Planning Appraisal Group - TrustNews June 10
As many members will probably have read in the local press, CALA Homes have gone to appeal because Winchester City Council has failed to decide whether or not to permit their application for a development at Barton Farm, Andover Road. This is a major development for 2000 dwellings, with a shopping centre, schools, leisure and community facilities, food and drink outlets, to say nothing of recreational areas, parking, landscaping, forming new public rights of way, closing the present Andover Road and re-directing its traffic through the new development, etc, etc ... It will clearly have a considerable impact on the local infrastructure, and it does seem unreasonable for a developer to expect the local authorities to reach a decision on such a complicated proposal in less than six months. In fact, a longer period than this would seem appropriate because of its importance to the future of Winchester. The Public Inquiry, due to last eight days, begins on 7 September, and the Trust will be arguing against the appeal.
From the details available on the website it seems that a similar appeal may not be necessary for the application to build 200 dwellings and provide 200 Park & Ride spaces on land adjacent to Pitt Manor Farm, Romsey Road. Not only are the responses from the City’s Landscape and Urban Design teams very unfavourable, but the South East Region of Sport England has also objected, and Hampshire County Council’s Highways Department has recommended refusal because amongst other things it was felt that the access junction could cause problems on Romsey Road, which was in any case unsuitable for the amount of additional traffic that would be generated. The final decision is awaited with interest.
Decisions are also awaited for the proposals to build two blocks of student accommodation at the junction of Sparkford Close and Sparkford Road, which is causing much local indignation; and to build two dwellings in the rear garden of Chestnut Mead, Kingsgate Road, while at the same time converting this unhappy looking house into three 2-bed flats and a 4-bed dwelling. We hope that permission is given before its run-down state makes its conversion impossible.
The proposal to build 14 dwellings at St John’s Croft, Blue Ball Hill, has been refused, with the Planning Committee overturning the officers’ recommendation for approval because it was felt the development would still have an overbearing and adverse impact on nearby residents. Another developer has now taken over and we understand that the local action group are having discussions with the applicants and their architect about the form the development should take.
We have also seen two interesting proposals for residential schemes. The first was to build ten dwellings in place of 110 and 112 Cromwell Road and on the allotment site behind. Though we had no problem with the contemporary design of the houses on the allotment site, we were concerned that the blank face they would present could prevent their residents integrating socially with those living in the established houses. We did, however, object to the asymmetrical and aggressively idiosyncratic design of the houses that would be replacing Nos 110 and 112, feeling that more respect should be paid to the original design and character of this award-winning estate.
The second was for a replacement building instead of the Snooker Centre, Radley House, 8 St Cross Road, which we liked, and for six dwellings facing onto Edgar Road on the land behind. The articulated elevations and contemporary design of the houses were considered successful, but three panels saw this scheme because there was a divergence of opinion, primarily because the houses would have large windows going almost down to the floor and would be built right at the back of the pavement, which happens to be narrow at that point. This is something that those living in period houses may have to put up with, but it did seem unkind to expect the residents of a newly-designed house to suffer this lack of privacy, and we objected, feeling that the windows on the front elevation should be smaller and the terrace should be set further back to allow space for some planting, which would provide a greater feeling of privacy as well as reflecting the character of the small front gardens on the opposite side of the road; we also felt that to have only three parking spaces for the six units was inadequate in an area that already has parking problems.
A scheme for converting 28 Chilbolton Avenue for use as 11 letting rooms has been resubmitted with little change, and we have again objected. Even though the alterations probably comply with current legislation, it seems very undesirable in a city like Winchester to provide accommodation where four units on the ground floor have to share one bathroom without separate wc, and the communal area is minimal to say the least.
Two new schemes, both for 14 dwellings (the magic number for developments because the need to provide affordable housing begins at 15) are also being considered in Chilbolton Avenue. The first is to replace Lang House, No 27 with two apartment blocks, and the scheme is a great improvement on the previous monolithic block of flats that was dismissed on appeal. The profile of each block is broken up by having three pavilions, and a view of the golf course beyond can be seen through the gap between the blocks. The second is a proposal to demolish Nos 45 and 47 and build on land at the rear of No 49a. Although the design is ingenious, and advantage is taken of the sloping topography to have some underground parking, 2-storey structures would be built very close to the boundary with gardens in Stockers Avenue, from where they could appear overbearing to those in the gardens below. At present there is a screening Cypress hedge, but this could die and it is therefore important that new buildings should be acceptable whether or not they are screened. We felt too much was being asked of the site and objected to the application as being overdevelopment, suggesting that the three units closest to the boundary should be omitted.
Apologies to Mohammed Bakhaty. In the last TrustNews we credited council officials for removal of the sign in Southgate Street whereas it was Mr Bakhaty who persuaded his tenant to take it down.