Planning Appraisal Group - TrustNews MAR 06
Having finished the last TrustNews article on a gloomy note following what the Trust felt was a bad decision (when the inspector allowed a block of flats to be built on the site of 46-48 Chilbolton Avenue), it is good to be able to have better news to report. Two appeals relating to 1 & 3 Westley Close have both been dismissed. The first scheme (A) proposed the demolition of both houses, which would be replaced by a block of 9 flats, while the second (B) would keep No 1 and replace No 3 with a smaller block of 5 flats. In both instances there would also be a terrace of houses (5 in scheme A, 6 in scheme B) on the boundary with Stockbridge Road.To summarise the inspector’s ruling: the terrace would be unduly dominant and detract from the distinctive qualities and character of Stockbridge Road; in each scheme the blocks of flats on Westley Close would be set too far forward of the building line for the good of the street scene; and too much hard standing would be given over to car parking and manoeuvring to be characteristic of the neighbourhood. The applicants’ third scheme, retaining No 1 and with a structure (described as a 2-storey terrace of 3 dwellings, but in fact an incoherently designed building with only one front door facing onto the close) in place of No 3 and a 3-storey terrace of 4 houses on the Stockbridge Road boundary, is currently in limbo while these dismissals are mulled over. Let us hope they are taken to heart, that the current application is withdrawn and a scheme more in character with the neighbourhood is proposed.
The appeal against refusal to demolish Lang House, 27 Chilbolton Avenue has been withdrawn, and the proposed retirement development at Milesdown, Northbrook Avenue has been refused on grounds including inadequate roads for the amount of traffic likely to be generated, scale and mass out of character with existing patterns of development in the vicinity, overdominanance in the street scene, unacceptable loss of trees. Two sets of signs, both installed without permission, have also been refused for the second time: for Blonde, 5 Bridge Street and for the dentist at 63 High Street which also happens to be a Listed Building. It would be good to see firm action taken against both applicants.
The residential development in place of 16 &16A City Road has been granted, and after a long debate, members of the Planning Development Control Committee voted by 9 to 5 to allow the outline scheme for residential development on the site of the Police HQ, Romsey Road. The Trust continues to feel the high density proposed is bound to result in a layout with structures of a mass and scale that would be out of character with the houses in the adjacent Conservation Area, and can only hope this decision will not be regretted after the land has been sold on to a developer.
On occasions the Trust’s opinion does appear to have an effect on the outcome. Recently we were consulted about changes proposed for Pizza Express, 1 Bridge Street prior to the application being made and, perhaps because our opinions coincided with those of the Conservation Officer, it seems that they have been taken into account - although this has still to be proved because at the time of writing the actual application has yet to be seen.
We are, however, sure that our input has had an effect on the design of the exciting scheme to extend and improve the facilities of the Pilgrims’ School, 3 The Close. This major development includes the construction of a pre-preparatory school, a technology building and an outdoor swimming pool, plus an extension to the Stancliffe building. The overall approach was welcomed, but Trust concerns, mainly about the surroundings of the swimming pool and the treatment of the south elevation of the pre-prep school, were taken on board and included in amended plans. We understand that no local residents or councillors had shown any interest in the proposal, which seems strange in view of the size of the proposed development and the sensitivity of the site. The fact that each week the viewing panel looks at every planning application within the City boundaries has meant that the Trust has been able to participate constructively in the process and to have some in influence on the outcome of this important proposal.
The Trust has objected to two recent applications. We felt the details given in the outline application to demolish 36 Quarry Road for a block of 10 flats were very inadequate, not least because the site can be seen from across the valley. Only a verbal description of the development was given, it was unclear how it would relate to neighbouring properties, and the layout was uninspiring, to say the least.
The proposal to demolish Trelawney, 29 Stoney Lane was more worrying because of the precedent that would be set by the decision made on this site. The two detached houses proposed here try to follow the mediocre design of adjoining properties, which could be disastrous for the neighbourhood as a whole. The bungalows along this road are clearly ripe for development to the higher density required by PPG3, and their lack of architectural value means their retention is of little value - except of course to their residents. The Trust has therefore urged that a pro-active approach is needed by WCC and that local studies and consultations are set up without delay. Wouldn’t it be good, for once, to be ahead of the developers? (Stop Press:The proposal has been rejected.)