Development Control - TrustNews May 2002
As the Development Control Panels 'weekly monitoring of planning applications at the City Council Offices is one of the Trust's most important tasks, this TrustNews begins with a report of their committee.
Although telecommunication masts get good coverage in the local press because of residents' strong opposition to them, there are other less obvious but insidious installations, such as satellite dishes, TV aerials and telephone wires, which arouse little comment but can have a cumulatively detrimental effect on their surroundings. A recent example was the proposal to site a satellite dish with no given dimension on the front façade of a listed house, 1 The Broadway, right opposite the statue of King Alfred. We objected to this proposal and it has subsequently been refused planning permission.
We have also objected to two recent proposals where permission had been granted for earlier schemes. These were on land at The Vicarage, Sleepers Hill, where it is proposed a 5-bedroom house should be built instead of the permitted 4-bedroom house, and at the Friary Bowling Club, St Michael's Gardens, where the club want to replace their existing club house. In each case the panels considered the previous proposal was preferable to the current one and so objected to both applications.
Two developments to which the Trust objected have been granted planning permission. These are on land to the rear of 48/50 Dean Lane, where Linden Homes are to build 14 new dwellings in place of the existing two houses, and at Sarum Court on the corner of Sarum & Greenhill Roads, where two blocks of 14 flats will be built by Cove Construction. In both cases it was felt that better designed buildings and more suitable layouts were possible. It is feared these not very satisfactory schemes were probably given consent because the developers were flexing their muscles and preparing to go to appeal.
It is good to report that a scheme we disliked and which has been kicking around, virtually unchanged, since April last year has at last been refused. It was considered the design and siting of Heritage Homes (Wessex)'s two blocks for 12 flats at Abbotts Court, Park Road, would be detrimental to the character of the neighbourhood and that Park Road would not be able to accommodate the extra traffic generated by the development. If this is true for this scheme it should certainly also be so for Try Homes' proposal to build 14 new flats on the opposite side of the same stretch of Park Road, in place of Woodpeckers. The density proposed for this site works out at about 77 dwellings per hectare, which is more suited to the city centre than this quiet backwater.
However, this high density pales into insignificance beside a scheme seen recently, to build five 'pavilions' opposite King Alfred's College instead of the houses at 1, 2 & 3 Sparkford Road. Here the Winchester Housing Association proposes that about a quarter of a hectare should accommodate 36 flats, resulting in a density of 120 dwelling per hectare, which would be very high even in a city centre. Parking spaces have been provided for each unit, and consequently most of the site is given over to hard surfacing, with blocks of flats marching down the hill close up to the boundary with the road. We objected to the scheme as being unsympathetic and detrimental to the neighbourhood.
A development likely to cause some local comment is the Winchester Housing Group's scheme to convert 9A Parchment Street for use as a 2-bedroom flat with a 'venue' on the ground floor and, having demolished the assortment of sheds at present existing in the yard behind, to build a block of seven 1-bedroom flats with access via a route across the neighbouring car-park to the south. Members of the Trust's council and panels were given a presentation by the architects, following which the general consensus was of support for an innovative scheme, although concerns were raised over some minor aspects. The Trust did however object to the new ground floor window on the Parchment Street frontage, for though a modern window here could be acceptable it was felt the one proposed was too aggressive and paid scant respect to either the windows in the adjoining façades or the scale of the street as a whole.