Planning Appraisal Group - TrustNews June 08
An essential attribute of the successful developer is persistence, as is clearly demonstrated on many sites by the repeated applications for similar schemes, coupled with skilful use of the appeal system.
A good example of this is Lang House, 27 Chilbolton Avenue, where it is always claimed the house had no architectural merit and should be demolished for a high density development. On each occasion we objected, saying it made a considerable contribution to the street scene and had the merit of being one of the original houses in the road. The first scheme, a 3-storey block with lower ground floor and three detached houses at the rear, was put forward in August 2004 and refused in September. It went to Appeal, but was withdrawn before the Public Inquiry took place. The second scheme, by Millgate Homes for a 3 & 4 storey block of 14 flats, appeared on the lists in January 2007, was refused in February, went to Appeal by Informal Hearing in August, and was dismissed in November because the Inspector considered the development would harm the character and appearance of the neighbourhood. The third scheme, very similar in scale and design to the second, was put forward in July 2007, before the second (later dismissed) scheme had even been lodged for appeal; it was refused in October and Millgate Homes have gone to Appeal yet again. Only a few changes have been made since the second scheme was dismissed last November; there is, however, a different Inspector and this could be why it's worth while going to appeal again — perhaps he might have a different opinion. We attended the Informal Hearing into the third application and now await the decision with fingers crossed.
Other developments are going through a similar process. Banner Homes want to demolish 17 Bereweeke Road for a residential development: their first proposal for 12 dwellings was made in June 2007, refused in September and went to Appeal by Written Representation in March 2008 — a decision is still awaited. Their second scheme for 11 dwellings was put forward in January 2008, when we again objected. No decision has yet been made by the Planners, who might perhaps be waiting to see the results of the appeal. The first proposal to build an Aldi store in Stockbridge Road on the site of The Chimneys, 1 Burnett Close, was in April 2005, and was eventually dismissed on Appeal by Public Inquiry in March 2007. There were further attempts at getting planning permission during 2006 and 2007, culminating in March 2008 with the present scheme, which still awaits a decision by the Planners. The development proposed in 2007 was refused in September and has just gone to appeal by Public Inquiry; we will be writing in support of the Local Authority's refusal. We have objected to all the Aldi proposals, feeling this is not an appropriate location for a store such as this, any more than it is for the permitted Waitrose store.
It has just been announced that Banner Homes have withdrawn both their Appeals against refusals of two schemes at 35-37 Dean Lane. Is this due to the present economic uncertainty? If so, it could perhaps indicate a welcome relief in the pressures on Winchester for development in its suburbs.
Decisions have been made on several schemes mentioned in previous TrustNews. The applications for a nursing home in place of the Stanmore Hotel, Stanmore Lane, and for residential student units at Erasmus Park Student Village, Easton Lane, have both been refused, as have the demolition of Kirtling House, 52 Chilbolton Avenue for 12 new dwellings and the new shopfront at 6B Parchment Street. The proposal to convert the barn of Wharf Farm, Wharf Hill, and build 4 new dwellings has been withdrawn.
The Trust has objected to four major schemes.
We felt the mass and scale of the replacement building proposed for the demolished Heart in Hand, 40 Bar End Road, were too large for its surroundings and that its undistinguished design would do nothing to improve this important route into the city. The new structure, housing a hair dressing salon/physiotherapy unit and 12 cramped flats with virtually no storage space, would take up the whole of the site and have a bulk we felt would seem overpowering and be detrimental to the appearance of the modestly-sized terraces that make up much of this part of Bar End Road.
We also felt the scheme to refurbish the existing 3-storey office block at Winnall Corner, 1 Winnall Valley Road, and build a 3- (and partly 4-) storey office block in place of the existing 1-storey warehouse was a missed opportunity of improving a site at the interface between areas of industrial and residential use, and that the height of the new block could be detrimental to the amenities of those living nearby. The aim to build the new offices in the out-dated 1960s style of the existing block was thought a great mistake, and we felt the landscaping proposed for the large car park was inadequate for this position.
Banner Homes want to demolish West Hayes Lodge, Sarum Road, for 10 dwellings. As is usual for houses proposed for demolition in this area, it isn't claimed to be structurally unsound, but that it has no architectural merit (except, in our opinion, that it's one of the original houses). We objected to its demolition, the loss of trees and the large area of hard surfacing needed for 20 parking spaces.
We also objected to the 31 residential dwellings and community/retail unit proposed for the site of the Winchester Laundry, Hyde Abbey Road. While having no problem with a contemporary design here, the "office block" style proposed for the 4-storey block on the corner of Hyde Abbey and Gordon Roads was felt most unsympathetic to the character of the neighbourhood. Other aspects of concern were the lack of internal access to the bin and cycle stores and the full-length windows on the facades facing onto the road, which could prove unsightly unless care was taken to ensure nothing was stacked against them. Members of the Trust also attended a workshop arranged by WCC for local residents to allow their views to be heard and included in the design brief for the site. Their main concerns were that the height of the development should be mainly 2-storey, the sight lines for vehicles on the dangerous corner should be improved by setting back the corner building, and that there should be full on-site parking because of existing parking problems in Gordon Road.