Development Control - Trust Annual Report 1987
The Committee has continued, during the past year, to examine the weekly list of planning applications and to submit the Trust's comments to the City Council.
We support or object to any development proposal which affects the appearance and life-style of the City and its inhabitants in a significant way. In carrying out this task we take into account the need for development and for moving with the times, as well as the views of our members and of the public. Our two Panels are still led by Frank Chippindale, who covers the Conservation Areas, and John Kingdon, who deals with residential property in the City. We are grateful to both Panels for their not inconsiderable effort and dedication.
The Trust objected, over a period and at length, to the demolition of Nos. 60 and 61 Colebrook Street, and suggested what we considered preferable alternatives for the extension of the City Offices. However, this proved a losing battle, as members will by now have seen for themselves. We have objected for similar reasons to the proposed demolition of Nos. 75 and 76 Eastgate Street. In this case, the application has been withdrawn and we understand that a further proposal is in preparation.
We attended a Public Inquiry into a scheme to redevelop Piper's Field at the corner of Chilbolton Avenue and Stockbridge Road. We supported the City Council's refusal of the development applications and the Secretary of State upheld in this case the Council's decision.
When we are faced with a major proposal, likely to result in a significant alteration to the appearance of part of the City, it is of considerable help to the Trust to receive a private presentation of plans from the architect involved, before our comments are submitted to the City Council. We have been fortunate to receive a number of such presentations during the past year. The County Architect described his proposals for the Tower Street/High Street corner - an exciting plan which is still being processed through. Another presentation concerned No. 19 St. Peter Street, a difficult task of providing a car park access and a southern extension to the building, on which we were able to comment constructively. This application has now been approved.
Three further presentations concerned the important Bridge Street/Chesil Street entrance into the City. Firstly, a proposal to demolish Nos. 12 and 13 Bridge Street, to provide office accommodation, had some unsatisfactory aspects and has now been refused. Secondly, the Chesil Street sheltered housing scheme, opposite the Chesil Theatre, seemed to us an improvement on two earlier proposals for this site and has now been approved. Finally, an imaginative plan for Nos. 19 to 23 Bridge Street, including the undertaker's yard and providing both offices and shops as well as residential accommodation, has also since been approved by the City Council.
Winchester is increasingly becoming a prime target for the developer, attracted by the high prices obtainable and a good chance of succeeding with his planning application. Where further office development is clearly not needed and our City Council refuses an application, an appeal to the Secretary of State for the Environment is as likely as not to succeed, since the final decision must now favour development unless a specific clause is breached in an Approved Plan.
Following the recent appeal to demolish five shops in Market Street after three thousand objectors had signed a petition, the Secretary of State considered that the loss of the small specialist shops was "not a matter to which he should give much weight". The results are that we are seeing more and more offices being built here with little or no connection with the City, as well as more and more expensive accommodation for the elderly. The opportunities for creating much needed small shops or new and less expensive residential accommodation within the Central Conservation Area are becoming rarer. This trend is doubtless as depressing for our Council Planners as it is for the rest of us. The Development Control Committee cannot but be aware of this background when reviewing planning applications.