Planning Appraisal Group - TrustNews June 15
The PAG panels have had a relatively peaceful time since the last TrustNews. There have been no schemes needing a presentation, no appeals to the Planning Inspectorate that needed a letter, and nothing further has been heard following the pre-application presentations that were reported then: the new scheme for the redevelopment of the Hampshire Police HQ, Romsey Road, and the proposed residential development on land at Pitt Vale
WCC has not yet made a decision on either the residential development at Teg Down House, 29 Chilbolton Avenue, where they have concerns about the design as well as the placing of buildings too close to established trees, or the proposal to build 11 dwellings behind Wellington House, 77 Kingsgate Street, where the planners are facing a difficult problem. The Historical Environment team would recommend refusal of the suggestion that access should be from Kingsgate Street, feeling it would be detrimental to the setting of an ancient monument and the nearby listed buildings. And local residents don’t like the congestion that would be caused by the proposed access off narrow Canon Street, with further concerns that this access might not be able to cope with the larger and longer than usual type of vehicle that residents might have. Both developments are under negotiation, and it seems unlikely there will be an early decision for either, especially the latter!
A new scheme has been put forward for the residential development at the Snooker Centre, Radley House, 8 St Cross Road, with five dwellings on Edgar Road. This is a more sympathetic proposal than the previous one, especially relating to its effect on the setting of Radley House, where the extension now proposed reflects the arches of the earlier extension on the other side of the Listed Building. We did, however, have some concern about the lack of any visual incident at all on the roof of the otherwise traditionally-designed terrace of houses in Edgar Road, fearing that their absence might result in an array of TV aerials and dishes being the only additional features of roof-line interest and that this would detract from the appearance of the terrace.
Another scheme that has caused us some concern is the proposal to resurface part of the rear garden of 2 Wolvesey Cottages, College Street, to provide additional parking for Wolvesey Palace. We felt that to provide more parking might encourage more cars rather than reducing parking in the main drive, and objected. A decision has still to be made on this application, and as neither English Heritage nor the Historic Environment team have objected it seems likely that it will be permitted.
Two other more recent developments are also awaiting decisions. At 28 Chilbolton Avenue it is proposed to demolish the existing building and build four dwellings, which we feared would be overdevelopment of a narrow site because of the large area given over to hard surfacing for access and parking, with little garden space. There was a lack of information about how the development would relate to the surrounding area and a possibility that it could overlook property in Gordon Road, and we objected, suggesting that further thought should be given to the design, height and layout of the proposed blocks. The second development is yet another scheme for the land adjacent to 13 City Road, where it is now proposed that a coffee shop and three flats should be built. We also objected to this scheme, feeling that the proposed building would be too grandiose and imposing for the character of street, and suggested that its design should be reconsidered, especially regarding its height.
Many of the remaining the applications seen by the panels were for loft conversions or various types of extensions, with a depressing number of the loft conversions consisting of one of our most hated things: a supposed "dormer" that takes up the whole - or very nearly all - width of the rear slope of the roof. These box-like structures are a far cry from the architectural description of the dormer (which l have given before in TrustNews, and give again to refresh your memories because we hate them so much) : "A dormer is a window placed vertically in a sloping roof and with a roof of its own" - not, please note, something that looks like a shed on the roof. It would be good if the Planning Department could enforce a less misleading description for this type of application, but l fear this is rather like asking for the moon.