Residential Design Guidance Quality Counts Tour 2013 Summary Report

Appendix 1 Brochure and Questionnaire from the tour

Version 1.0 Jan 2014

2013 Quality Counts! Tour Thursday 25 April 2013 Residential Design Guidance: Looking at developments in Wycombe and Vale

Itinerary for today’s tour

09:00 Leave Easton Street, High Wycombe HP11 1NJ

09:30 -10:00 St Dunstans Close, Monks Risborough HP27 9BN

10:30 -11:30 Princes Mary Gate, HP22 5BW

12:00 -12:20 The Avenue, Aylesbury HP21 8AL

12:30 -13:30 Lunch at Stadium, Aylesbury HP21 9PP

14:00 -15:00 , Aylesbury HP19 7HL

15:15 -15:30 The Serpentine, Aylesbury HP19 8RN

15:45 -16:45  Park, Aylesbury HP19 9RA

17:30 Tour ends, Easton Street, High Wycombe HP11 1NJ

Emergency Phone number: 07833 188084 Introduction

Wycombe District Council’s annual Quality Counts! Tour is an opportunity to consider recently developed sites with the aim of identifying learning points for future development.

This year’s tour focus is residential design and feedback from today will help shape our new Residential Design Guidance SPD that will replace our current guidance contained in Appendix 1 of the Local Plan. You may have already been introduced to this through attending one of our recent workshops.

Today we will be visiting a number of residential developments, mostly in which has seen significant housing growth in recent years. It gives us an opportunity to look at how different developments have dealt with design and appearance; parking; amenity space; building relationships; and integrating affordable housing.

To help gather your views we have, as in previous years, prepared a questionnaire for you to fill in. Please answer the questions as we go from site to site. There are also some general questions to complete at the end of the tour.

As an introduction please find below some general commentary on the issues we will be looking at.

1. Character and place making

Character is a pattern or repeated trait that defines a places identity. The key to a successful new development is to find what the essential ingredients are and make sure these are reflected in the new design.

Character is not just about the appearance of a building but can include other attributes. It can be seen through patterns at different levels of scale from the landscape down through settlement pattern, streets, open space, plot patterns and sizes, buildings, materials and details. Together they provide a framework within which new development sits and should respond to.

Designing to improve or reinforce character does not imply to copy what is already there but is instead about following the essential character traits that define the place. Character is not the same as style or about traditional versus contemporary. It’s about designing buildings and spaces that look of the place.

There are some places where character can be ignored or changed, but there need to be good reasons for doing so. For example, in some key locations where something different would aid legibility and place making or where the proposal is of particular high architectural quality.

For each site we are visiting ask the question does this feel and look like a recognisable place? Is it more than just a collection of buildings, roads and spaces? What would you remember about it that would distinguish it from any other place? 2. Street Design & Parking

The street is how most people experience a place – we walk; drive or cycle through it and it is fully open to the public. The street also performs some vital functions – for example: getting residents to and from their house; enabling visitors; connecting places together; allowing bin services; deliveries and emergency access; and providing places for people to park their cars.

Both aspects are needed for a successful street – it must look good and be memorable and function well.

For each site we are visiting ask the question are the streets attractive and easy to navigate; do they provide parking for residents and visitors in an attractive; safe and convenient way?

3. Building relationships

How the buildings relate to each other affects how a place feels and looks; but also how private or overlooked it feels for residents.

Front to front relationships:

A street that is too wide can feel too open and lose its positive sense of place and identity. Just compare a typical 1980’s estate with a typical village street. In general streets with a ratio of more than 1:3 (height to width) will feel too open in a residential context. A street that is wider can still work if street trees are added to reinforce the sense of enclosure.

Rear to rear relationships:

Residents reasonably expect greater levels of privacy to the rear of their properties. To achieve this Wycombe district currently has a policy of a minimum of 25 metres rear to rear.

For each site assess how you feel about the building relationships to the front and the rear. Do they feel too close together; just right; or too far apart?

4. Outdoor private space

The value of outdoor private space to residents depends upon a range of interlinked factors such as privacy; the amount of sun the space gets; how usable it is (is it flat or sloping) and in the case of flats how close is it to the dwelling.

Our current policy assesses the space provided on these qualitative factors rather than the actual size of space provided.

It is generally accepted that each house should have its own garden, however for flats this can be less clear cut. Do all flats need a piece of private space they can call their own or is it appropriate to rely on communal space or is it acceptable to rely on good quality public space that is close by.

For each site try and rate the private outdoor space provided for houses and flats. Think about its privacy; how much sun it might get; how usable it is; how convenient it is.

For flats and apartments look at how this is provided; are their individual spaces and balconies; is there a communal space; are the flats located close to good public space?

5. Affordable housing

The design and location of affordable housing should be fully integrated with the rest of the development. Affordable housing should not be visually distinguishable from the rest of the development. This is important as it will promote the creation of cohesive and inclusive communities.

This may involve the distribution of small groups of affordable housing across a site rather than being concentrated in one location.

In particular affordable housing should not be visually distinguishable from market housing in terms of materials; details; levels of amenity space; parking provision and privacy.

In practice though different standards that are applied for affordable housing and market housing and how they are managed can, despite best intentions, result in an obvious distinction on the ground.

As you visit each site try to spot which are the affordable houses and which are the market houses. We have plans available so you can see if you were right. Are the differences acceptable or not? What is most important? – the materials the buildings are made of or how the parking is provided or bins are stored?

It is worth noting that there is a lot of interaction and overlap between these five issues:

• the character of a place for most people is experienced through walking or passing through the street;

• how the street is experienced is partly dependent upon the building relationships

• rear to rear building distances partly govern the quality of private outdoor space

They all work together to make a successful residential place. The Sites...

Most of our sites are situated within Aylesbury Vale which has seen significant growth over the last few years being part of the South Midlands Growth Area.

However the first site is in Wycombe District at Monks Risborough: 1. St Dunstan’s Close, Monks Risborough

Before the scheme was built the site was part industrial, part residential and paddock.

It is bounded by a stream to the west and woodland to the north, which also forms the boundary to the Chilterns AONB and Green Belt. To the south is St Dunstans Church yard green space and the Monks Risborough Conservation Area. To the east is Courtmoor Close, a 1980’s housing development.

The key issues raised by the scheme were, how to treat the Mill Lane frontage, retain existing trees along the boundary, and provide a buffer to the stream. Houses bounding the AONB and conservation area were designed to take account of comments made so that they were more appropriate to that setting (e.g. inclusion of chimneys). The relationship with Courtmoor Close was problematic due to levels retaining walls and the existing parking layout.

It was concluded that the scheme would be an efficient use of previously developed land, and would deliver an attractive, high quality residential environment that respects the established character of the area and the neighbouring properties.

Key Statistics:

Site area: 1.67 Hectares (4.13 acres)

52 dwellings (1-5 bed flats and houses) 31 dwellings per hectare

Parking provision: 133 spaces: (59% on plot; 27% front parking court; 14% rear parking court. 2.5 spaces per dwelling); 5% visitor spaces (1 visitor space; to 22 allocated spaces)

Road widths: 4.1-5.4 metres

Amenity space: For the houses: gardens range from 28-170m2; average area 70m2; depth ranges from 7-15 metres

For the flats: a combination of balconies and small gardens

Building relationships: front to front: 9-18 metres; rear to rear: 15-35 metres

Affordable provision: 30% and grouped in two courts adjacent to Courtmoor Close

2. Princess Mary Gate, Wendover

This development is located on the former Princess Mary’s Hospital site, to the south of the RAF Halton Camp.

The site previously accommodated medical training and administrative facilities along with general RAF hospital services. Part of the site lies within the Chilterns AONB and is bordered by existing housing. Outline permission was granted in 2005 with a Design Code following in 2007 with the more detailed matters considered in 2008.

The design of the new dwellings aimed to follow the spatial and built form and characteristics of existing streets in Wendover and Halton. The design code included requirements regarding materials including for example requiring 65% of the buildings having timber framed windows.

Key issues raised by this scheme were: the retention of the existing trees and woodland which included the provision of a 8.4 hectare woodland buffer zone; building heights (1.5-4 storey) and density (16-56 dwellings per ha); the provision of a play area close to existing and proposed dwellings and the provision of parking which is slightly under the councils maximum standards.

Key Statistics:

Site area: 11.5 Hectares (28.42 acres) (including 8.4 hectares of woodland buffer zone)

400 dwellings (36 dwellings per ha) 156 one & two bed flats & 244 two to five bed houses

Parking provision: 717 spaces (11% on street allocated; 52% on plot; 3% front parking court 17% rear parking court; 17% Visitor spaces (on street and in courts) 1.8 spaces per dwelling overall; 1 visitor space to 4.9 allocated spaces

Road widths: 6 - 3 metres

Amenity space: For the houses gardens range from 35-400 m2; average area being 65 m2; depth of gardens ranges from 7 to 25 metres; the flats have communal gardens and some have balconies.

Building relationships: front to front: 9-15 metres; rear to rear: 20-45 metres

Affordable provision: 30% with 10 % low cost market housing. Grouped in approx 4-8 units throughout site with some larger apartment blocks.

3. The Avenue, Aylesbury

The site forms part of the Stoke Mandeville Hospital and formerly had 1940’s built single storey hospital accommodation, with a tree lined avenue through the centre of the site.

Apart from the hospital it is surrounded by residential development and the Stoke Mandeville stadium. Now surplus to the hospitals requirements it forms part of a wider site that includes residential; car parking; retail and open space uses guided by a concept statement produced by the Council.

This scheme gained planning permission in 2008. As well as housing, it provides a new direct vehicle, pedestrian and cycle link to the stadium; a central open space that incorporates the existing avenue of trees and a multi use games area facility.

It was considered to embody the principles of good urban design and be varied and distinctive in terms of layout and design. The affordable units achieved Code for Sustainable Homes level 3.

Key Statistics:

Site area: 7.31 Hectares (18.06 acres)

330 dwellings (45 dwellings per ha) 120 two bed flats & 8 two bed houses; 173 three bed houses and 29 four bed houses

Parking provision: 624 spaces (25% on street allocated; 15% on plot; 10% front parking court 40% rear parking courts; 10% Visitor spaces (on street and in courts) 1.9 spaces per dwelling overall; 1 visitor space to 10 allocated spaces

Road widths: 6 to 3.5 metres

Amenity space: For the houses gardens range from 45 to 150m2; average area being 57m2; depth of gardens ranges from 9 to 18 metres; The flats have communal gardens and some have balconies.

Building relationships: front to front: 11-65 metres; rear to rear: 20-25 metres

Affordable provision: 30% with 10 % low cost market housing. Pepper potted throughout the site.

4. Fairford Leys, Aylesbury

Fairford Leys is a new village of approximately 1,900 homes. It has its own village centre with a number of traditionally fronted shops, a small supermarket, two restaurants, a nursery, an ecumenical church and a community centre. It also has a Health Club with swimming pool which was opened in October 2003.

The driving force behind the design and concept for the village was the landowner the Ernest Cook Trust, a nationally operated, charitable foundation with interests in land ownership, conservation, architecture, design and community development.

The intention was to create an environment similar to that of a village, with architecture inspired by traditional Aylesbury housing in the town centre. It was planned using a masterplan and design code which were drawn up by John Simpson & Partners Architects. The design codes are enforced by the landowner (Ernest Cook Trust) through private covenants with individual householders, and contain restrictions on alterations to properties.

The centre of the village is surrounded by the “city wall”, a concept originating from the masterplanner John Simpson and inspired by mediaeval city walls, such as York. This consists of three and four storey townhouses and the main entrance to the centre is marked by two towers, loosely modelled on mediaeval gate towers. The centre contains a higher density of housing, with larger detached properties at the edge of the village. The design includes plenty of play areas, open spaces, playing fields and a golf course.

Key Statistics for a representative area of the village:

Site area: 5 Hectares (12.36 acres)

180 dwellings (36 dwellings per ha) 16 flats & 164 houses

Parking provision: 325 allocated spaces (6% on street allocated; 30% on plot; 24% rear parking courts; 40% in garages)

1.8 spaces per dwelling overall; Visitor spaces un-allocated on street

Road widths: 8 to 4.5 metres

Amenity space: For the houses gardens range from 30 to 160m2; average area being 56m2; depth of gardens ranges from 8 to 15 metres; the flats have communal gardens .

Building relationships: front to front: 8 to 25 metres; rear to rear: 20 to 40 metres

Affordable provision: Not known.

5. The Serpentine, Aylesbury

The site is set within a part residential part industrial context facing Oxford Road, one of the main routes into Aylesbury.

The scheme was part of the Design for Manufacture Scheme which sought to demonstrate that homes could be designed and built for £60,000. It was selected due to its distinctive S shape and its use of prefabricated timber frame construction which was both flexible and highly energy efficient. The components for the units have been manufactured by Weberhaus in Germany and then assembled on site; this allowed each unit to be constructed in approximately one day. The scheme met code for sustainable homes level 3 and includes air source heat pumps, many of the units are also built to Lifetime Homes Standard.

In a design review by the South East Regional Panel the scheme was praised for the originality of the concept and the way it responded to such a difficult site.

The external area has been designed using home-zone principles which gives priority to pedestrians and cyclists providing a shared surface for vehicles/ shared surface.

Key Statistics:

Site area: 1.4 hectares (3.46 acres)

94 dwellings (21 one bed flats; 42 two bed flats; 17 two bed houses; 10 three bed houses; 4 four bed houses) 67 dwellings per hectare

Parking provision: 96 spaces; 86% located in within the frontage and 14% on street. 1 space per dwelling.

2 visitor spaces (2%) that could also be used for a car sharing scheme.

Amenity space: For the houses: gardens average area 50m2 ranges from 5m2 to 100m2 Depth ranges from 6 to 19 metres;

For the flats: private or communal areas;

Building relationships: front to front: 20-30 metres; rear to rear: 40 to 55 metres

Affordable provision: 40%: 27 rented; 10 shared ownership; 36 first buy initiative; located throughout the terrace.

6. Buckingham Park, Aylesbury

Bucking Park is a 850 house green field development on the north edge of Aylesbury, bounded by countryside to the north and the River Thame to the south.

It was designated a major development area as part of Aylesbury’s growth area. Although some phases are still under construction a significant part has been completed.

A Design code for the whole site was adopted in 2004 regulates the design and layout of the whole site. It took its inspiration in part from Aylesbury Old Town – a conservation area in the town centre.

The scheme includes a district centre; a new primary school and is linked by a series of landscaped “Greenways”.

Phase 1 built by Taylor Wimpey has a hierarchy of a Main Street giving way to streets and lanes formed from perimeter blocks. The houses are traditional in form with 35-45 degree pitches and shallower in depth to many modern schemes (6-8.5 metres). The higher density of the scheme has resulted in smaller gardens and in some cases reduced window to window distances. Parking provision was provided in accordance with national PPG3 guidance standards.

Key Statistics for phase 1:

Site area: 5.35 hectares (13.22 acres)

215 dwellings (1; 2; 3; & 4 bed dwellings) 40 dwellings per hectare

Parking provision: 364 spaces; 40% garages; 14% carports and 20% on hard standing on plot and 25% in rear parking courts. 1.7 spaces per dwelling.

14 designated visitor spaces with more spaces available informally on street

Road widths: 9 to 3.5 metres

Amenity space: For the houses: gardens average area 60m2 ranges from 35m2 to 120m2 Depth ranges from 5 to 15 metres; for the flats: juliet balconies; .

Building relationships: front to front: 8 to 14 metres; rear to rear: 17 to 25 metres

Affordable provision: 30% with 10% low cost housing

Space for your own personal notes from the tour:

2013 Quality Counts! Tour Thursday 25 April 2013 Residential Design Guidance: Looking at developments in Wycombe and Aylesbury Vale