Figure 52 sets the development principles for Henry Giles House. The majority of the principles
are supported and indicate opportunities to achieve a high quality scheme with a high density
reflecting its urban environment and existing built form.
However, it is suggested that reference to 'creation of pedestrian and cycle green links/lanes' is
too fixed and fails to provide the necessary flexibility at this high level stage. It is therefore
suggested that this is updated to read 'Opportunities for pedestrian and cycle green links/lanes'.
It is also suggested that the massing design principles are too cautious and don't seek to
maximise the opportunities at the site but instead place undue restriction on storey heights.
Given that it is at the planning application stage where scale and massing are assessed in
detail, the SPD should not restrict opportunities before the acceptability of heights has first been
tested.
It is suggested that the height of the southernmost block fronting onto Carlyle Road could
certainly sustain 3+1 development given the character of 1a. It is also suggested that the
northern frontage of this southern block could then rise to 4+1 within the site before then
increasing to the potential of 5+1 centrally within the site. It is also suggested that the northern
block could sustain 3+1 rather than 2+1 along Carlyle Road given the existing context and
massing at the site with 3 storey commercial floors at this point.
The easternmost section of the northern block could sustain 3+1 given the scale of the adjacent
flats on Grasmere Gardens and the separation from the properties on Albert Street.
Finally there is opportunity for 4+1 storeys on the Chesterton Road frontage, given the existing
four commercial storeys at the existing site and the contribution that this variety would have to
the staggered building line and creating a distinctive and interesting character.
It is crucial that the SPD maximises the opportunities of the site rather than providing undue
restriction. The SPD is not to confirm the acceptability of storey heights but to indicate such
height could be possible, subject to detailed testing. If the SPD is too cautious unjustified
limitations would be placed on the site. The full scale and massing would be subject to detailed
modelling at the application stage and so ensure a design that did not adversely affect either the
character of the area or residential amenity.
As will be appreciated, it is more straightforward to propose lower heights than established
within a SPD where evidence illustrates this is required to mitigate impacts rather than seeking
to push beyond the principles set.