Page 65 - Eden Meadow 35 houses application as of 12 October

Buildings For Life Urban Design Officer’s Comments
Integrating into the Neighbourhood
Creating Place
Amended site layout plan submitted during consultation to address concerns
Street and Home
This was a wholesale change in approach to reflect that the site would now be seen as a standalone parcel
(without the need for connections to surrounding land) and therefore became a perimeter block with units
positively addressing the edges of the site. Importantly this also sought to address the concerns by removing
units to ensure that there was a 9.5m green buffer gap to the boundary with Ellen’s Place and a minimum 5m
green buffer on the boundary to the southern and eastern edges. This scheme reduced unit numbers to 35 no.
and was the subject of further commentary from the Urban Design Officer in the form of a Buildings For Life
Criteria assessment. This is shown opposite. The currently submitted scheme responds to these points which
are covered in this document and summarised within the conclusion.
Score
Criteria Given:
1. Connections The proposals include a single road connection to the site. Concerns include: 1/ the site is poorly integrated and therefore connected to the rest of Newington, and 2/ inter-
nal connectivity is not provided as perimeter blocks is the not the primary approach to the layout.
2. Facilities and The scheme provides open spaces, no further social infrastructure and as stated above, poor connectivity to the facilities and social infrastructure in Newington. Concerns
include: 1/poor connection to facilities and social infrastructure in Newington and 2/ play provision, in particular provisions for toddler play areas along with a bench, should
services
be provided.
3. Public Transport Proximity to the railway station gives the site a natural advantage with regards the reduction of dependency on the car. Specific concerns include: 1/ a good pedestrian/cycle 50%
crossing of the A2 is required to encourage use of the railway station and 2/ the proposals for the bus routes have not been firmed up.
4. Local Housing No Comment
Requirements
Based on the previous submission a small local study contributed to the proposed layout. The proposed use of building form and material has taken reference from the local
5. Character 80%
vernacular providing a traditional and rich approach. Reference has not been made to the local Landscape Character in the landscape strategy. The landscape should be
described in terms of the local study for local landscapes, habitats and plant species. More work should be done to improve this aspect.
6. Context Response to context is described in terms of retention of existing hedgerows, retention of ditches for use as SUDs and response to contours. The setting of the site on the
edge of the village is incongruous with the boundary of Newington village, in effect suburbanising the countryside around the village (which was started in the development
7. Well defined streets the site. Concerns include: 1/ the site does not relate well to the boundary of Newington village, 2/ dwellings should front the boundary, 3/ more detail is required with 60%
to the west). The site should respond more positively with regards softening the village boundary with appropriate vegetation and take advantage of the great views from
regards the responses to the local landscape context such as habitats and species, and 4/ it is unclear whether any attempt has been made to orientate dwellings to benefit
from solar gain and whether sustainable construction or measures are proposed.
Some attempt has been made to provide perimeter blocks but they are not complete which in effect creates four cul-de-sacs/dead ends. The open spaces are better
defined. Concerns include: 1/ an overall confusing layout and perimeter blocks are preferred.
and spaces
8. Legibility Legibility and hierarchy of the streets is improved and the open space acts as a local landmark. Concerns include: 1/ there are too many cul-de-sacs/dead ends, perimeter 70%
blocks are preferred and this would also mean that dwellings face outwards from the site avoiding garden ‘sides’ on the site perimeter.
There has been some attempt to address issues to provide ‘streets for all’ and the improvements to the street hierarchy and open space layout and definition have
9. Streets for all 70%
addressed some of the previous concerns. There is a conflict in the proposals between the movement plan and landscape plan which needs to be resolved. Further work
can be undertaken as follows in the detailed design: 1/ glazing should be maximised on dwelling sides to assist with natural surveillance – it is noted that the windows are too
small for such spacious houses, 2/ the landscape design of the shared surface routes and “focal squares” can be used to reinforce them as ‘social spaces’ and ‘thoughtful
design’ of the entrances including attention to details such as the location and treatment of the services access panel 3/ the primary street is too ‘suburban’ in character and
10. Car Parking reconsideration of materials and 4/ should perimeter blocks be instated then the perimeter routes should be narrow lanes with passing places rather than suburban streets.
parking is predominantly on-plot however parallel street parking can be used as a natural traffic calming measure and should be employed at relevant locations, 3/ a wider
Car parking solution can be further explored. Research into car parking has been undertaken in Kent and the key finding is that rather than total numbers of parking spaces
being the issue it is the flexibility of who can park where so defined but flexible on-street parking couple with limited on-plot parking is seen as the solution. The report can
be found here: http://www.spacetopark.org/go/research/conclusions. Concerns include: 1/ the repertoire of approaches to providing car parking should be expanded, 2/ car
range of car parking approaches should be considered such as through car ports with tandem parking in the rear, parking barns for the blocks of flats, etc, 4/ garages should
11. Clarity of public/ be replaced with car ports and 5/ more street trees will assist with balancing the dominance of car parking. 50%
Three green spaces are provided. The largest is defined by dwellings and the balancing pond space is edged by a single side garden fence which is an improvement but still
private spaces not ideal, and the third is located one a corner edge of the site. More information is required regarding the landscape design proposals which are to be cognisant of the
Landscape Character Area assessment. The landscape proposals are broadbrush at this stage. Concerns include: 1/ species selection in support of biodiversity (and local
landscape character) must be provided, 2/ lack of clarity of the consideration of the appropriate set-backs to be made for the existing hedgerow habitat, 3/ provisions within
the open spaces is not clear including play, sports, seating, bins, shelter and so forth and 4/ there is too much ornamental planting in an essentially rural location especially
on the site boundary so more focus on native species, beyond witch hazel, is required .
12. Storage No Comment
iii