URBAN DESIGN CONFERENCE 10 September 2005 Workshop 1 Assessment of Quality

Morning Exercise: Strategic and Environmental Planning Officers in attendance Sally Blomfield Philip James Brendon Roberts Marion Wardell Dan Zaslona Jeff Wilson Andrew Wells Iain Bailey Working in the 4 Area Committee groups of; and Wallington and Clockhouse Sutton and Delegates were given photo boards depicting each area and a plan. Areas/features of good and poor quality were identified and this was separated into character and appearance (‘place’ and ‘personality’). Individual features were also highlighted for praise or criticism. ∗ denotes a point which a number of delegates made.

Findings:

BEDDINGTON AND WALLINGTON

Good Quality – Place

• Built Environment

Cottages in Byron Avenue / Cowper Avenue Wallington are attractive. Regeneration at has improved the estate from a concrete jungle to family friendly accommodation. Conservation Areas in the Beddington area. Wallington Green Conservation area∗. Residential housing in Wallington is well spaced and there are fewer flats. South Wallington has retained much of its Edwardian character. The Phoenix Centre which is attractive, modern and accessible to people with mobility problems. Trinity Centre attached to Holy Trinity Church, Maldon Road.

• Wallington Town Centre Farmers Market is attractive and lively Comprehensive range of Banks and shops There are good public transport connections within Beddington and Wallington, including the Tram, Trains and Buses.

• Open Space Beddington Park is a very attractive area.∗∗∗ ∗∗∗ Wildlife Hospital is an interesting feature and attraction. Buildings in Beddington Park are of heritage quality. Wallington Green has a pleasant traditional character. Open spaces on Roundshaw are a valuable resource. Large area of open MOL to the north of the borough in Beddington, is a national asset as most open space is to the south.

Good Quality – Personality • Sainsbury has improved economic vitality • Community activities that take place • Beddington Park has a range of character areas, which suit different moods. • Farmers Market has introduced specialist goods

Poor Quality – Place • Built Environment St Helier Estate has been neglected and has lost its original charm. Roundshaw Estate is not well maintained. Roundshaw Shopping Area has a lack of planting. Roundshaw Estate lacks a sense of Place and quality. At least the ‘old’ had a distinctive identity. Housing at Hillcrest Road is grim, cheap and ostentatious.

• Wallington Town Centre No active shop fronts onto significant corners.∗∗∗ Public space is poorly maintained. Narrow pavements, which inhibits freedom of movement Large number of empty shops, which creates dead space around the Sainsbury corner. Buildings on slopes present disability access problems and are difficult to rectify eg Wallington library. Traffic problems divide shopping area with busy road.∗ Public realm looks ‘tired’ and needs upgrading. Loss of the land by the library in the Town Centre. Visually, Woodcote Road near the Station, is truly horrendous when viewed from the north.∗ Existing communal space needs to be made more inviting. Shopping areas are fragmented. Spaces around the Library, Magistrates Courts, Buses and Shotfield Clinic could be better utilised. Town Centre Car Parks are in poor positions and not well laid out. Sainsburys supermarket is badly positioned on a significant Town Centre site and represents a lost opportunity to create continuity at the corner with the adjacent shopping area. Driving through Wallington I find nothing to make me stop and look at it. Sainsburys is not an attractive building. Sculpture beside Sainsburys is not very noticeable, it’s too small and not reflected by other environmental art. Sculpture beside Sainsburys does not compensate for the grim design of the building. Non-drivers would not consider visiting Wallington, other than in passing on transport. Well designed spaces are needed to facilitate community activities to take place.

Poor Quality – Personality • Aggressive atmosphere prevails in shopping areas with nowhere to stop. • Social infrastructure has not kept pace with the increased population in the area, eg shortage of Doctors’ surgeries and school places.∗ • Wallington has a bad reputation in the press, as an area to go to socially. • Wallington Town Centre deemed a ‘no go area’ after dark. • Well designed spaces would engender community activities. • Roundshaw - A ‘need’ identified for Employment Outreach Services but no-one came to the open days despite high profile publicity campaign. • Beddington Road improvements detract from the old character. • Generally, any space where buildings can be put, someone wants to do so. CARSHALTON AND CLOCKHOUSE

Good Quality – Place

• Built Environment Bed Zed is attractive and innovative design. Carshalton Ponds and the core of conservation buildings around, including the Woodman, Church and Greyhound Pub∗∗∗∗∗∗∗∗∗∗. St Philomenas School- Carshalton House. West Street Cottages. Charles Cryer Theatre. Festival Walk and the very old Plane Tree. Carshalton Station as an example of a Victorian Station that needs to be conserved before it’s too late. 27 Park Hill.(flint house) Carshalton Beeches and especially the Pine Walk area, there’s a good level of landscaping. Wrythe Green cottages and especially the Newsagents frontage∗∗∗∗. War Memorial Hospital, which could be under threat from NHS redevelopment.

• Open Space Wilderness Island is a gem∗. Carshalton Ponds and ∗. Ecology Centre. and the ‘Grotto’ with its historic landscape. . Good Quality – Personality • Built Environment • The parade at Banstead Road Shops is spacious and has a community feel. • Westmead Road commercial area is a busy local community. • Charles Cryer theatre adds to the bustle of village life. • BedZed improves the Wandle Valley and adds an innovative character, national acknowledgement and iconic buildings. • Poets Estate is a peaceful, well kept and presented area∗. • Ecology Centre is a peaceful and tranquil place and a wonderful local amenity. • Beeches Avenue is impressively tree lined. • Open Space Avenue of trees in Carshalton Park and the hog pit pond have potential for outdoor events. Oaks park offers extensive views across green belt. All Saints Churchyard in Carshalton has a wilderness feel and spiritual atmosphere. Grove Park is lovely in all respects and needs to be left alone.

Poor Quality – Place • Built Environment Gasometer in Wrythe Lane is ugly.∗ St Helier Hospital is very dominant∗∗∗. Area around St Helier hospital car park is boring and so is the open space opposite/ area around Rosehill and St Helier is poor quality public realm and built development.∗∗ Area around the rear of the Charles Cryer Theatre is looking neglected and run down. Old Mill in Carshalton has the potential to be lovely but is looking derelict and in decline. Mill Green looks neglected and poor. Queen Mary’s hospital site- housing is too standardised and there is too little variation.

Poor Quality – Personality • Built Environment • Dislike Beynon Parade, Carshalton. • Carshalton High Street is spoilt by traffic- strategic status of the High Street encourages competition between buses, cars, pedestrians, fumes, noise and safety∗∗∗. • Carshalton High Street shopping frontages. • Impact of new licensing laws will contribute to a threatening environment eg West Street and Erskine Road. • Durand Close, poor townscape and lack of greenery in this vicinity∗.

SUTTON Good Quality – Place

• Built Environment New development in Grove Road Belmont. Balconies on flats. Open minded ideas and variety in design such as Grange Road and Worcester Road. Examples of innovative design. ‘Arts and Crafts’ style architecture eg The Ridgeway and Mayfield Road. Modern design office blocks in Sutton Town Centre.

Glass fronted buildings if appropriately located∗. Red brick quoins in building detailing. Heritage buildings. ‘Landseer’ character area.

• Town Centre

Range of restaurants and remaining independent shops. Street Art. St Nicholas walkway∗∗∗∗. Asda has contributed positively to the street scene. Civic Offices. Free parking close to shopping areas. Parking facility at Asda.

• Open Space

Manor Park. Rosehill Park, especially Wild flower meadow. Green spaces close to the shopping areas.

Good Quality – Personality • Suburban Arcadia character of Edwardian Sutton, but it’s under threat. • Green streetscape of South Sutton created by a combination of trees, front gardens, and lack of urbanising street furniture- rapidly being lost. • Special areas of designation eg The Gallup through Link Way to Heath Drive. • Areas of nature conservation but some areas no longer supportive. • Short front gardens engender a feeling of community and safety. • Residential areas that feel safe.

Poor Quality – Place • Built Environment

Balaam House. Egg box development on Sutton Court Road. Poorly designed public sector estates∗∗∗. Collingwood House. Bedrooms sited beneath walkways as at Estate. Cars blocking views from living room windows – estates generally. Blocks of flats shoe-horned into spaces between houses. Older larger houses being replaced by flats. High density concrete structures with no relief eg Shanklin Development. Lack of imagination and innovation in residential development. Lack of visual integration of new housing development – not creating streets with coherence but a series of independent developments leading to ‘Legoland’ feel eg throughout South Sutton. Station Road, Belmont is run down.

• Town Centre Sutton Town Centre is visually uninteresting. B and Q car park frontage along Langley Park Road. Bog standard commercial premises. Eagle Star building creates a wind tunnel effect. Gas Works area – need to be redeveloped with a major store / housing / free parking. Dumbed down shopping centre indistinguishable from any other. Amusement arcades. Smaller High Street shops are more difficult to access due to steps (eg Jessops) which pose problems for people with mobility impairment∗. Inadequate attention to designing out crime eg Halfords and its blank façade onto the street. Unpleasant approach road to North End of High Street and area appears dog- eared. Cigarette ends outside offices, especially Civic. ‘Olde-Worlde’ signage. Traffic management needs to be improved. Highway clutter; street signs, street furniture, - there is too much and it is not of a consistent design eg Brighton Road, Carshalton Beeches. Discordant ‘street improvements’ led by highways engineers involving too many cheap materials, which lack visual quality eg Crossways, Sutton Station, Carshalton Beeches.

• Open Space Benhill Recreation Ground.

Poor Quality – Personality • Unwelcoming areas such as Civic Offices Walkways and St Helier Hospital surroundings. • Sutton High Street is threatening after hours – lager drinking culture. • Fear of intimidation in Town Centre and Station environs in the evening∗. • Gated developments give a perception of fear. • ‘Motorist comes first’ domination of the car and vehicular traffic- consequently it is unpleasant to walk or cycle eg Brighton Road. • Council policy of creating one car parking space per flat.

CHEAM AND WORCESTER PARK

Good Quality – Place

• Built Environment

Imaginative signage eg Kimpton, but spoilt by other street clutter. Environmental Art. Brabham Court, Central Road, Worcester Park∗∗∗. Flushing Meadows / The Hamptons residential development at Worcester Park∗∗∗∗∗∗(requests to ensure that there is a public park as part of the development). Flats on corner of York Road / Cheam Road. Medium properties with gardens around Ruskin Drive / Ebisham Road∗. Large ‘Tudorbethan’ and individual properties with large garden plots. Popinjay Row. Whitehall and historic Cheam∗∗∗∗∗∗∗∗∗.

• Centres

Wide boulevard pavements at North Cheam∗. Lavender House / Amen Corner∗∗∗ at North Cheam though now looking a bit shabby - attractive stained glass window detailing. Centre of Cheam is a good area for shopping. Individual shops that are surviving, especially in Cheam, such as independent building suppliers∗∗∗∗. 20 mins short term parking available in Cheam∗∗. Attractive street furniture. • Open Space Cheam Park. Nonsuch Park. Cuddington Recreation Ground, stream and community facilities. Tree planting generally. Grass verges.

Good Quality – Personality • Scale of the open spacious housing of South Cheam∗∗∗∗. • Planting from gardens contributing to the street scene∗∗∗. • Village atmosphere of Cheam.

Poor Quality – Place

• Built Environment Replacement windows widespread in residential areas∗∗∗∗∗∗∗∗∗∗∗∗.

• Centres Stonecot District Centre∗∗∗∗∗ - presents redevelopment opportunity. Traffic lights at Green Lane. North Cheam District Centre – especially green coloured building beside Queen Victoria pub∗∗∗∗∗∗∗∗∗∗∗∗∗. North Cheam planting maintenance∗∗ Budgens/ ‘Statacom’ building in Cheam Village. ∗∗

Poor Quality – Personality • General dirt and noise pollution. • Heavily parked areas. • Lack of planting maintenance throughout Borough. • New licensing laws. • 1960s architecturewhich prevails in the NW part of the Borough. • Street clutter. • Dereliction associated with Kimpton / Pyl Brook∗∗∗. Themes expressed in reporting back LIKES- PLACE

Built Environment

• Conservation Areas are unanimously liked. • Arts and Crafts movement properties of which Sutton has a significant number. • Areas of designation eg The Gallup / Link Way / Heath Drive. • Quality brick detailing. • Clusters of heritage buildings are a delight (Carshalton Ponds / Wrythe Green) • Arts and Crafts style architecture within the Borough (Windybank homes and Sutton Garden Suburb) • Prestige, quality and unusual state-of-the-art buildings are liked: (BedZed / Phoenix Centre / St Nicholas Walkway / The Hamptons at Worcester Park / Trinity Centre / Charles Cryer Theatre). Innovation, iconic buildings bring national acclaim. Open minded designs. • Low density housing in large plots with garden space and trees (S Wallington / Cheam) • Balconies on flats. • Tree lined roads and Landscaped Streets with verges (C Beeches). • Consistent front gardens and boundaries contribute to the street scene. • Vestiges of Victorian Railway system (Carshalton Station). • Civic Offices as a community resource. • Evidence of imagination in design. • Stained glass detailing in buildings.

Centres

• Farmers Market is popular. • Specialist stores / Goods and independent stores are welcomed. • Where public transport is concentrated, it is popular. • Environmental Art. • Public Squares / Spaces for entertainment and activities. • Wide boulevard pavements (North Cheam). • Diverse range of Restaurants. • Upgrading of Sutton Market. • Free Parking.

Open Space • Open space is an asset. • MOL provides open space in the north of the borough and is a valuable asset. • Green Belt and views it affords are attractive (Oaks Park). • Prestige parks are more popular than recreation grounds. (Beddington / Carshalton / The Grove / Manor) • Nature Conservation areas such as Wilderness Island. • Ecology Centre is a wonderful local amenity. • Cohesive areas eg Poets Estate are popular. • Opportunity for outdoor events are valuable in Parks (Hog Pit pond in Carshalton Park). • Town Centre open space – performance and congregation.

LIKES- PERSONALITY

• Popular stores provide commercial anchors and economic vitality. (Sainsbury / Asda) • Where there’s a sense of community this works well. (Banstead Road and Westmead Road shops) • The Arts contribute to the bustle of life (Charles Cryer Theatre) • Borough Cemeteries have atmosphere and should be a valued resource. • Suburban ‘Arcadian’ character of Edwardian Sutton. Perceived as under threat. • Cohesion of designated areas. • Front gardens (especially short ones), contribute to a sense of safety and well being where they are retained. • Urban Villages need promotion (Carshalton / Cheam).

DISLIKES- PLACE Built Environment • Council Estates are poorly designed, neglected and run down and exhibit a lack of greenery. • Cars are parked to block views from residential accommodation. • Replacement windows are destroying the original character of residential areas. • Shopping Centres with a lack of planting and attractive areas – generally run down.

• Poor quality finishes (Hillcrest Road) and ‘legoland’ style prevalent in south Sutton sites. • Over development spoils the scale of an area. • Too much parking provision around flats. • Large scale properties being replaced by flats, which are shoe-horned into sites. • Some industrial structures are unsightly and cause blight. (Gasometer in Wrythe Lane / Gas Works in Sutton.) • Some shop fronts are inappropriate to their setting. (examples in Carshalton) • St Helier Hospital is too dominant and its environs are poor quality public realm. • Some heritage features need restoration and investment. (Mill in Grove Park.) • New Developer housing schemes are too standardised and there is little variation.

Centres • Town Centre is a ‘clone’ town in that there is no distinctive character. • North End of Sutton Town Centre is run down and makes a poor approach. • 1960s architecture, which prevails in NW of Borough and parts of Sutton. • Amusement arcades. • General access problems especially to smaller premises. • Large store blank elevations (Halfords, Morrisons) • Traffic management problems need to be addressed. • Street clutter is prevalent and signage is often inappropriate. • Micro-climate around high rise buildings gives a wind tunnel effect. • Some smaller shops have access difficulties. • No active shop fronts on key corners. • Narrow pavements and difficult circulation. • Traffic management issues. • Dominance of highway considerations in the public realm. • Cigarette ends outside offices. • Empty premises and dead space. • Poor situation of car parks. • Centres that are on the convex corner of roads are never as successful as others (Beynon Parade is an example). • Threat that new licensing laws pose. (West Street / Erskine Road)

Open Space • Recreation grounds can be bland and uninteresting. (Benhill)

DISLIKES- PERSONALITY • Aggressive behaviour in public areas. • St Helier environs are inhospitable and insensitive. • Lack of social infrastructure ie Doctors’ surgeries / Dentists / school places. • Night-time fear of crime. • Gated developments are not socially inclusive. • Apathy about some initiatives (Employment Outreach Services). • Highway improvements can detract from the original character of the streets and areas. (Beddington Lane) • Lack of distinctive identity. • Busy traffic ruins some areas by its dominance. (Carshalton High Street, Brighton Road) • Lack of maintenance in the street scene. • Lack of imaginative design is prevalent in new housing. • Industrial dereliction.

Conclusion of findings. Character of the Borough In general, the 4 committee areas used for the discussion had many aspects in common, the most striking of which is that the borough graduates from dense development to the north which was generally felt to be of poorer quality, towards more open space and low density higher quality development to the south.

There were notable exceptions to the distribution of open space, and other examples of MOL, but housing style and trend largely followed this split.

A spread of original facilities like the Ecology Centre and Heritage Centre, Farmers’ Market, theatres and sports centres, were all rated as positive contributions and added to the ‘feel good’ factor within the Borough. Any catalyst for engendering a greater sense of community came through as contributing to the quality of the environment.

Built Environment. Delegates’ opinions of built environment quality echoed the same gradation but acknowledged significant improvements through various new developments and original schemes, of which BedZed and The Hamptons, were quoted as such examples.

There was considerable support for unusual and innovative design from all groups of delegates. The Phoenix Centre, Trinity Centre and Charles Cryer were examples of visual successes.

Conservation areas were unanimously considered attractive and their importance in the urban design fabric of the borough was to be recognised and their status protected. There was some potential for new/extended designations and new development should respect and uphold the cohesion of areas, which exhibited a consistent style, whether they were designated CA or ASLC. Amen Corner at North Cheam with its stained glass detailing was considered worthy of recognition as classic 1930s style.

Particular comments were made regarding the appropriateness of the scale of properties in relation to their plot size. Recognition of the contribution that gardens made to the streetscape was expressed. The removal of front gardens, hedges and fences to provide car parking, was viewed with concern by all groups of delegates as it reduced the quality of the streetscape.

Centres Smaller commercial centres that had grown up around a core conservation area such as Carshalton and Cheam, were regarded as being of higher quality than those that had evolved to service later suburban settlement, like North Cheam and Stonecot. This was due to a lack of character, which many delegates felt went with a ‘sense of community’ and which contributed to a satisfying feeling of ‘sense of place’. Sutton Town Centre was praised for its range of certain outlets such as restaurants and cafes, but considered unoriginal in other retail respects. Some recent innovative design initiatives were singled out as attractive and it was considered that they made a contribution to the character of the town centre. Asda and St Nicholas Walkway were picked out.

The North End was deemed tatty and run down and several sites were felt to be critical to its regeneration. Its importance as an approach to the Town Centre was recognised.

Traffic and the accompanying highway measures it creates, was comprehensively felt to detract from the pedestrian environment in most centres. The dominance of vehicles and difficulty of parking contributed to an unattractive place. Cheam was successful in that there was short term parking which was popular.

Open Space A unanimous benefit to the urban design fabric, parks and open space were rated highly. Some nature conservation areas such as wilderness island, were atmospheric and a retreat. Strategic and formal parks were a valuable resource to adjacent residential areas and commercial centres alike.

There was criticism over the maintenance and appearance of many recreation grounds, which were dull and bleak in parts of the borough.

Tree lined roads were synonymous with higher quality residential areas and planting in the public realm was a popular characteristic. A lack of maintenance was highlighted as reducing the positive contribution otherwise resulting from landscaping in public areas. Garden planting also contributed to higher quality areas where this was consistent and visible from the street.

The guest speaker was Robert Cowan who is director of the Urban Design Group. He works as a consultant, is a senior research fellow in architecture at De Montfort University, a visiting examiner at Manchester University and editor of ‘Context’ the journal of the Institute of Historic Building Conservation.

He is also an accomplished cartoonist and he went on to give an entertaining, illustrated and instructive presentation on the principles of Urban Design as set out by CABE (Commission for Architecture and the Built Environment)

Workshop 2 Assessment of Quality

Afternoon Exercise: Working in the same groups, each group was given the same aerial photos of 3 types of area in the Borough; (i) Residential inter-war housing as typified in North Cheam ‘Park Farm’ Estate. (ii) Conservation Area of the Ponds and surroundings in Carshalton. (iii) Area for Regeneration at North Sutton.

A basic SWOT analysis was carried out by each group, after which they were encouraged to engage in ‘blue sky thinking’ and let their imaginations run wild with radical and innovative approaches to treatment of the example areas.

Findings (i) Residential inter-war housing as typified in North Cheam ‘Park Farm’ Estate.

Strengths • Community and served by church and school • Good sized gardens • Adaptable accommodation • Numerous grass verges and street trees • Rear passages to gardens • Pedestrian routes running east west and linking to schools • 45 degree angled siting to corner properties

Weaknesses • Anonymous area, which could be anywhere • Lacks pub / Post Office / Children’s Play area • Few Public Open Spaces • Easy to by pass • Lacks mixed use designations • Fly tipping • Evidence of sustainability

Opportunities • Greater employment outlets • Smaller buses would facilitate greater public transport links • Emphasise the splayed entrance features to roads and build on creating cohesive character through paving materials • Home Zone potential • Community facilities / Hall / Dual use of schools, churches and their grounds in vicinity to encourage meeting places • Installation of solar panels / domestic sustainable features through bulk purchase or grants system • Improve links and permeability via the upgrading of existing alleyways • Safe Routes to School initiative • Further tree planting • Create ‘shared’ garden space where configuration allows • Ideal location for Car Club • Innovative redevelopment on appropriate sites (another BedZed?)

Threats • Danger of loss of identity through replacement windows and inappropriate building finishes / porches • Loss of front gardens diminishing the standard and cohesion of the street scene • So many crossovers for front garden parking that opportunities for street trees and those existing are lost • Mediocre design infill development reducing the integrity of the character of the area • Increased anonymity and isolation from neighbours

Findings (ii) Conservation Area of the Ponds and surroundings in Carshalton.

Strengths • Beautiful architecture and Conservation Areas • Large amount of Parkland and Public Open Space • Water features • Public facilities – library, Theatre, Ecology Centre, Heritage Centre, Leisure Centre • Range of shops • Employment opportunities • Public transport • Car parking • Pubs

Weaknesses • Traffic congestion • Road classification – Red Route through centre therefore attracts heavy goods and orbital traffic • Scale of roads inappropriate to traffic flows and national classification • Concentration of schools generates traffic at peak periods • Location of builders merchant beside railway bridge • Pedestrian permeability through to open space is limited • Large tracts of open space is private and behind walls • Train service timetable is not evenly spread throughout the hour • Beacon Grove is tatty • Delivery access to Somerfield • Access for disabled is often poor

Opportunities • Instigation of traffic management to utilise parallel route to High Street and Pound Street (Ruskin Road) • Create orbital pedestrian and cycle route through open space • Reduce size of buses to facilitate negotiation of Ponds area • Implement sustainable school transport systems (walking buses, school buses, park and walk) • Bold move such as tunnel to remove traffic • Remove traffic from vicinity of landmark buildings and ponds • Improve access facilities for disabled • Facilitate limited access through St Philomena’s grounds

Threats • Increase in traffic • Increase in scale / size of vehicles • Residential development pressure • Growth in anti social behaviour and vandalism • Decline in commercial success of small businesses and retail units

Findings

(iii) Area for Regeneration at North Sutton.

Strengths • Entry from north to Sutton Town Centre • Sutton Green is registered as Common Land • Elements of residential development is cohesive and has a distinct character • Opportunity Sites offer key potential • Large proportion of Council ownership in the area • Planning status as regeneration area • Higher densities policies for residential development • Fundamental involvement in Tramlink proposals

Weaknesses • Visually unattractive area • Complex uses • Derelict sites • Lack of parking and attraction of town centre facilities • Requires distinct character / identity • Social deprivation indicators • Little Public Open Space • Road network • Public transport infrastructure lacking Opportunities • Sites identified for redevelopment • Open space on entry to area around All Saints Church and Sutton Green • Opportunities associated with Tramlink • Council ownership of large tracts of land and housing • Retention of ‘interesting’ industrial heritage buildings (Bus Garage) offer potential • Key areas of positive and cohesive identity • Strong opportunity for mixed use development • High density policies appropriate • Ethnic / Niche retail opportunities • Eclectic area could be developed to north east where some precedent exists for mixed use and workshop / artisan based business.

Threats • Lack of funding • Failure of Tramlink proposal • Contaminated land • Commercial / retail depression • Erosion of design quality infill owing to loose policies • Political sensitivities to high density

Conference Conclusions

Robert Cowan summed up by thanking everyone for their attendance and enthusiastic involvement. He reiterated that urban design has no mystique about it and is in fact how every stakeholder views their environment.

The key principles as given by CABE (Commission for Architecture and the Built Environment) are as listed:

Create a sense of identity Creating safe and pleasant spaces Create easier movement Create a sense of welcome Make the place adaptable Make good use of resources

All opinions are valid and the major principles to be adhered to are those that reflect the views of the people who manage, protect and care about their environment, use it and live or work within it.

We hope that the delegates attending this one-day event represented those stakeholder groups in the Borough and that we have accurately recorded your views.

The Council intends to develop these into policies and will keep those parties who have expressed an interest, informed along the way. It is intended to set up a Design Panel to appraise significant applications and to reward commendable design with appropriate accolades at two or three yearly intervals. All these devices are intended to raise awareness and debate about the quality of design within the Borough and to result in an improvement of quality and to hone skills of judgement.

Thank you again for your contribution to the Conference and I hope you enjoyed the experience and debate that it engendered. In future, please contact Jeff Wilson 0208 770 6258 with regard to further involvement.

Marion Wardell December 2005