logo



Planning Appraisal Group - TrustNews Jun 16

Development on Chilbolton Avenue continues to be controversial. There are now appeals pending for two sites - 15 and 29. The appeal statement in regard to 29 Chilbolton Avenue is a very lengthy and detailed document that seeks (among other things) to undermine, on legal grounds, the status of CALADS and any other Supplementary Planning Documents as a basis for refusal of planning permission. If these arguments are upheld, developers would be able to challenge any refusal of a planning application that made reference to one of the LADS (Local Area Design Statements) as ground for refusal. LADS are Supplementary Panning Documents and the status of such documents as compared to Neighbourhood Plans when it comes to appeals has been a topic of discussion at Trust Council meetings in connection with the City Council's quest for a way forward after the Silver Hill debacle. The problem with neighbourhood plans, particularly for a complex urban area such as the centre of Winchester, is the difficulty of setting up a process, its cost and the length of time it would take; it might be out of date before it was finished.

Another application which has raised policy issues is an application from a private developer to demolish four houses, 178-184 Greenhill Road, (currently rented to students) and replace them with two substantial 3- and 4- storey blocks accommodating 161 students. Given the expansion of Winchester University and other educational institutions there is pressure for student accommodation and the City needs a strategy for managing this. But in this instance we felt the proposed development would have a significantly negative impact on residential amenity of the surrounding area. We were concerned that, since this is not being proposed or managed by the University, but by a private developer, the restriction to tenants without cars might be difficult to enforce.

Linden Homes’ quest to develop land at Pitt Farm is ongoing. The City Council has received an amended outline application for development of the site at Pitt Farm (350 dwellings). The amendments are mostly to increase provision for traffic in the immediate vicinity of the site, but we are not convinced that these measures will go far to alleviate the traffic problems that would be caused once the traffic reaches Romsey Road. Building on such a green-field site, together with its associated traffic measures, would basically extend the City’s settlement boundary and alter an important part of its character and setting. For these reasons, together with those stated in our response to the previous version, we have lodged a strongly worded objection to the proposal. Linden Homes clearly hopes to win at appeal on the basis of a claim about future housing need for Winchester given the stalling of development at Barton Farm. It is to be hoped that Cala Homes and Winchester College can before long reach an agreement over the required transfer of land so that building can proceed on that site.

Mary Tiles