Analysis

Following the workshops, all the masterplans were analysed to find areas of agreement and divergence of opinions.

To do so, we looked at specific aspects of the masterplans such as the location of the school, community facilities and public open spaces and the distribution of the residential densities.

The conclusions of this analysis are shown below.

Primary school:

There was much convergence of opinions about the locatin of the new primary school. Nine out of twelve teams decided to locate the school near the centre of the site where it was felt that it would be accessible to the greatest number of residents.

Mixed uses:

There was almost unanimous agreement on the location of the mixed uses including the community facilities and the foodstore. Most teams located these services at the centre of the site and along a main road or bus route to maximise patronage.

Sports pitches:

Seven out of twelve teams located sports pitches near the existing Christ’s and Sydney Sussex sport pavilion. This proposal was however not viewed positively by those residents whose properties back onto the current sports ground as it was felt that publicly accessible sports pitches may cause noise and safety issues.

Informal public open space:

There seemed to be two main schools of thoughts on the location of the informal open space. Five teams proposed a park that linked the end of Windsor Road with the existing public footpath to the north-west. An equal number of teams proposed an elongated park along a south-west / north-east axis in the middle of the development.

Allotments:

There was no overall trend in the location of allotments but a few teams proposed allotments at the back of the Stratfield Close / Tavistock Road properties and other teams proposed allotments along existing hedgerows or field ditches. Most teams split the allotments between a few locations to make them more accessible.

Children and teenager provision:

There was no overall trend in the location of these facilities, each team proposing a different distribution.

Residential densities of 150+ dwellings per hectare:

Only three teams out of twelve used the highest range of residential densities available (150 dwellings per hectare or above). These teams located the highest density along the outer boundary of the site where it was felt that it would not result in a loss of amenity to existing residents

Residential densities of 100 to 145 dwellings per hectare:

Ten out of twelve teams made use of this density range and located it either along the outer boundary of the site or in the centre of the development. It was generally felt that higher densities should be located away from the existing urban edge.

Residential densities of 50 to 95 dwellings per hectare:

All but one team made use of this density range in their masterplans. This density was used on all parts of the site except along the existing urban edge.

Residential densities of 25 to 45 dwellings per hectare:

There was almost unanimous agreement in the use of the lowest residential densities along the existing urban edge. With the exception of three teams which suggested some form of green buffer at the back of existing properties, all teams advocated mirroring the existing low residential densities along the urban edge.

Many more suggestions and comments were made during and after the workshop. These are summarised in the Residents’ Workshop Report (available in the resources section) and have also been taken into consideration when preparing our proposed masterplan.