Department of Planning Services
Stratford on Avon District Council
Elizabeth House
Church Street
Stratford-upon-Avon
CV37 6HX

19 October 2007

Attention Mr Tony Horton

Dear Mr Horton

07/02585/FUL & 07/02586/LBC Royal Shakespeare Theatre, Waterside
Revised scheme (re consents 06/03499/FUL & 06/03500/LBC) re internal/external refurbishment, alterations, demolitions and extensions etc.  

Thank you for your consultation letter dated 28 September enclosing details of the above application for our consideration.

Our members had very few adverse comments, but were generally impressed by the continuing refinement of the design. Changes to all those elements about which we have expressed concerns have resulted in improvements. On the amended scheme we would make the following comments:

Tower - Changes made are seen as good but members have expressed reservations about:

a) the possibility of the large areas of brickwork being subject to marking by weathering especially below the windows and roof overhangs; and

b) the windows in the elevation facing the theatre which look in the perspectives to be large in size and scale compared especially to those stepping up the brickwork on the other three faces.

Services compound - We note the changes but feel that a more radical solution than these relatively cosmetic amendments would be desirable. We appreciate the problems created by the site's lack of a "back" but fear that this corner may be detrimental to the character and quality of Waterside and the Theatre Gardens.

Entrance - We commented previously on the relatively inconspicuous main entrance. We feel that thechanges to the linking block, the addition of a canopy and the reshaping of the external steps and approach all work in favour of this area. However, we think it will still prove to be rather understated and hope that this does not lead to a reaction which results in assertive signage or any other such attempt to make more of a statement.

Linking foyer/Theatre Square - The changes to the linking foyer and its relationship to the outside are very favourable, but the landing space at the top of the steps appears narrow. It looks barely adequate to deal with a departing audience, and ungenerous to arrivals.

Generally speaking, we believe the RSC is to be applauded for continuing to refine its proposals and in particular for trying to satisfy the concerns of many parties in the town. Other developers would do well to follow its lead.

Yours faithfully

LEON TANNER (Chairman, Planning Group, Stratford Society)

Introduction

We submitted our final comments on the RSC’s planning application on 8 January 2007. In our submission, we first of all stated our appreciation for the careful and methodical manner in which the RSC had approached the project. We particularly welcomed their willingness to brief the Stratford Society and others on their progress and also commended the work of the RSC’s Community Forum.

In general we were happy to give our support to the whole project. We had reservations about some external features (outlined below), but were content with the proposed internal changes. We thought that the way that the new theatre had been inserted into the space of the old theatre was ingenious and we welcome the fact that the Courtyard was being used as a testing ground for the design and fitting out of the new main theatre.

However we did ask the Council’s planners to give serious consideration to our reservations about some of the proposed external changes. These are summarised below:

1. The Canopy Roof

1.1. We welcome the new solution to the roofing in of the area on top of the foyers. It is simpler and better than the earlier glasshouse restaurant. However, the new scheme, by extending itself over the full floor plan north of the fly tower, removes much of the modelling and stepped roof form of the Scott design. In particular, the new roof is shown covering the two corner tower/stairs at the NW and NE corners. These are at present carefully composed so as to break clear of the main building and to read as corner sentinels to the north Bancroft front. The polygonal NE stair is carefully detailed to resolve the problem of terminating a flat roofed structure in a way that gives it identity and a proper presence. By bringing the new canopy roof at the top right over these two pavilions, their status is diminished and their identity subsumed.

1.2. In Elizabeth Scott’s designs the composition of the north elevation is similarly handled, with considerable vertical emphasis in the detailing and the sawn-off effect of the parapet wall (level with the top of the Kennington sculptures) is avoided by the way it reads against the receding brick walls of the Balcony foyer and the auditorium (see plate 12 in Marion Pringle’s booklet: The Theatres of Stratford-upon-Avon 1875-1992 by Marion Pringle; published by the Stratford Society, 1993). More importantly to the composition, the whole north elevation is framed by the sentinel towers. The NE tower performs a similar function to the north end of the river elevation.

1.3. We believe that thought should be given to the idea of setting back the canopy and cutting the corners of the canopy back to clear the towers on the NW and NE corners. This will preserve the tower idea and, equally importantly, define the width of the new canopy roof in a way that makes sense of the Scott design.

1.4. In relation to the new roof forms beyond the foyers to the south, the scheme proposes an extension of the roof canopy form along the fly tower on both sides. At these points the roof seems to be over plant rooms etc. The effort of continuing the roof there could detract from the clarity of the structure and to be a matter of applied form rather than an expression of what the new functions are doing at that point. The continuation at the sides would reinforce the dominance of the new roof-line in the composition at the expense of the Scott modelling, as mentioned above. We favour the omission of the canopy form and a simpler, more honest approach.

2. Access

2.1. We have reservations about the proposed main entrance, both externally and internally. We do not believe that the proposed main entrance and its approach are sufficient for such an important building. The approach from Waterside is pinched and obstructed by the disabled parking bays, a flight of steps that finish tight to the entrance doors, an awkward change in direction, and a restricted paved platform to stand on outside the doors. The ramp for the disabled may be awkward to use.

2.2. We appreciate that, in the new combined foyer, there will be at least three separate entrances plus two more entry points through the old foyer and the old bar. However, the new doors in the area bridging the theatre to the tower will be regarded as the main approach and, given that this leads into a small area which will be shared with the stairs and lift of the new tower, it could make for overcrowding. The RSC has assured us that this will not happen, but nonetheless we wish to make the observation.

2.3. Given the limited parking places available on Waterside, the Society questions what ideas and plans are in place for the management of traffic -- both pedestrian and vehicular -- during the construction and post-construction phases.

3. Gatehouse and Yard on Southern Lane

3.1. The gatehouse is being retained but will have a high hoarded area rammed uncomfortably onto its back. We appreciate the need for proper ancillary facilities, but believe that the effect on the gatehouse is detrimental. We propose that this is rethought to allow the older building to read more elegantly.

4 The Tower and the Viewing Platform

4.1. From the elevational drawings, we feel that the relationship of the tower to the existing building, the proposed new foyer and the open spaces around them, and the scale of the tower itself all seem to have been well resolved, and the various changes that we have seen show that the RSC and the architects are aware of the importance of the tower and its impact. The curving and tapering brickwork seems very promising for the structure as a whole. The use of other materials with the brickwork, and the inclusion of variations in the chosen bricks to modulate the large elements and reflect the style of the brickwork in the 1932 building, do not in principle give us any cause for concern. In particular, the side of the tower towards the theatre, where cladding materials other than brick predominate, is well handled.

4.2. We would be remiss if we did not acknowledge that there are a number of Society members who are anxious about the width and/or height of the tower -- especially when viewed at an angle and from a distance. However we believe that, if the design of the top of the tower can be resolved, this will ease local concerns.

4.3. At present, the top of the tower and the viewing facilities do not yet seem to be well resolved. The angular elements dominate, all the more so for being in those materials which in the rest of the building are subservient to the brick, and the silhouette would be angular and fragmented. This seems out of keeping with the roof and tower elements of the 19 th and 20 th century parts of the building, which have either sloping roofs (some more successful than others), or various forms of parapet edging to flat roofs. It would seem desirable that this most dominant feature should be more sympathetic to the existing building and its neighbours. It declares its presence dramatically in its verticality, its subtle form and its height – such a contrasting top seems to turn it into too aggressive a statement. We believe that if the top of the tower can be resolved, other worries about the longer-distance views can also be resolved.

5 Dressing Room Block on Riverside

5.1. Finally, the metalwork and free-standing steel columns with a cladding and mesh enclosed staircase at the garden end of the building, seem alien to the rest of the design along the river frontage, save for the possible columnar effect in the NE section.