Anfield Breckfield Redevelopment Phase 2

Liverpool

Proposal for 72 homes with landscaping and public open space. Designed by Halsall Lloyd Partnership.

We reviewed the masterplan and design code on 8 February 2008.

Summary

Whilst this application is described as Phase 2 of the Anfield Masterplan, it is the first scheme to come forward since the approval of the outline application. It is therefore an important test of the parameters set by the masterplan and design code, and has the potential to set the standard for future development in this area. Whilst CABE was supportive at the outline stage, we have several concerns about the current reserved matters application. It is unfortunate that the frontage on Robson Street and Breckfield Road North, is excluded from the proposals, and there appears to have been no detailed design work to test how this site could be developed in future. Prior to reserved matters approval, Liverpool City Council should satisfy itself that high quality development of the important frontage site can be achieved, and that the decision not to include this element in the current scheme has been robustly tested. We also have reservations about the approach to bin storage, and the design of house types. In our view these more detailed design issues could be dealt with through planning conditions, provided our fundamental concern about the site frontage has been addressed.

Robson Street / Breckfield Road North frontage

Our most significant reservation about the current application is the lack of development proposed to the site frontage on Robson Street and Breckfield Road. We understand that this is due to doubts about the viability of the 3 and 4 storey houses and apartments envisaged for this part of the site in the masterplan, which has outline planning approval. However, development of this main road frontage should play an important part in transforming perceptions of the area. There is a risk that this will remain undeveloped if not tied to the commercially more attractive housing currently proposed. In CABE’s view, Liverpool City Council should scrutinise the case for leaving the most prominent part of this site undeveloped. We are also not convinced by the realism of the narrow plan depth of the apartment blocks shown for indicative purposes on the frontage sites. In our view it is essential that more detailed designs should be worked up to demonstrate that an acceptable scheme can be achieved, whether this is delivered as part the Phase 2 development, or at a later date.

Site layout

The reserved matters application builds on a convincing masterplan, to provide a clear hierarchy of streets, well enclosed by houses, with specifically designed house types addressing corner locations. We support the strategy for accommodating car parking, with a mix of on street, in-curtilage and garage parking. This has avoided the need to create car courts, with benefits for activity on streets, allowing people to enter homes through their front doors, and creating gardens to back onto gardens in a traditional way. One area in which we think the site layout could be improved is in the way bin storage is handled. We are not convinced by the current arrangement of narrow alleys, provided with the intention that people store bins in their gardens. We think these alleys are likely to be unpleasant and may be unsafe, and that in reality, people are more likely to leave bins at the front of their homes, whether this has been designed for or not. There are several potential solutions to the problem of bin storage, which we think the design team should explore. At the simplest level, bin storage could be part of the landscape design at the front of each home. This may require a rethink of the narrowest house types proposed, and this is discussed further below. A second alternative would be to group refuse and recycling storage at the end of each street, for shared use by residents. This approach could be taken further, for a scheme that forms the first phase of a much larger masterplan, with consideration of cassette systems that can be recessed into the street.

House types

We regognise the efforts that have been made by the design team to tailor standard house types to this site, and respond to characteristics of the local area, such as the polychromatic brickwork seen on existing terraced housing. However, there are two areas in which we think the design of the house types could be improved. Firstly, we think that the narrowest of the house types, measuring just 4.7 metres, including party walls, should be reconsidered. This comment is linked to the issue of bin storage, since if alleyways between houses could be omitted, this could allow for more generous frontages. The second area in which we would encourage further thought is the external appearance of the houses. We think that a more confident approach is needed to reinterpret the colourful brickwork that is characteristic of the area. It may be that this decorative element of the scheme could be made more convincing with the involvement of an artist.

Building for Life

We understand that this scheme may become a candidate for Kickstart funding from the Homes and Communities Agency (HCA), which would secure additional public sector subsidy for the development. CABE’s Building for Life assessment is used as part of the assessment process used by the HCA to allocate Kickstart funding. Under these circumstances, we think it would be valuable for Building for Life assessment scores to be provided as part of the reserved matters application, to help inform the local authority’s decision.