Planning Appraisal Group - TrustNews Jun 14
It should be a relief to the planners that of the 150 or so applications the panels have looked at since the last TrustNews, only two are for major residential developments. As was reported then, we have had pre-application presentations of these schemes, both of which we thought were appropriate.
The application for the residential development on the site of the Fire Station, North Walls, was considered at the beginning of May at the Planning Development Control Committee meeting, and has been deferred for discussion because WCC are contesting the developers claim that they cannot carry the cost of making an affordable housing contribution. It has already been agreed that to have this housing on site would produce too few units to be practical, and in every other respect the application is acceptable. The other application, to build affordable housing in place of Victoria House, Victoria Road, began its journey through the planning system in April and its suitability has still to be considered.
The sympathetic conversion to residential use of St Thomas Church, Southgate Street was also seen by the Planning Committee, and, as reported in the Hampshire Chronicle, was unanimously approved despite some concerns about parking.
A decision has at last been made on 116 Christchurch Road, where it is proposed the existing house should be demolished to make way for four dwellings, a loss we regretted because the house is very characteristic of the area. This has now been permitted, subject to various conditions, including a satisfactory landscape scheme. Another scheme we have regretted for a similar reason is Rookacre, Lankhills Road, where the original house is to be demolished to be replaced by four houses, and this has also been permitted; details of this proposal were given in the last TrustNews.
We had a pre-application presentation of an interesting scheme to build a terrace of three houses of contemporary design on the steeply sloping land between Quarry Road and Petersfield Road. Our understanding of the proposal was much helped by having an excellent model that showed how the terrace would fit neatly into the sloping site. The proposal was liked by everyone attending the presentation, who appreciated the high standard of design while noting that a similarly high standard of the detailing and materials to be used would also be necessary.
We have written in support of WCC when the developers went to appeal against the refusal of their proposal to demolish 68 Stoney Lane and build four 3-bed and five 2-bed dwellings on land to the rear of Nos 58-72. This was a resubmitted scheme, which we still felt would result in a crowded layout with excessive areas of hard-surfacing that would be very uncharacteristic of the area.
Our prayers have been answered as far as 40 King’s Avenue is concerned. In November we explained why we supported the refusal of the proposed new house and said we were waiting with our fingers crossed to see whether an appeal for a house on this site would be dismissed for a fifth time. To our relief it has indeed been dismissed, and for the same reasons as before, though this inspector went into greater detail about the immediate surroundings of the two houses that face each other at the east entrance into the Stanmore recreation ground. He added a further nail in the coffin by dismissing the claim that the low cost area made it too expensive to build up to code level 5 for energy and 4 for water of the Code for Sustainable Homes, saying that no evidence had been provided to support it. Would that all inspectors were as perceptive of the local character as this one has been!