Planning Appraisal Group - TrustNews September 08
However gloomy the economic outlook may be, development in Chilbolton Avenue still seems to be the order of the day. Described as a terrace, but looking more like an undistinguished block of flats, two 2-bed and two 4-bed dwellings are proposed on land adjoining Piper’s Field, 67 Chilbolton Avenue. The Trust objected to the limited internal accommodation and the minimal private amenity space proposed, especially for the larger houses where children might be living, and were concerned that the access would be too close to the busy junction with Stockbridge Road. Another scheme proposes to demolish Nos 34 and 36 Chilbolton Avenue to make way for 11 dwellings (six 2-bed, four 4-bed and a 5-bed) and associated parking. The Trust objected to the density proposed (32.35dph), the low Level 1 sustainability, the allocation of 2 parking spaces per unit, and the large area of hard-standing. Also disturbing was that the style and layout indicated it was being built in conjunction with the development on the adjoining site at Nos 38 and 40 and that further development on the other boundary with No 32 was a possibility – an example of piecemeal development along the road, being built in numbers that avoided any contribution to affordable housing. The trust felt permitting this scheme could set a very undesirable precedent for the future of properties further to the south along this side of the road and the character of the area.
The Appeal to demolish Lang House, 27 Chilbolton Avenue, for 14 flats has been dismissed, not because of its effect on the road, but for the rather unsatisfactory reason that the Inspector felt the two 3-storey rear projections with flat roofs would appear incongruous with the pitched roof of the main building when seen from the golf course. No doubt the developers will come back with a scheme that gets round this reason for dismissal, and then I fear it could be goodbye to Lang House.
A better decision was made for 17 Bereweeke Road, where the Appeal to allow the demolition of the house for 12 dwellings has also been dismissed, this time on the grounds that the scheme would be unsympathetic to the spatial and landscape qualities of the surrounding area and would harm its character and appearance. The subsequent scheme for 11 dwellings here has now been refused by WCC.
Other Appeals awaiting decisions against refusals by WCC are the demolition of the Stanmore Hotel, Stanmore Lane, and permission to build two dwellings behind the refurbished Chestnut Mead, Kingsgate Road. Interestingly, the developers here are also seeking to renew the permission already given to refurbish the house and build a side extension, something we would much prefer. However, we had to object (as we originally did in 1999) to the barren asphalt car parking area in front of the house.
Decisions made on applications mentioned previously include the refusals of a residential development at the Winchester Laundry, Hyde Abbey Road, as being too dominant for its surroundings, and at West Hayes Lodge, Sarum Road, because the apartment block and the four town houses would seem overbearing, and the amount of parking and large area of hard standing would be out of keeping with the character of the area. The proposal to demolish the Heart in Hand, 40 Bar End Road to make way for ten dwellings has been withdrawn.
Another shop front has been proposed for 6B Parchment Street, this time for a standard ‘traditional’ shop front similar to the adjoining property. The Trust again objected, feeling it was preferable that the present bow-fronted shop front should be retained, for although not original, it made a lively contribution to the street scene. The Planners agreed, and have refused the application.
The developer who partially destroyed 31 Nuns Road is trying to do the same to the neighbouring house, 29 Nuns Road. The first application was refused, one reason being that it hadn’t been proved the building couldn’t be repaired to extend its useful life. The Structural Engineers Report in the following applications attempted to prove that demolition was needed, saying that ongoing movement was causing recurrent cracks in ceilings and walls, and that sloping floors would be “impractical/uncomfortable for modern living”. Such things are familiar to those living in period houses, who are well aware their homes seem to breathe in and out, so causing cracks, and are happy to put up with some sloping floors. The report was seen by two architect members, both with considerable knowledge of period houses, who weren’t convinced by its contents. The Trust were also very worried by the effect major foundation work of the type proposed could have on the stability of the other half of this semi-detached pair. The Trust objected strongly to this proposal.
Another scheme that looks set for a long discussion period is the proposal to build 14 dwellings on land adjacent to St John’s Croft, Blue Ball Hill. Although not available to the general public, this open field contributes greatly to the unusually rural character of this part of Winchester. It has, however, been decreed as fit for development by the Local Plan Inspector, provided there was adequate access and the style of architecture reflected that of the neighbourhood. There is considerable local concern about the effect the proposed access would have on parking availability and the character of the road. Although a layout of two terraces seemed acceptable, the Trust felt the large central area of hard-standing for parking was not, and in view of the steep slope of the site suggested that underground parking should be considered. The Trust also felt that at least one dwelling should be omitted from each terrace, so that the larger rear gardens then possible would reduce both the amount of shading from the trees on the eastern boundary and the impact the development would have on the residents of St Martin’s Close to the south. The height, mass and ponderous style of design didn’t reflect either the architecture or character of the locality, and the Trust felt something simpler would be better, with a more sustainable approach being built into the original design. The Trust objected to the scheme as being over-development of the site. Now watch this space!