Winchester College Development - TrustNews June 09
The following paper was sent to the Bursar in response to the College’s request for comments on the document they recently issued for public consultation. The paper refers to a meeting earlier in the year when we made a number of suggestions about a draft that we were shown in confidence. Our latest comments do not go into the details of College’s proposals, whether about development or landscape schemes, because the Trust expects to be given an early opportunity to do this, case by case, as detailed proposals are brought forward.
Winchester College Development
Winchester College Campus Conservation and Development Framework
Preferred Issues and Options Consultation Document - March 2009
Comments by the City of Winchester Trust - April 2009
The Trust is pleased to note that the comments it made previously have been taken into account in the revised version, and the Trust would again wish to compliment the College and its consultants on the composition and clarity of the document, which is a model of its kind. As a result the Trust has only two specific comments to make at this time:
p.47 – 8.2 We do not feel that the welcome addition of bullet point 9 goes quite far enough, and request that the undertaking “to continue to achieve the highest possible architectural standards for new development on the campus”, should be extended to include development off-campus, including land sold to developers. We believe this point was overlooked with Barton Farm and hope the College will in future include a covenant that development by others must first be approved by the College. In this connection we would put it to you that if you do not already have one, a long-term consultant architect – not necessarily to carry out projects, but to advise on such matters as this, has great advantages for any estate.
p.62 The Trust welcomes the addition of the final section of the document that lists a number of enhancements to the environment and landscape of the campus. We would ask, however, that there should also be a general undertaking, similar to 8.2, to take up all opportunities that arise in the course of development to enhance existing buildings and their surroundings. There is a specific comment with reference to the PE area that new development will provide an opportunity to improve this part of the campus, which has been allowed to grow without regard to its overall appearance, and we don’t doubt that similar opportunities would be taken elsewhere. Nevertheless, it would be as well to say so. Such a general undertaking as we suggest would have advantages if it were included in the brief for those responsible. We have also suggested that a running list might be made of those things that the College would like to improve if the opportunity arises.
General comment
The Trust continues to have no objections in principle to any of the developments listed in the preferred options, many of which have interesting potential, though some will undoubtedly prove controversial with sections of the public. Of these we predict that Wellington House and the adjoining houses, development at Turners, Antrim House and its surroundings, the Queen Inn Garden, the new Boat Club and its replacement, Blackbridge Yard, and the Water Meadows may all give rise to most concern. Much will depend on the brief and the design solution in each case, and we repeat that it would be helpful to the Trust and, we suggest to the College, if it is possible for us to be included in consultation at the earliest possible stage.