Land Speculation and Development - Trust Annual Report 1974
In the Middle Ages land was taken for granted. There was more than enough of it. If it was arable it was valuable, otherwise it was useless. The land on which buildings were placed had no value in itself, and only the buildings could be bought and sold.
The Church was the first to gain an income from land. Attendance at churches and pilgrimages to special holy places, attracted people to the areas surrounding the church buildings, and from this followed the establishment of markets and shops for which rents could be charged. Cities also owned land and charged rents. One year leases were common and as time went by, leases were extended to longer terms or the life time of the tenant.
Other perpetual institutions such as universities or guilds, or inheritance, received an income from rents.
In England, unlike some continental countries, rents were increased, whenever leases were renewed, so that rentals were adjusted to the falling value of money.
Two things happened to alter this situation. The medieval church at the Reformation, lost most of their property, and much real estate was transferred to individuals at no other cost than the payment of annual rents. The city authorities began to have less interest in owning property as their servants could be paid in money raised in taxation. So the provision of rent free houses and the right to cultivate city owned land became gradually of no importance.
A city like Winchester escaped the worst effects of the next stages of development, where workers were attracted to the cities to become the prey of the speculative builder. Winchester remained a quiet country town, and when the railway came it stimulated both good and bad development. The clearance of the Brooks area got rid of the bad, and provided the land for a good scheme of redevelopment. On the other hand the better speculative areas of the last century are now highly prized. Typical examples are located round Orams Arbour and Christchurch Road.
These contain many houses of a family size, which are no longer being provided. They are set in pleasant gardens and the population density is low. For this reason they attract a new generation of developer, who can purchase one or two adjacent properties, demolish the houses, and erect small housing estates or blocks of flats. In so doing they perform a valuable service and reduce the size of over large gardens which are hard to maintain in these days. But in this process the attractiveness of these residential areas can be lost if the development is too intensive. A certain amount of infilling can be accepted but it must stop when there is a threat to the amenity value of the district, and the loss of the larger type of house which is not being replaced and is of great value to the community giving the city a distinctive character.
With this in mind it may be that the time is ripe for the designation of more conservation areas, and this is something which the Trust hopes to examine with the collaboration of the officers of the City Council.