Planning Appraisal Group - TrustNews Mar 12
To some extent appeal decisions are a matter of luck, because so much depends on the opinion of each individual Inspector. As everyone probably already knows, the Inspector at the Public Inquiry into the 200 dwellings at Pitt Manor allowed the appeal because he didn't agree that the problems envisaged by the Planning Department and local residents would occur. Would that he had been as thoughtful as the Inspector of the Informal Hearing about the demolition of Park House, 21 Park Road, for 12 dwellings. He agreed that the existing house was a good example of the type of Edwardian building that was once more common in Winchester and that this increased its heritage significance, especially as there were no other similar properties in the locality. Having seen the interior of the house he wasn't convinced it would cost as much to refurbish as was claimed, and dismissed the appeal because he felt that it hadn't been shown that a more sympathetic scheme that retained the original house could not be built in the extensive grounds. Perhaps forearmed with advanced knowledge of this decision, Banner Homes' second application for 10 dwellings has been refused by WCC.
Winchester has had quite a number of appeals by Written Representation over the past three months, and we have written in support of WCC for three of them. These were 37 Woodfield Drive, where we felt the proposal to build a 2-storey semi-detached pair of 2-bedroom flats was overdevelopment of the site; 5 Chatham Road, where we felt that a 2-storey extension for a 2-bed dwelling in a row of identical houses would be detrimental to the rhythm of the street scene; and the New Queen's Head, Stanmore Lane, for which there was a joint appeal for the two schemes (a convenience store and a child care nursery, and 14 dwellings) it is proposed should replace the pub after its demolition. Because we hadn't objected to the original applications, we didn't write letters for two other appeals relating to the Snooker Centre, 8 St Cross Road and West Hayes Lodge, Sarum Road. There is also another category of appeal, Written Representation (Householder), for which we cannot write letters because only the comments made on the original application are considered, and nothing further is allowed to be sent in.
The proposal to replace the present Ambulance Station, 37 Queen's Road, with 14 dwellings has been granted.
Apart from one development, most of the applications seen since last November have been for relatively small domestic external and internal alterations, shop fascia and projecting signs, and changes of use for a property. The exception is the proposal to replace the Fire Station, North Walls, with a major residential development consisting of 17 two-bedroom and 30 one-bedroom flats, 19 of which would be affordable with the remaining 28 being for the open market. Following a presentation of the scheme made after the application had been registered with the Planning Department, the Trust objected, considering that the design of the building would not make a beneficial contribution to this important location within the Conservation Area, and that its size and height would constitute overdevelopment of the site. It was also felt that the supposed amenity land at the rear, said to be for the residents to use, was inadequate because the only available open area was the minimally landscaped car park. Inadequate storage space and the fact that no mention at all was made about the level of sustainability proposed for the scheme were other reasons for our objection.
Where possible the Trust prefers to have pre-application presentations, when we might still be able to have an influence on the scheme. We have had a number of these, ranging in size from an interesting one-off, energy-efficient PassivHaus to the residential development behind 110-112 Cromwell Road, plus a tour round the Theatre Royal to be shown the alterations it is proposed will be made during the next phase of improvements.