Development Control - Trust Annual Report 1999
It's amazing how long it takes for some schemes to reach fruition, while others seem to whiz through the planning system at breakneck speed.
Of those discussed in our last annual report, final decisions still have to be made on the developments at Ropewalk House on the corner of North Walls and Hyde Abbey Road, and at Sarum Court on the corner of Greenhill and Sarum Roads. At Ropewalk House, the scheme has changed from a 3-storey terrace of six houses to an 11-unit block of flats, for which an acceptable design is in the process of being agreed. Sadly, it has not been possible to save the distinctive Sarum Court from demolition, for the site is not in a conservation area, the building is not listed and the Department for Culture, Media and Sport declined to list it as being of architectural or historical importance. A scheme to replace it has yet to be presented.
The Department for Culture, Media and Sport - what an incongruous mixture of responsibilities this appears to be! To those of us uninitiated in the procedures of national government it is difficult to see how the affairs of the media and sport could have any connection with architecture and the built environment, and it makes one fear that central government has little appreciation of those matters that concern the Trust most. Confirmation of this impression is provided by the Georgian Group's Journal of last January, when they commented on the Department's publication A New Cultural Framework which sets out the decisions made following the Government's Fundamental Spending Review. The Group's concluding summary showed that by 2001 the provision of funds for the Arts would increase by £53m and for Museums & Galleries by £43m, and that in contrast the provision for the Built Heritage would actually decrease by £3m. Further evidence of this lack of appreciation of the value of old buildings and the historic environment is given in recent papers about urban regeneration from the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions, for these only mention listed building as obstacles to progress. It seems that the role of amenity societies concerned about these matters is far from over.
Another longstanding development is at Bereweeke House, 14 Bereweeke Road, where the construction of a massive 43-bed nursing home in place of the existing house was first mooted in September 1997. Following various vicissitudes, this development has been transformed into a block of twelve flats, a scheme with a scale much more appropriate for its surroundings than the original proposal. At the time of writing, permission for this has still to be given, but the battered and rundown structure that was Bereweeke House has already vanished.
These applicants are now planning to build their nursing home on the site of Abbotts Barton House, which is to be demolished to make way for a 60-bed cruciform-shaped block and two cottages providing four retirement flats. The existing imposing house is not listed and the site is not in a conservation area and, like Sarum Court, it therefore has no protection from demolition. Over the years the interior of the house has been considerably knocked about during alteration work, and having established that two features of historic interest, the oak staircase and an ornate marble fireplace, would not also be destroyed, the Trust has raised no objection to its demolition. We were very pleased to have been involved in discussions about the design of the new block before the application was formally sent in to the Planning Department, since this has allowed us to make what we hope were constructive suggestions at an early stage rather than making negative comments after many of the decisions had already been made a much more productive use of everybody's time, we feel.
The trend towards the increased use of city-centre properties for residential accommodation seems to have continued unabated during the year, which ought to be good for Winchester. However, quite a few of them appear to be very basic conversions that would be easy to change back to offices should this be required or prove more profitable at some future date. This causes us some concern, for it does not necessarily bode well for either the prospective tenant or the fabric of the building, or indeed for the character of Winchester, to have what could be a substandard or potentially "tenement-block" type of accommodation available in the city centre.
On the domestic front, extensions and alterations to existing property continue to be the order of the day. One of the descriptions in the Planning Department's weekly lists that fills our panels with most dread is "Alterations to provide accommodation in roof space", for we know that the application is likely to be either the overoptimistic hope of fitting a quart-into-a-pint-pot approach or the result of the depredations of a so-called "loft-conversion specialist". Both usually result in an alteration that considers the requirements of internal use rather than external appearance, and it is depressing that even in conservation areas there is little legal control if the alteration is on the rear slope of the roof.
Another description we dread relates to shop fronts, and is consequently one that appears on almost every list: "New fascia signs and/or projecting/hanging sign".
These often take an inordinate amount of time to consider because of the inadequate information given in the application. With monotonous regularity a national chain wants to put up signs that are totally inappropriate for an historic city such as Winchester, and with monotonous regularity they will already be installing them while the application is still being considered. This is very undesirable when a listed building is involved, as is often the case in Winchester. Why, we ask ourselves, are they regularly allowed to get away with it?