Drill Hall site - latest objection from Wellingborough Chamber of Commerce The Chamber would like to object to these proposals on several grounds. The Chamber considers that these proposals and similar to one proposed in the planning application WP/12/0445 which was refused by the Planning Committee and do not go far enough in addressing the deficiencies of this application and therefore should also be refused. As stated in our response to the previous application the Chamber of Commerce feels that these proposals are a lost opportunity to deliver a quality mixed use development for the town centre and Wellingborough residents. This proposal now comprises entirely housing with some parking – reduced significantly from what is existing. As the main town centre site that will be developed over the next 10-15 years it is imperative that this site should contribute to the wider economic and social well-being of the town centre and provide the opportunity for a proper mix of uses to enable employment opportunities, small scale retail and food outlets and leisure facilities such as function rooms potentially tied to other operations such as a hotel. The Borough Council, as the majority landowner for the site, has the ability to influence, and to a degree dictate, how this site is delivered. Much consultation and deliberation, as well as cost, was expended in proposing a framework and principles for development on the site through the Development Brief and Town Centre Area Action Plan and it appears that much of this has been ignored or set aside. A major concern is also that these proposals will significantly reduce the amount to public parking, even reducing the level based on the previous application, in an area of the town where parking levels need to be maintained. While the Chamber of Commerce accepts that consideration of the site has moved on since the Council’s Development Brief was adopted it considers that no attempt has been made to provide a town centre development which meets the needs of a variety of town centre issues. In fact the provision of this high density single use housing scheme is likely to exacerbate certain problems. We set out our detailed comments below. Layout and Design – the layout of the scheme still appears to respond to the objective of maximising the number of residential dwellings that can be accommodated on site rather than delivering a mix of uses that better reflect the surrounding area. The proposals includes the demolition of several commercial properties to the North of the High Street frontage which will open up views of the surface car park which will not provide a positive gateway and setting for listed buildings further down the High Street. The Chamber is also concerned about how the large independent living unit which is set back from the High Street will relate to Queens Hall and Leighton Coach House both of which are listed and are adjacent to this proposed building. As this element of the scheme is outline there is no confirmed height however this should be compatible with the setting of these listed buildings and not over power them. The proposed design does not integrate these buildings in to the fabric of the development and will leave them as isolate oddities which will not have any functional relationship with the new development. Given the current use of Queens Hall a tension may also exist between the users of this facility and those in the independent care home. The Development Brief envisaged small scale employment uses for offices and retail units and no attempt has been made to see to accommodate these uses within the scheme. The design of the houses with a large private front defendable space (primarily for parking) is not felt to be appropriate in this location. This approach would be more suitable for a suburban location and not a key town centre site. With the location of houses directly or closely adjacent to the pavement and shared on-street parking with high levels of public realm and other uses, as set out in the brief, it would make this area much more accessible and integrated with the rest of the town centre. The Chamber of Commerce previously recommended that an independent design review of the proposals be carried out and query whether this has been done and what the outcome/recommendations were? The layout and design of this scheme is crucial in achieving a development which complements the existing town centre and historical setting of listed building along the High Street. The Council has achieved high quality developments on its land creating and improving public realm in the past – specifically in recent years the development of Morrisons Superstore. In our opinion it would be a lost opportunity if the proposal for the High Street/Jackson Lane site went ahead in this form. Parking – As stated above the Chamber does not believe that the parking proposals for this development represent the best solution or outcome for the town centre users or future residents of the site. The existing car parking provision on the site is approximately for 500 cars. The proposal now is for 169 at surface public car parking spaces whereas the Development Brief allocated some 484 spaces and this is part of a wider proposed parking provision including a new multi-storey car park on the Tresham site. As Tresham is no longer going to relocate this extra parking for the town will not materialise and the significant reduction of capacity on the High Street site will compromise the ability of businesses in this part of the town to attract and retain clientele. Better design and more on-street parking would enable a higher level of public parking provision. Public Realm and Security – The Chamber believes that these proposals are highly compromised in relation to public realm due to the fact that the majority of the site is intended to be privately owned dwellings. These do not attract other users or promote shared areas which can add to the vibrancy and vitality of an area. Virtually all of the housing proposed will have defendable private space and only the highway areas will be public area. There is a missed opportunity, therefore, to provide an urban square within the heart of the development where public interaction could take place around a mix of difference uses. The proposed square fronting on to High Street does not relate well to the listed buildings which will be maintained in isolation from the new development and will potentially be dwarfed by the proposed care home. This will only receive outline consent and therefore it is uncertain if and when this will actually be delivered. It would be important that these public realm improvements were delivered at the beginning of the development to ensure the setting of these historic buildings however it is difficult to see how this could happen when the final design and dimensions of the care home would be unknown. The Police has raise significant issues and objections to the proposals in relation to security and designing out crime. In a town centre location such as this, a mix of uses will provide natural surveillance from businesses and residents both reinforcing security of the area. Where the use is purely residential it is harder to provide this natural surveillance and therefore access into and out of the site becomes more important. As a principle the site should be permeable to allow people to traverse across the site, however this may also create a greater conflict with security and crime issues where the development is solely residential. It will be important to ensure that the development has a secured by design accreditation to help the future security of the area and as these proposals don’t reach that standard they should be rejected. In conclusion the Chamber strongly objects to the development proposals on the grounds that the layout and design does not reflect the adopted supplementary planning guidance and in our opinion does not enhance the uses and experience of the town centre. The parking provision and solutions are not compatible with the Town Centre Area Action Plan and will provide a reduction in parking provision for the centre in future. The public realm elements and permeability of the site do not sufficiently reflect those envisaged in the Development Brief and do not, in our opinion, add and benefit the town centre to make it more attractive for other users and future investment. The development is also clearly not secured by design and as a result the Chamber considers that these proposals do not represent the best potential or option that can be delivered for the development of this important site for the town centre and therefore should be refused WELL SAID Chamber of Commerce :)
Posted on: Tue, 09 Sep 2014 09:55:46 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015