191002-Feasibility_Options_Report-A

Phase 2 Student Accommodation DESIGN ENGINE ARCHITECTS \\ OCTOBER 2019 Feasibility Options Report

NOTE: The con checked prior t discrepancies s SAFETY In additi work de CONST MAINTE DECOM It is assu contract stateme KEY: OP Flo Existing Principal’s Lodgings and garden 3m offset from1.2m wide Available site area existing sewer main taken from outlined in red, (some survey information. Building site taken from Principal’s further towards or over the Lodgings Garden). sewer is subject to consultation Flood Risk Zone 3A with Thames Water. Tree canopy areas for retained Flood Risk Zone 3B trees close to development 3m offset from sewer 3m offset from3.2m circled in green, (root wide existing sewer protection areas dotted in main taken from survey grey). Tree constraints for each information. tree not concluded. Consultation not undertaken with Thames Flood Risk Zone 3A. Water. Footprint of original scheme 00 22.08.1 Original Site Constraints Plan Flood Risk Zone 3B. rev date project title St Hilda's client St Hilda's status SKETCH

Introduction Following the Stage 1 Feasibility Report issued in June 2019, additional information regarding constraints on the site has been gained which further determines the areas of the site able to be developed. Site constraints include; areas within flood risk zones, existing sewer main positions, root and canopy protection areas of trees which must be retained and an 8m protected zone from the bank of the River Cherwell. After a period of design exploration and a series of design workshops with the College, two main approaches are presented in this report. Option 1 shows retention of the existing Principal’s Lodgings and includes the maximum amount of development reasonably possible adjacent to the JdP. Option 2 relocates the existing Principal’s Lodgings to utilise more of the available site. Currently, both options are reduced risk in terms of statutory consents by not encroaching on the flood risk zones, sitting outside a certain proximity from sewer lines and tree root protection areas. These constraints may be further reviewed with relevant stakeholders or public bodies in order to include more elements required by the College brief. In this report, both Option 1 and Option 2 are also presented in three configurations with different mixes of bedrooms and communal facilities. The original student bedroom design, which allows for flexibility in room layout and summer school functionality, is still shown in the building layouts and has not changed. Building layouts also include a mixture of standard and wheelchair accessible bedrooms and the required student kitchens as previously agreed.

OPTION 1 NOTE: The contractor i checked prior to orderin Option 1 looks to maximise use of the site whilst retaining the discrepancies should b Principal’s Lodgings in its current form and location. SAFETY, HE The proposed accommodation building is four floors in In addition to height with the top floor being a partial floor in order to work detailed improve views outwards from the lawn and in line with CONSTRUC recommendations from the planning consultant. MAINTENAN DECOMMIS It is assumed contractor w statement. KEY: OPTI Floor Existing Principal’s Lodgings Flood Risk Zone 3A Proximity issue as Lime Tree 3m offset from1.2m wide Flood Risk Zone 3B space is required existing sewer main taken 3m offset from sewer between new from survey information. development and Building further towards or Principal’s Lodgings. over the sewer is subject to consultation with Thames Available site area Water. bounded in red. Tree canopy areas for Site boundary to follow; Christ retained trees close to Church site boundary, line of development shaded in Flood Zone 3A and 3m offset green, (root protection areas from the 1.2m wide sewer dotted in grey). main. Flood Risk Zone 3A. 00 22.08.19 Iss Site Constraints Plan for Option 1 Flood Risk Zone 3B. rev date no project title St Hilda's Colle client St Hilda's Colle status SKETCH

Viewpoint Option 1 Configurations SO JdP VERSION 1 includes: TSG JdP = Residential (48 student rooms) = Communal Facilities SO TSG 100sqm Gym Music Teaching Room JdP JdP Office Music Office Welfare Suite VERSION 2 includes: = Residential (52 student rooms) = Communal Facilities 100sqm Gym SO TSG VERSION 3 includes: = Residential (57 student rooms) SO TSG Viewpoint

Option 1 Landscape Concept 1 In this option with the existing Principal’s Lodgings W retained alongside a single new accommodation block the EADO landscape opportunities are: M • removal of the rose garden to open up vistas to the TO meadow • enhanced seclusion / privacy to the perimeter of the H UG Principal’s Lodgings THRO • improved access to riverside TA R E Y DRAWING NOTES UN 1. Surface dressings to roadways to provide a more I S T O sympathetic surface treatment. Bitumen-based V R S products e.g. Colas Fibredec are the most economical to install and maintain D E 2. New understorey to trees, possibly low, woodland planting to provide a buffer between Principal’s 5 Lodgings and the central lawn area and to screen road 3. New tree planting to add seclusion to Principal’s 2 Lodgings garden 4. A secluded communal garden for student residents COLLEGE BOUNDARY WILDFLOWER MEADOW UNDERSTOREY 5. Open lawns extending to riverside 9 6. On-going management of meadows with twice-annual ALK PRIVATE cutting regime (June / September) W 7. Additional cutting and ground improvement to create fair-weather grass paths MEADOW MEADOW 3 A D O W 8. upgrade boundary features with sympathetic traditional 6 M treatments which retain openness (eg estate fence / OA D 7 R E chestnut rail) W IL D 9. forecourt with feature tree and localised re-landscaping R O W E of adjacent lawn B F L Landscape Concept Design Sept 2019 BROAD MEADOW WALK 8 MEADOW M M U N AL UNDERSTOREY G A R D EN C O 4

Option 1 Landscape Concept Precedents 1 5 3 2 7 9 68 4 1. Soft materials in landscape 2. Woodland garden / buffer 3. Glimpses through tree planting to meadow from Principal’s Lodgings 1. Soft materials in landscape 2. Woodland garden / buffer 3. Glimpses through tree planting to meadow from Principal’s Lodgings 4. Terracing and active spaces for students 5. Lawns extending to riverside 6. Snakehead fritillary meadow 4. Terracing and active spaces for students 5. Lawns extending to riverside 6. Snakehead fritillary meadow 7. Grass paths / rides in meadow 8. Sympathetic boundary treatment to college / meadow boundary 9. Residential forecourt with a specimen tree to punctuate corner of 7. Grass paths / rides in meadow 8. Sympathetic boundary treatment to college / meadow boundary college lawns Landscape Concept Design Sept 2019 9. Residential forecourt with a specimen tree to punctuate corner of

OPTION 2 Option 2 proposes to relocate the existing Principal’s Lodgings 8m zone from top of river Walnut Beech closer to the river in order to unlock more of the site. The site bank. Tree Tree available when the Principal’s Lodgings are relocated is mapped in the diagram to the right. Flood Risk Zone 3A. Pine Tree Flood Risk Zone 3B. The proposal includes two four-floor accommodation buildings. Cedar One is located adjacent to the JdP and one is of a similar size and Tree orientation to the Garden Building. A generous gap is afforded between the accommodation and the JdP to allow delivery Tree canopy areas for access and to improve light access into the windows within the retained trees close to end wall of the JdP. development shaded in green, (root protection areas The Rose Garden is relocated and a garden of a similar tranquil dotted in grey). nature is provided between the new Principal’s Lodgings and the square accommodation building. Student access to both accommodation buildings is from the southern garden space. The new Principal’s Lodgings is a three-floor building and further information regarding its design approach can be found later in this report. Flood Risk Zone 3A Available site area Flood Risk Zone 3B bounded in red. 3m offset from sewer Lime Tree 3m offset from1.2m wide existing sewer main taken from survey information. Building further towards or over the sewer is subject to consultation with Thames Water. Site boundary to follow; Christ Church site boundary, line of Flood Zone 3A, 8m offset from the River Cherwell and 3m offset from the 1.2m wide sewer main. Site Constraints Plan for Option 2

Option 2 Configurations TSG JdP VERSION 1 includes: SO Viewpoint = Residential (73 student rooms) TSG SO = Communal Facilities 100sqm Gym Music Teaching Room JdP Office Music Office Welfare Suite =New Principal’s Lodgings VERSION 2 includes: = Residential (79 student rooms) = Communal Facilities 100sqm Gym = New Principal’s Lodgings JdPTSG SO SO TSG VERSION 3 includes: = Residential (83 student rooms) = New Principal’s Lodgings TSG JdP SO SO TSG Viewpoints

Option 2 Landscape Concept 1 In this option the arrangement of new Principal’s Lodgings COLLEGE BOUNDARY 5 adjacent to the river and the accommodation divided 2 between two blocks provide opportunities for: TO MEADOW • enhanced vistas to the meadow • seclusion / privacy for Principal’s Lodgings garden MEADOW 9 THROUGH • reconfigured access and enhanced fair-weather VISTA walking circuits through meadow 3 DRAWING NOTES 7 CLEARING 1. Surface dressings to roadways to provide a more 6 MEADOW 4 sympathetic surface treatment. Bitumen-based CIRCUIT 8 products e.g. Colas Fibredec are the most economical to install and maintain MEADOW 2. New understorey to trees, possibly low, woodland planting to provide a buffer between Principal’s Lodgings and the central lawn area and to enhance vistas to the meadow 3. A tranquil space between accommodation and Principal’s Lodgings with an opportunity to create subtle landform to signal the descent into the meadow and to smooth out the change in level 4. A more active space in the centre of the new accommodation blocks, incorporating the level changes descending into the meadow 5. New terrace feature interlocking with the new architecture of the Pincipal’s Lodgings with vistas across the river and meadows / pitches beyond 6. On-going management of meadows with twice-annual cutting regime (June / September) 7. Additional cutting and ground improvement to create fair-weather grass paths 8. upgrade boundary features with sympathetic traditional treatments which retain openness (eg estate fence / chestnut rail) 9. Use existing and new beech hedgerows to frame vistas, enclose private spaces and create secluded openings to entrances Landscape Concept Design Sept 2019

Option 2 Landscape Concept Precedents 1 5 7 9 2 6 3 4 8 1. Soft materials in landscape 2. Woodland garden / buffer 3. Undulating / sculptural landform 1. Soft materials in landscape 2. Woodland garden / buffer 3. Undulating / sculptural landform 4. Terracing and active spaces 5. Prospect for Principal’s garden / terrace overlooking the river 6. Snakehead fritillary meadow 4. Terracing and active spaces 5. Prospect for Principal’s garden / terrace overlooking the river 6. Snakehead fritillary meadow 7. Grass paths / rides in meadow 8. Soft boundary treatment to meadow 9. Discreet entrances (beech hedge) 7. Grass paths / rides in meadow 8. Soft boundary treatment to meadow 9. Discreet entrances (beech hedge) Landscape Concept Design Sept 2019

Possible Principal’s Lodgings The proposed Principal’s Lodgings within Option 2 include a ground floor which is able to be used independently of the Principal’s private accommodation for College social and dining functions. We understand that this separation is not possible within the current Principal’s Lodgings. The Principal’s private accommodation occupies the two upper floors. The new location could afford spectacular river views and we would propose that the side of the building which faces the river opens out with large windows to make the most of these views. Privacy will also be a key consideration and there is a significant level change between the proposed location of the Lodgings and the river which will help along with strategic planting plans. In developing the architecture, materials would need to be sympathetic to the site and the surrounding existing buildings. Potential riverside view from Principal’s Lodgings garden (Above)

Bedrooms Guest Suite Back of House/ Kitchen Master Suite Social Dining and Kitchen and Events at Principal’s Living Area discretion Ground Floor First Floor Second Floor Fitness Room Study Initial Sketch Plans (Above)

SUMMARY Perimeter Buildings Existing Principal’s Lodgings A summary table can be seen on the opposite page which compares the two Option 1 Aerial View Stand-alone Buildings options. Riverside Buildings Perimeter Buildings Option 1 demonstrates what can be achieved on the site if the existing Principal’s Lodgings remain in their current form and location. It is clear that with the site constraints, and also advice from the planning consultants regarding building massing and height, Option 1 cannot accommodate a large proportion of the full brief. We are also concerned that an ‘L’-shaped or linear building would create a sense of enclosure on the site rather than promote permeability in terms of views and access into the adjacent meadow. This issue may likely be accentuated in the future if the Principal’s Lodgings were relocated in order to develop more of the site. The likely design move would be to extend the ‘L’- shaped block further in the direction of the river. Permeability is something we understand is important to the College and St Hilda’s is unique in its proximity and outlook onto the river and landscape without enclosed gardens or quads. Option 2 is able to more closely meet the brief within the current site constraints. We feel that Option 2 makes better use of the site and allows more development to be included. Permeability is encouraged within the scheme in terms of views and access out into the landscape. In terms of planning we also understand that this option carries a lower risk due to the generous spaces between the buildings and the relationship between the central student accommodation building and the Garden Building. The construction of this scheme could potentially be phased, although this is subject to risks including cost and programme. Stand-alone Buildings Riverside Buildings Option 2 Aerial View

Key Characteristics Advantages Disadvantages Planning Risk Option 1: • Existing Principal’s Lodgings retained • Scheme maximises development to • Bedroom number required not achieved • Low to medium risk Retain Existing • Additional double-banked L-shaped south of Principal’s Lodgings with or without communal facilities • Could be seen as urbanising and closing off Principal’s Lodgings, • building located between 3m offset • Site at risk of feeling enclosed and views the site’s main lawn. Risk is mitigated by Reduced from sewer main and Flood Zone 3A out being blocked having only a partial fourth floor and could Accommodation Creates level of enclosure around • Future development may continue to also be justified by comparing to height of lawn enclose the site further existing buildings on the site. • Phased development may carry financial and other risks Option 2: • Existing Principal’s Lodgings and Rose • Scheme provides generous new • Additional cost of demolition and erection • Low risk Garden replaced • Principal’s Lodgings to include dining, Generous gaps provided between Relocate Existing • Additional double-banked building • social and guest facilities which are of new Principal’s Lodgings • buildings, central pavilion unifies site Principal’s Lodgings, added adjacent to JdP and square separate to the Principal’s through strong connection to Garden Fulfill Greater Amount building of similar orientation and accommodation. Building. of the Existing Brief layout as the Garden Building Permeability through site maintained Clear dialogue between existing and • proposed boundary buildings and garden buildings Required minimum bedroom number can be achieved.