Planning Appraisal Group - TrustNews March 10
Much of the panels' time is spent looking at schemes to extend existing accommodation, due no doubt to the present difficulty in getting mortgages for buying new houses. Single or 2-storey extensions to the side, rear and front, perhaps over or in an existing garage (so what happens to the car at present housed there?) and conservatories are all grist to our mill, as dormers are also, alas!
The architectural description of a dormer is: "A window placed vertically in a sloping roof and with a roof of its own." The only connection between this and many of the dormers we see is the word's derivation, that its use is for sleeping quarters. The word `dormer' now seems to be used for something resembling a shed on the roof, or even a full-blown rear extension at roof level.
We again objected to an amended scheme for 27 Canon Street (see last TrustNews) because of the alterations to the rear windows and the treatment of the dormer, but it was granted.
Two other rear dormers in adjoining houses at 102 & 104 Stockbridge Road to which we objected have also been granted. At No 104 the description given was "attic conversion with dormer", but in fact it stretched across the whole width of the roof and was more like an extension. At No 102 the alteration was for the conversion of roof space for master bedroom & en suite shower room, including a flat-roofed dormer at the rear. This euphemistic description was for a rear extension with a roof that would completely replace the existing roof and have a façade that lined up with the rear wall of the house. Our concern was that permitting these alterations at the rear of this terrace would result in the kind of ugly roofscape that can be seen at the rear of terraces in Cheriton Road and nearby roads, and we therefore very much regret the precedent set by these decisions.
Permissions have also been given for some schemes mentioned previously: the refurbishment of the Guildhall, the building of a business, enterprise & innovation park at the Chilcomb Centre, and the demolition of the Stanmore Hotel, 212 Stanmore Lane, for a 56-bed care home. The proposal to convert the first-floor office of St George's Chambers, St George's Street, into a 6-bedroom flat, to which we objected because of the cramped living conditions, has been withdrawn. A similar scheme to which we had objected has also been refused. This was the conversion of the 5-bedroom house at 28 Chilbolton Avenue to multiple use for 11 letting rooms. Sadly, the reasons for refusal all referred to external problems relating to parking, survival of trees, the inadequate provision of public recreational open space and failure to provide for the improvement to the transport and highway network – doesn't the local authority care about the people who would live in these cramped conditions?
We have also had several pre-application presentations and discussions, and some of these schemes are now wending their way through the planning system. We had hoped for a pre-application presentation of the CALA Homes development at Barton Farm, but this was prevented by their previous commitments. However, this delay was more than compensated for by their willingness to explain their scheme to us at a later date, as is described in the separate report.
Other pre-application discussions were for an amended scheme to convert Chestnut Mead, Kingsgate Road, and build two houses at the rear, a scheme to replace the Pastoral Centre, St Peter's Church, Jewry Street, and the refurbishment of Sunley House, St George's Street. We very much appreciate being consulted before an application is submitted, as this makes the most productive use of the skills and experience of the Council & PAG members who attend these discussions, and we welcome the opportunity to influence schemes before they become 'set in stone' for the actual applications, when we can only raise objections.
Winchester is still under threat from incremental additions to its housing, thanks to directives from central government, decisions made by planning inspectors who may always fully appreciate local conditions and the interpretation of the situation brought about by the deferment of expected central developments, at Silver Hill and on the site of the Hampshire Constabulary HQ.
This caused the withdrawal of the City's objection to Redrow's appeal to build on land adjoining Francis Gardens, Worthy Road and we fear that, if the recent Pitt Manor, Romsey Road, application is half-way acceptable, permission may be given for 200 houses to be built there, which we feel would have a very damaging impact on this part of Winchester, as well as on its infrastructure. This is under assault due to the cumulative effect of many smaller-scale developments, such as the 88 dwellings under construction at Highcroft, Romsey Road, 14 dwellings at St John's Croft, Blue Ball Hill, and several developments in the Chilbolton Avenue area, to say nothing of many other small infill proposals.
Technology is wonderful when it works, but rather disastrous when it doesn't. Thanks to a change in WCC's IT system in the middle of last year, the Trust was not informed about a number of planning appeals and therefore did not write to support the City when we might otherwise have done so. More recently — and more worryingly — it seems that a backlog in the processing of applications resulted in too many of them accumulating within the memory capacity allowed for incoming applications, with the result that the overflow fell into a black hole as far as the lists of new applications on the website were concerned. This means that although neighbours may have been informed about a nearby scheme, during this period the Trust and other members of the public were unable to comment on these applications because they did not appear on the weekly lists.