When Cabe, now part of the Design Council, first published their latest Design Review for Brentford Waterside, Hounslow on 14 February 2013 local residents were hopeful that this once respected body would urge Ballymore and their architects to radically reconsider the density and architectural aesthetic of their scheme. Instead residents, including many town planning and architecture professionals, were astounded by a majority of Cabe’s conclusions. Our investigations since have not lessened our concerns. Instead they highlight the urgent need for close scrutiny of the way Cabe undertakes future Design Reviews if they are to ever live up totheir own standards.
Our analysis of the Cabe Design Review which follows, first looks at its fatal flaws in terms of complying with Cabe’s own principles and then considers the review’s conclusions. Given the flaws in application of principles, the Design Review’s conclusions can be given little credence.
Process flaws
Cabe’s Design Review guidance sets out ten principles that their reviews are supposed to follow. These were in development at the time of the Brentford Design Review, and I understand from correspondence and a meeting with Design Council Chief Executive John Mathers that they are now being rolled out for all future Design Review commissions, which is to be welcomed. The charity’s trustees should back him in this endeavor. However the table below shows the gap between theory and practice is stark in the Brentford Design Review, which can no longer be given any airtime and credence by local, regional and national planning authorities.
| Design Review principle | Score (3 max – 0 minimum) | Commentary |
| Proportionate – It is used on projects whose significance, either at local or national level, warrants the investment needed to provide the service. | 3 | A scheme with this scale of impact in a historic town center clearly warrants careful application of the Design Review process. |
| Timely – It takes place as early as possible in the design process, because this can avoid a great deal of wasted time. It also costs less to make changes at an early stage. | 3 | Cabe have already conducted a pre-application Design Review in about 2006. This was not published but is largely understood to have been scathing of pre-application drawings commissioned by Ballymore from BDP. |
| Advisory – A design review panel does not make decisions, but it offers impartial advice for the people who do. | 0 | ‘Advisory’ status of findings is understood but impartiality as noted below is impossible to confirm. |
| Objective – It appraises schemes according to reasoned, objective criteria rather than the stylistic tastes of individual panel members | 0 | Impossible to judge as we know neither the criteria used nor the individual panel members.
Given Cabe has not yet gone on the record and published a full account of this Design Review we can only assume that the process was fully funded by Ballymore and therefore partial. |
| Accessible – Its findings and advice are clearly expressed in terms that design teams, decision makers and clients can all understand and make use of. | 2 | See analysis below of findings and advice. |
| Independent – It is conducted by people who are unconnected with the scheme’s promoters and decision makers, and it ensures that conflicts of interest do not arise. | 0 | We have no idea as to whether the panel’s membership was independent given the membership has not been published. We have simply been told that the panel is made up of people drawn from a pool of 250+ experts.
This does raise serious questions as to if and when the body will learn frommistakes of the past that clearly contributed to the departure of a previous Chief Executive.
|
| Expert – It is carried out by suitably trained people who are experienced in design and know how to criticise constructively. Review is usually most respected where it is carried out by professional peers of the project designers, because their standing and expertise will be acknowledged. | 0 | We have no idea as to whether the panel was an appropriate and respected group of experts given the panel’s membership has not been published. We have simply been told that it is made up of people drawn from a pool of 250+ experts. |
| Multidisciplinary – It combines the different perspectives of architects, urban designers, urban and rural planners, landscape architects, engineers and other specialist experts to provide a complete, rounded assessment. | 0 | We have no idea as to whether the panel’s membership was multidisciplinary give the panel’s membership has not been published. We have simply been told that it is made up of people drawn from a pool of 250+ experts. |
| Accountable – The Review Panel and its advice must be clearly seen to work for the benefit of the public. This should be ingrained within the panel’s terms of reference. | 0 | We have no idea as neither the panel’s membership nor terms of reference have not been published. |
| Transparent – The panel’s remit, membership, governance processes and funding should always be in the public domain. | 0 | If this guidance was followed, Cabe would have published on their website for the Brentford Design Review the following:
• Objective criteria • Panel terms of reference/ remit • Panel membership • Governance processes • Funding
Confusion remains as to what was reviewed by the Cabe panel. Ballymore advised BHSSG representatives that their draft revised drawings had been viewed by the panel. The Design Council’s Chief Executive thought they had reviewed the planning application drawings (unrevised).
|
What are the findings and advice from this opaque process?
Cabe: “We are delighted to review this important project; it presents a great opportunity to regenerate Brentford High Street and the land between the high street and the Great Union Canal. We welcome the proposal and applaud the client for their commitment to design quality. We commend the thoughtful analysis which has informed the scheme.”
Response: Brentford’s local community was not at all convinced by the appropriateness of the design at a public meeting last Autumn where BHSSG was invited to contribute. In fact all residents present at the meeting spoke out against the current designs, which have ignored the atmosphere and design aesthetic that residents explained to Ballymore and their architects at numerous design workshops in 2011/12.
“The new quarter sits comfortably in the historic context and has the potential to become a successful addition of Brentford. While the density is high and the proposed finger block typology requires great care to avoid overlooking and privacy issues, we think that phase 1 illustrates how this challenge can be resolved successfully. Equal design care needs to be applied to future stages of the proposal to achieve an acceptable outcome in the round. We have a few comments to make regarding the detailed resolution of the site layout and the building blocks.”
The density is well in excess of planning guidance with a scale that will drown out what is retained of the area’s heritage assets.
“Masterplan and site layout – The proposed masterplan works well within the historic setting and provides a street pattern that has the potential to draw people in and to create a vibrant waterfront destination.”
We broadly support the proposed street pattern, although it is unfortunate that it obliterates one of Brentford’s oldest yards – Boar’s Head Yard, visible on the 1635 Moses Glover map.
“In our view, the scheme has a strong identity based on the careful integration of historic elements, and we think that the height and volume of the proposed perimeter blocks appear appropriate in this context.”
Only in a few aspects does the proposed new build compliment the historic elements. The height and volume is largely completely insensitive to the historic elements which will be dwarfed by what is proposed. The proposed heights exceed the Brentford Area Action Plan (Local Development Framework) which highlighted four stories as the character of the area.
“The success of the scheme and the regeneration of the existing high street will depend on how the two areas can complement each other and also on the offer of shops, cafés and activities which need to reflect the specific identities of the high street and the waterfront.”
We would agree.
“We applaud the joined-up thinking around the Magistrates Court and the decision to create a unified public space around the building.”
So do we, but this is outside the redline of Ballymore’s proposed development. Aspects of the Ballymore scheme that relate to Market Place still do little to respond to the scale of the space.
“The east-west route parallel to the canal and the high street has the potential to become a thriving place with shops and active frontages; the local authority should request a detailed landscape strategy in terms of the paving materials and the relationship with the water, for example, and condition the landscape design as appropriate to ensure that the intended quality will be delivered. We also recommend assessing the impact of low and high tide on the landscape proposal. We feel that the presence of water, which makes this location special, could be strengthened across the site.
We would agree.
“A different articulation of Still Yard, for example, perhaps less narrow or aligned with Half Acre, would help connect the waterfront to the wider Brentford neighbourhood as this axis could link directly to the railway station and the local library.”
This statement evidences how little the Design Panel understands Brentford a place whose character is defined by quirky, narrow, non-aligned alleyways and yards.
“Building design – While we commend the overall articulation of the finger blocks, we feel that the taller elements could be even taller and somewhat more elegant – provided they do not impact more on the views from Syon Park and Kew Gardens.
We understand this observation is based on a guidance Cabe produced on tall buildings with English Heritage, although it ignores the reality of the scheme context: Opposite a World Heritage Site (Kew Gardens) and Grade 1 listed Syon House and gardens, the advice takes leave of any common sense.
“At the western end of the site, the scheme integrates the church and existing trees and creates a new public space. The eastern side, however, appears less successful: if designed by less experienced hands the multi-story car park could become an uninspiring building facing the blank walls of the existing supermarket; this is unfortunate given the prominent location at the entrance to the high street and Brentford.”
We would agree.
“The density of the proposal and the complexity of the courtyard blocks require great design skills which are apparent in the current proposal. To ensure that the delivered scheme will match the original design intentions, we urge the local authority to condition the elevational treatment and materials.”
We would agree.
“Phase 1- We welcome the richness of the proposal and the fact that a number of skilled architects have worked together to create a homogenous, new piece of Brentford. We think that the proposal has the potential to become a vibrant place to live.”
We welcome the mix of architects but hoped for designs that were less bland and homogenous and respected the local vernacular. We believe the scheme has a long way to go before it offers the potential for a vibrant place to live.
“Given that the presentation to the Cabe panel did not illustrate the various residential typologies, we urge the local authority to ensure themselves that the blocks provide decent floor plans with a minimum of single aspect flats and that overlooking and privacy issues are avoided as well as overshadowing and overheating problems.
We would agree.
“Finally, sufficient soil needs to be provided above the car parking to allow trees to grow.”
We would agree.
The Cabe Design Review guidance (pg 6) states: “Design Review… gives decision makers the confidence and information to support innovative, high quality designs that meet the needs of their communities…”. The Brentford community expressed its needs through the Community Vision for Brentford High Street (2007) and the Brentford Area Action Plan (2009). From our experience of being at the receiving end of this Cabe Design Review, the organisation still has a long distance to travel in advocating “designs that meet the needs of their communities”. We wish their new Chief Executive luck in this journey and strongly advise planning officials to put this flawed, opaque study in a bin where it belongs.
Andrew Dakers writes this blog posting in his capacity as Chair of Brentford High Street Steering Group, the local regeneration charity. His analysis of the wider failings in Ballymore’s planning process can be read here.