Planning Appraisal Group - TrustNews December 08
The credit crunch has reduced the number of applications to be considered, which can be a mixed blessing for the Planning Department. Although they may now have a breathing space in which to catch up with all those things that needed to be done, fewer applications mean less fees, which also means there is a smaller budget available for all those things that still need to be done.
These include preparation work and attendance at several planning appeals, public inquiries and informal hearings, or writing to contest written representations. Their next time-consuming task for Winchester will be the 3-day Public Inquiry at the end of November, when Aldi are appealing against the refusal to allow them to build a store in Stockbridge Road on the site of The Chimneys & 1 Burnett Close.
Also looming over the horizon is the Public Inquiry for the appeal against the refusal to allow the conversion of Chestnut Mead, Kingsgate Road, with two new dwellings being built at the rear, although the date for this is still to be set. It is interesting that an application to renew the permission given in 1999 for a 2-storey side extension and the conversion of the house was refused in August, because its size, siting and design, together with changes proposed to the principal elevation and the large area of hard surfacing for parking at the front, would not relate sympathetically to the house.
Two Informal Hearing appeals in the pipeline are both by Banner Homes: against the refusals to allow the demolitions of Kirtling House, 52 Chilbolton Avenue, so that 12 residential units could be built in its stead,and of 17 Bereweeke Road to make way for their second scheme, for 11 instead of the previous 12 dwellings. We have written to the Inspectorate in support of both these refusals, feeling that the retention of these structurally sound houses would be more in sympathy with their neighbourhoods than their replacement with high density developments. It has just been announced that the Bereweeke Road appeal has been withdrawn.
We have objected to the second scheme currently being considered for Kirtling House, this time for 14 dwellings, some with basement accommodation. We felt this would be more appropriate to the city centre than this suburban area and that if the expense of excavations for this was economically acceptable, why wasn't it being used for parking cars, as has been done elsewhere in Chilbolton Avenue? Despite the lip-service paid to environmental aspects in the application, we were also concerned at the lack of real commitment to the sustainability of the scheme.
We have also written supporting WCC in the Written Representation appeal against the refusal to allow 1 Westman Road to be converted into 2 dwelling units with a 3-bedroom detached house at the side, which we felt was demanding too much of a relatively restricted site.
Decisions have been made on two appeals: the demolition of the Stanmore Hotel, Stanmore Lane, for a nursing home has been approved, and the proposal to convert 92 Cromwell Road into a takeaway has been dismissed. The fears expressed in the last TrustNews about the continuing onslaught on Chilbolton Avenue sadly seem to have been well-founded. The 4 dwellings proposed on land adjacent to Piper's Field, 67 Chilbolton Avenue, have been approved, as have the 11 dwellings that will follow the demolition of Nos 34 & 36 Chilbolton Avenue, which we felt would set an undesirable precedent for the future of other properties along this stretch of the road.
It is, however, encouraging that the proposed substantial demolition and rebuilding of 29 Nuns Road has been refused because it would result in an obtrusive new structure out of keeping with the character and appearance of the Conservation Area, and that it had not been demonstrated the building could not be repaired to extend its useful life.
Be prepared for some strange-looking structures appearing in Winchester, the result of a trail-blazing technology that is apparently already in use elsewhere in Europe, in the form of kiosks combining public phones and ByBox storage facilities (to house the purchases made electronically by those who are unlikely to be at home at the expected time of delivery). The first application we saw, proposing this combined use on the site of the present telephone box at the corner of Jewry Street & St George's Street, seemed inappropriate on both visual and practical grounds. The kiosk's design left a lot to be desired and would be detrimental to the street scene, and collections at this busy junction could cause traffic problems, and we therefore objected to the proposal, suggesting that a car park would be a better site for this type of installation. A subsequent application has proposed a similar kiosk at the Market Entrance, Andover Road, which seems a much more appropriate location.
Recently seen applications are the resubmissions of schemes for developments adjoining The Day House, Sleepers Hill, where it is proposed six 2-bedroom flats should be built, and adjoining Sleepers Hill House, Sleepers Hill, where 4 residential dwellings are proposed. We objected to the block of flats on The Day House site, feeling its scale would be too large in comparison with other nearby substantial houses, and that the felling of mature trees for the over-generous allocation of 2 parking spaces per dwelling would be contrary to the Local Area Design Statement. We were also concerned that the sustainability of the scheme wasn't even mentioned and that there was no landscape scheme.
Two applications have recently been considered by the Planning Development Control Committee. While the proposed development of a business park, etc, on the site of Pilot Clothing, Chilcomb Lane, seemed acceptable to the Trust, we were worried about the lack of satisfactory management of use, landscaping and traffic; this scheme has just been deferred for further information. The proposal to build 14 dwellings on land adjacent to St John's Croft, Blue Ball Hill, has just been refused by the Sub-Committee viewing the site, primarily because of objections by local residents with which we agreed.