Silver Hill Summary - TrustNews March 15
Many of our members have commented on our support for the latest Silver Hill planning application, both approving and disapproving. At the time we issued a ‘Position Statement’ explaining our reasons to members for whom we have email addresses. The Statement is enclosed with this TrustNews to ensure that all members will have the opportunity to read it if they wish. But, as chairman, I would also like to summarise why, alter evaluating the latest proposals in detail, we decided it would be wrong to object despite a number of continuing concerns.
Background
The Trust contributed to the regeneration proposals for this derelict area of the City from the outset in the ‘9Os, and in 2003 engaged with Thorn?eld, whose basic design approach we liked, meeting them and criticising the scheme as it developed. Although this led to some changes, by the time of the ?rst planning application in 2007 we still had the following criticisms:
1. The 6 storey height of Blocks A and B.
2. The buildings fronting onto Friarsgate which we considered lacked pedestrian friendly functions and architectural interest.
3. The crowding and landscaping of Friarsgate pavement, which was too narrow for tree planting and created a hard edge with no link to the north.
4. Car parking provision, which we considered to be excessive in view of City policy to reduce traffic in central Winchester.
5. Delivery arrangements, which would destroy the pedestrian environment of one of the internal
6. Housing in which the ‘affordable’ element was institutional and unpleasant.
7. There were other issues mainly on detail design matters, such as the texture and materials of the elevations which we did not think were yet acceptable.
A few revisions were made, but the key problems remained and although we formally objected to the application on these grounds, planning permission was granted in 2008. Following Thornfields’ withdrawal, Henderson acquired the development in 2012, retaining the design team but making two fundamental revisions due to circumstances that had changed in the years since the City Council ’s brief was written:
- Omission of the bus station, because the bus operating company that owned and ran the station no longer wanted it, preferring a linear on-road arrangement to the traditional bus park.
- Omission of the Affordable and Social Housing on the grounds that this large unprofitable element now made the development unviable. This now being permitted by the Government (overriding local authority housing policy) if the economic evidence is independently checked and proven.
Both these changes may have undesirable social implications, but in urban design terms, our primary interest, they have allowed important improvements.
Evaluation of the Design
Architecture. Some of us have visited examples of the architects’ buildings; they are always veiy well detailed, and researched to make certain that they fit into the context of their surroundings. Allies and Morrison have an admirable reputation as one of the country’s top architectural firms, and will therefore deliver a scheme of a very high standard, and l-lendersons have encouraged them to do so. It is a significant point that the company will retain ownership of the buildings rather than sell them like most developers. We consider the latest designs show that the materials will be of the highest order, and following their initial decision to use the Saxon street pattern, they have now cleverly repeated the grain of the streets in a contemporary manner so that they echo the mediaeval plot widths and variety that characterise central Winchester.
Architectural style is inevitably controversial. But the Trust has always held that new development in Winchester, while reflecting its context, should continue to be of the period in which it is created, and so maintain its rich and varied character into the future. We consider that this scheme has successfully achieved the goals set out in their Design Statement, within the constraints of the brief and economic imperatives.
Ground level interest. A very important element of a retail scheme is the zone in which pedestrian attention is focused: from ground to first floor including the shop fronts, hard and soft landscaping, street furniture, signs and so on. This zone of interest needs to be stimulating and informative, so that one is visually guided from place to place. The eye picks up the changes in these details and leads one on by what is sometimes called the ‘pull-through‘ effect, making the experience rewarding. Of course, the higher levels are also important but of a different nature because people seldom look upwards.
We consider that the scheme should deliver the right mix of information and anticipation to make the Silver Hill experience rewarding. However, we remain concerned about details such as the shop-front design, signage, graphics, lighting, street furniture, paving layout and planting, all of which are crucial to the outcome. Consequently we have asked to see what is proposed before it finalised.
Deliveries. The changes have also permitted the relocation to Friarsgate Road of the entrance to the internal delivery area, much improving Tanner Street as a pedestrian route to and from the central area.
Other issues
Parking. Traf?c movement and parking have been controversial since the beginning of the 20th century when the car ?rst started to con?ict with both pedestrians and historic buildings. The problem has been worsening ever since, with the addition of excessive pollution in central streets of the City. Although traf?c is excluded from within the development, the brief included a relatively high level of car parking space to ensure that the shops and residential elements would be commercially successful. Some still consider it insufficient, while we would have preferred to see considerably less, both to minimise central area traf?c and to reduce the height of the remaining 6 storey building on the site.
Bus Station. in the 2007 scheme a replacement bus station was sited within the development facing onto Friarsgate with a complicated and confusing bus contra-flow system at the eastern end of the road that would have made the urban quality even worse than it is at present. Replacement of the station with a series of bus shelters along Friarsgate has not only obviated the need for this, but allowed a number of other improvements to the scheme. The Friarsgate frontage has been drawn back, permitting a pavement wide enough for planting, and the buildings now include shop-fronts and other sen/ices for pedestrians and people waiting for buses. The bus shelters are to be specially designed and provided with electronic information, and both the buildings and the paving now relate to the other side of Friarsgate Road. Overall, we consider that the advantages for the character of Winchester are considerable, and with no realistic alternative option at Silver Hill, we feel it would be better to include an ef?cient transport interchange in the brief for the Railway Station area.
Housing. The brief called for a high proportion of the residential element to be Affordable Housing, and this was incorporated in the 2007 scheme. The Trust objected, not to the presence of this housing, but its provision as one-bedroom ?ats accessed from long dark corridors without dedicated open space, and we called for a redesign of this element. We consider the omission of Affordable Housing to be very regrettable, but can see no way around the problem. Moreover, in the circumstances it has become questionable whether genuinely affordable housing can be built on such expensive land where, because it can be sold (or rented) at up to 80% of market value, the housing would certainly not be affordable.
Shops. The latest scheme has a 30% increase in the retail ?oor area. On expert advice we disputed the justi?cation for such a large increase and are requesting a reassessment of the calculations used by the City's retail consultants and this has not yet been resolved.
Conclusion
The changes in the latest scheme have largely overcome our previous reasons for objection. The omission of the bus station and the affordable housing, continue to be controversial, but are changes that we do not believe can be reversed by the Council, so it was decided we should no longer object to the development as a whole.