Planning Brief Outline

Download as Word document

Some comments - from Sara Bragg / with assistance of other BUDD members   Introduction We need to be clear about the strategic role of the site — what IS the strategy it is meeting? There is no inherent strategy that does not need to be defined. Surely what local people believe is that the site has a role of national importance and beyond, in demonstrating a serious, innovative contribution to environmental, cultural, social, economic well being (- sustainability a better word?) that would be a model for other schemes. A supermarket and car park is not a vision of a better future. I would suggest something at least as clear as Jubilee St. objectives, which specify strategy e.g. to support local small business economy. Similarly the strategy here should include, e.g. promote a diverse economy with a wide range of employment opportunities; local jobs for local needs; reduce road traffic and the need to travel; meet known housing needs; strengthening the local economy; meeting leisure needs; favour public transport users… It should also include, as with J St., ‘to produce a scheme that is in tune with the desires and needs of the local neighbourhood population’. The Council has chosen to listen to the community at the CPE and the views overall were, no supermarket; we should not ignore this, or there will be very negative consequences for the concept of community participation. Add ‘cultural and environmental’ well being to purposes; also, public access, links to the rest of the area, regeneration of the London road and integration with the surrounding area (just to be clear, even though it comes in background) Typo on ‘highest possible townscape? Specify housing, employment and community needs in the area — what they are, currently at least.   Background Surrounding area — need to be careful here given hideousness of nearby buildings, which J Sainsbury used in their favour at the Public Inquiry. Need to define it and specify popular and successful North Laine area. Views across the site? What is ‘modal’ shift?? Why not say reduction of traffic — the issue is freight as well as the car.   Policy Context Under National Planning Policy and the list of PPGs, include PPG3 Housing, PPG4 Industrial & Commercial Development & Small Firms, PPG15 Planning & the Historic Environment, PPG22 Renewable Energy. PPG 12 on Development Plans — incorporating sustainability into devt plans? Also something — was it ‘Green Links’? on maintaining the rural link….   Land uses We need to relate these to CPE findings and the list of ‘preferred uses’.   Housing. Mention housing pressure in the SE? Need to shelter housing from the impact of the railway? (- was an issue with previous JS application) We would challenge the notion that there is necessarily a conflict between family housing and high density — this can still be acceptable eg the Georgian squares. Housing for single people can of course normally be high density. Should aim for about 40% social housing as John Prescott is now suggesting — the maximum possible Social housing should be scattered / peppered through the whole site; should avoid the creation of ghettos of social housing that are easily identifiable. Perhaps the Brief could specify a preference for co-operatives rather than Housing Association, since this involves residents taking more responsibility and can avoid some of the social problems local residents were concerned about at the CPE. Can we suggest self-build? — this has often been mentioned by BUDD supporters We should require all housing to be 'Whole Life Housing' ie capable of being lived in by people throughout their life times, even if they become incapacitated. Set a proportion of public space — JSt. p 35 mentions one acre per 200 dwellings.   Employment mention need for a mix of employment uses, not just white collar; should be about livelihoods not just jobs. need for live-work units. Flexibility is key — spaces that can be used for different purposes — workshops, houses, or offices. This is about meeting the challenge of the times as J Packman pointed out — employers are no longer reliable… Remember interest in self-employment from survey JP sent out Avoid zoning Comment from Selma Montford: ‘Under employment there is some interesting information on Brighton in last week's Estates Gazette, which says: " . . . crucial is the availability of space for new businesses. . . Trafalgar House still has 2,253 sq m that is not yet under offer" But Nigel Green says that the demand is from existing businesses which need to expand. I think it is important that any new commercial space should be capable of being used flexibly. We should not forget the pockets of high numbers of unskilled unemployed people, in spite of the fact that EG writes about the need to keep graduates in the town’.   Retail Can we specify max floorspace? Needs to refer again to the key tests: traffic generation and the need to support the London Road. Should be no large single user — neighbourhood shops only   Retail / Hotel/ Leisure This section mentions traffic generation, but no use in itself generates motorised traffic, it is only the level of car parking attached to that use that generates motorised traffic eg a supermarket, hotel or a stadium without a car park does not generate motorised traffic.   Community uses should mention need for buildings that are flexible in terms of possible community uses   Open Spaces NB rerouting New England Street would affect / destroy the green corridor: this is a problem, and I would like to see the Brief disallow it.   Urban Design main issue here is that there is little space for community consultation — it’s still a panoptic view of architecture (designer comes in and tells us what’s best for us) rather than an ethnographic one in which designers learn from those who live in and use the townscape for a variety of purposes, both for getting around and for marketing and creative purposes e.g. artists, filmmakers and the tourist board who might be able to contribute positively to the ‘imageability’ of the site (i.e. not just an architect’s panel, although the groups mentioned in J. St. p. 13 could have a role). Otherwise, also: define the surrounding area, again (how to respect Theobald House!!); Mention that the design should build on the design strengths of nearby areas e.g. the North Laine. We should require a development to complement the human scale and the grain of surrounding area and the pattern of what was there before. One sentence unclear — beginning ‘The appropriate heights… ‘ point four. Set maximum storey heights of buildings? Should attend to needs of disabled people, pedestrians and cyclists — and should add those with pushchairs (all major services should be accessible to someone with a pushchair without having to cross a major road…). Women tend to get excluded… Soft landscaping? (i.e. green spaces that are permeable to rain?). Can we include other weather factors e.g. wind? — the squares proposed by NEC will have high winds whistling through them…. Locally native species.   Sustainability is not defined here. It is NOT just environmental, also economic and social. In environmental terms, a development should aim to be energy efficient and carbon neutral - i.e. all energy requirements generated from renewable resources; constructed from local and recycled materials, avoid components or activities that result in the export of capital or energy from the Brighton and Hove area. Ecological footprinting? Bioredemiation? Insist on / suggest use of CHP generator from renewable sources Ditto for building with local materials? Consider ventilation — suggest that it should be natural not mechanical Public transport? In economic and social terms, sustainability refers to, e.g. avoiding excessive social divisions, high levels of poverty, etc, matching local skills/ needs with investment and regeneration opportunities, diversity, cohesion (linkages and networks, mutual support, capacity for self-help and innovation within and between communities, etc.) High density also relevant here? This is why getting maximum social housing is important, as well as a range of employment opportunities.   Highways need to mention that the local area is already congested and not built for traffic. Both congestion and free-flowing traffic pose a threat to health and safety. Therefore the plan should say that permission will not be granted to schemes which generate increased traffic in the immediate vicinity and threaten the quality of the environment for the local population. Add the establishment of a car club, (e.g. priority will be given to schemes that have explored car share / pool schemes) and car free housing. Parking should be expensive, except for disabled parking — or non-existent! The employment uses should not allow for commuter car parking only operational car parking. The highway standards should not be those set out in the highway engineers rule book, which are far too car orientated. Making more use of the London Road car park would increase the level of traffic and would not make a contribution towards revitalising the town centre. Perhaps part of it should be converted to other uses?   Implementation Concerns here are how to ensure guarantees that community benefits will not disappear, to write in a contract about how whole scheme will be implemented and not the groovy bits left out once permission is granted, and cover e.g. that extensions to retail will not be granted   Community involvement Effort to involve community is good, but could have a larger role than that suggested here — e.g. design, imageability, layout, getting around, percent for art scheme — and hopefully more… Need to define who the community is (e.g. youth, women esp with pushchairs…).   • TOP •