Case study / Feasibility, Greater Manchester

A canal-side site,
tested before the buy.

A tight brownfield plot hemmed by water, a main road and a recent apartment neighbour. Commissioned by cost and project consultants BACE, our RIBA Stage 1 capacity study established what it could realistically hold, 32 apartments, and mapped the risks that came with them.

A Rickett Architects visualisation of the tested massing, not a photograph. The character shown is drawn from the precedent imagery the study collected: the study itself tested capacity and massing, not materials. No planning application was made, no consent was granted and nothing was built.

The facts

Feasibility study architects, Greater Manchester.

A commercial question rather than a design one: a developer weighing several sites at once needed to know which were worth pursuing, before anyone committed to a land purchase.

The project

What the plot could carry.

32apartments the constrained canal-side plot could hold

Location: A canal-side brownfield plot, Greater Manchester
Client: BACE, cost and project consultants, for a private developer
Our scope: RIBA Stage 1 feasibility and capacity study
Status: No application made. The study informed the site decision

Rickett Architects feasibility and capacity study, November 2022. A desktop study at RIBA Stage 1: no planning application was made, no consent was granted and nothing was built. The site is described by region only, and the end client is not named, for client confidentiality.

The brief

Is this one worth buying?

BACE were appraising several sites at once for a private developer, and needed to know what this one would carry before any land purchase was committed.

The instruction was capacity and constraints at RIBA Stage 1, not a design. The work sits there and stayed there, because that was the question.

The question: How many homes will it carry, and what comes with them
The context: Several sites being weighed at once, one budget
The deadline: Before a land purchase, not after

The accommodation

What thirty-two apartments measure.

Homes: 32, over seven floors
Mix: 22 two-bed, 7 one-bed, and 3 one-bed canal-side duplexes
Unit sizes: From 46 to 78 sqm, 495 to 840 sq ft
Apartment area: About 2,260 sqm, 24,333 sq ft across the 32 homes
Parking: 26 spaces, off site, in a nearby car park proposed for reuse

Areas are the sum of the unit schedule and are approximate at feasibility stage. They are apartment areas only: the building's gross internal area, with circulation, plant and the canal-level colonnade, is larger. The off-site parking is a proposal to be secured by agreement, not an existing right.

The site

More constraints than its size suggested.

North: The canal and its towpath, with views over the water
West: A busy main road, a sensitive junction and highways scrutiny
East: A recently completed apartment building of comparable height
Levels: The canal sits well below the road. The land falls across the plot
Ground: An industrial past, so remediation should be expected
Flood: Flood Zone 1, with a small area at low surface-water risk

The flood, rights of way and boundary findings are the study's own. The junction sensitivity and the industrial ground come from a later independent policy and context review of the site.

The capacity study

The massing the site could carry, not the most it could take.

The move that unlocked the plot was the level change. Drop the lowest floor to canal level, below the road, and the building keeps a modest street presence while the mass steps down to the water behind.

The section

The section is the whole argument.

From the road it reads as six storeys, in step with its canal-side neighbours. Its fuller height, seven floors, is revealed only on the quieter canal elevation, where duplexes open onto the water from a colonnade at canal level.

Diagrammatic section from the main road down to the canal: the ground falls away, six storeys read above road level and a seventh sits below it at canal level, raised on a colonnade, with the mass stepping down towards the water

Diagrammatic section, drawn from the study's floor plans and massing model. Not to scale; storey heights and levels are indicative.

How the height was argued

Precedent is not policy.

Taller buildings had gone up along this stretch of canal, so there was a real precedent to draw on. But precedent alone will not carry a scheme: push the massing too high and it invites a refusal on townscape grounds.

So the height rested on two things that can be defended in a room, the established scale of the canal side and the level change the section exploits, rather than on the largest envelope the boundary would allow.

That argument was made on the policy and context as they stood in 2022. Local policy on tall buildings has moved since, which is itself a reason to test a site early rather than late.

What the study produced

Four things, at Stage 1.

The site read: Flood risk, rights of way, heritage, the canal edge, the road and surrounding heights
The massing: A 3D study model, set against the scale of what is already there
The layout: Floor plans tested as a real building rather than a block
The schedule: Every apartment listed by floor, type, area and parking

Enough for an appraisal to be run on real areas and a real unit count, before a land purchase.

The scheme tested

A wedge of land between a road and the water.

Parking came off the plot so the land could go to homes, and the building was set to take the canal views north.

The layout

Homes on the plot, parking off it.

The apartment footprint sits on the wedge-shaped plot between the road and the canal. Resident parking was proposed in a nearby car park rather than on the site, which kept the ground free for homes.

The feasibility site layout: the apartment footprint set on a wedge-shaped plot between the main road and the canal, with resident parking proposed in a nearby car park off the plot

One achievable layout from the capacity study, with resident parking proposed in a nearby car park off the plot. Diagrammatic, and never submitted for planning.

The study model

The stepped form, in three dimensions.

The 3D study model from the canal side: the stepped mass lifted on a colonnade at canal level, the homes raised to take the views north over the water. It is a massing model, not a design, and that is the point at Stage 1.

The 3D study model seen from the canal side: a stepped white massing block raised on a colonnade at canal level, with the upper floors stepping down towards the water

The study model from the canal side. Massing only: no material, no detail and no design intent beyond the envelope being tested.

What the yes would cost

Capacity was the easy half.

The risks were the useful half.

A canal in third-party ownership, needing its own consent. A sensitive junction. An industrial past and the remediation that implies. And parking that sat off the plot, in a car park that would have to be secured before it could be counted.

Weighing a site? Ask us early

The 3D study model of the tested massing, seen from the canal, showing the stepped form on its canal-level colonnade

None of these stops a scheme on its own. Together they are the difference between a site that works on a spreadsheet and one that works in practice, and Stage 1 is a far better place to find them than after exchange. Constraints drawn from the Rickett Architects feasibility study and a later independent policy and context review of the site.

The full story

The canal to the north is in third-party ownership rather than public navigation ownership, so anything touching the water, the embankment or its drainage would need a separate consent from its owner on top of planning. That is a second approval on a second timetable, and it is the kind of thing that is invisible on a site plan and expensive to discover late.

The main road to the west brings a sensitive junction and the highways scrutiny that comes with it, and the land has an industrial past, which usually means ground remediation. On heritage the study recorded no designated assets on or adjacent to the site and no conservation area. A later review of the wider context finds listed buildings set apart along the same canal bank, near enough that their setting is something to address rather than assume.

Parking was the sharpest of them. Twenty-six spaces were proposed in a nearby car park rather than on the plot, which is what kept the site free for homes. But an off-site car park is only worth what the agreement securing it is worth, and an unsecured one is among the most common reasons a scheme like this is refused. It is the first thing to pin down before the capacity figure means anything.

Height was the other judgement. Taller buildings had gone up along this stretch of canal, so the precedent was real, but precedent is not the same as policy support. The study set the massing on the established canal-side scale and on the level change, so the argument could be made on evidence rather than ambition. Local policy on tall buildings has moved since 2022, which is a reason to test a site early rather than assume yesterday's context still holds.

The outcome

A confident decision, made early on evidence.

Thirty-two homes were achievable, and on the policy and context as they stood in 2022 the height could be argued on the established canal-side scale and the section rather than wished into place. On that basis the developer put their capital into a different site.

What it established

Capacity, and the price of it.

Capacity: 32 apartments, about 2,260 sqm of apartment area
Height: Six storeys to the road, stepping to seven at the canal
Argued on: The established canal-side scale and the level change
Still to resolve: Canal-owner consent, ground conditions, securing the parking

A defensible picture of the site, not a flattering one. The capacity is the study's; the canal-ownership and ground points come from the later context review.

The decision

They bought elsewhere.

A capacity study exists to let a client choose with clear eyes, which is a different job from saying yes. Here it established what the site could hold, and what came with it.

The call: Pursue a different site
The basis: Evidence, early, before a land commitment
What it avoided: Committing before the risks were priced

No planning application was made on this site, no consent was granted and nothing was built.

The client

What BACE took from it.

BACE were appraising several sites at once for a private developer. The study gave them an evidenced read on what this one could carry, and on what would have to be resolved before it could.

“We have already recommended [them] to other clients who have now appointed Rickett Architects on new projects.”

Simon Janes, Director, BACE Construction Consultants.