•		Owlthorpe bids – Option drawings	
FAP Officer:	Vicky Penn	
UD & C Officer:	Harshada Deshpande	
Conservation Area		
		
Comments:	
Please note – Comments are internal only, intended as initial feedback for DM officers and may have been made without a site visit.  Queries should be directed to the allocated UD&C case officer who will provide further advice and comment as required. 	
Summary and Overall Recommendation:	
	
The scheme has merit and minor design development can realise a successful scheme.		
The scheme has some key elements that require attention.  Further detailed design development is necessary in order to address these elements and achieve a satisfactory scheme.	•		
The scheme has significant flaws. Consider that complete redesign is necessary to address the issues.		

A Planning Brief was produced for the wider site, which is situated within an established residential area, so principle of housing is supported. The comments below are based on the layout information provided and flag up key issues: 

Bidder 6 Avant Homes

layout and arrangement has a clear structure with the side routes coming off the main spine, however:
-	 A number of instances of frontage parking are of concern, for example no 36 – 39, no 12-17, and no 60-56 where parking could be rearranged to the side and houses brought forward to create better relationship with the street/focal  open space. 
-	A lot of frontage parking is proposed along the main spine route which is a concern. 
-	There is a general lack of boundary treatments, which is a concern. Boundary treatments should be provided to reinforce the street edge and hierarchy. 
-	It appears that the housetypes do not have relationship with the hierarchy of space/ street, which is a missed opportunity. 
-	There is an opportunity for the layout to create pinch points at corners along the main spine route to the other circulation routes, reinforcing local legibility within the layout.  
-	There are a number of instances of left over open space especially tot eh side of the houses which could be better within their gardens. 

UED Officer: Harshada Deshpande
Time recording: 90 mins 
	
To achieve a successful scheme it is recommended that:	
•	See above 	
	
Access Recommendation:	
•	Please emphasise the importance of adopting inclusive design standards for the development, and of doing so from the start of the design process, as negotiations progress. Design standards applicable to this proposal include - 
•	‘Inclusive Mobility’, Department for Transport 
•	‘Guidance on the use of Tactile Paving Surfaces’, Department for Transport
•	BS 8300-1:2018 'Design of an accessible and inclusive environment - Part 1: External environment - Code of practice'	
•	No Topographic information is attached. Gradients and crossfalls would be more helpful than contours. Gradients - or the best gradients that can reasonably be achieved - can be key to determining the extent of compliance with inclusive design standards.	
•	The conventional streets - footways are shown on both sides of the carriageway - shown to a greater extent on bidders 6's proposals and are very welcome.

The usual comments about a network of dropped kerb pedestrian crossings and maintaining a kerb upstand at the crossovers to private drives and on-plot parking spaces - both to DfT standards - will apply. Extensive lengths of lowered kerb at groups of up to 6 adjacent on-plot parking spaces are shown on all layouts and need to be designed out.

A reliably detectable kerb upstand will need to be maintained - except at defined crossing points - at the 'focal point' on bidder 6's layout.	
•	The shared space and shared surface streets will need to comply with the matrix of street design vs vehicle flows agreed with the Council's Access Liaison Group, including entry treatments or 'gateways' to -
•	clearly signal the change of priority to drivers
•	include a tactile warning to safeguard visually impaired pedestrians from walking out into the carriageway of the adjacent street
•	provide inclusive routes for pedestrians entering and leaving the shared space/surface or passing by

and be surfaced in concrete blocks or equivalent.

'Hybrid' streets with a footway on one side only and dwelling plots accessed on the opposite side need to be regarded as shared surface streets.

No 'gateways' are shown on any of the bidders' layouts. Would like to see shared surface streets entered via footway crossovers as appropriate for private drives. No indication of surface in shared surface streets.	
•	The play area and MUGA - not shown on bidders 6's Sit E layout - and other areas of public open space will need to be inclusively designed. That will most likely determine the location of the play area and MUGA.	
•	It is unclear what - if any - requirements for accessible dwelling standards apply here, but the issue does not appear to be addressed in any of the layouts.	
Time: 55 minutes	
	
Public Art Recommendation:	
Offsite commuted sum		Onsite by Developer		
•		
	
Referrals:	
•	Sheffield Sustainable Development and Design Panel	
•	Sheffield Conservation Advisory Group	
•	Access Liaison Group	
•	Historic England	
•	Design Council Cabe