Summertown: Character Assessment by Freddy Hedberg

SUMMERTOWN Character Assessment Linh Trinh Pham Hai, Freddy Hedberg, Michael White, Alex Spring & Nyokabi Mwaura

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This document has been successful in contextualising the character assessment process that was carried out in 9 residential streets in Summertown. Through understanding the history of the area, its distinct physical qualities have been justified. This was further fortified by the analysis and critique of the relevant policies within character assessment. Carrying out the prescribed character assessment using the toolkit not only exposed the issues within the streetsâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; characters, but also exposed the complexity of the use of the toolkit. Its depth, length and scaling are too vast and complex bringing into question just how user friendly the document is. In response to that, a simpler

and more legible toolkit has been suggested in order to facilitate and enhance the participation process in future assessments. Despite the complexity of the toolkit, the results gathered through using it enabled the creation of distinct graphically represented design codes that could be used to develop and enhance Summertownâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s character. The process revealed that Character assessment has the potential to be an effective tool in creating and developing unique areas. To achieve this agenda efficiently, the process needs to be streamlined into a simple, straight forward, graphic and involving document that is able to communicate properly with all the participants involved.

CONTENT PART I: INTRODUCTION Introduction............................................................................................................................6 Historical background........................................................................................................7 Planning policy background..........................................................................................10

PART II: CHARACTER ASSESSMENT CRITIQUE Character assessment | Context....................................................................................12 Existing character assessent toolkit | Critique............................................................13 Existing character assessment statement | Critique.................................................14

PART III: AMENDED CHARACTER ASSESSMENT Character assessment example | Osberton Road.............................................15 PART IV: DESIGN CODE Design code example.......................................................................................................20

PART V: CONCLUSION & RECOMMENDATION Conclusion and Recommendations.............................................................................26

PART V: APPENDIX Appendix...............................................................................................................................27

INTRODUCTION

INTRODUCTION The following report is based on the proceedings, findings and criticisms of a character assessment that was carried out in Summertown. Character assessment refers to a curated document that contains descriptions of the distinct formative features and ambiance of an area or place of settlement. This document is used as a means to communicate the main physical aspects that together grant said area its uniqueness and local distinction (Planning Aid England). This process is carried out using a character assessment toolkit, which is a sophisticated catalogue of an areaâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s features, broken down and arranged in a way to allow a user to comment on how impactful they are in their contribution to the specified placeâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s character. The toolkit was developed as the solution to a need to increase the robustness and detail of character assessments in order to inform various planning developments. A major yet relatively new agenda of this toolkit is to enable positive and impactful community participation within character assessments and the subsequent development of their communities. This document has been created in response to the character analysis process of 9 streets

in Summertown. It will commence with the analysis of the historical and planning context of Summertown. This will be followed by a graphical display of the character assessment that was carried out. Osberton Road has been examined in depth within this document as an example of the prescribed work in the current character assessment methodology. From this assessment, a detailed design code has been created and graphically illustrated. This design code is not only true to the prescription of the character assessments, but also to the initial Oxford local plan. The aim of this example is to justify and criticize the effectiveness of the current character assessment toolkit. Moreover, the effectiveness of public participation will be analysed. In addition to that, the overall competence of this document in changing undesirable features in an area as well as its contribution to future developments will be analysed. Finally, some recommendations and examples of the seemingly best ways to progress within character assessments will be suggested.

INTRODUCTION

HISTORICAL CONTEXT Prior to Sumertown’s development, there were three tracks (Middle Way, Woodstock and Banbury Road) which enabled access to Oxford from the North (Figure 1). The only existing building was Diamond Hall Inn and was known for hosting highwaymen in 1760 (Summertown.info, 2015) (Figure 8 & 9). Summertown was first developed in 1820 due to the housing shortage Oxford was experiencing at the time. As such, 125 new houses were constructed for 562 people. No specific planning was used for the village’s development, so houses were grouped together, in turn creating their own styles (Figure 10 & 11). The housing was mix and was commonly home to tradesmen which provided goods to Oxford and its universities. Houses on the west side of Banbury Road used to convert their front rooms into shops and gradually the front gardens became part of the street. A lot of villas were present and a few had large grounds which can be seen in the old cottages of Summertown as well as Regency houses (Fasnacht, 1977) (Figure 12 & 13). The character was diverse and arguably dispersed but this made it interesting; what modern day planning would categorise as a mixed

community. Banbury Road was described as being “pretty, varied, and colourful village street” with additional scenes of young forest trees and open fields (Fasnacht, 1977). Summertown continuous development has grown from being a small village to being connected to Oxford’s northern city edge (Summertown.info, 2015). During the 1960s, Summertown’s character changed from its diverse architecture and village style to one where old houses were demolished in order to make room for new office blocks. Only at the end of the century did it evolve again to a new character which we are familiar with today. Summertown has always been primarily a residential area which has developed various characteristics over time Figures 2, 4 and 6). In the last century it has evolved into the affluent suburb of Oxford due to its vibrant commercial, residential and business centre seen today (Figure 3, 5 and 7). Due to its rich and diverse character, it is vital that a character assessment process was applied in order to mitigate against unsightly developments occurring.

INTRODUCTION

Figure 2 Figure 3 A Google Street view of Middle Way Middle Way and Grove Street at the today. beginning of the 20th Century.

Figure 4 Figure 5 Richard’s Lane during the same period. Street view of Richard’s Lane today.

Figure 6 Figure 1

View of Osberton Road in the 20th Century.

Figure 7 Osberton Road street view.

INTRODUCTION

Figure 8

Figure 9

Figure 10

Figure 11

Figure 12

Figure 13

INTRODUCTION

PLANNING POLICY CONTEXT The Oxford Local Plan 2001-2016 sets out a key vision for all future developments within the city during the period of the Plan. The established framework recognises the city’s historical appeal and therefore consists of a number of core policies that intend to preserve its unique attributes, namely its high-quality and accessible built and natural environment. Certain areas of Oxford contain a consistent development pattern that must be respected, or possess a townscape that is strongly defined, whilst other areas require new development to enhance their local character. Character assessments are therefore vital in evaluating the appropriateness of future developments and in turn, ensuring sustainable and robust outcomes of planning decisions throughout the city. Current trends in planning and conservation intend to move decision making towards a more considered approach to justify new or extending developments. The Core Policies contained in the Local Plan by which these are assessed, and which underpin the requirement for character assessments are CP.1 – ‘Development Proposals’; CP.8 – ‘Designing Development to Relate to its

Context; CP.9 – ‘Creating Successful New Places’ and CP.11 – ‘Landscape Design’. CP.1 outlines that developments will only gain planning permission if their built form respects and complements the existing appearance and character of the area, and whereby the nature of the materials used for such development are appropriate to the site and its surroundings. Such proposals must also retain and protect local amenity i.e., important landscapes and key ecological features, whilst also enriching the interrelationship between buildings and spaces. CP.8 works to ensure that all developments protect and strengthen surrounding local character through innovative design, while still respecting key local features outlined in character assessments. This policy also sets out to ensure that proposed developments, of which are highly visible from public spaces, enhance the area’s perception and style, primarily by the removal of features that derogate from, and retaining features that are important to the character of the surrounding area. Both CP.9 and CP.11 have a greater emphasis on the importance of spaces rather than the built environment, and are as important in

accompanying local character assessments. CP.9 ensures that developments incorporate landscape design, the treatment and layout of which should positively influence the character of the surrounding area, altering the way in which the local community moves through space, whereas CP.11 ensures that planning permission is only granted where proposed landscape designs preserve and enhance the local area’s ecological value, if possible. Character assessments enable community members to participate in the planning process and to impact developments by which they may be affected. The in-depth analysis of these assessments, in conjunction with the Core Policies within Oxford’s Local Plan, is key to making informed planning decisions that create successful and inclusive neighbourhoods.

CHARACTER ASSESSMENT

CHARACTER ASSESSMENT CRITIQUE

CHARACTER ASSESSMENT | CONTEXT The Character Assessment, currently used within the Summertown ward of Oxford, has derived through guidance produced by Historic England and English Heritage as a Capacity Building Project. Funded by the aforementioned, Oxford was used as a pilot study for the creation of the Character Assessment due to its rich historical context, with 12.2% of all its buildings listed as Grade I (Oxford City Council, 2015), Character Assessment’s were “developed in response to a need to improve the robustness of assessments of character that inform planning decisions” (Oxford City Council, n.d.). Character Assessment Statements forms a critical part of the formulation of Heritage Asset Register, created in 2012, which highlights the key features of the local historic environment of each area, which will then be used to identify the heritage assets for the register. “The planning system requires decision makers to consider the impact that proposed changes would have on the significance of a heritage asset. The heritage assets register will help in this process by

providing awareness of valued components of the historic environment” (Oxford City Council, n.d). Character Assessment Statements and its respective Toolkit are used by members of the public in order to define the existing character of an area, as well as natural assets that should be protected in regards to any future development. Though not a necessity within neighbourhood planning (Local Government Association, 2013), it must be stated that Character Assessments principles and concepts can contribute significantly to creation of neighbourhood development plans and orders. As such, we seek to analyse the existing Character Assessment process below in order to produce documents that are sound for public use. Due to its concept of defining character, we argue that by making the character assessment process more efficient and clear, it may be suitable to be incorporated into the neighbourhood planning process.

CHARACTER ASSESSMENT CRITIQUE

EXISTING CHARACTER ASSESSMENT TOOLKIT | CRITIQUE SUCCESSES:

CRITIQUE:

Due to the existing tools for participation, residents feel less obligated to engage. The document to the right highlights a potential for many opinions to be combined, whereby community members can use the toolkit to allow their voices to be heard. However, the toolkit enables residents to voice their opinions of their street / area that may of been overlooked by a representative. Such a concept must be maintained in the production of an amended character assessment.

Due to the detail and amount of criteria required to be completed by the user, the existing character assessment toolkit is very time consuming. The document may, as a result, dissuade users from completing the form, in turn reducing public participation in the planning process. Furthermore, there is no indication of how detailed the comments should be. Although the scaling concept allows for a clear indication as to what features contribute to the character of the area, the use of scaling produces uncertainty. There is no indication as to what contributes to scoring a 5 or a 2 due to a lack of tutorial offered.

The prescriptive nature of the toolkit allows for the potential of detail to be included by members of the public, including facade details or materials used. Such detail will enable a more comprehensive Character Assessment Statement that will enable developers to fully understand which features existing residents feel contribute positively to the street. The use of scaling within the toolkit (-5 to +5) allows for the user / supervisor to identify which aspects contribute positively and negatively to area.

Due to the written nature of the toolkit, the result is qualitative data, which produces layers of uncertainty. As such, the new character assessment must use images to support qualitative results to remove uncertainty and misinterpretation.

Figure 14

Terminology used throughout the toolkit requires a basic understanding of planning, such as â&#x20AC;&#x153;relationship of the space to buildingsâ&#x20AC;?. Criteria should be easy to interpret for all users.

CHARACTER ASSESSMENT CRITIQUE

EXISTING CHARACTER ASSESSMENT STATEMENT CRITIQUE SUCCESSES: As seen by the image to the right, the detail offered allows for users to fully understand details that members of the public seek to enhance / remove to a very fine level. Each theme is broken down in themes, such as buildings, views and greenery. Such a concept should be followed through into the amended character assessment. The themes allow for the potential developer to examine a section quickly, such as details / features required on a building facade. The descriptions highlight where each feature is currently located, i.e. â&#x20AC;&#x153;around the south junctionâ&#x20AC;?. This further allows for the developer / local authority councillor to identify key areas that should be considered in respect to a proposed development. This results in a more efficient process in comparison to existing policies which covers a broad area.

7 / ) $ /

(4@ 1

$ $ $ $ #

1 # .

) $ # 5

$ 1 4 # < ) 1 $ $ $ 1 $ $ # = $

) 1 ) # $

)

$ $ $

1 ) $ 1

4 # %& $ 0! $

) $ 1 " # $ % & #

# % * ) $ $ 4 $ ) # 2

1 $

3 1 ) $ #

Figure 15

CRITIQUE: However, existing negative principles of the Character Assessment Statement must be identified. Such principles include; The vast amount of text increases levels of bureaucracy, resulting in further time required to analyse the document. A lack of key points or bolding of words results in the need for the whole text to be analysed. A character assessment is an analysis of the existing physical features that contribute to the character and sense of place of an environment. As such, the Character Assessment Statement must be a visual document that highlights key attributes. The Statement has minimal amounts of graphics used throughout, which may result in a misinterpretation of the text. The aforementioned must be addressed in the amended character assessment, seen below.

AMENDED CHARACTER ASSESSMENT

SECTION TITLE

OSBERTON ROAD

AMENDED CHARACTER ASSESSMENT

CHARACTER ASSESSMENT EXAMPLE GREEN NETWORK Vegetation on

No vegetation on the street.

Vision through the street is clear.

Flower pots, hedges, green facades

The street and building façades look

the street Vegetation on the plot

attractive due to the greenery Overall well-kept

Very positive. Streetscape looks high quality

Current condition

STREETSCAPE Houses line up neatly on both sides of

The street is straight giving a linear vision

View of

the road with some vegetation pepper

toward the skyline. There is a pleasant

buildings &

potted here and there. Spacious view

rhythm of buildings on both sides of the

skyline

of the sky and view of buildings at the

street.

end of the street available. Active edges Street type

Carriage way

Doors and windows facing street

Very positive. All building façades facing streets provide a feel of natural surveillance.

Residential street

Roughly around 9m – 12m

1 lane with on-street parking on both

Due to on-street parking, the street is fairly

sides

narrow for traffic movement.

AMENDED CHARACTER ASSESSMENT

CHARACTER ASSESSMENT EXAMPLE COMMENT:

RECOMMENDATION:

Osberton Road has a very distinctive character owing to the cohesive facade of terraced houses. There is a very clear uniformity created by gable roofs, white large bay windows and continuous porch running throughout the terraced houses. Each unit has a small front garden with some space dedicated for household bins.

Acknowledging the issues with apartment buildings, we advise future developments should adhere to and enhance the existing characters of terraced houses on Osberton Road. Moreover, individual terraced housing development or alternation should ensure the cohesion in style with adjacent houses.

However, the apartment buildings near the junction between Osberton Road and Middle Way road are neither consistent nor complementary the overall characteristics of the road as described above. There is some effort in attuning to their neighbouring characteristics by replicating a few similar features such as white frame windows, red brick surface and gable roof, porch. In addition, these buildings also show signs of insufficient upkeep. Finally, the road is fairly narrow due to onstreet parking on both sides which allows very little space for traffic movement through the street.

As such, we have formed a design code synthesizing from our observation of the existing character of buildings on Osberton Road. In addition, maintenance is an important factor in preserving the quality of space of the area. In terms of on-street parking, we proposed limited and alternate on-street parking spots on both side of the road to avoid traffic obstruction.

DESIGN CODE

DESIGN CODE EXAMPLE | OSBERTON ROAD DESIGN CODE

Feature

What

How

(description of the features,

(Its contribution to the overall feeling of the space: positive,

what you can see or measure)

negative, neutral) LOCAL FEATURES

Landmarks

Nodes

Type of land use

Residential

Calm and quiet

Historical features

BLUE NETWORK

Water features

Associate infrastructure

Current condition

GREEN NETWORK

Vegetation on the street

Vegetation on the plot

None to be planted All vegetation should be planted on the plot

Trees planted on the plot should not obstruct natural lighting to the

(trees, bushes, hedges, green facades,..)

house. Bushes, hedges, green facades to be used in moderation.

Current condition

Households are responsible for the upkeep of vegetation on their plot.

Periodical gardening

DESIGN CODE

DESIGN CODE EXAMPLE | OSBERTON ROAD STREETSCAPE Create a safe, friendly and airy feel to the street.

Reasonable street width. Harmonious transition between buildings and the street.

View of buildings &

Rich in greenery.

skyline

Bright and clean.

Active edges Street type

Houses, windows facing street

Ensure housing orientation is consistently facing the road

Residential

12 – 15 metres

Contains carriage way, pavement, and setback

Carriage way

Pavement

Parking

Street furniture

Contains one way lanes and on-street parking on

9 – 12 metres

both sides. No dedicated cycle lane. Raised kerb

10 – 20 centimetres, ensure disable access where appropriate

Single lane pavement on both sides of the road

1.2 – 1.5 metres

Alternate on-street parking on both sides of the

2.5 – 3 metres wide

road Street name signs

Street name signs to be installed at both ends of the road. Design as

Traffic signs

shown in fig 1. Traffic signs to be installed where appropriate and must avoid obstructing traffic movement.

Lighting Colours & Materials

Street lights

Street light to be sufficiently provided to ensure the street is well lit. (Refer to Manual for the Street – UK government)

Consistent with neighbouring street unless a

Technical details need to be referred to Manual for the Street – UK

special scheme is proposed

government

DESIGN CODE

DESIGN CODE EXAMPLE | OSBERTON ROAD PLOT Layout & Positioning Building line/ Setback Sideway access Gardens Garage/Drive way Boundary

Maintain the fair and clear long plot pattern of

Systematically divide plots to avoid left-over space or awkward shapes.

terraced houses All buildings must leave some setback space

Terraced house: 1.5 metres. Flats: 2.5 metres

Only applicable to flat

Sideway access must be at least 2 metre wide

All buildings must have back and front gardens

Front garden is required a small space for the rubbish bins.

No garage/driveway on the plot

Optional

Fences/walls/ vegetation fence to be not taller than 1m.

BUILDING Building type Storey

Terraced & Flats

Only terraced and flats are allowed

Depending of building types

Terraced housing: G + 1. Flats: G + 2

Chimney

Red brick chimney

Roof

Cross gable. Clay roof slate.

Porch

Continuous porch throughout terraced properties. Clay roof slate. Box bay window or normal square window. White frame. Glass window

Architectural details Windows

panes.1 â&#x20AC;&#x201C; 4 divisions. Levelled entrance. Wooden single-winged door with overarching porch.

Materials & Colours

Doors

Optional material and colour

To be consistent across buildings

Terraced housing: whitewash finish on the first floor, raw red brick on the ground floor Flats: whitewash finish throughout, red or sandy brick

AN EXAMPLE OF ILLUSTRATED DESIGN CODE OSBERTON ROAD 25

CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS The Summertown Character Assessment Project highlighted a process that enables local community members of different socio-economic background to partake in the planning process. However, as a group, we identified flaws within the existing process that needed addressing. In order to assess the character of an area more efficiently, design codes are to be utilised as the new character assessment statement, in addition to the toolkit amendments for future character assessments. The initial assessments must be simplified by clearly defining key aspects, as well as reducing the overall amount of text produced within the document to reduce time spent by members of the public. Moreover, the scale of -5 to +5 should be replaced by a more lucid survey, accompanied by defined variables in order to become easier to comprehend for members of the public. The process must also be fast and engaging for those who participate. Design codes will consist of their division into morphological layers, green networks, blue networks, blocks, plots, buildings and streetscape, all of which would be presented in graphical detail so to demonstrate which specific features are to be kept or removed in future developments. In order to create a more efficient review process, similar streets should be group accordingly. Such reforms are keyed towards designing straightforward building guidelines, specific to an area.

APPENDIX

FIGURE REFERENCES Figure 1: Street network of Summertown character assessment study area and other points of interest (Kennedy, 1995). Figure 2: View of George Street, known now as Middle Way, in the 20th Century (Kennedy, 1995). Figure 3: Google Street view of Middle Way (Google Maps, 2016). Figure 4: View of Richardâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Lane in the 20th Century (Kennedy, 1995). Figure 5: Google Street view of Richard Lane (Google Maps, 2016). Figure 6: View of Osberton Road in the 20th Century (Kennedy, 1995). Figure 7: Google Street view of Osberton Road (Google Maps, 2016). Figure 8: Drawing of Diamond Hall in 1767 (Fasnacht, 1977). Figure 9: Photograph of Diamond Cottages in 1911 (Kennedy, 1995). Figure 10: Photograph of South Parade looking east (Kennedy, 1995).

Figure 11: Woodstock Road from the corner of South Parade in 1913 (Kennedy, 1995). Figure 12: Photograph taken at the corner of South Parade and Banbury Road (Kennedy, 1995). Figure 13: Cottages at the corner of Rogers Street and Banbury Road (Kennedy, 1995). Figures 14: Oxford City Council. (n.d.). Character Assessment Toolkit. Retrieved January 28, 2016, from Oxford City Council: https:// www.oxford.gov.uk/info/20193/character_assessment_toolkit/878/character_assessment_ toolkit Figure 15: Oxford Direct Services. (2014, December 7). Street Character Assessment for Hayfield Road Oxford. Retrieved February 1, 2016, from Oxford Direct Services: http:// www.oxforddirectservices.co.uk/Library/ Documents/Planning/Character%20Assessment%20Consultation%20Hayfield%20Road. pdf Figure 16: Google Street view of Osberton Road (Google Maps, 2016). Figure 17: Google Street view of Osberton Road (Google Maps, 2016).

APPENDIX

REFERENCES Fasnacht, R. (1977). Summertown since 1820. Oxford: St. Michaelâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Publications. Google Maps, (2016). Middle Way Street View. [image] Available at: https://www. google.co.uk/maps/@51.7797466,1.2685662,3a,90y,345.2h,75.56t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sFDlX69qdtbcH81dYwCNtRw!2e0!6s%2F%2Fgeo1.ggpht. com%2Fcbk%3Fpanoid%3DFDlX69qdtbcH81dYwCNtRw%26output%3Dthumbnail%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26 thumb%3D2%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%2 6yaw%3D227.54428%26pitch%3D0!7i13312! 8i6656 [Accessed 2 Mar. 2016]. Google Maps, (2016). Osberton Road Street View. [image] Available at: https:// www.google.co.uk/maps/@51.7799056,1.2690763,3a,75y,236.86h,93.97t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1seMua4x9URdv94PljvqrIGA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656 [Accessed 2 Mar. 2016]. Google Maps, (2016). Richard Lane Street View. [image] Available at: https:// www.google.co.uk/maps/@51.7810745,1.2711732,3a,75y,56.95h,94.95t/ data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s64U2IEvI4S47_ Uwjs69vFA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656 [Accessed 2 Mar. 2016]. Kennedy, J. (1995). The Changing Faces of

Summertown and Cutteslowe. Witney, Oxfordshire: Robert Boyd Publications. Local Government Association. (2013). Neighbourhood Planning: A simple guide for councillors. London: Local Government Association. Oxford City Council. (2015, February 9). Conservation. Retrieved January 21, 2016, from Oxford Direct Services: http://www.oxforddirectservices.co.uk/PageRender/decP/Conservation_occw.htm Oxford City Council. (n.d.). An Introduction to the Oxford Character Assessment Toolkit. Oxford: Oxford City Council. Oxford City Council. (n.d.). How we developed The Oxford Character Assessment Toolkit. Oxford: Oxford City Council. Oxford City Council. (n.d.). Oxford Heritage Asset Register. Oxford: Oxford City Council. Planning Portal. (n.d.). Neighbourhood Planning. London: Planning Portal.

Oxford City Council. (2015). The Local Plan 2001-2016. https://www.oxford.gov.uk/downloads/file/1344/local_plan_020_core_policies.

Accessed 3/3/16. Summertown.info, (2015). A Brief History of Summertown. [online] Available at: http:// www.summertown.info/2015/histor y.html [Accessed 15 Feb. 2016]. Tudor, C. (2014). An Approach to Landscape Character Assessment. https://www.gov. uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/ attachment_data/file/396192/landscapecharacter-assessment.pdf. Accessed 3/3/16.

MEETING MINUTES 12/11/15 – Rachael Meeting Event: Our first meeting included meeting the Character Assessment supervisor Present: Michael White, Freddy Hedberg, Linh Trinh Pham Hai, Jenny Dawson, Nyokabi Mwaura Topics Discussed: The background to Character Assessments, the principle and concept of a Character Assessment and an example of a Character Assessment using properties located on Gipsy Lane. 23/11/15 – Character Assessment Site Visits Event: All members of the group visited the streets that still required a character assessment. Each group assessed 3 streets, resulting in 3 hours of work. Present: All 27/11/15 – Neighbourhood Plan Workshop Event: Briefing of our poster progress to Sue Brownill at JHB Present: Michael White, Freddy Hedberg 2/12/15 – Poster Formation Event: Meeting that combined all the character assessments before the poster presentation Present: Freddy Hedberg, Nyokabi Mwaura, Michael White, Linh Trinh Pham Hai 4/12/15 – Poster Presentations Event: Presented our poster to members of the Summertown community

Present: All Topics Discussed: Existing issues within Summertown, trying to deliver an objective character assessment that incorporates all members of the community’s opinions. 2/2/16 – Meeting Present: All Topics Discussed: Update on the progress of the Character Assessment project following a Christmas break. 9/2/16 – Meeting Present: Linh Trinh Pham Hai, Freddy Hedberg, Michael White, Alex Spring Topics Discussed: Structure of the presentation and report. Allocated sections for completion. 16/2/16 – Meeting Present: All Topics Discussed: Update on the progress of the sections. Creation and completion of the presentation. Report document started, using GoogleDocs to work simultaneously 23/2/16 – Meeting Present: All Topics Discussed: Combining all the document sections into one report, along with finalising and proof reading.

CHARACTER ASSESSMENT TOOLKIT GLOSSARY LOCAL FEATURES 

Landmark: features considered to be locally distinctive.



Nodes: notable concentration of social activity occurring at junctions or crossings.



Type of land use: nature of the area, e.g residential, retail, education, green space, etc.



Historical feature: features that have important historical value e.g listed buildings, monuments, etc.

BLUE NETWORK 

Water feature: natural or man-made water structure, e.g river, stream, lake, fountain, etc.



Associate infrastructure: man-made structures associated with water features, e.g bridge, boathouse, lock, etc.

GREEN NETWORK 

Vegetation on the street & plot: any types of vegetation, e.g trees, hedges, green façade, flower beds/pots, etc.

STREETSCAPE 

View of buildings and skyline: features from the street and skyline that can be seen from observer’s position.



Active edges: housing frontages facing streets or high number of windows looking over to the street.



Street type: categorise of street, e.g main road, avenue or boulevard, high street, residential street, mew, cul-de-sac, footpath, etc.



Carriage way: the space from between one pavement to another for vehicles.

APPENDIX



Pavement: the space between carriageway and fences/buildings for pedestrians.



Parking: the space to park car, either on-street or off-street



Street furniture: any facilities on the street, e.g benches, post box, bins, traffic lights, traffic signs, street name signs, etc.



Lighting: ambience or level of illumination on the street.



Colours & Material: main materials used for the street and the main colour theme of the overall streetscape

PLOT 

Layout & Positioning: are the plots in odd shapes and sizes, on the street or hidden away, etc.



Building line/Setback: the space between pavement and building.



Sideway access: the space left for alternative access to garage/back garden/side door, etc…



Gardens: the amount of space dedicated to green space



Garage/Driveway: the presence of parking space on the plot



Boundary: the physical barrier used to distinct private and public space, e.g fences, walls, vegetation, etc.

BUILDING 

Building type: the prominent type of houses on the street, e.g terraced, end-terrace, semi-detached, detached, flat, bungalow, etc



Storey: number of floors, e.g 1 storey = G + 1, 2 storeys = G + 2



Architectural details: common architectural features observed on the street, e.g chimneys, roofs, porches, windows, doors, columns etc.



Materials & colours: prominent materials used and main colour theme of buildings

APPENDIX

MORPHOLOGICAL FEATURES

Feature

What

How

(description of the features, what you

(Its contribution to the overall feeling of the

can see or measure

space: positive, negative, neutral) LOCAL FEATURES

Landmarks

Nodes

Type of land use

Historical features BLUE NETWORK Water features

Associate infrastructure Current condition

Image

APPENDIX

GREEN NETWORK Vegetation on the street Vegetation on the plot Current condition STREETSCAPE View of buildings & skyline Active edges Street type

Carriage way Pavement Parking Street furniture Lighting Colours & Materials

APPENDIX

PLOT Layout & Positioning Building line/ Setback Sideway access Gardens Garage/Drive way Boundary BUILDING Building type

Storey Architectural details Materials & Colours