Newcastle-under-Lyme and Stoke-on-Trent Urban Design guidance

Consultation Draft

Summary of Consultation

January 2010 Summary of Consultation

Urban Vision programme of training/ consultation events

Newcastle-under-Lyme and Stoke-on-Trent Urban Design Guidance ii Summary of Consultation

Tibbalds Planning and Urban Design, together with Summary of key issues identifi ed by workshops Urban Vision North Staffordshire, prepared and ran 13th & 20th May 2008 Programme 13th May 2008, Burslem School of Art. a joint programme of events, including an element 9:30 Introduction to the project, Urban Vision Local Authority and Pathfi nder Offi cers. of training and consultation for the Urban Design What are the key urban design issues that Guidance during 2008. The programme (see 10:00 The Quality of Place: Good and bad signifi cantly infl uence the quality of place here? previous page) involved fi ve events. The following design in North Staffordshire, Urban Vision a. Major routes provide barriers and off the text concentrates on the consultation elements of strategic roads ease of movement is poor. the programme and events directly related to the 10.30 Initial Impressions, Tibbalds preparation of the Urban Design Guidance. b. Pedestrian environment generally poor. 10:50 Quality of Place, Group Discussions c. Lack of character especially in residential Urban Vision organised each session, identifying Break development and a lack of contextual stakeholders, inviting participants and providing references. accommodation, catering and other facilities, 11:40 Review of Current Practice, Group d. Town centres should be more welcoming, have registering attendance, preparing and collecting Discussions distinctive character and with more coherence. feedback responses, and identifying and inviting 12:00 Key Issues from Design Review, Urban e. Need to create better residential areas with guest speakers. Urban Vision and Tibbalds both Vision design tool kits for each type. contributed to the programme for each session, leading different components and providing 12:15 Feedback & Signifi cant Issues for the f. The car should be less dominant. facilitators for group discussions. Design Guidance g. Legibility, particularly views of towns and the landscape quality. Event A: Creating Urban Design Guidance for 12:50 Summary and next steps Newcastle-under-Lyme and Stoke-on-Trent h. Value the best of the old. Networking i. Lack of cross authority policy. 21st April 2008, Newcastle-under-Lyme Civic Offi ces. Open to all stakeholders Event B: Making good places: Design issues in j. Transport corridors need to be dealt with more positively, and be better quality. Its purpose was to inspire the client agencies Newcastle-under-Lyme and Stoke-on-Trent about the project and good design. It comprised These workshops aimed to remind participants k. More diversity of residential tenure and type, a talk by Dean Aggatt on the Oldham & Rochdale of the government’s guidance on urban design better integrated with their surroundings, and experience of producing design guidance, principles, to share the initial impressions of the with centres and greenways. emphasising: consultant team and through group discussions l. Craftsmanship, pockets of excellence, creating to fi nd out the views and priorities of local destinations within conurbation, mix of a. the importance and value of good design; stakeholders in relation to both the place and local attractors, and special image/ identity. b. thinking strategically about design; and practice. Review of current practice locally: What is c. the process of raising the profi le of good design. Three workshop sessions were held, for affecting design quality? What are the barriers? Following this talk, Tibbalds introduced the scope a. Good strategic interaction between partners. a. Local Authority and Housing Market Renewal and programme for the preparation of the Urban Pathfi nder Offi cers; b. Tendency to accept mediocre development. Design Guidance and highlighted the next stage of c. Challenge to create design quality – developer consultation workshops. b. Other stakeholders, such as local developers, RSLs, architects, representatives of statutory buy-in/ commitment queried. agencies such as the Environmental Agency, d. Need to address how redundant sites dealt police etc and amenity societies; and with. c. Elected representatives of both Local e. More positive guidance required. Authorities.

Newcastle-under-Lyme and Stoke-on-Trent Urban Design Guidance 1 Summary of Consultation

‘The‘ The area area has a broken has character a and broken not well connected character ‘ and is not well connected’ ‘Good quality public realm and‘ Good strongquality public realm character’ and strong character ‘ ‘Canal‘ Canal area is a area good amenity is space a ‘good amenity space’

‘Poor‘ Poor quality quality retail out of town retail‘ out of town’

‘Poor quality housing‘ Poor development’ quality housing development ‘

‘Festival Park, poor‘ quality Festival park poor area’ quality area ‘ ‘Good‘ Good quality quality public realm, pedestrain public access and realm, retail mix ( ex: pedestrian Castle walk ) ‘ access and retail mix (eg Castle Walk)’

TunstallTu ta

BurslemB m ‘Poor design for Norton‘ Poor design Heights’ for Norton Heights ‘

‘Cross‘ Cross heath poor Heath quality development poor ‘ quality development’

HaHanleyleeyey

‘Good quality skate‘ Good quality park’ skate park ‘ Newcastle under Lymee

‘Good‘ Good views from views Blackbank fromRoad ‘ Blackbank Road’ Stoketokeke

Fentonon ‘Poor quality public realm and sense of ‘ Poor quality public realm and sense of disorientation and lack of disorientation green and lack areas’ of green areas ‘ Longton ‘Dual‘ Dual carriage carriageway acting as a physical barrier ‘ andacting car parking problems as a physical barrier’ ‘Penkhull area, medieval village with church as ‘ Penkhull area, medieval village with church as a focal focal point and good point quality buildings and ‘ good quality buildings’

‘Good quality public ‘ Good quality public realm in realm in Tontine Square’ Tontine Square ‘ ‘Victoria Hall as a ‘ Victoria Hall as a ‘Trentham Gardens, ‘Good quality public landmarklandmark building building’ ‘ ‘ Trentham Gardens as ‘ Good quality public space at the a tourist a touristic attraction’ attraction ‘ space at Stoke entrance entrance’ of Stoke ‘

Making Good Places: Local examples of good and poor design - Offi cers, 13th May 2008 0 m 5 km 10 km Note: Captions are quoted from comments made during the workshop. Illustrations added by consultant team

Newcastle-under-Lyme and Stoke-on-Trent Urban Design Guidance 2 Summary of Consultation

f. Role of elected members – willing to accept low i. Connectivity – links between towns, use the quality. canals and greenways better, connect the 10th June 2008 Programme g. Role for stronger forums, panels etc. railway station to city centre. 1:30 Introduction to the project, Urban Vision j. Legibility – hard to understand where and what. h. Pressure to process/ determine applications – a 1:40 The Quality of Place: good and bad time/ resource issue. k. Accessibility – better connections between design in North Staffordshire, Urban i. What is working: Development involving historic centres – it’s hard to move about. Vision environment – use same skills elsewhere; little l. Identity – centres need roles, reinforce them things work well eg skate park, public art; some beyond the local. 2:10 Initial Impressions, Tibbalds processes eg Urban Vision. Review of current practice locally: What is 2:25 Review of current place and practice, j. Not working: public authorities need to improve working now? What is affecting design quality? Group Discussion advice given; quality of local architects – need What are the barriers? 3:00 Key Issues from Design Review to raise game; developers not free thinking a. Use existing tool kits to improve design quality, enough; Planning Inspectorate not supportive; for instance Building for Life. 3:25 Feedback & Summary of signifi cant design and access statements not delivering issues and priorities for design guidance enough. b. Win political support – needs strong decisions and planning development grant impedes good k. What is needed: better communication, design design. awards, more reviews. c. Integrate design into all strategies – too many 10th June 2008, Burslem School of Art. 20th May 2008, Burslem School of Art. Other poorly designed schemes “have got to happen”. Elected Representatives stakeholders. d. Awareness of design issues has increased The 3rd workshop was a condensed programme What are the key urban design issues that in last 10 years – both developers and local for elected representatives. signifi cantly infl uence the quality of place here? authority. a. Transportation – links between centres need to e. Confl ict between aspirations for good design This produced a very similar outcome to other be improved. and need for economic development. workshops. b. Identity of centres – investment going into f. Planning process is lengthy. Good design examples: Hanley, but each centre needs its own strong g. Lack of strong policy framework. a. The cultural quarter; role. h. Leadership. b. Keele village; c. Poor quality public realm needs to be improved c. Gladstone Pottery; and to attract/ retain people. i. Build on positives. j. Need for clearer plans. d. The new Stoke Civic Offi ces – as the only d. Competing centres – lack of clarity, nothing to landmark on the A500. distinguish them. k. Lack of resources, skills in local authorities and e. Unique polycentric structure but poor inconsistency. Poor design quality examples: accessibility, poor linkages, each has green l. Economic climate – what is viable in this area. a. Hanley Bus Station; and edge and the urban form should relate to it. b. Tunstall High Street with new retail backing onto f. Lack of housing diversity, particularly at the it. higher end. What are the signifi cant issues to be addressed g. Legibility – routes through area, and between in the Design Guidance? and within centres. a. Design Guide should be used bravely, insist on h. Public realm - need for high quality, better better quality design. maintenance, and clearer use. b. Design Guide needs to raise the bar.

Newcastle-under-Lyme and Stoke-on-Trent Urban Design Guidance 3 Summary of Consultation

‘‘Woolstanton, Walstanton good quality residential a area good ‘ quality residential area’ ‘Burslem town centre, good‘ Burslem public town centre good realm’ public realm ‘

‘Baddeley Edge, pleasant rural feel‘ Baddeley and Edge pleasent organic rural feel and growth’ organic growth ‘ ‘Newcastle‘ Newcastle town centre good town quality public centre, ralm and mix of gooduses ‘ quality public realm and mix of uses’ ‘Poor‘ Poor quality qualityresidential estate residentiali n Keel ‘ estate in Keele’

TunstallTu ta

‘Festival Park, poor quality sheds, ‘ Festivaldominated Park poor quality sheds, by dominated cars’ by cars ‘ ‘High‘ High quality qualityrural areas ‘ rural areas’ BurslemB m

Hanleyannley ‘Hanley, poor quality public realm and sense ‘ Hanley, poor quality public realm and sense of of disorientation, lack of green disorientation, areas’lack of green areas ‘ Newcastlest under Lymey

Stoke ‘Good quality ‘A500‘ A500 acting as acting a barrier between as communities a barrier ‘ between communities’ ‘ Good quality university hospital in Newcastle ‘ Fentononn University Hospital’ ‘Penkhull‘ Penkhull is a leafy urban is village a leafywith a strong urban sense of community village and good facilities with ‘ a strong sense of community and good facilities’ Longton ‘Tesco, Longton, reduced retail activity in‘ Tesco the in Longton high reduced street’ the retail activities on the high street ‘

‘ Good quality office developmnet on ‘Good Campbell Road ‘quality offi ce development on Campbell Road’

‘Hanley Bus Station, poor quality‘ Hanley Bus publicstation poor quality realm’ public realm ‘ ‘Hanley Park, good

quality‘ Hanley Park good urban quality Urban park’ Park ‘ ‘ Victoria Hall as a positive Stoke on Trent town centre is constrained by the ring road ‘Stoke-on-Trent‘ centre is ‘ constrained by the ring road’ landmark building ‘

‘Victoria Hall, a positive landmark building’

Making Good Places: Making Good Places: Local examples of good and poor design - Other stakeholders, 20th May 2008 0 m 5 km 10 km Note: Captions are quoted from comments made during the workshop. Illustrations added by consultant team

Newcastle-under-Lyme and Stoke-on-Trent Urban Design Guidance 4 Summary of Consultation

c. Design Guide must be in plain English. h. Designing out issues in society and reducing d. Better use of canals - links to town centre and 7th July 2008 Programme crime/anti-social behaviour. parks. 9.45 Overview of progress including i. Views-long views, topography, guidance to e. Reduce dominance of motor car and create/ inspirational visit to Sheffi eld, Urban building heights. Vision encourage viable alternatives. Tunstall f. Link new ‘out of town’ developments into town 10.15 The benefi ts of Urban Design Strategies, a. Retain existing community. centres. Biljana Savic, CABE b. Public art strategy. g. Improve movement on conurbation scale - 10.45 Questions and open discussion Burslem better connected centres and links to suburbs. 11.15 An urban design strategy for Newcastle- a. Retain existing community and increase the h. Respect local context - show awareness of affl uence as a whole. detail. upon-Lyme and Stoke-on-Trent, Tibbalds b. Re-use of existing buildings. i. Shed development must be fi tted into high c. More 24 hour economy, stronger connections quality landscape. 11.45 Workshop session to Port Vale and link the public realm to arts and j. Developers should be required to build 12.30 Feedback from workshop groups crafts theme. sustainably. d. Burslem isn’t an addition to the city centre. k. Celebrate uniqueness of the area. 12.50 Summary and next steps l. Aim for coherent development - not limited by Stoke Central group: land ownership constraints. Stoke Event D: Design strategy and design principles a. May link to areas of inspirational housing, ‘the m. Encourage wider range of socio-economic for Newcastle-under-Lyme and Stoke-on-Trent. groups. Villas’ (on London Road). 7th July 2008, School of Art, Burslem. Open to all b. Language: use ‘centres’ not ‘towns’ to ID areas. n. Make most of heritage assets. stakeholders. c. Strengthen distinctive and memorable spaces, Key issues of concern were: Stoke North group: ‘what does this mean?’ say how, more specifi c. a. Improving linkages. General d. Lack of green in urban areas. b. Respecting context. a. Connect the core to the surrounding green e. Should it be linked to the city centre? Need for spaces and increase dwell time of existing c. Aiming for higher quality. more specifi c role and high quality residential. residential. f. Stoke isn’t an addition to the city centre. Event C: Sheffi eld Inspirational Visit b. Defi ne purpose of street, hierarchy/high street. This event was open to all stakeholders and c. Out of town retail undermines town centres. City Centre organised and led by Urban Vision. a. Improve connectivity. d. Cars need to be considered in new b. Add ‘aspirational’. development proposals. c. Add to mix of uses leisure, entertainment, and e. Existing redundant development doesn’t have niche uses. to be replaced by a new one but could be a new landscape area. d. Need more people to create a critical mass. f. Parking facilities/location and ownership (Local e. Connectivity, pedestrian and cycle, public authority). transport. g. Enforcement of contraventions needs to be f. Strengthen commitment to greening centres. more robust.

Newcastle-under-Lyme and Stoke-on-Trent Urban Design Guidance 5 Summary of Consultation

g. Getting away from the town idea to absorb the h. Promote Longton as a centre for business and k. Partnership between private and public sector. centres concept is crucial. industry- the centre is still the biggest Pottery l. Links to Lyme Valley and Apedale and other h. Very good concept of separation and integration employer. green areas. of urban and landscape. i. Promote Fenton as an urban village and Kidsgrove important connecting area, with possible i. Strengthen section around distinctive and a. RENEW/ Galleys Bank (look at RENEW’s work. memorable spaces. recreational use and improvements for Victoria Road, the general landscaping and the b. Not a village feel, it is a town. j. Say be distinctive, not how to be distinctive gateways of the centre (where it starts and c. Historically and culturally linked to Cheshire (areas don’t need to be detailed). where it ends). (cross border vision). Stoke South group Newcastle-under-Lyme group: d. Rail network to be reinforced to improve a. Lack of joined up thinking between partners Kidsgrove location, status and potential. Newcastle-under-Lyme and local authority departments. a. Distinctive character, what do we mean by a e. Canal link is crucial and should be enhanced b. More coherent signage and legibility. ‘focused landscape feel’ and where would it be for Kidsgrove to become the gateway into c. Connections between the areas, issues on created? North Staffordshire (threshold between North Staffordshire and Cheshire). Victoria Road and ‘not fi t’ for purpose. b. Ensuring the green space strategy fi ts in. d. Need to clarify approach in ‘shatter zones’, c. Distinctive sub-characters, like Keele Science location of urban and rural not clear. Park and University should be promoted. e. Defi ne ‘urban’ housing by scale. d. Need to unpick what we mean by University f. Each centre should have sustainable level of Town, as it is an economic character not a development according to its size. physical appearance. g. Cycle ways should follow landscape network. e. These need commitment. Be prepared to invest h. Greater emphasis on sustainability and to realise the vision. importance of maintenance. f. Continuity- long-term vision, people need to i. Make each centre distinctive with its own understand it is for 20 years+. unique character and asset. g. Successful Centres: Newcastle has already a j. Encourage small new business start-up units. strong identity (market town) - Reinforce this character with a ‘City Centre’ high quality public Fenton and Longton: realm (innovative design). a. Encourage a better sense of place through the h. More emphasise on cohesive partnerships. quality of the environment. i. Local authorities should be prepared to use b. Support local specialisms, like Sinnertons bike CPO powers to carry plans through and shop. maintain quality standards. c. Each centre must understand its role. j. Requires commitment to public funding/ d. Encourage events and facilities for visitors. ownership. e. Improve the use of Longton station. f. Improve approaches- at present many eyesores. g. Potential for enterprise/start-up units.

Newcastle-under-Lyme and Stoke-on-Trent Urban Design Guidance 6 Summary of Consultation

Other consultation with key stakeholders Stoke-on-Trent Members Event E: Urban Design Guidance - Other consultation during the initial stages of a. Michael Barnes, Chair of Development Control Understanding and using the document work included briefi ngs with representatives of Committee. The fi nal two workshops were set up to explore the different members of the client group and b. Peter Kent Baguley, Design and Heritage the draft guidance as it was emerging. Following a selection of key stakeholders, as agreed with Champion. an introduction of the guide, workshop sessions Urban Vision, the client project manager. These explored how to use the guide. Representatives of other key stakeholders took place via meetings, informal discussions or by The fi rst session was for Local Authority and telephone interviews. a. Phil Wootton, Hulme Upright Manning. Pathfi nder offi cers and elected representatives. b. Pat Redmond, Christopher Taylor Design. RENEW At this session Geoff Wright from CABE gave c. Mike Herbert, St Modwen Developments. a. Harmesh Jassal, Development Manager. a talk on the use of urban design guidance in d. Andy Perkin, Potteries Heritage Society. b. Glyn Roberts, Development Director. making planning decisions. The second workshop was primarily for other stakeholders, such as c. Debbie Hope, Programme Manager. developers, architects, police, transport offi cers d. Seb Price, PRP, consultant to RENEW. and EA, although some Local Authority offi cers Newcastle-under-Lyme Borough Council attended as well. Formal feedback, set out below, was collected via feedback forms. a. Trevor Carter, Community Strategy Manager. b. Guy Benson, Development Control Manager. 6th November 2008, School of Art, Burslem. c. Louise Wallace, Design and Conservation Offi cers. Offi cer. 6th & 13th November 2008 Programme How did you fi nd the Design SPD? a. Very Useful/ helpful (6). Stoke-on-Trent City Council 9.45 Introduction and review of progress, b. Useful/Impressive/comprehensive (3). a. Kevin Benfi eld, Development Control Manager Urban Vision c. Overall good, needs some fi ne tuning (2). North Team. 10.00 Presentation of draft guidance, Tibbalds b. Brian Davies, Planning Policy Manager. d. Legible, easy to follow, detailed. 10.25 Using urban design guidance in making c. Paul Feehily, Head of Planning Policy & e. Useful but lengthy in hard copy format, but will planning decisions, Geoff Wright, CABE be better as interactive CD. Development (apologies). Regional Representative (6 Nov only) f. Document is very large accessibility and easy to North Staffordshire Regeneration Partnership 10.45 Questions and open discussion use needs to be ensured (3). a. Tom Macartney, Managing Director. 10.55 Briefi ng for workshops, Tibbalds g. Document is technical maybe diffi cult for some b. Rachel Laver. (2). 11.20 Workshops testing examples of typical AWM h. At times a lot of jargon is used (lay-person may development proposals not understand) (4). a. Sally Evans, Partnerships Manager. 12.20 Feedback from workshop groups i. Useful introduction on how the document can Newcastle-under-Lyme Members be used to assess applications. 12.50 Summary a. Robin Studd, Design and Heritage Champion. j. Can’t tell yet / need more time (3). b. Andrew Fear, Chair of Planning Committee.

Newcastle-under-Lyme and Stoke-on-Trent Urban Design Guidance 7 Summary of Consultation

Any issues or comments? Is anything missing? e. Enlightening and thought provoking. a. Headline requirements should be more a. No. f. It was very dense (1). emphatically presented, be more explicit and b. Retail section (3). g. Too long, asks questions instead of providing use ‘must’ rather than ‘should’. c. Reference to masterplanning projects. answers. b. Document is not for quick reference - needs d. More on town centres. h. Found it diffi cult to access. familiarity. e. More on sustainability, eco, renewables (4). i. Can’t tell yet / need more time (2). c. List of questions, still allow ambiguity & f. Scale and height of buildings, particular at focal subjective opinion - may lead to inconsistency Any issues or comments? points. and dissatisfaction. a. Small pocket document would be helpful. g. Specifi c guidance, eg separation distances. d. Hyperlinks need more explanation. b. Cross reference to other documents h. Relationship between dwellings. (masterplans) important. e. Need to read whole document (3). i. More clarity and detail needed for it to carry c. Regarding materials, minimum distances, will f. Rural section: useful and explained very well. ‘weight’ in discussion with developers. existing appendix to city plan remain in place? g. Residential section: very general, can be open j. A glossary of terms (2). d. Very generic, not very specifi c. to interpretation. k. Can’t tell yet/ need more time (5). e. More detailed SPD required on housing h. Level of detail is too high. extensions, shopfronts. i. Incorporation of vision, key strategic Do you feel confi dent using the Design SPD in f. Duplication with other best practice documents approaches should be avoided (left for core an interactive format? (i.e. CABE) (2). strategy). a. Yes (12). g. Duplication with CSS, more focus on design j. Confl ict between masterplanning projects and b. Yes, with some changes and additional issues. guide might be a problem. information. h. Layout a bit dense in places; k. Cross referencing would be useful and c. Not yet / can’t tell (4). summary boxes. d. Developers may struggle (2). i. To structure from macro scale to micro scale.. j. Need to consider how document can be used l. Needs to be careful not to stray into policy.. Do you think further training and support on the in group discussion. m. Strategic subregional maps need to be clearer. Design SPD would be of benefi t to you? k. Excellent to be involved this early (developer). n. Some points could be condensed (some a. No (3). principles are very similar) (2). b. Yes (8). l. ‘Crib sheet” would be helpful (2). Are you satisfi ed with the content? c. Yes for planning professionals, developers, Are you satisfi ed with the content? a. Yes (5). members (7). a. Yes (8). b. Yes, but important to integrate with Newcastle d. Ongoing support would be useful. b. Yes, follows Building for Life. town centre SPD. e. SPD needs to be accessible for all. c. Yes, provided that role and purpose is clearly set out. c. Largely, but some repetition of statutory and 13th November 2008, School of Art, Burslem. adopted policy. Other stakeholders d. Broadly (2). d. Relatively, need to see more. e. No, detailed level missing. How did you fi nd the Design SPD? e. Can’t tell yet/ need more time (3). a. Very informative/useful (7). f. Can’t tell yet/ need more time (3). b. Excellent. c. Easy to read / easy to use reference (4). d. In limited time, very good.

Newcastle-under-Lyme and Stoke-on-Trent Urban Design Guidance 8 Summary of Consultation

Is anything missing? Design Review a. Further ‘plug-in’ documents providing more Design review has been held at two stages of the detail (2). preparation of the Urban Design Guidance, these b. Sustainability/ biodiversity (3). being: c. Mixed use/ retail (2). a. the strategic urban design vision and initial d. Evidence of synergy between SPD and other stages of work; and planning policies/documents. b. the draft detailed urban design guidance e. Related documentation to assist in strategic document. principles. The document has been revised in response to the f. Something up front to stress collaboration points raised by the design review panel wherever among stakeholder in design process. possible. g. Best practice design process (2). h. Can’t tell yet/ need more time (1). Do you feel confi dent using the Design SPD in an interactive format? a. No, prefer paper copy. b. Yes (12). c. Yes, due to its density may lead to more pre- application discussion. d. Yes, but hard copies useful for discussions. e. Developers may struggle. Do you think further training and support on the Design SPD would be of benefi t to you? a. No, would prefer to spend time to feed into detailed SPD. b. No (4). c. Yes (7). d. Yes, for development control and policy offi cers. e. Possibly once it’s in use (2).

Newcastle-under-Lyme and Stoke-on-Trent Urban Design Guidance 9 Summary of Consultation

This Urban Design Guidance was commissioned by RENEW, North Staffordshire Regeneration Partnership, Stoke-on-Trent City Council, Newcastle-under-Lyme Borough Council, and Advantage West Midlands.

Project-managed by Urban Vision North Staffordshire.

Produced by Tibbalds Planning and Urban Design.