Urban Design Comments
Application no
File no
Case Officer
Date sent by D&L
Replies due by
Comments made
Proposal
Site
Applicant’s name
06/00760/FUL – revised elevations received 12th Jan
2007
Pete Sawdon
1st December 2006
15th December 2006
22nd January 2007
Proposed Joint Services Centre comprising local
government offices and including a café, a library, leisure
facilities (including gym) children’s’ nursery and crèche
facilities, police offices, medical centre including primary
care trust and doctors’ surgery, adult education facilities,
day care facilities, other offices and 24 residential
apartments and site infrastructure and associated
landscaping works
Former football pitch to the rear of Devonshire Arms and
land to the north of Lees Land and west of Market Street,
South Normanton, Derbyshire
Franklin Ellis Architects
Notes
The elevations provided include a number of trees and surrounding buildings
which whilst giving information as to context obscure critical areas of the
building. A set of drawings are requested that does not include trees.
Revised plans in respect of the revisions made to the elevations sent on Jan
12th.
Summary comments
The design development of this scheme has been lengthy and problematical
due to both the design development approach taken by the original architects
and the level of accommodation required within the budget and constraints of
the site.
The applicant has stated that the footprint, siting, scale, massing and overall
orientation of the building has been frozen for sometime, despite repeated
design concerns being raised, due presumably to project timetable and fee
constraints.
Though the fundamental design concerns with the building remain the
comments below are made on the basis of minimising the negative physical
impacts of the proposed building on the context and maximising pedestrian
linkages and the public realm opportunities associated with the development.
Even within this restricted range of comment there are still a number of design
concerns with the development.
Height, massing and roofline






The accommodation of the building height and massing in the context
of a small scale town centre has been problematical throughout the
design development of this scheme. The initial application drawings
show a large building, which while it does not respect the scale of the
town centre is a balanced building in terms of the relationship between
the building mass and the roof and uses variation in roof heights and
gables/hipped roof sections to break up the mass of the building and
best integrate the roof line. Materials and window sizes/patterns are
also used to break up the mass of the building and to integrate the
building into its context.
The impact of the revised roofline (elevations provided by email of 12th
January) to meet the HSE requirements raises concerns due to the
impact on the appearance of the building. The roof pitch appears
uncharacteristically shallow, out of scale/balance with the body of the
building and gives the building a standardised ‘motel’ type appearance.
The revised roofline has a particularly negative impact on the eastern
elevation of the eastern wing due to the truncation of the second gable
end. This gives a poor appearance to this elevation which is prominent
in approaches from the town centre
The impact of the revised roofline also has considerable impact on the
west elevation due to: the loss of the second floor balcony which
provided some depth to the elevation, the loss of the render treatment
to the second floor which broke up this elevation, the addition of small
out of scale gables with timber detailing, the ‘top heavy’ appearance of
the elevation due to the prominence and grouping of second storey
windows, the increased prominence of the lift shaft due to the inclusion
of what appears to be glazing to the second floor and the differing
eaves detail for the southern and northern ends of the building.
It is difficult to comment on the northern section of the western
elevation due to the addition of further trees and hedges to obscure the
revised elevation. It appears, but is not clear from the revised
elevation, that there has been a loss of depth to this elevation,
achieved in the original application drawings by the setting forward of
this section of the building. There also appears to have been a loss of
a section of larger windows which also broke up this end of the
elevation.
There are concerns that the impact of lowering the roofline on the
northern elevation, loss of the hipped roof section and homogenisation
of materials has resulted in a more uniform roofline and weaker
lavational treatment. The revised approach is not as successful in
breaking up the impact of the building as the original elevations where
the variety of roof heights and roof forms. There are also concerns
about the eaves detail to the north western corner of the building and
the timber detailing to the revised gable.

The loss of variety in roof height is considered to give a poorer
appearance and contribute to the loss of differentiation between
different sections of the building. The southern end of the building will
be particularly prominent and the replacement of the full hip by a
truncated hip is not considered to improve this elevation
Pedestrian access and public realm
A strong pedestrian access had now been developed into the site from the
south. However the key pedestrian desire lines are from the north and from
the east from the town centre, bus stop provision and the coop and car park.
There are still concerns that these routes are not fully developed.






the main desire line from the Market Place and bus stops is along the
alley to the north of the Devonshire Arms, passed the south of the
current Doctor’s surgery towards the eastern elevation of the building.
This proposal provides a 2m section of pedestrian footpath along the
section of this route within the site boundary, as scaled from the Site
Plan Layout. This route is functional but should not drop below a 2m
width.
A desire line exists into the site from the north, running along the rear
of properties to Market Street. The section of this route within the site
boundary is again functional as a pedestrian route with the final 2m
section being shared with the above route.
The site plan details a retaining wall between the coop car park and the
terrace to the north of the proposed JSC with a possible access to the
coop car park annotated on the site plan. The development needs to
establish linkages between the site and the coop/car park/town centre
to the north. It appears from the current proposal that no pedestrian
access is being provided at this point at this stage. The route into the
site from the north, referred to above runs along an unmade track to
the rear of properties and is neither pleasant or secure particularly in
adverse weather conditions or at night.
The site plan appears to show the use of proposed or potential
pedestrian routes within the turning and manoeuvring areas for
vehicles. There are concerns about this especially as these areas will
still generate high levels of pedestrian movement.
The vehicular/pedestrian route along the north of the building shows a
shared surface treatment. There are concerns about this where the
potential pedestrian route in from the north crosses this route and the
final landscape plans need to clearly detail how priority for routes will
be established e.g. through the use of materials/level changes
A high percentage of pedestrians will still enter the site from the north,
north east and from the east. There is a pinch point to the south east
corner of the eastern wing of the building where the pedestrian route
scaled from the drawing is approx 2m wide. The treatment of this
corner will be critical both for circulation, appearance and
security/community safety reasons.
There are also concerns about the detailed design of the public space to the
south of the building and with the relationship of the public space provided for
the building with both the internal functions of the building itself.

The site plan shows the main contribution to public realm to be to the
south of the eastern wing of the building, a space approx 35m long by
12 m wide. Further information will be required on the functions and
treatment of this space
Active frontages
The building generally provides a good level of active frontage, taking into
consideration the exposed site and the level of frontage created by the L
shape.
Concerns remain though those levels of active frontage are provided in
respect of the relationship of the development to the town centre are poor.



The treatment of the eastern elevation of the eastern wing of the
building, essentially as a rear elevation, is poor taking into
consideration its location facing the town centre and the main
pedestrian routes from the town centre.
The north eastern corner of the eastern wing of the building forms a
key area for the relationship of the building to the areas to the north of
the site. The accommodation located in this area consists of the boiler
rooms, bike stores and kitchen areas. These functions do not provide
the opportunities for positive frontages. As with the eastern elevation
of this wing the areas closest to the existing town centre and key
pedestrian routes are essentially treated as ‘rear elevations’.
The eastern elevation provides a low level of informal supervision
taking into consideration it provides the potential for informal
supervision facing key pedestrian routes and an area of car parking.
Community safety
The opening up of the western and northern frontages and the treatment of
the eastern elevation of the eastern wing, with low levels of informal
supervision raises concerns that they will create areas for anti-social or
criminal behaviour.
A further concern is the location of the entrances to the flats to the western
elevation of the building.
Could the level of windows to the stairwell in the lift shaft be increased to
improve both the level of supervision for the rear of the building and the
appearance of this section of the building?
Miscellaneous
The location of bins and recycling storage for the kitchens and other building
functions is assumed to be to the north eastern corner of the building. There
are concerns about the impact in relation to pedestrians approaching the
building from the town centre in terms of both impacts on views/amenity and
on accessibility.
The treatment of the entrances to the residential elements of the development
appears to be very low key, the entrance to the eastern end elevation being
particularly poor.