BUILDING FOR LIFE 12 REVIEW Windmill Green, Frampton Cotterell, BS36 2JR Lianne Grosvenor (N0448052)
CONTENTS INTRODUCTION
3
THE SCHEME
4
THE SITE
5
BUILT FOR LIFE REVIEW
6
1 CONNECTIONS 5 CHARACTER 6 WORKING WITH THE SITE AND ITS CONTEXT 7 CREATING WELL DEFINED STREETS AND SPACES 8 EASY TO FIND YOUR WAY AROUND
7 9
12 14 15 16
9 STREETS FOR ALL
17
10 CAR PARKING
18
11 PUBLIC AND PRIVATE SPACES
20
12 EXTERNAL STORAGE AND AMENITY SPACE
22
CONCULSION
24
REFERENCES
25
INTRODUCTION The purpose of the document is an assessment of the residential development of Windmill Green in Frampton Cotterell in relations to the ‘BUILDING FOR LIFE 12’. The building for Life is an independent initiative and is a document that aims to set an industry standard for local authorities and developers to promote improved design in residential developments. It was developed by the Commission for Architecture and the Built Environment (CABE), with partners the Home Builders Federation, the Civic Trust and Design for Homes (Building for life). The commendation is an award and gives homebuyer’s validation their home has been built to a suitable standard. Building for Life 12 assessment is a set of 12 questions which promote new development to focuses on three area’s; how new development will ingrate with neighbourhood, creating a place and Street & Home.
Follow link to Building For Life Website for more information: http://www.builtforlifehomes.org/
Fig 3.0
THE SCHEME
SUMMARY Planning Reference: PT10/1013/RM
Windmill Green Housing Development was Built in 2012 by Barratt Homes. The scheme I will be assess is a 184 dwelling estate located on previously fields. The site is situated alongside Park Farm on Heather Avenue road in Frampton Cotterell. The village is on the outskirts of Bristol about 7 miles away centre bristol. The village is a commuting village with little facilities such as shops and leisure.
Address: Land At Heather Avenue Frampton Cotterell, Bristol, South Gloucestershire, BS36 2JR
The scheme had fierce opposition from residents and previous application for 220 homes was denied. However, scheme for 184 dwelling in 2010 was later approved.
Developer: Barratt Homes Number of Houses: 184 dwellings
Fig 3.0
THE SITE PLAN
BUILT FOR LIFE REVIEW THE QUESTIONS Integrating into the neighbourhood
7 Creating well defined streets and spaces
Are buildings designed and positioned with landscaping to define and enhance streets and Does the scheme integrate into its surroundings spaces and are buildings designed to turn street by reinforcing existing connections and creating corners well? new ones, while also respecting existing buildings and land uses around the development 8 Easy to find your way around site? Is the scheme designed to make it easy to find your way around? 2 Facilities and services
In will reviewing 9 out of the 12 questions to determine the design qualities or weaknesses. The following question will not be assed 2, 3 and 4.
1 Connections
Does the development provide (or is it close to) Street & Home community facilities, such as shops, schools, workplaces, parks, play areas, pubs or cafes? 9 Streets for all 3 Public transport
Does the scheme have good access to public transport to help reduce car dependency?
Are streets designed in a way that encourage low vehicle speeds and allow them to function as social spaces? 10 Car parking
4 Meeting local housing requirements
Is resident and visitor parking sufficient and well integrated so that it does not dominate the Does the development have a mix of housing types and tenures that suit local requirements? street? Creating a place
11 Public and private spaces
5 Character
Will public and private spaces be clearly defined and designed to be attractive, well managed and safe?
Does the scheme create a place with a locally inspired or otherwise distinctive character? 6 Working with the site and its context
12 External storage and amenity space
Is there adequate external storage space for bins and recycling as well as vehicles and Does the scheme take advantage of existing topography, landscape features (including water cycles? courses), wildlife habitats, existing buildings, site orientation and microclimates?
I will scoring the questions wit a traffic light system. Please find score sheet in Appendix 1.
1 CONNECTIONS
Question?
The site was previous compromised of two fields and had no previous connections through site to existing Housing Settlements on the north, east and west. Therefore there are little opportunity to strengthen or provide connections. For example, The Park farm Housing settlement on the east presents difficulties to provide connections as the gardens back on to the site boundary which provide little opportunity to connect the site.
Site Boundary
Pedestrian Access
Main Access Vehicle Access
• Does the scheme integrate into its surroundings by reinforcing existing connections and creating new ones, while also respecting existing buildings and land uses around the development site?
Park Farm Pedestrian Access
Busy Road
Windmill Green
Future Development
1.3 Fig; Above image from google maps
Path along edge of field
Amber– Lack of opportunity however, does not allow for future connection to site from future development.
1 CONNECTIONS
Key Points
Image on the Right shows Houses located on edges of the development onto existing road. These homes show specials consideration to existing Building lines and features. The garden are small at front with a stone wall separating the dwellings which is feature in present in many dwellings in Frampton Cottrell and Coalpit Heath. However, these feature have only used in outlining the development and most likely used as show homes. Which unfortunate not used else where as they reinforce connections to existing character. Fig 1.0; view from park lane of housing type with local features .
• Lacks connections existing and opportunities • Reinforces connection via character of surrounding properties . Yet Theme not delivered on through out development. • Unfinished cycle path connections • Does not consider future connections from future development or green field Recommendations • Use key features of surroundings through out site i.e stone walls.
Cycle paths not connected to existing housing scheme which has presents a dead end and looks unfished. Future development is on outline of site yet no consideration either provide connections.
Fig 1.1; shows cycle paths coming to abrupt end.
Fig 1.2; shows little connection made green field site on south of the site.
Amber – Lack of opportunity however, does not allow for future connection to site from future development. Does not seem finished in parts
5 CHARACTER
5.0 Fig; image from wanton Willmore
The character of village has been weaken by previous housing developments in Frampton Cottrell over the years which has result with a variety of housing types and styles. Many of these styles show little character and are generic properties types with little characteristics of the original village. The traditional character of villages a originates from farm like cottages that are located in pockets around the village. They are chartered by stone walls and have a either cream render or stone wall façade.
Question? • Does the scheme create a place with a locally inspired or otherwise distinctive character?
Red –Not distinctive with arrange of styles of housing that doesn’t coexist well together.
7.0 Fig
5 CHARACTER Frampton Cottrell is surrounded by a green belt which is significant characteristics to the site on the south of the site. The site however does not focus on the feature and take full potential. With merely properties on south are orientated to face green field However, the scheme has landscaped feature that characterises the development with steep ditches and reed beds.
Fig 5.1; view of Lagoon 2
Fig 5.2; view of ditch
Fig 5.4; View south side boundary facing neighbouring green field
Fig 5.3; View of lagoon 1
Red –Not distinctive with arrange of styles of housing that doesn’t coexist well together.
Key Points
5 CHARACTER
• Not Distinctive and lacks identity
The Barrat Homes has presented a development with many housing styles and types within the site that allow achieve zones within the site. However, Some seem more successfully than others in terms character and has caused site feel disjointed. The site has housing styles neither distinct or locally inspired with only a few properties at front development with local features (i.e fig.10.3) . However, serval seem generic in style.
• Generic housing style’s • Does not strengthen the local identity • Creates zones with housing styles and types • Distinct landscape feature Recommendations • Subtle additions to all style's could strengthen the identity.
5.5 Fig; Vehicle Access to development
5.6 Fig; housing type with stone wall
5.7 Fig; image of range housing round lagoon
• Existing landscape views could of been used more effectively in scheme. • Strengthen local identity by using the local history i.e Farming or Mad hatters
5.8 Fig; Generic housing style
5.9 Fig; Main Access to site
5.99 Fig; Flats
Red –Not distinctive with arrange of styles of housing that doesn’t coexist well together. Generic style used within scheme.
6 WORKING WITH SITE
Question? • Does the scheme take advantage of existing topography, landscape features (including water courses), wildlife habitats, existing buildings, site orientation and microclimates?
IT’S CONTEXT The site is characterised by the existing hedge rows and tree’s that occupied the fields before. These have been protected and used with scheme to create landscape corridor on the west of the site. However, Feature does not seemed to be enhanced by the development. 6.2 Fig; south side edge showing hedgerow
Image above shows South side hedgerow. Scheme does not seem to connect with development.
6.3 Fig; west side hedge row.
6.1 Fig; West side landscape corridor
Amber –interesting natural features but not used to full potential. Lagoons are fenced off and views existing and new features not exploited
Key Points
6 WORKING WITH SITE
• Views not exploited of landscape features.
IT’S CONTEXT
• Features fenced • Topographical character has been identified and sustainable urban drainage has been used by exploiting the topography and geology.
The existing site also had a watercourse through the site which caused the developer to create a drainage solution with ditches and lagoons. These provide interest and define the site. Yet, the features have caused some odd design features and are dominated by fencing.
Recommendations • Lagoons feature could used more effective so people can use and enjoy the space with paths
6.1 Fig; lagoon with fencing
• Designing a more creative response to site constraints could enhance site desirability
Amber– interesting natural features but not used to full potential. Lagoons are fenced off and views existing and new features not exploited
6.4 Fig; image displays ditch
6.6 Fig; ditch in front of dwelling entrance
7 CREATING WELL DEFINED
STREETS AND SPACES Images below show example of how development turns corner’s with serval facades with blank walls and are features less.
Question? • Are buildings designed and positioned with landscaping to define and enhance streets and spaces and are buildings designed to turn street corners well?
6.1 Fig; Above image from google 7.0 Fig; above image show wall and blank elevations round corner,
Red – does turn corner well. Numerous blank elevations and walls facing street. 7.2 Fig; Above image shows blank elevation 7.1 Fig; Above image shows numerous blank elevations around turning
7 CREATING WELL DEFINED
STREETS AND SPACES
Key Points • Blank facades on the streets corners are common in development • Use of different road materials provide distinction to streets but are not used throughout.
Wide street with parked Over reliance on in front of plot parking that tends to create over wide streets dominated by parked cars and driveways unless there is sufficient space to use strong and extensive landscaping to compensate the lack of built form enclosure.
• Some Relatively dominated by parked cars • Most Houses types face streets
7.5 Fig; Parked car
Recommendations • Put windows on blank elevations
Red – does turn corner well. Numerous blank elevations and walls facing street.
7.3Fig; wide Street with parked cars
7.4 Fig; Above image shows dropped curb used for parking
Question?
8 EASY TO FIND YOUR WAY ROUND
• Is the scheme designed to make it easy to find your way around?
Key Points
The varied housing styles and types create zones to development which allow ease navigation around the site. The site also has landscape features that provide markers and landmarks that allow public to orientate themselves around the site. Another example is the Park located at the south of the site which helps distinguish the north and south the site.
• Different housing styles create distinct character areas. • Lagoons, ditches and park provide feature markers Recommendations
8.0 Fig; image shows range house. Tree as landmark
• The use of framing views could provide more interest which can provide the opportunity focus on landmark or a feature on site to increase ease of navigation. i.e landscaped corridor.
Green – Natural features provides marker features and different housing styles provides create distinct character areas 81 Fig; Above image small park
6.1 Fig; image shows Housing type
Question?
9 STREETS FOR ALL The site uses varied methods of traffic control measures to causes to driver to slow. Image (fig 16.1) shows road narrowing and image blind corner’s in image 2, 3 these methods have been proved to driver’s drive cautiously therefore reduce speed. However, these images show surveillance blinds spots from the blank walls and troublingly little or no pavement. Giving pedestrians little comfort whilst walking around these blind corner’s causing pedestrian's vulnerability and no surveillance for any incident .
• Are streets designed in a way that encourage low vehicle speeds and allow them to function as social spaces? Key Points • Little Pavement used on development • blind corners cause drivers to slow • Surveillance blind spots, from blank walls &Elevations
9.0 Fig; Narrowing street with blank elevations
Recommendations • increase use of pavements with in site • Placement of windows on blanks walls. Red – blind corners cause driver to slow however as pedestrian you feel unsafe as there is no pavement and surveillance these area’s.
9.1 Fig; Blank elevation
9.2 Fig; blind corner with blank elevations
9.3 Fig; Blank elevations around corner
10 CAR PARKING Adequate parking has not been provided within the development. Roads are dominated by parked cars. However the on-street parking can be argued integrates with highway alignment to enhance the traffic calming benefit. Yet, Barratt Homes does not seem of provided householder with the current recommended guidance of two parking spaces per household.
Question? • Is resident and visitor parking sufficient and well integrated so that it does not dominate the street?
10.1 Fig; Above image from google maps
10.3 Fig; Above image from google
Image above shows inadequate parking that to small and provides little space for house holder to exit car. Access around parking spaces on a parking space that abuts a or fence must have the addition 0.5m to provide access for driver to get in and out. 10.2 Fig; Above image from google maps
Red – Roads are dominated by parked cars and poorly designed courtyards.
Key Points
10 CAR PARKING The car parking strategy on the scheme consists of either on-street parking combined with courtyards. The courtyards area are overlooked by the rear side of properties. The appearances look undesirable with top right image showing burnt car suggesting possible security fears warning for the parking. Displaced parking of people seeking to park close to their property may also be an issue. Indicating poor design of the courtyards as there is not suitable access to parking.
• Parked cars dominate streetscape • Not adequate parking for household • Poorly designed courtyards • Courtyard Security fears 10.5 Fig; Burnt car parked in courtyard
Recommendations • Check parking access for driver’s • Use lighting to improve feeling of safety in courtyards
• Use Planting to soften courtyard area 10.6 Fig; courtyard with white lining
• Design courtyards to be easily accessible Red – Roads are dominated by parked cars and poorly designed courtyards.
10.4 Fig; Courtyard entrance
10.7 Fig; parking for flats with white lining.
7.0 Fig
11 PUBLIC AND PRIVATE
Question?
SPACES
• Will public and private spaces be clearly defined and designed to be attractive, well managed and safe?
. Disparity between properties of allocation of front gardens are clear from images. Image 11.1 has pleasant small garden with clear boundary of stone wall where as other properties within the site have little or useless pieces of lawn that slither around the property.
11.2 Fig; image shows slither lawn front dwelling and hedging opposite.
Little pavement
Red – HORRIBLE
11.1 Fig; front garden with boundary stone walls
11.3 Fig; useless pieces land on edges buildings
7.0 Fig
11 PUBLIC AND PRIVATE
SPACES
Key Points • left over grassed areas that offer no public or private use or value • Good example of use of walls to indicate boundary Recommendations • Increase biodiversity on hedge rows
11.1 Fig; presumed Public landscape
11.3 Fig; small playground Fenced
Public land seems clearly defined by large stretches of land that seem to not provide various functions or value to the scheme. 11.3 image show public park surrounded by fencing with little facilities within inside. Suggesting major expenses were on the fencing surrounding playground.
11.2 Fig; presumed Public landscape
• Provide fun elements to public spaces through out site. • Design left over land Red – Good example of use of boundary walls for front garden. Yet,
12 EXTERNAL STORAGE AND
Question?
AMENTITIES
• Is there adequate external storage space for bins and recycling as well as vehicles and cycles?
Bin storage in images show no facilities for bin storage with most located on the roadside or edges of parking with little space. This is undesirable as it unsightly on road sides.
12.0 Fig; bin storage not provided
Red – Bins located on roadside. Few example of bin storage on site.
12.1 Fig; bin edge of pavement
12.2 Fig; bin Storage located on edge of roads.
12 EXTERNAL STORAGE AND
AMENTITIES
Key Points • Bins on roadside
Through site there little or no bin storage facilities. I only found bin store within site and storage faculties seemed adequate. Yet, I could not find other example. The Example on right seems like solution provided by householders to provide bin storage facilities. Below image allows bin storage cluttering up paths causing unsightly routes into gardens.
• No bike storage • Barely any bin store and examples are poorly designed Recommendations • Bike Storage Facilities 12.4 Fig; Above image from google maps
• Providing convenient, dedicated bin and recycling storage
Red – Bins located on roadside. Few example of bin storage on site.
12.3 Fig; bin located in route garden.
12.5 Fig; Above image from google maps
CONCLUSION Windmill green scheme by Barrat homes has not performed well in relation to the BfL12 questions scoring 1 green, 2 ambers and 6 reds. Main issue include lack character , design consideration in elevation and parking and none or little facilities for bins. In conclusion the site poorly planned and can be considered for thing building for life validation.
Number of Reds
6
Number of Ambers
2
Number of Greens
1
REFERENCE'S Birkbeck, D. and Kruczkowski, S. (2014) Building for Life 12: the sign of a good place to live, London. • south Gloucestershire planning portal • Department of Transport (2007) Manual for Streets, Thomas Telford, London. • Kruczkowski, S. (2014) ‘ Is there any value in Building for Life?’, paper presented at the Nottingham • http://www.builtforlifehomes.org/ ( Date Accessed : 16/12/2016 )
Photograph taken Lianne Esme Grosvenor.