The Traffic Plan - Trust Annual Report 1966
The foregoing paragraphs are relevant to Winchester's newest problem, the City Map, produced by the County Council's Planning Officer and his staff. In appraising this, it is necessary to bear a number of factors in mind. The first is, that his plan should be for the year 2000 A.D., not 1975 or even 1980. Traffic is bound to be quite different by then, not only through technological development, but also because every town in the country cannot possibly be changed with sufficient rapidity to meet such a situation. Another solution will have to be found to the problem of transporting the much increased population about their daily lives, both outside and within the cities. Today's planners have somehow to be visionaries with the distant future in mind.
To impose an artificial system of roads on a natural city arouses the gravest misgivings.
At the Town Meeting of July 26th the Preservation Trust put forward their views, which are reproduced here.
Drawing by Garrick Palmer
A typical property at the corner of Christchurch Road and Compton Road, which would be seriously affected by the traffic plan. This would become a busy thoroughfare and the garden would be cut in two destroying the quiet residential area.
Statement made by the Chairman representing the views of the Winchester Preservation Trust, and read at the Town Meeting held at the Guildhall on Tuesday, 26th July, 1966:
The Winchester Preservation Trust gives full support to the stated aims of the Plan as set out in Paragraph 12 of the Winchester Town Centre Map.
The Trust wishes to put forward the following observations on the Plan as presented:
- The Trust fears that there is already a tendency to turn Winchester into a dormitory town, because building land is available in the vicinity and the roads to get to other towns are becoming greatly improved, Such a course must be resisted, as Winchester should remain a balanced and self supporting community.
- An increase in parking places would be welcomed. Planning permission for every sizeable business development should be conditioned upon the provision by the applicant of adequate car parking facilities.
- Traffic growth must be considered together with shop and business development. A limit must be placed on growth which cannot be served by existing roads. There is not enough emphasis on this necessary quality of planning. More shopping facilities should be provided in new residential areas.
- The Trust is particularly involved and interested in the Chesil Street area, on account of the restoration of St. Peter Chesil Church for which they have raised over £10,000 and would like particular care taken in this area.
- The Trust opposes comprehensive commercial development in the Sussex Street and City Road area, and between Jewry Street and Tower Street. To allow business to develop in this area can only intensify the traffic problem which the Sussex Street Car Park and road widening is designed to cure. Business halts traffic, which must be allowed to flow in this area.
- Control Policy. The Trust agrees in general with the points raised, but makes the following reservations. Not all scheduled buildings or those listed in Garton's report are shown in this map, nor are properties belonging to the County Council, such as Trafalgar House. (See list at the end of statement.)
More attention should be paid to the north side of the Broadway. The India Arms is shown, but there is an important group nearby whose scale should not be altered. This is almost the last area in the High Street in which local business takes place. One would like to see this group retained and not surrendered to the multiples. These buildings contribute much to the individual market town atmosphere of the City.
The Trust welcomes the greater degree of control to be exercised over certain classes of development of a minor nature which are usually exempted, and welcomes the recommendation to adopt an Article IV direction which could be extended.
More roads should be shown as "not to be widened".
With regard to traffic, the Trust sees no reason to modify the views put forward at the Town Meeting in July 1964.
The new proposals for the south of the City with a bridge over the Romsey Road may be a better solution in terms of traffic flow, but will be no less offensive visually.
These new proposals have an ameliorating effect in the Beaufort Road and Edgar Road area, but this is at the expense of properties in St. James Lane. The new proposals do not safeguard the village of St. Cross which will inevitably be destroyed, nor do they improve the position of areas bordering Christchurch Road and St. James Terrace. It is unfortunate that St. Cross does not appear on any map; the Trust regards this as a serious omission.
It is understood that since the Public Meeting called to consider the Traffic Plan the City Council has approved, in principle, the purchase of the surplus railway land within the City, including the Chesil tunnel. The Trust considers that some of this land, and perhaps the tunnel itself, could be used with advantage in connection with the Traffic Plan and recommends that further consideration be given to the link between North Walls and Bar End on this basis. This would have the advantage of making unnecessary the present proposals for the south of the city, which are the most difficult to implement.
Scheduled buildings on the Section 30 list not shown on the Winchester Town Centre Map as "buildings to be kept if possible".
Nos. 60, 61, 62, 63, 64 & 64A, 75, 85 High Street.
5 Upper Brook Street, Echo Offices.
Chemocke Hotel, St. Thomas Street (Nurses Home)
19 St. Peter Street.
The following are adjoining the road widening for Traffic improvements:
No. 1 Bridge Street (Old Mill Cafe). Owned by Council.
79 High Street and Westgate House.
1 and 2 St. James Crescent.
City Bridge, Ancient Monument.
Plague Monument.
The latest news of the Traffic Plan is that the proposal for the St. Cross-Romsey Road link is to be shelved until 1978. Many members of the Trust hope that long before that date, this part of the plan will have been abandoned. The twelve year reprieve does not remove the planning blight which now affects a very large number of good residential properties, but it does give an opportunity to reconsider the whole problem after the Kingsworthy link is completed, on the lines proposed in the statement at the Public Meeting.