logo



The Winchester Area Local Plan - TrustNews April 1985

The Trust has submitted a closely argued and very detailed commentary on the recently published WALP. We cannot reprint it all in this Newsletter, but our response to the central issues is described in the following article. A copy of the full submission has been deposited in the Heritage Centre – ask for it at the reception desk.

The Planners and the Public

The Local Plan published in January is the fruit of over eight years of draft planning and public consultation. Those cynical of public participation exercises may be surprised to realise just how much notice has been taken of the opinions of the Trust and others who, without great expectation of being noticed, have doggedly made the effort to say what kind of Winchester we want. It should also be recognised that the changes in the Plan have required a good deal of responsiveness, integrity and courage on the part of the Planning Officers.

The Choices

The Trust, two years ago (but in effect since 1957) framed the planning choice for Winchester: "Either the City adjusts to the demands of the motor car or the motor car adjusts to the needs of Winchester." As long as it remained a planning goal to increase economic activity in the centre this policy dictated one of two strategies: either increase highway capacity and parking provision, or increase the accessibility of the centre for people (rather than cars) by providing an efficient public transport system. The conventional highway strategy would have simply deferred the problem until traffic reached capacity again, but at the price of severe damage to the fabric of the City. So it is an enormous relief that the Local Plan has at last abandoned this approach. The second, so–called "alternative" strategy was an unknown quantity which has also been abandoned, after a superficial investigation rather than the serious study advocated by the Trust.

A third option was always possible – that of restraint – but only if it were first accepted that conservation was more important than further economic growth. This was the strategy described as "safe" by the Trust, and it is the choice which has now been made by the Plan. Winchester's physical size is to be restrained by development control and the traffic in the centre restrained by limiting car parking.

The Consequences

The restraint of traffic will carry the penalty of a limited economy, though we may hope that some economic growth will occur by evolution to a less car–dependent form of shopping. Also the traffic will increase somewhat because the Plan proposes to limit parking provision at a rather higher level than at present. We should not, therefore, expect that this Plan will improve Winchester very much – in fact conditions will probably become a little worse.

Nonetheless, we can welcome the Plan as progressive because it removes major threats, (hitherto draft Plans would have led to significant deterioration in the environmental quality of the City) and we are inclined to see it more positively, as a good basis for real progress.

The Myths

One of the supplementary reports of this Plan is a comparative study of other historic towns. It is an antidote to certain popular but dangerous myths: "Winchester is very badly off for central car parking; parking in Winchester is inordinately expensive; the economy of Winchester will die without cheaper, easier parking." Those of us charged with pondering major planning matters for the Trust have long maintained that these sentiments were misconceptions, but have felt out on a limb when faced with the strongly held views of the planners, sections of the public, and even some members of the Trust.

But the comparative study now settles the matter by showing Winchester to have more central parking (per head of population) than any other of the 26 towns mentioned. Furthermore, a town such as Hereford can be quite healthy economically with only a ninth of Winchester's parking provision!

The Costs

The Trust has always been concerned to analyse, where possible, the costs and benefits of policy and, in relation to car parking, we had concluded that economically and environmentally the costs of parking provision are not borne directly by those who reap the benefits. The true cost of parking provision is not covered by revenue (which barely covers the collection costs) and we keep asking why this should be so.

The question is particularly important where policy concerning related matters is subjected to cost analysis. Another supplementary document of the Plan attempts to evaluate financially a rudimentary Park and Ride scheme without reference to costs of central car parking provision. This scheme is not, incidentally, anything like the "alternative strategy" which it purports to be and which the Trust wished to see investigated.

The Future

The Trust has expressed the hope that such matters will be taken more seriously and that a proper cost/benefit framework can be set up, within which certain experimental improvements in the City may be tested. Now that the major engineering solutions to the City's traffic problems are forsworn, the Trust need no longer espouse the radical alternative and can return to its often stated preference for the incremental approach to improvement. The aim of the radical alternative, however, with its promise of extending the environ¬mental and economic success of pedestrian¬isation without choking the streets with traffic, is one we would still wish to be pursued. Thus we hope to see a gradual experimentation with removing central car parking provision and increasing access by improved public transport.

Winchester could have been a pioneer in access planning, but a safer path has been chosen. The Plan may be over cautious to the extent that traffic problems in the center will make the City somewhat less attractive than it is at the moment, but with a commitment to try and tackle those problems at root, Winchester's life should be significantly (if gradually) improved. Such a commitment on the part of the Planners will need not only the persistent lobbying of the Trust, but the support of an informed public. We must all accept that cakes are not to be kept and eaten! If we are to have a worthwhile improvement in the environmental quality of Winchester we may have to accept a certain loss of individual convenience and freedom of action.

Michael Carden & Chris Gillham