Mitcham's Corner Development Framework SPD

The strength 'Domestic scale and character predominates' is not accurate. Whilst it is agreed that the areas of domestic scale and character can be considered a strength, they do not predominate within the Opportunity Area. This description fails to appreciate the diversity of scales, styles and uses within the locality. The strength should instead reference 'Areas with domestic scale and character' without stating that it predominates. This would then also better reflect the subsequent bullet point which acknowledges 'Areas of architectural richness and a fine urban grain'.

It is suggested that the weakness 'Hostile, busy junctions and an uncomfortable and confusing pedestrian/cycle environment' and 'Poor legibility and connectivity through the area for pedestrians and cyclists' duplicate the same point. It is suggested that one of these weaknesses is removed to avoid duplication and ensure a concise document.

It is suggested that the 'Allocated development site' identified under 'Opportunities' is identified as allocated for new homes to provide clarification for those reading this SPD in isolation.

Paragraph 3.1.2 refers to 'an option for achieving the vision and objectives for the Development Framework'. However, it is not made clear whether this equates to the masterplan required by draft policy 21 or if not, who will coordinate this and how. It is suggested that the SPD needs to make the purpose and function of this 'option' clearer for the benefit and certainty of all parties.

The first bullet point claims that 'Historic fine grain development predominates'. It is not considered that this is a fair reflection of the Opportunity Area which includes a wide variety of built forms. Figure 15 helps to indicate this point with a number of larger blocks, which tend to be associated with more recent development. Whilst historic fine grain development does exist, the use of the word 'predominates' is not a fair reflection of the Opportunity Area, which is the focus of this SPD. Whilst this description may better describe areas beyond the Opportunity Area, these are not directly relevant other than for providing context. It is suggested that this point is updated to acknowledge the mixed character of the area, although the areas of Historic fine grain development could be identified as attributes.

4.2.8 does not make any distinction that the requirements of Appendix F are associated with proposed policy 60 and therefore are only meant to apply to tall buildings. As paragraph 4.1.2 indicates, certain parts of the SPD are more prescriptive such as with the use of 'will'. The current phrasing of paragraph 4.2.8 therefore implies that all development, whether major or minor, 'will be expected to produce accurate 3D computer models to inform an appropriate massing of the development on any key views and vistas'.
It is suggested that this should be phrased in a more discretionary manner. Reference should be made to the requirements being applicable to those developments considered to fall within the definition of 'tall buildings' and a recommendation that the scope of work required should be agreed in liaison with officers at the Council. No two schemes are the same and it would be worth highlighting the role of these discussions rather than the SPD solely relying on reference to Appendix F of the Local Plan.

It is considered that paragraph 4.2.16 is too prescriptive and fails to provide flexibility and choice. It is accepted that private amenity space is a valuable resource and should be encouraged. However, each site will have varying opportunities and constraints. Requiring each individual property to have access to private amenity space is not necessarily beneficial to either the prospective occupiers or the surrounding environment and intended design. In certain circumstances it may be more desirable to provide a larger shared amenity space as opposed to a small terrace or balcony with limited functional use. This flexibility would also reflect the significant, high quality public open space in the wider area with Jesus Green directly to the south.
The current wording of the SPD fails to appreciate the need to address each individual site. It is suggested that it is reworded to state:
'Access to private amenity space in the form of roof gardens, balconies and/or winter gardens should be encouraged. Where provided, it is essential that these amenity areas...'

It is suggested that the Western Edge/Carlyle Road frontage description refers only to what officers consider as the attributes of the street scene. There is no acknowledgement of the existing 3 storey property that exists opposite the Henry Giles House site, set forward of the existing terraced line and so a particularly prominent feature as one passes down Carlyle Road from Chesterton Road. It is suggested that the description of this site edge acknowledges this variation rather than just the line of 2.5 terraced properties.

4.3.13 needs to make clear that the modelling is justified on the basis of proposed policy 60 to ensure that the requirement is triggered by the appropriate height parameters. It is proposed that the paragraph should be worded to state:
'Applicants will be expected to produce accurate 3D computer models to inform an appropriate massing of the development on any key views and vistas, where the scale of the proposed development would trigger the requirements of proposed policy 60 of the emerging Local Plan'.

4.3.17 refers to the need to create 'a finger grain of development along Chesterton Road'. However, the definition of 'Fine Grain' within the glossary defines this as 'The quality of an areas layout of building blocks and plots having small and frequent subdivisions'.
The reference to layout of building blocks and also reference to plots therefore indicates an expectation that each block (i.e. the sites frontage to Chesterton Road) will be expected to experience various sub divisions. However, this conflicts with the existing character of long lines of terraced properties along Chesterton Road. Instead it is suggested that it needs to be made clear that 'finer urban grain' does not necessarily mean breaks in plan form of buildings. 'Fine grain' can be achieved through height variations, voids at upper floors, rhythm, projections or set backs among others. The various examples are explained earlier within the SPD at paragraph 4.2.14 where 'G.R.A.I.N' is used to illustrate ways to achieve fine grain development. However, the definition of 'fine grain' within the glossary does not reflect these varied opportunities, instead assuming reliance on breaks or 'subdivisions' in the layout of building blocks and plots.
It is therefore suggested that the definition in the glossary is adapted to the following:
'The quality of an area's building blocks or plots having small and frequent height variations or subdivisions in accordance with the G.R.A.I.N principles'.
The above definition would also better reflect the approach to development principles set out in Figure 52 where support for staggered building lines and height variations are supported and would ensure that paragraph 4.3.17 is consistent with these principles.