Planning Appraisal Group - TrustNews Sept 10
The past few months have caused a hiatus in the planning system, while our planners waited to learn what changes the newly elected government were going to make to existing directives.
There are many controversial developments waiting in the queue, some dating back to early in the year, and worried Winchester residents have consequently spent many hours arranging meetings and writing letters of objection.
One of the earliest and most controversial was the proposal to build 200 dwellings, together with 200 Park & Ride spaces, etc, at Pitt Manor Farm, Romsey Road. It seems that until the recent change of policy the Local Planning Authority wasn't confident it could successfully resist this if it was refused and the developers then went to appeal. This development has now been refused.
There are, however, no less than six other long-standing schemes mentioned in previous TrustNews that are still awaiting decisions. In date order, starting in March and finishing towards the end of May, these proposals are to:
- Replace 110 & 112 Cromwell Road and the allotment site behind with ten dwellings;
- Build two blocks of student accommodation at the junction of Sparkford Close & Sparkford Road;
- Replace the Snooker Centre, Radley House, 8 St Cross Road and build six dwellings facing onto Edgar Road;
- Convert Chestnut Mead, Kingsgate Road, into three dwellings and build two houses in the garden behind;
- Demolish Nos 45 & 47 Chilbolton Avenue and build 14 dwellings, together with land at the rear of no 49a;
- Demolish Lang House, 27 Chilbolton Avenue, for two apartment blocks.
It will be interesting to see whether the change in guidance that gardens should no longer be considered as brown field sites, will have an influence on the decisions that have still to be made.
Another long-term application still needing a decision is a Hampshire County Council proposal to extend and refurbish Beaconsfield House, Andover Road, to which we objected in February of this year. The Trust welcomes contemporary extensions when they are sympathetic to both the building and its surroundings, neither of which was the case here. Being on the corner with Park Road, the site is very highly visible, and we felt that the extension had been designed without any appreciation of the either the scale or the architectural design of the simple and somewhat austere appearance of the original building. We await the decision on this scheme with great interest.
The Local Area Design Statement was quoted in many of the letters objecting to the proposed developments in Chilbolton Avenue and it was good to see it used by the Development Control Planning Committee as one of their reasons for refusing to allow 28 Chilbolton Avenue to be turned into 11 letting rooms, despite the officers' recommendation to permit it. This advice was very understandable, however, bearing in mind the existing minimal requirements governing multiple occupancy that "Each separate occupancy shall be provided with its own bath or shower. Where this is not practicable, for all sharing occupants there must be a readily accessible bathroom or shower room" and the ratio then given for 11-12 people was "3 bathrooms & 3 WCs (separate WC not required)". The Trust feels most strongly that for a city such as Winchester this provision is inadequate for eleven people who might have no connection with each other, although it might be acceptable for a large family, and therefore welcomes the refusal.
Other on-going proposals for Winchester are for 2000 dwellings at Barton Farm, Andover Road, for which the Public Inquiry in early September has been postponed (as reported in the local press), and a revised scheme by the new developer for the land adjoining St John's Croft, Blue Ball Hill, for which an application still has to be made. The Trust had a pre-application presentation of this, and welcomed the reduction of dwellings from fourteen to six, but felt that further thought should be given to some aspects of the scheme.
Another pre-application presentation was for added extensions and the refurbishment of New Hall, Winchester College, College Street. Lack of space meant this could only be to a limited number of the Trust's council members, who found the proposals generally acceptable. The Trust's pre-application opinion was endorsed by the three PAG panels looking at it, who welcomed the aim of making the building more sustainable than the existing 1960s standard, although they felt that several aspects needed more detailed information. However, from the adverse comments that have been made it seems that these favourable views are not shared by everyone!
We also had a post-application presentation of the scheme for 14 dwellings and offices proposed for the site of the Winchester Laundry, Hyde Abbey Road, which meant that the Trust was therefore unable to have any influence on its design, although it was very useful in helping our understanding of the development. The reduction from the original 31 units to 14 (the magic number not needing the provision of affordable housing) was welcomed and the general layout and approach was felt successful, although there was a mixed response, from the panels looking at the application, to the fenestration of the dwellings facing onto Gordon Road. However, all were agreed that the right solution for the corner office block had still to be found, and the Trust therefore objected to this aspect of the application.
We are currently seeking a pre-application presentation from Banner Homes of their scheme to replace Park House, 21 Park Road, with 12 new dwellings, which is causing a lot of concern in the locality.