Planning Appraisal Group - TrustNews Sept 14
It is claimed, by both local officers and national inspectors, that each planning application is considered on its own merits and that therefore allowing a particular scheme will not be setting a precedent for the area. This is a claim that the Trust questions, because on occasions the reason given for allowing an undesirable extension (more often than not a shed-like structure on the rear roof slope of a terraced house) is that, as a similar extension has been permitted in the past, it is not possible to refuse the current one. Similarly, precedents are often used when applications or appeals are made.
The Trust has just had an example of precedent being used as the grounds for a development - by Linden Homes, when giving us a presentation during their pre-application round of consultation with local people for their proposal to build on land at Pitt Vale. They freely admitted that the development of 200 houses on the adjoining site at Pitt Manor, which was permitted after an appeal and against the City's wishes, was one reason why they had considered this development of 500 houses on a green?eld site outside the settlement boundary of Winchester. The other main reason given in support of their scheme was that they would be providing much needed affordable housing that the local authority had not been able to prove it could provide during the next five years. This is a claim that the planning officers dispute because they consider there is adequate capacity within the built-up area of Winchester, and this will be their recommendation for the draft Local Plan Part 2 that is under consideration. We felt that a very visible development on an important route into the city would be an unacceptable encroachment on Winchester’s setting, as well as being a precedent that could encourage development on other nearby greenfield sites, and told the developers that we would object to any proposed development on this site.
We have also had two other interesting pre-application presentations. The first was for 11 dwellings behind Wellington House & 78-79 Kingsgate Street, a scheme reduced in size from the one presented to the Trust almost exactly a year previously. We welcomed the retention of the building on the corner with Canon Street and the sensitive relationship of the new building adjoining King’s Gate, feeling that the design of the new buildings should fit into the street scene very satisfactorily. We did, however, raise concerns about the proposed parking in the central courtyard behind the houses, especially with access onto a narrow stretch of Canon Street when it was felt a small alteration to the layout would allow adequate access to be provided on Kingsgate Street; we also raised some other smaller worries.
The second was for another scheme for 21A Southgate Street, where the previous proposal was recently refused on appeal. The reduced mass and height of the new infill was an improvement, as was the care that had been taken to minimise overlooking at the rear of the building, but one aspect in particular was disliked. This was the strong horizontal band of brickwork across the front elevation, which was felt would conflict with the vertical emphasis of the other buildings in the road, and we suggested that this should be broken up in some way and questioned the detailing of the brickwork, which was thought might benefit from a different treatment. Other concerns were also raised.
Two applications mentioned in the last TrustNews have been granted: the terrace of three houses of contemporary design on the steeply sloping land between Quarry Road & Petersfield Road, and WCC’s affordable housing on the site of Victoria House, Victoria Road.
It was with considerable regret that we felt we had to object to two other WCC schemes, because neither was of a standard comparable to the Victoria House proposal, both having designs that were disappointingly unimaginative and would add nothing of benefit to their localities. The 21 affordable dwellings on the site of the New Queen’s Head, Stanmore Lane, did at least have vertical solar panels on the flats, which we welcomed, but we were concerned about the loss of open recreation space that would result from the 13 dwellings to be built on the land to the rear of 2-24 Western Road. It would be good if those commissioning projects on behalf of WCC consulted the Planning Department at an early stage in the process, even if the development is sited outside a Conservation Area.