CASTLE QUAY EXTENSION PROPOSALS (CQ2)
RESPONSE BY THE BANBURY CIVIC SOCIETY TO PUBLISHED
MASTERPLAN PRIOR TO SUBMISSION
October 2013
The Castle Quay site in 1900
Development area: Museum Bridge to Tom Rolt Bridge
Existing development (CQ1) : The Mill to Museum Bridge
Existing development (CQ1) : The Mill to Museum Bridge
Preamble
Banbury Civic Society actively works for the wellbeing of the town.
We are concerned with the conservation of the town’s heritage, the
promotion of good urban design in new developments and helping
stimulate an active and creative community.
We believe we offer local and professional knowledge that
transcends the mechanics of an application and that can help an
applicant realise their stated public objectives. Our long-term
knowledge and commitment, whilst raising issues, also offers
valuable solutions.
Following the public exhibition of Castle Quay 2 (hereafter CQ2) on
25th-27th July 2013 we had the opportunity to review the project in
detail with the Architect at the invitation of Proteus. Our observations
are based on that discussion and a subsequent site visit.
1. The Site as Identified
The existing Castle Quay development (CQ1) has substantial legacy
issues which are well known and widely acknowledged. The first is
permeability and connectivity: the existing shopping centre forms a
solid mass of development that physically and visually separates the
town centre from the canal, The Mill arts centre and Spiceball sports
centre. Secondly, the existing CQ1 notoriously turns its back on the
canal, with inactive frontages, narrow walkways and bin-storage.
The promoted Masterplan, as submitted for the EIA screening
application, features a clear red line boundary, within which all
proposals fall. Whilst it is hoped that this boundary will be expanded
in due course, we are concerned that this red-line boundary is
inadequate both for the effective analysis and development of the
site in three regards:
1. Only a small section of the Canal corridor is included within the
red line. The Oxford Canal in Banbury (a designated conservation
area) separated CQ1 and CQ2 and should represent a significant
and positive experience for the waterborne traveller, for the
pedestrian and for the casual observer. On the Canal route this is
the only urban experience between Coventry and Oxford, an
experience which links closely with the name of Rolt in retrieving
canals in the post-war period, and a major opportunity for
purchases by the tourist boatman. In iconographic terms it should
link with ‘Banbury Cross’, ‘The Lady on the White Horse’ and
‘Cakes’, Banbury’s three nationally-recognised icons.
By excluding the southern section of the Castle Quay frontage from
Museum Bridge to Bus Station, the Masterplan ignores the
inadequacy of the existing canal-side environment through much of
the Castle Quay site.
In order for an enlarged Castle Quay to make the canalside a better
place, we would suggest that a townscape analysis must be carried
out of the Canal from the Bus Station northwards to the bridge
adjacent to the proposed cinema. This with a view to coordinated
enhancement of the canalside environment and possible links with
recognised icons.
2. By excluding both the Bus Station and The Mill Arts Centre from
the area under consideration, recently discussed proposals for both
cannot be accommodated and almost the only existing pedestrian
route connecting the town centre to The Mill and the Spiceball
Leisure Centre is ignored.
This only serves to emphasise the level of pedestrian severance
achieved by Castle Quay 1 and its previous internalisation and
suppression of all historic public thoroughfares (Mill Lane, Mill
Street, Castle Street, Factory Street etc) through the area.
Permeability of the whole Castle Quay area is very low and is
particularly difficult for the elderly or disabled.
Bearing in mind the proposer’s concern for footfall in the area we
would strongly suggest that the integrity and suitability of
pedestrian routes is reconsidered so as to encourage optimum use
of existing and proposed facilities
Lastly, we are particularly concerned at the tightness of the red line
boundary, which is limited strictly to only the areas of proposed new
development. Whilst we have been reassured that the emerging
proposals will address the legacy issues of impermeability, lack of
connectivity and the existing inactive frontages onto the canal, we
cannot see how this could be achieved without extending the redline boundary. As the current, very tight boundary has been used
for the EIA Screening application, we understand that any
subsequent extensions to the red line could render any emerging
proposals open to legal challenge if they include any areas that lie
outside of the current red line boundary.
CQ2 can neither be a town-centre (rather than edge of centre)
development nor can it achieve its stated objectives of bringing
increased footfall to the Old Town and increased vitality to canalside
without addressing a number of legacy issues from CQ1. These are
the impermeability through and round CQ1, the lack of connectivity
and the existing inactive frontages onto the canal. Because these
must be overcome in any new extension, we would ask that the red
line be extended immediately to include the existing CQ1, the Bus
Station, The Mill, and the access connecting the canal by the BHS
terrace to Cornhill via Castle Street.
Lack of permeability:
Pedestrian route from The Mill to
Bridge Street around the bus station.
Apparent footpath at right leads only
to Debenham's loading bays.
Through H&M shop (during shop hours)
or through the shopping mall (open to
11pm)
Through shopping mall from behind
Tooley's boatyard (during shop hours).
N.B. There is no canalside path or other
route from south to north except
through Tooley's boatyard.
Through shopping mall from BHS
terraces (during shop hours)..
Through BHS (during shop hours).
Between BHS and the car multistorey park to Castle Street
…leading to…
…and
and on
to Cornhill…
2. Development Aspirations
To quote the CQ2 publicity ‘ The proposals for CO2 have been
carefully designed to integrate with Banbury’s picturesque canal
district and would deliver more leisure space and attract additional
visitors to the town centre, complementing existing retail facilities.’
This is indeed a positive civic (as well as developmental) aspiration,
but does it stand up to scrutiny?
2.1. A Picturesque Canal District
Avoiding debate on the ‘picturesque’ we could, perhaps, agree on
the term ‘attractive.’ But is the district currently attractive? At the
peak of the holiday season the flow of brightly coloured boats and
their operators provides a human focus – something happening. But
for a considerable part of the year the canalside is a dark, shaded
brick canyon with fading building detail, few places to sit and stare,
and often litter in the water. If you want to see picturesque
/attractive, go to Brindley Wharf in Birmingham, which is designed
to bring active frontages onto the canals, which are managed for
visitor use on a daily basis.
The proposals hint at design or re-design of active canal frontages
at buildings 5/6/4/2 on the Masterplan and there are hints of
outdoor eating and vegetation. All the more depressing then to pass
under the museum bridge around the unfeatured (excluded)
Tooley’s boatyard into an array of brick walls without animation.
The scene is certainly neither picturesque nor attractive.
2.2. More Leisure Space
At present the leisure space within the area includes Spiceball
Leisure Centre, The Mill, the General Foods Club, the Museum, food
outlets in CQ1 and quayside spaces used for events such as Folk
and Canal Festivals: important events in the town’s calendar.
Whilst this array of opportunities is not sufficient – a theatre and /
or ‘Cultural Quarter’ are frequently mentioned – they make more
use of free public space than do the proposals. The Cinema –
welcomed by many – is privatised space, the leisure outlets at 6
replace a membership social club which has long admitted all, and
welcomed social and other groups to use its facilities. Existing
informal quayside spaces used for festivals have been removed by
the proposed Hotel (2) and by the implied formalisation of the quay
at 4. The Mill, which has long sought opportunities for an adequate
theatrical space need not have been marginalised as it is by this
proposal.
Overall the proposals may offer more formal, commercial leisure
space, but the informality of a canalside is not well served by the
detail of this proposal.
2.3. More Visitors
What does it take to attract more visitors to the town centre? If the
town centre stretches from Banbury Cross to Spiceball, then it has
the capacity for many more visitors than it is likely to achieve.
Certainly the proposed Cinema may attract additional visitors, but
this would result in the loss of a major attraction at the Cross. The
desire to pull the night-time economy to CQ2 with new bars and
restaurants is also likely to affect the night-time economy of the Old
Town. There is little doubt that, if effective, this proposal will pull
further attention away from the Cross and ‘Old Town’ areas.
A well-designed and integrated CQ2 could serve to maintain and
even increase footfall in the immediate town centre area, but it will
be very difficult to ensure that it does not lead to a loss of footfall
further to the west.
2.4. Complementing Existing Retail Facilities
We note the modest level of new retail development, save for the
very largely car-served Food Store (8). Such a Food Store, served
by adequate parking, pedestrian routes, new bus links and a nearby
Taxi rank would complement the town’s central offer.
It is not merely a matter of complementing existing facilities, but
rather of ensuring that shoppers see the full array of retail outlets,
old and new, in their personal maps of the town centre. Failure to
consider CQ2 from the outside inwards means that no attention has
been paid to re-working the accessways to the new facilities in the
area, and especially linkage between CQ and the Old Town. As to
the attractiveness of the canal ambience (current and proposed), no
visitor, unless on a boat or chancing a glance over a road bridge,
would know the canal was there! There is no chance that the much
vaunted picturesque canal district can benefit the town unless views
are opened up, paths and roads reappraised and signage and
promotion given sufficient investment. Even the proposed roof will
fail to break any skyline view save along the canal itself and boat
users already know the canal is there.
2.5. Using What’s There
It is essential to mention some of the existing features within CQ2
and adjacent area before moving on to discussion of the detailed
proposals – the Canal, CQ1, The Mill, Tooley’s Boatyard, Banbury
Museum and the General Foods Club.
a. The Canal
The proposal must consider the functioning and current condition of
the canalside. Detailed space usage evidence will, no doubt, inform
detailed quayside design. A survey of some areas will reveal
deteriorating paintwork and brickwork – picturesque maybe, but
potentially unsafe.
b. CQ1
Castle Quay is, internally, a well-managed mall shopping facility
with evidence of concern for design and good housekeeping.
Externally it leaves much to be desired, not only in the banal design
and faded façade condition of public faces but also in the number of
inactive window spaces and waste containers in clear public view.
This would not matter if these were in private space, but they are in
the very public space which is being promoted in CQ2. Either CQ2 is
doomed to failure though poor design and poorer external
management, or CQ1 is brought up to a new standard. Active
frontages are a sound commercial investment.
c. The Mill
The Mill is a well-used and much loved space, both internally and
externally. Apart from the much-altered Tooley’s boatyard, The Mill
is the only surviving historic canal-side building north of the Bridge
Street bridges. It deserves to be the focus of the south end of the
development and its exclusion from the proposals is a significant
weakness.
The Mill
The Mill
d. Tooley’s Boatyard
This 18th-century Scheduled Monument is a unique historic asset –
the USP for the whole of the canal – yet it is a poor representative
of the communication essential for a heritage asset to complement
a contemporary environment. Tidiness is not essential but better
visibility and interpretation to excite the visitor is urgently needed.
Tooley’s Boatyard
Tooley’s Boatyard
e. Banbury Museum
It must be admitted that the current black bridge from CQ1 to the
Museum does little to enhance the canal’s ambience and some
might feel that a lighter, brighter iconographic link might serve the
proposals just as well as any canal roof. The Museum, now entering
Trust ownership, requires the support and understanding of its
neighbours, not the least in terms of access points. It is a major
asset to the site, but again permeability and signage serve it badly.
Its presence needs some assistance in any revised canalside
scheme.
Banbury Museum (Main entrance)
Banbury Museum (Canal entrance)
f. General Foods Social Club
Although this is an unremarkable building, it has developed a
comfortable form of address with the canalside through its
attractive external steps and balconies and its well-managed
planting. It offers public access, could almost be a canalside pub,
and provides the community with central accommodation for
events. A seemingly well managed facility providing for several,
perhaps increasingly atypical leisure markets, its purpose and form
should not be forgotten in any re-designed site.
Social Club
Social Club
3. Major Elements in the Proposal
Before discussing each of the constituent elements of the
Masterplan it is important to note that we share the civic, leisure
and design intentions of the supporting text and recognise that the
development is proposed to the benefit of Banbury.
3.1 The Food Store (8)
After a short period when no basic food retailer survived in the town
centre, there is now a scatter of central food outlets but a store of
the dimensions implied should still be an asset to the central area.
We are nevertheless concerned that the existing CQ1 effectively
blocks the site off from the town centre, meaning that the
supermarket will function in the same way as any edge-of-town
supermarket (park, shop and leave). Its form and skyline impact
will require careful attention, recognising how the nearby Spiceball
Centre has avoided the bulk of a simple glazed box.
The configuration of the Food Store Car Park suggests larger spaces
adjacent to a public walkway and we could hope that such spaces
imply both bus stops and a short taxi rank essential to the effective
working of such a store.
3.2 New Spiceball to Canal Route
Implied without comment is a major revision to public access and
spaces in the area. The existing bridge between the canalside area
and Spiceball would seem to have been shortened and re-oriented
so as to feed into a path through the Food Store parking lot and
over the main service road to a new or substantially revised green
area adjacent to the Museum and to the new Canal Bridge and
southwards to a revised plaza at BHS, from whence it peters out
between BHS and the existing multi-storey parking unit.
To meet the new path and footbridge over the canal the existing white footbridge
from Spiceball (at rear) will need to be orientated from the left to the right of the
car park in foreground.
This pedestrian way, from Town Centre to Spiceball represents a
major element in the permeability of the area and deserves detailed
design consideration. The absence of any consideration for the path
from the proposed Hotel to, for example, the existing Market
Square , suggests that the developer is unaware of the poor visual
condition of much of this route. If visitors/spenders are to be
attracted to the canal from the town (and vice-versa), then a
detailed scheme for the entire route is urgently required.
Recognition of this route does, however, emphasise the importance
of a revised form of public space address for the Museum adjacent
to the new green space. This is a major opportunity for
improvement of access and image.
3.3 Restaurants, Bars and Shops (6)
We were concerned that existing local amenities at the General
Foods Club are to be sacrificed, but recognise that this proposal
may be an opportunity for all parties. The architect’s presentation
included a less than convincing two level frontage to the canal,
which seemed to replace the intimacy and character of the existing
planted General Foods façade. The detail of this part of the proposal
will need significant further work. The proposed restaurants, bars
and shops would help to animate the canal, but we fear that this will
be at the expense of other such areas in the Old Town.
3.4 Cinema (5)
Inserting a cinema adjacent to Cherwell Drive represents the most
significant change to the canalside. Few can argue that Banbury
does not deserve an improved cinema if it is to retain its
attractiveness as an evening and night-time entertainment centre.
At present a simple angular box is implied and, unless briefed
against, may appear. But this is a key element in the urban canal
section and deserves a recognisable building that pays some respect
to the canal. The use of surrounding public spaces, and the roofline
from Cherwell Drive deserve careful attention. There is every
opportunity for a local landmark building which marks the new
development area. Interior or external design might well benefit
from research into images of canals on film.
3.5 Hotel
This would appear to be a single-aspect hotel, overlooking canal and
cinema, and providing a new façade to the existing multi-storey car
park where, by implication, hotel parking is provided.
The site could be very cramped if standard hotel layouts are used.
The hotel would result in considerable loss of public space (used
especially for annual events such as Canal Day) which cannot easily
be recouped elsewhere.
After the old multi-storey Bolton Road car park, the hotel would be
the tallest building in Banbury. We are very concerned that its
orientation and proximity to the canal will throw much of the CQ2
canal-side area into almost permanent deep shadow.
Whilst a vernacular pastiche would be out of place for such a tall,
monolithic block, great care in façade design would be essential.
Hotel site
3.6 Revised BHS Terraces
There are clear indications of some upgrading of the public plaza
outside BHS and the unused canalside terraces / boardwalks on the
adjacent façade to the south. Some planting and better daily
management can bring these into more effective use, but the
imposition of the red line means that similar access/conditions
adjacent to Tooley’s Boatyard and further south are not addressed.
As we have already noted, this lack of attention to CQ1 will place it
in more than just the sun’s shade when compared to CQ2. We are
sure that the developers envisage CQ2 as being a positive addition
to CQ1, rather than further downgrading its external public spaces
through comparison.
3.7 The Glass Roof
From illustrations and text, this roof seems something of an
afterthought, albeit a very expensive one, to the basic development
proposal. Implied is the roof glazing of a small section of the canal
between (but possibly not including) the two bridges whose mooring
points define the BHS plaza on the south bank and the new group of
restaurants, bars and shops on the north.
We would oppose the erection of such a roof on a number of
grounds :
a. Heritage
There is no tradition of glazing over canals, either in Britain or
elsewhere. When canals pass below buildings the space is
traditionally dark and restricted. The canal and its craft represent a
near-natural flow, open to the air, in British terms an 18th century
form of passage that has survived.
b.Design
In recent times the large tensile or edge supported glazed roof has
been used to protect performance and gathering spaces. With the
canal as central feature, this contemporary purpose is denied. Very
complex drainage will be required to avoid uncontrolled drainage
onto the peripheral seating areas and the two bridges seem
unprotected. There is no evidence as to the local circumstances of
temperature and wind that will be affected.
c. Maintenance
A glazed roof will be continually affected by ambient dust, bird
droppings etc. from without, and by the power exhausts of boats
from within, especially if moored. Whilst regular cleaning can reduce
these problems we have little confidence that given current good
housekeeping in canal public spaces, such regular cleaning can be
provided.
d. Comfort
It might be thought that such a roof, covering key new canalside
outlets, will provide a level of dining and drinking comfort which
attracts additional visitors. We do not believe that the investment
level required will be justified by this expectation. There is strong
evidence that it could act as a wind tunnel.
e. Iconography
It has been suggested that the glass roof, though modest in size,
might prove an iconographic attraction to Banbury’s canalside. A
number of factors determine the initial success of design icons in an
urban setting.
i. The proposal should be novel in setting, region or country.
Certainly we know of no other, but perhaps for good reason. But the
size of the proposal is very modest.
ii. That it should have an innovative form which captures the
professional and then the public media. There are no indications
here of such a design icon.
iii. That it should be conceived or designed by a currently celebrated
designer. Not the case here and if there is money to spend and an
icon is needed call on Heatherwick, or spot his successor! With a
lexicon of geometric forms, the legacy of locally-associated Sir Terry
Frost might be considered.
iv. That initial capital investment is justified in terms of a ten-year
promotional life for the icon. This requires a programme of skilled
visitor promotion that has hardly been evident in Banbury’s recent
past.
The need for an iconographic symbol for the new development and
the availability of substantial funding might be directed towards
either the Banbury Cross or Canal themes and developed through a
functional space related to the ongoing promotion of public
arts,culture and events. A named theatre or performance space has
to provide continued regional and national promotion for its
survival, even an iconographic cinema ensures weekly media
promotion. A substantially re-modelled and re-named pedestrian
way between the Market Place and the Museum, with opportunities
for exhibition and performance, would keep the new canalside
development on the map and meet all the aspirations of the
proposal.
4. CONCLUSIONS
4.1
We welcome this proposal, which must be judged by officers,
elected members and the public in the light of other proposals –
such as Bolton Road and M40 Gateway – and in the context of
rapidly shifting roles for High Street retailing.
4.2
We are fundamentally concerned that the area as defined is too
restricted to ensure the overall upgrading of the canalside
environment so as to ensure the success of both CQ1 and CQ2 over
the next twenty years. The red line must be extended to include the
existing CQ1, the Bus Station, The Mill, and the access connecting
Cornhill to the canal via Castle Street and the BHS terrace, all of
which require improvement for the scheme to work for both the
proposers and the wider town. We fear that failure to include these
areas at EIA Screening stage may make it difficult (if not
impossible) to include them later, without risking a proposal that
might be liable to legal challenge.
4.3
We share with the proposers a concern for footfall and for
integration with the existing town centre, but do not feel sufficient
realistic attention has been given to links between the site and the
existing town centre (both through and around the existing CQ1) or
to permeability within the proposed CQ2 development.
4.4
With some caveats we welcome the new mix of uses but without
clear and explicit linkages between the CQ2 development and the
Old Town, we fear that the new cinema, bars and restaurants could
have a devastating effect on the Old Town night-time economy. We
are concerned about the size, availability and ongoing maintenance
of public spaces and emphasise the need to pay particular attention
to existing heritage and cultural assets integral to the site –
Banbury Museum, The Mill and Tooley’s Boatyard.
4.5
We are unconvinced by the purpose and form of the partial roofing
of the canal and believe that practical and iconographic needs for
both a symbol and for ongoing quality can be met in other, far more
essential ways, e.g. bridges, designed linkages and buildings.
(ends)