of a design Supplementary Planning Document on behalf of a client group comprising Stoke-on-Trent City Council, Newcastleunder-Lyme Borough Council, RENEW North Staffordshire and Advantage West Midlands. The design guide is being 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.

3.3 The advantages of a sub-regional service As illustrated by the West Midlands map on page 6 the relatively compact geographical area covered by the Urban Vision North Staffordshire Design Advisory Service has a number of key advantages, it enables us to:

•

Become involved in some capacity in all major initiatives and almost all significant development proposals in the sub region. We have been involved already and will continue to be involved in each of the major regeneration initiatives in North Staffordshire including the £282 million education-led regeneration UniQ, the £250 million redevelopment of the East West Precinct in the city centre and various major housing-led regeneration initiatives from Meir to Silverdale.

•

Play a significant role in the development of key strategic planning documents including the Core Spatial Strategy, the emerging North Staffordshire Design Supplementary Planning Document and a raft of Area Action Plans and master plans. Our involvement 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 map of the North Staffordshire on page 13 following 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.

Figure 7: Sketch of the new East West Precinct, Stoke-on-Trent City Centre

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

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:

1. 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 has the stage at which schemes reviewed changed?

What type of schemes are reviewed?

What are we recommending?

This method of analysis has the advantage of being easy to replicate as the design review database is updated after each panel meeting.

2. How effective is the service and how is this perceived? This is a combined quantitative and qualitative analysis of the strengths and weaknesses of the design advisory service. Previously we have attempted to assess the effectiveness of the service and provide some guidance as to how this might be improved by holding a half-day stakeholder event comprising panel members, applicants and local authority representatives. Though these events have been reasonably successful there have been difficulties in attracting people to attend an event for which fees and expenses is not possible. On this occasion it was decided to adopt an email survey approach and two similar e-mail questionnaires were devised targeting: â&#x20AC;˘ Design review panel members â&#x20AC;˘ Applicants to design review. In the interests of maximising response rates the surveys were designed to be easy to complete and not overlong, comprising a maximum of 10 questions over just two sides of A4. The main focus of both surveys was to establish how effective the design review service is currently and how this might be improved. In addition long-standing panel members were asked if in their opinion the quality of schemes coming to panel had improved over the time they had been involved and applicants were asked how their schemes were referred and what they sought to gain from the review process.

3. What effect is design review having? This is more complex and involves analysing the changes made to proposals as a result of the design review process. In order to effectively analyse the effects of the design review panel a case study approach has been adopted whereby a selection of proposals reviewed by the design review panel are investigated at a later date and the positive changes made as a result of the recommendations are assessed. Five case studies have been completed for this report and these include three that have been updated from the previous report Design Reviewed 2007: how we do design review in North Staffordshire and two new ones relating to developments and proposed developments at Cliffe Vale Pottery and the former Silverdale Colliery site.

4.1 What are we reviewing? The following section contains a full analysis of the first four years of Urban Visionâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Design Review Service and sets out to address the six questions referred to above.

4.1.1 Where are our reviewed schemes?

The table above shows that almost two thirds of the schemes reviewed are in the Stokeon-Trent City Council area, almost one-third from the Borough of Newcastle-under-Lyme and in the last year an increasing number of schemes from Staffordshire Moorlands District Council.

4.1.2 At what stage are proposals reviewed?

The above chart shows all schemes that have been to design review panel since it began in 2004 and the majority have been live applications however, it is expected that this situation has changed and so the data has been broken down further in 4.1.4 overleaf. It should be noted that â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;Othersâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; refers to statutory planning documents briefs etc.

4.1.3 How many proposals are reviewed each year?

The table above shows that in the four years since the design review service has been in operation there has been an increasing number of proposals reviewed by the panel. There were twenty-seven schemes reviewed at nine panel meetings in the first year, thirty-five schemes at thirteen panel meetings in year two, forty-three schemes at fourteen panel meetings in year three and forty-seven schemes over sixteen meetings in 2007-08.

4.1.4 How have the type of schemes reviewed changed?

The table above shows that as well as the number of reviewed schemes increasing in number since the start of the design review panel service in North Staffordshire the panel is increasingly seeing more preliminary schemes and less live applications. There is also an increasing use of the design review panel to report on strategic documents and proposals (identified as â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;Otherâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; on the diagram above), particularly in 2006-07. 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.

4.1.5 What sort of schemes are we reviewing?

It can be seen that we are seeing a broad range of proposals at design review panel, with as might be expected residential schemes being the most commonly reviewed. It will be interesting to see over the coming months what the effects of the current economic downturn are on this.

4.1.6 What are the panel recommending? The table overleaf illustrates that the design review panelâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s most recommended action is to further investigate sustainable energy solutions, with the use of locally sourced and locally distinctive materials also widely put forward. It can be seen that the most cited recommended actions extol the principles of good urban design and this is to be expected. 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! Other recommendations that didnâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;t quite make the top ten but were made on many occasions include: o

Better define the ends of blocks

Make more use of views and vistas

Incorporate a greater mix of uses

Build it taller

Build it lower

Consider the long term management strategy

Figure 9: The top ten most recommended actions of the design review panel

4.2 How effective is our service and how is this perceived? The questionnaire surveys were sent via email to all design review panel members and representatives of all proposals that have been presented to panel and although response rates, in the latter cohort particularly were not good a significant number replied and the information gained is extremely useful. Overall, we had completed responses from 14 panel members (56%) and 19 applicants to panel (15%).

4.2.1 Why did they come to design review?

It can be seen that almost half of the applicants who responded to the survey approached Urban Vision directly at pre-application stage and a similar number were referred by the LPA either before or after the submission of a planning application. The others comprised representatives of public authorities who had submitted strategic documents for review.

4.2.2 Were they happy with the organisation?

Of the applicants that responded to the survey there was an overwhelming satisfaction with the information that was distributed prior to the meeting and we propose no changes to the way that this is carried out.

4.2.3 How are the design review reports perceived? This question was directed solely at the recipients of the reports, the applicants, and it was widely felt that they were clear, well written and useful. The average effectiveness score for the reports was 76% though it could be argued that this would have been higher still but for two very low marks from applicants who did not appear to appreciate the criticism that their schemes received!

Of the comments about the reports the vast majority were positive with many making reference to how it was used to improve the scheme and in the negotiations over their proposed development, one architect stated simply: “We took on board the panel members comments and thought the dialogue was very useful indeed” Another architect explained further: “We used the report to make key amendments to design prior to submitting a full planning application.” One architect responsible for a very large and important proposal was pleased with the report and recognised a key role of design review – that of supporting good design as well as criticising poor design. The design review process can give planning authorities confidence to support challenging contemporary design “Report extremely useful, although more so because it was generally supportive of the scheme! Probably of greatest significance to local authority team in instilling confidence in their internal processes.” Another applicant supported this view though made observations that highlighted some of the inevitable restrictions of the design review process: “Report sent to client to underline the architectural merit of the scheme. It has since been used by client to further promote scheme. Report also included as part of Design and Access Statement / Supporting Information. Report length and content generally fine. A number of recommendations made were over optimistic, in particular the suggestion to annexe the adjacent playing fields and to make some specification changes when the budget was already over stretched but overall it was balanced and fair.” Overall, the reports were well received even when the review had been far from positive!

4.2.4 Has the standard of schemes improved? Of the long-standing design review panel members there was a general feeling that the quality of proposals being presented to panel had improved during their time attending review meetings and anecdotal evidence following the survey suggests that design review – and on occasion the threat of design review - had played a key part in this. One panel member stated: “The schemes we see have definitely improved and some (architectural) practices that are not known for the importance that they place on design quality have upped their game.” A number of respondents although seeing an improvement overall were still dismayed about the standard of some of the proposals reviewed. One panellist said: “Yes, there are more good schemes coming forward, there are some very good large proposals but overall the bar is still set pretty low.” Though it is difficult to draw too many conclusions from such a limited survey it would seem that design review is having an effect but that there is still work to be done.

4.2.5 Perceived effectiveness and suggested improvements Finally, on the key question of perceived effectiveness both cohorts were asked to indicate how effective they felt the Urban Vision North Staffordshire panel was by placing a cross on a line connecting two extreme points (effective and ineffective) and the results showed remarkable similarity. Panel members felt that the design review service was 79% effective whist applicants to the panel were slightly more critical with at 75% effective. The above figures are of limited value when viewed alone but what is more useful is the comments that accompanied them. It was generally felt that the panel worked effectively and comments were positive, one panel member stated: “Site visits which are essential, and allow time for informal debate; changing mix of panel members with a good mix of skills ensures that views do not become stale; good chairmen that conduct rather than direct the discussion; good preparatory documentation; a reasonable degree of informality in the presentations and discussions; We are now getting involved in the design process earlier on and this is better for everyone. The reports that follow the meetings are well written.” Another panel member picked up on one of the key benefits of operation in a limited geographical area where a strategic approach can be adopted: “In my experience the UVNS DRP is a helpful pragmatic and creative forum for scheme proponents to discuss their emerging proposals. In comparison to other panels I feel there is a good balance between promoting high quality design and the need for a sensible realistic approach. I feel that the Panel provides very useful feedback, concise recommendations and is an invaluable part of the design process.” The ability to go on site visits was mentioned by almost all panel members but had particular resonance from members who sat on other panels that were unable to do this for all schemes: “The relatively small territory means that the service can be closely connected to local developments, staff and processes. It also means that we can visit every site and this is important.” Despite the general support for the panel when asked for suggested improvements several themes began to emerge. A response to these can be found in Section 4.4: Service Improvement Plan but the suggestions are drawn out below. A key point was raised by two of our existing panel members and an applicant, one stated that we should: “Continue to source the most senior and best-qualified practitioners to sit on the panel and ensure panel experience is tailored to each scheme wherever possible.” The difficulties in ensuring that the same panel members are sitting when a scheme returns for a second review were also highlighted by a number of applicants. One multiple-applicant puts this succinctly: “Main problem is lack of consistency in panel membership i.e. you can alter a design in light of 1st panel's comments but then find the 2nd panel has a different set of expectations. It would be good if this was better managed.”

The same point was made by another applicant who has been to panel on more than one occasion with a large and complex proposal: “Continuity between panels views and members over multiple consultations would improve dialogue & help cement a working relationship on complex projects involving staged planning submissions - in particular when design changes are made in response to feedback.” The problems of scheduling panel members so that they are in attendance when returning schemes come back to panel is long-standing and another such issue (largely because different applicants have different styles of presentation) is the way work is displayed, one otherwise very happy applicant stated: “It was difficult to display our-board mounted presentation.” Another issue that seems to provide continual difficulty despite an on-going push to resolve it has been the one of timekeeping. Many panel members stated this as their most pressing problem as reviews often overrun as a result of both extended presentations and animated discussions, the cumulative effect of this being a very long meeting and a late finish: “The workload for individual meetings can be quite tight, and often more time would be helpful. If, however, meetings were increased in length or frequency, this would need to be considered in relation to the fact that the rate of payment for attendance is lower than most panel members would be charging in their professional roles.” One panel member suggested a potential solution: “Ensuring that only 3 schemes are presented as any more tends to leave the panel with little time to make a constructive review.” This is certainly an area that requires further attention, another that has been addressed to some extent but still caused concern to two panel members, one of whom suggested a potential way of encouraging greater involvement: “I'm not sure about level of engagement with local authority officers. The lack of attendance of relevant officers (whether planning, highways, etc) is a missed opportunity for professional development and raising design skills and aspirations within the Councils.” Finally, the issue of following-up of reviewed schemes was raised by some panel members with one regular panel chair stating: “In general I feel the Panel is effective but maybe a missing component is the post review appraisal. Value could be gained by visiting built out schemes with a view to assessing how Panel recommendations have been taken on board in final design.” As stated earlier, a response to these suggestions can be found in Section 4.4: Service Improvement Plan

4.2.6 Further analysis required The questionnaire surveys described above paint a clear picture of how design review panel members and applicants view the effectiveness of the panel but does not address the views of local authority officers and members and it is suggested that further analysis is undertaken to address this key omission.

4.3 What effect is the design advisory service having? In order to assess the effect that the design review panel is having on specific proposals five case studies have been selected from the one hundred and thirty schemes that have been presented to panel to date. Three of these studies are updated versions of the ones included in the last report Design Reviewed 2007: how we do design review in North Staffordshire and two are new. An attempt has been made to select different types of proposals including master plans and strategic planning documents and to look at schemes that have been presented to panel on more than one occasion. Each of the case studies begins with a brief description of the proposal before a discussion on the recommendations made and finally an assessment of how these were responded to by the respective developers and their design teams.

4.3.1 Case Study One – a large educational building and a supermarket

Figure 10: Newcastle-under-Lyme College / on-site as of March 2009 What is it? A chain of developments including a new building for Newcastle-under-Lyme Further Education College and a new Sainsbury’s foodstore. The development of the college building allows for the relocation of the Sainsbury’s supermarket from a tight site within the town centre to the current college site. The panel reviewed these schemes at various stages of their development, initially as a part of the strategic consideration of the college move including the supermarket relocation and more recently as two separate schemes at planning application stage. What was recommended? With regard to the college, the panel had continuing concerns over the strategic planning decision to relocate the college further from the town centre on a green field site but this aside, the design review panel were generally pleased with the design approach to develop a contemporary building. The panel recommended that the pedestrian access, public realm and landscaping of the site were considered carefully and there was also a key recommendation to open-up the façade of the building with more glazing to make it more transparent and welcoming. The panel welcomed the supermarket’s location on the site, close to the main A34 but had some concerns over the initial provision of social housing to the rear. There were also come concerns over the design of the car park and the proposed pedestrian route through to the new college site.

How was this responded to? The response to the recommendations about the access, public realm and landscaping of the college were discussed at the schemes final visit to design review in November 2007. These were considered to be successful as the letter following that review states: “With regard to the landscaping earlier concerns over the effect of the car park to the front of the sports hall were assuaged by a simple yet effective landscaping scheme that deals well with the public realm.” The impact of the design review process on the development of the proposals for Newcastle-under-Lyme College has been significant as a result of the way in which the panel has had the opportunity to comment upon the proposal at key stages in its development. Overall, the response of the design team to the recommendations has been excellent throughout and the review process has been characterised by an ongoing productive dialogue between the panel and the architect and this has been recognised: “I was very pleased by the positive comments and approach of the panel on each occasion. Of all design panels I have presented to in recent years (including CABE at national level) I felt a certain empathy with the members of Urban Vision.” Julian Baker, Ellis Williams Architects, Dec 2007 As a result of his involvement with design review the architect Julian Baker enquired about joining the panel, was accepted and has attended on two occasions to date. The supermarket design also returned to panel as a reserved matters planning application in November 2008 and the panel were extremely pleased both with the response to their earlier comments and with the quality of the design. “The consistent use of a limited but appropriate high quality materials palette was appreciated by the Panel. The specification of stone gabions was supported as was the extensive use of glazing, both at the entrance areas and along the south elevation creating surveillance over the pedestrian access pathway. There was specific support for the use for use of stone gabions again in the landscape, acting as the walls to the access ramp on the Liverpool Road entrance as these helped to unify the landscape and building harmoniously.” Extract from design review panel letter, Nov ‘08

Figure 11: Proposed new Sainsbury’s Foodstore, Newcastle-under-Lyme

4.3.2 Case Study Two – an edge of town retail development

Figure 12: Alexandra Park retail development, Tunstall What is it? This proposal involved the redevelopment of the vacant Alexandra Pottery site and adjacent land immediately to the east of Tunstall town centre with a retail-based mixeduse scheme, including a new primary health care centre combining four existing GP practices. It was presented to design review panel in June 2005 and revised proposals were presented again in January 2006. What was recommended? The panel commented on the lack of a masterplan for the area that could provide an urban design context for future developments and were concerned over mix of uses proposed, specifically the lack of a residential element. It was further recommended that the needs of pedestrians had greater priority and that the buildings should have more active frontages to the adjacent roads and pedestrian routes. Finally, it was recommended that the development paid proper regard to the history of the site.

How was this responded to? The recommendation for a masterplan for Tunstall was beyond the remit of the developer and to date no such plan has been proposed. With regard to the request for housing to be incorporated this was not considered possible as a result of the policies of RENEW (the Housing Market Renewal Pathfinder) as it does not fall within an Area of Major Intervention (AMI). Despite these considerable setbacks the panel were encouraged by the design response as the follow-up report in January 2006 states: “The Panel welcomed the efforts made by the applicant to respond to some of the recommendations made in respect of the earlier proposal. In particular the greater respect for and better integration with the greenway, improved street elevations, and attempts to link up with the surrounding footway network had together resulted in a definite overall improvement to the scheme.”| Extract from design review panel report, Jan ‘06 The panel remained critical of the lack of a strategic masterplan for the area and of the resultant spread of car-dominated retail parks of which this application was one, albeit a

superior one with positive elements of mixed use. The Panel considered the response from the developer to have been excellent and the developer in turn appreciated the input of the Panel: “The strength of the Urban Vision Design Review Panel is that it is independent with free thinking panel members who are prepared to challenge both the developer’s proposal as well as the planning departments response.” Andrew Malley, Retail Property Director, Dransfield Properties The unveiling of ‘The Shard’ large piece of art by sculptor Robert Erskine in January 2009 also shows the response to the panel’s recommendations for the history of the site to be remembered. The large stainless-steel sculpture depicts an ancient fingerprint found on a shard of Roman pottery close to the site and makes reference to the long history of the site as a place of pottery production.

Figure 13: Further images of the Alexandra Park retail development in Tunstall

4.3.3 Case Study Three – a key strategic planning document What is it? The Urban Vision design review panel have reviewed the North Staffordshire Core Spatial Strategy Preferred Options Report on two occasions, firstly in 2006 and a revised version in mid-2007. This is the principal development plan document in the Local Development Framework for North Staffordshire. It is being jointly produced by Stoke-on-Trent City Council and Newcastle-under-Lyme Borough Council, and covers an area of over 300km2 and a population of 360,000 people. It will provide a single strategic planning framework for the future development of the North Staffordshire conurbation looking forward to 2021. Figure 14: Core Spatial Strategy It is acknowledged that reviewing a document of this type is an unusual departure for a design review panel but it was felt as it forms the basis for the Local Development

Framework, including strategic planning policies on design, sustainable development, the public realm and the historic environment, and will therefore have a profound effect on the quality of the future physical development of the sub-region, it should encourage wherever possible good architecture and urban design. Design review was deemed a suitable mechanism to ensure that it achieves this. What was recommended? As a result of the first design review the panel made twenty-five specific recommendations to strengthen and improve the strategic and local design aspects of the document. These recommendations were varied but generally reflected a view that the document contained very little illustrative material and no three dimensional representations to convey a sense of the place that the plan aims to create. There was also a strong feeling that the Core Strategy should have more of a local flavour as it was generic and could be applied to most UK cities. Most importantly however, it was felt that the document did not adequately promote the role of good design and high quality building in the development of the sub-region. How was this responded to? When the Core Strategy was re-presented to design review panel in June 2007 it was a revised document reflecting alterations to the Regional Spatial Strategy, a significant number of representations made in response to the first report and the findings of the first design review panel. The panel were again strongly supportive of the general aims to target development in the urban cores and re-use brownfield land and also noted that a number of their earlier recommendations had been acted upon. The revised document: â&#x20AC;˘

Refers to high quality design at all levels, though there is still not an explicit statement of its role in economic regeneration.

â&#x20AC;˘

Supported the development of the town centres with mixed-use buildings incorporating housing and offices.

â&#x20AC;˘

Contains a specific policy on the role of the historic environment.

The panel considered the Core Spatial Strategy to have changed for the better in a number of key ways although it was felt that there were still areas for improvement. The second report was discussed at a meeting with the local authorities and there was broad agreement to implement further changes to the document in line with panel recommendations. Overall, it is felt that by helping to shape key strategic documents such as this the design review panel may have its most significant and long-lasting effect.

Figure 14: An aspirational image of the City Waterside

(Image Courtesy of EDAW)

4.3.4 Case Study Four â&#x20AC;&#x201C; an urban housing development

Figure 15: Lock 38 residential development, Cliffe Vale, Stoke-on-Trent What is it? The development of 146 new dwellings by Countryside Properties comprising a mixture of new build and the conversion of a listed building on Shelton New Road, Cliffe Vale, Stokeon-Trent. The proposal involved the retention and conversion of the centre block of the Grade II listed Cliffe Vale Pottery of 1887, the demolition of 2-storey side wings and courtyard buildings, and the construction of new 3- and 4-storey residential units to the sides and rear of the retained part of the historic building. The design review panel What was recommended? The proposals were presented in February 2005 at only the third meeting of the Urban Vision Design Review Panel and a number of recommendations were made. The Panel suggested that; the architecture might better respond to the historic building without resorting to pastiche design, the site planning should better relate to the historic buildings and the canal, the bottle ovens should be given a better setting and finally that a site masterplan is produced to show how the development integrated with the development of the adjoining land.

Figure 16: Lock 38, original elevations as presented to design review panel How was this responded to? At the time of writing the development is partially completed with only a single apartment block still to be completed but it can be seen that aside from the production of the masterplan the other recommendations were taken on board and incorporated into the scheme. The architectural design is more contemporary and clean with the pitched roofs gone and the materials palette is more limited with an industrial feel, the site layout has been altered to take into account the axis of the historic building and the bottle ovens have an improved setting on the route to the canal.

Figure 17: Lock 38, more views

4.3.5 Case Study Five - a primary care centre What is it? A Primary Care Centre of approximately 4,000m2 comprising three existing GP practices, outpatient facilities and a range of clinical services located in the centre of Cobridge, Stoke-on-Trent. The proposals were presented to the design review panel for the first time at pre-application stage November 2008 and after the panel had made some widereaching recommendations returned to panel, again at pre-application stage in March 2009.

Figure 18: Cobridge Primary Care Centre â&#x20AC;&#x201C; as presented in November 2008 What was recommended? When the proposals were presented to Panel in November 2008 there was clear support for the challenging and creative contemporary architecture but there were a number of serious urban design concerns over the proposal that were clearly highlighted in the recommended actions. These were focused on the scale and massing and the location of the building on the site and its resultant relationship to both the church and the street.

How was this responded to? 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. Indeed it was suggested that the revised development manages to successfully â&#x20AC;&#x153;recreate a village centre for Cobridgeâ&#x20AC;?. The Panel also appreciated the clean contemporary architectural expression that had remained in the midst of all of the significant townscape improvements.

Figure 19: Cobridge Primary Care Centre â&#x20AC;&#x201C; as presented in March 2009 Overall, Cobridge Primary Care Centre was transformed as a direct result of the input of the design review panel and it now has the potential to become a development of real quality and a significant part of the regeneration of Cobridge.

4.4 Service Improvement Plan The data analysis and surveys described above have highlighted some key themes that require exploration these are responded to below: 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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). Overall, it is felt that the procedural aspects of design review have largely been ironed out over the duration of the sixty meetings that we have held thusfar, although there are some matters that need continual attention. What is however becoming more apparent is the need for more systematic feedback on the effectiveness of the service using the ever-increasing resource of completed developments that have been through the design review process and it is expected that further analysis of the service will focus on this.

5.0 Overall Assessment It can be seen that the design advisory service is playing a crucial role in the campaign to raise design quality in North Staffordshire. The influence of the design review panel in particular, combined with the integrated approach to design enabling and review taken in the sub-region is appreciated by local authorities, applicants and built environment professionals alike. It is put forward that this is happening for four basic reasons. Firstly, as a result of the gradual impact of the work of Urban Vision on a number of key developments in an enabling capacity. This involvement not only brings through proposals at the correct time to the design review panel but also helps to shape the direction of the work at the outset, placing high quality design at the forefront and ensuring that this is kept at the top of the agenda throughout. Secondly, as a result of the design changes made as a direct result of the design review meeting and subsequent recommendations in the report. It can also be seen that these panel recommendations are most easily incorporated when the proposal is presented at preliminary stage (prior to a planning application being made) and this is further evidence to support the increased targeting of preliminary schemes for design review. Thirdly, the review process is having an impact on key planning documents and master plans as well as individual buildings as it is these strategic pieces of work that will set the standard for all future developments in the sub-region. Accordingly this is an area that we envisage the design review panel will become increasingly involved in the future. Finally, and perhaps most importantly, is the long-term positive effect that the design review process is having on all participants. The review process is about raising the agenda of good design and the panel meetings provide invaluable professional development for applicants, local authority representatives and panel members alike. The skills and experience gained as a result of being involved in the process in whatever capacity are undoubtedly helping a large number of built environment practitioners produce better buildings even if those specific buildings donâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;t have the benefit of a design review and that is surely what it is all about.

Figure 20: Some key schemes in North Staffordshire that have been to design review

6.0 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:

Shape the Future: Corporate Strategy 2008/09 â&#x20AC;&#x201C; 20010-11 (CABE, 2009)

CABE:

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

CABE:

Good design: the fundamentals (CABE, 2009)

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 and Regeneration: Impact and implications (DCLG, 2009)

Urban Task Force

Towards an Urban Renaissance (ODPM, 1999)

Appendices Appendix A: A comprehensive list of design review schemes .

Meeting

Ref. DR001

DRP1 28/10/2004

DRP2 9/12/2004

DRP3 3/2/2005

DRP4 10/3/2005

DRP5 28/4/2005

DRP6 9/6/2005

DRP7 16/7/2005

DRP8 28/7/2005

Details of proposals

Status

Newcastle Town Centre Public Realm Strategy

Application

DR002

Full Planning Application for 419 Dwellings Greenhead Street, Burslem, Stoke-on-Trent

Application

DR003

Outline Planning Application for Business and Employment Park Chatterley Valley, Stoke-on-Trent

Application

DR004

Preliminary Consideration of Master Plan Former Chatterley Whitfield Colliery, Stoke-on-Trent

DR005

Full Planning Application for 90-bedroom Hotel Barleston, Stoke-on-Trent

Pre-app Application

DR006

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

DR007

Outline Planning Application for Residential & Commercial Development George Street, Newcastle-under-Lyme

Application

DR008

Outline Planning Application for Residential and Office Development St Ann's Works, Marsh Street, Hanley,

Application

DR009

Full Planning Application for 146 Dwellings (new build and conversion) Cliffe Vale Pottery, Shelton New Road,

Application

DR007

Outline Planning Application for Residential & Commercial Development George Street, Newcastle-under-Lyme

Application

DR010

Full Planning Application for 36 detached dwellings Land off Stone Road (A34), Trentham, Stoke-on-Trent

Application

DR011

Full Planning Application for 101 Residential Flats Zanzibar Night Club, Brunswick Street, Newcastle-under-Lyme

Application

DR002

Full Planning Application for 419 Dwellings Greenhead Street, Burslem, Stoke-on-Trent

Application

DR012

Preliminary Consideration of Relocation of Further Education College Knutton Lane, Newcastle-under-Lyme

Application

DR013

Full Planning Application for 92 Apartments with Commercial Floorspace The Midway, Newcastle-under-Lyme

Application

DR015

Preliminary Consideration of External Alterations to Existing Building1-15 Stafford Street, Hanley, Stoke-on-Trent

Pre-app

DR014

Full Planning Application for Residential Development Crane Street / Woodall Street, Cobridge, Stoke-on-Trent

Application

DR016

Full Planning Application for Retail Development, Primary Health Care Centre, and Health Club Alexandra Pottery, Tunstall

Application

DR017

Full Planning Application for Commercial and Residential Development Trinity Street / Marsh Street, Hanley, Stoke-on-Trent

Application

DR018

Full Planning Application for 27 Residential Apartments Corn Mill, Myatt Street, Hanley, Stoke-on-Trent

Application

DR019

Preliminary Consideration of Master Plan Former Silverdale Colliery site, Newcastle-under-Lyme

Pre-app

DR009

Full Planning Application for 146 Dwellings Cliffe Vale Pottery, Shelton New Road, Stokeâ&#x20AC;&#x201C;on-Trent

Application

DR020

Full Planning Application for 3-Storey Office Development Upper Huntbach Street, Hanley, Stoke-on-Trent

Application

DR021

Area Action Plan (Preferred Options) for Biddulph Biddulph Town Centre, Biddulph

Other

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

DR014

Full Planning Application for Residential Development Crane Street / Woodall Street, Cobridge, Stoke-on-Trent

Application

DR022

Full Planning Application for University Post-Graduate Research Institute Keele University, Keele, Newcastle-under-Lyme

Application

DR023

Preliminary Consideration of Pedestrianisation & Public Realm Scheme Burslem Town Centre, Stoke-on-Trent

Pre-app

DR024

Preliminary Consideration of City Waterside Master Plan Hanley South, Stoke-on-Trent

Pre-app

DR025

Full Planning Application for Residential Development Former Eagle Pottery, Hanley, Stoke-on-Trent

Application

DR026

Full Planning Application for 103 Residential Flats, Nursery and CafĂŠ College Road, Shelton, Stoke-on-Trent

Application

DR027

Full Planning Application for Extra Care Flats with Day Centre Facilities Former Meir Primary Schoo;, Meir, Stoke-on-Trent

Application

DR028

Full Planning Application for 40 Residential Apartments Land off Rutland Road, Longton, Stoke-on-Trent

Application

DR029

Area Action Plan (Preferred Options) for Knutton & Cross Heath Knutton & Cross Heath, Newcastle-under-Lyme

Other

DR008

Outline Planning Application for Residential and Office Development St Ann's Works, Marsh Street, Hanley

Application

DR016

Full Planning Application for Retail Development, Primary Health Care Centre and Health Club Alexandra Pottery, Tunstall

Application

DR031

Preliminary Consideration of Residential Redevelopment of Nursing Home St Augustineâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s, Cobridge Road, Stoke-on-Trent

DR007

Outline Planning Application for Residential & Commercial Development George Street, Newcastle-under-Lyme

Application

DR011

Full Planning Application for 101 Residential Flats Zanzibar Night Club, Brunswick Street, Newcastle-under-Lyme

Application

DR032

Full Planning Application for 9 Two-Bedroom Apartments Hanford Test Centre, Stone Road, Stoke-on-Trent

Application

DR033

Preliminary Consideration of Industrial and Warehousing Development Radial Park, Sideway, Stoke-on-Trent

Pre-app

DR022

Full Planning Application for University Post-Graduate Research Institute Keele University, Keele, Newcastle-under-Lyme

DR023

Preliminary Consideration of Pedestrianisation & Public Realm Scheme Burslem Town Centre, Stoke-on-Trent

DR034

Hybrid Application for Outline Planning Permission for Expansion of Keele University, Newcastle-under-Lyme

Application

DR035

Preliminary Consideration of Community Health Centre with Extra Care, Lower Milehouse, Newcastle-under-Lyme

Application

DR036

Full Planning Application for Primary Care Centre and Residential DevelopmentPlanet Lock Wharf, Norfolk Street, Shelton, Stoke-on-Trent

Application

DR037

Preliminary Consideration of Conversion and Extension of Former Pottery Works for Residential Accommodation, Falcon Pottery Hanley

Pre-app

DR038

Outline Application for Casino and Hotel: Land at Waterloo Road, Hanley, Stoke-on-Trent

Application

DR039

Preliminary re-design of 20 eco-apartments Land off Scotia Road, Tunstall, Stoke on Trent.

Pre-app

DR040

Preliminary Consideration of draft design policies, Newcastle under Lyme Town Centre Area Action Plan

Pre-app

DRP16 20/4/2006

DRP17 18/5/2006

DRP18 15/6/2006

Pre-app

Application Pre-app

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

DR033

Full Application for industrial and warehouse development Land off Sideway, Stoke-on-Trent

Application

DR042

Full Planning Application for Caring Centre of Excellence Cauldon Campus, Stoke Road, Stoke-on-Trent

Application

DR043

Application for Retail Development, Biddulph, Staffordshire Moorlands

Other

DR044

Reserved matters application for foodstore with car parking petrol filling station & landscaping, Clough Street, Hanley

Application

DR045

Local Development Framework, North Staffordshire Core Spatial Strategy Preferred Options Report

Other

DR046

Proposed Business Centre at Lymedale, Newcastle-under-Lyme

Application

DR031

Preliminary Consideration of Residential Redevelopment of Nursing Home St Augustineâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s, Cobridge Road, Stoke-on-Trent

Pre-app

DR047

Outline Application for residential development, site of former Hanley Pottery Works, Stubbs Lane, Hanley

Application

DR048

Outline Application for residential development, land at Ridgeway Road, Hanley, Stoke-on-Trent

Application

DR049

Preliminary Application for Residential Development at former Simpsonâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Pottery. Waterloo Road, Cobridge, Stoke-on-Trent

Pre-app

DR017

Full Planning Application for Commercial and Residential Development Trinity Street / Marsh Street, Hanley, Stoke-on-Trent

Application

DR050

Preliminary Application for residential development, Brunswick Street, Newcastle-under-Lyme

Pre-app

DR051

Preliminary Application for architectural lighting of Regent Theatre. Hanley. Stoke-on-Trent

Pre-app

DR035

Preliminary Consideration of Community Health Centre with Extra Care Lower Milehouse, Newcastle-under-Lyme

Application

DR053

Outline Application for Mixed use developments at Former Etruria Works. Shelton New Rd, Shelton, Stoke-on-Trent.

Application

DR054

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

Pre-app

DR012

Preliminary Consideration of Relocation of Further Education College Knutton Lane, Newcastle-under-Lyme

Application

DR027

Full Planning Application for Extra Care Flats with Day Centre Former Meir Primary School, George Avenue, Stoke-on-Trent

Application

DR042

Full Planning Application for Caring Centre of Excellence Cauldon Campus, Stoke Road, Stoke-on-Trent

Application

DR039

Preliminary re-design of 20 eco-apartments Land off Scotia Road, Tunstall, Stoke on Trent.

Pre-app

DR055

Full planning application for erection of 307 residential units Land at Scotia Road, Tunstall, Stoke-on-Trent.

Application

DR056

Preliminary Consideration of Brief for Design SPD for North Staffordshire,

Pre-app

DRP26 18/1/2007

DR057

Preliminary consideration of Leisure Village of 800 timber lodges plus erection of four wind turbines. Maer Hills Forest,

Pre-app

DRP27 15/2/2007

DR059

Preliminary consideration of Residential development, with under croft parking. Furlong Passage, Burslem, Stoke-on-Trent.

Pre-app

DR012

Preliminary Consideration of relocation of Further Education College, Knutton Lane, Newcastle-under-Lyme

Application

DR035

Preliminary Consideration of Community Health Centre with Extra Care Residential Lower Milehouse, Newcastle-under-Lyme

Application

DR061

Preliminary consideration of proposed alterations to university building, Staffordshire University. Leek Road, Stoke-on-Trent.

Pre-app

DRP28 15/3/2007

DRP29 5/4/2007

DRP30 19/4/2007

DRP31 17/5/2007

DR066

City Centre Public Realm Design Competition: consideration of six shortlisted entries. Hanley, Stoke-on-Trent

DR055

Full planning application for erection of 307 residential units, Land at Scotia Road, Tunstall, Stoke-on-Trent.

Application

DR060

Full application for public realm improvement works in Swann Square. Burslem, Stoke-on-Trent

Application

DR063

Full Application for erection of 66 residential dwellings, Bus Depot Site. Liverpool Road, Newcastle-under-Lyme

Application

DR065

Preliminary scheme, employment development at Goldendale west. Chatterley Valley, Stoke-on-Trent

DR033

Reconsideration of Full Planning for industrial and warehouse development, land off Sideway, Stoke-on-Trent

DR058 DR064

DRP32 7/6/2007

DRP33 20/6/2007

DRP34 19/7/2007

DRP35 16/8/2007

DRP38 4/10/2007

DRP39 18/10/2007

Full Application for Residential units including converted warehouse, Ivy House Mills Site. Hanley, Stoke-on-Trent

Pre-app Application Other Application

DR051

Outline Application for residential development, Brunswick Street, N-u-L

Pre-app

DR067

Full Application for a contemporary single eco-dwelling, Field House site. Old Road, Bignall End, Newcastle-under-Lyme

Application

DR068

Outline planning application for the development of sheltered residential accommodation, Wolstanton

Application

DR030

Area Action Plan for Newcastle-under-Lyme Town Centre Town Centre, Newcastle-under-Lyme

Other

DR045

Local Development Framework, North Staffordshire Core Spatial Strategy Preferred Options Report

Other

DR069

Outline application for a retail and leisure development. Trentham Lakes, Stoke-on-Trent

Application

DR070

Outline application for approximately 220 residential units. Former Victoria Ground site, Stoke-on-Trent

Application

DR071

Preliminary consideration of mixed-use residential scheme. Caldon Canal, Shearer Street, Stoke-on-Trent

Pre-app

DR062

Preliminary consideration of a mixed use development at the former Royal Doulton Site, Burslem, Stoke-on-Trent

Pre-app

DR072

Preliminary consideration of housing development for Aspire Housing Association. Beasley Place, Chesterton

Pre-app

DR073

Preliminary consideration of the development of 54 new residential units Lower Milehouse Lane, Newcastle-under-Lyme

Pre-app

DR074 DRP37 20/9/2007

Stoke-on-Trent Transportation Strategy- urban design proposals

Other

University Quarter – Masterplan

Pre-app

DR074

University Quarter – shared facilities

Pre-app

DR074

University Quarter – Further Education College

Pre-app

DR074

University Quarter – Sixth Form College

Pre-app

DR075

Consideration of outline application for 28 housing units, Liverpool Road, Newcastle-under-Lyme

Application

DR076

Full application to develop one 3 storey building comprising of 10 apartments: White House, Clayton Rd, Newcastle Under Lyme

Application

DR077

Staffordshire Moorlands DC, LDF Core Strategy, Issues & Options

Other

DR078

Preliminary consideration of proposals for mixed use retail-led development, Spode Pottery site Stoke-on-Trent

Pre-app

DR079

Preliminary consideration of the relocation of Olympus Engineering works to Garner Street, Hanley

Pre-app

DR080 DR081

Stoke-on-Trent City Centre Area Action Plan Preferred Options Pin up consideration of the application for the erection of apartments, Belmont Works, Belmont Road, Stoke-on-Trent.

Other Application

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

DR082

Preliminary consideration of retail development options, Crown Works site, Commerce Street, Longton

Pre-app

DR083

Preliminary consideration of proposal to develop 96 residential units, former Bristol Street Motors site, Newcastle-under-Lyme

Pre-app

DR012

Reconsideration of planning application for Newcastle College and sports hall, Liverpool Road, Newcastle-under-Lyme

Application

DR017

Reconsideration of amended proposals for Trinity Street/Marsh Street Hanley, Stoke-on-Trent

Application

DR084

Preliminary Consideration of proposals to develop Longton Masjid Community Centre Chaplin Rd, Longton, Stoke-on-Trent.

Pre-app

DR085

Consideration of application for the conversion & extension of existing building to include 27 apartments Newhall St, Hanley.

Pre-app

DR008

Outline Planning Application for Residential and Office Development St Ann's Works, Marsh Street, Hanley

Application

DR011

Preliminary consideration of proposals to provide office accommodation at the Zanzibar nightclub, Newcastle-under-Lyme

Application

DR062

Consideration of planning application for a residential development Royal Doulton site, Burslem, Stoke-on-Trent.

Application

DR087

Consideration of a full application for Vodafone Building, Festival Park, Stoke-on-Trent

Application

DR088

Preliminary consideration of development options including scale and massing for Woodhouse Street site, Stoke

Pre-app

DR083

Pin-up reconsideration of remodelled proposal to develop residential units, Bristol Street Motors site, Newcastle-under-Lyme

Pre-app

DR089

Preliminary consideration of mixed-use development proposals at the Top Bridge pottery works site, Middleport, Stoke-on-Trent

Pre-app

DR090

Preliminary consideration of proposals for a replacement principal borough cemetery, Newcastle-under-Lyme

Pre-app

DR091

Consideration of revised and enlarged proposals for Newcastle Sports Village, Liverpool Road, Newcastle-under-Lyme

Pre-app

DR093

Consideration of planning application to develop a large eco-warehouse plus offices Chatterley Valley, Newcastle-under-Lyme.

Application

DR092

Preliminary consideration of proposals to develop residential units on a existing at Butts Green, Abbey Hulton, Stoke-on-Trent

Pre-app

DR038

Pin-up consideration of planning application for casinoa and hotel Land at Waterloo Road, Stoke-on-Trent

DR096

Consideration of pre-application proposals to develop a Sainsburyâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s foodstore, Biddulph, Staffordshire Moorlands

Pre-app

DR095

Consideration of planning application for office development, Blythe Bridge, Staffordshire Moorlands

Application

DR097

Visioning Longton

Application

Other

DR098

Proposed retirement village consisting approximately 300 units former Anzio Camp, Blackshaw Moor, Staffordshire Moorlands

Application

DR101

Proposed housing development and neighbourhood centre at Ingestre Square, Blurton, Blurton, Stoke-on-Trent

Pre-app

DR100

Contemporary single dwelling, Blythe Bridge, Staffordshire Moorlands

Pre-app

DR102

Preliminary proposals for the redevelopment of the East West Precinct, Hanley, Stoke-on-Trent

Pre-app

DR103

Consideration of application to develop various large retail outlets, at Waterloo Road, Hanley, Stoke-on-Trent

Application

DR105

Preliminary proposals to develop100 Extracare units and 14,000 sq ft office accommodation, Bilton Works site, Stoke

Pre-app

DRP49 19/6/2008

DRP50 17/7/2008 DRP51 7/8/2008

DR104

Preliminary consideration of proposals to develop two hotels and a supermarket. Georgia Pacific site, Newcastle-under-Lyme

Pre-app

DR106

Preliminary consideration of proposals to develop Extracare units and a new village hall, New Road, Madeley

Pre-app

DR099

Preliminary proposal to develop a 'Concept Living Pod' single dwelling at Brookwood, Pipegate Nr Market Drayton

Pre-app

DRP107

Consideration of a planning application to convert the former London Mill Building into extra care accommodation, Leek

Application

DRP108

Preliminary Consideration of the Fegg Hayes and Chell Heath Options

Pre-app

DRP109

Newcastle-under-Lyme Town Centre Supplementary Planning Document

Other

DRP110

North Staffordshire Design Guidance Supplementary Planning Document

Other

DRP111 DRP52 21/8/2008

DRP53 18/9/2008

DRP55 20/11/2008

DRP56 11/12/2008

DRP57 22/1/2009

DRP58 19/2/2009

DRP59 19/3/2009 DRP60

Pre-app

DRP112

Pre-app

DRP073

Preliminary consideration of the development of residential units, Lower Milehouse Lane, Newcastle-under-Lyme

Pre-app

DRP113

Consideration of application to develop 70 houses at the former Clanway Brickworks site, Tunstall, Stoke-on-Trent.

Application

DRP114

Consideration of proposals for foodstore and Bus Depot site, Liverpool Rd, Newcastle-under-Lyme

Application

Development of residential accommodation with care comprising 56 apartments High Street, Wolstanton

Application

DR068

DRP54 16/10/2008

Newcastle-under-Lyme Town Centre public realm improvements Consideration of preliminary proposals to sustainably refurbish 6 n.o apartments, Lauder Place North, Bentilee

DR045

Local Development Framework, North Staffordshire Core Spatial Strategy

DR115

Preliminary consideration of proposals to develop 46no. houses for Great Places Housing Association, Meir, Stoke-on-Trent

DR101

Consideration of full planning application for the development of a new local centre Ingestre Square, Blurton, Stoke-on-Trent

Application

DR102

Consideration of proposals for the retail-led, mixed-use redevelopment of the East West Precinct, Hanley, Stoke-on-Trent

Application

DR116

Draft City Centre Public Real Strategy, Stoke-on-Trent City Council

DR117

Preliminary consideration of proposals to develop Cobridge PCT building,

Other Pre-app

DR104

Reconsideration of proposals to develop two hotels and a supermarket, Georgia Pacific site, Newcastle-under-Lyme

Application

DR120

Consideration of proposals to develop the Knutton Community Farm,

Pre-app

DR119

Consideration of Draft Knutton Masterplan Options,

Pre-app

DR121

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

Pre-app

DR123

Consideration of proposals to develop a new fire station, Hanley

Pre-app

DR123

Consideration of proposals to develop a new fire station in Newcastle-

Pre-app

DR124

Consideration of preliminary proposals to develop residential accommodation at Wesport Road, Burslem

Pre-app

DR122

Preliminary Consideration of Canal Quarter Masterplan, Hanley,

Other

DR125

Consideration of draft Meir Area Regeneration Framework options

Other

DR126

Consideration of the Draft Longton Masterplan Brief

DR127

Consideration of proposals to develop a training facility for Stoke City

Pre-app

DR128

Consideration of pin-up proposals to develop a drive-through restaurant, Liverpool Road, Newcastle-under-Lyme

Application

Other

DR129

Consideration of Middleport masterplan draft options

DR130

Consideration of proposed mixed-use scheme, Majestic Bldng,, Hanley

Pre-app

DR117

Reconsideration of proposals to develop Cobridge PCT building,

Pre-app

DR131

University Quarter Masterplan Design Workshop event

Other

Appendix B: Assessment criteria for design review 1 • • • •

Strategic policy background Spatial planning policy Land use planning policy Urban design strategy or framework Master plan, development or design brief

• • • •

Contextual analysis Design Statement Assessment of historical significance: site and environs Movement networks: pedestrian and vehicular Physical environment: gateways, landmarks, views and vistas

• • • •

Urban Design Character Continuity and enclosure Quality of the public realm: includes community safety, pedestrian facilities Ease of movement Legibility Adaptability Diversity (Mixed Use)

• • • • • • • • •

Architecture Site-specific design – creative or innovative Scale and massing complement context Composition has distinctive 3-dimensional qualities Applies an appropriate system of proportioning Best materials for purpose Careful attention to constructional detailing Respect for the public realm Fulfils needs of users and occupiers Realises the potential of the site

a) • • •

Sustainability Location: Brownfield land (little or no impact on greenfield or undeveloped land) Walking or cycling distance from established centres and social facilities Near to public transportation routes

• • •

b) Energy: • Renewable sources • Conservation of resources c) • • •

Materials: Renewable or natural Non-polluting Low embodied energy 40

d) • • •

Supply: Local or recycled materials Local manufacture Local labour

e) Services: • Sustainable drainage • Water collection on site f) Community: • Provides community needs • Incorporates social or recreational facilities • Offers learning or educational opportunities g) Natural Environment • Respects the natural environment • Maintains and enhances biodiversity h) • • •

Waste and recycling Re-uses existing built fabric in situ whenever possible Recycles existing materials not capable of re-use Provides facilities for efficient re-cycling of waste

Procurement Method a) Developer Partnering / Design and Build b) Most economically advantageous tender / Price-based open tender c) Site-specific design / Standard building type from another site d) Architect-based design team / Contractor or developer-led

Appendix C:

Design review eligibility criteria

The following criteria form the basis of the selection of schemes to be presented to the Design Review Panel, it is expected that schemes presented to Panel are at least one of the following:

A development of 0.5 hectares or greater in area

A development involving 10 or more houses

A development of 1,000 square metres floorspace or greater

A development significantly affecting the City Centre or a Town Centre

A development in a historically or environmentally sensitive area

A development with special architectural or environmental qualities.

The Architecture and Urban Design Centre

What is Urban Vision? 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 and economic regeneration , and social inclusion.

•

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. Urban Vision is based in the Burslem School of Art in Stoke-on-Trent and is a full member of the UK’s Architecture Centre Network.

UVNS school of art burslem stoke-on-trent ST6 3EJ t: 01782 575321 f: 01782 839047 www.uvns.org

UVNS Design Advisory Service funded by: