Planning Appraisal Group - TrustNews Jun 11
Telecommunications has Winchester under siege! Although WCC has raised objections to all but one of the broadband cabinets reported in the last TrustNews, a further five broadband cabinets have now been proposed, together with five tall Vodafone/ TelefOnica 02 street poles.
March brought this crop of poles: at the junctions of Stoke & Worthy Roads, Winnall Manor & Alresford Roads, Stoney Lane & Stockbridge Road, Bereweeke & Andover Roads, and Badger Farm & Romsey Roads. These ranged in height from 12.4m (41ft) to 15m (49ft), each with its associated electronic cabinet, some of which were much the same size as the broadband cabinets; it is interesting and somewhat alarming to see that 49ft is given as the height of a 4-storey building in the plans of a recent housing development! All have now been withdrawn with the advice that consultation should be sought before presenting their next proposals, something that it seems the applicants were not prepared to pay for the first time around.
April brought the second round of broadband cabinet schemes, all of which again seem to have been sited without any thought of their surroundings, apart from one in Swan Lane, near the junction with City Road. We objected to all the rest: in Sussex Street, where it is proposed the cabinet should sit in solitary glory in front of the grass slope opposite the tall HCC building (why couldn't it be sited next to that?); in Edgar Road, right in front of a newly permitted residential development that would be built close to the back of the pavement; at the St Cross Road end of Barnes Close and in St Cross Road near the pedestrian crossing, in both cases it being proposed that they should plumped down in isolation without any thought given to their possible siting in association with other previously installed equipment. This is especially important in St Cross Road, where as well as the pedestrian crossing signs this stretch of road already has two other cabinets, a bus shelter, and a street wheelie bin. The panels looking at these applications very much wonder why, when the personal equipment we use becomes ever smaller, the supporting equipment seems to be getting larger and larger.
Decisions have been made on a number of outstanding application, including permissions to demolish Lang House, 27 Chilbolton Avenue, for two apartment blocks, the demolition of 45 & 47 Chilbolton Avenue for 14 dwellings, the construction of 5 blocks of student accommodation behind the Royal Hampshire Hospital, Romsey Road, and the development of offices and 14 dwellings on the site of the Winchester Laundry, Gordon Road. Permission has also been given for the proposed new shop front at Stanmore News, 86A Cromwell Road, and the signs (too many we thought) at Peninsula Barracks, Romsey Road.
Decisions are still awaited for the installation of air conditioning units at North Block, Peninsula Barracks, the development of 12 dwellings in place of Park House, 21 Park Road, and the offices and 11 flats above Staple Chambers, Staple Gardens.
There have been a number of appeals against decisions made by the Local Planning Authority. The most important of these is the Public Inquiry in July against the refusal of development at Pitt Manor, Romsey Road, where it is proposed there should be 200 dwellings and Park&Ride for 230 cars. The Trust strongly objected to this proposal, and will therefore be participating in the procedure.
The category of 'householder applications', aimed at speeding up the planning process, was introduced by central government some time ago, and a consequence of this is that any appeals made under this procedure now rely solely on the comments made on the original planning application. The Trust was therefore unable to add any further comment when appeals were made against the refusals of the dormers, front bays and extension proposed for 12 Elm Road, or the 2-storey rear extension at 6 Ranelagh Road.
We were, however, able to support WCC when appeals by Written Representation were made against the refusals of two applications, both made retrospectively after the work had been completed because it was claimed the work was so urgent that it could not wait for planning permission. The first related to a very insensitive new shop front and utilitarian ramp for disabled access in front of 19 City Road, installed without permission in a Conservation Area, which has recently been dismissed by the Inspector because he agreed with the planners and the Trust that the social needs of the ramp did not outweigh its unacceptable design and the use of inappropriate materials for the shop front. The second scheme is less visible to the general public but has been installed without permission within the curtilage of a Listed Building, 22/23 Kingsgate Road, where a close-boarded fence has been placed 8m or so away from the ground floor windows of these sizeable family houses, something we felt would be detrimental to both the setting and amenities of the residents of this listed property.
We also supported WCC when an appeal was made against their refusal to allow two 2-bedroom dwellings and two 3-bedroom chalet dwellings on land at the rear of 5-11 Kynegils Road, a scheme that had been presented virtually unchanged for a fourth time, with the claim that a density of over 40 dwellings per hectare was appropriate for the surrounding area. We felt this would be more suited to a city centre than a suburban site in this position and urged that the appeal should be dismissed.
There seems to have been a wind change in the Permitted Development category, if the applications our panels see are anything to go by. In the past there were very few applications seeking Certificates of Lawfulness, usually for roof alterations often misleadingly described as 'dormers'. Now, this type of application seems to have been extended to 2-storey extensions, extensions to existing gables and loft conversions involving as many as four dormers. All are apparently legal and the planning officers have no way of refusing this type of application if it is not in a Conservation Area, and it is worrying that this laissez-faire planning legislation could be very damaging to suburban areas of the city that do not have the protection of being in one of Winchester's Conservation Areas.
To end on an upbeat note, the Trust is very glad that the Hampshire Chronicle is publishing the weekly lists of planning applications, something that has been very much needed since WCC stopped advertising their lists. It would, however, be even more welcome if case numbers could also be provided, since this would make it easier for members of the general public to identify and find the plans of the applications they want to see, either at the Planning Office or on WCC's website.