Open Intelligenc e
PICCADILLY BASIN SRF Response from Manchester Shield
Lead Author: Loz Kaye Publication Date: 25 August 2016
INTRODUCTION The Piccadilly Basin Strategic Regeneration Framework rightly points to the exceptional character of this gateway to the city and the canal system. It is indeed rich in heritage. It already boasts quality residential buildings and conversions, established business and a community which is invested in the place. It is equally true that much needs to be done to transform it in to “a well-designed environment that is well managed, safe, accessible, sustainable and resilient to climate change” (p3). Much of the area is dominated by poor quality surface car-parking. Routes through the area are poorly legible or even counter intuitive. It is at the beginning of the canal undercroft area which has been the subject of many safety concerns and some controversy. The size of the Piccadilly Basin site at 5.9 ha is very small in the context of Manchester. While the SRF area straddles 2 council wards, most of it makes up just roughly a third of one polling district in the Ancoats and Clayton ward. This should be born in mind considering what a reasonable strategic function should be for this pocket neighbourhood. Above all, it is correct to say that the purpose of an SRF “is not to be prescriptive” (p5) , but it is an aspiration. It should be an aspiration of how the over arching policy frameworks could be realised in practice. The SRF document as it stands is not aspirational, nor does it set out a route for how the policy it refers to is to be created in the built environment of this key site. It is correct to say that Piccadilly Basin presents an opportunity, not least as there is unusual scope for transformation for a major city. We will set out the objections and recommendations from our perspective, hopeful that this will be the beginning of a process that leads to a document that really does help “to set Manchester apart from its peer cities” in a way that we can all be proud of.
Manchester Shield
PICCADILLY BASIN SRF
Table of Contents
TABLE OF CONTENTS Response from Manchester Shield...........................................................................................................................1
INTRODUCTION
1
1 Executive Summary
4
[1.1] Key Observations.................................................................................................................................................4 [1.2] Key Recommendations.......................................................................................................................................4
2 Economic Context
6
3 Strategic Policy and Regeneration Context
7
Northern Powerhouse.................................................................................................................................................7 Sustained Growth Priorities.......................................................................................................................................7 Families, Communities and Well-being...................................................................................................................8
4 Piccadilly Basin
10
Car Parking..................................................................................................................................................................10 Cycling..........................................................................................................................................................................10 Pedestrian Access.......................................................................................................................................................11 Public Transport.........................................................................................................................................................11 Characterisation and Heritage................................................................................................................................11
5 Development Principles
13
Density.........................................................................................................................................................................13 Public Realm and Amenity......................................................................................................................................13
6 The Report, Consultation and Delivery Strategy
14
Inaccuracies and Omissions.....................................................................................................................................14
Page 2 of 18
PICCADILLY BASIN SRF
Table of Contents The Report...................................................................................................................................................................14 Delivery Strategy........................................................................................................................................................15
About this Document
16
About Manchester Shield....................................................................................................................................16 About the Lead Author.........................................................................................................................................16 Loz Kaye:............................................................................................................................................................16
PICCADILLY BASIN SRF
Page 3 of 18
1 Executive Summary
1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY [1.1] Key Observations The economic context set out for the document is now entirely different post Brexit. Barclays Capital are now predicting the UK will slip in to recession in 2017 with GDP shrinking by 0.5%. Given the new economic uncertainty, it is not strategic to base the development of the area with buildings M to R on commercial property. The Northern Powerhouse policy is now under question under the new administration. Development in the City Centre area of Manchester can not be said to be delivering on the Sustained Growth Priorities for the city in a rounded way. The SRF refers to policy on affordable housing, but does not indicate that it will be acted on. In the 2007 Masterplan none of the 14 elements proposed were a car-park, yet this plan has a MSCP at its centre. Placing a MSCP on site ‘M’ will work against better pedestrian links. The proposals create significant density and massing.
[1.2] Key Recommendations The SRF should create the framework for a diverse community and an accessible “neighbourhood of choice”. The SRF should deliver on more than one of the Sustained Growth Priorities. The SRF should reflect the aspiration for a neighbourhood that includes “an emphasis on family-orientated activity”. Consideration of mental health impacts of the SRF “should be promoted as good practice”, creating spaces that reduce stress and isolation.
Page 4 of 18
PICCADILLY BASIN SRF
1 Executive Summary
The SRF should recognise the community as well as the physical and commercial resources in the area and seek to consult community groups and build on their activity. No multi-storey car-park ‘M’ should be included in the SRF. The council should undertake a new thorough assessment of parking need in the wider city centre area. Development should restore the historic Rochdale Canal archway’s role as a legible entrance. The SRF should set out an assessment of predicted population density for the area. Create a green space on the part of the site currently designated for buildings M-R.
PICCADILLY BASIN SRF
Page 5 of 18
2 Economic Context
2 ECONOMIC CONTEXT [2.1] The economic context set out for the document is now entirely different since it has been prepared following the June 23rd referendum on European Union membership. The Greater Manchester Forecasting Model referred to in 2.11 was made in January 2015, prior to the General Election. Most major city banks have reduced their growth forecasts, with Barclays Capital now predicting the UK will slip in to recession in 2017 with GDP shrinking by 0.5%. The significant fall in the pound and the less rosy outlook for the economy puts question marks on the deliverability set as a benchmark in the document’s 2.1 . [2.2] In particular, inflation is forecast to rise to 2% in Q1 of 2017 with the potential for a real terms wages fall. This typically affects the financial and professional services, creative, digital and leisure services set out in Figure 2.1 . In July’s inflation data, hotel costs were a driver, bringing in to question 6.5 which hinges on the securing of a high quality 4/5* hotel operator. [2.3] Obviously, it can not be the goal of our submission to set out a comprehensive economic prediction for the UK. Our recommendation would be wait for two full quarters of figures post “Brexit” before revising the economic context. The 2007 plan for the area was a casualty of the following crash, so it would be wise to revise the plans to make sure they are economically robust. [2.4] Given the new economic uncertainty, it is not so strategic to base the development of the area with buildings M to R on commercial property. [2.5] The challenges faced by commercial units in the area are demonstrated by the 6 empty units on the ground floor of the high rise building at the end of Laystall street directly on the other side of the street from the framework area boundary.
Page 6 of 18
PICCADILLY BASIN SRF
3 Strategic Policy and Regeneration Context
3 STRATEGIC POLICY AND REGENERATION CONTEXT Northern Powerhouse [3.1] As the economic situation has changed markedly since the preparation of this document, so has the political. This directly affects the strategic policy context. The Northern Powerhouse policy champion George Osborne is no longer in government. There are indications of a new emphasis, the Financial Times for example went with a “Theresa May Shifts Focus From ‘Northern Powerhouse’” headline .[3.2] As with the economic outlook, we would recommend revising the document sections 3.3 to 3.10 for the beginning of 2017 once the picture is clearer.
Sustained Growth Priorities [3.3] The proposal in the SRF can only be said to deliver on priority 1 of the six outlined in 3.43, and that only in part as there is not good access to education given the ongoing pressure for a new city centre school. [3.4] This would not matter to the same degree if other developments in the wider areas referred to in the SRF were delivering on affordability, creating new green spaces, improving waste and recycling infrastructure, expanding the family housing offer or providing appropriate housing options for retirement. They are not. [3.5] We recommend that the SRF must deliver on at least one other priority area so Manchester can honour the sustained growth aims.
PICCADILLY BASIN SRF
Page 7 of 18
3 Strategic Policy and Regeneration Context
Families, Communities and Wellbeing [3.6] The SRF should create the framework for a diverse community and an accessible “neighbourhood of choice”. Our concern is that the proposals do not allow for the meeting of a broad range enough of local needs. [3.7] Policy CC10 “A Place for Everyone” is that “the City Centre will develop as a location that appeals to a wide range of residents” and there will be “an emphasis on family-orientated activity”. The proposals do not reflect this. Dr Suzanne Crowhurst Lennard has observed for example that children need “a safe and hospitable public realm… high-rise housing… does not provide a hospitable context for child development”. In particular the high density of the proposals and the emphasis on cars will not fill parents with any great desire to choose the area. [3.8] The SRF should reflect the aspiration for a neighbourhood that includes “an emphasis on family-orientated activity”. [3.9] It is not unreasonable to characterise the area as “underutilised” as in 3.19. But the document ignores community activity that is there already. The successful Northern Quarter Growboxes scheme operates there. Part of the canal stretch has been adopted by the Ancoats Canal Project, volunteers working to improve the area. [3.10] The SRF should recognise the community as well as the physical and commercial resources in the area and seek to consult community groups and build on their activity. [3.11] 3.37 refers to Policy H8 on affordable housing, but does not indicate that it will be acted on. It should be clear whether it will be acted on or not. More broadly there remains a tension between this policy and what is carried out by the planning department and committee. There should be an indication given as to how this tension is to be resolved. [3.12] 3.51 refers to “public spaces, streets and buildings that empower people”. Recent research from the Centre for Urban Development and Mental Health shows that “public health is an important component of the built environment, but all too often this focuses only on physical
Page 8 of 18
PICCADILLY BASIN SRF
3 Strategic Policy and Regeneration Context health” (Layla McCay). Too great a density of development contributes to stress and isolation. Green spaces encourage regular interaction and a sense of community. [3.13] Consideration of mental health impacts of the SRF “should be promoted as good practice”(Poverty and Mental Health published by MHF).
PICCADILLY BASIN SRF
Page 9 of 18
4 Piccadilly Basin
4 PICCADILLY BASIN [4.1] In our view there are a considerable number of obstacles to the SRF delivering a “successful, vibrant and sustainable mixed use neighbourhood”. There follow a few key strands from our standpoint, other submissions will no doubt bring out others
Car Parking [4.2] In the 2007 Masterplan none of the 14 elements proposed were a car-park. The fact that the failure to realise the 2007 plan has resulted in the site being dominated by poor quality surface car-parking should not be the starting point for a new plan. The precedent that surface carparking is detrimental to good development has been set by the refusal of retrospective planning permission for a site on Oldham Street for example. The SRF should not embed the effect previous poor quality outcomes. [4.3] The SRF should not take the current number of surface car-parking places as a starting point. Instead it should assess real need in the light of the observation that “as the public transport network continues to improve reliance on the car will diminish”. (5.59) [4.4] Our own research showed that on a Friday morning the site of planned buildings M-R was occupied by 201 cars. Meanwhile on the same Friday there were 113 empty spaces in the existing MSCP and parking by the retail unit. On the same Friday there were 376 empty spaces in Great Ancoats Street retail park. On the M-R plot the following Sunday afternoon there were just 77 cars, indicating the plot is primarily for commuters. [4.5] We fundamentally question the need for MSCP ‘M’ and it should not form part of the SRF. [4.6] We recognise that our research is just a snap shot. The council should undertake a new thorough assessment of parking need in the wider city centre area. Other options should be explored including the possibility of underground parking.
Cycling [4.7] The many references to cycling in the SRF do not recognise the conditions on the ground. It
Page 10 of 18
PICCADILLY BASIN SRF
4 Piccadilly Basin is not possible to use the canal side as an active cycling route because of its heritage surface. Without any specifics of how for example cyclists might be separated from other traffic the SRF can not be said to promote cycling objectives. [4.8] Cycling groups and campaigns should be actively involved to ensure a useful and credible outcome for the framework.
Pedestrian Access [4.9] Despite various references to pedestrian access in the document, the proposals do nothing new to promote it. While buildings M-R open up a legible grid, it is possible to move through the site anyway. [4.10] Section 4.48 recognises that “vehicular movements around Piccadilly Basin generally take place via Port Street or Ducie Street”. Placing a MSCP on site M will bring traffic from from these roads in to the heart of the SRF area. This will work against creating coherent and safe routes for pedestrians.
Public Transport [4.11] Sections 4.90 to 4.114 are an extensive and frankly over written listing of transport links. While it is correct to say the site is near one of the country’s major interchanges, there is nothing in the framework itself which enhances or promotes the use public transport. In the area itself there is just one bus stop with services in the direction of Piccadilly Gardens, which is not of much value to residents. As the building proposals promote private driving rather than public transport they pull in the opposite direction of stated council objectives.
Characterisation and Heritage [4.12] The Grade II entrance archway to the Rochdale Canal is a significant feature, which is currently diminished as it frames the CitiPark’s booths and barriers. The SRF proposals will further detract from it by filling the framed view even more. This wastes a terrific heritage asset. [4.13] Development in Piccadilly Basin should restore the historic archway’s role as a legible
PICCADILLY BASIN SRF
Page 11 of 18
4 Piccadilly Basin entrance. [4.14] Heritage groups should be actively involved in considering the impact of massing on the many historic features of Piccadilly Basin.
Page 12 of 18
PICCADILLY BASIN SRF
5 Development Principles
5 DEVELOPMENT PRINCIPLES Density [5.1] The proposals create significant density and massing. They include both 1083 residential units including a 32 storey building and 265,214 ft2 of commercial space. For comparison the massive 1 St Peters Square block has 270,000 ft2 of commercial space. Even organisations that promote dense conurbations like The Centre For Cities recognise that the costs of density need to be managed. [5.2] The SRF should set out an assessment of predicted population density for the area. It should also develop outcomes based on liveable density. [5.3] The fundamental problem is that the SRF attempts to squeeze two separate developments – one commercial led, the other residential led- in to one small local area. In our view the fact that the current use and planning permissions are overwhelmingly residential should set the starting point for the framework. From the perspective of a liveable neighbourhood and economic development it will be much preferable to make a good residential area to making a cramped residential area and a bad commercial area.
Public Realm and Amenity [5.4] The SRF assesses that the “area provides limited public amenity space and the quality of the urban realm is generally poor”. It follows that the framework ought to provide more public amenity space, not less. One example of how the proposals reduce public amenity is that they would result in the removal of the Northern Quarter Growboxes. [5.5] To us there is only one proposal that can adequately address all the problems raised so far of lack of amenity, failure to address sustainable growth priorities, concerns about density, the impact on the Rochadale Canal archway, inadequate addressing of the needs of families, pedestrians and cyclists. That is to create a green space on the parts of the framework currently reserved for buildings M-R. This could potentially include a children’s play area, the nature of the site should be created in consultation with the community.
PICCADILLY BASIN SRF
Page 13 of 18
6 The Report, Consultation and Delivery Strategy
6 THE REPORT, CONSULTATION AND DELIVERY STRATEGY Inaccuracies and Omissions [6.1] The document contains a number of inaccuracies and omissions which should be corrected in the final version. [6.2] Figure 4.5 is incorrectly annotated. The numbers are placed wrongly on the diagram. This creates confusion about the intentions of the 1998 Masterplan for the general public. [6.3] Figure 4.7 is incorrect. The triangular area on the Ducie Street side which is white is also used as surface parking. The diagram omits the presence of Sixt Rent a Car business on the Ducie Street side land. [6.4] Figure 4.7 also has the area where the Northern Quarter growboxes are as white. This creates the impression there is no use for this area. The growboxes should be marked on diagram 4.7 as a Community Asset. [6.5] Figure 4.12 refers to 13 key views, but only 12 are listed in the view description. 13 is a significant omission as it is the view through the Piccadilly Basin arch.
The Report [6.6] The SRF sits rather uneasily between being a policy document, a planning guide and information for public consultation. While the Executive Summary does summarise the contents, it does not fulfil the usual function which is to make clear the key intentions and recommendations. Despite the phasing summary on page 7, it is not clear from the head of the document how many buildings are proposed or to be built where. It would be helpful to have Figures 5.2 and 5.7 repeated at the outset.
Page 14 of 18
PICCADILLY BASIN SRF
6 The Report, Consultation and Delivery Strategy
[6.7] The document contains a large amount of detail which is not strictly relevant. It also has many vague formulations. A sentence such as for example “Buildings ranged in height, scale, mass and form depending on their function” (4.9 p32) says nothing meaningful. It would aid public understanding and consultation greatly to focus the content and language better.
Delivery Strategy [6.8] The framework delivery strategy rests on one group of companies Belgravia Living Group, Town Centre Securities and Highgrove Group described as “delivery partners with a proven track record.” It can not be said that Belgravia Living have a proven track record. Their only current project, Burlington House, is yet to be built. [6.9] The most obvious presence of Belgravia Living in the SRF area is the fencing off of the Burlington House site. This was previously an area used for recreation and referred to by the community as “the grassy knoll”. The loss of “the grassy knoll” provoked a good deal of negative sentiment on social media. The fenced off area currently presents dead frontage with Belgravia logos to the canal, Vantage Quay and Jacksons warehouse. If Belgravia are to be key partners they have much to do to restore trust within the neighbourhood. Addressing this must be part of any delivery strategy.
PICCADILLY BASIN SRF
Page 15 of 18
ABOUT THIS DOCUMENT This document is the Manchester Shield response to the August 2016 consultation on the Piccadilly Basin Strategic Regeneration Framework. The document set out for consultation is available at http://www.manchester.gov.uk/info/500113/city_centre_regeneration/7292/piccadilly_basin _srf
About Manchester Shield Manchester Shield is a grassroots organisation dedicated to improving the built environment in Greater Manchester, facilitating citizen engagement in the planning process and raising public awareness of issues affecting the development of our shared city
About the Lead Author Loz Kaye: Loz Kaye is an active Manchester campaigner. He is co-founder of Open Intelligence think tank working at the intersection of politics, technology and security. He is a sought after debater and media commentator with appearances on BBC, CNN, in the The Guardian, Independent, Le Monde amongst others.