THE CITY OF WINCHESTER TRUST LIMITED
REPORT OF THE COUNCIL AND FINANCIAL STATEMENTS FOR THE YEAR ENDED
31 MARCH 2003
Development Control Committee
Winchester continues to reel under the onslaught of the high density schemes resulting from the implementation of PPG3, and all kinds of proposed developments are springing up around our City, in its centre, its suburbs and its outer fringes. Don't be surprised if this sounds familiar, because this is the gist of the opening paragraph about this committee’s activities in last year's annual report. Things haven’t changed since then; if anything they've become worse, as no doubt many members are all too aware.
lt is a matter of considerable concem that due to the lack of an overall assessment of Winchester’s characteristics and true capacity for increased density, the majority of developments are considered individually on an ad hoc basis, often without much apparent reference to other schemes in the neighbourhood.
It is also most misleading to consider density only in terms of dwellings per hectare (dph), while not also considering the previously used method of bed-space provision, even though this cannot be totally accurate because some are double beds and others are not being used. It does however illustrate the general trend of what the local infrastructure will have to provide in the future. For example, 120 bed-spaces could be accommodated in 75 one- and two-bedroom flats on half a hectare, which would give a density of 150 dph; if the same bed-spaces were accommodated in 3-bedroom houses, these would number 40 and give a density of 80 dph. The demands on water and sewage provision would be much the same for both, but the higher density is likely to generate more traffic.
The new developments reflect Winchester’s dire need for one- and two-bedroom accommodation, and this immediately bumps up the density value - and unfortunately also the need for car parking spaces. The Planners are pleased because they are complying with the PPG3 density requirements but the local residents are filled with horror.
The above examples relate to high density schemes that would be suitable only in a city centre, and lesser densities would normally be expected in the ‘leafy suburbs’ of Winchester. lt is here that the cumulative effect of ad hoc permission for new developments is so alarming, especially when the local infrastructure appears to be ill-equipped to cope with large influxes of new residents.
An obvious example is the wedge of land between Dean Lane and the Stockbridge Road. Here three major developments have reached completion or are under construction, with all the disturbance that this brings to the local roads, which were not designed to cope with the volume of traffic demanded of them during construction work. lt seems probable that in their present form they won‘t be able to cope with the car movements of the new residents either. On Dean Lane the English Courtyard development on the Wyke Mark site and the Linden Homes houses in the newly named Lupin Gardens will bring about 125 new people into the area, plus any others living in smaller in-fill developments in the neighbourhood. On Stockbridge Road the Banner Homes development at Salters and a smaller development at Salters Acres will add about another 200, bringing the expected total of new residents in this area to well over 300.
These are the schemes that have already been granted. In the offing are developments on the Stockbridge Road on the land at present occupied by the Red Cross, and the site of the houses Beverley and Thistledown. An application for a development providing 44 new bed-spaces on the latter site has already been lodged, and the expected high density scheme for the Red Cross site on the comer with Dean Lane has still to be presented.
Other Stockbridge Road developments are the 40-bed development at present being built at The Firs, and a proposal to accommodate a further 25 residents on the site on the corner of Bereweeke and Stockbridge Roads. Further claims on the road’s carrying capacity will be caused by schemes already granted on Chilbolton Avenue. Here permitted development has already added over 100 new residents to the neighbourhood, and two further schemes still under consideration, at No 55 and on land at the rear of Nos 8-22, would add another 170 new residents to Chilbolton Avenue.
Can either Romsey or Stockbridge Roads, or Chilbolton Avenue, cope with the traffic that is likely to be generated by this addition of about 700 new residents?
There are other vulnerable roads at risk: Park Road, where 36 new bed-spaces have already been granted, and a possible further 62 are being proposed for a development behind Nos 3-9, 76-82 Alresford Fload, where a scheme for 53 new residents is under consideration, and Quarry Road, where recently it was proposed that 32 bed-spaces should be accommodated on the site of No 22 (now withdrawn, but it could be re-presented) and behind No 64, where Cala Homes proposed a development of 30 dwellings which added over 70 new residents. This has been refused by the Local Authority, largely because granting it would make it difficult to refuse similar schemes which could have a cumulative detrimental effect on the local infrastructure (traffic, drainage and sewage).
These are some of the larger schemes we've looked at. The panels have also seen many smaller in-fill developments during the year, all of which add incrementally to the population of our city. lf this rate of development continues there could be about 1000 new residents each year. How long can the fabric of Winchester survive this influx without losing the character that makes it so special?
Shione Carden
Chairwoman, Development Control