Architecture+Design Scotland

Show navigation

Introduction
This report relates to the proposed development framework for the site of the former Davidsons Mill at Mugiemoss in Aberdeen, presented at an A+DS Design Review meeting held on the 21st June 2011 in St Nicholas House, Aberdeen.

A+DS Views

1 General
1.1 We acknowledge the Client’s and the Council’s aspirations to regenerate and develop the former mill by this design process. Likewise, we applaud the Project Team’s approach to producing a Development Framework for the site, in collaboration with the Planning Authority, recently approved as Supplementary Planning Guidance (SPG). The project is grounded in a thorough understanding of context, setting and design, and provides a strong foundation for future development. We offer the following comments for both the Project Team and the Planning Authority to consider as part of determining the current application for Planning Permission in Principle (PPP), developing more detailed designs and in implementing the development.

2 Emerging Designs
2.1 Indicative Masterplan
The indicative masterplan, which is part of the Development Framework, has the potential to create an exemplary place through the promotion of high quality design. In addition to the work already done by the Project Team on testing the masterplan we suggest that they should explore in more detail:

• The capacity of the site once the mill buildings are demolished with regard to the opportunities that the remnant landscape and existing platforms offer.
• The nature of connections to the existing roads and streets surrounding the site to create legible routes from the Bucksburn community in to the site, through to the River Don.
• The development of the river’s edge, particularly in cross section, to ensure that car parking does not intrude upon key public spaces like Mill Square.
• The proposed block arrangement in terms of the core elements (the primary streets, public realm and car parking) and those that can adapt as required (plot sizes and housing typologies).
• ;The minimum density required to achieve the vision.

2.2 Landscape Strategy As a supplement to the Development Framework and the indicative masterplan presented we recommend that the Project Team produce a robust landscape strategy. Such a strategy need not include the definitive form or layout of any buildings but should relate to the key urban structure of the development and include:

• The non-negotiables in terms of public realm, street design, car parking and landscaping (referencing the latest Scottish Government Guidance on Designing Streets and Designing Places).
• ;A palette of materials/details that address the site’s setting and context, with the potential to enhance the existing sense of place.
• A framework for implementing the core spaces.

2.3 Buildings
Notwithstanding that the sketch designs of buildings included in the presentation are indicative; we would query some of the concepts at this stage. As it exists the site varies tremendously in terms of levels and landscaping and we suggest that simpler buildings in terms of materiality may be more appropriate in this instance, with difference created through typology and form according to the various character areas. One such example of this that the Project Team might refer to is the Accordia development in Cambridge, which utilises a limited palette of materials that are differentiated by scale and articulation across the development.

We understand that a new main street is planned as an integral part of the development and encourage the Project Team to explore how they might make reference to the typology of the existing Bucksburn village centre. We also suggest that there is an opportunity to combine old and new buildings within the development by re-using some or parts of the modern industrial buildings earmarked for demolition. In addition to the mill’s brick chimney being retained as part of the riverfront area referred to as Mill Square, we encourage the Project Team to explore how other elements of the mills built heritage could be adapted for use by community as leisure/recreation buildings.

2.4 Sustainability
The Project Team’s aspirations for a sustainable development, particularly in terms of environmental considerations, are commendable; however we are unsure from the presentation at the meeting as to how this might actually be achieved. Due to the involvement of a consortium of developers, we question who might lead this aspect of the project and suggest that this might be resolved such that a holistic strategy be developed at an early stage. We also request further clarity from the Local Authority on how the streets, public realm, and parking strategies will be developed and sustained in the future.

3 Delivery of the Development
3.1 Application for Planning Permission in Principle
We recommend that the determination of the current PPP application should seek to embed details of landscape, public realm and car parking within a defined solution, an armature which ensures homogeneity in future development within the Development Framework. This will be important to ensure coherent development across the site even if housing mix, layout and design evolves in response to changing market demands and the future needs of the community.

3.2 Detailed Designs
We believe that the emerging proposals presented at the meeting have potential and encourage the Client, Project Team and Planning Authority to continue to engage beyond the PPP application stage. We note that the Planning Authority is keen for a variety of approaches to be brought forward for the site and seek confirmation as to who will lead this process and co-ordinate all parties involved. Notwithstanding the scale and complexity of the project, design quality should be considered paramount as the detailed designs are developed.

3.3 Implementation We advise those responsible for the implementation of the development to give the following careful consideration:

• Which elements must happen first, in order to establish a mixed use community and allow coherent development through to completion.
• How will the various phases of the development relate to the topography, and interface with the principles of the streets armature, wider site connections and core public realm.
• What part does the public sector have to play in terms of proactive engagement on streets, public realm and generally ensuring quality over time. (Much of this is likely to be through the regulatory arm of the planning authority, but there may need to be other mechanisms.)

Conclusion
We believe that this is an admirable project and commend the engagement between the Client, the Project Team and the Planning Authority thus far. As the proposals are developed in more detail we advise the Project Team to maintain the potential of the Development Framework and encourage them to continue to explore how the sloping landscape and river frontage can be safeguarded and enhanced further as a result of the sites redevelopment. Above all, the complexity of the site, allied to the likely complexity of implementation, require that core designs principles be fixed along with more detailed consideration of delivery mechanisms to ensure the ambitions of the scheme are realised.

We would welcome the return of the project to Design Review at the next stage in the development of the designs.