Development Control - TrustNews Mar 04
A lot has been going on in Winchester during the past few months. First an update on earlier schemes.
Appeal decisions: the building of a detached house beside Rosenheim, 42 St Cross Road, and a garage with a studio flat above in the garden has been allowed, while the proposal to demolish and replace Chestnut Mead, Kingsgate Road, with a block of flats was dismissed. The Inspector took less than a week to reach his decision.
Several sizeable developments have been permitted: on land between Sparkford & Airlie Roads, the Northgate House & Documation House site, Staple Gardens and on the site of 19, 20 & 20A Jewry Street.
A couple have been withdrawn: a development for 25 dwellings on the back-land behind 3-9 Park Road, and a more recent one to which we objected, to build 14 houses at Pipers Field, 67 Chilbolton Avenue, instead of the existing house.
Cala Homes have put in another scheme to demolish and replace 64 Quarry Road and build 30 new dwellings on land behind Nos. 58-68, to which we have objected. This consists of various uninspiring structures, for which too many types of clay materials are specified, a barrack-like block of flats, which would become an unsightly landmark of Winchester from the motorway, and a density of 40 dwellings per hectare (dph) - much the same as before, which we continue to feel is too high for this location.
A major development has been put forward at Weeke Manor, Malmesbury Gardens, probably better known as the Red Cross site on Stockbridge Road. Here a sensitive conversion of the house, a Listed Building, is proposed by Linden Homes, together with 39 new dwellings in its grounds. Apart from a few relatively minor concerns, this seemed an appropriate development, with satisfactory spaces and a thoughtful landscape scheme. The density of the uncramped layout would be 33dph, which seemed acceptable here, although it was wondered whether the Dean Lane junction with Stockbridge Road would be able to cope adequately with the additional car movements that would be generated.
The proposal to convert the Royal Observer Corps HQ, Abbotts Road, is a different matter. Here Bayview Developments want to convert the existing Listed Building into 4 dwellings, and build a further 23 in its grounds. This would give a density of over 64dph, which we felt was too high for this part of Winchester. The building was listed for historic reasons, rather than its beauty (it is an ugly concrete structure), because apparently it is the only unmodified example of a wartime ROC Operations Centre remaining in the UK. When it was no longer in use, but with its fittings still intact, it had been hoped that it could be turned into a museum. Sadly this did not happen and the equipment that gave it much of its value now resides in various stores around Hampshire. Retaining the Listed Building in the centre of the plot compromises the siting of any new development, which perforce must be positioned near the peripheries of the plot, where the trees on the boundary would be put at risk. We also felt this was not an appropriate position for a 3-storey block of flats, and objected to the application.
We have also objected to developments in the Jewry Street/St Peter Street area. The most visually crucial is the demolition of Bottomsup, 28 Jewry Street (no loss) for a 3-storey block, with commercial use on the ground floor and 6 residential units above. The building proposed was described as "deferential" to its surroundings and had a somewhat retrospective style with flat roofs. This seemed a mistaken approach for this position, where the surrounding roofs have a spiky character and any new building should act as a foil to (but not challenge) the Library, on a site where it will act as the focal point on the northward view along Jewry Street and where the proposed use of Western Red Cedar boarding would be very inappropriate. The conversion to residential use of Dolphin House, St Peter Street, behind Bottomsup, is also proposed. As far as could be judged from the information provided this seemed a reasonable scheme, but we felt that for an important site such as this, next to St Peter's Church and visible from Jewry Street, and also in close proximity to a Listed Building, a model - or at the very least elevations - was needed to give an idea of how it would fit into its surroundings. We also felt that the confusion about the number of new bed spaces evident in the application was unacceptable for a scheme in the central Conservation Area.
Following concerns raised with the Planning Office about apparently unsatisfactory supervision of some schemes, we had an interesting and instructive discussion with the Enforcement Team Manager. It was apparent that his task is not as straightforward as we had thought, and that to circumnavigate the wily dodges of opposing QCs at appeals, the drafting of both refusals and permissions seems to need considerable legal skills. Are these made readily available to the Planning Department?