Planning Appraisal Group - TrustNews June 09
You might expect that the reduced number of applications going through the planning system right now would have the benefit of increased efficiency in the planning office because less time would be needed to deal with the throughput. Sadly, this doesn’t seem to be the case.
There seems to be a continuing tendency for the documents available for the general public to see at Planning Reception to differ from those that can be seen on WCC’s website. Sometimes it is at Reception that a copy of some plans are missing (on occasions the important elevations and plans of the proposed scheme), while at other times it is the website that has incomplete documentation, and on one occasion the website had a different version of the site plan from the one that could be seen at Reception!
There also seems to have been a hiccup in the appeals procedure. The Trust is usually informed of the appeals that are in the pipeline so that, if we have objected to an application, we write supporting WCC’s refusal. Recently, however, decisions have been made on two schemes to which we objected and would therefore have written supporting letters – if we had been informed that the appeals were taking place.
Both appeals concerned signs. First, at Warden Hill, Stockbridge Road, Sunrise Senior Living wanted to install three 6m high flagpoles, and a trellis-mounted and two wall-mounted signs, all three to be externally illuminated. The inspector in this case agreed that these signs and flags would be incongruous and intrusive in this residential area and dismissed the appeal. However, in a second case, an inspector decided that two internally-illuminated free-standing display units that had been installed without permission, at the Murco Garage, Bar End Road, should be allowed to remain.
The appeal by Banner Homes to demolish Kirtling House, 52 Chilbolton Avenue, has been dismissed. The inspector felt the semi-detached houses would be out of keeping with the character of that part of Chilbolton Avenue and that the bulky proportions of the block of flats would echo the somewhat institutional character of The Gables, the recently built block to the south, rather than reflecting the form and character of domestic buildings along the road, as laid down in the Local Area Design Statement. Banner Homes have now presented another scheme for demolishing Kirtling House, this time for a block of ten 2-bed flats and a block of three 4-bed dwellings, to which we have again objected, feeling most strongly that the structurally sound house should be retained. The basement accommodation we had found unacceptable in the houses of the previous scheme is now also incorporated into the block of flats, and although this reduces the height of the buildings we think this type of accommodation is more appropriate for a city centre than for a suburban residential area such as this and that if the developers are prepared to undertake this kind of excavation it would be better to reduce the number of units and use the space for parking, as has been done elsewhere along the road. This would have the benefit of avoiding the barren sea of parking at present proposed in front of the blocks, as well as providing a density more in keeping with the area.
For those who missed the announcements in the local press:Aldi’s appeal to build on the site of The Chimneys and 1 Burnett Close has been allowed, and WCC has refused the Redrow Homes proposal to build 90 dwellings to the north of Francis Gardens as being premature to local policies.
The proposal to demolish 79 Andover Road for a block housing eight flats has been refused as being overdevelopment of the site due to the height, width, depth and bulk of the proposed building, which would be too visually intrusive and dominant in the street scene.
Two schemes to which we recently objected have both been refused. The planners thought the plethora of illuminated and garish signs proposed for the Holiday Inn, Telegraph Way (off the Alresford Road, next to Intech) would be intrusive and visually detrimental to the area, being adjacent to the East Hampshire Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and the South Downs National Park. They also agreed with us that the 4-storey building proposed adjacent to 13 City Road had a design, height, scale and siting that would be visually intrusive and unsympathetic to the street scene.
A second proposal is being considered to demolish the Heart in Hand, 40 Bar End Road, this time for ten 1-bed and two 2-bed flats, with commercial space on the ground floor. Although less bulky than the previous scheme, we felt it would still have a mass that would be inappropriate for the street scene and have again objected. We were concerned at the lack of attention to sustainability and the unsatisfactory and very cramped accommodation that was being provided, aspects that are all too common in the developments we see. We also objected to the unsatisfactory living conditions proposed in the amendments to the permitted development at Highcroft, Romsey Road, due to the lack of natural light in some of the back-to-back dwellings, which would have required artificial lighting in kitchen/dining areas, halls, stairs and landings. Described by the developers under the new category of “city homes”, we felt they would result in undesirable living conditions for those living there, including young families, as well as being unsustainable in energy terms, and would not set a satisfactory standard for future similar developments.
Variety is the spice of life and adds great interest to our panels’ task of looking at applications. Who else (apart from a planning officer) would one week be looking at the interesting and well-considered large extension to, and refurbishment of, the St Cross Grange Residential Care Home, 140 St Cross Road, and next week be discussing and objecting to a badly designed and inappropriate archway into the Winnall Moors Nature Reserve at Durngate Bridge?