logo



Planning Appraisal Group - TrustNews Mar 14

Pity the poor planners! Not only are they drowning in a sea of documents and drawings for the large developments at Barton Farm and Pitt Manor, but now they have the Silver Hill development looming over the horizon — and this is only for Winchester City, never mind about schemes in the districts.

In December we had a very interesting presentation of the new Silver Hill scheme, which was thought an improvement because the bus station has been omitted and consequently Friarsgate is now included in the layout, much to the benefit of the public realm. We also welcomed the reduced height and more broken roof lines of the buildings, which reduced their perceived large scale and mass, but were concerned at the rather utilitarian design of the bridge between Blocks A and B, which seemed somewhat unwelcoming.

We also had pre-application presentations of a residential development on the site of the Fire Station, North Walls, and a scheme for an affordable residential development in place of Victoria House, Victoria Road. The Fire Station scheme is reduced in size from the previous proposal, and use has been made of the central space for single-storey dwellings, which has resulted in a development with a more satisfactory layout than before; the application has now been presented to the planners. The affordable housing to be built on the site of Victoria House for WCC was thought successful, with the vertical rhythm of the street elevation and the underground parking being especially liked, and we suggested some amendments, including some design details and the provision of a secluded and secure section in the garden behind where the upper ?oor residents could dry their washing.

The plans for the conversion to residential accommodation of St Thomas Church, Southgate Street, which was reported in the last TrustNews, are now wending their way through the planning system, as is another scheme for Rooksacre, Lankhills Road, where it is proposed that four houses should be built. Although they are smaller than those in the scheme that was dismissed on appeal, we are continuing to object to the demolition of the existing house, feeling that allowing the pair of semi-detached houses would set an undesirable precedent for a road where the layout of the architect's original scheme is still evident.

Two developments that have been causing much concern to local residents have been granted: Park House, Park Road, and amended plans for Woolverston, Bereweeke Road, which have not been seen by the Trust. A decision still has to be made on the scheme dating from last July to replace 116 Christchurch Road with four dwellings, where amended design plans are under consideration.

Decisions have been made on two planning appeals, both dating from the ?rst half of last year. The proposal to redevelop the present gap opposite the Hotel du Vin at 21A-21B Southgate Street, and build a ground-floor retail unit with ?ve apartments above, has been dismissed because the inspector felt that not only would the design contrast harmfully with the local character, especially No 23, the Listed Building immediately to the south, but it would also be intrusive seen from St Thomas Street, where No 22 would suffer “close proximity overlooking” from upper floor balconies and particularly from the terrace at roof level. The appeal against the refusal to allow the replacement of a garage with a 2-bedroom detached dwelling behind 47 Monks Road has also been dismissed, for which the Trust unusually supported the appellant (see the May TrustNews). It is interesting that, like us, the Inspector had no problem with the house being there, either visually or for the change of use, but dismissed it because the proposal failed to meet adequate sustainable levels.

Shione Carden