Planning Appraisal Group - TrustNews December 06
Sometimes being involved with planning applications is like being on a merry-go-round, because the same sites keep reappearing, with either slightly altered or completely different schemes. We only look at those relating to Winchester, which is bad enough, so our greatest sympathy goes to the Planning Officers, who have to cope with development in the whole of Winchester District: this stretches from Wonston and Micheldever in the north to Wickham and Southwick in the south, and from Sparsholt and Otterbourne in the west to a long boundary on the east that stretches from north of the Alresfords down to Denmead.
The site with the longest history on our Winchester whirligig is probably 40 Kings Avenue, where since 1999 it has been proposed that either an extension or a new dwelling should be built in its garden. It is located on the west side of the southern entrance to the Stanmore recreation area, a central component of the carefully designed and award-winning council estate, and the applicant has gone to appeal on no less than four occasions. Each time the reasons for dismissal have been the same, that the proposal would destroy a "remarkable example of a symmetrical estate layout" and be detrimental to the "local context of the core area of the estate ... of significant planning and architectural merit". These four dismissed appeals were made at no expense to the applicant, but required a considerable input from the Planning Officers, and therefore a demand on our rates. So it was with some alarm that we looked at yet another proposal for this plot, this time made by another applicant for two 2-bedroom flats. We objected to this, and it has been refused. We now wait to see whether yet another appeal for refusal of development on this site will be made.
Other sites also reappear. 43 Cromwell Road, where a second attempt to get permission for an attached 2-bedroom dwelling on a corner site has been refused, and the County Library, Jewry Street, where the second attempt to amend the existing planning permission and to omit the steps from Staple Gardens, has been granted. At Ardmhor, 38 Chilbolton Avenue, we objected to a new scheme for 10 dwellings (instead of the 11 that were refused in May 2005), feeling its density would be too high for the locality, especially as the density was calculated on the gross area, rather than the net area, which excludes the land covered by the many trees on the site. Still to be commented on at the time of going to press is another scheme for 1-3 Westley Close, where it is proposed 4 dwellings should now be built instead of the 14, 17, then 7 dwellings of the previous applications - on going to appeal the first two were dismissed and the third was withdrawn.
The Royal Observer Corps HQ, Abbotts Road, is another site with a long history, which could continue. The most recent scheme is to demolish the existing structure, a Listed Building because of its history but not its beauty, and to build a residential development in its place. Two separate applications relate to the current proposal: 1) to demolish the Listed Building (to which in principle we had no objection because we felt that the retention of this ugly building would compromise future development on the site as its historic contents were scattered throughout the county, although we objected until its replacement had been agreed), and 2) to replace it with 14 dwellings, to which we objected because the layout resulted in too much hard-surfacing and gardens that were too small for the character of the area. The Planning Development Control Committee granted the 14 dwellings, but refused permission for the demolition the Listed Building that would allow the development to take place. While understanding these have to be considered as two separate individual applications, it does seem somewhat illogical to refuse the demolition of a structure admitted by English Heritage to be in such poor condition, due to concrete decay, that restoration work to make it usable would result in it being no longer worthy of listing, which also seems unlikely to be used as a museum.
We are glad the City has raised no objection to the proposed refurbishment of Ashburton Court, which could become a trendsetting example of a really sustainable structure. We very a much hope that Hampshire County Council will support this innovative environmental approach for the continued use of this building.
While the Trust strives to maintain its independent position when making its comments, it does welcome additional information when this is lacking in the application. The proposed three 4-bedroom dwellings at Melbury Field, Kerrfield, is a good example of this. Although noting the inadequacy of the site location plans, we welcomed the sustainable approach of the design and materials. It was not until we were alerted by a local resident and were able to identify and walk the site that it was realised how detrimental this development would be, and we changed our comments to an objection. This development has now been refused.
An interesting trend regarding parking policy seems to be emerging. Several schemes, including Hampshire County Council's proposal for 32 new parking spaces at King School, Romsey Road, and a renewal of parking on the tennis court at Highcroft, Sleepers Hill, which has been allowed since April 2003, have been refused because they cannot be reconciled with PPG13's requirement that they reduce reliance on use of the private car. While this might be inconvenient for those hoping to use these facilities, it should be good for the environment, and it is felt this local contribution towards reducing global warming should be supported.