COLLEGE SITE, ARCHERY ROAD – FULL PLANNING APPLICATION FOR HOUSING DEVELOPMENT
CONSERVATION AND DESIGN COMMENTS - January 2010
Introduction
These comments offer a fuller explanation of the advice given at a scheme review meeting in November 2009 and some initial detailed design pointers given at a follow-up meeting in December 2009.
Key Points
Architectural style
The development sketches for this scheme that evolved at the end of our re-design process started to show some promise and architectural flair. Unfortunately, the designs have evolved no further and, in fact, the scheme appears to have reverted to more standard off the shelf house types with no strong link to the architectural style of the surrounding historic development.
In analysing the scheme, I am not yet seeing the common thread of how the design influence of the Burton legacy has been translated into the architectural style of the new buildings. The architect must demonstrate what influences he has taken from the surrounding historic development and how these have fed into the resulting designs. This doesn’t currently come across clearly from looking at the Design and Access Statement or from analysis of the resulting development proposals. If the architect has decided to take a different design approach to the site then this must be explained and justified in the design and access statement.
My detailed design comments on each block of development are appended at the end of this report.
Materials
I have previously given very clear advice about what would be considered to be appropriate materials for use on the new buildings - the key advice being the need for the extensive use of render for walls and natural slate for roofs. The current designs show some use of render but this is mixed in with extensive use of what appears to be brick. This extensive use of brick within the scheme is out of keeping with the character of the area.
We covered this issue at our latest meeting and I see that the latest revised designs show more extensive use of render.
Scale
I have previously stated concerns regarding the scale and siting of Block A, in relation to the surrounding historic development, in particular The Highlands. I understand that these issues are now being addressed and that the re-siting and re-design of Block A is currently under consideration.
I make further observations regarding the detailed design of Block A below (although these may not be relevant to a revised design).
Landscaping
The proposals in terms of the landscaping scheme don't seem to have been developed any further than the development sketches that we saw for the scheme earlier this year.
The quality of proposed boundary treatments suggested in the design and access statement are unacceptable and do not sufficiently reflect the dominant style of boundary treatments within the wider historic area. Too many of the town houses have their frontage dominated by parking and have no strong front boundary treatment. I have previously given very clear guidance about the style of boundary treatments I was expecting to see in the area and this advice has not been followed.
The quality of hard landscaping materials being proposed for roads, pavements and parking areas is unacceptable. Again, my advice has not been followed.
As stated at our November meeting, the quality of the landscaping scheme in the main square at the top end of the site is of particular concern, as it has been substantially compromised since the pre-application drawings were discussed. I have previously advised that a square with so much parking provision and hard surfacing would need very careful handling and top quality materials if it is to be acceptable. The extensive use of different coloured concrete block paviors is not acceptable in design or quality terms. To work, this must read as a very high quality courtyard space first and an informal parking area second. The use of a resin-bonded gravel has been suggested as an appropriate form of surfacing for this area. Also, the soft landscaping and surface materials need to flow together in a cohesive design.
The new landscaped spaces to either side of the listed building are critical to the success of the overall scheme. The current information on these is still very sketchy. Additional information will be required before we can be assured that the proposals are acceptable. I have already advised that the proposed south facing elevation of the under terrace car parking area to the listed building is unacceptable in its current form and I have requested revised proposals.
Overall, I consider the landscaping proposals for the scheme require further enhancement.
Missing information
The following information is missing from the planning application submission.
- the materials have not been clearly identified on each of the elevation drawings. A clear key indicating the building materials proposed should be provided on each drawing submitted.
- Further detail of the retaining walls and structures across the site should be provided. There appear to be several substantial retaining structures being proposed which will have a significant visual impact. Information should be provided regarding the length, height and proposed surface finish of these structures.
- More detail is required regarding the open spaces to either side of the listed terrace, particularly in relation to contours/levels, retaining structures, landscaping and finishes. I would expect to see some elevations indicating what these areas will look like.
- No details are provided for door / window / garage door types to houses.
- Still need more information on site cross-sections – clearly showing new and old levels across the site.
- Contextual drawings of the site levels and scale of development in relation to the surrounding conservation area are required (I can indicate on a site layout drawing those views that I currently consider to be missing from the application package).
- More information is required about the roof profiles/forms of blocks A and B. This will need to include more cross-section details through the roof so that we can see how the zinc roof is formed and how this relates to the form of the main building.
- Floor plans and elevations of all sides of each housing block are required (it is not sufficient to just illustrate the house types – we need to see what they will look like as a group).
DETAILED DESIGN AND MATERIALS
Houses – General Points
– Need to retain a traditional hierarchy of architectural features on the buildings. Not acceptable to have full height French doors to all levels of an elevation – need to have a reduction of window sizes as you go up the building. On a standard 3-storey façade, French doors are acceptable at ground floor level and at 1st floor there is a tradition of having a balcony and French doors that can be followed. Windows at 2nd floor and above should be smaller-scale.
- not happy with metal Juliet balcony railings on all houses at all levels. Again, need to follow a hierarchy of architectural features on the elevations. Also, would prefer 1st floor balconies to be larger and to be projecting balconies to provide more interest on the elevations. On visible buildings, plain metal railings to balconies will not be acceptable. Balconies will have to be either frameless glazed, so as to provide a slick modern appearance, or be formed to a traditional style (cast iron/decorative or render balusters).
- the dormer windows are generally over large and look too blank. Again, the dormers must adhere to a building hierarchy whereby the size of the dormer window is modest in relation to the windows on the floor immediately below it. The double dormers shown on some of the designs exaccerbate the top-heavy appearance of the dormers - these must be split up and reduced in size.
- some of the house designs look like they would benefit from some form of vertical sub-division between the units, such as a fire wall at roof level (a traditional feature) continued down through the elevation.
- chimney style - the chimneys shown on the drawings look more continental than English. A more traditional form of chimney with clay chimney pots would be preferred.
- Consideration should be given to using a projecting render or stone band, immediately above ground floor level, to give visual weight to the ground floor accommodation and to visually support the 1st floor balconies.
Materials
- too much use of brick – not enough render. The majority of any visible elevations will be expected to be rendered, with brick, timber and metal cladding being used for architectural highlighting. On some less visible buildings it would be acceptable to use (red) brickwork at ground floor level to provide a plinth.
Specific Comments on house types
House Type 1
- reduce the prominence of brickwork on all visible elevations. Render finishes should dominate.
- consider using larger frameless glazing projecting balconies of the 1st floor frontage.
House Type 2
- consider using wider frameless glazing projecting balcony at 1st floor rear elevation.
- too much brickwork on elevations.
- concern that bay feature on the frontage does not work in design terms. It needs to project forward more, so that the 2nd floor window is set back behind a balcony. Currently the 2nd floor window sits forward of the main wall ?
- the gap between the two garage doors on the building frontage is too narrow.
House Type 3
- Front elevation - 1st floor balcony wall above garages is very heavy. Could consider inserting a glazed balcony front here to reduce the bulk.
- remove 2nd floor balconies front and rear.
- could incorporate a chimney in the design ?
- front dormer is over-large and makes the roof top-heavy. The dormer window needs to be of a scale similar to the smaller windows at 2nd floor level - reduce the size.
- change to a single rooflight to rear roof slope - two adjacent rooflights look too busy.
House Type 4
– the projecting two storey bay/dormer on frontage is too dominant at roof level. Need to keep this feature below eaves level. Suggest change design so that bay starts at 1st floor and terminates at 2nd. Could then provide a modest dormer at roof level or a rooflight.
- too much brickwork. Render must be the dominant walling material.
- the rear elevation of this house is very plain. If it is visible anywhere this elevation will need to be enhanced.
- Could incorporate a chimney ?
House Type 5
- continuous dormer and roof terrace on the rear elevation is too disruptive to roof profile and too top heavy. The combined dormers need to be separated out so that there is an area of roof slope between them. The dormers will also need to be reduced in size. The dormers should then also be separated from the roof terraces so that all of the roof features appear to sit within the dominant roof slope.
- Omit one rooflight from the front elevation.
- Again, the front balcony wall above the garage is heavy looking - could this be a glazed balcony front to give a lighter appearance ?
- The rear 1st floor balcony could be projecting and have frameless glazing to the front and sides.
- Need to reduce the amount of brickwork on all elevations.
House Type 6
- this house type has the same problem with combined dormer / terrace at the rear as outlined above for House Type 5. Bulk of dormers needs to be significantly reduced.
- overhang to ridge looks out of keeping.
- single rooflight only to front elevation.
- remove second floor balcony. 1st floor balcony could be projecting/should be frameless glazing.
Block H Houses
- this design would work better if the houses could step forward or back at the points where the block steps up or down.
Block G Houses
- concern regarding the scale of these semis. These houses were previously presented as a terrace of linked houses. Whilst supporting the idea of having a group of semi-s here, I am concerned that the resulting buildings are not sufficiently substantial to fit in with the character of the area. The Burton houses tend to be quite large and in relatively wide plots. Even in the later Victorian development, further along West Hill Road, semi-s are considerably more substantial in size than the designs shown here. Perhaps these should be reduced to 4 or 5 slightly larger housed within bigger plots ?
Apartment blocks - General Comments
- the smaller apartment blocks (ie. excluding A and B) need to read more as terraces of houses so that they follow the historic form of the wider area and they must therefore all have a clear verticality and architectural rhythm.
- there is no vertical hierarchy of window openings on some buildings.
- entrances to blocks are not well defined. They should have some form of door surround and/or a canopy to provide more emphasis.
- some designs look very alien – particularly the triangular balconies to Block A - not Burton St Leonards style.
- large expanses of metal balcony railings to all floors of buildings are unacceptable – balconies should generally be confined to ground and 1st floor only. Frameless glazing balcony fronts would be preferred over modern-style metal railings. Consideration should be given to forming 3D balconies at 1st floor level that project from the building frontage in order to articulate the building rather than always using flat juliette type balconies.
- dormers - the siting of these within the roof slope appears random and does not relate well to the window pattern on the building below. Many of the dormers shown are too large and will be over-dominant features on the roof slopes - they need to be reduced to more modest proportions. The size of the dormer window generally should not exceed the smallest windows on the floor below. Dormers should be clad in lead.
- generally not acceptable for zinc roof sheeting to be continued down over wall surfaces - this could result in the blocks looking more industrial than residential in character.
- all of the multi-storey window bays are very shallow in profile. It is suggested that these need to be made deeper in order to fully articulate the elevations - a minimum depth of 500mm for the bays is suggested (they are currently 250mm deep).
- the incorporation of a stone or render projecting band just above ground floor level will help to ground the designs and provide visual support to the 1st floor balconies.
- chimney style - the chimneys shown on the drawings look more continental than English. A more traditional form of chimney with clay chimney pots would be preferred.
- where the materials being used change across the width of a facade it is not acceptable for this change to happen in the same plane. Where this happens in the horizontal, there will need to be a render band or brick corbelling to form the break. Where this happens on the vertical, then the building must step forward or back at this point.
- Render should be the dominant walling material. Generally looking for a more subtle use of materials, where alternative materials such as brick or cladding are used to emphasis features such as windows, doors, bays or balcony recesses.
Specific comments
Block A
- elevation facing Archery Road / Highlands Gardens is of poor design / quality – will be more visible once the vegetation is thinned out.
- triangular balconies are unacceptable and have no reference point in local character.
- building has no rhythm and does not relate to the form or design of the Highlands, immediately opposite.
- building may be too high, it should be lower than the Highlands - still don't have accurate information about this relationship.
- roof profile with extensive use of zinc cladding looks impermanent / cheap, compared to quality of materials / detailing of Highlands. If the roof will be highly visible, then the quality of materials, general appearance and articulation will all need to be improved.
- top floor accommodation should be set back on all sides.
- North elevation - need a stronger eaves line above 6th floor ceiling height, front edge of roof terrace then needs to be more light-weight. - use glazed panels ?
- oversailing roof on tallest part of building needs to be lowered to line through with roof slope on southern side of Block A. Currently projects awkwardly.
- West elevation - French double doors and balcony - either needs to be a projecting balcony form, or the window should be recessed back, or remove the balcony railings and change the French window to a single window to line through with those on the top floor.
- East elevation - this will be highly visible but this is currently quite a blank elevation. Needs more visual interest. Q. Is the elevation a flat plane with just changes to the materials - if so, not acceptable - needs modulating.
Block B
- very poorly designed elevation onto the main square
- no symmetry of window openings – so looks a very disjointed design
- too much zinc in roof profile from square. Zinc should generally only be used on roof slopes not on vertical walling.
- South elevation - omit balcony railings in front of double doors that break above the eaves line.
Block D
- poor detailing to balconies – need to be glass front (frameless)
- need to reduce the amount of brickwork.
- Query - are flat roof elements hidden by parapet upstands to roof ?
- NE elevation – Lower Ground Floor window to lounge should line up with windows above.
- NW elevation - 2nd floor balcony wall looks too heavy/deep - insert glazed balcony railing here ?
Block E
- 2nd floor balcony and dormer combinations on roofslope are too busy/heavy. These need to be separated out. The dormers need to be smaller and to be lined up with the windows on the floors below.
- zinc roofing material should not be continued down on to walls.
- East elevation - brickwork balcony wall to bay at 2nd floor level looks too solid - could be glass panels rather than solid brickwork ?
- could have a full height window on the stair turret facing out of the square towards Archery Road.
Block F
- this is a highly visible block, framing the entrance to the main square, in views from the southern part of Archery Road. All elevations of this building will be highly visible and therefore need to present a good quality facade. The rear elevation of Block F is currently too bland and boxy. Improvements to the building might include more defined bays to the rear elevation (may want to move the bin storage to an outbuilding), a projecting render band above ground floor level or the use of rusticated render at ground floor level, incorporation of a central chimney stack.
- the windows on the elevations don't seem to match those shown on the floor plans – please check this.
- there is an awkward junction on the front elevation between the projecting bay and the over-sailing roof - these needs further consideration.
- the majority of the building should be rendered, with brick being used for highlights only.
- there is also a general problem with the wider group of flats and houses that forms Block F. There is too much stepping up and down the slope, by too small an amount, in this group. It is suggested that the first two houses adjacent to Block B should be the same height. There should then be a 1m step down to the next group of 3 houses, and a further 1 metre to the remaining pair. If the apartment block is supposed to form an end stop to this group, then this building needs to step up more assertively at the end of the terrace.
Block J
- west elevation to Archery Road - 2nd floor level - need to reduce the scale of the 2nd floor balcony at the north end and remove the small second floor balcony at the south end and also reduce the size of this window.
- west elevation - brickwork projecting bay too heavy at 2nd floor level - suggest mass can be broken up with use of glazed balcony panels instead.
- west elevation - cladding between windows could be used at ground floor level as well to create more vertical emphasis to centre of this elevation.
- query on roofing materials for this block - unclear whether slate or zinc cladding - please confirm.
Block M
- important - confirmation is required regarding how this block relates to the existing sandstone boundary wall around this part of the site. If the wall is being incorporated into the new building or if it is proposed to demolish a section of the wall then we will need full details and a justification for the works. This wall is protected within the listing of the Burton terrace and any works to the wall must be covered by listed building consent.
- flat over entrance to parking court is to be omitted.
- lift over-run will be visible as part of roof profile - is there any way that this can be omitted/reduced in height ?
- corner feature to step forward of main walls of building (looks like you have done this on amended drawings). Roof above this feature to overhand more so that it creates a deeper shadow line. Query - are there additional high level windows tucked just under the roof of the corner feature ?
- confirmation of all roofing materials for this block to be provided. Are the roofs hidden behind parapets or will the roof edges be visible ?
- query - several very low kitchen windows at only 1m above floor level - intentional ?
- east elevation - brick bay at northern end - again, consider whether the bulk of this feature could be reduced by incorporating a glazed balcony railing at 3rd floor level.
- east elevation - re-consider the projecting roof over the balcony - this construction looks too heavy.
Jane Stephen
Conservation
19 January 2010
In December 2008 Jane Stephen, Conservation and Design Officer for Hastings Borough Council produced the following report concerning the proposed development of the HCAT Archery Road Site. It comprehensively addresses many of the conservation, ecology, density and design aspects that STAG would have wanted to be incorporated in the final planning application.
|
|
 |
