Architecture + Design Scotland

Edinburgh Drinking Water Project, Midlothian

24 April 2008

INTRODUCTION

This report relates to a current planning application for a new water treatment works plant for Edinburgh and a separate planning application for associated physical plant. Preliminary designs for the treatment works plant were presented to an A+DS Design Review Panel on 23^rd October in Edinburgh, prior to a planning application being submitted, and a report was subsequently issued on 14^th November 2007.

This report is based on the earlier report, amended to take account of revisions that have been made since the earlier review.

A+DS VIEWS

1          Previous comments

1.1       In our previous restricted report (dated 14^th November 2007) we commented on the design approach, the expression of the processes within the building, the integration of art and landscape, public accessibility and sustainability.

1.2       We supported the proposals in principle. However, we felt that there was scope to develop a form of building that expressed its purpose more clearly and confidently. In order to achieve this, a skilful integration of art, architecture, engineering and environmental considerations was required. We suggested a land artist could assist in informing this process.

1.3       We recognised the importance of the building's place within the community and encouraged the project team to explore the potential to educate and reach out to the community, and to develop a balanced approach between security and access to the building.

1.4       We encouraged the design team to bolster the inherent narrative of the project (landscape, water and gravity) with a simpler, bolder and more visionary approach.

2          Design development

2.1       We recognise the way in which the designs have developed since previously reviewed. In particular we note that the buildings have been re-orientated to avoid disturbing the archaeological remains discovered at the northwest corner of the site subsequent to our previous review of the project. It would appear that, in doing so, the visual impact of the building has been reduced through landscaping and the introduction of additional screening. However, there are a number of issues raised in our previous report which we still feel should be addressed.

2.2       We previously commended the design team for the logical organisation of the building, in relation to the site layout and the use of levels to allow gravity to feed the water filtration process. However, we still feel that the project is understated in its full potential and that there is an opportunity for the filtration process to be expressed more fully.

2.3       We welcome an approach that seeks to integrate buildings into their environment sympathetically, and commend the project team for considering the building's ‘fifth elevation' and the impact the building would have on views from the Pentlands. However, we are disappointed that an artist has not been involved in helping to develop the form of the building and its place in the landscape as part of this process. The green roof, noted as a "translocated grass roof" raises issues of bio-diversity. It may be worth seeking advice from the Scottish Wildlife Trust on the positive contribution the building could make to the local natural environment.

2.4       We encourage the project team to give more consideration to the impact of the proposed facility on the immediate neighbourhood and the balance between public and private space. We recognise the sensitive nature of the processes involved within the building and the need to restrict public access because of this; however, it is unfortunate that this seems to preclude educational aspects of the building from being demonstrated more fully. We encourage the project team to be creative in their approach to security and to make a commitment to accessibility so that visitors may benefit from the educational aspects on offer. There may be opportunities offered by the discovery of the archaeological site to further facilitate public amenity.

2.5       We welcome the project team's ambition for the development in terms of creating an exemplary sustainable building and we support the proposed incorporation of energy saving devices such as hydro electric turbines and photovoltaics to help supply power to the water treatment works. We encourage the project team to adopt a strategy that monitors the effectiveness of these and other sustainable aspects of the building.

3          Associated physical plant

3.1       The associated pipeline and related off-site structures being developed concurrently are the subject of a separate Planning Application (Ref. 08/00137/FUL). We encourage the project team to strive for a higher level of design quality in the above-ground structures and relate them to the design idiom applied to the proposed water treatment works.

CONCLUSION

We support the project in principle and recognise the potential for the development to be a flagship project for Scottish Water. We recognise the way that the designs have developed. However, we still feel that they would benefit from a bolder and more visionary approach, especially in regard to landscaping and art (landscaping as art) strategies. We encourage a similar approach to be carried though in the design of the ancillary structures, under consideration as part of the separate application.

Report issued: 24^th April 2008

Back to search and latest design review reports