Planning Appraisal Group - TrustNews Sept 15
The planners seem to have been working hard to clear up old cases, because three dating from last year have at last been decided. The oldest, dating back to October 2014, is for 21A-21B Southgate Street, where amended plans for a commercial unit with residential units above have been granted. Amended plans for a proposal to demolish Teg Down House, 29 Chilbolton Avenue have been refused, because its scale, mass and layout would be contrary to the Chilbolton Avenue Area Design Statement (CALADS). This says that this part of the road (Area D) is the most sensitive, and that new development should be limited to only a small increase on the existing footprint and mass, which was certainly not the case in the proposed development. The third application was for Wellington House, 77-79 Kingsgate House, where amended plans to convert and develop land and buildings for 11 dwellings and 8 parking spaces, etc, have been granted.
An application made in April for a residential development of five new dwellings instead of the house at 28 Chilbolton Avenue has been refused, and we have objected to the resubmission of the scheme for ?ve dwellings, because it continued to show little respect for the neighbouring Nos 26 and 30 Chilbolton Avenue or for those living in Greenhill Road (not Gordon Road as given in error in the last TrustNews) at the rear of the site, and constituted overdevelopment of the site. The design of the houses was also disliked as seeming to suggest an attempt to be creative while at the same time retaining a fake Georgian style. The proposal to create parking spaces in the rear garden of 2 Wolvesey Cottage, College Street has been granted, as has the residential scheme for the Snooker Centre, Radley House, 8 St Cross Road.
There are now three sizeable schemes being considered, all of which are controversial. The proposals for the residential development proposed instead of the tall block of the Hampshire Police Headquarters, Romsey Road has taken some notice of the comments made at the pre-application presentation to the Trust, but the tallest blocks still have uninteresting roo?ines. This aspect is important because the proposed buildings, like the present Police HQ, will be tall and imposing, and the existing structure dominates the horizon and introduces a harsh and intrusive element into Winchester‘s skyline. It would have been hoped that the new development could improve on this, but the unrelieved flat rooflines currently being proposed offer little hope that this will be so. No details were noted for the installation of such things as burglar alarms or TV aerials, so the Trust made its usual plea for burglar alarms to have a designated position to avoid visually intrusive places for them being subsequently chosen by the residents, and that to avoid visual clutter, the provision of TV aerials, satellite dishes and any phone connections should be communal.
Despite all the wonderful social goodies being offered by the developers for Land at Vale Farm, Romsey Road (formerly known as Pitt Vale), we have strongly objected to their proposal for 350 dwellings (including 140 affordable dwellings), with a site for a care village suitable for the elderly etc. Unlike Pitt Manor, it would not be built on a reserved site and building on a greenfield site would set a very undesirable precedent for the surrounding area, where it would appear the local farming community is prepared to sell its land. Winchester’s clearly defined settlement boundary is important to its setting, and Vale Farm is outside this boundary; there are no buildings on the opposite side of the stretch of Romsey Road, and any development on this site would have a detrimental affect on an important rural route into the city. The developer's claim that there is an inadequate supply of housing for future needs is not supported by the available evidence that there is more than enough for the next ten years. The Trust also very much fears that the roads, schools (already at capacity for both primary and secondary levels) and medical facilities of the local infrastructure would be unable to cope with the requirements of the new residents, especially as they are already stretched in providing for those living in the new houses that already have been, or are in the process of being, built.
The third proposal is to demolish Hunt's Food Warehouse, 27 Andover Road to make way for purpose-built student accommodation of 257 study bedrooms, to which we have also objected. This would be a large structure, with a high uninterrupted horizontal roofline, which we felt should have lower, and/or more varied building heights with an interesting roofline that would be more characteristic of the city, and would certainly improve its appearance as seen from Fairfield Road. It was felt that more trees on the boundary with the railway line would break up - rather than attempting to hide - views of the buildings, and that as it stood the proposal would constitute overdevelopment of the site. There was also concern about the inadequate pedestrian route for students walking from Andover Road to the station, and it was considered that improving this should be a condition of permission for the development.
The panels have been facing what seems to be an increasing number of applications with so few details being provided about the proposals that they have had to object to them on the grounds of inadequate information. This is very unsatisfactory for the panels, who waste time hunting for details that aren’t there, and for the planners because the Trust is unable to make a sensible comment. In one or two cases it seemed that some planning officers had seen documents that were not available to the panel, and we are at present trying to find out from the Planning Department what causes these problems.
l am in the process of handing over the running of PAG to Mary Tiles, so if things go as planned, this will be the last time my name appears under this article in TrustNews. Details of her CV are available, with those of other trustees seeking election, in the papers for the AGM. I am extremely grateful for the support given by my happy band of panel members, some of whom have been on panels for many years, and will miss them very much, but after twenty- five years or so, one gets set in one’s ways and it is time for a fresh approach to take over.