Architecture + Design Scotland

North Troon Barassie Masterplan

18 October 2007

INTRODUCTION

This report relates to an outline planning application that includes a masterplan for a proposed housing development at Barassie to the north east of Troon. A+DS was updated on the development of a design brief by the project team and planning department at a meeting on 9 October 2007. This meeting followed on from a report issued in April 2007 on the original planning application.

Preliminary designs were presented to an A+DS Design Review panel on 5 September 2006. The April 2007 report was based on the restricted report, issued on 21 September 2006, amended to take account of revisions that had been made since the earlier review.

A+DS VIEWS

1.         Introduction

1.1       In our report dated April 2007 we stated that we did not support the design. We expressed concern that the masterplan would not lead to the development of high quality spaces, and that the approach to the preparation of the masterplan failed to take full advantage of the spectacular orientation and aspect. We were disappointed at the level of ambition, and believed there was an opportunity to be more creative and ambitious.

1.2       We suggested that greater emphasis should be given to qualitative placemaking issues that create a sense of place. Placemaking should be considered at the level of the individual plot, with houses benefiting from being orientated towards gardens and distant views beyond, and this approach to grouping and positioning of houses could influence the housing typology and layout. We also suggested that housing density should relate to placemaking, and that denser built form should assist in the creation of public spaces that are a focus for the community.

1.3       We considered the design to be overly influenced by roads considerations, and that it failed to maximise pedestrian linkages at every opportunity to aid permeability and permit easy access to facilities for pedestrians and cyclists.

2.         Design Development

2.1       We recognise the work being put into the preparation of the Design Brief, and welcome the willingness of all parties to engage with us and to address our concerns. Despite this, we continue to have concerns about the design and consider that it still has some way to go.

2.2       There is no clear spatial hierarchy, related to density, which distinguishes between individual character areas. There 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. More information is required to explain the sense of enclosure and containment of public space.

2.3       The ‘village greens' are an interesting concept, and would benefit from stronger definition and containment of space. The quality and nature of the spaces that will be created requires further examination; this should demonstrate how they work with the topography and levels, the sense of enclosure, how the edges are linked and reinforced. We question whether private spaces should front the greens directly. If they do, more information is required to show how the boundaries between public and private spaces are defined.

2.4       We continue to believe that the design has not taken full advantage of the unique opportunities presented by the site. Housing types and layout should generate from site conditions, respecting the topography to work with contours and site levels, and to take full advantage of the extensive views out to the west. We suggest that extensive underbuilding should be avoided, and caution against site levelling to create building platforms, as this cannot be considered to be ‘working with the site'.

2.5       The design continues to be dominated by roads engineering, and we question why houses cannot take direct access from the distributor road, as is the case in adjacent housing areas which are also serviced by bus routes. Such an approach calms traffic speeds and reclaims the street as public space, and in this case would offer the opportunity for it to assert itself spatially and experientially within a hierarchy of spaces.

2.6       Although houses face towards the distributor road, they are accessed by roads that come from the rear which, in effect, triples the road layout in certain areas, and duplicates areas of hardstanding. We welcome the notion that houses should face outwards to avoid rear boundary fencing but, in terms of the points made in 2.5 above, this requires further consideration to examine the principle of what is front and back.

2.7       The design has not maximised pedestrian linkages at every opportunity to aid permeability and permit easy access to facilities for pedestrians and cyclists.

CONCLUSION

We welcome the willingness of all parties to engage with us and to address our concerns, but we continue to have concerns about the design. It has not taken full advantage of the opportunities presented by the site and is overly influenced by roads considerations. We continue to urge everyone associated with this project to challenge conventional thinking on housing design and layout, and to be more creative in their approach to placemaking on this unique site. We look forward to seeing the designs again once they have been developed.

Report issued: 18 October 2007

Back to search and latest design review reports