Letters from/to Rosemary Poole - TrustNews Sep 18
We are printing a letter to Michael Carden from Rosemary Poo/e (a member of long standing), to which he replied at such length that he felt the correspondence might be of interest to members, perhaps encouraging others to join the debate, with which Rosemary agreed.
Dear Michael,
l was relieved to read your letter to the Chronicle a couple of weeks ago with your view that not only Winchester’s centre should be protected but also its surroundings. Sadly, I feel that with Barton Farm already a reality (a horrid one in my opinion) there is now such a precedent that it will be difficult to argue for other similar spaces to be protected. Regarding the station area, l am pleased that the old pub building has been saved but l am sad that the parking area adjacent to it should be sacrificed for offices. Indeed l think the area in front of the station should have been left as it is so as to give the station building its proper prominence. The Cattle Market space on the other hand, being away from the station and on that sad, ugly stretch of the Andover Road had l suppose, to be sacri?ced for the greater good. Could there perhaps be a moratorium on glass buildings as well as a height restriction? l feel that a glass building would signal the beginning of the end for a town like Winchester - l believe it would only take just one to start the ‘Basingstokisation' process to begin. Winchester is bursting at the seams, even before the Christmas Market. Where on earth are all these new office workers going to live, and how will the roads in and out of Winchester cope with the extra traffic? You did say in your letter why you thought some development was necessary but l am nevertheless sad that with its history and the bonus of income from tourism Winchester could not be given special heritage status and protection from further growth.
Best wishes. Rosemary.
Dear Rosemary,
lt is always a pleasure to get an email from you because your concerns are so similar to mine in many ways but generally provoke me reply at length! This time to try and explain why the Trust cannot, indeed should not attempt to stop the clock as you would like. Arresting development and preventing change at an arbitrary date is ‘presentation’ whereas we believe in ‘conservation’ which is expertly and sensitively managing change. The Trust has debated its purpose again and again over the years. A long time ago l remember Barbara Carpenter Turner (a founder member and at the time our President) asking a public meeting what on earth this new word “conservation” meant; “presentation" was our purpose, she said. The meaning of both words has been clarified since then, so that preservation is what you do with old manuscripts, Roman ruins, Wellington's boots and so forth - it would actually be a crime to do anything more than carefully present such things. ln contrast most buildings and even more so towns are living things, which change with the changing needs of the times though hopefully without losing their essential character. That is why the Trust changed its name, because we realised an essential element of Winchester’s character is change itself. ln any case, even if you wanted to, you couldn’t stop it: roads are no longer muddy tracks, trains and then cars were invented, not to mention drains and electricity, and the population of the nation grows along with its fashions and aspirations. The effects of these irreversible changes have always worried people and frequently caused controversy. What the Trust attempts to achieve is management of these changes so that, ideally, they enhance the character of Winchester, but it is not always possible to achieve this, so at the very least we attempt to influence the authorities, the developers and drivers so that change does as little harm to the fundamental character of the place as possible.
Having set out my stall, here are my comments on your points in the order you make them:
- The importance of the setting to the character of Winchester: we have always held this to be true and a few years ago published a beautifully illustrated and well argued case for limiting external growth, with the title Winchester and its Setting - l hope you have a copy, if not it is available at the Heritage Centre.
- Barton Farm an undesirable precedent: agreed, but the Government decreed that provincial towns should take some of the national demand for more housing, and our strategic planning authorities (County and City) selected the area north of the City, but not before the City carried out a very thorough analysis of where would do the least harm. We would rather national planning was more subtle in respecting special places, but that is not something we can in?uence and, given the inevitable addition of 2000 houses, we believe the landscape department, after careful research, did well in recommending Barton Farm as the least harmful site. We argued and failed, however, to persuade the authorities to make the development much more dense - like the neighbouring (and popular) areas of Hyde - so that the land-take could have been halved and the development far more sustainable. The days of sprawling estates should be long gone.
- Carfax area development: internal regeneration of areas not contributing much to the City's needs are better places to accommodate pressure for growth than the countryside, and the Station Approach area is a good example. But, as we pointed out at the time, to copy Basingstoke in such areas is not managing change as it should be in Winchester! The brief is what matters most and WCC‘s first brief insisted on far too much development (along with other mistakes brought about by lack of experience because such big projects are a totally new experience to the authorities). Second time round and with the RlBA’s help (a CWT request) things are a lot better (some of our other requests have been taken into account: the retention of the pub building opposite the station, and general reduction in scale have been accepted), but there are still dangers of over-development and what we believe is mismanagement (or misunderstanding) of traffic and parking.
- Glass buildings: l wouldn’t impose a moratorium on them, but instead would concentrate on their design: one of our recent glassiest buildings, the extension of the Discoveiy Centre, is l believe a good example of design. So is the cathedral, come to that - the proportion of glass to solid wall is amazing, but no one complains because of the design. Andrew Rutter recently showed me his veiy damning drawings of a development proposed some years ago for the railway sidings along Chesil Street. It was to have been a large layer cake of strong horizontal lines. lt would have been far less in-character and much more imposing than the newly built care home. No question this could have been more in character by design, but not by building a fake 19th century building. In time I think it will be regarded as an improvement on the car park.
- Bursting at the seams and space for traffic: I think I covered this in my letter to the Chronicle. If we go on enlarging Winchester, the core area and the setting will have to undergo what the Trust believes to be unacceptable change. I think there must be a limit. Have you seen the old centre of Le Mans by any chance? It is quite delightful, beautifully presented, but no longer part of that large city, just a lovely museum piece that few even know exits. But if limited to careful regeneration and even more careful external growth, intelligently managed and appropriately designed, I think, further development and growth can continue without losing the character of Winchester. But I don't see how it could continue indefinitely, and I agree with you that some form of Heritage Status for certain special towns is necessary, just as special buildings are listed to prevent their loss to posterity
On this last point I attach a paper* I originally wrote for the Trust in 2004, and which received critical support at a meeting of ‘The Good and the Great’. But it was too early - the Civic Trust and the Government dismissed it as unworkable. I am very pleased to say that a very similar idea is now being pursued by the Canterbury Society and others, and gaining more support.
Very best wishes, Michael
* Michael's paper, updated in 2013, was printed in TrustNews in December 2014. It is in the TrustNews archive: go to www.cityotwinchestertrustco.uk and in the search box type Heritage Town Status.