SEC is a voluntary alliance of 25 residents' and community groups, from Hanwell to Acton, that seeks revitalisation of our town centres with developments that meet all stakeholder needs. Contact Us to help, to register for further information, or to make a donation.

Height, scale + architecture

 The Context and The Issues they raise

 The troubled history of town centre redevelopment schemes in Britain since WW2 has taught us how important it is for these schemes to pay careful heed to the contextual details of the site and surroundings in which the development is to take place.

 Dickens Yard has some important site characteristics that help determine what can be built here successfully. At the same time, these characteristics also set limits as to the scale of the development that the site can comfortably accommodate. 

 1.      First, Dickens Yard is a tightly constrained parcel of land. Its only road frontage is on the western boundary - along a short stretch of Longfield Avenue but apart from this, the site is tightly bounded to the north by the GWR railway and to the south by the rear of properties fronting Uxbridge Road.  This makes it very different from sites at Kingston, and Putney which the architects cite as having provided their inspiration. There is no large open aspect for the development to fill and no views for the occupants of the site to enjoy. In fact Dickens Yard is so different from these sites that it is quite unrealistic to use them to compare it against.

 2.      A second factor that establishes the site context is its relationship to the two buildings that do most to establish the character of Ealing – the Town Hall and Christ Church – both of them listed buildings. These buildings, with their distinctive spires and towers, bookend the site on its western and eastern extremities, and between them is a locally protected frontage of Edwardian shop units whose scale, design and materials complement those of their grander neighbours. Taken as a whole, this group of buildings establish Ealing’s scale, and provides a yardstick for other buildings in the town centre that has been generally respected for the past 100 years.

 The recent Tibbalds report illustrates this point quite clearly. It acknowledges that the predominant building height in central Ealing is 2-3 storeys and illustrates this with a colour coded map that shows the number of storeys of all the buildings in the Town Centre: 

 

The current development is quite at odds with these characteristics. Its height is wrong and at a maximum of 14 (over 45 metres high) rather than 8 storeys it grossly exceeds the limits indicated in the Council’s well considered site brief. The bulk of the development is also wrong. In the main it constitutes just one building of uniform design – an unbroken length over 150 metres long.  There is no comparable example of a building in Ealing with this sized footprint. The proposal is completely out of scale, shape and size compared to any other block in this part of the Borough. The extract taken from the planning application illustrates the unacceptable brutality of the scheme’s design: 

 3.      Standing as it does on the edge of the Town Centre, a third contextual factor for the Dickens Yard site is the scale and the character of the buildings outside the Town Centre. These are overwhelmingly residential properties – family homes and low rise flats – which have helped Ealing to market itself as the Queen of the Suburbs.  These buildings provide homes to a well established community whose members value the human scale of its architecture and the grain of its streets. As proposed, the development will rise high above adjoining homes, invading their privacy, taking their sunlight and dominating their skyline. The site brief was clearly concerned about the sensitivity of the local community to the possible scale of the development but this sensitivity has been lost in the current scheme. 

 Unfortunately, and contrary to normal practice, no elevations have been provided in the planning application to show how, in its totality, the north face of the development will dominate over nearby homes, but some sections are available that help to illustrate the intimidating scale of the proposals:

 

 

Relevant UDP Policies

 Having considered the development in relation to the site, it is also necessary to test it against the Council’s UDP policies. It is quickly apparent that a development of the bulk proposed fails to meet several of the Council’s UDP design policies including the following: (emphasis added)

 Strategic Policy 1.4:

 To promote good urban design through planning, so that buildings and spaces are attractive, accessible, safe, and consistent with the principles of sustainable development, and that there is proper protection of the borough, particularly areas and buildings that are of historic and architectural value.

Comment . The proposals fail to meet this requirement in many respects. 

 Policy 4.1 Design of Development

 1. The design of development should be guided by the following principles:

                           (i)                  Good Layout

                           (ii)                  Appropriate Height and Scale

                           (iii)                 High Quality Architecture and Character

                           (iv)                  Appropriate Materials   ….

 

High Buildings:

 At over 45m the development needs to be assessed against the UDP’s policies on tall buildings. These are listed below.

 High Buildings or Structures

 Applications for high buildings or structures which exceed 20 m (65 ft) in height or which are significantly higher than their surroundings will be carefully considered, having particular regard to the following criteria:

1.  The building or structure should identify and emphasise a point of civic or visual significance over the whole area from which it will be visible.

2.  The building should very carefully relate to its surroundings and to other high buildings or prominent features in the vicinity.

3.  The site should be sufficiently large to ensure an adequate setting, including landscaping.

4.  The amenity and development of surrounding sites should not be impaired, in particular local and strategic views. Vistas and landmarks should not be immediately obstructed. Any building or structure permitted should not mar the skyline or important views (from within or outside the Borough).

5.  The building should take account of:

  (i) the effects of wind turbulence;

  (ii) conserving energy through passive solar design;

  (iii) opportunities for use of solar heat or photo voltaic cells; and

  (iv) the shading effects on surrounding land.

6. Building will not generally be acceptable on sites in or adjoining Green Belt or Metropolitan Open Land, or within Conservation Areas or Areas of Special Character.

 

 

Reference to these policies shows that:

1.      The proposed development does not emphasise a point of civic or visual significance over the area from which it is visible. As demonstrated above it detracts from what exists now.

2.      The proposed development fails entirely to relate to its surroundings

3.      The proposed development’s bulk is too great for the site and it will generally overwhelm its setting.

4.      The amenity of surrounding sites will be seriously impaired by the development.

5.      Shading effects on surrounding land have not been explored adequately. Shadow diagrams have been submitted for spring and summer but not winter when the sun is low and the shadows are long. At over 150m long the development will permanently deprive homes to the north of winter sunshine.

6.      The development is located in a Conservation Area where according to the Council’s policies high buildings are not generally acceptable.

 

Assessment against the Site Brief

The 2004 site brief establishes a number of requirements for a development on this site and these proposals need to be tested against them.

1.         Top-class standard of design is required for buildings and spaces

Comment

This requirement manifestly has not been met.

2.         The brief calls for an urban design statement to show:

 how the design of the buildings and the spaces created around them (including the relationship to existing buildings) will create real visual interest

clear definition between public and private space

views of the new development (from all points of the compass and from different distances)

how views of landmark buildings around the development will be affected.

Comment

The planning application carries no explanation how the public areas are to be managed as private space.   That this is proposed has only been brought to public attention because of the need to advertise the closure of public rights of way across the site.

The design and access statement is deficient in its depiction of views of the site. For instance no views are provided of it looking from the north.

The brief stipulates buildings up to 8 storeys could be acceptable subject to siting, impact on nearby uses, etc.

Comment.

All the residential buildings are over 8 storeys

 

Appraisal of accommodation proposed

Issues

 The quantum of development raises difficult problems for the scheme’s architects in ensuring that the accommodation provided meets acceptable standards. The main issues are the angle of natural light-fall into shopping streets, internal second floor courtyards and the individual flat. 

 The Ealing Plan for the Environment sets out goals for “Good Living Conditions for Residents” including “outlook and privacy”, and “Roof terraces and balconies will not be permitted where they overlook neighbouring habitable rooms ….. “

 The proposals fall well short of these in several respects.

 Views from the main habitable room windows/balconies in individual flats are in many cases restricted and do not meet the minimum recommended distances between windows to habitable rooms. The UDP requires 21m. between opposing habitable room windows. The DY scheme has various distances across the courtyards 21m, 12.5m, 18m + 19m between the blocks A - E respectively. The light fall is made worse as the average plan depths of the courts are 23m, 5m, 9m, 23m and 38m between the blocks A – E.

The space is also non-conforming between the main blocks on the north side of “Market Street” and the block F on the south side. Here the distance between habitable rooms appears to be only 12m.

SG4 states that "each unit should .... provide a kitchen with a window allowing natural lighting....... and family units should have a kitchen separate from the living room". Many of the units fail to meet these guidelines.

The UDP limits the space between opposite windows, but there is no requirement in the case of internal corner windows where privacy can be compromised if too close. The internal corner windows to various habitable rooms do not comply with either the UDP or with acceptable practice.

Compromise on this aspect suggests a similar compromise on outside noise levels within the main courtyards and across the main shopping street. Ditto from the railway on the north side.

Noise : The rear (north) elevations are only 10m from the nearest rail track.

Heights : All the high blocks appear to have had the top three floors added at some time as they are a different elevation treatment to the lower storeys, being mainly glass with no brick. Most elevations are of red/brown brick which, especially in the main courtyards, will keep the overall look of the buildings very dull and dark. A lighter colour would help to brighten up the overall affect.

Although sunlight will fall along the main access of the streets once a day, for the rest of the time the streets will be in mainly shadow. This would not be a problem if the width of these linear spaces were sufficient to allow light penetration but in this scheme the resttricted width of the proposed streets suggests that these spaces would in the main appear oppressive and un-welcoming.