Ealing Lib Dems Urge Change to Dickens Yard Proposals

Written by A H J Miller and published in Submission to Ealing Borough Council public consultation on Wed 26th Oct 2005

Dickens Yard now

Dickens Yard Development

Comments on October 2005 proposals

Introduction

1. Redevelopment of the Dickens Yard site is the most important proposal for change to the centre of Ealing since the plan for the present Town Centre. We therefore believe it is important for us to make a complete and reasoned response to the proposals that have been put forward.

2. We believe the four outline plans that have been submitted for public debate should be assessed on three criteria:

a. how far they meet the requirements of the original brief (updated in May 2004)

b. how far they develop that brief (which has some internal inconsistencies) to produce a desirable image of what the centre should be

c. the likely style and impact of the scheme.

3. The Planning and Urban Design Brief issued by Ealing Council entitled "Achieving Sustainable Improvement" specifies several requirements against which the competing plans should be assessed. We have made reference below to some of the most significant ones, which are referred to by the paragraphs numbers in the final version issued to bidders in November 2004.

Detailed comments: General

4. All the schemes have provided more commercial space and less for leisure than the brief requires (para 5.1). Retail space of between 8,000 m² and 12,200 m² compares to the target of an extra 3,000 m². None of them includes a cinema, though this will be an issue as the UGC site improvement is not now likely to proceed. None of them has considered a hotel, as recommended in the brief. There is little reference to the need for small workshops, and none to the provision of space for artistic uses (or "creative industries"). More active and sporting leisure facilities, such as would attract younger people, are largely absent.

5. There are varied assumptions about agreement with Christ Church and the school over incorporating their land into the plan. The schemes vary on how far this is to be done. This is an important pre-condition before the objectives of para 3.3 of the brief can be achieved.

6. All the schemes propose blocks to the north of the site which exceed the required maximum of 8 storeys (para 5.3). This is almost certainly because all developers have sought to maximise the financial benefit from both commercial and housing, over the upper targets in the brief.

7. The brief requires some healthcare provision to cater for the number of housing units. Other infrastructure and sustainability needs (para 5.4) are not adequately specified, or even mentioned in any of the schemes other than power generation. It is not clear how any of the plans will deal with the requirement to improve air quality. A significant amount more detail will be needed of these issues in the next stage plans, and they need to be specified in the instructions to the winning developer.

8. There is inadequate detail in all the schemes on the required pedestrian link to Springbridge Road (and thence to Haven Green and public transport). At the moment this route seems unattractive and does not meet the requirement to be open and safe. We believe Springbridge Mews will need to be brought into the scheme area in order to achieve this.

9. There is little detail on how the vehicle access via Longfield Avenue is to be managed. None of the schemes mentions the tram and how the objectives to route traffic away from Gordon Road can be made compatible with the restrictions which would apply to the Uxbridge Road if the tram goes ahead. There is nothing to tackle the problems of traffic management into and out of the Springbridge Road car park, which will now include all the vehicles displaced from the present Town Hall car park (200 spaces), which will also experience far more movements in and out per space than at present. These are major defects in the brief, and we believe the brief's traffic planning objectives will be difficult to achieve with any of the schemes and impossible if the tram project goes ahead.

Comment on specific schemes

10. Barratt. This seems the least attractive of the plans, and fails to meet the brief in some significant respects. The site is over-developed, with too much retail (12,200 m²) and over-high blocks (14 storeys). Although there is a suggestion of a 6-lane swimming pool, broader leisure use is small and the open space (particularly a public "town square") seems inadequate and mean in appearance. To accommodate all the housing and retail suggested, the stable block would not be preserved.

11. Centros Miller. One attractive feature of this scheme is the attempt to integrate a new frontage to wrap round from 14 New Broadway respecting the scale and style of the present buildings. What is not obvious are the plans for the block behind, which appears out of keeping with the rest (although this should become clear in a more detailed scheme). This scheme has the lowest provision for public and residential/office parking, although it has nearly as much retail as Barrett. It does provide two anchor stores and some deep shop units, complementing the smaller units which prevail elsewhere.

12. Helical-Exemplar. This scheme has created a good open route from the (larger) square on New Broadway through to Longfield Road, which meets one of the requirements of the brief. Vistas to the north from this cross route are however obscured by the "Z"-shaped blocks, which turns it into more of a canyon. The retail provision appears the lowest (8,000 m²), but there is in addition 6,500 m² of office space, which when combined is well over the brief maximum. This will create a building mass which will be too much for the character of the area. This scheme is the only one to provide separate, basement-level servicing for the commercial properties.

13. St. George. This scheme achieves the most open space and link with the rest of the Broadway, though it makes the most optimistic assumptions about the amount of space that can be taken from church ands school land for this. By keeping the rear blocks running parallel to Springbridge/Longbridge with relatively low frontages to the diagonal street (as does Centros Miller), the aspect is more open, except at the Perceval House end (which is the same in all the schemes). However, despite maximising the public space in providing three squares and a walkway, the proposed residential blocks are so large that the down draught from these buildings will create a windy pedestrian environment and the building mass will dominate both the Town Hall and Church. At 9,467 m² it has more retail than Helical-Exemplar; the amount of office or other commercial space is not clear.

Summary and recommendations

14. None of the schemes as they stand meet a sufficient number of the objectives of the brief, even allowing for some of the inadequacies of that document. It is clear that all the developers have been heavily influenced by the assumed requirement of the Council for a significant premium and the consequent need to have a high density to pay for this; all the schemes exceed the brief's recommended plot ratio of 2:1, some by a significant amount. The Council spokesman has talked of "a healthy return to the community". This return should be measured in terms of amenity as much as cash. We believe the choice of developer should not be weighted by considerations of the immediate financial gain to the Council; the long-term benefit of a viable, attractive scheme with an emphasis on quality and community use should take precedence.

15. We support the concept of the retail emphasis being on smaller, specialist units. Ealing should not be attempting to compete with Brent Cross or the White City development, but producing an alternative which will serve local shoppers and bring in those wanting a smaller, higher quality environment. However there must be a strategy of having at least one significant "magnet" retailer, to ensure the scheme provides sufficient interest to draw in enough retail custom, as the original Waterglade scheme failed to do.

16. The Council should not dictate the architectural design, but it should specify that it should be honestly modern whilst using materials and style which are sympathetic to the area and scale of the rest of Ealing town centre. Whilst we do not object to a density slightly in excess of the 2:1 proposed in the brief, any excess should be small and the massing of most of the schemes should be reduced. In particular, the scale should respect the two listed buildings at either end of the site, and the frontages of 14-36 New Broadway.

17. Whichever developer is chosen, several things need to be included in the instructions for the final scheme to ensure the result is acceptable. In particular, the Council's brief must be clarified on a number of issues, some of which are outside the control of the developer. These include

a. traffic access to and from the car parking and servicing areas

b. the relationship with other areas of the Town Centre, and pedestrian movements between these areas

c. pedestrian access to public transport particularly via Springbridge Road

d. priority for a scheme which meets the longer-term objectives of the Town Centre Improvement Strategy. This should not be distorted by over-provision of commercial space, which should be kept close to the maxima in the original brief. The internal contradictions noted above must be resolved.

e. the type of retailer to be attracted must be made clear, and must specifically exclude another supermarket; the total space allocated to café/restaurant and professional/financial services should also be stipulated and balanced

f. servicing for the commercial areas should be segregated from the public/ pedestrian areas, ideally by basement access.

g. the number of residential units directly overlooking the railway should be kept to a minimum, probably in blocks of no more than eight storeys running north-south, to safeguard the amenity both of the occupiers and of the residents on the south side of Gordon Road.

h. the housing units such include a number specifically designed for and allocated to student use, both to meet local need and to restrict the demand for residential parking

i. the developer should be asked to ensure that certain elements are incorporated into the scheme which now seem to be missing from several of the plans. In particular, it should be asked to include a 150-200 bed, 3/4 star (mid-price) hotel with its own integral parking, which would have several advantages to the area; it could

i. serve the local commercial and retail/leisure businesses and meet a shortage of such provision in Ealing generally

ii. provide flexible space within the total commercial area some of which could be used for small retail, a business centre for small businesses, and suites for dual-purpose hotel or office use

iii. help keep the area alive at night

iv. provide function rooms for local private and community use

v. balance parking needs to use space more efficiently, ie hotel residents at night, small business users by day

j. the stable block should be retained for low cost work space including small workshops and opportunities for arts and crafts

k. development of the Town Hall facilities for community use should be an integral part of the scheme with provision for the arts, indoor sports, swimming and more rooms for hire with full public access. The hotel could also be used for shared facilities from which everyone could benefit.

l. the community service and sustainability elements of the scheme need more detailing

m. ultimate management of the area should be retained in the hands of the developer and not sub-contracted to third parties who are not party to the original contract. That contract must be tightly drawn to ensure adherence to the conditions, and closely monitored by the Council throughout its implementation.

18. As none of the schemes meets all the targets that have been set, we suggest that the Council should consider awarding the contract jointly to the two developers whose plans are most sympathetic to the brief. In our opinion, although they are the two whose present schemes are the most densely developed, and which therefore have the most need for trimming, these are Helical-exemplar and St. George.

AHJM

26 Oct 05