Gleave and ter Horst to head up Salford design review forum
Former Aecom director Stephen Gleave will chair the 35 strong panel, with MCAU’s Ernst ter Horst installed as vice chair.
Salford City Council announced in June its intention to appoint a host of architects, urban designers, masterplanners, landscape architects, and conservation and heritage specialists to sit on a newly established panel aimed at “challenging developers” on the quality of their projects.
Architects Tim Groom, and Jon Matthews, as well as landscape architects Jonathan Miley, Sophie Parker-Loftus, and Jaimie Ferguson, are among the well-known names on the panel.
Other members of the committee Place North West readers will be familiar with include Levitt Bernstein’s Gillian Harrison, Chapman Taylor’s Catalina Ionita, and Civic’s Paul Morris.
View the full list of panel members
Members will be paid £350 per half day of reviews, and the chair will get £450. The first scheduled design review session will take place on 21 October.
Stephen Gleave, chair of the forum, said: “It is an honour to be the first chair of this new forum and I am hugely excited to get started.
“Salford is at the forefront in pioneering the establishment of this independent design review forum. We have 35 very talented and committed forum members who will bring their incredible wealth of experience to the forum and help shape the future of the city for the better.”
He added: “Our guiding aim is to work collaboratively with the development community to achieve the best possible outcomes for the people of this city. We’re proud to be leading the way with our forum in the North West.”
Ernst ter Horst, vice chair of the forum, said the forum would get involved in projects at an early stage to shape them.
“Reviews will focus on key themes such as placemaking, climate resilience, accessibility, and architectural integrity,” he explained.
“It will help ensure that new developments reflect the ambition, character and quality that Salford’s communities deserve.”
Cllr Mike McCusker, lead member for planning, transport and sustainable development at Salford City Council said: “This city has seen transformational growth and development over recent decades. And this pioneering approach will ensure we are creating places that truly enhance the quality of life of our residents, places that afford exceptional working environments, and places that celebrate our culture and grow the city’s visitor economy.
“Salfordians are very proud people and we want to ensure that we achieve the highest standards of design and sustainability for the city and our residents.”
Well the “architectural bar” in Salford can now only get higher – the last 20 years have seen pretty dismal schemes, notably residential ones, promoted and delivered (there are one or two exceptions to the dismal threshold!)
The is a welcome development if it can actually deliver better quality outcomes.
By Anonymous
I like the concept… however i see a number of flaws… won’t all these parties potentially have a conflict of interest if they are to work on any Salford projects? What happens if they are reviewing a competitors work? Is that fair? One could argue if a design meets planning requirements then the design panels review isn’t really worth any weight. I would say its planning policy that need improving… however with the desperate push for development the bar risks being lowered further.
By MJ
So are Tim Groom and Jon Matthews stepping back from all major projects in Salford for the foreseeable future? Because otherwise this independent panel is looking like a conflict of interest waiting to happen.
By Anonymous
This has all the potential to turn into a mess unless it’s closely controlled and designers don’t over reach. When was the last time an architect studied a development appraisal of tried to fund a scheme.
By Anonymous
Isn’t design subjective? How does such a group reach consensus? Or should developers just let this group design their scheme and then realise it can’t be built until values increase but 50%.
By Anonymous
Salford would be better off drawing up a top quality design code for the district.
By Rye
I really don’t see the point of this. This in concept sounds like a great idea to push design quality (which is needed), however the RIBA led Places Matter Design Review is an existing and established format for councils to engage with, brining with it national reputation. Whilst sometimes the panel members may not be the best, it is relatively easy to establish an impartial / anti conflict approach to design reviews. This feels like a very odd move, and appears almost like a breakaway faction for those who may not like the RIBA panels feedback? I think what is needed here is better planning control and cognisance of the need for external impartial design review – such as by the Places Matter forum.
By Anonymous
Could result in a huge clash of ego’s, and at over £12k (if everyone turns up for 1/2 day) it could be a big cost for no agreement. Time will tell.
By Anonymous
Looks like an unofficial approved consultants list, with real risks of conflicts of interest.
By Anonymous
Who pays? Is it covered via the Council’s expensive pre-app fees?
For this to be beneficial and meaningful, there needs to be a tangible link between achieving a ‘good’ design review report and receiving a planning officer recommendation for approval. Otherwise its another expensive way of frustrating development.
By Anonymous