by OUR LOCAL GOVERNMENT EDITOR
A senior planner at Scottish Borders Council has expressed her misgivings about the design proposals for the local authority's own £20 million 60-bed care village at Tweedbank which will be the first building project on the idyllic Lowood country estate. near Melrose.
When the council started drawing up a development strategy for the 34 hectares estate - purchased over six years ago for £10 million - the pledge was for well designed, high quality projects including 300 new homes and the specially created care village for people diagnosed with dementia.
But according to Julie Hayward, team leader for development management at SBC the proposed group of three buildings designed by architects commissioned by the council are not considered appropriate to their surroundings or the character of the immediate area.
When members of the council's planning authority meet next week to decide whether to give their own project the go-ahead they will have before them a detailed report from Mrs Hayward.
It includes the following passage: "The main areas of concern with the proposed development are the scale, massing and design of the buildings, particularly their cumulative footprint, which has the potential to introduce a more urban character into the landscape that risks detracting from the estate’s semi-rural aesthetic.
"In addition, all three buildings are of similar scale and design, with only difference being variations in the proposed cladding colour. It is considered that this lack of legibility or distinct identity detracts from the overall quality of the scheme."
A planning department file for the care village shows that architects lodged amended plans and drawings as recently as January 17th in a bid to address the concerns of senior officers.
In an email to JW Architects project director Yunming Thomson, Mrs Hayward wrote: "I have consulted the relevant consultees. I note that the elevation drawings have been revised. Whilst we appreciate the efforts taken to address our concerns regarding the scale and massing of the buildings, we feel that these drawings are not an improvement; the lowering of the ridge and eaves and the shallower roof pitch have resulted in a squat gable.
"In addition, the false gables on the side elevations add interest so should be retained. Further, the use of brick on the gables is discouraged and brick should be restricted to less prominent areas as previously agreed. It is therefore felt that the original drawings submitted with the application are preferred and either the original drawings will be presented to Councillors or a condition will be recommended that a set of revised drawings be submitted for approval, which would also take into account the revised floor layouts."
In her committee report, Mrs Hayward lists the key planning issues for councillors to consider: whether the proposal complies with Development Plan Policies and the Supplementary Planning Guidance and Design Guide for Tweedbank; whether the scale, siting and design of the development are appropriate for the Lowood Estate setting; whether landscape and visual impacts are acceptable; whether the proposal would have adverse impacts on trees, woodlands and ecology; and whether the proposed development would adversely affect road and pedestrian safety.
She reminds the committee: "This is the first detailed application (with the exception of the road layout) for the Lowood Estate and the aim is to achieve an exemplar development that complies with the vision set out in the Supplementary Planning Guidance, setting design standards for the remainder of the estate and allocated sites."
But due to the topography of the area a significant amount of cut and fill, with retaining walls, is required to provide the level site necessary for the care village.
"It is clear that the chosen site for this much needed development, has its challenges. It is considered that the heavily engineered solution shown on the submitted plans (involving significant cut and fill and formation of a level platform) would not be a sympathetic response to the natural landform and would have a significant adverse impact on the landscape character of the estate."
Mrs Hayward says the revised drawings attempt to reduce the overall scale and bulk of the building by introducing shallower roof pitches and reducing ridge and eaves heights. They also remove false gables from the side elevations, introducing a simpler approach with continuous eaves details.
"Unfortunately, this has not addressed officers’ concerns and further revisions are required to ensure a suitably designed and scaled building appropriate for this location, consistent with LDP [Local Development Plan] policies.
The report concludes that if committee members are minded to approve the application it is recommended that this matter is delegated to officers to resolve. This will ensure that the scale, mass and height of the building, as well as any changes to the layout and arrangement of windows and doors are addressed before a decision is issued.
Mrs Hayward's recommendation is accompanied by fourteen specific conditions.
No comments:
Post a Comment