TARA
supported the selection of the Saw Close site from the three alternatives
considered by the council for the granting of a licence for a casino under the terms
of the Gambling Act 2005. Accordingly there
is no objection to the mix of uses proposed or to their general arrangement on
the site. On other issues we have
limited our comments to matters likely to be of concern to local residents,
namely, arrangements for access and circulation of vehicles and pedestrians,
the external appearance of the buildings and arrangements for disabled people.
1. Service access. TARA supports the shared space concept, that
the space available in Saw Close should be shared by pedestrians, cyclists and
vehicles both in Phase 1 and in the completed development. We also support (with qualifications) the
proposal to provide no car parking on the site.
There is a lack of clarity, however, where service vehicles are
concerned. It is clear that refuse
collection and electricity substation vehicles will access facilities from
Bridewell Lane. It appears that other
service vehicles, including emergency vehicles, will use Saw Close but we have
been unable to find clear and detailed information on how this will be managed;
the number of such vehicles anticipated, how they will gain access to buildings
and, in particular, where they will be positioned while carrying out their
operations.
Experience has shown that shared space works best when
vehicles are of limited size and in slow forward motion. There are, however, inherent risks in
allowing large service vehicles to park and manoeuvre haphazardly in shared
space where pedestrians and cyclists are present. The proposal to restrict service vehicle
access between the hours 10.00 and 18.00 could, if implemented, make matters
worse as it is during evening hours that Saw Close is likely to be at its
busiest.
We suggest that arrangements for the management of service
vehicles in Saw Close should be clarified.
2. Building design. Saw Close is known for its
complex history which has resulted in a rich variety in building massing,
architectural design, roofline and elevational detailing. The architect is known for widely admired
work in the area and it is regrettable that, despite a number of alternatives
considered during the consultation stage, the elevations to Saw Close still
display an over-scaled, angular geometry which seems insensitive to the
detailed articulation that is typical of this important urban space.
We suggest that proposed elevations to Saw Close be
reconsidered.
3. Parking
for the disabled. We support the
removal of short stay parking spaces from the site as well as the absence of
new parking in the proposals. However,
we think more thought should be given to parking for Blue Badge holders. It is normally a sound principle in any city
centre that where there is a proposal to exclude most traffic from an area in
favour of pedestrians and cyclists parking for the disabled, who may be unable
to take full advantage of the improvements, should be increased or at least
maintained rather than reduced. With the
removal, without replacement, of the three existing spaces for Blue Badge
holders on the site the nearest available short stay parking will be adjacent
to Kingsmead Square, a distance of some 200 metres, and this parking resource
is likely to come under increased pressure.
We suggest that the number of parking spaces available to
Blue Badge holders on the site should be maintained or increased.
