Peninsula Barracks - TrustNews May 1989
The Trust's Considered Opinion of the Development Proposals
Michael Carden - Deputy Chairman of the Trust
Introduction
Earlier in the year a small group of members from the Winchester Preservation Trust and the Hampshire Buildings Preservation Trust were invited to visit the Crown Commissioners offices in order to see the schemes of the two developers, who had been selected by them as finalists for the development of the Lower Barracks. The whole Barracks site is to be developed, but the Commissioners had previously decided to deal first with the Lower Barracks as a separate entity. At this meeting we all preferred the Arundell House scheme which has now been selected. However, we did have a number of concerns and reservations about some aspects of the scheme, and these were submitted in detail to the Commissioners in our preliminary written comments last February.
At that time our concerns were cautiously expressed because the opportunity to study the drawings and model and been unavoidably brief. During the exhibition in Serles House at the end of April we were able to spend a little more time looking at the drawings, and had the opportunity of discussing a number of points with the developer's architect. The result has been to reinforce some of our concerns and to modify others. In general we remain favourably impressed by the overall concept and planning approach, but we still feel that it is very important indeed that certain matters are reconsidered and that changes are made before the scheme is put forward for planning approval.
Public Participation
Before describing these concerns, we must say that we consider a four day exhibition to be a hopelessly short time for the public display of a development of national importance and of intimate concern to the people of Winchester. We were assured by the Crown Commissioners that there would be ample time for public involvement and comment, and we shall call upon them to require a further exhibition with at least one weekend included. A comment from a representative of Arundell House that most people who are interested can visit in four working days, casts some doubt on their understanding of public participation. Apart from those who happened to be away for the week in question, there are many who would have been too busy, and probably a large number who missed the announcements that the exhibition was taking place. We understand that the City Council has offered space in the Guildhall, so that accommodation should not be a problem.
It is of the utmost importance that public involvement is at this stage, when changes can still be made. Once detailed drawings have been prepared and applications made, we know from recent experience that it is too late to make adjustments - even those considered desirable by the planners.
The Scheme
In order to avoid lengthy description for those who are not yet familiar with the scheme, we have included a simple plan with a key to the buildings and their uses. The developer's own drawings are attractively produced and cover other matters such as landscaping and the appearance of the buildings.
Planning
We consider it appropriate that the site should be fairly tightly packed with buildings provided that the spaces between them are pleasant, and there is every reason to suppose that this will be the case, as there is excellent potential and a good Landscape Architect has been appointed. We are concerned, however, that Charles House (3) and St Thomas Square (4) appear to be pushed hard against the castle mound. This embankment is the most important historical and landscape feature of the site, separating the high density, small scale development of the town from the larger scale buildings and open areas of the old castle. It should therefore be treated with care and have a landscaped path at its foot from which the bank and trees may be fully appreciated. Siting the back of the new buildings up the bank has resulted in extra height at the front, and we feel this may produce an unsatisfactory relationship with Serles House and St Thomas' Church. We are also doubtful about the siting of the single house between blocks (4) and (5) for similar reasons. Castle Square (8) is also high above ground level on its eastern side, so that it will tower above the old Garrison Church (which is to be retained and converted into houses and offices - not perhaps the best use for it). It is significant that the major buildings which gain this extra height (3, 4 and 8) all have underground parking beneath them, and we would like to be sure that the height is not excessive because of the parking requirements.
Pedestrian and Traffic Routes
The historical structure of Winchester suggests that the basic arrangement for this area should be a north/south road and east/west lanes or alleys. We are pleased that this pattern and been adopted with the reintroduction of the original Gar Street beyond Serles House, and we are further pleased to have learnt that the Architect sees this as a road (in terms of its scale) though not intended for traffic. In our earlier comments we urged that Gar Street should once more continue north to meet the High Street along what is now Trafalgar Street, as it would both enliven this road which sadly deteriorates into Law Court parking, and make a valuable route for pedestrians. The way is presently blocked by back-land belonging to the Southgate Hotel, but we are pleased to hear that our comments appear to have lead to negotiations which could benefit the Hotel as well as the development.
The southern end of Gar Street, on becoming a road for traffic, bends east to link Southgate Street alongside the church. Whether this is the best arrangement is hard to say because any further junction in Southgate Street is bound to cause problems. We can imagine an alternative, making use of the obsolete car-park access by the garage which would result in a cross-roads with a mini-roundabout at the top of St Swithun's Street. This might be preferable to the proposed staggering of the junctions, with traffic lights at the Gar Street turning. It seems to us that this arrangement could result in fearful confusion along this length of Southgate Street, made even worse by the close proximity of the entrance to the church.
The proposed road into the site continues westward through Wellington Square (5) and curves round the southern end of the castle mound with no apparent destination. We believe that this is a requirement in the development brief and could be intended to serve a hotel on the Upper Barracks site; this would mean even more traffic into Southgate Street.
The site is very well provided with pedestrian routes running past and through the buildings, allowing short cuts for outsiders as well as residents. We have some doubts about the main route across the north end of the site which passes between Serles House and the Southgate Hotel under a new building (1), and on up flights of steps between the development and the back of the Law Courts. The Southgate Street entry point seems unnatural and we would have preferred to keep the old Guard House entry at (2), leaving pedestrians with a choice of turning north along Gar Street to reach the narrow stepped path to the Upper Barracks, or south and through Wellington Square to turn right up the more leisurely path which traverses the castle mound. We hope this suggestion will be considered as it would also place the entry point closer to the top of St Thomas' Passage.
Parking Provision
The Trust is very strongly opposed to the provision of any parking on the site in excess of the needs of the residents. The developers were, however, obliged by the brief to include 100 extra spaces to serve visitors to the Museums on the Upper Barracks site, and 200 further spaces for general public parking. We believe this to be a serious over-loading of the development - more parking for outsiders than for the residents themselves - but even worse, evidence of a fatal misunderstanding of Winchester's traffic problems. Analysis has shown that traffic congestion in central Winchester is caused by the number of vehicles with destinations in the city (not those passing through it), and it is therefore irresponsible to provide additional car-parking which can only be reached by already over-crowded central area roads. It is believed that parking and traffic policy for the City is under review, and this out-dated proposal for public carparking must be abandoned before it becomes another regretted commitment.
As for the Museum car-parking spaces, if these are really necessary, they should be located on the Upper Barracks site, alongside the Museums, where amongst other factors they could be more adequately supervised. It is by no means impossible to make surface car-parks attractive places if properly landscaped, and there is plenty of room on the upper site. Anyone who imagines that underground parking at the foot of a steep slope will help attract tourists to the museum complex has really not thought about it properly.
Coordination
In our submission to the Crown Commissioners we urged the appointment of an architect-coordinator for both sites, because we feared that the separation of the two areas into developments taking place at different times could lead to unfortunate anomalies and missed opportunities. We believe that this ridiculous parking proposal and the lack of conviction in the layout of the pedestrian and vehicle links between the two sites prove our point. We are impressed by the skill of the architects for the Lower Barracks site, but they are bound to fail to make the best of these matters if the Upper Barracks planning is not considered at the same time.
Architecture
The evaluation of the buildings as seen at the exhibition are to some extent misleading, because they are enlargements of small scale sketches. The general impression is attractive but closer study reveals some worrying details and a rather toyland atmosphere which is one of the hallmarks of poor classical pastiche, as practised by inexpert followers of fashion. The Architect is well aware of this problem of presentation and, with his several years of experience in classical design, he promises that there is no need to worry. We understand that he has a good track record and await with interest the next stage of the design.
Only one of the buildings, Castle Mews (1), seems to be wrongly conceived; its Southgate Street elevation sits uncomfortably beside the hotel, upsetting and over-dominating its well balanced facade. This could have something to do with the awkwardness imposed by a pedestrian entrance at this point. It was agreed that there was a strong case for reconsidering this building, especially in the light of the negotiations with the hotel owners.
Building Uses
We find the basic allocation of uses acceptable, except for our earlier comments about the use of the Garrison Church for offices and housing when its open volume might be better used for something else, and our opposition to multi-storey underground parking. We also share the concern with others about the likely house values and the lack of provision for the less expensive homes which are so badly needed in Winchester.
It is not economically viable for a developer to purchase a site of this kind and fill it with cheap houses, but there is a case for some element of planning gain to the City. We would argue that instead of lumbering the developer with an excessive and undesirable parking requirement, the City Council should require a proportion of low cost homes administered by a Housing Association, thus ensuring a permanent mix of house values on the site.
Peninsula Barracks site