Headlands

A greenfield site in open countryside in an area of natural beauty and special landscape, within 1km of a site of specific interest.
The Para 79 dwelling was subject to two Design Panel reviews after issues were raised in the first.

Jeff Roberts – Architect, Roberts Limbrick
Jon Nettleton – Architect, Blake Architecture
Mark Walsh – Engineer, Davidson Walsh
Toby Coombes – Architect, Coombes Everitt Architects
Aled Roberts – Architect, Roberts Limbrick
Teresa Hazlewood – Landscape architect – Pegasus Group

The Presentation – Review 1

The panel had received a design report from Hawkes Architecture prior to the review. They had commented that this had strong landscape content but the architectural design was insufficiently advanced for a meaningful review. The panel were promised that the architect would present further development of the design at the review. This proved not to be the case. Whilst a ‘Sketch-up’ model was presented to the review panel, this was basically a representation of the information already submitted in sketch plan form.

Comments

These comments should be read in the context of the information presented to the panel. The general view was that the design was not sufficiently developed to enable the panel to draw any overall conclusions in respect of the design quality of the scheme in relation to the requirements of Paragraph 55 of the NPPF.

The following more detailed comments were made:

• The panel felt that the landscape analysis and outline proposals were well thought through.

• The innovative nature of the passive energy systems became apparent during the presentation.

• The proposed PVT solar panels have yet to be integrated into the design and there was concern about how these would be satisfactorily be incorporated.

• The ‘leaf’ shaped, water attenuating and storing roofs were thought to be a nice concept but they did not appear to sit very well on the rectilinear rooms below them.

• There was a general consensus that the design needed to be simplified to give it greater clarity.

• The materials that will form the external envelope of the house have yet to be determined.

• The panel were of the view that they would expect a Paragraph 55 scheme to show a greater level of detailed design than would be expected for a standard detailed planning application.

Headlands Second Review

Jeff Roberts –
Helen McHollan –
Mark Walsh –
Toby Coombes –
Aled Roberts – Roberts Limbrick Ltd
Teresa Hazlewood –

Presentation

RH and MD ran through the main presentation document that outlined the design process, the rational, floor plans and images. MD explained how the design was landscape led and that that was the reason why the landscape design was more advanced than the building design, at the time of the last review.

Comments

The general view was that many of the issues that had been raised at the previous review had been resolved. The panel did not really have any negative comments about the overall design solution subject to the level of detail presented. However, the panel did feel that the quality of the end product would depend very much on the quality of the detailing and the choice and finish of components and materials. The panel made the following observations:

• It was evident that the design solution was landscape led, and the panel liked the way the building integrated into the site.

• Whilst the leaf shaped roof over the living accommodation is a strong feature when viewed from above, the panel wondered how the roof shape would be interpreted from normal eye level without knowledge of the overall leaf shape.

• The panel felt the detailing of the edge and soffit of the leaf roof would be crucial to the quality of the design.

• The panel also felt that the choice of the louvered blinds, detailing of the glazing to the main living space and structural fins was very important.

Overall, the Panel felt that the proposal was now sufficiently detailed to enable a full understanding of the design and innovation behind it. The design was sensitive to the surrounding area and, subject to the detailed design reflecting the quality of the architectural intent, the Panel were happy to endorse the design.