Charlestown Riverside: a place-shaping framework

Charlestown Riverside Charlestown Riverside: a place-shaping framework May 2017 For Turley on behalf of Group 12 8510417, 9918954, 10106879, 9844955, 10054349, 10059800, 9799780 Charlestown Riverside Contents Introduction................................................................................................1-2 1 Baseline Analysis 1.1 Summary of Findings.........................................................................4-15 1.2 Design and Policy Principles.............................................................16-17 1.3 The Boundary......................................................................................18 1.4 Introducing 3 Visions..........................................................................19 2 Vision A - Student Residential Hub 2.1 Introduction..........................................................................................21 2.2 Indicative Masterplan..........................................................................21-22 3 Vision B - Enhancing the Wellbeing of the Existing Community 3.1 Introduction...........................................................................................23 3.2 Indicative Masterplan...........................................................................23-24 4 Vision C - Highly Desirable Riverfront Development 4.1 Introduction............................................................................................25 4.2 Indicative Masterplan............................................................................25-26 5 Improvement Zone 5.1 Description..............................................................................................27 5.2 Indicative Masterplan and Justification...............................................28-29 6 Conclusions 6.1 Design Principles and Policy Matrix....................................................31-32 6.2 Main Recommendations.......................................................................33 6.3 Preferred Masterplan............................................................................34-37 6.4 Best Practice Examples........................................................................38-39 6.5 Other Considerations............................................................................40-41 6.5.1 Funding 6.5.2 Phasing 6.5.3 Environmental Considerations 6.5.4 Potential Limitations Annex A: Charlestown Riverside Baseline Presentation Annex B: Planning Policy Matrix Annex C: Overall Site Suitability SWOT Analysis Charlestown Riverside Introduction Map 1 & 2: Location of Charlestown in Salford Charlestown Riverside holds huge potential to attract investment due to its location in Salford, North West England: one of Britain’s key growth areas. The aesthetic appeal of Charlestown Riverside’s waterfront and open spaces gives the area a unique edge. The report then sets out three Masterplan Visions based on those outlined in the Baseline Analysis, each accompanied by a detailed description. The report then draws a conclusion as to the most appropriate and beneficial vision to This report sets out by outlining findings from be developed on the site by measuring how an in-depth Baseline Analysis previously each vision satisfies the design and policy conducted by Group 12 (see Annex A). The principles. Baseline Analysis focusses on the physical attributes and fundamental issues present A final masterplan is set out in section 6.3 on the site. The Baseline Analysis then out- which has the basis of the preferred vision, lines three indicative visions for the develop- plus some key beneficial elements of the ment of the site which have the aim to meet other visions in an attempt to optimise the the development needs of the Charlestown benefits of the development and add maxiin different ways. mum sustainable long-term value for all. The Baseline Analysis highlights the site’s The report also gives consideration to the development opportunities and constraints funding and phasing, as well as potential limwhich inform the location of the site bounda- itations of the development. ry and the design and policy principles. 1 Charlestown Riverside Introduction This place-shaping framework has been developed by Group 12 on behalf of Turley using the following aims and objectives: Aims: • To undertake a baseline analysis of Charlestown Riverside and identify key opportunities and constraints, as well as a finalised boundary and 3 site-appropriate strategic masterplan visions. • To further develop the 3 visions and analyse their suitability in terms of planning policy, design principles and information provided by the baseline analysis. • To develop a final justified ‘preferred’ masterplan with key recommendations and potential interventions for Turley to consider. Objectives: • To summarise the findings from the Base line Analysis. • To produce 3 indicative masterplans based on the decided visions. • To measure the success of the 3 options against policy and design principles. • To provide a detailed preferred masterplan with key recommendations. Methodology: After conducting a baseline analysis of Charlestown Riverside, Group 12 identified an appropriate site boundary within the area considering the baseline analysis findings. Group 12 also identified policy principles, devised design principles and proposed three different provisional visions for the development of the site. In this report, Group 12 will propose the three indicative masterplans for the development of the site based on three different visions for the area. The report evaluates the viability and potential success of the three visions by using SWOT analyses and by measuring each vision agains the proposed design and policy principles identified in section 1.2. The report then outlines the chosen Masterplan vision for Charlestown Riverside, with consideration given to the investment potential for developers. 2 CharlestownRiverside Riverside Charlestown The Baseline Analysis 3 Charlestown Riverside 1 Baseline Analysis This chapter summarises the key findings from the baseline analysis (see annex A), including opportunities and constraints, policy implications, the chosen boundary, three indicative visions, and design principles for consideration. Mixed Terraces Narrow streets and terraced housing with traditional workers-style housing. It is important that these findings are considered throughout the design process in order to arrive at a feasible and successful development Masterplan. Charlestown West Community 1.1 Summary of the baseline analysis It is clear from the baseline analysis that Charlestown and its neighbouring areas are divided into a number of distinctive ‘character areas’ (as seen on map 3). Although these areas differ in use, atmosphere and vernacular, overall, the Charlestown community share similar levels of high economic deprivation and have poor access to local amenities or community facilities. There is also a large amount of unused land that presents an opportunity to improve and enhance Charlestown Riverside and create a solid identity. Open Green Spaces A vast open area with excellent potential for development due to its flat topography and proximity to the waters’ edge. A cluster of sporadically-placed uniform social housing, featuring small pocket parks, car parks, and large front and back gardens. Charlestown Core This area contains important educational facilities and retail units. It forms the core of Charlestown due to its positioning between the Mixed Terrace, Open Green Space and Charlestown West Community. Industrial Centres Industrial warehouses in-use to be kept separated from the residential areas by Category A and B trees as a ‘green buffer’. 4 Charlestown Riverside 1 Baseline Analysis Map 3: Character Areas 5 Charlestown Riverside 1 Baseline Analysis Social Issues 3 areas within the site 1% most deprived are within the in England. (Salford City Council, 2016). The population of Irwell Riverside Ward is projected to Life expectancy falls below grow by 16.5% the national average. from 2015-2021. (ONS, 2016). Crime rates in Irwell Riverside are higher than Salford and Manchester. It has the Alcohol-related and selfharm hospital admissions from Irwell Riverside are double the national average. highest rate for domestic burglary in Salford, at 19.8 per 1,000 households, and is increasing. GCSE acheivement rates fall far below the Salford and England averages - at only 43% achieving 5 GCSEs at grade A*-C. Environment According to the Environment Agency, the Charlestown hosts a rich natural environ- site (not including ‘Charlestown West Comment, especially given its blue infrastructure munity’), lies within Flood Zone 2 and does and adjacent open space. This open space not benefit from flood defences (Map 4). The is a brownfield site that is currently a grassed area North of the River is within Flood Zone area with uneven – but relatively flat – topog- 3 but has flood defence measures in place; this might suggest that if development were raphy. to take place on the site, defences would be necessary to mitigate impacts of flooding. 6 Charlestown Riverside 1 Baseline Analysis Guidelines given in the British Standards document BS5837 for trees on development sites advises that trees are retained or removed depending on their potential to become an asset to the development or, in contrast, an object of resentment/ a threat to public safety. There exist both Category A and Category B trees on the Charlestown Riverside site. Upon site inspection it appears that there are a number of trees located on Balfour Street which should be classified as Category R and therefore be removed from the site due to extensive defects, illustrated in Image 3. There are currently no Tree Preservation Orders on the site. Category A - will survive 40+ years into the future Good examples of species, especially rare Essential tree within an avenue/group Of visual importance, i.e. provides screening of softening effect to a site Within conservation zone/with historical or cultural value Image 1: Category A Tree Category B - will survive 20+ years into the future Impaired condition Distinctive woodlands (i.e. groups of trees) Clearly identifiable conservation/cultural benefits Image 2: Category B Tree Category R - very bad condition Serious, irreparable defect and expected to collapse Pose a risk to public safety If removed there will be environmental impact mitigation i.e. reinstatement of nest / roost / etc. Image 3: Category C Tree 7 Charlestown Riverside 1 Baseline Analysis Map 4: Flood Risk Zone and TPOs 8 Charlestown Riverside 1 Baseline Analysis History, Heritage and Character There are 2 listed buildings that lie within the study area, and 3 other significant buildings The site was previously used for workers’ that have been identified and are occupied housing in the industrial era. From 1890 to by schools (one of which is locally listed). 1920 the industrial uses expanded along The most striking landmark is the church with residential uses. More recently, the in- spire, which has been retained whilst the dustrial uses have declined and old ware- church has been demolished and replaced houses are now used for storage, residential with housing. This is a landmark that is visiuses have also diminished with some whole ble from all areas of Charlestown, especially residential developments demolished. given its place on a hill. Currently, the site is predominantly residential, with 2 primary schools and some smallscale community facilities within the southern edge. The site is tightly bounded by light industrial uses/warehouses to the south and the River Irwell to the North. Salford university buildings, accommodation and other educational establishments are found in dense clusters to the east of the site, this suggests a vibrant community and mix of residents. There are a very small amount of walkable shops or restaurants outside of the site for convenience; therefore people depend on cars and public transport. Overall, there are mainly class C and B uses with lots of educational facilities within the study area. However, there are a lack of local commercial uses including retail, restaurants, convenience stores, and businesses. The pedestrian bridge over the river offers exemplary views for pedestrians from a close-range. This allows panoramic views of the waterway, riverside parklands and the adjoining built up areas. The bridge provides a sense of momentary immersion in the naturalistic environment of the river corridor. Figure 1: Listed Building- Church Spire Figure 2: Listed Building- Public House 9 Charlestown Riverside 1 Baseline Analysis The visibility of the Tower of Church of St George with Barnabus (Image 4) is currently restricted by housing. There is an opportuity here to create a unique focal point and identity for the site by providing open spaces and vistas throughout the site, particularly close to the Tower. There is also an opportunity to educate visitors and residents of the Tower’s history with informative signage. The site also contains former industrial building remains of Pendleton Old Hall and Irwell Bleach Works as well as a cobbled street, which could be restored to high standard and add to the heritage and identity of the site. Image 4: Church Spire Image 5: Cobbled Road Figures 3,4,5: Schools offering important heritage value 10 Charlestown Riverside 1 Baseline Analysis Housing Vernacular The Charlestown urban form follows Radburn Layouts, a typical style of the post-war period (1950/60), which includes terraced social housing and small associated car parks. Although there are many pockets of vernacular (as shown on Map 5) which create a fairly inconsistent appearance, this in itself brings an interesting and diverse character to the area. There are a variety of housing typologies across the wider area, however most dwellings are of a relatively low quality, especially in terms of the social housing available. The west of the site mainly consists of social housing; these lack vernacular and distinctive identity, creating a uniform appearance. The east of the site consists of terraced houses, which are typical of post-war workers’ houses, featuring no frontage and limited garden space. All dwellings in the local area are 2-storeys, with the exception of student housing and small blocks of flats which are 3-storeys. The poor-quality and size of dwellings in the local area, especially within the site, suggest a need for better quality and larger houses. Type 1: Red brick social housing of a uniform style, lacking character Type 2: Back-to-back terraces Type 3: 3-storey apartment block with small retail on ground flood Type 4: Red brick 1950s housing Type 5: Student Accommodation Type 6: Georgian Terraced Housing Type 7: Red brick semi-detached Map 5: Housing Vernacular Urban Blocks 11 Charlestown Riverside 1 Baseline Analysis Legibility Generally, the legibility throughout Charlestown is poor. This is mainly due to the dim lighting and lack of signage, for example, there is no indication that the area is actually Charlestown. Legibility for pedestrians is especially poor, with no exclusive pedestrian routes and numerous car parks, which act as dangerous through-routes. There are currently good movement corridors, with wide and bending streets. This, as well as the speed bumps throughout Charlestown, is a natural speed calming measure. Although the bends in the road acts as a positive measure for traffic calming, the maze of streets is illegible and lacks clear permeability. There are issues with the legibility of the two Currently there is an edge between the built- main public footpaths which allow access form and open space, more could be done to from the site to Irwell riverbank. These raise link these areas so that the natural aesthetic concerns regarding accessibility for disaquality of the river is used to its full poten- bled residents and visitors. These footpaths tial. There are fiver major nodes, however, also lack adequate lighting. very few of these nodes are access points into the site; the access to Charlestown is limited, this prevents speeding traffic and enhances the closed community feel, but it also prevents a stapling identity when entering the area. Image 6 Image 7 12 Charlestown Riverside 1 Baseline Analysis Map 6: Legibility Analysis 13 Charlestown Riverside 1 Baseline Analysis Opportunities and Constraints • Following the analysis of the site, the opportunities and constraints outlined below were determined. These have influenced the visions arrived at in section 1.4. • There is potential to enhance and expand the ‘sense of community’ in the Charlestown area, through urban design interventions The numerous heritage assets, including the church spire are features that can be enhanced and used to promote the area Opportunities • There is potential to improve pedestrian connections and access across Charlestown Vacant industrial warehouses surrounding the neighbourhood offer opportunities for expansion • There are currently good connections to external areas, including Salford and Manchester City Centre • Potential for creating more linkages between educational establishments and creating an educational hub • Encourage a stepping transition in built form, to respond to local topography • A potential community heart located within the cluster of educational establishments • A variety of small pocket parks throughout Charlestown have an opportunity for better connection and legibility, and for creating green pedestrian routes • Potential for strong frontages and enhanced views along the waterfront • Opportunities for expansion across the river to the football club or eastwards towards university accommodation • Large area of flat, open land with waterfront path and views • 14 Charlestown Riverside 1 Baseline Analysis Constraints • • • • The strong divide between residential and ex-industrial uses might be challenging to overcome • The existing housing is of poor quality The flood risk will require mitigation which will be an additional cost to development Although the protected woodland trees are naturally aesthetically pleasing, they • also create a limitation to development, especially within the area of open space Lack of access into the open space is a major problem, as well as the limited gateways to Charlestown Riverside as a whole There are numerous dark edges which attract crime in the existing community, these might deter potential investors into the area Map 7: Opportunities and Constraints 15 Charlestown Riverside 1 Baseline Analysis 1.2 Design and Policy Principles lating to Charlestown Riverside. Unless there are reasonable alternative solutions develThe following design principles (Table 1) opment should aim to meet these where have been formed by the findings in the possible so that they are viable and likely to baseline analysis that suggest how new de- achieve planning permission. (See Annex B velopment, or development that will effect for full planning policy matrix) the existing Charlestown Community should be approached. These principles will be referenced throughout this report to ensure that suggested interTable 2 outlines key policy considerations ventions meet these guidelines. For Charlesthat should be considered in the develop- town to be successful, developments and ment of the site, these are based on reviews plans should meet these criteria. of national and local level planning policy reDP1 DP2 DP3 DP4 DP5 DP6 Design will be sensitive to the existing community and amenities will have the capacity to serve a larger future population. Due to the large proportion of children in the area and the close proximity of the site to schools, the road infrastructure will be safe, open, permeable and well lit. Efforts will be made to reduce and mitigate ‘dark edges/spaces’, especially those that attract antisocial behaviour and are susceptible to fly-tipping and littering through methods such as the increased levels opportunities for natural surveillance. More will be done to serve the older population, including health care and community facilities. Development will aim to use the riverside to its full potential in terms of its natural and aesthetic appeal, whilst also protecting and enhancing the natural environment, TPOs and weir. A new community heart or public realm will be created for all to use. This will be located near the schools and include open green space and convenience stores so that the community is self-sufficient. DP7 Pedestrian facilities will be improved with a particular focus on ensuring that all areas accessible to residents and visitors with disabilities. DP8 Enhancing the heritage of the site by improving the visibility of heritage assets such as the church tower and the former industrial buildings and cobbled road will add to the character and identity of the site. Table 1: Design Principles 16 Charlestown Riverside 1 Baseline Analysis P1: Economy Development that promotes sustinability, investment and employment are favoured (especially the devleopment of retail and office space). P2: Transport Development should minimise journey lengths and improve transport infrastructure, this can be done by improving existing infrastructure and creating new networks. P3: Housing New housing, both affordable and private, is required in the area to meet the demand. This should be located in areas that can benefit the vitality of communities. P4: Green Infrastructure Green infrastructure in Charlestown should be of high quality and multifunctional use to enhance biodiversity and mitigate climate change. P5: Resilience In order to improve resilience to flooding, new green infrastructure should be used and existing infrastructure should be protected. P6: Design Good designs are important and should be applied to improve standards of living, community spirit and visibility. Designs should also promote sustainable transport and aim to create an inclusive community. Table 2: Planning Policy Principles 17 Charlestown Riverside 1 Baseline Analysis 1.3 The Boundary heart of Charlestown. Including this character area, as the listed church spire, will allow Map 8 illustrates the final boundary; this has Turley to improve legibility and enhance othbeen based on a number of contributing fac- er non-residential facilities within Charlestors from the baseline analysis. Including the town. ‘area of open green space’ character area was an obvious choice due to the proximi- The reason for not including the immediate ty of the waterfront and its potential for de- neighbourhoods (the ‘Charlestown West velopment with limited demolition; this is a Community’ and ‘Mixed Terraces’ character large area and offers excellent potential for areas) within the final developable boundary enhancing the surrounding area and com- is to limit any fragmentation of the existing munity. community, however, these areas will be strongly considered throughout the design Notably, ‘Charlestown Core’ character area process in order to avoid conflict and create has also been included within the boundary. a cohesive community where there are no This area is a key central zone that must be obvious boundaries or barriers. This extenimproved to conglomerate and provide for sion of improvements into these communithe surrounding neighbourhoods, as well ties is indicated by the ‘dashed line’. as the potential new neighbourhood, as the Map 8: Boundary 18 Charlestown Riverside 1 Baseline Analysis 1.4 Introducting 3 Visions As discussed in the introduction, a 3-tier approach has been taken to compare and analyse design ideas. Each of the following Visions will be created and analysed later in this report. VISION A - The Student Residential Hub This vision will focus on accommodating Salford University students in Charlestown Riverside through the provision of appropriate and affordable housing, with an emphasis on safe pedestrianisation and recreational spaces. Justification: Due Charlestown Riverside’s proximity to Salford University, the site offers conceivable potential for a new student community/campus. VISION B - Enhancing the Wellbeing of the Existing Community This vision will seek to improve the lives and wellbeing of the existing residential population through the provision of additional amenities and services. It will also contribute to the housing stock targets within the Charlestown area with appropriate housing typology for the area. Justification: This vision was influenced by the findings from the baseline analysis surrounding the demographics in the area. There are currently many deprivation issues related to education, health (especially mental health), employment and crime. Vision C - Highly Desirable Riverfront Development This vision aims to attract a new and diverse long-term and economically active residential population to Charlestown through the provision of desirable riverside housing as well as associated amenities to accommodate the increasing population. Justification: This vision is steered from an economic perspective. The Riverfront offers views and an atmosphere much like those seen at Salford Quays (though on a much smaller scale) and creating a similar development would bring investment into the area, and also create more of a housing mix. 19 Charlestown Riverside The Visions Please see corresponding posters for larger vision masterplans 20 Charlestown Riverside 2 Vision A 2.1 Introduction To accomodate the additional population, a health centre and small leisure complex Vision A will see a new student village span- has been included in the design, as well as a campus convenience shopping zone, which ning the developable space at Charlestown is also opened up to the public. Riverside. This will mainly accommodate Salford University students due to the prox- Importantly, the design does not involve any imity of the university buildings and other new roads within the student accommodacampuses. tion zone; this is to improve safety, air quality and the natural atmosphere of the area. This The approach to designing this vision was hopes to deter students from driving and focused around retaining open views of the encourage them to use public transport, alriver and creating a central public realm though a small car park has been included which both the student community and ex- in the design to facilitiate any exceptions to isting residents can use for recreational pur- this. poses, with routes that travel along the river. 2.2 Indicative Masterplan Map 9: Vision A Concept Masterplan 21 Charlestown Riverside 2 Vision A Map 10: Vision A Illustrative Masterplan Figure 6: Sketches of Student Accommodation and public realm 22 Charlestown Riverside 3 Vision B 3.1 Introduction form; this is done by using green routes and creating additional roads that are streamVision B aims to extend the Charlestown lined and run throughout the whole of community and offer more affordable homes Charlestown, creating cohesive and legible in the area, whilst creating more opportuni- routes. ties for improved lifestyles of residents. The new design of housing mirrors that of the Emphasis has been placed on creating arexisting housing, with some similar housing eas for residents such as public realm, a forms and structures. However, thought has community heart and the church spire. This been given to enhancing the views and vis- aims to enrich Charlestown’s identity and tas of the river, which are offered down res- enhance the community atmosphere, and idential streets and cycle/walking paths due also attempts to tackle social issues as outto the ‘fan’ effect of the housing. lined in the baseline analysis. The vision succeeds in terms of integrating the new development and existing urban 3.2 Indicative Masterplan Map 11: Vision B Concept Masterplan 23 Charlestown Riverside 3 Vision B Map 12: Vision B Illustrative Masterplan Figure 7: Sketches of new affordable homes and central square 24 Charlestown Riverside 4 Vision C 4.1 Introduction This vision hosts a vibrant mixture of commercial, residential and retail uses. The design aims to reconnect Charlestown with the river and form a unique waterfront community. The style of housing is modern, with the use of glass and varying angles to reflect the river and make for a unique appearance. better connect the riverfront with the wider area. The vision aims to create a destination within Charlestown, in the forms of small sports facilities and also a large area of mixed-use recreation and retail facilities to the northeast. Overall, this vision introduces a modern twist to Charlestown to ignite a new vibrancy. To accomodate the ‘new population’ suffuciently, small-scale convenience stores and a new leisure centre are incorporated into the plan, a long with additional vehicular routes that bisect the centre of Charlestown and 4.2 Indicative Masterplan Map 13: Vision C Concept Masterplan 25 Charlestown Riverside 4 Vision C Map 14: Vision C Indicative Masterplan Figure 7: Sketches of riverfront development and green areas for recreation 26 Charlestown Riverside 5 Improvement Zone 5.1 Description Map 15 illustrates the site boundary which outlines the ‘improvement zone’; the decision to include the area surrounding the ‘developable boundary’ is based on the opportunity to improve overall site accessibility (transport and pedestrian), safety and environmental quality; enhance site heritage and visibility and improve standards of living and community spirit for new residents and the existing population. The improvement zone relates to the area outside of the ‘developable boundary’ and these interventions will be applied to each vision, including the final masterplan as a standard. The purpose of the ‘improvement zone’ is to create a standardised street design on main access roads and on residential streets which will be open, light safe and accessible. This will in turn form the basis of a site identity as well as improve environmental quality and standard of living on the site. The table below illustrates how the improvement zone satisfies all design principles. The main concern of this development is the demolition of some residential housing to reconnect Whit Lane as the primary route through the site as this will require residents to leave their homes. However, to ameliorate the social impact it is proposed that the effected residents are re-housed in homes within the new development site. 27 Charlestown Riverside 5 Improvement Zone 5.2 Indicative Masterplan and Justification DP1 Existing Community DP2 Transport DP3 Crime and Safety DP4 Healthcare DP5 Environment DP6 Community Identity DP7 Disabled Accessibility DP8 Heritage Integrating the existing community into the development plans will enhance the community feel and identity of the site and create a more cohesive community between old and new residents. Improving public transport access and pedestrian user safety by improving road and pavement quality and adding street lighting Reconnecting Whit Lane as the main road and retail hangars will strengthen this area as the community heart Creating new routes to connect roads will improve the permeability of the site. Reducing crime in the area by adding street lighting (natural surveillance, improving safety) and adding litter bins Adding pedestrian crossings will further ensure the safety of pedestrians Adding benches will entice people to spend more time in green and recreational spaces, adding street lighting will make people feel safer outside and adding litter bins and a waste disposal / recycling point will improve the environment the community spend their time in. Improving environmental quality by adding litter bins and a community waste disposal and recycling point as well as adding lighting and visibility (natural surveillance) Creating green buffers between the site and industrial areas will direct pedestrians away from private property and is a more aesthetically pleasing solution than fencing. Using a standardised umbrella design for main roads and residential roads will form the basis of an identity for the site. Adding litter bins and benches will create a community feel and sense of ownership. Improving pedestrian facilities (pavement quality) will improve wheelchair access on the site. Improving the visibility of the church tower by improving street lighting and open space around the church tower will enhance the heritage and identity of the site. Table 3: How Improvement Zone meets Design Principles 28 Charlestown Riverside 29 5 Improvement Zone Map 15: Improvement Zone Charlestown Riverside Conclusion Please refer to corresponding poster for larger final masterplan 30 Charlestown Riverside 6 Conclusions 6.1 Design Principles and Policy Matrix The matrix below shows how far each vision met both design principles and policies, as set out in chapter 1.4. A traffic light system has been used to indicate whether the vision meets the principle extremely well (green), moderately well (orange), or not at all (red). Vision A Vision B Vision C DP1 DP2 DP3 DP4 DP5 DP6 DP7 DP8 P1 P2 P3 P4 P5 P6 Table 4: Principle Matrix Green= 3; Orange= 2; Red=1 Vision A = 28/39 Vision B = 32/39 Vision C = 28/39 31 Charlestown Riverside Vision B is the most successful because it satisfies more requirements than Vision A or C, in fact, it meets most principles extremely well. It does however fail to address the economy in terms of developing investment and employment opportunities, and also lacked adequate use of flood prevention measures. To conclude this analysis, it is clear that Vision B should form the basis of the suggested final masterplan, due to its success in inclusivity, sensitivity to the existing community, and efforts to improve life for the older population and children. In addition to this, ‘successful’ elements from Vision A and C will be integrated into the plan to fulfil those Overall, the visions performed moderately not met by Vision B, including better use of in addressing transport improvements, this the waterfront and greater potential for ecowill need to be further developed in the final nomic investment. masterplan. As well as this, all visions performed moderately in terms of housing; a Part 6.2 will further outline these ideas to better mixture of housing would satisfy this form main recommendations. criteria better and appeal to a range of potential investors/residents. It is clear that the masterplan will also require some form of flood defence to satisfty criteria P5. The main issues with Vision A and C are that they are not inclusive of the outer boundary, much less so than vision B. However, there are principles that Vision A and C met better than Vision B, such as P1 (promoting employment opportunities), and DP5 (using the riverside to its full potential). 32 Charlestown Riverside 6 Conclusions 6.2 Main Recommendations Destination Ideas The most successful vision was Vision B, however some featrues from the other visions will be used to make it have better investment potential and to enable Charlestown to compete better within the wider area. The interventions below will be integrated with Vision B in the final plan. Making Charlestown a ‘Desination’ will be an attempt to gain more investment from the development and improve the local economy with more visitors. Could be in the form of: • Interventions for the Masterplan • • Tennis Courts and 5-a-side football pitches Leisure and retail along the waterfront A pier, to make the most of the waterfront (DP5) An Art Gallery. Due to Manchester’s artistic nature and because the land is north-facing, the natural lighting provides good potential for an art gallery, which could also have rentable studios. • Create a community heart, including convenience stores and health care/facilities for self-sufficiency and improving lives of • the older population, as well as safe play areas for children. • A mixture of new housing to meet demand, including (30%) afforable and Overarching Principle (70%) private housing. • A form of flood defence that is integrated The overarching aspect from each vision with a clean zone of the river which can that must go in the masterplan is the Improvement Zone. This includes the following be isolated for wildlife- satifying P5. improvements: Views from the river that can be seen from across Charlestown, including • Shared surfaces to make the space feel less divided and safer for children and straight views form the community heart, pedestrians and through gaps in the housing, this was one of the main successes of each vision • Recycling points to reduce fly-tipping that satisfied P6. • • Multi-functional green infrastructure; this • could be combined with an economical benefit, making Charlestown a ‘Destina• tion’. More street-lighting/furniture to improve visibility, surveillance and safety Green routes that join the existing built area into the new developed area and the river front chohesively, they will also join public transport routes. 33 Charlestown Riverside 6.3 Preferred Masterplan Scale 1:6000 @A1 6 Conclusions Map 16: FInal Masterplan 34 Charlestown Riverside 6 Conclusions Figure 8: Service Centre view 1 Figure 9: Service Centre view 2 Figure 10: River pathway Figure 11: Children’s play area Figure 12: Art Exhibition Centre/Gallery 35 Charlestown Riverside 6 Conclusions Urban Design Analysis Figure 13: Key Zones Figure 14: Key Services Figure 15: Scale 36 Charlestown Riverside 6 Conclusions Figure 16: Views and view-points of the River Figure 17: Transport Analysis Figure 18: Cross Section 37 Charlestown Riverside 6 Conclusions 6.4 Best Practice Examples Salford Quays Riverside Usage The best practice examples outlined in this section demonstrate where some of the interventions in the final masterplan have been implemented successfully elsewhere, and can be used as inspiration when proceeding to design stages. Figure 11 draws on case studies from Salford Quays and Berlin to show vibrant riverside developments, with a similar environments to Charlestown Riverside. Other more focused ideas that have been implemented elsewhere are shared surfaces, riverside art galleries, and riverfront developments incorporating leisure and recreation. The masterplan has similar elements to Salford Quays, which possesses a large area of open space and multi-functional land uses. The mixture of retail, shopping centres, sports facilities, art galleries and the plaza forms a community heart that attracts many visitors and benefits local residents. Image 9: Salford Quays. Source: http://exchangequay.com/salford-quays/ Albert Dock Art Gallery in Liverpool Poynton Shared Surfaces The final masterplan includes an art gallery along the riverbank, which is similar to the Albert Dock Gallery in Liverpool that effectively makes use of water reources and landscape to create an enriched cultural atmosphere. As for the transport design and minimising vehicular speeds throughout Charlestown, shared surfaces will be implemented in the ‘Improvement Zone’. This has been successfully implemented in Poynton, Cheshire, where streets were reclaimed for people and strongly defined arrangements of footpaths and roads. This also increases the opportunities for safe pedestrianisation and cycling. Image 8: Albert Dock Art Gallery. Source: http:// dougelliot.weebly.com/a59-project.html Image 10: Poynton Roundabout. Source: http:// www.snugarchitects.co.uk/blog/?p=1151 38 Charlestown Riverside 6 Conclusions Image 11: Inspiration Mood Board. Source: Author’s own images 39 Charlestown Riverside 6 Conclusions 6.5 Other Considerations 5.4.2 Phasing 6.51. Funding In terms of the construction work, if abundant constructions were in the process, it might impact the sensitivity of existing community because building the foundation would make ground vulnerable. Also, in the process of constructing, noises and traffic congestion would result in disturbances for local residents. With regard to funding, whether funding is from public or private sectors would affect the scale and uses of development. It is suggested that the residential houses could solicit private companies to construct under our premise of design principles. As for the public space and infrastructure, public-private partnership would be a proper way to receive steady financial support and appropriately work in cooperation, which encourages participants do what they do best to make high quality facilities. Also, public-private partnership’s return-on-investment (ROI) may be greater than traditional method to transfer the execution risk. According to National Infrastructure Pipeline, overall transport and flood defense infrastructure sectors have obtained approximately £88.4 billion and £2.7 billion from both private and public funding. Otherwise, as the area lacks access to large convenience stores or local supermarket, Charlestown would be an opportunity to attract big or budget supermarket to the area. Hence, our team would like to apply the Community Infrastructure Levy to the supermarket to pay for the improvements and progressively increase the use of main access roads. Above all, public-private partnership would be the core strategy for Charlestown’s development. In light of the timescale in Salford Local Plan, the development of residential, office, retailing and other uses are supposed to be completed by 2028; that is, the construction in Charlestown can be phased to meet the demand. Therefore, to safeguard residents’ safety and rights, phasing development would be the most appropriate way to minimise the influence on sensitivity and quality of life in the community. The structure of phasing will rely heavily on the existing community, in fact, new housing must be built for residents who’s homes are being demolished before they are demolished (as seen in figure 19). Figure 19: Recommended Phasing Structure 40 Charlestown Riverside 6 Conclusions 5.4.3 Environmental Considerations 6.5.4 Potential Limitations With the increasing population in community, the damage to the environment would also be intensified. Salford City Council has set out a variety of strategies to deal with the waste, pollution, green spaces and many other problems. Moreover, this project also delivers plenty of strategies to improve the environmental conditions. However, the flood risk is still a worrying problem for Charlestown. There will be limitations of development, these will involves environmental, social and economic issues. Prior to any construction, communication should be made with relevant authorities such as the Environment Agency (for Enviromental Impact Assessments or Habitat Surveys for example), as well as local transport authorities (and a Transport Impact Assessment) to ensure the strain on public transport services is minimised. As a ‘Lead Local Flood Authority’ under the Flood and Water Management Act 2010, The Local Flood Risk Management Strategy should cover flood risk from surface runoff, groundwater and ordinary watercourses. Due to climate change, Salford City Council set out to offer full protection for flood areas. Furthermore, according to Local Flood Risk Management Strategy, the City Council has provided a comprehensive framework for local flood risks and protection. Overall, the next stages of planning and developing this idea will be to measure Charlestown’s capacity to cope with such development. This is especially important if Charlestown is to become a ‘destination’. Yet, according to the Environmental Agency, most of Charlestown lies within Flood Zone 2, which means medium probability of flood. Moreover, our part of site within Flood Zone 2 lacks sufficient flood defenses. In brief, this development project will not simply carry out flood risk assessment and rearrange different uses in proper locations, but also deliver high quality green infrastructure and design to strengthen the resilience to enhance the safety. 41 Charlestown Riverside Annex A -Baseline Presentation 42 Charlestown Riverside 43 Charlestown Riverside 44 Charlestown Riverside 45 Charlestown Riverside 46 Charlestown Riverside 47 Charlestown Riverside 48 Charlestown Riverside 49 Charlestown Riverside 50 Charlestown Riverside 51 NPPF GMSF Salford Local Plan Summary P1: Economy To support sustainable development, local governments should address barriers to investment and improve infrastructure to promote business. (NPPF, p.6-8) A wide range of retail, leisure and tourism will be complemented to ensure an attractive and enjoyable place to invest and live. (Policy GM4) Also, around 4,000,000 m2 of industrial and warehousing, a minimum of 2,450,000 m2 of office floorspace will be delivered to attract more investment opportunity. (Policy GM2; GM3) To support sustainable development, Salford City Council will deliver a major increase in office floorspace, emerging cluster of business activity, protect and enhance existing town centres and employment areas. (Policy EC1) According to the NPPF, the local economic strategies for Charlestown should place emphasis on sustainability, investment and employment management. Moreover, in light of the GMSF and Salford local plan, building retail, office and warehousing is the main guideline to motivate the local economy. P2: Transport Transport also plays an important role in sustainable development, and local authority has to provide viable and high quality infrastructure and facility to support sustainable modes of transport. (NPPF, p.910) To improve the connection between Greater Manchester and other cities, high quality of transport will be delivered. In addition, local authority should encourage residents to make journey by walk, cycling and public transport through minimising journey lengths. (Policy GM6) To improve public transport accessibility and walking and cycling connections and reduce the impact of motor vehicles. (Policy SF1) The NPPF and Salford Local Plan state that minimising journey lengths and maximising the capacity and efficiency of transport are important for CharlesTo maximise the efficien- town. Hence, improvcy and capacity of existing ing existing infrastructransport infrastructure. ture and constructing new transport networks (Policy 14.11) are core strategies for transport. Annex B - Planning Policy Matrix Charlestown Riverside 52 Charlestown Riverside NPPF GMSF Salford Local Plan Summary P3: Housing To boost significantly the supply of housing, local planning authorities should provide sufficient affordable housing and identify developable sites for phasing development. (NPPF, p.12-13) Local governments should consistently provide affordable housing with a wide range of housing types, sizes, tenure and values. Moreover, the density of residential development should reflect the relative accessibility of the site by walking, cycling and public transport, enabling more people to live in the most accessible locations. (Policy GM5) Salford needs to meet more demand for around 22,100 dwellings in 10 years, including 2,500 affordable housing. In addition, housing should be located in areas that can benefit the vitality of communities. P4: Green INfrastructure To enhance the valued landscapes, geological conservation interests and soils, local authority should set out a strategic approach to protect biodiversity and enhance network of green infrastructure. (NPPF, p.25-26) An integrated network of high quality green infrastructure will extend to provide environmental and quality of life benefits, including parks, gardens, fields, hedges, trees and so on. Besides increasing the provision of green infrastructure, the multi-functionality of green infrastructure should also be maximized. (Policy GM7) To meet demand for an additional 22,100 dwellings in Salford by 2028, local authority has to deliver around 2,500 new affordable homes. (Policy 10.1; 10.8; 10.9) In addition to the provision of housing, local authority has to ensure if the provision truly satisfy the residents’ needs such as appropriate location, indoor and outdoor minimum space standards and so forth. (Policy 10.4) To achieve ‘greener’ Salford, the central theme of the Core Strategy, a comprehensive, high quality, multi-functional network of green infrastructure will be established. (Policy GI1) Green infrastructure in Charlestown should be of high quality and multi-functional to enhance biodiversity and mitigate climate change. 53 Charlestown Riverside NPPF GMSF Salford Local Plan Summary P5: To adopt proactive Resilience strategies to mitigate and adapt to climate change, and inappropriate development in areas at risk of flooding should also be avoided. (NPPF, p.2123) Local planning authority should deliver quality places, open up rivers and increasing levels of green infrastructure within urban areas, particularly trees to adapt and grow in the face of challenges. (Policy GM16) Development in flood risk areas should be avoided. In order to improve resilience, new green infrastructure should be built and existing infrastructure should be protected. P6: Design Local authority should deliver inclusive places, strengthen community integration, promote sustainable transport such as walking and cycling, and secure the high quality amenity for residents. (Policy GM19) Local authority will protect and enhance the resilience of the water supply network, improve the flood resistance, resilience of existing homes, resilience and adaptability of habitats and species to climate change. (Policy WA1; BG1) High quality design will be an essential component in helping to convince developers, businesses, residents and tourists. Therefore, all developments should be of a high quality of design: environmentally sustainable, inclusive, functional and so forth. (Policy D1) Good design is a key aspect of sustainable development; thus, securing high quality and inclusive design should go beyond aesthetic considerations. Also, local authority should refuse the development with poor design which might have negative effect to planning. (NPPF, p.14-15) Good designs are important and should be applied to improve living standards, community spirit and visibility. 54 Charlestown Riverside Annex C: Overall Site Suitability SWOT Analysis Strengths • Nursery (students with dependents) • 3No. Primary schools (students with dependents) • Salford University (1.5 miles south east) • Football playing ields (0.5 miles north) • Sports playing grounds (0.6 miles south) • Riverfront (north boundary) • Main site access roads are in good condition with 20mph speed limit and speed bumps Weaknesses • Lack of large or ‘local’ supermarket • Scarce surveillance • Frequent ly tipping and litter • High levels of anti-social behavior, domestic burglary, criminal damage/arson and violence with injury in the area • Low level 5 (GCSE) educational achievement • Low mean household income: many households in fuel poverty; many children in need; and many children living in families in poverty. Opportunities • Southern front of River Irwell • Pedestrian footbridge – access to post oice and health centre • Hydro-electric plant • Former Whit Lane • Pocket parks • Large open unused space could be used for new and afordable student housing • Vacant industrial warehouses on Langley Road South (south) could be utilized as a supermarket / sports centre / study space • Whit Lane shop hangars could be used for ‘local’ or ‘express’ supermarket, a cofee shop, a bar and car park could be improved • A576 Cromwell Road shop hangars could also be used by ‘local’ or ‘express’ supermarket / laundrette / beauty salon • Cobbled street (Douglas Green) and adjacent old red brick wall • Tower of Church of St George with Barnabus Constraints • Food risk • Hydro-electric plant limits development • Category B trees in bad condition and either need to be treated if possible or removed • Industrial buildings in use on Langley Road/Langley Road South limits • Industrial buildings in use on Whit Lane 55 References Charlestown Riverside Department for Communities and Local Government (2010) English indices of deprivation 2010. [Online] https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/english-indices-of-deprivation-2010 [08.03.17] EDINA. 2017. Edina Digimap Ordinance Survey Service. [Online] http:// edina.ac.uk/digimap [06.03.17] Manchester City Council (2015) F1 Indices of Deprivation 2015 v1.1 Office for National Statistics (2016) Ward Level Mid-Year Population Estimates (Experimental Statistics). [Online] https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/populationandmigration/populationestimates/ datasets/wardlevelmidyearpopulationestimatesexperimental [08.03.17] Salford City Council (2015) Indices of Deprivation 2015 – the City of Salford’s position [Online] https://www.salford.gov.uk/media/388062/index_ of_multiple_deprivation_report_2015.pdf [08.03.17] Salford City Council (2016) Area Profile for Irwell Riverside Ward – March 2016. [Online] https://www.salford.gov.uk/media/388920/irwell-riverside-ward-profile-mar-2016.pdf [08.03.17] Word Count: 5,643 (not including Annexes, contents, figures or references)