Architecture+Design Scotland

Show navigation

A+DS Views

1 Previous scheme
1.1 In our last report dated 18th October 2007 we welcomed the willingness of all parties to engage with us and to address our concerns, but we continued to have concerns about the design. We felt that the proposals at that time had not taken full advantage of the opportunities presented by the site and were overly influenced by roads considerations. In particular we raised the following issues:

• concern over a lack of clear spatial hierarchy related to density to distinguish between character areas and types of streets;
• potential for denser built form in key places to create nodes;
• additional information required to explain a sense of enclosure / containment / definition of boundaries between public and private spaces;
• the quality of proposed public spaces and their relationship to the site topography;
• the degree to which the development of housing types and layouts was being generated from site conditions and topography to take full advantage of views to the west, cautioning against site levelling and the creation of ‘building platforms’;
• no direct access to houses from the distributor road with access roads to   houses proposed to come from the rear, thereby tripling the road layout in areas;
• maximising pedestrian linkages to aid permeability and permit easy access to facilities for pedestrians and cyclists outwith the development area.

1.2 We urged everyone associated with the project to challenge conventional thinking on housing design and layout, and to be more creative in their approach to placemaking on this unique site.

2 Current application
2.1 Design development
The revised masterplan offers some improvements on the previous scheme, and we are pleased that some of our earlier comments have been taken on board, particularly with regards to the introduction of direct access to houses from the distributor road. However, it would appear that the layout is still based on a fairly conventional suburban residential model and we still do not feel that the designs sufficiently exploit the site’s unique qualities and character, to generate a development with variety, identity and a sense of place.

2.2 Development potential
This is a special green field site in a prominent location on the edge of the town, with a good range of biodiversity, good growing potential and spectacular views to the west, and as such its development will be a loss to the community. In compensation, there should be a high standard of development expected in order to benefit the surrounding community.

2.3 Response to existing topography
We are still concerned with the extent of cut and fill currently proposed and the platforming of the site, as described within the revised Design and Access Statement, which seems to create a development that appears bland and monotonous. The existing site topography could be exploited more than currently shown to potentially create a more unique development revealed through the morphology of the house types and the site section.

2.4 Environmental and climatic response
There appears to be lack of information provided within the Design & Access Statement that pertains to the existing climatic conditions on the site and how the house designs and housing layout might address these. Environmental imperatives could be exploited to create a development with more character by, for example, grouping housing units together, using structure planting to create shelter from wind off of the sea and to protect from potential noise pollution.

We note that the site benefits from a south/west facing aspect, however; houses must be designed and orientated to use and accept passive solar gain in order to exploit the potential benefits that could be had. We suggest this be explored and made more explicit in the information provided. This will be particularly important in light of upcoming and more onerous building standards, which we expect the development will have to adhere to given the proposed programme. Properties completed up to 2013 and then 2016 should at least satisfy the proposed 2013 Building Regulations and 2016 Building Regulations respectively. Alternatively, many councils would require a similarly enhanced ‘Ecohomes’ or ‘Code for Sustainable Homes’ standard.

2.5 Density
We have no objections in principle to the proposed increase in housing density. However, in doing so there is an opportunity to introduce a variety of house types, heights and sizes that respond to the landscape to help create a more distinctive layout that may, ultimately, increase the appeal and potential value of individual houses and the development as a whole. As stated in out previous report, we still feel that there is no clear spatial hierarchy, related to density, which distinguishes between individual character areas. There still appears to be little difference between the ‘streets’, and the density and layout appears bland and uniform across the site. Denser built form in particular key places, for example nodes, should assist in the creation of public spaces that form a coherent hierarchy and are a focus in the community.

2.6 Landscape strategy
We note the proposed landscape strategy that forms part of the indicative masterplan, which shows provision for open space, locations for play areas and suggested boundary treatments along the edges of the development and the two burns that cross it. We support the preparation of such a strategy in principle, however at the moment the framework appears somewhat formulaic rather than something that is enhancing the topography of the site and reinforcing the nature of the place.

As per our previous report we support the concept of creating ‘village greens’ to provide useful open space for the residents. These spaces now generally appear to be better contained by houses that front onto them and / or a landscaped boundary treatment along their edges. However, we question whether the village greens might be located in the optimum locations currently, in terms of their proximity to major routes and correlation to the existing site topography. We also query the nature of the proposed ‘pinch points’ as currently these appear to create constricted routes through the backs of house that are not overlooked. The fenestration of the proposed feature buildings should be considered to provide effective observation of the surrounding streets.

2.7 Phasing
We note the proposed Phasing for development of the site, though the proposed timescales for each construction phase has been omitted and should be included to understand the timeframes involved. Consideration should be given to the interim spaces that will be created until such time as the overall site has been completed. It will also be important to ensure that, as the development is delivered over time, routes to the school are made possible at an early stage and not latterly as currently proposed.

Conclusion
The revised masterplan offers some improvements on the previous scheme, and we are pleased that some of our earlier comments have been taken on board, particularly with regards to the introduction of direct access to houses from the distributor road. However, it would appear that the current layout is still based on a fairly conventional suburban residential model and we feel that a much higher standard of development is required to justify the loss of a special green field site such as this. The existing site topography and site conditions, along with other environmental imperatives should be considered more fully to generate spaces with unique character and create a more sustainable development with variety, identity and a sense of place.