design review

1. Crest Nicholson PLC. (2015). Gallery [Online]. Available at: http://www.bathwesternriverside.co.uk/gallery/latest-images/

[Accessed: 19 May 2015].

Design Review Report: Bath Western Riverside |01

DESIGN REVIEW REPORT:

BATH WESTERN RIVERSIDE

CONTENTS

CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION 2

CHAPTER 2: DEVELOPMENT BRIEF 3

CHAPTER 3: SITE CONTEXT 4

CHAPTER 4: DESIGN REVIEW METHODOLOGY 6

CHAPTER 5: LEGIBILITY & MOVEMENT 6

CHAPTER 6: QUALITY OF URBAN REALM & SPACE 8

CHAPTER 7: DIVERSITY, MIXED USES & TENURES 10

CHAPTER 8: ADAPTABILITY & RESILIANCE 11

CHAPTER 9: RESOURCES & EFFICIENCY 11

CHAPTER 10: ARCHITECTURE & CHARACTER 12

CHAPTER 11: CONCLUSION 13

Images from the top:

Image 1: Graphical illustration of phase 1 after completion.


Source: Crest Nicholson PLC. (2015)1.

2. Valley Parishes Alliance (2010). City of Bath [Online]. Available at: http://www.valleyparishesalliance.org.uk/index.php/

welcome/47/65-city-of-bath-world-heritage-site-and-conservation-areas [Accessed: 20 May 2015].

3. Fellden Clegg Bradley Architects (2006). Bath Western Riverside: Design and Access Statement 1 [Online]. Available at: http://

www.bathnes.gov.uk/planningdocuments=06/03396/EOUT [Accessed: 20 May 2015].

4. Crest Nicholson PLC. (2015). Overview [Online]. Available at: http://www.bathwesternriverside.co.uk/overview/


5. Alison Brooks Architects. (2015). Bath Western Riverside Nears Completion [Online]. Available at: http://alisonbrooksarchitects.com/

bath-western-riverside-nears-completion/ [Accessed: 20 May 2015].

6. B&NES. (2010). 06/01733/EOUT Decision Notice [Online]. Available at: http://www.bathnes.gov.uk/WAM/doc/Decision-439578.pdf?

extension=.pdf&id=439578&location=VOLUME2&contentType=application/pdf&pageCount=1&appid=1001[Accessed: 20 May 2015].

7. B&NES. (2015). 06/03396/EOUT [Online]. Available at: www.bathnes.gov.uk/WAM/doc/Application%20Form1-22006.pdf?extension=.

pdf&id=122006&location=VOLUME1&contentType=application/pdf&pageCount=1&appid=1001 [Accessed: 20 May 2015].


CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION

OBJECTIVE & STRUCTURE

This report systematically and contextually

evaluates the design qualities of the Bath Western

Riverside (BWR) redevelopment; focusing on Phases

1-3 in particular. The development features many

urban design implications resulting from its function as

a flagship residential project within a world heritage

city.

Chapters 1 and 2 locate and describe the

scheme while chapter 3 introduces the site context

from both present and future perspectives. The

development is reviewed in chapters 5-10 using six

overarching criteria justified in chapter 4. Chapter 11

concludes the report with an overall judgement on

the success of BWR and summarises the value of

design alterations resulting from the planning process.

LOCATION

Map 3 locates phases 1-3 (shaded red) as

slightly north-west of Bath’s geographic centre and

south of the river Avon2. Map 1 shows that phases 1-3

(outlined in red) are west of the commercial city

centre (outlined in purple)3. This is a walking distance

of 650m and driving distance of 800m.

BWR is an18 hectare site, it consists of two

similarly sized areas. Phases 1-3 make up the eastern

half while the western half is the space outlined in

black on Map 2. The development falls within multiple

policy areas, including a Supplementary Planning

Document (SPD) area — outlined in yellow.

DEVELOPMENT OVERVIEW

The development is transforming an industrial

brownfield into a modern residential quarter. The

developers — Crest Nicholson — are committed to

delivering “sustainable communities” that meet the

needs of inhabitants and the functions of the city4.

Outline planning permission for BWR was submitted

and in mid 2006.


For current guidance on SuDS in Devon, developers

should consult the Guidance for New Developments:

Surface Water Drainage Assessments1.





DEVELOPMENT BRIEF

The proposal includes 2,281 mixed residences,

650 student rooms, a new primary school and 60,000

square feet of commercial outlet space. BWR

provides 7.5 hectares of public space5. Furthermore,

new transport infrastructure improves current

connections6.

In late 2006, outline permission was submitted

for phases 1-3 which included 1,059 and portions of

the total shops and infrastructure7. However, full

planning permission is being secured on a

phase-by-phase basis. As such, the site layout has

been altered over the course of the development.

The planning process, new policies and the

economic recession delayed and altered the

development design8. As a result, the current

proposed site plan (Map 4, overleaf) significantly

differs from the outline site plan (Map 2, left).

Phase 1-3 boundary

Bath Western River-

side boundary

SPD area

Map 1 (above): Site location and relation to the city centre. Source: Fellden Clegg Bradley Architects (FCBA, 2006).

Map 2 (above): Location of phases 1-3 within the project and SPD area.

Phase 1-3 boundary

City centre

boundary

SPD area

Phase 1-3 boundary

Bath city

Map 3: Site location. Source: Valley Parishes Alliance (2010).

8. Bristol Post. (2009) Delayed Western Riverside Housing Scheme [Online]. Available at: http://www.bristolpost.co.uk/Builder-s-pledge-

delayed-Western-Riverside-housing-scheme/story-11292325-detail/story.html [Accessed: 20 May 2015].

9. Fellden Clegg Bradley Architects (2006). Bath Western Riverside: Design and Access Statement 3 [Online]. Available at: http://

www.bathnes.gov.uk/planningdocuments=06/03396/EOUT [Accessed: 20 May 2015].

10. Crest Nicholson PLC. (2013). Bath Riverside Unveils Next Phase [Online]. Available at: http://www.creatrixpr.co.uk/crestnicholson/

b5b16exhibition_web.pdf [Accessed: 19 May 2015].

11. DCLG. (2013) Code for Sustainable Homes Case Studies: [Online]. Available at: https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/

uploads/attachment_data/file/230271/Code_Case_Studies_Volume_4_- _final.pdf [Accessed: 20 May 2015].

12. B&NES. (2015) 06/04013/EFUL Property History [Online]. Available at: http://isharemaps.bathnes.gov.uk/projects/bathnes/

developmentcontrol/default.aspx?requesttype=parsetemplate&template=DevelopmentControlApplication.tmplt&basepage=

default.aspx&Filter=^REFVAL^=%2706/04013/EFUL%27&SearchLayer=DCApplications&SearchField=REFVAL&SearchValue=06/04013/

EFUL%20#atTab5 [Accessed: 20 May 2015].


CHAPTER 2: DEVELOPMENT BRIEF

Map 4 shows the most recent site plan and

highlights the key infrastructural and communal

aspects. Most notable is the high provision of green

space including two new parks (4 and 10) and

transport connections including two new bridges (5

and 14), plus a variety of street types4.

Map 5 shows the land use plan; displaying

clear public, semi-private and private space

segregation. Phases 1-3 feature 19 new blocks/

terraces, 4 of these have ground floor commerce.

The Wessex Water site (shaded grey) contains 2

buildings; one remaining unchanged while the

other is being converted into an energy centre

(shaded orange)9. The configuration of these aspects

is fully detailed in the review chapters.

PHASING

Map 6 illustrates the current status of the site10;

59 terrace houses, 295 apartments, 1 ground floor

commercial space and the energy centre have all

been completed (shaded in red)11. Another 420

residences have been granted planning permission.

Residents prefer to occupy areas of good

design and the completed residences have been

selling fast13. Therefore, BWR appears initially

successful. To understand this, the site context must

be analysed in terms of its past and future potential.

Geoff Webber (the case officer for this project)

was unavailable due to leaving B&NES. However,

various correspondences identify the main design

negotiations and these help to inform the review. Source: Author (20XX). Source: Author (20XX).

Phase 1-3 boundary

Bath Western River-

side boundary

Map 5: Land use plan. Source: FCBA (2006). Map 6: Project progress. Source: Crest Nicholson (2013).

Residential with

commercial

Residential

Wessex Water Site

Energy centre and visitor

information office

The public/private spaces and transport

routes to the south, plus those proximate to the

completed buildings have been finished.

currently, there is a single vehicle access point

(the road to the south-east)

SUMMARY

Although phases 2-3 are incomplete and

the western half of BWR has not commenced,

residents have occupied the site since 2011.

Resident occupancy is typically indicative of

design quality.

323 of the these residences are under

construction (shaded orange on Map 6), the

remaining 97 are being temporarily occupied by

portable offices (shaded in yellow). Only the 12

terrace houses (shaded in dark grey) still require

planning permission. This would bring the total

dwelling count to 786 — well below the 1,059

target in the outline permission12. Crest Nicholson

has begun developing outside the strictures of

phases 1-3; Destructor Bridge (shaded orange on

Map 6), has been demolished, denying northern

vehicular access.

Private space

Semi-private communal

space

Public space

Phase 1-3 boundary

Already on-site

Completed buildings

Buildings under

construction

Planning permission

granted

Next phase

Phase 1-3 boundary

Map 4: Proposed site plan. Source: Crest Nicholson (2015).

13. Crest Nicholson PLC. (2015). What’s Happening? [Online]. Available at: http://www.bathwesternriverside.co.uk/project/


14. B&NES. (2008). Bath Western Riverside Supplementary Planning Document [Online]. Available at: http://www.bathnes.gov.uk/

services/planning-and-building-control/planning-policy/supplementary-planning-documents-spds [Accessed: 22 May 2015].

15. B&NES. (2014). Core Strategy [Online]. Available at: http://www.bathnes.gov.uk/sites/default/files/sitedocuments/Planning-and-

Building-Control/Planning-Policy/Core-Strategy/cs_adopted_core_strategy_pre-publication_version.pdf [Accessed: 22 May 2015].


CHAPTER 3: SITE CONTEXT

CONSERVATION STATUS

Good design should adapt to and enhance

the local context by responding to the key

aspects of the area. Bath is contextually rich and

offers a variety of adaptable constraints and

opportunities to enhance. The site is within the

World Heritage boundary (Policy BH1 —

development must not harm heritage status), but

only north of the river is inside the Conservation

Area (Policy B6 — development must preserve or

enhance area character).

SITE HISTORY

Historical maps in the Design and Access

Statement (FCBA, 2006) show that BWR was

previously a manufacturing and gas works. These

were closed in the 1980’s and 2000’s respectively.

Prior to 1963, a railway connected north-west

BWR to the now-defunct Green Park Station

(illustrated by the purple line on Map 7). There is

an opportunity to reflect this heritage in BWR’s

urban form3.

TRANSPORT & PUBLIC SERVICES

The site is bordered by primary roads to the

north, south and west (Map 11, the red dotted

line surrounding the site)14 — As per Policy T1115,

these routes all have regular bus services3.

LISTED BUILDINGS & ARCHITECTURE

Bath has multiple Grade I listed buildings

including The Circus and The Crescent (Map 7). The

red buildings on the site periphery (Map 8) are Grade

II listed buildings. Victoria Bridge (labelled 1 on Map 8

and Image 3) is an on-site Grade II* pioneer

suspension bridge whose integration brings historical

value to the scheme3.

The nearest train station (Oldfield Park, Map 7) is

650 meters away and caters for easy access to

national destinations. Furthermore, the National

Cycle Network (Map 11, the blue dotted line running

alongside the north of the river)14 links the site to the

central green transport corridor and it is protected by

Policy T915. This allows 3 schools (blue dots on Map 7),

1 health centre (pink dot) and 3 amenity space

(green dots) to be within a 5 minute walk from the

site3.

Image 4 (represented by the red arrow on

Map 7) demonstrates the bowl-shaped

typography of Bath; the scheme is observable by

all surrounding hillsides. To an extent, this and the

listed buildings requires that BWR conforms to the

established building heights, symmetrical

Georgian architecture and the ordered urban

form of the city3.

FLOODING

In 2006 BWR had to conform to the

now-defunct Planning Policy Statement 25. and

Flood Risk Policy NE14 (new development must

not increase run-off)15. PPS25 required that

developments had to consider water

management of 1 in 100 year flood event +20%.

Map 9 shows that in such an event, phases 1-3 will

flood. The river Avon is highly channelized (shown

by picture 1 of Image 3) and the

development provides an opportunity for

adaption to flooding3.

ADDITIONAL POLICY

BWR is subject to the 2014 Core Strategy

policies saved from the superseded 2007 Local

Plan (adopted at the time of the planning

application). In accordance with Policy SB19,

BWR is regulated by site-specific supplementary

planning documents15.

Map 7: Significant transport and cultural sites. Source: FCBA (2006). Map 9: On site flood risk analysis. Source: FCBA (2006).

Map 8: Proximate listed buildings. Source: FCBA (2006). Image 3: Corresponding images for Map8. Source: FCBA (2006). Image 4: Site as viewed from Sion Hill. Source: FCBA (2006).

16. B&NES. (2013). Bath Riverside Enterprise Area Masterplan [Online]. Available at: http://www.bathnes.gov.uk/sites/default/files/

masterplan_vision_report_141030_low_res.pdf [Accessed: 22 May 2015].


CHAPTER 3: SITE CONTEXT





Map 10: Bath Riverside Enterprise Area. Source: B&NES (2013). Map 11: Summary masterplan showing key organising principles. Source: B&NES (2008).

SPDS

BWR is the flagship project of the Bath Riverside

Enterprise Area (08 on Map 10)16 The enterprise area

focuses on promoting: inspiring public realm, green

infrastructure, buildings and movement, connectivity

of streets, integration of urban form and encouraging

urban design and architecture sympathetic to Bath.

Map 10 contextualises the future of the

development. For example, the connections to future

expansion are shown by the red arrows.

Bath Western Riverside SPD has significant

weight in determining planning applications. It

provides 11 overarching design principles which are

delivered through the spatial masterplan (Map 11)14.

These include:

Design solutions sensitive to the city context.

Utilizing the river Avon as a landscaping asset.

Human scale/proportioning must be achieved.

BWR must be physically and visually connected

by implementing the strategic movement

shown by the activity points on Map 11.

High design quality must be achieved with

architecture which respects traditional forms

while embracing contemporary design.

Provision of public open spaces

Maintaining homogenate colour of the city by

using Bath Stone.

Respecting townscape by implementing

the unbroken roofscaping of the city centre.

Embodying the principles of sustainable

development including securing Level 3 of the

Code for Sustainable Homes.

Providing services/facilities for the community.

Design Codes have been created to ensure

the application of these principles, the effectiveness

of these will be discussed through the review.

17. DETR. (2000). By Design [Online]. Available at: https://learningcentral.cf.ac.uk/bbcswebdav/pid-3182505-dt-content-rid-4722304_2/

courses/1415-CP0322/By%20Design%20Urban%20Design%20in%20the%20planning%20system%20towards%20better%20practice.pdf

[Accessed: 22 May].

18. Cowan et al. (2010). Qualityreviewer [Online]. Available at: https://learningcentral.cf.ac.uk/bbcswebdav/pid-3182509-dt-content-rid-

4722312_2/courses/1415-CP0322/1112-CP0322_ImportedContent_20110731014941/Qualityreviewer%20final.pdf [Accessed: 22 May].

19. CABE. (2012). Building for Life 12 [Online]. Available at: https://learningcentral.cf.ac.uk/bbcswebdav/pid-3182511-dt-content-rid-

4722317_2/courses/1415-CP0322/Building%20for%20Life%2012.pdf [Accessed: 22 May 2015].


DESIGN REVIEW CRITERIA

To evaluate BWR, a design review framework

applicable for large scale residential development

must be established. By Design17 considers urban

design as the key to sustainable development, a

flourishing economy and social progress — all

objectives of the SPDs. This report defers to the

Qualityreviewer18 as it was created to guide design

evaluation. By amalgamating previous design review

documents, it establishes 6 central criteria — outlined

in red on Table 1. Qualityreviewer evaluates the

proposal and implementation of a scheme in terms

of the people and place it is designed for.

LEGIBILITY

This concerns the navigability of the site in terms

of the development layout, landmarks and

recognisable routes17,18. Map 12 marks the main

visible corridors the can be observed from outside of

the scheme. Images 5 and 6 (represented by the

blue arrows) show the visual clarity between of the

major route connections.

There are two visual links connecting the Upper

and Lower Bristol roads. However, legibility must be

interesting to encourage exploring. All the marked

routes feature minor typographic shifts (see map 13).

The green circle demonstrates where this is not the

case; the building line is purposely altered to regulate

traffic flow. In addition, the red circles are tall, stand-

alone buildings that act as landmarks — as required

by the 2008 SPD14.

It was published during 2010, the same time as

the submission of the redesigned BWR application,

making it chronologically the best framework for

contemporary scrutiny. Good design promotes

aspects of the 6 criteria above, ach aspect is

introduced when relevant.

Building for Life 1219 is highly suited for

residential review. In addition, Code for Sustainable

Homes allows for residential sustainability to be

measured. Therefore, these documents and

Qualityreviewer (with its associated English

documents) provide the most applicable framework

for evaluation.

Table 1: Amalgamation of design review criteria. Source: Qualityreviewer (2010).

CHAPTER 4: DESIGN REVIEW METHODOLOGY CHAPTER 5: LEGIBILITY & MOVEMENT

Map 12: Permeability of the site plan and photograph shots. Source: FCBA (2010).

Image 5: East to west legibility. Source: Edge (2015). Image 6: South to north legibility. Source: Edge (2015).

https://learningcentral.cf.ac.uk/bbcswebdav/pid-3182505-dt-content-rid-4722304_2/courses/1415-CP0322/By%20Design%20Urban%20Design%20in%20the%20planning%20system%20towards%20better%20practice.pdf

https://learningcentral.cf.ac.uk/bbcswebdav/pid-3182505-dt-content-rid-4722304_2/courses/1415-CP0322/By%20Design%20Urban%20Design%20in%20the%20planning%20system%20towards%20better%20practice.pdf

https://learningcentral.cf.ac.uk/bbcswebdav/pid-3182509-dt-content-rid-4722312_2/courses/1415-CP0322/1112-CP0322_ImportedContent_20110731014941/Qualityreviewer%20final.pdf

https://learningcentral.cf.ac.uk/bbcswebdav/pid-3182509-dt-content-rid-4722312_2/courses/1415-CP0322/1112-CP0322_ImportedContent_20110731014941/Qualityreviewer%20final.pdf

20. FCBA. (2010). Proposed Site Plan [Online]. Available at: http://www.bathnes.gov.uk/WAM/doc/Revised%20Drawing-392466.pdf?

extension=.pdf&id=392466&location=VOLUME2&contentType=application/pdf&pageCount=1&appid=1001


21. Hamilton-Baillie, B. (2008) . Shared Space: Reconciling People, Places and Traffic. Built Environment. 34(2), pp. 161-181.


CHAPTER 5: LEGIBILITY & MOVEMENT

Image 7 was

taken from the Lower

Bristol Road (1 on

Map 13), it shows a

low quality pedestrian

only route connect-

ing to a street behind

the new housing. It is

illegible and By

Design considers

positioning such links

behind housing as

poor design.

EASE OF MOVEMENT

Increased permeability (how easy it is to move

through an area), efficient public transport

connection, reducing car and promoting equal

access all contributes towards improved

movement17,18,19. The 2008 SPG significantly

influenced transport and parking14.

There are 13 site access points, 9 of which are

exclusive to pedestrians/cyclists. By increasing non-

vehicular permeability with riverside routes and paths

through urban blocks (dark green, Map 13)

car reliance is reduced — satisfying an aspect of

good design18. The road connections all link to

primary routes, but the site lacks an eastern exit as it is

blocked by a commercial site. Instead, a temporary

access point is provided in the south-east until Bath

Eastern Riverside is developed16.

BWR has a clear road hierarchy from streets to

shared space (the pink areas on Map 13). The

benefits of this include reduced car speeds and a

more accessible, physically safer environment. Yet,

the shared space in Image 8 lacks amenities or an

interesting form. It fails to function as a social space.

f

Though unmarked on the masterplan, a new

bus route will span the east-west site corridor,

providing transit access to the inhabitants. However,

there is no plan for a north-south service and parts of

the site will be over 500m from a bus stop, increasing

reliance on private transportation.

Map 13: Proposed transportation site plan. Source: FCBA (2010).

Primary A-road

Major access road

Bus stop

Off-site pedestrian/cycle

route

Vehicular access point

Pedestrian/cycle access point

New street

Homezone

On-site pedestrian/cycle route

On-street parking

Underground parking access Image 8: Homezone. Source: Edge (2015).

Image 7: Poor permeability.

Source: Edge (2015).

http://eprints.uwe.ac.uk/17937/8/tran1200047h.pdf


CHAPTER 5: MOVEMENT & LEGIBILITY

Despite the increased physical safety,

perception of safety in shared spaces is lessened,

potentially resulting in pedestrians avoiding the area.

BWR addresses this issue by reframing from

connecting primary streets using homezones, thereby

minimising through-traffic. The lack of a direct north-

south vehicular connection and the change of

building line when travelling east to west further

improves careful driving and helps to encourage non

-motorised travel.

The 2008 SPG required 0.7 parking spaces per

dwelling. 10% of the site total could be on street

parking (Image 11). The remaining spaces are

underground (shown in Image 9), accessible at the

brown squares on Map 13. This essentially removes

cars as an item of clutter from the streets and places

them in a more secure location. In terms of access for

all — disabled parking is located at the closest

building entry points exemplified by Image 10.

Images 8, 10 and 11 show high quality street

paving is sympathetic to the elderly and physically

disabled. However, there are no texture changes on

the shared surfaces that could indicate the threat of

vehicles to the visually impaired. This element of poor

design fails to uphold the access for all principle.

Furthermore, Image 12 illustrates a poor choice of

surfacing that has warped and now poses as a trip

hazard.

QUALITY OF THE URBAN REALM

Safety, attractive areas, provision of amenities

and minimising dead space are the central aspects

of the public realm18,19. In accordance with the 2008

SPG, the waterfront is utilised to improve the

attractiveness of the area14. This action is

considered good design in Building for Life 1218.

Images 13-16 demonstrate a high level of

public realm observation combined with large open

spaces. Together, these achieve a feeling of

communal safety. Yet, the large ground floor

windows in Image 5 left residences feeling exposed,

as a result curtains were typically drawn and this

limited ground floor observation.

Due to building orientation, a large number of

windows and an ongoing provision of green space,

BWR has created little dead space. The main areas

lacking activity are the underground and gated

parking areas (Images 17 and 18).

The use of foliage in the public realm can

provide shelter and enclosure while increasing

biodiversity which brings more nature to the site,

further improving the public realm.

Images 13 and 14 show effective use of

landscaping and amenity provision that results in a

vibrant meeting place. Public activity and leisure

uses are promoted. By Design17 considers this an

aspect of high quality public realm. However, the

sign in Image 15 (found throughout the site) and the

communal area in image 16 paints an impression of a

controlled area where children cannot play as they

desire. This raises the question the type of tenant this

development is targeted at.

CHAPTER 6: QUALITY OF THE URBAN REALM & SPACE

Image 9: Underground parking. Source: Edge (2015).

Image 10: Disabled parking. Source: Edge (2015).

Image 11: The main east-west street. Source: Edge (2015).

Image 12: Poor surfacing on Victoria Bridge. Source: Edge (2015).

CONTEXTUAL ELEMENTS

Finally, the road layout utilizes some historical

connections. For example, the east-west corridor and

north-west pedestrian bridge are constructed on the

defunct rail lines. Victoria Bridge was renovated and

reopened as a pedestrian/cycle-only route9. This

preserves and enhances some of the site history.

Image 13: Riverside Park. Source: Crest Nicholson (2015).

Image 15: High quality public realm. Source: Edge (2015). Image 16: Behind the apartments. Source: Crest Nicholson(2015).

Image 14: Activities are limited. Source: Edge (2015).

22. FCBA. (2010). Proposed Site Plan [Online]. Available at: http://www.bathnes.gov.uk/WAM/doc/Revised%20Drawing-392466.pdf?

extension=.pdf&id=392466&location=VOLUME2&contentType=application/pdf&pageCount=1&appid=1001



CHAPTER 6: SPACE & QUALITY OF THE PUBLIC REALM

PUBLIC AND PRIVATE SPACE

The enclosure created by the apartments in

Images 16 and 20 feature in the 3 main urban blocks

of phases 1-3 (see masterplan). Enclosure creates a

continuity of space that defines public and private

spaces.

BWR features three types of space; public

(accessible to all), semi-private (shared by the

residents — image 20) and private (owned by the

dwelling occupier). The private spaces are back

gardens of the terrances9. By Design states that good

practice clearly defines these spaces using vertical

markers like railings17. However, Image 18 (showing

the green circle) is not public space as indicated by

Map 14.

Image 21: Little massing on apartments. Source: Edge (2015).

Private space

Semi-private communal

space

Public space

Map 14: Organisation of space accessibility. Source: FCBA (2006).

Image 17: Dead space behind apartments. Source: Edge (2015).

Image 18: Dead space either side of the gate. Source Edge (2015).

Image 19: Gate segregated space types. Source: Edge (2015).

Image 20: Semi-private communal space. Source: Edge (2015).

The automatic gate closes this area to the

public, the pedestrian access point (Image 7/Map

13) is cut off. In this respect, semi-private space

significantly reduces the number of pedestrian routes.

There is a spatial hierarchy; semi-private space is

blocked but visible to an extent (Image 19),

whereas private space is unobservable and blocked

by dead space (Image 22).

SCALE AND MASSING

Qualityreviewer states that best design ponders

the full range of scales at which the development is

viewed. The large apartments are devoid of any

massing to appear at a human scale (Image 21),

limiting the develop success in this criteria18. Image 22: Entrance to private space. Source: Edge (2015).

23. Crest Nicholson. (2015). Available Homes [Online]. Available at: https://www.crestnicholson.com/bathriverside/availability


24. B&NES. (2015). Planning Applications. (Reference: 06/04013/FUL) [Online]. Available at: http://isharemaps.bathnes.gov.uk/projects/

bathnes/developmentcontrol/default.aspx?requesttype=parsetemplate&template=DevelopmentControlApplication.tmplt&

basepage=default.aspx&Filter=^REFVAL^=%2706/04013/EFUL%27&SearchLayer=DCApplications&SearchField=REFVAL&SearchValue=

06/04013/EFUL%20#atTab5 [Accessed: 25 May 2015].


CHAPTER 7: DIVERSITY, MIXED USES & TENURES

Properties are available as both freehold (from

£225,000-£1,300,000) and leasehold though the

affordable housing and all leaseholds have been

sold23. The affordable housing target for phases 1-3

was 35% but during the economic recession this was

negotiated down to 25% on the condition that phase

1 was 40% affordable housing.

DIVERSITY

Mixed uses keep an area more viable and

adaptable18. The diversity and tenure of buildings

without planning permission remains influx. However,

the following tenures/uses have been confirmed24:

No. 1 Victoria Bridge: 45 one–two bedroom

apartments and 2 commercial spaces

No. 1 Riverside: 52 1-2 bedroom apartments,

open commercial ground floor

Longmead/Percy Terrace: 38 3-4 bedroom

town houses

B11.B13/B15a/B15b: 259 apartments, a mix of

one, two and three bedrooms.

B1: 8 semi-detached villas, six terrace houses, 3

maisonettes, two apartments, a flat and 150

square meters of commercial space

B2: 6 mews houses

B17: 32 one-bed apartments, 23 two-bed

apartments and one commercial unit

Phase 1A: 240 one-three bed apartments, 59 2-

4 bedroom terrace houses.

BWR still has another 1,507 dwellings, 650

student residences (plus the associated commercial

ground floors) and the school to approve. Overall,

the scheme is mainly providing apartments, the

economic upturn has also resulted in negotiations to

raise the percentage of affordable housing. Overall,

for an inner city residential scheme, BWR is delivering

a strong diversity of uses and mix of tenure.

MIXED TENURE

Mixed tenures encourage the benefits of social

diversity17,18. During first submission, BWR consisted of

more flats. However, the council influenced a design

change; the southern block of flats were replaced by

houses.

Map 15: Full building use site plan. Source: FCBA (2010).

Residential with

commercial

Residential

Wessex Water Site

Energy centre and visitor

information office

Student accommodation

with some commercial

School and community

centre

Phase 1-3 boundary

Bath Western Riverside

25. B&NES. (2008). Bath Western Riverside Design Codes [Online]. Available at: http://www.bathnes.gov.uk/sites/default/files/

sitedocuments/Planning-and-Building-Control/Planning-Policy/SPDs/BWRSPD-AppendixDDesignCodes.pdf [Accessed: 26 May 2015].

26. Department for Communities and Local Government. (2013). Code for Sustainable Homes Case Studies Volume 4 [Online]. Available

at: https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/230271/Code_Case_Studies_Volume_4_-

_final.pdf [Accessed: 26 May 2015].


RESILIENCE

Qualityreviewer states that

good design must adapt to

environmental threats, specifi-

cally those amplified by climate

change18. Map 16 is the

adaption strategy for the flood

risk in Map 9. The riverside parks

(Image 23) have been lowered

closer to the water level.

During times of flooding,

these green areas will act as

artificial floodplains, displacing

the water from within the site

(shaded red) to the area of

flood compensation (shaded

purple). The underground

parking also functions as a

emergency flood relief.

ADAPTABILITY

This concerns whether the development has

the capacity to support new uses if future

circumstances render the current use as ineffective.

According to the Riverside Enterprise Area, the city

centre will expand to the border of the

development16. The apartment/mews have higher

ground floors, to cater for the ability to be changed

into shops. The Design Codes25 identify that Georgian

terraces have proven to be adaptable buildings.

PUBLIC REALM

Firstly, the cyclist and pedestrian prioritisation

demonstrated in chapter 5 sways inhabitants towards

non-polluting transportation modes. Secondly,

though at an early stage of implementation,

provision of trees helps to counter carbon dioxide

emissions and acts as a micro-climate cooler.

Sustainability must be considered during

construction. BWR utilises stone from mines in Limpley

Stoke, reducing pollution of further afield imports. This

stone is a substitute for Bath stone which materially

connects BWR to Bath in terms of architecture and

character — the final criteria of good design.

ENERGY EFFICIENCY

Qualityreviewer states that resource efficiency

is essential due to developments causing and

suffering from climate change18. In accordance with

the 2008 SPD, BWR developments are created with

“embedded sustainability” where the development is

designed to ingrain sustainability as a way of living14.

Phase 1 achieved Code for Sustainable Homes

Level 4 with several sustainable initiatives26. Energy

consumption is minimised by double glazing windows

and insulating walls (Image 27). Energy for 813 units is

provided by the biomass-fuelled power centre

(Images 25 and 26)27. The development fails to

capitalise on solar energy due to planning restrictions

on roofscape.

The BWR houses are designed in this adaptable

style. Furthermore, the structural framework of the

apartments (Image 24) has the capacity to be

renovated as mews/offices. In addition, the inter-

connected street network is a comparatively more

adaptable urban form than cul-de-sacs or indoor

shopping centres. In terms of tenures however, BWR is

tied into a 125 year affordable housing contract,

which may harm the future viability of the scheme.

CHAPTER 8: ADAPTABILITY & RESILIENCE CHAPTER 9: RESOURCES & EFFICIENCY

Map 16: Flood risk displacement post development. Source: FCBA (2010).

Image 23: Flood alleviation area. Source: Edge (2015). Image 24: Structural framework of BWR. Source: Edge (2015).

Image 25: The energy centre. Source: Transition Bath (2014). Image 26: The biomass boiler. Source: Transition Bath (2014).

Image 27: Double glazing glass. Source: Edge (2015). Image 28: Homezone permeable paving. Source: Edge (2015).

27. Bath Transit. (2014). Bath Western Riverside Energy Centre and District Heating System [Online]. Available at: http://transitionbath.org/

bath-western-riverside-energy-centre-district-heating-system/ [Accessed: 26 May 2015].


OVERVIEW

Qualityreviwer considers architecture more

subjective than the previous functional-based

criteria. Appearance, uniqueness, response to local

character, scale, order and style all contribute

towards good design. The 2008 SPD states that BWR

should innovate yet be successful within the context

of Bath14,18,. This chapter reviews each of the three

present main building types with the spaces they

create.

APARTMENT BLOCKS

The angular apartment blocks which dominate

most of the site are scaled to reflect the large

Georgian terraces like Great Pultney Street. They

feature an extremely symmetrical configuration,

again reminiscent of ordered Georgian architecture.

However, they lack decorative work and at a close

scale are unilateral and unengaging .

TERRACES

The terraces are much more reminiscent of

Georgian architecture; the introduction of railings,

stepped entrances, architraves and arched slate

roofs are more in-keeping with traditional inner-city

architecture (image 35). They also vary in height,

both the building and roof lines change.

This purposeful imperfection makes the streets

appear more memorable.

The small front gardens create a more

residential and welcoming feel in comparison with

the apartment frontages which — to an extent

represent dead space. Overall, the terraces trade

grandeur for tradition and this generates a pleasant,

albeit conservative environment (image 36).

They reach up to 7 stories high and the flat

unbroken façade creates an imposing and inhuman

scale. Instead of Georgian, the urban blocks feel

more related to the communal blocks of Eastern

Berlin. The dark zinc roofing blends with a structure in

a similar way to most of the dark slate roofing in Bath.

The corners of the blocks are marked by double-

width windows and this gives pedestrians a visual

clue to the area layout.

The courtyard architecture behind the blocks

(image 31) is more expressive; removing to some

extent, symmetrical conventions. Finally, the blocks

pay homage to the site history, the roads and public

art reflect the old industry (as shown in images 29 and

30). The blocks mark a unique strand of the city, but

ultimately they combine Georgian uniformity (image

32) with bland large-scale frontage.

RIVER FRONT HOUSES

These houses are relatively detached from the

main site and act as a very unique space (image 33).

While the whole terrace is inspired by the curvature of

Bath’s crescents (image 34), the architecture of each

house is unusual and angular — a design style of the

architect. The houses are designed at the human

scale and they create a strong streetscape to link the

new development to the city centre.

The semi-detaching of the waterfront villas

allows the mews behind to have a view of the river, in

turn the mews are of a reduced height, allowing

sunlight to enter the courtyard. To summarise, these

are the most desirable properties of the scheme and

their design is very innovative.

CHAPTER 10: ARCHITECTURE & CHARACTER

Image 29: The crane represents ex-industry. Source: Edge (2015). Image 31: Apartment courtyard. Source: Crest Nicholson(2015). Image 33: River front houses. Source: Crest Nicholson(2015). Image 35: Terraces on Stothert Avenue. Source: Edge (2015).

Image 30: Road names reference site history. Source: Edge (2015). Image 32: Georgian uniformity. Source: (FCBA, 2006). Image 34: Norfolk Crescent. Source: (FCBA, 2006). Image 36: Front view of the terraces. Source: Edge (2015).



BATH WESTERN RIVERSIDE

CONCLUSION

To summarise, Bath Western Riverside is located

in a contextually sensitive setting. Yet it has

accomplished much and continues to deliver

innovative design. Per the criteria used in this guide,

BWR demonstrates strong legibility and promotes

sustainable transport methods through the

prioritisation of the pedestrian/cyclist and creation

of public transport connections.

It also clearly defines public and private space

and in places, delivers excellent public realm.

Unfortunately this is hindered by the inhuman scale

block architecture which typifies the design of the

apartments. In accordance with policy and design

codes however, a good mix of use and tenures,

combined with environmental resilience and a

capability to adapt, characterises BWR as a strong

flagship project, embedded in an area of future

growth.

Images from the top:



Source: Crest Nicholson PLC. (2015)1.


design review

Documents

city of bath

design review report

western half

design qualities

design review methodology

urban design implications

value of design alterations

site context