Many thanks for all your feedback over recent months and especially during the design consultation phase. We've taken your views into account in our summary of the 5 shortlisted schemes and our view of which one(s) deliver the best solution to the Council's Brief, and our own own well published objectives, principles and concepts. We've also proposed improvements to our preferred schemes (which are currently design concepts, not finished schemes).

We hope you've all Had Your Say on the Council website. If not, you've got until tomorrow (Tuesday) night to do so. Here's a link: Council Consultation

OUR REVIEW

Overview

It is encouraging to see that the excellent competition brief and process overseen by the Council and RIBA has attracted some of the best architectural practices and thinking in Britain, which has clearly paid dividends in the production of these five varied schemes. There is much to consider - and one can be seduced by attractive images - but fundamentally we have considered which of the schemes comes closest to encapsulating the principles we have espoused with significant local support over the past two years, and as encapsulated in the Competition brief. 

None of the schemes have managed achieve a fully satisfactory solution to the many aspects of this complex design challenge. However, we believe that it would be possible to make changes to two of those schemes that have got the conceptual ‘fundamentals’ right to achieve an optimum outcome. The selected scheme should thus be the one that has best captured the fundamentals around site layout, context and needs which could incorporate further improvements (which other schemes may have included in their proposals).

Public Open Space

Having secured the removal of parking on the Riverside in all the schemes (a core principle in the brief), a fundamental starting point must be the provision of a large, coherent, public open space allowing for flexible use at the heart of the site that is intuitively accessible from King Street, fully connects with the Riverside, and provides great pedestrian and cycle links to King Street, Water Lane and Wharf Lane and beyond.

Architect 1 best grasps this principle, having provided a ‘full depth’ integrated public open space which flows down to the Riverside, with an open inviting connection to Water Lane and the existing green space opposite. It provides a good mix of hard and soft landscaping and best embraces the objectives of the DJG Trust. However, the hard landscaping along the Riverside should be reduced in width and include trees and elements such as seating to ‘soften’ the area somewhat. This scheme provides an excellent riverfront pedestrian and cycle route.

Architect 2 has provided a large open space, but it appears unresolved, located to the west with no ‘drawcards’ into it, visually largely ‘cut off’ from Water Lane by a large massing of building, and also from the river by the location of a series of ‘floating studios’.  A riverside pedestrian/cycle route runs behind the studios.

Architect 3 has made a bold proposition in terms of providing a swimming pool and gym as its over-dominant central feature. However, a primary (payable) activity for this site would be a mistake as flexible use and a range of many community activities would largely be precluded, their ‘Event Square’ being a relatively small space. The long, linear, residential building above the pool cramps the open space, and the proposed cycle route over tidal pontoons and ramps is totally impractical.

Architect 4 has made a conceptual error by making a ‘villa’ building the focal point of the site, leading to a fragmentation of the public space in the arrangement of smaller spaces around it. The large empty space in front of the focal building essentially accommodates a series of steps and ramps down to the river - which make flexible community use more difficult. There is no obvious cycle route.

Architect 5 grasps the principle of open space reasonably well, but is constrained by the expanded service road roundabout layout and the considerable depth of ‘Wharf House’. Together, these reduce the depth of open space back from the riverside, and obstruct possible future connections to the King Street buildings and frontage. An unsatisfactory cycle route is proposed that wriggles its way through gardens and buildings.

Summary:  For the reasons given above we believe that Architect 1, and to a lesser extent Architect 5, can deliver or have the potential to deliver truly excellent, flexible, public open spaces that satisfy both our TRPT principles and the Council’s Design Brief, and will be a major attraction for residents and visitors alike. Therefore, we will focus our attention on these two concept designs (

Massing of Buildings

The massing, location and layout of the proposed buildings in relation to the existing built environment and the proposed public open space is fundamental to a successful scheme. It makes sense to locate the larger mass of buildings along Wharf Lane - the ‘quiet’ side of the site -extending down to the river, which would draw people along the riverside.

A secondary massing would replace the demolished buildings along Water Lane, requiring careful considerations of scale, permeability, relationship to existing buildings and presence on King Street.

This layout opens up the site, maximising its depth from the riverside to the rear of the site, and effectively ‘moving’ the open space towards Water Lane where most people would enter the site.

Architect 1 has fully grasped these principles. The larger mass of building along the western edge is broken into a number of elements which elegantly step down towards the open space - thus cleverly disguising the massing. Architect 5 is somewhat compromised by the location of their ‘Wharf House’ in the centre of the site.

Architecture

The Architects have adopted a wide range of styles and approaches in their buildings.

Architect 1 and Architect 5 have adopted a more consistent style based on waterside type ‘shed’ buildings, with a clear reference to those on Eel Pie Island. Architect 1’s buildings are elegant, finely crafted, open and inviting. Variety is introduced through variations in scale, combinations of elements, use of materials and beautiful detailing.

Architect 1’s Winter Garden is a useful and versatile space which connects seamlessly with the external public spaces and Riverside. However, their proposal for the building down Water Lane requires further thought to make it more permeable - both from King Street and Water Lane - and to provide more of an inviting presence on King Street that draws people down to the Riverside.

The buildings of Architect 5 are attractive, but are more dense, heavy and repetitive in appearance. As with Architect 1 their building along Water Lane needs to be more permeable from both King Street and Water Lane.

Uses and Viability

The schemes have put forward an interesting mix of uses. Other than for the residential accommodation, the commercial spaces (retail, workspace and food/beverage) should be designed with flexibility and change of use in mind to accommodate inevitable future changes. Spaces for community use should inherently be open and adaptable, connecting from external public open space through to spaces below the buildings to maximise flexibility.

Architect 1 and Architect 5 provide the most flexible multi-use buildings. These are of a modular nature, making adaptations for change of use relatively easy and less expensive.

As regards viability, the separate ‘clustering’ of buildings enables these schemes to be built in stages to suit demand and cash-flow. Modular building types can also be extended more easily, providing funding flexibility. The residential component of the schemes is vital to the mix, both in terms of providing essential accommodation and ‘on site’ life and vitality in our town centre. The provision of affordable accommodation is commendable.

Housing provision would be a key income generator - and those schemes which have succeeded in providing a substantial number of residential units without making this an obvious ‘residential’ scheme should be seriously considered. In this regard, Architect 1 (54 units) and Architect 5 (58 units) have integrated the accommodation units in ‘mixed’ buildings most successfully.

Relationship to King Street

In both cases the treatment of the King Street, Church Road, Water Lane Junction is inadequate. The demolition of the Santander building affords the opportunity to change the character of this important junction – to open it up, make it more permeable and improve access to the Riverside. How this is tackled is, in our view, crucial to the success of the development if it is to have any impact on the regeneration of the town centre. 

Relationship to the River

It is surprising that most of the schemes have not given sufficient consideration to facilities for water activities - and extraordinary that working boathouses with proper access to the river have not been included in any of the schemes. ‘Boathouses’ are mentioned in several of the schemes - but their design and relationship to the river is unclear in all cases.

Boathouses could be incorporated into Architect 1 and Architect 5’s proposed buildings at river level.

Sustainability

Sustainable design is a recurring theme in the schemes, approached in different ways, passive and active, and implicit in almost all of the proposals.  Architect 1 and Architect 5 use a flexible modular approach, robust natural materials, daylight and solar shading. However, Architect 3 provides an exemplar of what can be done - and more sustainable technologies such as solar PV and geo- or hydrothermal should be integrated into these schemes.

Parking/Traffic

Traffic movement on the site is now defined by two way on Water and Wharf Lanes, with a one-way link service road to the rear. Each of the schemes makes provision for reduced parking and servicing away from the Riverside, whilst retaining the service area for Eel Pie Island.

Each scheme includes parking on site, varying from 12-40 spaces. In our view, parking on Water Lane should be minimised The Council have detailed plans to relocate parking from the site within 250m (3mins walk). Resident and business permit holders will be given priority nearest the site. Pay & Display parking will be signposted electronically to help improve utilisation.

Architect 1 is the only scheme to enhance EPI servicing by relocating the loading bays to the East side of the bridge on a ‘new dock’ above the slipway, directly at the bottom of Water Lane. This has the added benefit of separating the riverfront ‘town square’ area from motor vehicles.

Conclusion

It is our view that Architect 1 conceptually best encapsulates the principles promoted by the TRPT and covered in the Brief. Architect 5 has potential, but requires significant change to the size and depth of Wharf House.  The following changes would also enhance their proposals:

●      The King Street, Church Road, Water Lane Junction should be carefully developed as a public open space and inviting entry point to the Riverside. A permeable ‘walk-through’ gateway/landmark building, possibly set back from the street frontage, is required that draws people down Water Lane;

●      In both cases the buildings extending from King Street down Water Lane should also be more open and permeable. (Architect 2 does this well);

●      The area of granite sets down Water Lane could be extended beyond the site boundary across the King Street, London Road and York Street intersection to indicate pedestrian priority, and to ‘lead’ pedestrians down Water Lane to the Riverside;

●      Waterside facilities, particularly working boathouses with dedicated access to the river should be provided; these would work well with pub/restaurant and viewing terraces above overlooking the river;

●      Floating pontoons/jetties could also be introduced with connections to the boathouses, providing greater access to the river for leisure activities (and possible use for river taxis);

●      A sustainable energy strategy should be included that includes for geothermal and photovoltaic sources, rainwater harvesting, sustainable urban drainage systems, green walls etc. (Architect 3 best illustrates how sustainable energy sources, technologies and approaches can be encapsulated in their scheme);

●      A child friendly water feature/fountain installation is a must (re Granary Square at King’s Cross, Burlington House in Piccadilly, Somerset House and Brewery Market public squares);

●      More trees should be planted;

●       Parking bays on Water Lane should be avoided.