Urban Design Comments
Officers,GC,
to John
Date October 2010
Address Land at Spring Street and Colonial Street
S/Development control/Urban conservation/Development control
consultations/Spring st-Colonial st
The development comprises of 668 bedrooms in 0.5 hectares- development
density 1336 people per Ha with no amenity space, 12 parking spaces (4
disabled), and the requirement for 668 cycle parking spaces(policy M33). The
scheme is an overdevelopment of the site with no regard for the amenity of
the students other than a student bar, the 4 commercial units are
questionable, inadequate disabled parking for the 24 wheelchair accessible
bedrooms. There is no information about the landscaping and analysis of the
impact on the context. The assets of the site(several trees) are not
incorporated in the scheme, permeable surfaces and run off from the site,
rainwater/greywater recycling are not evident.
The design and access statement is not fit for purpose and demonstrates how
the design reacts rather than contributes to its context.
In terms of design:
Scale - 8 storeys this is justified by the precedent of Earle House, Colonial
Street, which is acceptable in the graduated approach upwards from Milk
Street. There is probably scope to create a tower 10-12 storeys on the corner
of Spring Street to address the issues below and retain/shift the
accommodation. This location would not overshadow the inner court later in
the day and it would create a focus on Spring Street which is otherwise likely
to become walled by slab like structures.
Massing this is imposing particularly the slab like elevation to Portland Street.
Sections of the building should use different brick to break it up and introduce
better proportions to the elevations.
Ground floor height-this needs increasing to counter the squat look of the
ground floor and give it substance(it will help accommodate 600mm floor
levels.
Amenity The scheme does not incorporate a strip of land to the north of
Portland Street which would be too narrow to develop and should be included
in the site. The inner block is too much development on the footprint of the
site and there is only 10m between living accommodation which is an
unacceptable standard of privacy and the inner voids are likely to be dark and
impenetrable to sunlight.
The site faces south and there are existing mature trees most of which are in
good condition and could be retained to create a green inner quadrangle open
to the south for the use of the residents. This would retain permeable surface
and aid the reduction of run off through rain gardens etc. The buildings along
Colonial and Spring Streets could project nearer to Portland Street on the
blighted land. The bar could locate to the peripheral blocks and animate the
street frontage preferably onto Portland Street.
The elevation on Grey Street/Milk Street needs to be 21m away from the
block on the north side this will give approx. 7m to the kerb so there should be
room for street trees and 90°parking bays.
Are commercial units appropriate opposite residences on Grey Street/Milk
Street?
Quanta the issues identified above require a significant reduction in
development quanta to address them. This equates to the loss of about a third
of the proposal leaving about 450 units.
Sustainability- Water recycling rainwater harvesting, permeable surfaces
/green roofs, adequate cycle storage, adequate waste storage, recycling and
management, Energy and heat generation, passive solar gain, photovoltaic
cladding, passive ventilation.
Summary
The quanta of development is too much, it is creating a store for students in
this battery accommodation rather than somewhere for them to live. In terms
of design it makes no attempt to exploit the sites assets and create a place
with amenity. The architecture seems to take its cues from the block on the
north Side of Grey Street/Milk Street and create monolithic slabs to hem in the
streets rather than animate them. The scheme blights the strip of land on the
north side of Portland Street which would be undevelopable. The Urban
Design section cannot support this scheme as it stands.
GC October 2010