Winchester Town Plan - Trust Annual Report 1967
During the year the Winchester Town Plan was issued. This lays down guide lines for future planning and preservation and is an important document.
The record of a meeting held on March 21st between members of the Preservation Trust and members of the Hampshire County Council and City Council is given below.
Note of meeting with the Winchester Preservation Trust about the Winchester Town Centre Map.
PRESENT:
| Representing | Name |
| Hampshire County Council | Mr Brown |
| Mr Dolman | |
| Winchester City Council | City Engineer |
| Deputy Town Clerk | |
| Mr.W.A. Samson | |
| Winchester Preservation Trust | Mr. Carpenter-Turner |
| Mrs. Carpenter-Turner | |
| Miss Viney | |
| Mrs. Crompton | |
| Miss Hamilton | |
| Mr. Pare | |
| Mr.M.Gardener | |
| Dr.Hughes | |
| Dr.E. Course |
Mr. Brown outlined the reasons for the meeting, and said that at the public meeting to consider the Winchester Town Centre Map there had been a suggestion made that the Trust should meet the County Council to discuss the matter. He made it clear that they were not proposing at this meeting to discuss in any way the traffic aspect of the Town Centre Map and made it quite clear that the Preservation Trust might wish to have a further meeting with the Highway authorities concerned with this aspect of the traffic plan.
He further pointed out that since the preparation of the Town Centre Map the Civic Amenities Bill had been presented to Parliament, and the control policy map might well have been different if prepared in the light of the possible new legislation in the form of the Civic Amenities Bill. He pointed out that the suggested Article IV Direction area shown on the Control Policy Map by a blue line might in fact be a conservation area on the lines of the Bill and there might well be other areas, but there would have to be further investigation about this aspect of the matter.
It was agreed that the Deputy Town Clerk should prepare and circulate to all parties a note of the meeting.
Mr. Pare then outlined the points made by the Preservation Trust and said that he would like to deal with the matter under the headings given by the notation on the control policy map. These were as follows:
Buildings to be kept if possible. The Trust criticised the words "if possible". They felt that it was rather stupid to have for example the Cathedral listed as a building to be kept "if possible" and felt that the buildings should be divided into two groups with the very important buildings in another category. Mr. Brown suggested that the words "if possible" were omitted ; the Map should merely refer to the listed buildings; when conservation areas were imposed this would accentuate any other important buildings which would have to be kept.
Mr. Gardner raised the point that the Preservation Trust might think of groups of buildings which were not on the statutory list but well worthy of preservation, but Mr. Brown said that he would be unwilling to pick out groups here and there though he well realised that it might be an opportune time to ask the Minister to revise the whole of the statutory list. Mr. Pare stated that there were a number of houses which the Preservation Trust thought should be added, and offered to make a list and send it to the County Council. The Trust also propose to make submissions to the County Council on areas which might become conservation areas in the future. Areas particularly mentioned were properties in Bridge Street near the City Mill, the City Bridge, Abbey House and Gardens and Kingsgate Street.
Roads which must not be widened. Mr. Pare made the point that they did not like seeing only parts of streets shown, but felt that the whole length of St. Peter Street and Parchment Street should be shown as far as North Walls. It was accepted that only part of Jewry Street had been shown, due to the partial widening at one end which had already taken place.
The Trust felt that we should consider including the following:
Colebrook Street from the end of Market Lane to the City Bridge;
St. Swithuns Street and Canon Street
The Trust also wanted Chesil Street and Hyde Street included as streets that should not be widened, but the City Engineer and Mr. Brown both said that the Corporation could only note their views at present, since these would probably be affected in part by the traffic plan.
Building line to be kept, but behind which rebuilding could take place. The Trust felt that this implies that rebuilding would take place, and since the plan showed it in most of the areas where there were historic buildings this might lead to misunderstandings. The City Engineer said that the intention was to ensure that the building line would be preserved on its present basis in the event of any future redevelopment, and it was generally agreed that the words "behind which rebuilding can take place" should be omitted, and that in denoting building lines on the map consideration might be given to the dotted line on the map being omitted within the conservation area.
Important Trees. The Trust agreed that the trees shown on the plan were important. They felt that the tree at the rear of the Casson Block should be included, and that the Trees Committee of the City Council should be asked to examine this matter carefully and include any more they thought fit. Mention was made of a tree in the garden of Mulberry House and of a copper beech in the gardens in St. Thomas Street; mention was also made of the trees in the derelict Roman Catholic Cemetery and the trees around the new Police Building which it was felt should be retained, since they were most important and helped to mask the effect of the new building.
Important Pedestrian Routes existing or proposed. The Trust broadly agreed the proposals but felt that they could be extended further (e.g. pedestrian ways to St. Cross). Mr. Brown said that he hoped that the City in the future would consider adding to the footpath which was at present being reserved across the assize court site by purchasing land either from Serles House or Southgate Hotel to link up with this.
Special Conservation Area. Mr. Brown pointed out that with new legislation coming in, an Article IV direction order might not be necessary, and that this was an aspect of the matter that the City Council should consider when the bill came into force.
Areas of change where comprehensive plan needed. The Trust queried these. They felt that the areas were very large and gave people the impression that they were likely to change in entirety, and land there would become sterilized and almost a blight area. They suggested that "areas of possible change where a plan is needed" might be a happier title. They also raised the point that the areas in certain places coincided with the margin of the map and one wondered what would happen on the other side.
Mr. Brown agreed that the notes on page 12 of the written statement dealing with the effects of the control policy map could well be rewritten and amplified; the policy would still be to retain all those buildings shown as intended to be retained even within the areas of change, and due regard would be paid to these various factors. The areas were not in any way intended to be comprehensive development areas, and the point made by the Trust was noted.
Open spaces public and private. Some discussion took place on these and it was pointed out that the Cathedral Close was shown as a public open space whereas in fact it was in the ownership of the Dean and Chapter, although the public have rights of access there. Again it was pointed out that the private grounds in the Close had been shown, and also the garden of the Royal Hotel and the Roman Catholic Church but none of the private gardens of individual houses in St. Thomas Street had been shown. Mr. Brown agreed that there was a case for looking at this again, and that he would prefer not to distinguish between public and private spaces so long as they contributed to the visual quality of the area.
Comprehensive Development area boundary. The City Engineer and Mr. Brown pointed out that this was an accomplished fact and was merely shown on the plan for information only and that there could be no change now in the definition of this area as a comprehensive development area. The Trust expressed some concern as to development taking place in the area and asked that a tougher line be taken over planning matters. The Deputy Town Clerk assured the members of the Trust that the Council always took as tough a line as possible over planning matters, as the two representatives from the Trust present who were also members of the City Planning Committee would agree.
Streets restricted to Pedestrians and essential traffic. This was noted by the Trust who were in broad agreement with the suggestions as made. The Trust also mentioned that Mr. Garton's report on the Historic buildings was stated to be a preliminary report only, and they wondered whether the time had now come to have something of more detail. Reference was made to a detailed report of houses in Farnham which had recently been made, and the Trust felt that the possibility of such a report in Winchester would be worthy of investigation.