Planning Appraisal Group - TrustNews Jun 06
It seems that, not for the first time, the appeals procedure can be open to abuse.
The Heritage Property Group has gone to appeal for the non-determination of a scheme at 1 & 3 Westley Close that is only marginally different from two previous schemes, both of which were dismissed on appeal. In both cases, the inspector’s ruling was that the block proposed on the boundary with Stockbridge Road would be unduly dominant and detract from the character of this route into the city, and that too much of the site would be given over to hard standing for car parking and manoeuvring to be characteristic of the neighbourhood. These two reasons for dismissal are both integral components of the third application, and it has to be questioned whether this is a valid reason for an appeal by Informal Hearing, with all the costs to our council (and therefore us) this will bring, rather than by the simpler Written Representation process. On the basis of the grounds given for the previous dismissals, it seems clear this third appeal would also be dismissed, which makes it a waste of everybody’s time and money.
The application to replace 36 Quarry Road with a block of 10 flats has been refused on the grounds of insufficient information and because the height and massing of the new building would be out of scale with its surroundings. The applicants have gone to appeal by Written Representation, claiming that because it was an outline application there was no need to provide drawings of the elevations because the design and massing could be illustrated later. We have written in support of the City, agreeing about the lack of information and pointing out that many outline applications provide elevations and plans of the structures proposed.
The pressure caused by PPG3’s requirement to increase density makes the extra land on corner sites particularly vulnerable to development. This can be damaging where the layout is an intrinsic part of an estate’s success, such as in Harestock and Stanmore. A recent proposal is to attach a 2-storey dwelling to 43 Cromwell Road. This is a well-designed junction, with the houses in Cromwell Road on either side of the entrance into Stuart Crescent mirror-imaging each other in design and layout. This symmetry would be destroyed by the intrusion of a structure forward of the building line in Stuart Crescent and the Trust has objected to this application.
In December 2004 the Trust had objected, for similar reasons, to a scheme for a semi-detached dwelling to be attached to 97 Taplings Road, where the symmetrical layout at the entrance into Rowlings Road is equally important. This was refused in January 2005 and in February the applicant went to appeal against this refusal. The Trust wrote in support of the City, and attended the Informal Hearing of the appeal, which took place in March this year - and gives some indication of the back-log that exists in the inquiry process! Fortunately the Inspector, having toured the neighbourhood, had appreciated the value of its characteristics and layout, and dismissed the appeal. Would that he had been the Inspector for the appeal of the scheme for 46-48 Chilbolton Avenu (see last November’s TrustNews)!
Another addition, on the corner site at 1 St Stephens Road, seemed undesirable because of the effect it would have on the neighbourhood. This was a resubmitted application for a semi-detached dwelling that had been refused, and the new scheme seemed little better than the previous one: it would be set forward of the building line of St Stephen Road and result in plots too small to be characteristic of the neighbourhood. We feared that permitting it could set an undesirable precedent for the area and objected to the proposal.
An application made in February still awaits a decision. This concerns a plot on a steeply sloping site between Petersfield Road and Dell Road, where it is proposed that two houses, Elbury and Little Green, should be replaced by a block of 12 flats facing onto Petersfield Road on the higher part of the site, and 4 semi-detached dwellings in two blocks on the lower part that faces onto Dell Road. We had no objection to the proposed demolitions, but felt that while the density proposed (over 125 dwellings per hectare) would be appropriate for the city centre, the high number of car-parking spaces was more suited to a suburban development and resulted in too much hard surfacing being required. We felt the site was being over-developed, and objected.
The major developments at the Pilgrim’s School, 3 The Close, for a new pre-preparatory school, open-air swimming pool and technology building, have been agreed.
The proposal to demolish Trelawney, 29 Stoney Lane, for two 3-bedroom dwellings, has been refused, one of the reasons being that it failed to provide for smaller households within a mixed development. A second application has been submitted, for a similar structure of two dwellings, this time one having three bedrooms and the other two. In terms of units per hectare this was no improvement on the previous proposal, and we again objected because of the mediocre design, repeating our plea that the Local Authorities should take the lead in promoting a study of how this vulnerable area should be developed in a way that satisfies both the requirements of PPG3, and the future of Winchester and its infrastructure. This application has just been withdrawn.