Planning Appraisal Group - TrustNews Dec 11
As many members may already know from articles in the local press, both the schemes relating to the demolition of the New Queen’s Head have been refused. It is interesting that the loss of the pub was not the main reason for refusing the schemes, despite claims made by local protesters about the importance of it being retained. The division of the site into two plots was the prime reason for the refusal of the residential development of 14 dwellings (the ‘magic’ number that doesn’t require affordable housing to be provided in a scheme, while 15 dwellings and above would), because it was considered this artificial subdivision did not make efficient use of the available land and that consequently it was possible to avoid the need to provide affordable housing, something that is very much needed in this area. The main reason for refusing the proposal to build a convenience store and child care nursery was because it had not been proved that local circumstances had been sufficiently identified to demonstrate that the design and scale of the development would be appropriate for its surroundings, reasons that were included in the grounds given in our objection to the scheme.
There is at last some news about the application made in January to install an external air conditioning unit on the rear of North Block, Peninsula Barracks, to which we had objected. It has just been withdrawn because otherwise it would have been refused on the grounds that it would have a detrimental impact on the appearance of the Listed Building. The proposal to build a single storey educational centre behind 9 The Close has been granted.
The Trust received a presentation of a proposal to replace the present Ambulance Station, 37 Queen’s Road, with 14 dwellings, a scheme that was generally welcomed by both those at the presentation and the Trust’s viewing panels that subsequently looked at the application, although concern was raised about certain minor aspects of the scheme.
The invasion of broadband cabinets into the Winchester street scene continues. A second proposal to site one in Swan Lane (on which we were unable to comment because it did not appear in the lists) has been granted, as has one in Mead Road which we had reluctantly felt would be acceptable. The City has raised objection to the cabinet proposed in The Square that was reported in the last TrustNews, and to one in St Cross Road, to which we had objected because it was proposed to place it on the outer edge of the pavement, where it would be very visually intrusive in the street scene.
Banner Homes has gone to appeal by Informal Hearing on the refusal to permit their scheme for 12 dwellings, following the demolition of Park House, 21 Park Road. The Trust strongly objected to this scheme, feeling that a development with fewer houses would be more appropriate, and will be attending the Informal Hearing of the appeal on 8 December at the Guildhall. Interestingly a second scheme has just been put in by Banner Homes, this time for 10 dwellings consisting of four 5-bed dwellings and a sizeable building for six 2-bed flats to replace the existing house. The main reasons for the first scheme being refused were that the existing house was considered to be of architectural and historic merit (an undesignated heritage asset according to PPS5), and that the proposed dense and cramped layout would detract from the character and appearance of the surrounding area. The new scheme fails to retain the existing house, and while the layout of this new scheme is certainly more appropriate for the area, it is felt that the type of accommodation would not be: 2-bedroom flats cannot be said to be typical of the area, and yet more expensive 5-bedroom houses will do little to help Winchester’s present shortage of 3 and 4 bedroom houses suitable for a wider range of new residents. Surely a development that is both more in character with the neighbourhood and of more relevance for Winchester as a whole could be proposed for this site?