Urban Design Comments
Application no
File no
Case Officer
Date sent
Replies due by
Comments made
Proposal
Site
Applicant’s name
06/00692/FUL
Steve Phillipson
25th October 2006
15th November 2006
13th November 2006
Residential development. Change of use of No 48 snf
former Mining Institute and County Junior School to
residential uses and change of use of former Free
School and Girls and Infants School to parish hall and
associated offices within non residential institution and
office use classes ( D1 and B1)
North Derbyshire Tertiary College, Rectory Road,
Clowne
Maxam Property (Clowne Ltd)
Notes
Due to the level of outstanding information on the elevations urban design
comments at this stage have been made on public realm issues only. Further
comments on the treatments of elevations etc will follow.
Summary comments
The overall layout, height massing and circulation through this development
appear to be established and the retention of existing buildings and the
introduction of contemporary new residential architecture is welcomed.
However this quality is not reflected in the quality of public realm within the
development In light of the comments detailed below adequate design
consideration has not yet been given to the treatment of the public realm
including the spaces between building, access routes and entrances,
supervision of the public realm, functional issues such as waste and recycling
storage and disposal, the differentiation between private and public realm and
the landscape, materials and detailing of the public realm.
The overall quality of the development could be improved by further detailed
design consideration of the above issues.
Detailed comments


Concerns at the loss of the existing trees to the frontage with Rectory
Road – as they appear to be compatible with the scheme why have
they not been considered for retention
A number of trees are proposed within the development and the
following are questions about their ownership and maintenance. The









trees shown in the car park are within the public realm and though it is
assumed they will be maintained as part of the flats management
regime they are vulnerable. The trees between buildings A and B
could be included well within the private realm of the buildings and
therefore a boundary treatment could provide some additional security
whilst they establish. The trees along the eastern side of the main
north south pedestrian route are shown in an area where it is unclear
as to whether they are in the private or public realm. If they where
placed on the western side of this route within the boundary and more
clearly associated with buildings A and B then this may afford them
some protection.
Though a number of trees are shown within the eastern section of the
development they are mainly within front gardens, will be dependant on
the house owner and will not realistically contribute to the public realm.
This, coupled with the dominance of parking and lack of active
frontages may contribute to a poor environment.
Though the routes through the development are direct and adequate
and a number of realistic tree planting opportunities are provided within
the western section of the development there has not been sufficient
consideration of how the pedestrian routes, levels, key entrances,
corners and views and landscape work together to create attractive
and distinctive spaces between the buildings
Though the eastern elevation to E12 compliments the eastern corner of
building H and is to 3 storeys it is well set back and there are concerns
that this entrance to the development will be dominated by the rear
boundary treatment to plot E12. This treatment will virtually hide the
ground floor section of the elevation and is in a prominent location if of
poor or standard quality. Further details should be provided on how
the boundary to E12 is to be treated.
Due to the prominence of the treatment of the northern boundary
treatment to building H to the entrance to the development and the
prominence in views from dwellings E11 and E12 the treatment of the
boundary to building H should be of a high quality and design detail.
Concerns remain about the view into the development from the east.
The view will dominated by the corner north eastern corner of building
B with the actual entrance hidden.
There are also concerns about the relatively hidden entrance that
comes out facing the side wall of F1. If possible the entrance to a
building of this scale should be located within a space commensurate
with its status.
Concerns, as raised in the pre-application, remain about the
domination of the central area of the development by parking provision
and the lack of active frontages to ground floor level. This issue is
exacerbated by the poor terminations to views in this area.
Concerns about the informal supervision for the entrance to the alley to
the rear of G1 to G11 as this does not face any active frontage and
also the entrance to the parking court for the D type houses as this also
does not benefit from any active frontages.
Whilst the introduction of gates to secure the parking court to the rear
of the D properties is understood in security terms it is regrettable that













the need for these gates has not been designed out of the scheme.
Who is responsible for the long term maintenance of these gates?.
The differentiation between private and public realm in respect of the
frontages to F1 to F3 should be made clear
It is not clear from the layout how the differentiation between public
routes and private areas associated with buildings A, B and C will be
made i.e. the form boundary and landscape treatments will take
Concerns about the design, legibility, ease and security of access to
building A. The main entrance is located on the eastern elevation.
This elevation appears in the hierarchy of elevations to actually be the
rear of the building and the location is also the maximum walk from
parking provision. The location of the entrance does offer some activity
to the pedestrian route but also lacks any real level of informal
surveillance. The design of the entrance is very low key even
considering the overall approach to the design of the building and could
make a higher contribution to the public realm
Concerns about the impact of the scale and massing of the southern
elevation to building B on both views from Church Street (details of this
elevation are missing from the application) and on the spaces and
routes created between buildings B and C
Concerns remain about the adequacy of the side elevation of E1 as a
termination to the view through buildings A and B.
Location/screening of bin storage areas and routes to collection areas
for buildings A, B and C
Need to provide for rear bin access for properties E1, E2, E3, and E8
to E12 or otherwise frontages will be dominated by bins
Concerns about some bin access routes which may become blocked
by parked cars e.g the access to the rear of G8, E6 and E7 and E8 and
E9.
There are concerns about the levels of informal supervision along
certain sections of pedestrian routes and to entrances e.g the northern
section of the north south ped route through the development. The
section of path between buildings B and C as sections of building B
have effectively no ground floor windows as do sections of building C.
It appears from the plans that there may be some tall and prominent
retaining walls, some along pedestrian routes – how will the impact of
these be minimised and how will they be treated?
How will the area to the north of building A be treated?
There are a number of key boundaries within the development which
will be prominent in views both into and within the development and for
pedestrians using key routes. For example the side rear boundary
treatments to D1, E1, F1 and G1. What treatment is proposed for
these boundaries?
The drawings are not clear about the treatment of levels around the
southern 2 entrances to building B. The entrance to the western
elevation appears to be accessed by steps?