Residents Urban Design Forum
Project:
Buzzard Mouth Courts
Meeting:
12 August 2010
The Residents Urban Design Forum
Thank you for consulting Barking and Dagenham’s Residents Urban Design
Forum on the housing at Buzzard Mouth Courts, Barking Riverside.
The Barking and Dagenham Residents Design Forum (Forum) is a group of
local residents who review proposed development projects that may impact
on the quality of urban design in the Borough. The members of the Forum
have been trained to be able to read and review plans and are continually
supported in this process by the Council.
The aim of the Forum is to provide advice from residents of the Borough to
applicants on significant development proposals. An annual report will be
produced to monitor the Forum’s progress and provide written evidence of the
impact the panel has had on the reviewed schemes. There is therefore an
expectation that applicants will act on the views of the Forum.
Following a meeting with Case Officer Charles Sweeny, the Forum has
provided a summary of its views on the scheme. The Forum looks forward to
receiving feedback from the applicant on the issues it has raised.
Summary
The Forum finds that the homes, as shown in the application material, to be
designed to a high standard. The Forum particularly likes the use of the
double aspect windows on the corners of certain units. It is thought that the
choice of windows and materials should create contemporary and bright living
spaces for the residents. However, we would ask that the following concerns
outlined below are considered.
-
The ground floors of the TR units appear to have an unconventional
layout. Plan 4189-sk-06 indicates that the space for private car parking
for these units will face directly onto the dining room. This in itself
would not be a cause for concern but the drawing indicates that the
wall facing the car has a glass French door. The Forum deems this
layout to be impractical since residents would be looking out onto their
car bonnet when sitting in the dining room area. The Forum therefore
suggests revising the design to perhaps have a window ending at a
level so as to conceal the front of the car. Since the dining room has
French doors on the opposite wall (leading out to a decked area) it is
1
thought that this second French door is unnecessary. Aside from the
aesthetics of the French door on the front of the property (when a car is
parked in the area in front of the house) the Forum also consider that
for security and privacy reasons a full length glass door is not ideal
when it looks onto living space at ground floor level (when a car is not
parked in the area in front of the house).
-
Bridges, as detailed on page 24 of the Access Statement. It is unclear
as to how secure these structures would be and how they would be
used in terms of non-residents and indeed other residents being given
access to rear gardens. The plans are not clear as to how these
‘bridges’ will work. The Forum is concerned that this is not a secure
design and that resident’s privacy may be compromised, we therefore
require clarification on this aspect of the scheme.
-
Maintenance and choice of materials. Whilst the Forum considers
that the choice of materials used in the scheme is successful we would
caution that certain aspects of the design, such as the wooden
cladding and the autumnal colour scheme on the doors, are integral to
the look and feel of the development and that should residents wish to
paint the cladding or change the colour of the door that this would give
a disjointed look to the development. The Council should consider how
such design features will be maintained, in particular on the private
homes.
The wood panelling contributes positively to the look of the scheme.
However, we are concerned about how the material will weather,
especially on any north facing elevations.
The choice of clear glass for the balconies may lead to a cluttered look
to the scheme, with residents either not keeping them tidy or using
bamboo-style fencing to give more privacy. The Forum suggests using
opaque glass, at least on the bottom section of the balconies, to
obscure any messiness and to give privacy.
2
-
Private gardens. The Forum would like to see higher partitioning
between back gardens, especially on the end units which front onto the
public footpaths. The height of the hedges indicated in the application
material is below waist level (please see image below) and this raises
security concerns. Residents, especially on the end units, are unlikely
to feel comfortable leaving garden furniture and personal possessions
in their garden if this is not addressed. The Forum would also like to
draw the Councils attention again to maintenance. Whilst the use of
hedges to separate gardens is a good material to use, in that it adds
colour and greenery, these will need regular maintenance.
-
Shared space. The concept of shared space is welcomed by the
Forum. However, 20mph still seems like a fast speed for a shared
surface street. Would there be signage to indicate to drivers that they
were entering a shared surface area or home zone?
-
Play space. The Forum would like to emphasise the importance of
providing play space in the central courtyard. The Forum would
encourage the Council to consider this aspect of the scheme carefully.
3
-
DLR. The application states that the DLR will be accessible to the
south of the site. This is unlikely to be in place in the first few years of
occupation. Therefore, it is considered optimistic to include this as part
of the public transport accessibility strategy.
Please keep the Forum in touch with the progress of this scheme. If there is
any point that requires clarification, please contact Naomi Pomfret.
Residents Urban Design Forum
Naomi Pomfret, Planning Officer, LBBD
T: 020 7224 8097
E: [email protected]
Please note that the views contained in the report are those of the
Residents Design Forum and do not represent those of the London
Borough of Barking and Dagenham.
4