BELPER RIVER GARDENS
Swiss Tea Rooms Architect’s Competition
Views of the Friends of Belper River Gardens
8th August 2011
The Friends Group wishes to see replacement Swiss Tea Rooms built and operating as soon as possible. It is equally important that the replacement is financially sound and popular with the public who use it. The consequences of commercial failure would be very serious in this sensitive location.
At present the final choice of architects appears to be between the proposal that had overwhelming public support in the latest Amber Valley Borough Council (AVBC) public consultation and that which scored highest in the exercise conducted at the presentations made to the panel on 2nd June. The first of these was by Lathams and the second by McNeill Beechey O’Neill (MBO). This is a process to choose an architect and we would expect any details that might not fully comply with aspirations to be modified once the firm was appointed.
The Friends have considered the two “final” proposals based on the information supplied to the public by AVBC. We have based our views on what we think are the most important criteria. We also discussed the issues with English Heritage and with professionals in the catering industry. On this basis we believe that the Latham’s proposal is the clear “winner” and that by MBO is inappropriate and unsound:
- The Latham’s proposal is more likely to be commercially successful.
- It is likely to be significantly cheaper to build.
- It is less likely to stall at the planning stage.
- Unlike the MBO proposal it will not have an adverse impact both on the River Gardens itself and on the Derwent Valley Mills World Heritage Site, with potential long term serious consequences for the economy of the Borough.
- It has popular support.
Each of these criteria is discussed in more detail below.
It is vitally important that any decision made by The Council on this issue is one that can be sustained long term and which does not reflect badly on all those involved. The River Gardens, more than many other places, are very much in the public eye and much appreciated for what they are. This is a dangerous place for “quick fixes” and unsound experiments.
Commercial viability
The obvious latent potential market for the rebuilt tea rooms will be the people who use or are attracted to use the Gardens. This market is both very seasonal and weather dependent, other than during school holiday periods most use will be at weekends. The fluctuation in demand will be significantly greater than for a High Street café. The distance from the car park (190 yards) and the distance from the town centre (0.6 miles) means that it will not compete for business with more centrally located premises when the weather is bad. When the weather is good, and the tea rooms are busy, then most customers may prefer to sit outside, especially anyone with children using the playground. Likewise workers from the offices in the Mill, who currently enjoy eating their lunches in the Gardens when it is fine, will probably continue to want to sit in the open even if they do buy their lunch. Apart from any outside seating provided as part of the proposal there are already picnic tables that can be used by persons using a take away service.
The market would therefore seem to be for simple basic food and beverages at reasonable cost with a take away facility. High capacity is not needed provided there is adequate outside space and over capacity will be a financial burden. Also fluctuation in demand can best be met by a design in which the tea rooms can be operated with minimal staff at times of low demand. The Lathams proposal has adequate capacity and its simple layout and design would make it easy to manage with limited staff.
The MBO proposal increases spaces by adding an upstairs area but we believe this is unnecessary. A significant number of the likely clientele will have young children; many in push chairs, or be elderly, so a single storey solution is better.
It might also be thought that commercial viability could be improved by “milking the asset” and using it as a restaurant on a regular basis during the evening. We do not believe that this would work however because:
- The 190m walk from the car park to the tea rooms will discourage non-daylight use.
- There is a history of anti-social behaviour in the evenings and during the night. Gates and CCTV have been installed by AVBC as means of overcoming this but these will be less effective if access to the Gardens is allowed out of hours for a few people using the restaurant. To provide further security will add cost to the restaurant running costs.
- Providing restaurant facilities will add costs including much higher specialised staff costs, more elaborate kitchen and storage facilities taking up restricted floor space, significantly higher wastage and breakage costs.
- It would probably require a drinks licence that could introduce further problems if it attracted “rowdy” customers.
- Previous restaurants in what is now Chucklebutties overlooking the river a short distance away have failed.
We are therefore opposed to the use of the building in this way although would not object to special occasional use where it was always crowded and food could be brought in pre-prepared. In order to have the building functioning on a regular evening basis it would be necessary for the whole Gardens to remain open and provide additional facilities for amusement and entertainment which do not exist at present.
We understand that a number of businesses have shown interest in operating the tea rooms. It is vital that the business case is not pre-determined by over design at this stage. The basis should be a simple design with the flexibility for seasonal and long term modification. Assuming that “big is beautiful” increases the commercial risk and threatens long term sustainability.
Cost of construction
So far as we are aware the architects have only claimed that their proposals fall below the maximum cost ceiling specified in the brief. In reality costs are likely to escalate and going over the nominal budget is more likely for an elaborate proposal than a relatively simple one.
The two-storey proposal submitted by MBO will literally be a heavier construction. Because the site is a marshy island it may be necessary to sink piles down to the bed rock to take the weight. The practicality of doing this, of getting the machinery to site and the disturbance it will cause all need to be considered and will inevitably lead to higher than predicted cost.
Conversely the Latham proposal is of similar construction and scale to the existing building that has survived 100 years with minimal “sinking” and therefore may not need piles.
We believe that the best solution for everyone would be one where the operator meets the cost of construction and pays a nominal rent to the Council for the site in a franchise arrangement. This “ideal” solution is very sensitive to any cost escalation and therefore the simpler Latham proposal is both preferable and more likely to succeed.
Planning process
English Heritage wrote to AVBC on 15th March 2010 giving reasons why the original tea rooms should be rebuilt in facsimile, i.e. replicate the design and materials of the existing building. On this basis the Lathams design stands a higher chance of meeting these criteria rather than the one by MBO.
While AVBC does not have to accept the advice of English Heritage, not doing so increases the risk of not overcoming significant objections during the planning process. The English Heritage views provide important evidence that could be used by objectors in any inquiry.
There is also the moral issue of ignoring this advice when in the recent past AVBC has spent public money and obtained support for restoring the Gardens to their Edwardian condition. Obtaining further support for future projects might prove difficult. It would also set a bad example that could backfire in terms of the ability of the Council to encourage and enforce conservation policies in the Borough.
Stalling at the planning stage will alienate businesses interested in a franchise and set the whole process back by years.
Impact on the River Gardens
While “footprint” was one of the criteria on which the judges were asked to make their assessment, overall size and scale were not. We consider that size and scale are important considering the impact these will have on the Gardens themselves.
The Derwent Valley Mills World Heritage Site will have value that will be vital to the future economy of the Borough. It is already attracting funding that will enable it to be developed as a key asset.
The River Gardens are an integral part of the story of the Mills in that they were developed as a playground for the workers using the industry profits. As attractive Gardens they are also a part of the World Heritage Site that its visitors can appreciate and enjoy.
The Lathams proposal preserves the essential character of the original building whereas in our view the MBO proposal is out of character and insensitive.
Popular support
The published combined results of the first and second choices from the public consultation gave a score of 189 for the Latham’s proposal, which was in the lead. The second and third most popular had scores of 133 and 104, while the MBO proposal was in fourth place with a score of 90, i.e. less than half the votes for Lathams.
Any decision that overrides this will have to be justified otherwise it will introduce significant political risk. There is a definite swell of public opinion in the area in favour of the type of solution proposed by Lathams as evidenced by other exercises carried out alongside the public consultation.
Page 1 of 3