Planning Appraisal Group - TrustNews August 09
The number of planning applications has increased slightly, although it is still lower than in the days before the Credit Crunch. It seems the Crunch has had the knock-on effect that the Planning Department's budget has been constrained, making it difficult to employ staff to replace those on long term leave or moving elsewhere. So perhaps the criticisms made in our previous TrustNews should be aimed at those who hold the purse strings, rather than the planners.
The Banner Homes application to demolish Kirtling House, 52 Chilbolton Avenue, has been granted, as has what we felt was an inappropriate archway into the Winnall Moors Nature Reserve at Durngate Bridge. The second proposal to replace the Heart in Hand, 40 Bar End Road, with a residential block has been refused.
Aldi have proposed a number of signs for their emerging store on the site of The Chimneys, 1 Burnett Close, on Stockbridge Road, all in their garish house colours of blue, red, and yellow. We objected to a large internally-illuminated free-standing sign at the entrance to the site and to a large Aldi wall sign (also illuminated) at the entrance door into the store - surely by this time the customers would know which store they were visiting? All the signs have been refused as being visually intrusive and detrimental to the residential character of the area.
We strongly objected to the Hampshire County Council proposal to attach four A1 display cases to the front of the Winchester Discovery Centre, Jewry Street, feeling they would detract from the classic simplicity of the present façade of this important Listed Building. This view was echoed by the Winchester planners, who raised an objection to HCC (the equivalent of a refusal), quoting our comments in full.
Winchester is clearly a desirable area for those aiming to look after senior citizens, as can be seen by the large Sunrise Senior Living block that has appeared on Stockbridge Road. The refurbishment and extensions to the St Cross Grange Residential Care Home, 140 St Cross Road, have also been granted, and the latest scheme for a 56-bed care home in place of the demolished Stanmore Hotel, 212 Stanmore Lane, is now wending its way through the planning system. Following considerable local angst the previous proposal was refused, against the officers' advice, and the applicants went to appeal. The scheme was allowed by the Inspector, and in this re-jig of the original scheme the occupants of the beds will now be dementia patients instead of just being old and frail, physically and mentally. It will still be a very large building, which is causing nearby residents considerable anxiety, but as a structure on the same scale did not appear to have troubled the Inspector, it seems unlikely that local objections will have much success. The Trust's viewing panel felt that the articulated design of the building, which is also to be dug into the considerable slope on the site, had in fact successfully managed to reduce the effect of its bulk and mass, and they were impressed by the well-considered design of the garden for the patients.
It's sad when applicants feel that a modern version of an existing ugly structure is an acceptable replacement. At Lantern Court, 90 Christchurch Road, it is proposed the present unsightly garages should be replaced by prefabricated structures that would be just as bad as the existing garage blocks, if not worse. We objected to this, feeling that although they might not be visible from the road, the development was in a Conservation Area and could be seen by neighbouring properties, and that the opportunity should be taken to upgrade the rear courtyard to be more in keeping with its surroundings. A similar approach has been taken at Peter Symond's College, Owens Road, where it has been proposed that a temporary classroom block should be replaced. The replacement block would be an ugly prefabricated building that is strongly reminiscent of a portakabin, which would be no improvement on the present cadet hut. It was not stated that the replacement was to be temporary (the existing 'temporary' hut is 30 year old!) and we therefore objected on the grounds that a block of more architectural merit was needed.
Another thing concerning us is the small size of the single and double units being proposed for blocks of flats, many of which seem to have no storage room at all for things like household equipment or the suitcases, etc, everyone is bound to have, and some have bedrooms with barely sufficient space for a chest of drawers. There seem to be two reasons for this: developers wanting to cram as many units into a block as possible for economic reasons, and Winchester City wanting to add as many units as possible to their new dwellings total to meet Government targets. This last may be the reason why the present Local Development Plan states that no single flat should be more than 75m2, although we believe this may be amended (we hope upward) in the emerging Local Development Framework. The space allowed in multiple occupancy dwellings is especially limited, because these are often for students — who presumably are thought to have little to store.
Two recent applications are good examples of this: firstly at 20 Sparkford Close, where it is proposed a 3-storey block of two units, each accommodating 8 students, should be attached to an existing dwelling. We thought 2 showers, a bathroom (presumably incorporating a washbasin & WC) and a downstairs WC would be inadequate for 8 students, as would be the small size of communal space. We therefore objected. This scheme has subsequently been withdrawn, perhaps due to many local objections and adverse Highway comments, plus the fact that only 6 bedrooms are allowed in multiple occupancy units. This latter condition was met with the other scheme, to convert the present office on the first floor of St George's Chambers, St George's Street, to what was described as a 6-bedroom flat, with a double bed shown in each room. This could mean that a possible 12 people would be using the two bathrooms (both with bath. basin and WC), with two further WCs on the landing just outside the flat's front door, with an awkwardly shaped kitchen having no natural light and a sitting/kitchen/dining area of a size that would have to be used in shifts; in addition no provision for cycle storage or refuse bins had been made. We also objected to this scheme, and a decision has still to be made.
Surely our students — or anyone else for that matter — deserve something better than this?