1.0 Introduction 3 2.0 The Policy Background 4

2.1 The national picture........................................................................................................... 4

2.2 The regional and sub-regional picture ........................................................................... 4

2.3 The importance of good design in an economic downturn ....................................... 5

2.5 Design review nationally .................................................................................................. 6

3.0 The Design Advisory Service 8

3.1 Design Review.................................................................................................................... 8

3.1.1 Design Review Procedure ........................................................................................... 8 3.1.2 Design Review Panel Membership ............................................................................. 9 3.1.3 Design Review Reports ............................................................................................. 10

3.2 Design Enabling ............................................................................................................... 11

3.2.1 University Quarter (UniQ) .......................................................................................... 11 3.2.2 Stoke-on-Trent City Centre........................................................................................ 11 3.2.3 Green Housing Demonstration.................................................................................. 11 3.2.4 Visioning Longton ....................................................................................................... 11 3.2.5 Urban Design Supplementary Planning Document ................................................. 12

3.3 The advantages of a sub-regional service .................................................................. 12

4.0 Monitoring the service 14

4.1 What are we reviewing?.................................................................................................. 15

4.1.1 Where are our reviewed schemes? .......................................................................... 15 4.1.2 At what stage are proposals reviewed?.................................................................... 15 4.1.3 How many proposals are reviewed each year? ....................................................... 16 4.1.4 How have the type of schemes reviewed changed? ............................................... 16 4.1.5 What sort of schemes are we reviewing?................................................................. 17 4.1.6 What are the panel recommending?......................................................................... 17

4.2 How effective is our service and how is this perceived? ......................................... 19

4.2.1 Why did they come to design review? ...................................................................... 19 4.2.2 Were they happy with the organisation? .................................................................. 19 4.2.3 How are the design review reports perceived? ........................................................ 19 4.2.4 Has the standard of schemes improved? ................................................................. 20 4.2.5 Perceived effectiveness and suggested improvements .......................................... 21 4.2.6 Further analysis required ........................................................................................... 22

4.3 What effect is the design advisory service having?.................................................. 23

4.3.1 Case Study One – a large educational building and a supermarket ...................... 23 4.3.2 Case Study Two – an edge of town retail development .......................................... 25 4.3.3 Case Study Three – a key strategic planning document......................................... 26 4.3.4 Case Study Four – an urban housing development ................................................ 28 4.3.5 Case Study Five – a primary care centre ................................................................. 29

4.4 Service Improvement Plan ............................................................................................. 31

5.0 Overall Assessment 32 6.0 References 33 Appendices

Appendix A: A comprehensive list of design review schemes…………………………….33 Appendix B: Assessment criteria for design review .......................................................... 40 Appendix C: Design review eligibility criteria ..................................................................... 42

2

3

1.0 Introduction

Urban Vision North Staffordshire is an architecture and urban design centre. We work

closely with partners to promote high quality architecture and urban design in and around the North Staffordshire conurbation as a means of:

• Bringing about successful physical and economic regeneration

• Creating a better and more sustainable urban environment

• Improving the image of the area

• Raising the quality of life for the citizens of today and tomorrow.

Urban Vision is a not-for-profit company limited by guarantee and is a registered charity.

Urban Vision is based at the Burslem School of Art in Stoke-on-Trent and is a full member

of the UK's Architecture Centre Network.

This report is a follow up to Design Reviewed 2007 – how we do design review in North

Staffordshire published in early 2008. The purpose of this report is firstly, to show how the design review service which is funded by Advantage West Midlands, is fundamental to the

wider role of Urban Vision North Staffordshire in improving the quality of design in the sub-

region; secondly, to update the progress of the service in the previous year including an analysis of the effect that it is having on the built environment and finally, to set out some

guidelines for future enhancement and refinement of the service.

4

2.0 The Policy Background The following section addresses the need for a design advisory service in North

Staffordshire by looking at the national, regional and sub-regional pictures before

focussing on the need for good design in the current economic downturn. There is also a brief look at where the Urban Vision Design Review Panel fits into the nationwide network

of panels.

2.1 The national picture Following the publication of the report of the Urban Task Force’s Towards an Urban

Renaissance (ODPM, 1999) the importance of delivering high quality architectural and urban design has been increasingly recognised and the Commission for Architecture and

the Built Environment (CABE) have produced an extensive body of evidence to support

this from By Design urban design in the planning system: towards a better place (DETR & CABE 2001) to Good design: the fundamentals (CABE, 2009). This culminated in the

importance of good design being enshrined in national planning policy when in 2005 the

Government issued PPS1: Delivering Sustainable Development (ODPM, 2005). This

establishes good design as integral to good planning and has been supplemented by further policy including PPS6: Planning for Town Centres (ODPM, 2005) and PPS3:

Housing (DCLG, 2006).

In addition to the Government policy statements referred to above, the recent fusion of the Housing Corporation and English Partnerships to form the Homes and Communities

Agency (HCA) has resulted in a doubling of the already strong commitment to good

design shown by both of its constituent parts. The excellent Urban Design Compendium

1&2 (English Partnerships and The Housing Corporation, 2008) uses the South East Design Review Panel as one of its case studies highlighting examples of good practice in

the field of urban design.

Finally, CABE’s national design review panel was established in 1999 and has advised on around 4000 reviews. This has more recently been supplemented by the National

Schools Panel and the London 2012 and the Crossrail panels that focus predominantly on

the capital.

2.2 The regional and sub-regional picture The increased focus on quality design is evident in the Regional Spatial Strategy for the West Midlands (DCLG, 2008). This highlights the role of good design in providing

successful physical and economic regeneration throughout and provides a strong

framework with policies UR3: enhancing the role of the city, town and district centres and

QE3: creating a high quality built environment for all being the most relevant.

Furthermore, the West Midlands Economic Strategy delivery framework, Connecting to

Success (AWM, 2008) identifies Urban Vision North Staffordshire as being jointly

responsible (along with MADE) for delivering both design review panels and design enabling region-wide in order to help raise the design, quality and environmental

performance of the built environment in response to action 2.6.2 (p.65) which states:

“Ensure that the physical environment of our region adds value to our population’s quality of life and well-being via the forward planning of

activity.”

5

Underlying the Regional Spatial Strategy is the emerging North Staffordshire Core Spatial

Strategy prepared jointly by Stoke-on-Trent City Council and Newcastle-under-Lyme Borough Council. This document has been presented to the Urban Vision Design Review

Panel on a number of occasions (see later in this report for an analysis of this process)

and makes many references to the importance of good design throughout with CSP1:

Design Quality providing the policy basis. Finally, the Urban Vision Design Review Panel is referred to specifically in the CSS:

“Each Local Planning Authority will continue to use the Urban Vision

North Staffordshire Design Review Panel to provide specialist advice on major planning applications.”

2.3 The importance of good design in an economic downturn Professor Michael Parkinson et al in The Credit Crunch and Regeneration: impact and

implications (DCLG, 2009) highlights the vulnerability of areas of regeneration such as the

North Staffordshire conurbation to the effects of the credit crunch and states:

“…economically and financially marginal places, projects and people

are most vulnerable in the flight to quality and the avoidance of risk.”

Which is essentially saying that uncertainty has led many large developers, particularly in

housing, to retreat to areas of greater economic stability. It does however point out that “The public sector is currently keeping the wheels of regeneration turning” and North

Staffordshire, as a priority area of regeneration, has already had a commitment from the

Homes and Communities Agency to invest £39.6 million into housing in the sub-region in order to capitalise key regeneration projects at City Waterside, Burslem and Middleport

AMI and the former colliery sites at Silverdale and Chatterley Whitfield. Urban Vision

primarily through its design review panel has been involved and has an ongoing commitment to remain involved in all of these four major regeneration areas.

It is vital that design quality is upheld despite the economic pressure to compromise and it

is especially vital in vulnerable areas undergoing regeneration. In fact, in a time of

shortage it is more important to ensure that scarce resources are invested wisely because poorly designed development will not deliver value for money.

Figure 1: Why we need a design advisory service in North Staffordshire

6

2.5 Design review nationally There is an emerging consensus that good design is vital in achieving sustainable physical and economic regeneration and good quality design advice - in the form of review

and enabling - is a mechanism to help deliver this. What has been unclear until recently is

the national coverage of design review and therefore where the service provided by Urban Vision fits into the national picture. The recent publication of the Survey of Local and

Regional Design Review Panels, their Location, Type and Impact (CABE, 2009) has

clarified this.

This survey undertaken by CABE and supported by the Royal Institute of British Architects (RIBA), the Royal Town Planning Institute (RTPI) and the Landscape Institute (LI) has

discovered a vibrant and expanding sector. Aside from the CABE national design review

panels there are:

• 6 Regional Panels - covering 270 Local Planning Authorities

• 11 Sub-regional Panels - covering 78 Local Planning Authorities

• 64 Local Panels – each operating in only one Local Planning Authority

Of all the panels 71% have been established in the past five years with the majority of the

longer established panels operating in just one local authority area.

The sub-regional design review panel managed by Urban Vision North Staffordshire has

been in operation since October 2004 and has met on 60 occasions making it one of the oldest such panels in the country. Since 2007 when a regional panel covering the

remainder of the West Midlands was established by MADE it has formed a part of a

region-wide service, Design Review West Midlands. It was recognised in the recent nationwide review of design review panels, discussed above that the West Midlands is

unique in having its regional design review delivered by two separate but closely linked

panels.

This dual panel arrangement (as illustrated by the map overleaf) allows for a more

concentrated impact in the North Staffordshire regeneration area as the Urban Vision

Design Review Panel is involved in all of the major developments in the sub-region. It has

also allowed for the development of a combined design advisory service incorporating both design review and design enabling elements, as described in greater detail in the

following section.

7

Figure2: Map of the West Midlands region showing design review panel coverage

NB. Urban Vision covers the three local authority areas in North Staffordshire (Stoke-on-

Trent, Newcastle-under-Lyme and Staffordshire Moorlands) shaded yellow on the map;

MADE covers the rest of the region with the blue and red shaded LPA’s having local authority panels.

8

3.0 The Design Advisory Service

It has become increasingly apparent that what is being provided by Urban Vision North

Staffordshire is a multi-level design advisory service, incorporating design review and design enabling elements. Though this is a holistic service and the boundaries are not

always clear-cut, for the purposes of this report it has been separated into its constituent

parts and these are discussed below.

3.1 Design Review Urban Vision’s well-established and well respected design review panel remains the

cornerstone of our design advisory service. The panel has always considered strategic

planning documents, design briefs and options as well as the master plans and individual

building proposals that followed, and we have actively sought to increase our involvement in these areas. The focused geographical area in which we work, an area that is currently

subject to significant regeneration, makes this long-term involvement with key proposals

possible and we feel that the continuous involvement has proven to be extremely valuable.

3.1.1 Design Review Procedure

The design review panel terms of reference define the details of the conduct of panel

meetings, membership, criteria for referrals, the information required and the feedback process. A copy of the updated Design Review Panel Terms of Reference is contained in

Appendix 1.

In order to maintain consistency all applications are subject to the same processes and procedures to ensure all parties are kept well informed and that deadlines are met. It is

because of the rigour of such procedures that it has been possible to expand the design

review service with the provision of interim panel sessions when required. The value of

careful programming and adherence to procedures is illustrated by the fact that Urban Vision has always managed to produce detailed formal comments on proposals within just

five working days of the panel meeting.

Figure 3: A Design Review Panel meeting in progress

9

3.1.2 Design Review Panel Membership

The UVNS Design Review Panel comprises 25 members from a broad range of built environment professions, including architects, urban designers, planners, landscape

architects and artists.

Design Review Panel Member List

Chair

Ted Cullinan Architect

Vice Chairs

Joe Holyoak Architect/Urban Designer

Jon Phipps Architect/Urban Designer

Alistair Sunderland Architect

Geoff Wright Planner/Urban Designer

Panel Members

David Ainsley Architect

Julian Baker Architect

Jerry Birkbeck Landscape Architect/Planner

John Bishop Architect

Hugh Cannings Architect

Dave Chetwyn Planner/Heritage

Francis Collella Landscape Architect

Annie Coombs Landscape Architect

Rosemary Coyne Landscape Architect

Bob Crombie Surveyor/Housing Specialist

Caroline Foxhall Artist

Bob Ghosh Architect

Hilary Hughes Artist

Chris Jones Urban Designer

Dryden McNair-Lewis Architect/Urban Designer

Noha Nasser Architect/Urban Designer

Patrick Redmond Architect

Lisa Richards Urban Designer/Planner

Kevan Spink Urban Designer/Landscape Architect

Michael Taylor Heritage and Conservation

Tony Whitehead Architect

Noëlle Wright Architect

Figure 4: Urban Vision North Staffordshire Design Review Panel Members Biographies of all panel members can be found on the Urban Vision website at:

http://www.uvns.org/designreviewpanel/panelmembers.htm

10

3.1.3 Design Review Reports

The design review report structure has evolved since the start of the Urban Vision design review panel almost five years ago to reflect comments from panel members, those

attending the panel and representatives of the Local Planning Authorities. Perhaps the

most fundamental change made was the inclusion of ‘Recommended Actions’ at the end

of each report back in 2005 and this has now become standard practice. There have been no changes to the report structure in the last year and the survey of panel applicants

undertaken for this annual report (see section 4.2) indicates that they are widely

considered to be effective.

It should be noted that if a scheme is returning to panel it is not always necessary to

complete a detailed report and the further comments of the panel and recommendations

are typically included in a letter. At all stages the prime function of the report – to inform

the applicants and improve the design of the proposal – is at the forefront of our thought.

All design review reports that are in the public domain, i.e. all of those that were not

reviewed at pre-application stage, are available for download on our website at:

www.uvns.org/designreviewpanel/reviewarchive.htm

Figure 5: The Online Design Review Panel Archive

11

3.2 Design Enabling Since the organisation was founded Urban Vision’s professional staff team have been involved with many large projects in the sub-region in a design advisory capacity. There

follows a brief description of some of these.

3.2.1 University Quarter (UniQ)

Urban Vision’s Architecture and Urban Design Advisor is a member of the UniQ working

group. Early proposals for the masterplan, the design of the new sixth form college

building, a new further education college campus and the development of three new

shared facility blocks have been presented to design review panel already and there are plans to bring key individual elements to panel at appropriate times. Urban Vision are

also involved in facilitating a design master planning workshop involving key members of

our design review panel alongside the newly appointed design team. Finally, our involvement has expanded to include an advisory role in the potential eco-refurbishment

of social housing blocks within the masterplan area.

3.2.2 Stoke-on-Trent City Centre

Urban Vision have been represented on the steering group for the emerging city centre public realm strategy and an initial draft has been to design review panel in late 2008. We

are currently working alongside Stoke-on-Trent City Council to develop the strategy and

plan to review the final draft in due course. Urban Vision has also supported the City Council in its efforts to bring forward a high quality new central bus station by highlighting

the strategic importance of its redevelopment and facilitating a best practice visit to

Barnsley to visit the new Interchange.

3.2.3 Green Housing Demonstration

Urban Vision have been working alongside Epic Housing Association in the eco-

refurbishment of a block of social housing flats on the Bentilee Estate. Proposals for this

were presented to the design review panel in 2008 and at present the housing association are considering rolling out the programme of refurbishment across the remainder of their

stock. Urban Vision followed up this with an exhibition of sustainable housing

development in early 2009.

3.2.4 Visioning Longton

Urban Vision have led the Visioning Longton project since 2007 working closely with the

community scoping ideas for the regeneration of what is the eastern portal to the

potteries. This work has included the staging of a Visioning Panel held at Longton Town Hall in March 2008 where selected members of our design review panel took part in a

workshop to scope ideas for the town. This was instrumental in the decision to

masterplan the town and the design review panel have continued their involvement by

reviewing the masterplan brief in early 2009.

Figure 6: The new Stoke Sixth Form College building in the University Quarter

12

3.2.5 Urban Design Supplementary Planning Document

Urban Vision is project managing the production of a design Supplementary Planning Document on behalf of a client group comprising Stoke-on-Trent City Council, Newcastle-

under-Lyme Borough Council, RENEW North Staffordshire and Advantage West

Midlands. The design guide is being produced by Tibbalds Planning and Urban Design

and will be part of the two local authorities’ Local Development Frameworks once it has been formally adopted.

3.3 The advantages of a sub-regional service

As illustrated by the West Midlands map on page 6 the relatively compact geographical area covered by the Urban Vision North Staffordshire Design Advisory Service has a

number of key advantages, it enables us to:

• Become involved in some capacity in all major initiatives and almost all

significant development proposals in the sub region. We have been

involved already and will continue to be involved in each of the major regeneration initiatives in North Staffordshire including the £282 million

education-led regeneration UniQ, the £250 million redevelopment of the

East West Precinct in the city centre and various major housing-led regeneration initiatives from Meir to Silverdale.

• Play a significant role in the development of key strategic planning

documents including the Core Spatial Strategy, the emerging North Staffordshire Design Supplementary Planning Document and a raft of Area

Action Plans and master plans. Our involvement with RENEW, the housing

market renewal pathfinder, has strengthened and presentation to design

review at key stages has been written into all recent brief documents.

• Visit almost all design review sites prior to the meeting. This was

highlighted by panel members and applicants alike as being a significant

advantage over other panels where it was not possible. It is clear that panel members who have had the opportunity to visit the site are able to

make more effective comments, especially with regard to the context of the

proposed development.

The map of the North Staffordshire on page 13 following shows where we have already reviewed development proposals and provides some indication of the intensity of our

involvement in the sub-region and the extent to which the design advisory service can

affect real change via an improvement in overall design quality and the significant economic regeneration benefits that will follow.

Figure 7: Sketch of the new East West Precinct, Stoke-on-Trent City Centre

13

Figure 8: Location of proposals presented to design review panel

NB: The above map focuses on the conurbation and excludes schemes located outside of this.

14

4.0 Monitoring the service This section includes a brief description of the methodology adopted followed by an

analysis of the data. The monitoring methodology adopted is separated into three distinct

strands:

1. What are we reviewing?

This is essentially a quantitative analysis of the measurable outputs of design review. The

analysis of key outputs is reliant upon a robust design review database and this was

designed and implemented during 2007. Once the basic information is inputted for each scheme being reviewed a simple analysis of the core data from the design review

database is all that is required to answer the key questions about the design review

service in North Staffordshire. These key questions have been identified as:

Where are our reviewed schemes?

At what stage are proposals reviewed?

How many proposals are reviewed each year?

How has the stage at which schemes reviewed changed?

What type of schemes are reviewed?

What are we recommending?

This method of analysis has the advantage of being easy to replicate as the design review

database is updated after each panel meeting.

2. How effective is the service and how is this perceived?

This is a combined quantitative and qualitative analysis of the strengths and weaknesses

of the design advisory service. Previously we have attempted to assess the effectiveness

of the service and provide some guidance as to how this might be improved by holding a half-day stakeholder event comprising panel members, applicants and local authority

representatives. Though these events have been reasonably successful there have been

difficulties in attracting people to attend an event for which fees and expenses is not

possible. On this occasion it was decided to adopt an email survey approach and two similar e-mail questionnaires were devised targeting:

• Design review panel members

• Applicants to design review.

In the interests of maximising response rates the surveys were designed to be easy to

complete and not overlong, comprising a maximum of 10 questions over just two sides of

A4.

The main focus of both surveys was to establish how effective the design review service is

currently and how this might be improved. In addition long-standing panel members were

asked if in their opinion the quality of schemes coming to panel had improved over the time they had been involved and applicants were asked how their schemes were referred

and what they sought to gain from the review process.

15

3. What effect is design review having?

This is more complex and involves analysing the changes made to proposals as a result of the design review process. In order to effectively analyse the effects of the design

review panel a case study approach has been adopted whereby a selection of proposals

reviewed by the design review panel are investigated at a later date and the positive

changes made as a result of the recommendations are assessed.

Five case studies have been completed for this report and these include three that have

been updated from the previous report Design Reviewed 2007: how we do design review

in North Staffordshire and two new ones relating to developments and proposed developments at Cliffe Vale Pottery and the former Silverdale Colliery site.

4.1 What are we reviewing? The following section contains a full analysis of the first four years of Urban Vision’s Design Review Service and sets out to address the six questions referred to above.

4.1.1 Where are our reviewed schemes?

The table above shows that almost two thirds of the schemes reviewed are in the Stoke-on-Trent City Council area, almost one-third from the Borough of Newcastle-under-Lyme

and in the last year an increasing number of schemes from Staffordshire Moorlands

District Council.

4.1.2 At what stage are proposals reviewed?

The above chart shows all schemes that have been to design review panel since it began

in 2004 and the majority have been live applications however, it is expected that this

situation has changed and so the data has been broken down further in 4.1.4 overleaf. It should be noted that ‘Others’ refers to statutory planning documents briefs etc.

16

4.1.3 How many proposals are reviewed each year?

The table above shows that in the four years since the design review service has been in

operation there has been an increasing number of proposals reviewed by the panel.

There were twenty-seven schemes reviewed at nine panel meetings in the first year, thirty-five schemes at thirteen panel meetings in year two, forty-three schemes at fourteen

panel meetings in year three and forty-seven schemes over sixteen meetings in 2007-08.

4.1.4 How have the type of schemes reviewed changed?

The table above shows that as well as the number of reviewed schemes increasing in number since the start of the design review panel service in North Staffordshire the panel

is increasingly seeing more preliminary schemes and less live applications. There is also

an increasing use of the design review panel to report on strategic documents and

proposals (identified as ‘Other’ on the diagram above), particularly in 2006-07. Both of these developments are welcomed as they are in line with good practice in design review

and the agreed direction that the service should be taking, i.e. influencing the design

process at an early stage before key decisions have been made and positions have not become entrenched.

17

4.1.5 What sort of schemes are we reviewing?

It can be seen that we are seeing a broad range of proposals at design review panel, with

as might be expected residential schemes being the most commonly reviewed. It will be interesting to see over the coming months what the effects of the current economic

downturn are on this.

4.1.6 What are the panel recommending?

The table overleaf illustrates that the design review panel’s most recommended action is

to further investigate sustainable energy solutions, with the use of locally sourced and

locally distinctive materials also widely put forward. It can be seen that the most cited recommended actions extol the principles of good urban design and this is to be

expected.

It can be assumed that the frequency of the recommendations made by the panel reflect the common weaknesses of the proposals put forward for review and that using the most

recommended actions as a checklist might be a good starting point for potential

developers in North Staffordshire, or indeed anywhere!

Other recommendations that didn’t quite make the top ten but were made on many occasions include:

o Better define the ends of blocks

o Make more use of views and vistas

o Incorporate a greater mix of uses

o Build it taller

o Build it lower

o Consider the long term management strategy

18

Figure 9: The top ten most recommended actions of the design review panel

19

4.2 How effective is our service and how is this perceived? The questionnaire surveys were sent via email to all design review panel members and

representatives of all proposals that have been presented to panel and although response

rates, in the latter cohort particularly were not good a significant number replied and the information gained is extremely useful. Overall, we had completed responses from 14

panel members (56%) and 19 applicants to panel (15%).

4.2.1 Why did they come to design review?

It can be seen that almost half of the applicants who responded to the survey approached

Urban Vision directly at pre-application stage and a similar number were referred by the LPA either before or after the submission of a planning application. The others comprised

representatives of public authorities who had submitted strategic documents for review.

4.2.2 Were they happy with the organisation?

Of the applicants that responded to the survey there was an overwhelming satisfaction with the information that was distributed prior to the meeting and we propose no changes

to the way that this is carried out.

4.2.3 How are the design review reports perceived?

This question was directed solely at the recipients of the reports, the applicants, and it

was widely felt that they were clear, well written and useful. The average effectiveness

score for the reports was 76% though it could be argued that this would have been higher still but for two very low marks from applicants who did not appear to appreciate the

criticism that their schemes received!

20

Of the comments about the reports the vast majority were positive with many making

reference to how it was used to improve the scheme and in the negotiations over their proposed development, one architect stated simply:

“We took on board the panel members comments and thought the

dialogue was very useful indeed”

Another architect explained further:

“We used the report to make key amendments to design prior to

submitting a full planning application.”

One architect responsible for a very large and important proposal was pleased with the report and recognised a key role of design review – that of supporting good design as well

as criticising poor design. The design review process can give planning authorities

confidence to support challenging contemporary design

“Report extremely useful, although more so because it was generally

supportive of the scheme! Probably of greatest significance to local

authority team in instilling confidence in their internal processes.”

Another applicant supported this view though made observations that highlighted some of the inevitable restrictions of the design review process:

“Report sent to client to underline the architectural merit of the scheme. It

has since been used by client to further promote scheme. Report also included as part of Design and Access Statement / Supporting Information.

Report length and content generally fine. A number of recommendations

made were over optimistic, in particular the suggestion to annexe the adjacent playing fields and to make some specification changes when the

budget was already over stretched but overall it was balanced and fair.”

Overall, the reports were well received even when the review had been far from positive!

4.2.4 Has the standard of schemes improved?

Of the long-standing design review panel members there was a general feeling that the

quality of proposals being presented to panel had improved during their time attending review meetings and anecdotal evidence following the survey suggests that design review

– and on occasion the threat of design review - had played a key part in this. One panel

member stated:

“The schemes we see have definitely improved and some (architectural) practices that are not known for the importance that they place on design

quality have upped their game.”

A number of respondents although seeing an improvement overall were still dismayed about the standard of some of the proposals reviewed. One panellist said:

“Yes, there are more good schemes coming forward, there are some

very good large proposals but overall the bar is still set pretty low.”

Though it is difficult to draw too many conclusions from such a limited survey it would seem that design review is having an effect but that there is still work to be done.

21

4.2.5 Perceived effectiveness and suggested improvements

Finally, on the key question of perceived effectiveness both cohorts were asked to indicate how effective they felt the Urban Vision North Staffordshire panel was by placing

a cross on a line connecting two extreme points (effective and ineffective) and the results

showed remarkable similarity. Panel members felt that the design review service was

79% effective whist applicants to the panel were slightly more critical with at 75% effective.

The above figures are of limited value when viewed alone but what is more useful is the

comments that accompanied them. It was generally felt that the panel worked effectively and comments were positive, one panel member stated:

“Site visits which are essential, and allow time for informal debate;

changing mix of panel members with a good mix of skills ensures that

views do not become stale; good chairmen that conduct rather than direct the discussion; good preparatory documentation; a reasonable

degree of informality in the presentations and discussions; We are now

getting involved in the design process earlier on and this is better for everyone. The reports that follow the meetings are well written.”

Another panel member picked up on one of the key benefits of operation in a limited

geographical area where a strategic approach can be adopted:

“In my experience the UVNS DRP is a helpful pragmatic and creative

forum for scheme proponents to discuss their emerging proposals. In

comparison to other panels I feel there is a good balance between

promoting high quality design and the need for a sensible realistic approach. I feel that the Panel provides very useful feedback, concise

recommendations and is an invaluable part of the design process.”

The ability to go on site visits was mentioned by almost all panel members but had particular resonance from members who sat on other panels that were unable to do this

for all schemes:

“The relatively small territory means that the service can be closely connected to local developments, staff and processes. It also means

that we can visit every site and this is important.”

Despite the general support for the panel when asked for suggested improvements

several themes began to emerge. A response to these can be found in Section 4.4: Service Improvement Plan but the suggestions are drawn out below. A key point was

raised by two of our existing panel members and an applicant, one stated that we should:

“Continue to source the most senior and best-qualified practitioners to sit on the panel and ensure panel experience is tailored to each

scheme wherever possible.”

The difficulties in ensuring that the same panel members are sitting when a scheme

returns for a second review were also highlighted by a number of applicants. One multiple-applicant puts this succinctly:

“Main problem is lack of consistency in panel membership i.e. you

can alter a design in light of 1st panel's comments but then find the 2nd panel has a different set of expectations. It would be good if

this was better managed.”

22

The same point was made by another applicant who has been to panel on more than one

occasion with a large and complex proposal:

“Continuity between panels views and members over multiple

consultations would improve dialogue & help cement a working relationship on complex projects involving staged planning

submissions - in particular when design changes are made in

response to feedback.”

The problems of scheduling panel members so that they are in attendance when returning

schemes come back to panel is long-standing and another such issue (largely because different applicants have different styles of presentation) is the way work is displayed, one

otherwise very happy applicant stated:

“It was difficult to display our-board mounted presentation.”

Another issue that seems to provide continual difficulty despite an on-going push to

resolve it has been the one of timekeeping. Many panel members stated this as their

most pressing problem as reviews often overrun as a result of both extended

presentations and animated discussions, the cumulative effect of this being a very long meeting and a late finish:

“The workload for individual meetings can be quite tight, and often more time would be helpful. If, however, meetings were increased in

length or frequency, this would need to be considered in relation to

the fact that the rate of payment for attendance is lower than most panel members would be charging in their professional roles.”

One panel member suggested a potential solution:

“Ensuring that only 3 schemes are presented as any more tends to leave the panel with little time to make a constructive review.”

This is certainly an area that requires further attention, another that has been addressed to some extent but still caused concern to two panel members, one of whom suggested a

potential way of encouraging greater involvement:

“I'm not sure about level of engagement with local authority officers. The lack of attendance of relevant officers (whether planning,

highways, etc) is a missed opportunity for professional development and raising design skills and aspirations within the Councils.”

Finally, the issue of following-up of reviewed schemes was raised by some panel members with one regular panel chair stating:

“In general I feel the Panel is effective but maybe a missing component is the post review appraisal. Value could be gained by

visiting built out schemes with a view to assessing how Panel

recommendations have been taken on board in final design.”

As stated earlier, a response to these suggestions can be found in Section 4.4: Service Improvement Plan

4.2.6 Further analysis required

The questionnaire surveys described above paint a clear picture of how design review

panel members and applicants view the effectiveness of the panel but does not address the views of local authority officers and members and it is suggested that further analysis

is undertaken to address this key omission.

23

4.3 What effect is the design advisory service having?

In order to assess the effect that the design review panel is having on specific proposals

five case studies have been selected from the one hundred and thirty schemes that have been presented to panel to date. Three of these studies are updated versions of the ones

included in the last report Design Reviewed 2007: how we do design review in North

Staffordshire and two are new.

An attempt has been made to select different types of proposals including master plans and strategic planning documents and to look at schemes that have been presented to

panel on more than one occasion. Each of the case studies begins with a brief

description of the proposal before a discussion on the recommendations made and finally an assessment of how these were responded to by the respective developers and their

design teams.

4.3.1 Case Study One – a large educational building and a supermarket

Figure 10: Newcastle-under-Lyme College / on-site as of March 2009

What is it?

A chain of developments including a new building for Newcastle-under-Lyme Further

Education College and a new Sainsbury’s foodstore. The development of the college building allows for the relocation of the Sainsbury’s supermarket from a tight site within the

town centre to the current college site. The panel reviewed these schemes at various

stages of their development, initially as a part of the strategic consideration of the college

move including the supermarket relocation and more recently as two separate schemes at planning application stage.

What was recommended? With regard to the college, the panel had continuing concerns over the strategic planning

decision to relocate the college further from the town centre on a green field site but this

aside, the design review panel were generally pleased with the design approach to

develop a contemporary building. The panel recommended that the pedestrian access, public realm and landscaping of the site were considered carefully and there was also a

key recommendation to open-up the façade of the building with more glazing to make it

more transparent and welcoming.

The panel welcomed the supermarket’s location on the site, close to the main A34 but had

some concerns over the initial provision of social housing to the rear. There were also

come concerns over the design of the car park and the proposed pedestrian route through to the new college site.

24

How was this responded to?

The response to the recommendations about the access, public realm and landscaping of the college were discussed at the schemes final visit to design review in November 2007.

These were considered to be successful as the letter following that review states:

“With regard to the landscaping earlier concerns over the effect of the car

park to the front of the sports hall were assuaged by a simple yet effective landscaping scheme that deals well with the public realm.”

The impact of the design review process on the development of the proposals for

Newcastle-under-Lyme College has been significant as a result of the way in which the panel has had the opportunity to comment upon the proposal at key stages in its

development. Overall, the response of the design team to the recommendations has been

excellent throughout and the review process has been characterised by an ongoing productive dialogue between the panel and the architect and this has been recognised:

“I was very pleased by the positive comments and approach of the panel

on each occasion. Of all design panels I have presented to in recent

years (including CABE at national level) I felt a certain empathy with the members of Urban Vision.”

Julian Baker, Ellis Williams Architects, Dec 2007

As a result of his involvement with design review the architect Julian Baker enquired about joining the panel, was accepted and has attended on two occasions to date. The

supermarket design also returned to panel as a reserved matters planning application in

November 2008 and the panel were extremely pleased both with the response to their earlier comments and with the quality of the design.

“The consistent use of a limited but appropriate high quality materials

palette was appreciated by the Panel. The specification of stone

gabions was supported as was the extensive use of glazing, both at the entrance areas and along the south elevation creating surveillance

over the pedestrian access pathway. There was specific support for

the use for use of stone gabions again in the landscape, acting as the walls to the access ramp on the Liverpool Road entrance as these

helped to unify the landscape and building harmoniously.”

Extract from design review panel letter, Nov ‘08

Figure 11: Proposed new Sainsbury’s Foodstore, Newcastle-under-Lyme

25

4.3.2 Case Study Two – an edge of town retail development

Figure 12: Alexandra Park retail development, Tunstall

What is it?

This proposal involved the redevelopment of the vacant Alexandra Pottery site and adjacent land immediately to the east of Tunstall town centre with a retail-based mixed-

use scheme, including a new primary health care centre combining four existing GP

practices. It was presented to design review panel in June 2005 and revised proposals were presented again in January 2006.

What was recommended?

The panel commented on the lack of a masterplan for the area that could provide an urban design context for future developments and were concerned over mix of uses

proposed, specifically the lack of a residential element. It was further recommended that

the needs of pedestrians had greater priority and that the buildings should have more active frontages to the adjacent roads and pedestrian routes. Finally, it was

recommended that the development paid proper regard to the history of the site.

How was this responded to? The recommendation for a masterplan for Tunstall was beyond the remit of the developer

and to date no such plan has been proposed. With regard to the request for housing to be incorporated this was not considered possible as a result of the policies of RENEW (the

Housing Market Renewal Pathfinder) as it does not fall within an Area of Major

Intervention (AMI). Despite these considerable setbacks the panel were encouraged by

the design response as the follow-up report in January 2006 states:

“The Panel welcomed the efforts made by the applicant to respond to

some of the recommendations made in respect of the earlier proposal. In

particular the greater respect for and better integration with the greenway,

improved street elevations, and attempts to link up with the surrounding footway network had together resulted in a definite overall improvement to

the scheme.”|

Extract from design review panel report, Jan ‘06

The panel remained critical of the lack of a strategic masterplan for the area and of the

resultant spread of car-dominated retail parks of which this application was one, albeit a

26

superior one with positive elements of mixed use. The Panel considered the response

from the developer to have been excellent and the developer in turn appreciated the input of the Panel:

“The strength of the Urban Vision Design Review Panel is that it is

independent with free thinking panel members who are prepared to

challenge both the developer’s proposal as well as the planning departments response.”

Andrew Malley, Retail Property Director, Dransfield Properties

The unveiling of ‘The Shard’ large piece of art by sculptor Robert Erskine in January 2009 also shows the response to the panel’s recommendations for the history of the site to be

remembered. The large stainless-steel sculpture depicts an ancient fingerprint found on a

shard of Roman pottery close to the site and makes reference to the long history of the site as a place of pottery production.

Figure 13: Further images of the Alexandra Park retail development in Tunstall

4.3.3 Case Study Three – a key strategic planning document

What is it?

The Urban Vision design review panel have reviewed the North Staffordshire Core Spatial

Strategy Preferred Options Report on two

occasions, firstly in 2006 and a revised version in mid-2007. This is the principal development

plan document in the Local Development

Framework for North Staffordshire. It is being

jointly produced by Stoke-on-Trent City Council and Newcastle-under-Lyme Borough Council,

and covers an area of over 300km2 and a

population of 360,000 people. It will provide a single strategic planning framework for the

future development of the North Staffordshire

conurbation looking forward to 2021. Figure 14: Core Spatial Strategy

It is acknowledged that reviewing a document of this type is an unusual departure for a design review panel but it was felt as it forms the basis for the Local Development

27

Framework, including strategic planning policies on design, sustainable development, the

public realm and the historic environment, and will therefore have a profound effect on the quality of the future physical development of the sub-region, it should encourage wherever

possible good architecture and urban design. Design review was deemed a suitable

mechanism to ensure that it achieves this.

What was recommended? As a result of the first design review the panel made twenty-five specific recommendations

to strengthen and improve the strategic and local design aspects of the document. These

recommendations were varied but generally reflected a view that the document contained very little illustrative material and no three dimensional representations to convey a sense

of the place that the plan aims to create. There was also a strong feeling that the Core

Strategy should have more of a local flavour as it was generic and could be applied to most UK cities. Most importantly however, it was felt that the document did not

adequately promote the role of good design and high quality building in the development

of the sub-region.

How was this responded to?

When the Core Strategy was re-presented to design review panel in June 2007 it was a

revised document reflecting alterations to the Regional Spatial Strategy, a significant number of representations made in response to the first report and the findings of the first

design review panel. The panel were again strongly supportive of the general aims to

target development in the urban cores and re-use brownfield land and also noted that a number of their earlier recommendations had been acted upon. The revised document:

• Refers to high quality design at all levels, though there is still not an explicit

statement of its role in economic regeneration.

• Supported the development of the town centres with mixed-use buildings incorporating housing and offices.

• Contains a specific policy on the role of the historic environment.

The panel considered the Core Spatial Strategy to have changed for the better in a number of key ways although it was felt that there were still areas for improvement. The

second report was discussed at a meeting with the local authorities and there was broad

agreement to implement further changes to the document in line with panel

recommendations. Overall, it is felt that by helping to shape key strategic documents such as this the design review panel may have its most significant and long-lasting effect.

Figure 14: An aspirational image of the City Waterside (Image Courtesy of EDAW)

28

4.3.4 Case Study Four – an urban housing development

Figure 15: Lock 38 residential development, Cliffe Vale, Stoke-on-Trent

What is it? The development of 146 new dwellings by Countryside Properties comprising a mixture of

new build and the conversion of a listed building on Shelton New Road, Cliffe Vale, Stoke-

on-Trent. The proposal involved the retention and conversion of the centre block of the Grade II listed Cliffe Vale Pottery of 1887, the demolition of 2-storey side wings and

courtyard buildings, and the construction of new 3- and 4-storey residential units to the

sides and rear of the retained part of the historic building. The design review panel

What was recommended?

The proposals were presented in February 2005 at only the third meeting of the Urban

Vision Design Review Panel and a number of recommendations were made. The Panel suggested that; the architecture might better respond to the historic building without

resorting to pastiche design, the site planning should better relate to the historic buildings

and the canal, the bottle ovens should be given a better setting and finally that a site masterplan is produced to show how the development integrated with the development of

the adjoining land.

Figure 16: Lock 38, original elevations as presented to design review panel

How was this responded to? At the time of writing the development is partially completed with only a single apartment

block still to be completed but it can be seen that aside from the production of the

masterplan the other recommendations were taken on board and incorporated into the scheme. The architectural design is more contemporary and clean with the pitched roofs

gone and the materials palette is more limited with an industrial feel, the site layout has

been altered to take into account the axis of the historic building and the bottle ovens have an improved setting on the route to the canal.

29

Figure 17: Lock 38, more views

4.3.5 Case Study Five - a primary care centre

What is it?

A Primary Care Centre of approximately 4,000m2 comprising three existing GP practices,

outpatient facilities and a range of clinical services located in the centre of Cobridge,

Stoke-on-Trent. The proposals were presented to the design review panel for the first time at pre-application stage November 2008 and after the panel had made some wide-

reaching recommendations returned to panel, again at pre-application stage in March

2009.

Figure 18: Cobridge Primary Care Centre – as presented in November 2008

What was recommended?

When the proposals were presented to Panel in November 2008 there was clear support for the challenging and creative contemporary architecture but there were a number of

serious urban design concerns over the proposal that were clearly highlighted in the

recommended actions. These were focused on the scale and massing and the location of

the building on the site and its resultant relationship to both the church and the street.

30

How was this responded to?

When the revised scheme was re-presented to Panel in March 2009 there was unanimous support for the way that the earlier recommendations had been responded to. The Panel

were particularly supportive of the way that the new layout both repairs the street edge

and places the church in an improved setting - aided by the evident use of an experienced

landscape architect - and the relocation of a substantial amount of the car parking across Grange Street onto a newly acquired site. Indeed it was suggested that the revised

development manages to successfully “recreate a village centre for Cobridge”. The Panel

also appreciated the clean contemporary architectural expression that had remained in the midst of all of the significant townscape improvements.

Figure 19: Cobridge Primary Care Centre – as presented in March 2009

Overall, Cobridge Primary Care Centre was transformed as a direct result of the input of

the design review panel and it now has the potential to become a development of real

quality and a significant part of the regeneration of Cobridge.

31

4.4 Service Improvement Plan The data analysis and surveys described above have highlighted some key themes that

require exploration these are responded to below:

1. The display of drawings could be better organised – we will investigate this

further and potentially purchase a display system suitable for both pinning paper

drawings and boards.

2. Timekeeping – This could be significantly improved as sessions regularly overrun

and meetings continue far beyond the allotted time. Some panel members

complained of overly crowded agendas and although an attempt has been made to address this by limiting the number of schemes to be considered at each meeting

and by being more flexible with time slots this will be continually monitored.

3. Attendance of representatives of the LPA – Both panel members and

applicants raised this issue and both felt that it was beneficial. It was however

noted that one of the local authorities concerned regularly sent planning officers to attend design review meetings and this was welcomed. It is understood that time

pressures do not always allow for this and so further efforts will be made to liaise

more closely with the relevant case officers prior to the meeting so as to get a

better briefing on the planning issues prior to or during the review. Furthermore, the potential to market the design review process to local authorities as valuable

CPD will be fully explored.

4. Continuity of panel members on revisited schemes – Both panel members and

applicants expressed a wish for greater continuity between panels when schemes

returned for a second review. Although this is desirable it is extremely difficult to arrange given the complexity of arranging panel member attendance and the

notice periods required. We will continue to do this wherever the periods of

notification are adequate and the relevant panel members availability allows.

5. Feedback on effectiveness – Some panel members requested feedback on

schemes that they had reviewed and although this is often given verbally there is

no formal procedure in place. The case studies included in this report go some way towards providing feedback on some schemes but a panel trip to completed

DRP schemes for local authority officers, members and design review panel

members will be organised in 2009.

6. Strengthening the panel – We are confident that we have a strong multi-

disciplinary panel in place already but in 2009 we will be looking to supplement this

by appointing a further panel member with expertise in the field of sustainable design, to supplement Rosemary Coyne and a panel member experienced in the

field of social inclusion, in direct response to the CABE publication Inclusion by

Design: equality, diversity and the built environment (CABE, 2008).

Overall, it is felt that the procedural aspects of design review have largely been ironed

out over the duration of the sixty meetings that we have held thusfar, although there are some matters that need continual attention. What is however becoming more

apparent is the need for more systematic feedback on the effectiveness of the service

using the ever-increasing resource of completed developments that have been

through the design review process and it is expected that further analysis of the service will focus on this.

32

5.0 Overall Assessment

It can be seen that the design advisory service is playing a crucial role in the campaign to

raise design quality in North Staffordshire. The influence of the design review panel in

particular, combined with the integrated approach to design enabling and review taken in the sub-region is appreciated by local authorities, applicants and built environment

professionals alike. It is put forward that this is happening for four basic reasons.

Firstly, as a result of the gradual impact of the work of Urban Vision on a number of key developments in an enabling capacity. This involvement not only brings through

proposals at the correct time to the design review panel but also helps to shape the

direction of the work at the outset, placing high quality design at the forefront and ensuring

that this is kept at the top of the agenda throughout.

Secondly, as a result of the design changes made as a direct result of the design review

meeting and subsequent recommendations in the report. It can also be seen that these

panel recommendations are most easily incorporated when the proposal is presented at preliminary stage (prior to a planning application being made) and this is further evidence

to support the increased targeting of preliminary schemes for design review.

Thirdly, the review process is having an impact on key planning documents and master plans as well as individual buildings as it is these strategic pieces of work that will set the

standard for all future developments in the sub-region. Accordingly this is an area that we

envisage the design review panel will become increasingly involved in the future.

Finally, and perhaps most importantly, is the long-term positive effect that the design review process is having on all participants. The review process is about raising the

agenda of good design and the panel meetings provide invaluable professional

development for applicants, local authority representatives and panel members alike. The skills and experience gained as a result of being involved in the process in whatever

capacity are undoubtedly helping a large number of built environment practitioners

produce better buildings even if those specific buildings don’t have the benefit of a design review and that is surely what it is all about.

Figure 20: Some key schemes in North Staffordshire that have been to design review

33

6.0 References AWM: Connecting to Success: West Midlands Economic Strategy

Delivery Framework May2008/09 (AWM, 2008)

CABE: By Design urban design in the planning system: towards a

better place (DETR & CABE 2001)

CABE: Inclusion by Design: Equality, diversity and the built

environment (CABE, 2008)

CABE: Shape the Future: Corporate Strategy 2008/09 – 20010-11

(CABE, 2009)

CABE: Survey of local and regional design review panel their location, type and impact (CABE, 2009)

CABE: Good design: the fundamentals (CABE, 2009)

DCLG Planning Policy Statement 3: Housing (DCLG, 2006).

GOWM Regional Spatial Strategy for the West Midlands (DCLG, 2008)

HCA Urban Design Compendium 1&2 (English Partnerships and The

Housing Corporation, 2008

ODPM Planning Policy Statement 1: Delivering Sustainable

Development (HMSO, 2005)

ODPM Planning Policy Statement 6: Planning for Town Centres

(ODPM, 2005)

Parkinson et al: The Credit Crunch and Regeneration: Impact and implications (DCLG, 2009)

Urban Task Force Towards an Urban Renaissance (ODPM, 1999)

34

Appendices Appendix A: A comprehensive list of design review schemes .

Meeting Ref. Details of proposals Status

DR001 Newcastle Town Centre Public Realm Strategy Application

DR002 Full Planning Application for 419 Dwellings Greenhead Street, Burslem,

Stoke-on-Trent Application DRP1

28/10/2004

DR003 Outline Planning Application for Business and Employment Park

Chatterley Valley, Stoke-on-Trent Application

DR004 Preliminary Consideration of Master Plan Former Chatterley Whitfield

Colliery, Stoke-on-Trent Pre-app

DR005 Full Planning Application for 90-bedroom Hotel Barleston, Stoke-on-Trent Application DRP2

9/12/2004

DR006 Project Brief for Conversion of Grade II* Listed Building Wedgwood

Institute, Queen Street, Burslem, Stoke-on-Trent Other

DR007 Outline Planning Application for Residential & Commercial Development

George Street, Newcastle-under-Lyme Application

DR008 Outline Planning Application for Residential and Office Development St

Ann's Works, Marsh Street, Hanley, Application

DRP3 3/2/2005

DR009 Full Planning Application for 146 Dwellings (new build and conversion)

Cliffe Vale Pottery, Shelton New Road, Application

DR007 Outline Planning Application for Residential & Commercial Development

George Street, Newcastle-under-Lyme Application

DR010 Full Planning Application for 36 detached dwellings Land off Stone Road

(A34), Trentham, Stoke-on-Trent Application

DRP4 10/3/2005

DR011 Full Planning Application for 101 Residential Flats Zanzibar Night Club,

Brunswick Street, Newcastle-under-Lyme Application

DR002 Full Planning Application for 419 Dwellings Greenhead Street, Burslem,

Stoke-on-Trent Application

DR012 Preliminary Consideration of Relocation of Further Education College

Knutton Lane, Newcastle-under-Lyme Application

DR013 Full Planning Application for 92 Apartments with Commercial Floorspace

The Midway, Newcastle-under-Lyme Application

DRP5 28/4/2005

DR015 Preliminary Consideration of External Alterations to Existing Building1-15

Stafford Street, Hanley, Stoke-on-Trent Pre-app

DR014 Full Planning Application for Residential Development Crane Street /

Woodall Street, Cobridge, Stoke-on-Trent Application

DR016 Full Planning Application for Retail Development, Primary Health Care

Centre, and Health Club Alexandra Pottery, Tunstall Application

DR017 Full Planning Application for Commercial and Residential Development

Trinity Street / Marsh Street, Hanley, Stoke-on-Trent Application

DRP6 9/6/2005

DR018 Full Planning Application for 27 Residential Apartments Corn Mill, Myatt

Street, Hanley, Stoke-on-Trent Application

DRP7 16/7/2005

DR019 Preliminary Consideration of Master Plan Former Silverdale Colliery site,

Newcastle-under-Lyme Pre-app

DR009 Full Planning Application for 146 Dwellings Cliffe Vale Pottery, Shelton

New Road, Stoke–on-Trent Application

DR020 Full Planning Application for 3-Storey Office Development Upper

Huntbach Street, Hanley, Stoke-on-Trent Application

DRP8 28/7/2005

DR021 Area Action Plan (Preferred Options) for Biddulph Biddulph Town Centre,

Biddulph Other

35

DR014 Full Planning Application for Residential Development Crane Street /

Woodall Street, Cobridge, Stoke-on-Trent Application

DR022 Full Planning Application for University Post-Graduate Research Institute

Keele University, Keele, Newcastle-under-Lyme Application

DRP9 22/9/2005

DR023 Preliminary Consideration of Pedestrianisation & Public Realm Scheme

Burslem Town Centre, Stoke-on-Trent Pre-app

DR024 Preliminary Consideration of City Waterside Master Plan Hanley South,

Stoke-on-Trent Pre-app

DRP10

20/10/2005 DR025

Full Planning Application for Residential Development Former Eagle Pottery, Hanley, Stoke-on-Trent

Application

DR026 Full Planning Application for 103 Residential Flats, Nursery and Café

College Road, Shelton, Stoke-on-Trent Application

DR027 Full Planning Application for Extra Care Flats with Day Centre Facilities

Former Meir Primary Schoo;, Meir, Stoke-on-Trent Application

DRP11

17/11/2005

DR028 Full Planning Application for 40 Residential Apartments Land off Rutland

Road, Longton, Stoke-on-Trent Application

DRP12

15/12/2005 DR029

Area Action Plan (Preferred Options) for Knutton & Cross Heath Knutton

& Cross Heath, Newcastle-under-Lyme Other

DR008 Outline Planning Application for Residential and Office Development St

Ann's Works, Marsh Street, Hanley Application

DR016 Full Planning Application for Retail Development, Primary Health Care

Centre and Health Club Alexandra Pottery, Tunstall Application

DRP13

19/1/2006

DR031 Preliminary Consideration of Residential Redevelopment of Nursing

Home St Augustine’s, Cobridge Road, Stoke-on-Trent Pre-app

DR007 Outline Planning Application for Residential & Commercial Development

George Street, Newcastle-under-Lyme Application

DR011 Full Planning Application for 101 Residential Flats Zanzibar Night Club,

Brunswick Street, Newcastle-under-Lyme Application

DR032 Full Planning Application for 9 Two-Bedroom Apartments Hanford Test

Centre, Stone Road, Stoke-on-Trent Application

DRP14

16/2/2006

DR033 Preliminary Consideration of Industrial and Warehousing Development

Radial Park, Sideway, Stoke-on-Trent Pre-app

DR022 Full Planning Application for University Post-Graduate Research Institute

Keele University, Keele, Newcastle-under-Lyme Application

DRP15 16/3/2006

DR023 Preliminary Consideration of Pedestrianisation & Public Realm Scheme

Burslem Town Centre, Stoke-on-Trent Pre-app

DR034 Hybrid Application for Outline Planning Permission for Expansion of

Keele University, Newcastle-under-Lyme Application

DRP16 20/4/2006

DR035 Preliminary Consideration of Community Health Centre with Extra Care,

Lower Milehouse, Newcastle-under-Lyme Application

DR036 Full Planning Application for Primary Care Centre and Residential

DevelopmentPlanet Lock Wharf, Norfolk Street, Shelton, Stoke-on-Trent Application

DRP17 18/5/2006

DR037 Preliminary Consideration of Conversion and Extension of Former Pottery

Works for Residential Accommodation, Falcon Pottery Hanley Pre-app

DR038 Outline Application for Casino and Hotel: Land at Waterloo Road, Hanley,

Stoke-on-Trent Application

DR039 Preliminary re-design of 20 eco-apartments Land off Scotia Road,

Tunstall, Stoke on Trent. Pre-app

DRP18

15/6/2006

DR040 Preliminary Consideration of draft design policies, Newcastle under Lyme

Town Centre Area Action Plan Pre-app

36

DR033 Full Application for industrial and warehouse development Land off

Sideway, Stoke-on-Trent Application

DR042 Full Planning Application for Caring Centre of Excellence Cauldon

Campus, Stoke Road, Stoke-on-Trent Application

DRP19 20/7/2006

DR043 Application for Retail Development, Biddulph, Staffordshire Moorlands Other

DR044 Reserved matters application for foodstore with car parking petrol filling

station & landscaping, Clough Street, Hanley Application

DR045 Local Development Framework, North Staffordshire Core Spatial Strategy

Preferred Options Report Other

DRP20 3/8/2006

DR046 Proposed Business Centre at Lymedale, Newcastle-under-Lyme Application

DR031 Preliminary Consideration of Residential Redevelopment of Nursing

Home St Augustine’s, Cobridge Road, Stoke-on-Trent Pre-app

DR047 Outline Application for residential development, site of former Hanley

Pottery Works, Stubbs Lane, Hanley Application

DR048 Outline Application for residential development, land at Ridgeway Road,

Hanley, Stoke-on-Trent Application

DRP21

17/8/2006

DR049 Preliminary Application for Residential Development at former Simpson’s

Pottery. Waterloo Road, Cobridge, Stoke-on-Trent Pre-app

DR017 Full Planning Application for Commercial and Residential Development

Trinity Street / Marsh Street, Hanley, Stoke-on-Trent Application

DR050 Preliminary Application for residential development, Brunswick Street,

Newcastle-under-Lyme Pre-app

DRP22

21/9/2006

DR051 Preliminary Application for architectural lighting of Regent Theatre.

Hanley. Stoke-on-Trent Pre-app

DR035 Preliminary Consideration of Community Health Centre with Extra Care

Lower Milehouse, Newcastle-under-Lyme Application

DR053 Outline Application for Mixed use developments at Former Etruria Works.

Shelton New Rd, Shelton, Stoke-on-Trent. Application

DRP23

19/10/2006

DR054 Preliminary Design Brief for former Portmerion Site. London Road, Stoke Pre-app

DR012 Preliminary Consideration of Relocation of Further Education College

Knutton Lane, Newcastle-under-Lyme Application

DR027 Full Planning Application for Extra Care Flats with Day Centre Former

Meir Primary School, George Avenue, Stoke-on-Trent Application

DRP24 16/11/2006

DR042 Full Planning Application for Caring Centre of Excellence Cauldon

Campus, Stoke Road, Stoke-on-Trent Application

DR039 Preliminary re-design of 20 eco-apartments Land off Scotia Road,

Tunstall, Stoke on Trent. Pre-app

DR055 Full planning application for erection of 307 residential units Land at

Scotia Road, Tunstall, Stoke-on-Trent. Application

DRP25 14/12/2006

DR056 Preliminary Consideration of Brief for Design SPD for North Staffordshire, Pre-app

DRP26 18/1/2007

DR057 Preliminary consideration of Leisure Village of 800 timber lodges plus

erection of four wind turbines. Maer Hills Forest, Pre-app

DRP27 15/2/2007

DR059 Preliminary consideration of Residential development, with under croft

parking. Furlong Passage, Burslem, Stoke-on-Trent. Pre-app

DR012 Preliminary Consideration of relocation of Further Education College,

Knutton Lane, Newcastle-under-Lyme Application

DR035 Preliminary Consideration of Community Health Centre with Extra Care

Residential Lower Milehouse, Newcastle-under-Lyme Application

DRP28 15/3/2007

DR061 Preliminary consideration of proposed alterations to university building,

Staffordshire University. Leek Road, Stoke-on-Trent. Pre-app

37

DRP29 5/4/2007

DR066 City Centre Public Realm Design Competition: consideration of six

shortlisted entries. Hanley, Stoke-on-Trent Other

DR055 Full planning application for erection of 307 residential units, Land at

Scotia Road, Tunstall, Stoke-on-Trent. Application

DR060 Full application for public realm improvement works in Swann Square.

Burslem, Stoke-on-Trent Application

DR063 Full Application for erection of 66 residential dwellings, Bus Depot Site.

Liverpool Road, Newcastle-under-Lyme Application

DRP30 19/4/2007

DR065 Preliminary scheme, employment development at Goldendale west.

Chatterley Valley, Stoke-on-Trent Pre-app

DR033 Reconsideration of Full Planning for industrial and warehouse

development, land off Sideway, Stoke-on-Trent Application

DR058 Stoke-on-Trent Transportation Strategy- urban design proposals Other DRP31

17/5/2007

DR064 Full Application for Residential units including converted warehouse, Ivy

House Mills Site. Hanley, Stoke-on-Trent Application

DR051 Outline Application for residential development, Brunswick Street, N-u-L Pre-app

DR067 Full Application for a contemporary single eco-dwelling, Field House site.

Old Road, Bignall End, Newcastle-under-Lyme Application DRP32

7/6/2007

DR068 Outline planning application for the development of sheltered residential

accommodation, Wolstanton Application

DR030 Area Action Plan for Newcastle-under-Lyme Town Centre Town Centre,

Newcastle-under-Lyme Other

DRP33

20/6/2007 DR045

Local Development Framework, North Staffordshire Core Spatial Strategy Preferred Options Report

Other

DR069 Outline application for a retail and leisure development. Trentham Lakes,

Stoke-on-Trent Application

DR070 Outline application for approximately 220 residential units. Former

Victoria Ground site, Stoke-on-Trent Application

DRP34 19/7/2007

DR071 Preliminary consideration of mixed-use residential scheme. Caldon

Canal, Shearer Street, Stoke-on-Trent Pre-app

DR062 Preliminary consideration of a mixed use development at the former

Royal Doulton Site, Burslem, Stoke-on-Trent Pre-app

DR072 Preliminary consideration of housing development for Aspire Housing

Association. Beasley Place, Chesterton Pre-app

DRP35 16/8/2007

DR073 Preliminary consideration of the development of 54 new residential units

Lower Milehouse Lane, Newcastle-under-Lyme Pre-app

DR074 University Quarter – Masterplan Pre-app

DR074 University Quarter – shared facilities Pre-app

DR074 University Quarter – Further Education College Pre-app

DR074 University Quarter – Sixth Form College Pre-app

DRP37

20/9/2007

DR075 Consideration of outline application for 28 housing units, Liverpool Road,

Newcastle-under-Lyme Application

DR076 Full application to develop one 3 storey building comprising of 10

apartments: White House, Clayton Rd, Newcastle Under Lyme Application

DR077 Staffordshire Moorlands DC, LDF Core Strategy, Issues & Options Other DRP38

4/10/2007

DR078 Preliminary consideration of proposals for mixed use retail-led

development, Spode Pottery site Stoke-on-Trent Pre-app

DR079 Preliminary consideration of the relocation of Olympus Engineering works

to Garner Street, Hanley Pre-app

DR080 Stoke-on-Trent City Centre Area Action Plan Preferred Options Other DRP39

18/10/2007

DR081 Pin up consideration of the application for the erection of apartments,

Belmont Works, Belmont Road, Stoke-on-Trent. Application

38

DR082 Preliminary consideration of retail development options, Crown Works

site, Commerce Street, Longton Pre-app

DR083 Preliminary consideration of proposal to develop 96 residential units,

former Bristol Street Motors site, Newcastle-under-Lyme Pre-app

DR012 Reconsideration of planning application for Newcastle College and sports

hall, Liverpool Road, Newcastle-under-Lyme Application

DRP40 15/11/2007

DR017 Reconsideration of amended proposals for Trinity Street/Marsh Street

Hanley, Stoke-on-Trent Application

DR084 Preliminary Consideration of proposals to develop Longton Masjid

Community Centre Chaplin Rd, Longton, Stoke-on-Trent. Pre-app

DR085 Consideration of application for the conversion & extension of existing

building to include 27 apartments Newhall St, Hanley. Pre-app

DR008 Outline Planning Application for Residential and Office Development St

Ann's Works, Marsh Street, Hanley Application

DRP41

13/12/2007

DR011 Preliminary consideration of proposals to provide office accommodation

at the Zanzibar nightclub, Newcastle-under-Lyme Application

DR062 Consideration of planning application for a residential development Royal

Doulton site, Burslem, Stoke-on-Trent. Application

DR087 Consideration of a full application for Vodafone Building, Festival Park,

Stoke-on-Trent Application

DR088 Preliminary consideration of development options including scale and

massing for Woodhouse Street site, Stoke Pre-app

DRP42

24/1/2008

DR083 Pin-up reconsideration of remodelled proposal to develop residential

units, Bristol Street Motors site, Newcastle-under-Lyme Pre-app

DR089 Preliminary consideration of mixed-use development proposals at the

Top Bridge pottery works site, Middleport, Stoke-on-Trent Pre-app

DR090 Preliminary consideration of proposals for a replacement principal

borough cemetery, Newcastle-under-Lyme Pre-app

DRP43 7/2/2008

DR091 Consideration of revised and enlarged proposals for Newcastle Sports

Village, Liverpool Road, Newcastle-under-Lyme Pre-app

DR093 Consideration of planning application to develop a large eco-warehouse

plus offices Chatterley Valley, Newcastle-under-Lyme. Application

DRP44

21/2/2008 DR092

Preliminary consideration of proposals to develop residential units on a

existing at Butts Green, Abbey Hulton, Stoke-on-Trent Pre-app

DR038 Pin-up consideration of planning application for casinoa and hotel Land at

Waterloo Road, Stoke-on-Trent Application

DR096 Consideration of pre-application proposals to develop a Sainsbury’s

foodstore, Biddulph, Staffordshire Moorlands Pre-app

DRP45

6/3/2008

DR095 Consideration of planning application for office development, Blythe

Bridge, Staffordshire Moorlands Application

DRP46 20/3/2008

DR097 Visioning Longton Other

DR098 Proposed retirement village consisting approximately 300 units former

Anzio Camp, Blackshaw Moor, Staffordshire Moorlands Application

DR101 Proposed housing development and neighbourhood centre at Ingestre

Square, Blurton, Blurton, Stoke-on-Trent Pre-app

DRP47 17/4/2008

DR100 Contemporary single dwelling, Blythe Bridge, Staffordshire Moorlands Pre-app

DR102 Preliminary proposals for the redevelopment of the East West Precinct,

Hanley, Stoke-on-Trent Pre-app

DR103 Consideration of application to develop various large retail outlets, at

Waterloo Road, Hanley, Stoke-on-Trent Application

DRP48 15/5/2008

DR105 Preliminary proposals to develop100 Extracare units and 14,000 sq ft

office accommodation, Bilton Works site, Stoke Pre-app

39

DR104 Preliminary consideration of proposals to develop two hotels and a

supermarket. Georgia Pacific site, Newcastle-under-Lyme Pre-app

DR106 Preliminary consideration of proposals to develop Extracare units and a

new village hall, New Road, Madeley Pre-app

DRP49 19/6/2008

DR099 Preliminary proposal to develop a 'Concept Living Pod' single dwelling at

Brookwood, Pipegate Nr Market Drayton Pre-app

DRP107 Consideration of a planning application to convert the former London Mill

Building into extra care accommodation, Leek Application DRP50

17/7/2008 DRP108 Preliminary Consideration of the Fegg Hayes and Chell Heath Options Pre-app

DRP109 Newcastle-under-Lyme Town Centre Supplementary Planning Document Other DRP51 7/8/2008 DRP110 North Staffordshire Design Guidance Supplementary Planning Document Other

DRP111 Newcastle-under-Lyme Town Centre public realm improvements Pre-app

DRP112 Consideration of preliminary proposals to sustainably refurbish 6 n.o

apartments, Lauder Place North, Bentilee Pre-app DRP52

21/8/2008

DRP073 Preliminary consideration of the development of residential units, Lower

Milehouse Lane, Newcastle-under-Lyme Pre-app

DRP113 Consideration of application to develop 70 houses at the former Clanway

Brickworks site, Tunstall, Stoke-on-Trent. Application

DRP114 Consideration of proposals for foodstore and Bus Depot site, Liverpool

Rd, Newcastle-under-Lyme Application

DR068 Development of residential accommodation with care comprising 56

apartments High Street, Wolstanton Application

DRP53 18/9/2008

DR045 Local Development Framework, North Staffordshire Core Spatial Strategy Other

DR115 Preliminary consideration of proposals to develop 46no. houses for Great

Places Housing Association, Meir, Stoke-on-Trent Pre-app

DR101 Consideration of full planning application for the development of a new

local centre Ingestre Square, Blurton, Stoke-on-Trent Application

DRP54 16/10/2008

DR102 Consideration of proposals for the retail-led, mixed-use redevelopment of

the East West Precinct, Hanley, Stoke-on-Trent Application

DR116 Draft City Centre Public Real Strategy, Stoke-on-Trent City Council Other

DR117 Preliminary consideration of proposals to develop Cobridge PCT building, Pre-app DRP55 20/11/2008

DR104 Reconsideration of proposals to develop two hotels and a supermarket,

Georgia Pacific site, Newcastle-under-Lyme Application

DR120 Consideration of proposals to develop the Knutton Community Farm, Pre-app

DR119 Consideration of Draft Knutton Masterplan Options, Pre-app DRP56

11/12/2008 DR121 Consideration of Silverdale Colliery master plan, Newcastle-under-Lyme Pre-app

DR123 Consideration of proposals to develop a new fire station, Hanley Pre-app

DR123 Consideration of proposals to develop a new fire station in Newcastle- Pre-app

DR124 Consideration of preliminary proposals to develop residential

accommodation at Wesport Road, Burslem Pre-app

DRP57 22/1/2009

DR122 Preliminary Consideration of Canal Quarter Masterplan, Hanley, Other

DR125 Consideration of draft Meir Area Regeneration Framework options Other

DR126 Consideration of the Draft Longton Masterplan Brief Other

DR127 Consideration of proposals to develop a training facility for Stoke City Pre-app DRP58

19/2/2009

DR128 Consideration of pin-up proposals to develop a drive-through restaurant,

Liverpool Road, Newcastle-under-Lyme Application

DR129 Consideration of Middleport masterplan draft options Other

DR130 Consideration of proposed mixed-use scheme, Majestic Bldng,, Hanley Pre-app DRP59

19/3/2009 DR117 Reconsideration of proposals to develop Cobridge PCT building, Pre-app

DRP60 DR131 University Quarter Masterplan Design Workshop event Other

40

Appendix B: Assessment criteria for design review

1 Strategic policy background

• Spatial planning policy • Land use planning policy • Urban design strategy or framework • Master plan, development or design brief

2 Contextual analysis • Design Statement • Assessment of historical significance: site and environs • Movement networks: pedestrian and vehicular • Physical environment: gateways, landmarks, views and vistas

3 Urban Design

• Character • Continuity and enclosure • Quality of the public realm: includes community safety, pedestrian

facilities • Ease of movement • Legibility • Adaptability • Diversity (Mixed Use)

4 Architecture • Site-specific design – creative or innovative • Scale and massing complement context • Composition has distinctive 3-dimensional qualities • Applies an appropriate system of proportioning • Best materials for purpose • Careful attention to constructional detailing • Respect for the public realm • Fulfils needs of users and occupiers • Realises the potential of the site

5 Sustainability

a) Location: • Brownfield land (little or no impact on greenfield or undeveloped land) • Walking or cycling distance from established centres and social facilities • Near to public transportation routes

b) Energy: • Renewable sources • Conservation of resources c) Materials: • Renewable or natural • Non-polluting • Low embodied energy

41

d) Supply: • Local or recycled materials • Local manufacture • Local labour e) Services: • Sustainable drainage • Water collection on site

f) Community: • Provides community needs • Incorporates social or recreational facilities • Offers learning or educational opportunities

g) Natural Environment • Respects the natural environment • Maintains and enhances biodiversity

h) Waste and recycling • Re-uses existing built fabric in situ whenever possible • Recycles existing materials not capable of re-use • Provides facilities for efficient re-cycling of waste

Procurement Method a) Developer Partnering / Design and Build b) Most economically advantageous tender / Price-based open tender c) Site-specific design / Standard building type from another site d) Architect-based design team / Contractor or developer-led

42

Appendix C: Design review eligibility criteria

The following criteria form the basis of the selection of schemes to be presented to the Design Review Panel, it is expected that schemes presented to Panel are at least one of the following:

A development of 0.5 hectares or greater in area

A development involving 10 or more houses

A development of 1,000 square metres floorspace or greater

A development significantly affecting the City Centre or a Town Centre

A development in a historically or environmentally sensitive area

A development with special architectural or environmental qualities.

Th

e A

rch

ite

ctu

re a

nd

Urb

an

De

sig

n C

en

tre

UVNS Design Advisory Servicefunded by:

What is Urban Vision?

Urban Vision North Staffordshire is an architecture and urban design centre. We work with partners to promote high quality architecture and urban design in and around the North Staffordshire conurbation as a means of:

• Bringing about successful physical and economic regeneration , and social inclusion.

• Creating a better and more sustainable urban environment.

• Improving the image of the area.

• Raising the quality of life for the citizens of today and tomorrow.

Urban Vision is a not-for-profit company limited by guarantee and a registered charity.

Urban Vision is based in the Burslem School of Art in Stoke-on-Trent and is a full member of the UK’s Architecture Centre Network.

UVNSschool of artburslemstoke-on-trentST6 3EJ

t: 01782 575321f: 01782 839047www.uvns.org