Barrier Park East

North Woolwich Road, Silvertown, London

Housing, retail and commercial space with new internal roads in east London's Docklands. Designed by Allies and Morrison Architects.

We also reviewed this scheme on 16 June 2010.

Summary

This is a difficult project, and given the scale of the development and the site constraints, one that requires the resolution of a number of significant and fundamental issues from the start. We are impressed with the large amount of work that forms background information to this outline planning application. Whilst we are encouraged by the intentions and efforts of the design and client team, we are not yet confident that fundamental aspects of urban and architectural design have been embedded in the outline application. We doubt that the content of and framework established by this outline application will enable the local authority to secure excellent living conditions and good quality design.

Despite the strength of the urban design analysis, the design does not successfully deal with the park edge and the topography of the site and further work is required to resolve the building typology.

Process

It is unfortunate that the outline planning application reserves layout, scale, appearance and landscaping, and that only the principal means of access to the site boundary is being committed to in the outline application. Considering the complexity of the site and its context, we feel that means of access cannot be seen in isolation from other principal aspects of urban design, landscape design and building design. The outline application should be comprehensive and key parameters should be embedded at this stage; regrettably, this is not the case.

Connecting routes

The idea to establish and reinforce east-west and north-south links of the site and its surroundings is strong in principle and there is clarity in the hierarchy of routes. However, the routes leading to the proposed square at the northwest corner of the park and the north-south route between North Woolwich Road and Barrier Approach give us some cause for concern. The overall scale of these routes is perhaps over-ambitious and will remain under-populated and under-used. In addition, these routes may also prove to be a maintenance and management liability. Entrances to the buildings defining these routes and elevations which allow natural surveillance are critical to ensure animation and safety.

The key pedestrian route across the park, through Thames Road and further east should be carefully handled to minimise conflicts between pedestrians and vehicles at the access points to the proposed development and to the adjacent Tradewinds development.

The north-south links across the northern part of the site have potential if they make links with the wider community. We feel that attempts should be made to break down the barrier of North Woolwich Road between the proposed Silvertown Quays to the north and the existing and proposed residential developments to the south. This is particularly important to provide easy pedestrian access to the district centre proposed in the Silvertown quays masterplan. We feel that the project team and the local authority should collaborate to undertake a wider urban design analysis and introduce pedestrian crossings at key points, which could perhaps be delivered as part of the section 106 arrangement.

We are pleased to see the opening of the river-front route and support the aspiration to make it continuous. The animation and landscape treatment of the section of the route that runs alongside the servicing yard and maintenance store located at the southern end of the site requires particular attention. The intention to have green roofs on the single storey store rooms and southward facing balconies is promising.

The internal vehicular route along the northern edge of the site is an expensive infrastructure provision which gives access to one underground car park and provides off-street car parking. Whilst this could be a justifiable investment, we feel it could provide a better public front to the scheme and more benefits could be gained from it than is currently proposed. The location of play areas along the north-eastern corner of the site could work, but it requires careful thought and intelligent landscape design to mitigate the impact of the harsh road environment.

Barrier Approach and Barrier Park edge

The relationship of the scheme to the wider landscape and context is not wholly convincing. The proposal should address its boundaries with Barrier Approach and Barrier Park more explicitly relative to the specific nature of each one.

With Thames Barrier Park, one of the finest new parks in London, as an immediate neighbour to this site, we feel that the scheme should make a stronger, more prominent response to this fine asset at its western edge. We support the intention to make the edge along the park the main pedestrian front of the scheme. Whilst the introduction of an additional pedestrian route along the park edge is a positive move, we suspect that the route will be under-used due to the lack of entrances to the adjacent buildings and. The architectural treatment on the park elevation and the use of balconies as shown on the illustrative material could work well; however, we suggest that more should be done to animate the route and engage with the park edge. For example, controlled vehicular access for drop-off and deliveries along that edge could be one possible way of enlivening the park edge.

Whilst the idea of villa type buildings dotted along the park edge is positive, it is not reflected in any of the parameter drawings. In addition, this idea is somewhat weakened in the description provided in the design and access statement. Based on the parameter drawings and the design and access statement, it will be difficult to realise this aspiration in future phases.

Whilst Barrier Approach is possibly the right vehicular access route through the site, we feel that it is not successful as a pedestrian route. As a result of the combination of the topography of the site, flood risk issues and some design decisions, the public realm along the northern part of Barrier Approach will be defined by blank elevations on the lower levels. Apart from the entrances into residential buildings, this route will have minimal activity to enliven it and suffer from poor natural surveillance. These are highly problematic issues in urban design terms and need to be addressed.

The relationship of the proposed buildings with the park, the way they negotiate the topography of the site and how they deal with flood risk are fundamental aspects of design and critical for the success of this scheme. These issues need to be successfully resolved and effectively embedded into the outline application.

Buildings

We feel that the use of courtyard blocks in a development of this nature, even though the recent residential developments in this area have set a precedent of a different architectural model is, in principle, sound. We can see that the team have made an attempt to differentiate the building typology to adapt to the changing edges and context. This is particularly successful along Thames Road, where a terrace of town houses with individual front doors will animate the public realm along that street. However, we do not think that the different typologies come together as successfully in the other blocks. A richer mix of house types, the location of a number of front doors and communal entrances, good quality landscape design and architecture will make this a more successful residential model and make the courtyards usable spaces for the residents.

Whilst the principle of tall buildings on this site could be acceptable, a compelling case has not yet been made. The justification and reference to distant views in the material provided do not seem to make a robust case for the proposed siting and height of the tall buildings. The local authority and the project team should undertake an urban design study of the wider area and identify local and distant views to determine the location and appropriate height of these tall elements.

Conclusion

More work is required to achieve the full potential of the design concepts driving this scheme. The strength of this site is its location next to Thames Barrier Park and its success relies heavily on the successful definition and treatment of that edge. Whilst the intentions with respect to the park edge are strong, the level of detail in the proposed application is insufficient to guarantee that these aspirations will, in fact, be delivered in the future phases. Given the assets and constraints of this site and the proposed quantum, we think that an outline application for access only is not acceptable. Instead, we urge the local authority and the project team to agree on an appropriate planning course and establish the key aspects of the scheme that should be determined as part of the planning application. We suggest that this should include a description of the definition and treatment of the park edge.