£13m joint archive approved despite criticism it looks ‘like a child’s drawing’

A new £13m joint archive for Flintshire and Denbighshire has been approved despite criticism the design looks ‘like a child’s drawing’.

The archive – which will house a searchable collection of documents and artefacts cataloguing the history Flintshire and Denbighshire County Councils and their predecessor authorities in Mold – has been designed to complement the neighbouring Theatr Clwyd building.

According to the report from planning officers: “The scale and design of the proposed new facility intentionally submits to the significance and prominence of Theatr Clwyd within the Mold Civic Centre campus context and responds sensitively to its architectural character.”

But members of Flintshire County Council’s Planning Committee slammed the design – accusing it of looking like a ‘warehouse’ and questioning why the Design Commission for Wales had not been consulted.

Buckley Cllr Mike Peers of Flintshire Council’s Reform UK Wales group was so unimpressed he called for the application to be deferred.

“It looks like a load of stacked boxes,” he said. “There’s no architectural merit in my view – is this the best we can do?

“A child with a pencil and ruler could have drawn that. I’m sorry to be very flippant but with this being a significant public building it should have been looked at by the Design Commission for Wales.”

Fellow Reform Cllr Dave Vernon agreed.

“It looks like an industrial building,” he said,  “It’s more in keeping with a warehousing facility.

“I think realistically, it does need to be revised completely. The look of it does not in any way complement what’s already there, in my opinion.”

Liberal Democrat Group leader Cllr Andrew Parkhurst also found the design lacking and asked why the Design Commission for Wales was not brought in during the planning phase.

“It does look like a stack of shipping containers,” he said. “But the front does look in keeping with the theatre.

“I think there is a very distinct difference between the front and the rear. I would ask the question of the officers why it wasn’t assessed by the Design Commission at the outset?”

Senior planning officer James Beattie warned however that a deferral would significantly delay the project.

“Talking about the design of a building is inherently subjective,” he said. “If you talk to a group of people, you’ll have diverse views.

“This application has come forward at the end of a long process. For you to go back and redesign this building, it  wouldn’t come back next month, it would come back significantly later.

“The Design Commission want to see projects at inception, they don’t want to see it at the application stage.

“If you’re deferring for that reason, you’re not going to see this plan this year, I would say, if not next year.

“You’re saying it looks like a warehouse facility. Obviously, it has a very specific function – it’s an archive. The back half of the building is the storage, a secure archive, which is a warehouse in a lot of ways.

“Also, it’s picking up the design cues from the theatre so I think it successfully bridges that gap through form and function.

“I would respectfully disagree with the view that it’s an unattractive building. People are entitled to their own view, but you have to bear in mind that they might not like a redesign either.”

For Labour Cllr Chris Bithell, delaying a project that has been needed for so long – and that has secured National Lottery funding to support it – was not an option.

“Beauty is often said to be in the eye of the beholder,” he said. “That’s true of most buildings and designs.

“The former County Hall – Shire Hall as it was known –  people said it was grotesque, some people hated it. Other people think it’s fantastic and some recently wanted to make it a listed building.

“If you look at the rear of the theatre, it doesn’t look as attractive as the front.  If you look at the back of your own house or my house, it’s not as attractive as the front.

“In some places, they built new archive facilities in industrial buildings on industrial estates and that could have been done here. Instead we’ve got an attractive building.

“I have had experience with the Design Commission for Wales. They’re lovely people, they’re great, they’re architectural experts and come out with the most fantastic comments and designs.

“Unfortunately that comes at a cost which most authorities can’t afford.

“We first looked at a new joint archive in 2001 or 2002 and the cost then was £2 milllion. We couldn’t afford that then and now the cost is a lot more.

“If we lose this now, you know, it would probably require a fresh application to the lottery, which we may not get. Time is of the essence really and we need to get on with it.”

The move to defer the application was rejected by six votes to five as the committee approved the application by majority vote.

By Alec Doyle – Local Democracy Reporter