Architecture + Design Scotland

Bridge Road Supermarket, Banff

25 October 2007

INTRODUCTION

This report relates to amended designs for a current planning application. The original planning application was presented to a design review panel and report issued on 24^th October 2005. The amended designs were discussed by an A+DS internal review panel on the 23^rd October 2007.

A+DS VIEWS

1          Background

The amended designs are a significant improvement on those originally submitted. As described in our letter to Phillip Pritchett of 16^th February 2006, written in response to some early sketches of the amended site layout, the changes then proposed did address some of our earlier concerns regarding the relationship of the entrance to the supermarket with Old Market Place and the town centre and the location of the service access. The omission of the petrol filling station on the Bridge Road frontage was also welcomed.

2          Principle of development and relationship to wider context

2.1       When we originally reviewed the application, the principle of this type of development on the site had not yet been established, and there were a number of issues that still had to be addressed by the Council. However, we recognised that there might be a perceived need for large retail development of the kind proposed within the town, and that there would be benefits to the town if it was located within the town centre rather than on the outskirts.

2.2       A+DS would prefer to see large retail developments located close to town centres, where they can act as an important anchor for future development and regeneration, rather than divorced from them. The amended site layout, with its improved relationship between the store and the town centre, alleviates some of our earlier concerns, to the extent that we can give guarded support to the principle of such a development. However, whilst commending the project team for the approach taken, we feel that there are a number of issues that still need to be addressed.

3          Connectivity and public realm

3.1       Our earlier report stressed the importance of pedestrian connectivity, and the creation of an attractive environment for pedestrians. The location of the supermarket building, and the position of its entrances, should be informed by a thorough analysis of pedestrian requirements and of movement patterns within a wider context.

3.2       We support the introduction of a new public square, and the reorientation of the entrance to the store to relate to it. This new square has the potential to become an attractive and well-used space, and contribute positively to the regeneration of this part of the town. We acknowledge the design team's aspiration for the square, and the attention they have given to its design in terms of landscape treatment and enclosure. However, we feel that these designs would benefit from further development. The designs for the gatehouse, canopy and colonnade, although welcomed in principle, seem over complex, and would benefit from simplification. The landscape designs for the square are ambitious, but their relationship to the canopy / colonnade is ambiguous. The southern leg of the colonnade, indicated on the elevations and other architectural drawings, is omitted from the landscape plan. It is unclear whether there is a direct connection between the square and the site for the Better Life Centre to the east, and if there is why it might need to be screened. Clarification is required.

3.3       Pedestrian linkages through the rest of the site also require further consideration. The pedestrian route leading to the southern edge of the town through the car park seems tortuous, and how it terminates at the southern corner of the site and connects with the A98 remains unclear. There appears to be no pedestrian connection to Bridge Road, as the canopied walkway along the southern edge of the store terminates abruptly in an access road. The Council should be more pro-active in describing a vision for this part of the town, and the pedestrian routes that it would like to see realised, so that improvements to the quality of the public realm and connectivity within the town can be realised within the development of individual sites such as this in a co-ordinated manner.

4          Historic context  

Our earlier report stressed the importance of the historic context. We support the retention of the listed building, but more detail should be made available at this stage on the details of its restoration, particularly in relation to its cartilage, which will form an integral part of the new square. More information is also required to show how the listed wall will be repaired, extended and adapted, how new openings in the listed wall will be detailed, and features such as seating areas incorporated.

5          Scale and visual impact

Our earlier report, and subsequent letter, referred to the site's strategic location at the eastern gateway to the town, and the need to consider the visual impact of such a large development. We do not see evidence of this issue having yet been addressed, as images have not been provided.

CONCLUSION

In responding to the original application we questioned whether it was possible to satisfy the programmatic requirements of the supermarket brief without damage to the urban context. We are encouraged by the approach that has been taken by the project team to address some of our earlier concerns, and the changes that have been made to the site layout suggest that the principle of such a development can now be supported. We recognise the design team's aspirations for the project, and are broadly supportive of their approach, particularly in relation to the designs for the new public square. However, we would like to see more consideration given to the designs for the southern part of the site and pedestrians connections through it, and more information provided on how the development would impact on views of the town.

Report issued: 25^th October 2007

Back to search and latest design review reports