Planning Appraisal Group - TrustNews Dec 18
The group has continued to see a lower number of applications than in the recent past (now averaging just over 30 per month). The weekly list system, which covers the whole district, not just Winchester Town, has recently been restored after continued problems over the summer. It can be time consuming to put together this list because it is not easy to pull from the planning website used by the City.
You will doubtless already have read that the new Leisure Centre at Bar End (approved by 6 to 1 with 1 abstention) passed through the Planning Committee held on 31 October. There were few negative comments on the actual architectural work; in fact it was clear that the building has been designed to achieve the highest environmental standards (BREAM excellent) compatible with the brief. The Trust had given positive, constructive feedback on this part of the project accepting that, given what it is required to house, it was inevitably going to be something of a large box, albeit one that, to judge from models of views from a variety of strategic points, will have less impact on the visual environment than might have been anticipated. There was some criticism from sports groups of the fact that there will be no more indoor court space than currently provided at River Park. There was considerable discussion of the fact that, because of the much expanded swimming pool provision and the increase in the overall size of the building, while carbon dioxide emissions per square metre would be lower than at River Park, the total carbon dioxide emissions would be considerably greater. Drainage issues were also mentioned. Almost everyone whose spoke (this included Councillors and other objectors including the Trust) was critical of the transport and access plans especially because the movement strategy is due to be made public in mid-November. The pedestrian and cycle access routes have not been fully thought out; access by public transport is currently inadequate and nothing seems to have been done to improve it, so inevitably people will be using their cars.
Other applications of interest to the Trust were decided at this meeting of the Planning Committee. 30 Clifton Road had submitted a new application after an unsuccessful appeal against refusal of the previous application, which had included extension of the front bay window down to the basement level. The revised proposal was for a much more modest light well, with a separate bicycle store. Pre-application advice had been taken and followed. We had not objected since we thought it a reasonable response to the comments from the Planning Inspectorate. None of those who wrote objection letters had registered to speak. The application was allowed.
An application for a sui generis HMO at 34 Chalk Ridge was approved, much to the consternation of neighbours. Some of their objections concern the impact of HMOs on a residential neighbourhood and others concerned the impact on parking (already a problem in this area). This case highlights the fact that having Article 4 notices regarding HMOs in some areas (Stanmore and Winnall) only serves to drive the problem to others. There really needs to be an overarching policy on HMOs for Winchester. On parking, as has previously been mentioned HMOs and student accommodation currently are not subject to the same requirements as residential buildings, yet they can attract just as many cars if there are no explicit policies or conditions to prevent tenants bringing cars with them. lf the building at Chalk Ridge were being divided into one-bedroom flats the current policy would suggest there should be at least 7 parking places, whereas in this case there are less than 2.5. lt is not clear how this can be made a planning matter but the whole issue of parking and parking provision should really be integrated with whatever comes out of the Movement Strategy.
We have been notified of two application refusals that have gone to appeal. That at 24 Quarry Road was for construction of 2 dwellings with associated access from Petersfield Road. This was appealed on the grounds that policies referred to in the refusal had in fact been were complied with (clearly a matter of legal interpretation) and that the proposals would make a positive contribution to the street scene. The Trust had not objected but thought this was a more practical development for a tricky site than the scheme previously approved (14/01162/FUL). We supported both the reduction from 3 to 2 houses, and the reduction from 5 to 4 floors as being more appropriate for the site. The St Giles Hill Residents‘ Association objected. That for Dashwood House, Sleepers Hill, to which we had objected because we felt that the proposed building was too large for the land available given the number of trees on the site, which would both be affected by and affect (by shading) any new building. The proposal is for a 8-storey (and thus quite prominent) building that makes few concessions to the cramped site or the character of the neighbourhood. The WCC refusal was based on similar grounds. Ln the grounds for appeal it is stated that no weight should be given to the Sleepers Hill Area Design Statement 2007 and the claim is made that the proposed building would not be out ot keeping with the area. So this might be something of a test case for the status of historically incorporated Area Design Statements.
Members and Public Comments
The Trust welcomes informative comments from local people, but must avoid being influenced by vested interests or personal matters. Individuals who believe their interests are being threatened by proposed schemes are advised to contact their Ward Councillors, who have more influence over such matters. lf you would like to see details of Trust objections to planning applications and their fate, please go to the monthly PAG reports on our website.