The design for the second application to developer Campion site proposal was rejected by the Inspector to the first Public Inquiry into the development (July 2007). This design was provided by Clarke-Renner Architects. The claim is made on the Clarke-Renner website that: 'We take a pro-active role in formulating strategies for projects. We often originate ideas and promote them with developers. Our expertise has often won through where previous schemes by others had fallen foul of the planning process'.
"We take a pro-active role in formulating strategies for projects" presumably means "we undertake probjects". "We often originate ideas and promote them with developers" we assume means "We make suggestions to our clients". It would be difficult to understand what they charge for if this were not the case. "Our expertise has often won through where previous schemes by others had fallen foul of the planning process". It is also claimed that "We are skilled at early negotiation with the local Planners to enable clients to assess the potential of sites in line with planning policies". None of this seems to be the case of the Campion development which was rejected by the Planning Inspector. Desipite its rejection by the Inspector the masterplan for the Campion development is still displayed on the Clarke-Renner website (Projects/Residential/Project No.3).
With respect to the design provided by Clarke-Renner the Inspector had the following to say:
I agree that some form of courtyard development would be appropriate on the southern part of the site, both as a means of achieving an appropriate density and as an interesting way of reflecting the historic use and development of the site. However, the scheme proposed is based on a much more formal enclosed double courtyard arrangement, deliberately taking its cue from the quadrangles of Oxbridge colleges. There is no real explanation as to why this is an appropriate or desirable design approach in this location other than that the 'collegiate' form would perpetuate the character of the former use. In my view, the new building would do nothing of the sort. This form of development would reflect little of the informal, ad-hoc arrangement of the seminary buildings. It would introduce what would be, to all intents and purposes, a very large single building, on a scale and formal character that has no local counterpart, into this varied suburban area. The new building would not adequately respect or relate to the local sense of place and identity. I believe that, as an architectural strategy, this approach is misplaced.
The design envisages a building that ranges from 3 to 6 storeys in height. Most of it would sit over a basement car park, which would effectively reduce the impact of car parking on the site. The basement level car park would be edged with flats to the west and the lower bedroom floor of 2-storey units on Thornbury Road to the east. Here, a series of access bridges would span the excavated basement 'moat', which would run almost the full length of the Thornbury Road frontage. While Thornbury House has a semi-basement, this excavated 'moat' would be a far more noticeable and incongruous feature of the street scene.
The new building would contain 2 courtyards. The northern courtyard would be entirely enclosed as private gardens. Although there would be a narrow 5 metres wide opening from Thornbury Road into the southern courtyard, it would be so deep - some 16 metres - that from almost every viewpoint the perception would be of a continuous frontage to Thornbury Road, some 100 metres long. In my view, the full height narrow courtyard entrance slot would do nothing to reduce the apparent length of frontage. In design terms, the Thornbury Road elevation takes its cue from the height of the chapel - the highest building to be demolished and much the same height as Thornbury House - then replicates this for the whole length of the street frontage. The whole 100 metre frontage would be otherwise unchanged by variation in height or scale. At 4 to 5 storeys high above basement level, this would be unlike anything in the surrounding area. I consider that the building would not relate well to the scale, height, nature, massing and character of its surroundings.
The appellant argues that the eaves level would be perceived as the height of the building. That may be true from the western side of Thornbury Road, although the basement storey in full view would give the impression of a 4 storey building to the eaves. From the eastern side of Thornbury Road, and on the approaches to the site, the long metal-sheeted roof accommodating the fifth and occasional sixth storey would be very apparent. The industrial scale roofs would have a limited visual interest and their form and materials would be particularly incongruous. From the western side of the site, within the public open space, the building would be perceived as a massive continuous wall, 4 to 5 storeys high, with an almost continuous plane of metal roof punctuated only by 2 6-storey projections of some substance. Such a massive building would have a particularly overbearing impact on visitors to the recreation ground.
The appellant has attempted to mitigate the impact of such a large building by adding projecting bays, varying the materials, using dormers and 'crumbling' the corners. While these measures would succeed to some extent in breaking up the elevations, they would do little to diminish the mass and bulk of the building in relationship to the surrounding buildings or reduce its impact on the street scene.
The appellant refers to Thornbury House as the 'jewel in the crown'. I consider that, to reflect this, it would be more appropriate for Thornbury House to stand out from the surrounding development, in the way other surviving mansions do, rather than be subsumed by new development of an unrelenting similarity of height. The existing street frontage is acknowledged to have a neutral or negative effect on the conservation area. In my view, this more continuously built-up frontage would have a far greater adverse effect, since it would entirely alter the nature of Thornbury Road. As a consequence of excessive density, the scale, height and massing of the new building would have a much more harmful effect on the suburban character of the conservation area. It would not be compatible with its local context and I consider that neither the character nor the appearance of the conservation area would be preserved.
... I consider that the design attempts to cram far too much development onto the site, which is in a sensitive location. This attempt to achieve a large number of dwellings at an inappropriately high density has led to a scheme design which is overlarge, monolithic, out of scale and far too intensive in use. I consider that the design has not been positively influenced by, or is at all compatible with, its local context. It would not knit in with its surroundings. It would harm the conservation area and lead to a significant loss of local open space. It would not contribute positively to making the area better for people and it would not respect the local character, context or community.
This does not leave much room for doubt about the appropriateness of the proposed design. We had made most of these points in the long period from the first application to the Public Inquiry. Clarke-Renner Architects, Dr Edis and Mr Tilley of CgMs argued that the building was both of a high-quality design and that it was was appropriate for its setting. It is very gratifying that the Inspector agreed with us. The whole episode clearly places some doubt on the judgement of those who argued in favour of the architectural merits of the proposed buildings.
What is required now is that the third application is drawn up in a different way and in a different spirit. The Government-funded body the Commission for Architecture and the Built Environment (CABE) says in its advice on the Design and Access statements that must accompany most development applications (except house extensions):
You should clearly show what groups and people you have been, or will be, discussing the scheme with. Government
guidance now encourages applicants to carry out professional consultations and community involvement at
the earliest possible stage as this will help to avoid the potential pitfalls of not doing so until it is too late to change the scheme.
The statement should explore the findings of any consultations that have been carried out and explain how
they have directed the decisions made by the applicant at this early stage in the scheme's development.
Later on this is re-inforced.
A good statement will be able to show that the applicant has spoken to local communities and sought professional advice at the earliest possible stage of the scheme's development.
Finally, in the Assessment Crib Sheet at the end of the document, we read:
The aims outlined here are perfectly clear. The local community should be involved in genuine consultation at an early design stage and not as an after-thought to justify pre-determined solutions. The long process of making two applications and having both rejected should make that plain to anyone who might have difficulty in grasping the point. Now, it would clearly make sense to discuss design with all interested parties before ideas become fixed. We hope that the developer will do this and that the next application, based on such a process, will arrive at the SDC for consideration with a background of general support based on careful and thorough consultation.
What is required for genuine community involvement is that there is a basis for thinking about possible approaches. This is where the expertise of the professional comes in. The Clarke-Renner website tells us that the firm is "adept at producing initial sketch designs very quickly, and enjoy the process of working with both clients and planners to achieve a favourable planning outcome". Good, so let's have some sketches of different possible approaches on which a discussion can be based and through which those who are interested can learn to appreciate both the possibilities and the constraints of the situation.
A fine example of the house-style is the following self-description that we spotted on the Clarke-Renner website: 'We see ourselves as 'referential modernists', mediating between the rational and the romantic, fulfilling the needs and objectives of our clients whilst satisfying our own preoccupation with challenging design. We aim for "rich clarity"'. Hmmmm. We suppose that "referential modernism" indicates the application of modern design concepts which nevertheless clearly link with established tradition. If so then the Clarke Renner design for the Campion House site cannot be counted as a great success. We note also that as of FEBRUARY 2010 the Clarke Renner website is still displaying its Campion design as if it were a current project despite the fact that it was rejected so clearly by the Inspecter in JULY 2007! Are they so short of work to display that, even well over two years later, they keep a design on their website that was so resoundingly rejected by the Inspector?