Mumbles Head Development Planning Application – Comments

Planning Application for Development at Mumbles Head

Application Nr 2010/1451

Introduction.

This building proposal is one of the most important landmark architectural developments to be presented to the city. Its internationally renowned location and its sensitive visual setting demand the utmost care in evaluating its acceptability to the community – a community that has a broad definition from local people to international visitors and sea-going admirers.

A ‘first condition’ for approval.

For the above reason, the primary condition of any planning approval should be an ongoing, highly visible and participative public consultation process for every stage of the design process right through to construction.

There are far too many examples of important developments where the visual and functional contributions that buildings make to the city’s public domain have been sacrificed in the face of perceived or claimed ‘pragmatic’ obstacles. (To take just the pedestrian environment, examples include the architectural contributions to pedestrian streetscapes at Trawler Road in the Marina, Kings Road in SA1 and now the Swansea Point developments at Tawe Lock House, not to mention the comparable reference at the Osborne Flats in Rotherslade. Photographs can be provided to illustrate these locations.)

Secondly, every precaution must be taken to ensure the visual and functional quality and vitality of the public domain, the highest standards of public space and access, and the maintenance, indeed improvement of views and panoramas.
That said, the proposal is a well prepared, useful and positive contribution that bodes well for an inclusive consultative design development process. Further, I should state that I have no principled objections to the development. On the contrary, in a previous consultation I indicated that a development at the headland could make a positive contribution to the public domain both at promenade level and at the upper level (the ‘Apple Carpark’ area) both of which are in poor condition from several points of view.

Insofar as one can absorb such vast documentation in a short public notice period, on volunteer time, the following more detailed comments are offered. Please note that they have been written also to provide advice and support for members of the community and their organisations as they too assess the proposal.

1. The Visual Presence of the development.

The Submission Document (henceforth, ‘SD’) considers this quite thoroughly and the scheme, which is bound to change some of the visual aspects of that precious headland, shows appropriate respect for the locale. Some detailed matters are raised below but, at the most general level, I fear that that the views of the headland as seen from the city and (e.g.) West Cross or Norton have been insufficiently considered. Although the front and north-east elevations are undoubtedly important (and I will come to that in a moment), it is the long-distance view of the Mumbles Head that is the most publicly sensitive, with the three peaks, the tidal connections and the pier. I do not have a view on this as yet but further visual presentations would be helpful. Clearly it is an important matter but the proposal does seem to be largely respectful of the headland silhouette. This should be the subject of more detailed ‘fly-through’ CAD presentations and a second ‘condition’ of approval.

2. Storey Heights.

a) The SD helpfully recognises the typical 3-4 storey frontage of Mumbles yet the buildings offered are higher. Again, there is no principled objection here but it would be appropriate if the development picked up some of these themes. For examples, the residential building (north-east) could begin at 3-4 storeys and rise up to the intended height or have varied heights in relation to typical Mumbles plot widths (and see below).

b) At the Upper Level, it appears that a two storey rise is proposed. (Is this drawing SW984/A(P) 06 – Proposed northeast elevation?)

The primary condition here is that current panoramas should be maintained, indeed improved. As a minor ‘planning gain’ one should expect that viewing provisions are much improved, for they are currently poor. A two storey development there will be a significant intrusion into that space. (The hillside has its character but the carpark, fencing etc are poor.)

The final result here should be public space and viewing points of the highest standard. It is hard to see why two storeys above the current ground level is necessary. A sensitive single storey would be less intrusive, in fact could be quite discreet, and would be more acceptable if it included provisions for much improved public access and panoramas all round, perhaps from the roof if necessary.

There is insufficient evidence to demonstrate that the public will make gains anything like sufficient enough to permit construction up to that level.
[As I say, I rather approve of sensitive development at the higher level, but it needs to be much more convincing from a public point of view by making tangible contributions in terms of (e.g.)  appearance, finishes, ground surfaces, ‘natural supervision’, bus stopping, cycle provision, parking, seating and public accessibility.]

3. Local Identity

The Submission Document (SD) offers interesting and useful analytical material on local identity, including reference to storey heights and vertical elements (related to typical plot frontage widths), yet there is no indication in the submission that these characteristics have been reflected in the scheme.Whilst the main headland building may be a separate case (and certainly worthy of architectural quality), there is a case that both buildings should be expected to reflect such elements, perhaps as a link between the traditional forms of Mumbles frontage and the new headland building.

For me, both buildings should seek to provide elements that reflect this plot-width characteristic, partly in respect of local identity but also to sustain that visual and functional variety that distinguishes Mumbles. This may be achieved by varying frontage finishes, style variations and heights (or, at least the visual appearance of heights) and in use of colour.

It is not appropriate, and certainly not reflective of the local identity of Mumbles, to have a single unified style for both buildings. Quite the contrary. In fact, it would be useful to consider how such vertical elements could also be reflected, perhaps subtly, in the main headland building.

[This is NOT an argument for more traditional architecture. Modern styles etc  are perfectly capable of embracing such matters – as can be seen by the work of (eg) Van Eyck on Amsterdam’s waterfronts. The architects and Urban Designers should be able to provide convincing examples. We, the public, do have to be convinced of the quality of the architecture at this prime location.]

4. The Existing Pavilion

It is not clear why the existing pavilion is being retained. It has no particular aesthetic or historic value (to my knowledge) and its removal will create a much more functional public space than is evident either from the existing configuration or from the drawn images.

Significant improvements to the space in front of the proposed building should be further explored and should also be a condition of approval.
The proposed space between the new development and the pavilion is too narrow and spatially and functionally weak (as it is now). The pavilion will detract from the vital importance of the visually and functionally active frontage of the new development and will contribute nothing to the long distance views of the development. The weak commercial functions of the present pavilion can be incorporated into the new development but one should be optimistic that, whilst reasonably priced services and amenities are highly desirable ingredients of the development, they can be provided in a much improved setting.

I suggest that, in this respect, greater consideration is given to the qualities of the public space in front of the development and towards the pier. It is virtually a ‘square’ or ‘plaza’.

5. Public Transport and Access

The scheme should contribute to the discussion, if not necessarily provide a resolution, of the turning point for the Metro bus (‘bendy-bus’). Clearly there should be a stopping place at the higher level and subsequent provision/ improvement of pedestrian routes to the headland at the upper and lower levels . (I see no reason why the bus should not turn at the next car-park)

6. ‘Private Beach’

One drawing annotates the tidal beach at the isthmus to the islands, as a ‘private beach’. This claim is unacceptable due to its continuous historic use by locals and visitors and (probably) due to its status as Crown Coastline.

End

I am happy to be further consulted about this scheme.