|
|
This information as not been shared with the tarran residents we have had to find it ourselves. Most of what you will read are lies, they do not communicate with us and they will not negotiate.
ROTHERHAM BOROUGH COUNCIL – REPORT TO MEMBERS
Page 74 Agenda Item 11
1. Meeting: Cabinet Member for Neighbourhoods
2. Date: 19th May 2008
3. Title: Progress on re-housing of residents and the redevelopment of the Braithwell Road (Tarran) site
4. Programme Area: Neighbourhoods
5. Summary
This report highlights issues affecting the re-housing of residents of the Tarran houses in Maltby, namely;
• relocation progress to date
• opportunities for accelerating the relocation process
• demolition proposals
The report furthermore identifies proposals for future plans and activity to progress the re-development of the estate thereby improving the quality of the neighbourhood.
6. RECOMMENDATIONS:
Cabinet Member is asked to:
• Note the content of this report.
• Support the range of options for progressing re-housing of existing residents as identified in section 7.2.1
• Approve expansion of the tendering phases for re-development of the site from the RSL Partnership to include wider developer and RSL market.
7. Proposals and Details
7.1 Background
On 28th February 2005, following the findings of an independent survey, the then Cabinet Member for Housing and Environmental Services recommended that approval be granted for the demolition and redevelopment of the non-traditional Tarran site, giving priority to re-housing along with commencing negotiations to acquire owner occupied properties.
Since that date, considerable work has taken place to assist residents in relocation to accommodation that is suitable to their needs. This report provides a progress
update of the re-housing activity and work that has taken place in respect of the future redevelopment of the site.
7.2 Progress on Relocation, Demolition and Re-development
7.2.1 Relocation
Relocation continues to progress on the estate with 12 households being relocated in 2007. The table below provides information on the progress made to date
regarding re-housing and demolition. A map highlighting the current position is included in Appendix 1.
Number of properties Void Occupied Demolished Total
Demolished - - -------------------------------------------------------------------16 -------------16
Void awaiting demolition -------------------51 - - -------------------------------------------51
Occupied – Council tenant - -----------------------------11 ------------------------------- 11
Occupied – Owner occupier - ----------------------------8 - ---------------------------------8
Total -----------------------------------------------51 -----------19 --------------16 -------------86
Table 1: Current progress as April 2008
Despite considerable efforts to re-house residents from the Tarran properties, difficult negotiations have taken place with residents in discussing re-housing options. Fundamentally delayed relocation has been as a result of residents being required to move from popular housing and the lack of availability and turnover of alternative accommodation in their areas of choice.
Although no time limits have been assigned to the re-housing of these householders, the relocation of the remaining 19 residents is now affecting the redevelopment of the site. Based on re-housing negotiations to-date and utilisation of existing re-housing methods it is envisaged that it could take a further minimum period of 18 months to complete the re-housing. The situation is further compounded by the remaining householders not being overly interested in moving from their home or by those who are more forceful in terms of their relocation terms.
To support the remaining residents in their re-housing further proposed options need to be considered including;
• Although households on the Tarran estate have priority status over and above statutory homeless and the general waiting list, we need the option to be able to facilitate the strategic re-housing of these remaining residents. To be able to do this we need to be able to re-house individual households out of turn of their length of residency to facilitate the early demolition phases on the site.
However, the implications of this option are:
Tensions are likely to emerge among the remaining Tarran residents as to the likelihood of who will be re-housed first. Given that, throughout the rehousing phase, this has been based on when more than one person has requested a priority the one with the longest tenure have been allocated first.
To continue in the existing manner is likely to mean that residents will become more vulnerable as they will be pepper-potted around the site. This has implications for potential vandalism, security of site will become difficult to manage, loss of services and additional expenses related to delayed demolition costs.
Those householders who are strategically located to contribute towards an accelerated demolition programme may not wish to move.
• Bring back into use a number of voids, which exist on Chadwick Drive to the south of the site, as staged decant units, enabling residents to remain in the immediate area whilst alternative longer term re-housing options become available.
• Where voluntary agreements cannot be achieved mechanisms be put in place in relation to Notices Seeking Possession (NSP) and Compulsory Purchase Orders (CPO) will need to be sought.
Development of new housing (to include social rented accommodation) on the cleared site (north of the site - Phase 1) may assist with the acquisition of owner occupied properties and may be towards the end of the relocation phase. The cost of development could be offset against the land value, however this will need to be investigated in more detail when figures are available. The anticipated completion of
new housing, to include social rented accommodation, is early 2010.
7.2.2 Estate Management
Throughout the project, residents, relating to estate security and demolition methodology, have raised a number of Health & Safety issues, namely concerns regarding;
• Cleanliness of the estate
• Maintenance of the existing properties
• Security of empty properties
• Demolition and in particular the removal of asbestos from properties
However, intensive management of the estate i.e. working closely with the residents, resident meetings, distribution of newsletters, monthly walkabouts and daily site visits have seen the estate retain a relatively positive appearance despite the high number of empty homes.
7.2.3 Demolition
Economic Development Services (EDS) are co-ordinating the demolition programme on behalf of the Council. This process includes the disconnection of services and reconnection to occupied properties with shared services and the undertaking of asbestos surveys before demolition commences.
Key lessons have emerged through the demolition of the first 16 properties;
• Need to competitively tender the future demolition works in preference to awarding works to G Fry Demolition, EDS’ preferred contractor.
• Ensuring health and safety issues and resident liaison are relayed to the demolition contractor.
• Ensuring the demolition contractor has input into improving communication with the residents
• Working with residents prior to work on site re demolition and anticipated works programme
• Consulting and informing residents of progress on a regular (monthly) basis. Phased demolition of 13 & 15 and 2-12 Newland Avenue will commence in May 2008. A further four phases of demolition are anticipated and will be subject to detailed discussion with the appointed demolition contractor.
7.2.4 Redevelopment
Following a survey of residents, expressions of interest have been received from seven residents who wish to consider:
• renting with a Registered Social Landlord (RSL),
• purchasing affordable housing outright
• one household willing to explore options of shared ownership.
The first stage selection process for a preferred development partner has been undertaken to develop the design of the whole estate and build out phase. This entailed a competition between the Rotherham’s RSL partners and required the inclusion of private sector partners to encourage wider market opportunities. Returned submissions have been poor and did to not meet the criteria set out in the Design Brief (Appendix 2). A financial viability assessment of the submissions was undertaken by DTZ and concluded only two submissions are worth considering. However, DTZ recommended that the Council should look more closely at the schemes proposed by the two RSL’s to determine the most viable for delivery in terms of design, which offers:
• best value for money for the Council,
• meets the strategic needs of the Council and the existing residents requiring re-housing.
Based on the submissions received from the RSL’s, a further report will be submitted for consideration by Cabinet Member relating to the re-development of the site and the private developer and RSL competition. The anticipated timescale for this process is as follows;
• Brief distributed to private developers May 2008
• Selection of preferred partner end August 2008
• Design completed including community consultation end December 2008
• 1st phase build commences April 2009
Local ward members have been and continue to be actively involved in the development of the site and following receipt of the submissions from private developers, a selection panel of local members, residents and officers will be convened. It is anticipated that the re-development of the site will take place in three phases enabling opportunities as follows;
• Evidence of deliverability of the scheme over three phases
• Support from the surrounding community for change
• Evidence progress and change within Maltby
• Potentially gain new resources to support relocation
• Permit the Council to retain control of build phases two and three through separating contract arrangements.
8. Finance
Since mid 2004, approximately £1.25 million has been spent on the relocation, acquisition, demolition and security of the Tarran properties. The approximate costs for each individual element of the project are as follows;
Element ----------------------------------Cost per unit (£) ------------No of units -----------Cost per element (£)
Relocation Acquisition ----------------59,014 -----------------------------11 -------------------------649,158
Disturbance & homeloss ---------------6,106 -----------------------------66 -------------------------402,994
Demolition ----------------------------------11,120 -----------------------------16 -------------------------177,922-
Security & site safety -----------------------270 -----------------------------86 ---------------------------23,261
Total --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------1,253,335 Information produced by Land Registry. 1 13/08/2007 £71,500 52, Newland Avenue, Maltby,
2 17/01/2007 £68,000 13, Newland Avenue, Maltby,
3 04/01/2007 £62,000 34, Newland Avenue, Maltby,
4 24/03/2006 £60,000 10, Newland Avenue, Maltby,
5 26/09/2005 £63,000 50, Newland Avenue, Maltby,
6 05/09/2005 £59,000 47, Newland Avenue, Maltby,
7 27/07/2005 £60,000 33, Newland Avenue, Maltby, 8 27/04/2007 £63,000 67, Braithwell Road, Maltby,
Funding for the project, for the first two years, was solely provided through the Councils Housing Investment Programme with additional funds being provided following successful submissions to the Regional Housing Board.
It is estimated that, based on the historical costs available to date, to clear the remaining site will incur costs in the region of £1,385,426 as shown on the following
table;
Element ---------------------------------Cost per unit (£) --------------No of units ----------Cost per element (£)
Relocation Acquisition ----------------59,014----------------------------- 8 --------------------------472,112
Disturbance & homeloss ---------------6,106 ---------------------------19 ---------------------------116,014
Demolition ----------------------------------11,120---------------------------- 70-------------------------- 778,400
Security & site safety -----------------------270 ---------------------------*70 ---------------------------18,900
Total --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------1,385,426
* Based on a reducing number of units to be secured/maintained over the remainder of the life of the project
The appointment of a developer partner may provide additional resources in the form of additional project staff, potential funding to support relocation and the provision of a capital receipt.
9. Risks and Uncertainties
Through the development of this project a number of difficulties and risks have emerged:
• Timescales and inability to offer alternative accommodation prolonging the rehousing and slowing down the re-development of the site
• Ability to agree voluntary purchase of private homes has been difficult
• One property on the estate has been brick built and it is unclear if a CPO on this property will succeed.
• Limited offer that a private sector developer or RSL are willing to provide in response to the brief, including support for relocation and any capital receipt
• Unwanted attention to empty homes and continued requirement of intensive management and additional security measures.
• Inability to agree voluntary purchase of private homes leading to a decision being made whether or not to serve CPOs
• Position of the inspector at any CPO hearing is unknown
• Use of CPOs and NSPs being time consuming and incurring additional costs to the project.
These risks are being minimised through:
• Continued community engagement and one to one work with householders 2010 Rotherham Limited and Key Choices
• Promotion of re-housing and relocation opportunities
• Deliverable plans and designs for the site that meet resident and community approval
• Selection process for a partner RSL led development consortium or private sector developer
• Production of the Maltby Master Plan
• Proactive estate management
• Phased re-development proposals
• Consideration of NSP and CPO proposals with training to staff
10. Policy and Performance Agenda Implications
The works carried out under the re-development of the estate contribute towards the Corporate and cross cutting policy agenda related to regeneration and in particular the priority for improving and promoting the image of Rotherham through:
• Achieving the decent homes standard by 2010
• Demolition of unsustainable housing stock
The proposed project also contributes towards our key corporate strategic themes of:
Rotherham Learning
Rotherham Proud
Rotherham Safe
Rotherham Alive
Rotherham Achieving
These key themes are reflected within the Individual Well-being and Healthy Communities outcome framework, as follows:
• Improved Quality of Life – opportunities for improved housing standards to meet household aspirations and an improved quality of life (Objective 6)
• Exercise Choice and Control – enabling choice and control over housing options through a range of housing options being presented to households affected by regeneration programmes (Objective 6)
• Personal Dignity and Respect – creating housing choices and tools which promote independent living, personal dignity and respect, investing in quality neighbourhoods, ensuring residents can enjoy a comfortable, clean and orderly environment.
• Freedom from discrimination or harassment – providing quality housing and independent living, targeted to meet specific need, to support improved health and well-being, facilitated by a transparent process agreed with the client from the outset (Objective 2)
• Economic well-being – providing high quality housing, through high design standards and meeting identified needs in order to create sustainable neighbourhoods, offering high quality and extended choice of housing provision, to meet current and future aspirations.
11. Background Papers and Consultation
Cabinet paper July 2006 – Enhancing the Relocation Offer
Cabinet paper November 2005 – Progress on Rehousing of Maltby Tarran Residents
Cabinet paper July 2004 – The future of Tarran properties at Maltby
Cabinet Minute – No 181, Tarran Newland Properties, Maltby
One to One Housing Needs Assessment carried out September 2005
Braithwell Road Design Brief 2007
Cabinet paper December 2006 – Progress on Rehousing of Maltby Tarran Residents
Contact Name: Paul Benson, Private Sector Officer ext. 4952
paul.benson@rotherham.gov.uk
Braithwell Road
Housing Market Renewal
Rotherham Metropolitan Borough Council
Contact details
chris.brown@rotherham.gov.uk
01709 334962
Regeneration Programme Manager
Housing Market Renewal
1.0 Introduction
The site comprises of land adjacent to Braithwell Road, Chadwick Drive, Newland Avenue, previous garage site land and land fronting Braithwell Road (see Appendix 1)
The site is approximately 9.25 acres / 3.743 hectares look at 12.7 Density We will be seeking 35 – 45 units per hectare on this site 131 - 168 houses
The Council is not in ownership of all land and property on the site with one property in phase one in private ownership
The development of the site is subject to resident consultation and planning consent
This brief sets out the RMBCs requirements for submissions in relation to the Braithwell Road development opportunity
A presentation was provided 6th February by HMR to share with partners the development opportunity
RMBC would like RSL to use their skills to develop an exemplar development to support the Maltby transformational change agenda and provide a mixed tenure development. Key aspects of the brief are:
Ability to complement RMBC Community Strategy, Housing Market Assessment and Maltby transformational change Master Plan/Baseline studies
Ability to support the successful relocation of residents and the provision of appropriate new accommodation for residents wishing to remain on the estate
Resourcing community engagement particularly in the estates design and delivery of the scheme
Quality housing and neighbourhood management service
RMBC nomination rights
Deliverability of the scheme
Quality of the RSL consortium
Value for money for the Council and the RSL/Consortiums purchase price (plot 1 including design, optional plots 2&3)
Design quality
Initial statement from planning
2 1.1 Timescales
Expressions of interest to Housing Market renewal were required by 13th February 2007
The selection process will include:
30th April 2007 – written submission to Housing Market Renewal in response to this brief by 12 noon
Week commencing 30th April – scrutiny of submissions
Week commencing 14th May 2007 - interview with a panel
7th or 21st June 2007 – Panel recommendations presented to the Cabinet Member
The successful RSL/Consortium will be appointed to work with RMBC and the community to agree a detailed design for the scheme and achieve planning approvals
The successful RSL/Consortium will be appointed to negotiate with the Council the agreed development package for phase one of the scheme
RMBC reserve the right to award phases two and three of the scheme if the RSL/Consortium meet quality and value for money criteria
2.0 The Brief
2.1 Background
The estate was Built in 1948 comprising of 86 Newland Non Traditionally built properties. The properties have been popular with residents and the environment has suffered little from anti social behaviour and required low management resources.Clearance was declared in 2004 due to the cost of required structural work and improvement to bring properties to the decent homes standard. 56 households have been rehoused since 2004 with 30 households awaiting relocation or yet to agree relocation. 8 households yet to agree relocation (7 owner occupiers, 1 tenant). 16 demolitions to date (2 phases = 6 & 10 properties).
3 • Compulsory purchase orders have not been served however the use of CPOs is constantly under review and the appointment of a development partner and a quality design would be a key element in any decision.
2.2 Ability to complement Strategy
Key documents are:
RMBC Community Strategy with five core themes Learning, Alive, Proud, Achieving, Safe and cross cutting themes Fair, Sustainable ,
Housing Market Assessment 2007 (currently draft 2)
Core Strategy (Preferred Options)
Affordable Housing Policy
Relocation Policy / Relocation Pack
Maltby Baseline Study – Housing Market Renewal has produced with Latham’s a baseline study which will inform options and a spatial master plan for Maltby. A sustainability assessment has been carried out on the baseline study. Key messages in the baseline are:
Town of two halves -East area in the worst 10% of deprived communities in the country. West not in the top 30% of most deprived.
Town centre, public realm, housing and environment interventions required i.e. Little London, Admiral's Estate, Model Village & White City /Birks Holt
Housing is predominantly semi-detached family accommodation (44%). Lack of choice.
The majority of the property is owner occupied with 18% of the housing being social rented accommodation.
Failing comprehensive school.
Crime hotspots in the south east -(Morrell & Novello Street in particular)
Poor retail offer 4
Loyal community however West facing away towards opportunities
Good transport links & frequent public transport services
Town has distinct heritage value also it's proximity to the surrounding countryside
East Maltby requires a better and more varied housing offer
Documents are available from RMBC web pages or HMR.
2.3 Ability to support the successful relocation of residents and the provision of appropriate new accommodation for residents wishing to remain on the estate
The Council have identified a need for three houses/bungalows for rent, three houses/bungalows to buy at affordable levels and one disabled persons unit. There has also been interest in shared ownership. A second survey of residents will confirm any additional interest from exiting households.
The Council require plot one to accommodate the rehousing needs of residents being relocated. Barriers to relocation identified include:
Difficulties for some residents coming to terms with change / leaving home / powerlessness within the process.
Affordability sometimes exaggerated by demographic profile, low historical housing costs compared to current market, discounted RtB cost against the value of a defective property type.
Lack of availability of housing in areas of choice (Maltby).
Consultations with residents have focused on 1:2:1 confidential discussion, 8 newsletters, 2 Surveys, Public Meetings, monthly estate walkabouts, an estate safety group meeting monthly.
A Relocation pack has recently been developed and is being distributed to households without relocation agreements.
A revised relocation policy was agreed by the council in September 2006 including the opportunity for new relocation choices.
HMR are currently doubtful of the ability to achieve a successful CPO on one of the properties on the estate due extensive structural work being carried out to a high standard. Submissions should consider if this property should be incorporated into the estates design.
Submissions should outline how the RSL/Consortium will support the relocation process.
2.4 Resourcing community engagement in particularly in the estates design and delivery of the scheme
Submissions are to include two alternative draft designs emphasising the potential of the site within funding and deliverability constraints and reflecting the enclosed design brief
On appointment the RSL/Consortium will be required to provide design options to residents and stakeholder through consultation events
Throughout the design process through to planning permissions community and stakeholder influence on the process should be evidenced in conformity with the adopted Statement of Community Involvement
Issues relating to the redesign shared with the council include:
Height of building –dislike of 3 storey flats
Green strip on Braithwell Road –currently seen as a benefit
Bus stop –if the road is closed where would the bus stop
New build properties for relocating residents to move in to
Space standards of the new properties
Garden sizes of new properties
Security and estate safety
Submission should set out the approach and resources to support community and stakeholder engagement
2.5 Quality housing and neighbourhood management service
The site previous contained 86 properties. Although eighteen properties had been bought through the Right to Buy sixty eight were managed by 2010 Rotherham Limited.
The area is very popular and has required good but low intensity management over a long period of time.
HMR believe a significant proportion of affordable housing units should be provided back onto the site in a range of forms.
The proportion of affordable units should reflect the housing market assessment, Maltby baseline study and relocation requirements for estate residents.
Submissions should outline management arrangements and quality standards for affordable properties for rent.
2.6 RMBC nomination rights
Submissions should outline the terms of the nomination agreement which would be implemented on the scheme including agreements relating to shared ownership, low cost home ownership and properties for rent
2.7 Deliverability of the scheme
RMBC have identified 3 approximate plots within the site which reflects the pattern of decanting.
Plot one includes one vacant property currently not in the ownership of the council and one council owned property with residents awaiting relocation.
Plots two and three have 28 households awaiting relocation and eight households without relocation agreements
The anticipated start date for construction is April 2008.
On appointment of the RSL/consortium HMR will work to gain all necessary approvals
Submissions should outline a project timetable for scheme delivery for either design and plot one or design and plots one, two and three. Key targets and milestones should be shown.
2.8 Quality of the RSL consortium
All RSL partners have been through a selection process and have evidenced their strengths, financial viability and missions. Submissions should outline any consortium arrangement specific to
this project and project management structures and liaison arrangements which the council would work with.
Value for money for the Council and the RSL/Consortiums purchase price (plot 1 including design, optional plots 2&3)
The site is located in a popular part of the Borough with significant development potential.
The Council have identified a need for three houses/bungalows for rent, three houses/bungalows to buy at affordable levels and one disabled persons unit. There has also been interest in shared ownership. A second survey of residents will confirm any additional interest from exiting households. The Council require plot one to accommodate the rehousing needs of residents being relocated.
Plots one, two and three should provide a range of affordable housing reflecting the housing market assessment 2007 and support transformational change in Maltby. This brief states a potential for sixty affordable units on the site.
Submissions are required to set out their business plan assumptions, land valuations and any capital receipt the Council may reasonably anticipate for the land. Submissions should outline assumptions relating to external funding such as Regional Housing Board/Housing Corporation monies. A summary of funding uncertainties and risks should be included.
2.9 Planning Status within the Design Brief
This design brief has been prepared by the Housing Market Renewal Team to address housing regeneration. It has not formally been considered by the Local Planning Authority. Any scheme proposed is subject to satisfying the Local Planning Authority.
8 Design Brief
Aspirations for…
Braithwell Road
Housing Market Renewal - RMBC
9 1.0 Introduction
1.1 This brief sets out the design principles to redevelop the non-traditional housing lying on the West side of Braithwell Road. The site outlined presents an opportunity to create sustainable housing quality based around public realm of the highest standard.
1.2 This document is intended to be used as a guide for developers when considering proposals for the development of the site; it will also be used as a reference document against which any submissions may be considered.
1.3 It’s an objective of Rotherham Housing Market Renewal to raise the standards of housing in Maltby and provide residents with greater choice, this site will be seen as an opportunity to create aspirational living and be an exemplar for future developments.
1.4 The development of the entire site will be split into three stages; this is to allow work to commence sooner and to potentially gain new revenue, while relocation of some existing residents can be ongoing.
2.0 The Site
2.1 The main site is situated in the heart of the town, within half a kilometre from Maltby Comprehensive School, Maltby Manor Junior & Infants School and the Civic Centre. The site is generally level and lies on the West side of Braithwell Road which dissects the town from the main High Street out to Braithwell, a small settlement to the North.
2.2 The surrounding area is predominantly residential with semi-detached dwellings and bungalows of a good standard. Properties within the site consist of non-traditional semis of a poor aesthetic quality where
10 boundary treatment is irregular and generally unsightly. Some of this housing has already been cleared to the North of Newland Avenue.
2.3 Braithwell Road is a busy main route and is unique in the way it is supported by parallel secondary roads either side that take lighter traffic. Large green verges separate these secondary roads yet these remain relatively underused as amenity spaces and landscape features.
11 View of largely unused space between Bratithwell Road and the property line.
2.4 At the very North section of the site there is a green space to the back of surrounding homes; this space acts as a pedestrian thoroughfare and is frequently used.
12 2.5 To the North East of the main site are a public house ‘The Manor Hotel’ and a local store by the crossroads of Braithwell Road and Salisbury Road.
3.0 Development Potential
3.1 The main objective within the Braithwell Road site is to break away from the poor image of the Tarrans estate and create high quality residential living based partly on the improvement to public realm and communal space. There is an opportunity to reach high environmental standards which are supported by Policies UTL3.3 Energy Conservation and UTL3.4 Renewable Energy of the Rotherham Unitary Development Plan, and PPS3: Housing, paragraph 15. These
policies broadly state that new development, including affordable housing, should incorporate environmentally friendly principles.
3.2 There is a need for a mix of accommodation within Maltby, particularly single person; however this site may be more suitable for family/middle age/retired accommodation.
3.3 Key Issues
Pedestrian permeability from the site to the East of Maltby is on the whole poor.
Green spaces that surround the site don’t encourage a range of uses.
Anti-social behaviour is taking place within the thoroughfare to the North of the site, currently bound by rear garden fencing meaning the plot isn’t overlooked.
Need for a stronger frontage on Braithwell Road
Need to create some enclosure for potential properties facing Braithwell Road.
Need to improve gateways into the site from the main road.
4.0 Requirements
4.1 Eco Standards – Any residential development should meet EcoHomes standards of Very Good or Excellent which is a vitally important element in Rotherham’s push to create sustainable neighbourhoods.
4.2 Building for Life – Schemes should be aspiring to meet the requirements of ‘Building for Life’ criteria to ensure quality of life for the residents that live within it.
4.3 Secure by Design – The chosen developer should adhere to ‘Secure by Design’ recommendations and work in tandem with the local ‘Police Architectural Liaison Officer’ (ALO) to ensure issues of crime and anti
13 social behaviour can be designed out of the scheme as much as possible at an early stage.
4.4 Lifetime Homes – Properties must be adaptable for the changing lives of current and future occupants, meeting the 16 design features that ‘Lifetime Homes’ specifications require.
4.5 The winning developer must be prepared to build a good two-way relationship with the existing community and involve them as much as possible, adjusting designs where appropriate to meet their needs and accommodate ideas.
5.0 Design Guidance
5.1 Landmarks Vistas and Focal Points
New development should enhance views and vistas provided along Braithwell Road, preserving yet adding interest to what are currently featureless green verges. It is important to note that the green verges form part of the adopted highway along Braithwell Road and as a consequence should be retained.
The ‘Manor Hotel’ and local shop provides the area with an activity node and focal point, which needs to be recognized in any scheme put forward.
14 5.2 Scale and Massing
During consultation concerns were raised by local residents regarding any building of three storey properties, reference was made to a nearby new development where inappropriate scale within a tight space has been produced.
However the setting of Braithwell Road is not comparable, the vast space between homes on opposite sides gives an opportunity to create a stronger frontage with appropriate scale elevations on this main road. Design of such properties must be done sensitively with local residents views in mind. Dormers and loft conversions with velux windows can create 3 storey space without the need for as much building mass.
Within the site on Newland Avenue properties either side should be two storeys in height in response to the depth of road and design of nearby properties.
Attention to detail must be paid to corner properties, making the most of dual aspects and creating character to the street.
Building lines where possible should respond to inherent building lines on surrounding and adjoining streets.
Polices ENV3.1 Development and the Environment, ENV3.2 Minimising the Impact of Development, HG5 The Residential Environment, ENV2 Conserving the Environment, T6 Location and Layout of New Development of the Rotherham Unitary Development Plan all encourage and support well designed development which have regard to architectural style, relationship to the locality, scale, density, height, massing, quality of materials, site features, local vernacular characteristics, screening and landscaping.
15 5.3 Edges & Connectivity
Stronger landscaped verges beside Braithwell Road will give properties on the secondary street some enclosure and add green life to there view. This will provide visual interest to edges which are at present uninspiring.
The Green plot to the North of the site currently allows for good pedestrian permeability between Yarwell Drive, Upperfield Close and Newland Avenue which is of high importance to keep adjoining sites connected. Any development within this plot must be done sensitively to keep this access, improving footpaths and appearance.
Further pedestrian access need to be created between Newland Avenue and Braithwell Road to allow better permeability, reduce block size and improve the relationship between the two streets.
Policies T7 Public Rights of Way and Policy T8 Access of the Rotherham Unitary Development Plan aim to safeguard, maintain and improve existing public rights of way. The plan also recognises and supports the idea that rights of way networks can be an important means of linking up pubic open space.
5.4 Hierarchy of Spaces
As the site isn’t used by vehicles as a thoroughfare internally it opens up the potential for the streets to become shared spaces where pedestrians have higher priority over motor vehicles. This Homezone effect would be along the length of Newland Avenue and Braithwell Roads secondary street. These should be well landscaped and be designed for the use of residents.
Communal space at a point half way along Newland Avenue might provide an incidental area for activity.
5.5 Urban Grain
The current grain of this area within Maltby is defined by a series of Cul-de-sac’s and long suburban blocks of semi-detached housing. This makes for poor permeability so shorter and more varied perimeter blocks might be encouraged where possible.
5.6 Building Design & Materials
Building design must be of high quality yet respond well to the environment within which it sits. What is not required would be a generic house type that doesn’t relate to Maltby or a design that doesn’t fit with properties nearby. Character and creativity must gel to create visually exciting architecture.
Measures to reduce the environmental impact of the scheme through innovative construction methods, type and sourcing of materials, reuse
16 of run-off greywater, and use of renewable energies while maximising solar gain would be desired.
Easily maintained defensible space should be incorporated at the front of properties.
Ideas for design features may be such things as Herringbone brickwork which can be found on one of the town’s oldest landmarks, St Bartholomew’s Church, or the use of Magnesium Limestone which is historically common of the district.
All efforts must be made to ensure utilities such as electric meters are well designed into the properties and not an afterthought of the design process, similarly adequate and attractive storage of bins must be part of the initial designs.
5.7 Activity and Community Safety
Efforts must be made to ensure that there aren’t secluded spots within the site and communal/shared spaces are well overlooked. Anti social behaviour on the green plot to the north that links Newland Avenue with Upperfield Close and Yarwell Drive must be dealt with while maintaining connectivity.
6.0 Public Art
6.1 Any fencing or gates that must be erected should be looked upon as an opportunity to add design detail and could be seen as sculptural items.
6.2 Any structural components from the colliery that can be salvaged or replicated could be used as sculptural pieces on the site, which would identify strongly with the wider community in Maltby and provide a feature for the site.
17
7.0 Lighting and Street Lighting
7.1 The issue of lighting should not just be about the street, developers will be encouraged to be imaginative with light and use it to highlight features of the design and landscape, without being intrusive for the residential properties.
7.2 Particular attention might be paid to environmental improvements to the verges beside Braithwell Road and there could be an interactive element to the lighting within the site.
Above: Trees have been uplit as a feature of the site.
8.0 Landscape Design and Public Spaces
8.1 Street treatment can be used to differentiate the hierarchy of space and to make motorists aware that they are demoted in terms of priority coming from Braithwell Road onto its secondary street or Newland Avenue.
8.2 These Homezone style streets should be able to work without the need for road markings and there should be a reduced need for signage, positioning of any necessary signs should be well coordinated with highways to reduce clutter and be accommodated in a more aesthetically pleasing way.
18 8.3 Both Braithwell Road’s secondary street and Newland Avenue should relate closely to the green environment and become none linear paths for motorists, reducing slightly in width at certain points. Verges may spread into the streets and while trees may be planted to add life to them, especially along Braithwell Road where planting of trees could really enhance the area and become a feature of the site.
8.4 The provision of seating and play spaces will provide points of interaction for residents, they must be visually attractive, suitably planted, well lit and overlooked.
8.5 A green route within the site must help to link it with green spaces in the vicinity such as Yarwell Drive, Sailsbury Road and Maltby Manor Recreation area. All these areas are considered to be high value, high quality green spaces and as such should be enhanced and protected. This linking up of green space will provide the foundations for a future vision of linking green spaces within Maltby and opening up pedestrian routes to the East of Maltby.
8.6 The scheme must tackle the issues of pedestrian crossing on Braithwell Road, incorporating well landscaped and planted routes which clearly define safe crossing points.
9.0 Parking
9.1 The site’s streets do not need to be dominated by parked cars as destinations within Maltby are easily commutable on foot or cycle. Built in parking should be considered for housing which may also be used as a defensible secured space, like examples in Amsterdam and closer to home in Oldham.
9.2 Shared street space should be adaptable to accommodate parking without deterring pedestrian activity.
19 Above: Parking within shared space. Northampton
10.0 Access
10.1 Adequate vehicle access for residents and visitors must be provided within the site, while disabled pedestrian access must also be catered for and integrated into the footpaths and streets in line with Policy T8 of the Rotherham Unitary Development plan.
10.2 If the street network is to be remodelled, highways should be approximately 20m in length to encourage walking with vehicle turning heads at 20m intervals. Turning heads need to be wide enough to accommodate a refuse or emergency vehicle.
11.0 Public Transport & Cycling
11.1 It is vital for the sustainability of Maltby that public transport is encouraged and well supported. This is an important feature within the design of the scheme and resolution regarding the bus stop currently on Braithwell Road’s secondary street is a priority. The potential repositioning of the bus stop must be well integrated into the design of pedestrian routes, crossings and paths within and around the site.
11.2 The provision of cycling must be catered for and seen as practical form of travel within Maltby. There must be provision of private storage for cycles where relevant.
12.0 Planning Policy Constraints
12.1 Public Highways
Regard need to be had for the legally adopted highways which run through the garage site located to the South of Upperfield Close, particularly if this part of the site is going to be developed for housing. Adopted highways have a higher status than public rights of way. If it is
20 considered appropriate to extinguish them there is a need to apply to highways for a legal order. This is advertised locally and thus open to public objection. If the objections cannot be resolved then the order goes to Public Inquiry.
12.2 There is the option of diverting the highways, rather than extinguishing them. This however needs careful consideration and is supported in principle by Policy T7 Public Rights of Way of the Rotherham Unitary Development Plan. The onus is on the applicant however to demonstrate that the diversion is in the public interest, and in keeping with local land management and planning requirements.
12.4 Urban Greenspace
Policies ENV5 Urban Greenspace, ENV5.1 Allocated Urban Green space seeks to retain urban green space in the Borough unless exceptional circumstances to justify its loss are demonstrated. The Bevan Crescent garage site, included as part of this development opportunity, is currently identified as ‘urban green space’ on the UDP proposals maps and therefore these policies will apply.
Adopted Highway – Maltby
21 12.5 The garage site is also included in the green space audit and classed as ‘amenity greenspace’ with a high quality and low value score. The reference given in the audit is MW6 Upperfield Close. Amenity green space provides opportunities for informal activities close to home or work, or enhancement of the appearance of residential or other areas. PPG17 states that green space with such a score should be retained and enhanced for its primary purpose, or converted for another primary purpose. Only if it is demonstrated impossible to do either of the above (enhance for primary purpose or enhance for secondary purpose), should the open space be lost. It may therefore be more appropriate to retain and enhance this area of green space rather than develop it.
12.6 If however it is considered pertinent to develop this area of green space as part of the wider scheme and there are exceptional circumstances to justify it, there may be a need to provide open space elsewhere in the development, or through a Section 106 agreement secure funds to maintain green space elsewhere in the Borough.
12.7 Density
We will be seeking 35 – 45 units per hectare on this site in line with PPS3: Housing. This is to reflect the character of the local area which has good sized residential curtilages, incorporating private gardens and parking. Although this is slightly less than PPS3 requires (35 – 55 units per hectare) the requirement reflects the general openness of the locality.
12.8 These densities need to be achieved bearing in mind the adopted supplementary planning guidance relating to interhouse spacing. This can be found in the Council’s adopted Supplementary Planning Guidance entitled Housing Guidance 3: Residential Infill Plots.
12.9 SPG HG3: Residential Infill Plots states that there should be 20m minimum between principle elevation, or 12 metres minimum between a principal elevation and an elevation with no habitable room windows (habitable rooms include kitchens, dining rooms and lounges but exclude bathrooms and hallways).
12.10 The guidance also states that any elevation situated less than 10m from a boundary with another residential cartilage should contain no habitable room windows at first floor level. Nor should it contain a window or door to any habitable room or kitchen at ground floor level unless there is adequate screening to prevent loss of privacy.
12.11 Affordable Housing
In line with current affordable housing policy, adopted in April 2004, we are seeking, as a minimum, 15% of the units on site to be affordable. However, as the development opportunity has been created through the demolition of existing social housing stock, we would look at
22
developments which provide in excess of this. Approximately 60 units spread throughout the development would be more appropriate to replace those properties which have been lost, this is would mean the development would be around 50% affordable.
Link to MaltbyOnline Community Discussion Boards Leave your comments |
|
|