Planning Appraisal Group - TrustNews Dec 10
The Planning Department has made a tremendous effort to catch up with the backlog of applications awaiting validation into the system, and as a result everyone concerned has been extremely busy trying to cope with the resulting influx. Over the past three months the Trust’s viewing panels have looked at about 180 applications, with one week’s panel having to comment on over 30, the average number seen in a month during the past year – that was a long morning that spilt over into the afternoon! However, we only look at the applications for Winchester itself, so our sympathy goes to the poor planners who have to deal with an equivalent increase of applications for the whole district.
There is nothing more to report on the long-standing schemes needing decisions that were mentioned in the last TrustNew, apart from two. The proposal to replace the Snooker Centre, Radley House, 8 St Cross Road and build six dwellings on Edgar Road has been granted, provided the replacement facility is completed before the residential units are occupied. The proposal to convert Chestnut Mead, Kingsgate Road and build two houses behind it has been deferred yet again for consideration by a viewing sub-committee – it is only hoped that the unfortunate building can survive possible total disintegration while a decision is being reached.
The applicants wanting to convert 28 Chilbolton Avenue to multiple use have gone to appeal and we have written in support of WCC’s refusal of the scheme.Permission has been given for added extensions and the refurbishment of New Hall, Winchester College, College Street, as was also given for the proposal to build six dwellings on land adjoining St John’s Croft, Blue Ball Hill, where we had welcomed the reduced number of dwellings from fourteen to six, the result of discussion and consultation between local residents and the developers. It was therefore encouraging that this scheme was unanimously supported by the Planning Development Control Committee. They granted the scheme against the advice of the officers, who seemed to be sticking to the previous guidance of developing a site to its greatest number and mix of dwellings, whether or not this would be appropriate for either the site or the neighbourhood.
While the retention and conversion of the existing house would have been preferred by the members of the Trust’s council and viewing panels attending the pre-application consultation of Banner Homes’ development of 12 dwellings in place of Park House, 21 Park Road, it was recognised that the house is set far back in the plot and makes little contribution to the street scene, so they concentrated on the new housing that was being proposed. All considered the density would be too high for the neighbourhood and would constitute overdevelopment of the site, something that was reflected by the large area of hard landscaping and the small gardens that would be provided, especially for the larger houses. We felt there were too many of these and that more 3-bed houses should be built. An application has also been made to convert Park House from being a residential care home to single residential use so that the house could be rented while its future was being decided. We welcomed this proposal because the house would be less likely to deteriorate and might therefore be saved if people were living in it, but it was refused because of the possibility that the house could still be used for its existing or another use of benefit to the local community.
We also had a pre-application presentation of a scheme to build more accommodation for the students of the University of Winchester in Burma Road, West Hill Green. The general reaction was approval of the over all approach for the development, which would consist of 5 blocks, although there were some reservations about their elevations. It is hoped that our comments will influence their detailing, which has still to be decided.
We objected to a very inappropriate scheme at Stanmore News, 86A Cromwell Road, where it was proposed that an ill-conceived modern shop front with an off-centre entrance and a garish yellow fascia should replace the central entrance and small-paned windows of the existing shop front that are a good example of the original design of the award-winning estate. Only one other shop front in the crescent has been changed from the original fenestration, which was regrettably permitted some time in the past, and we felt that a very undesirable precedent would be set if this change of shop front were allowed. The planners agreed with our view, and the application has been refused.
While recognising that Winchester needs more housing, especially at the affordable end of the market, it is worrying that once again it seems that planning policies are lagging behind this demand. For instance, it would be beneficial for the City’s future if guidance existed about the type of housing that should be built, where the houses should be located, and whether the local infrastructure (roads, schools, medical provision, etc) would be able to cope with the needs of the new residents.
Two roads currently seem particularly at risk from haphazard development: Stoney Lane and Lanham Lane, where we’ve seen an increasing number of applications to either demolish an existing house for a development, or cram additional dwellings into the garden. As happened in Chilbolton Avenue, each proposal is considered individually without calculating how it would affect Winchester as a whole, or whether it is the right type of development for the area. The bungalows that make up the great proportion of Stoney Lane make this road especially vulnerable because it is difficult to defend either their design or the inadequate use they make of their sites. A recent example is the proposal to demolish Longwood Cottage, 2 Stoney Lane, for three 2-bed, two 3-bed and one 4-bed dwellings, to which we objected as being overdevelopment of the site because of the amount of hard landscaping that would result. Another recent example is Copperfield, Lanham Lane, where it is proposed two 2- bed houses should be built in front of the house, and a 4-bed house should be built at the rear. We felt the density of 50dph wouldn’t be acceptable for a site on the outermost edge of the city, and again objected as being overdevelopment of the site.
It seems very probable that without adequate forward planning and guidance these two roads could follow the disastrous consequences of the developer-led housing that have so damaged the character of Chilbolton Avenue. There is, however, a recent exception to the list of disasters along the road. The Trust fought against the demolition of Kirtling House, 52 Chilbolton Avenue, because we felt this would be detrimental to the character of the neighbourhood, but we feel that Banner Homes are to be congratulated on a replacement development that successfully respects the local character of the road. Whether the local infrastructure is adequate to cope with the new residents has still to be determined.