Development Control - TrustNews Summer 1992
South Western Inn, Station Hill
The event that has probably caused the widest and deepest ripples in Winchester during the past six months occurred in January, when the Hampshire County Council acquired the South Western Inn, Station Hill. The emotions of local residents and commuters ran high and its loss as a public house was much bewailed. The Trust also regretted the social loss, but its main concern was whether the County Council was considering its demolition in connection with the construction of the Record Office on the adjoining site. If this were the case, there would be no way of stopping its destruction, for planning regulations allow the County to grant itself permission to do virtually anything it wants (as had happened with the placing of the new Record Office on the Carfax site) and nothing the City Council could do would be able to prevent it. The Trust therefore attempted to get the building listed because, being the only other period building remaining on Station Hill, it is of considerable visual and historical importance to the station. However, the Department of the Environment decided, on the advice of English Heritage, that the building did not fulfil their listing criteria and would not therefore be added to the statutory list. The County Council has stated that there is no intention of demolishing the South Western Inn, and has subsequently applied to change it into offices. The Trust has objected to this change of use on the grounds that there is more need for a pub here than for yet more offices. Another cause of excitement is the YMCA's current outlinew application to demolish its present building at Weeke and to build a Youth and Community Centre at 10 Dean Lane, with ancillary accommodation and thirty bed-sits and warden's flat, together with fourteen two-bedroom houses in three blocks and twenty one-bedroom flats in two blocks. The County Council standard of two car-parking spaces per dwelling means that the high density of this scheme requires so much land for parking that there would be insufficient space left on the site for most of the field games that take place here at present. This loss and the extra traffic that would be generated in the already busy Dean Lane have resulted in a storm of objections (including those of the Trust), and the scheme has been deferred so that investigations and consultations can take place. The YMCA's experience shows that the provision of 0.5 car space per bed-sitter is adequate; the Trust agrees with this view and would also argue against the County Council requirement that two spaces are necessary for a one-bedroom flat. With the changing attitudes on using cars with more restraint in cities, surely the time has now come to allow an easing of the two-car per dwelling parking low requirement?
A development in St Swithun Street is another scheme that has given rise to public comment. The proposal is that No 3 St Swithun Street, the house next to Kingsgate Church, should be refurbished and taken back into residential use, while the adjoining workshops should be demolished to make way for a new house. It is also proposed that the Taplins premises should be demolished and a terrace of three new houses built in its place, at Nos 4a, 4b and 4c St Swithun Street. The outcry arose when it was discovered that the roof of the terrace replacing Taplins was going to be higher than the existing roof, with the result that residents in Canon Street would lose their view of the Cathedral. The proposed new buildings are thoughtfully designed to respect their more ancient neighbours, and the architect concerned has been very responsive to comments made by the City Council officers, the Trust and the local residents. This has led to a series of alterations to the original scheme, and the Trust is grateful to have been supplied with drawings of the amendments, since this has allowed us to update our comments on the planning appli¬cation; the third version is now under consideration.
The effect of the car continues to make its mark on Winchester, both in queues of tailed-back traffic and in desolate areas dedicated to parking. The latter is all too obvious in the latest scheme for 75-79 Eastgate Street, which has recently got planning permission. The design of the present scheme is more acceptable than previously, with fewer flats in the new residential building which has also been moved away from the river bank to the Eastgate Street boundary of the site. It is intended that the veterinary surgery should extend from the Mildmay building into the adjoining house, where the plan is to take away the old Fads shop window and to reinstate the building's original facade (a very welcome step). The previous application had included underground parking but the reduced density of the new scheme means that this is no longer necessary and conse¬quently all parking will now be located in the area between the buildings and the river bank, where a wall will be built to screen them from the view of those on the opposite bank. A lost opportunity for this part of the river bank, situated as it is opposite the much visited island garden of the National Trust's City Bridge.
The garden behind No.9 The Close.
An application for car parking here has been made
Coping with the car is also causing problems in the Cathedral Close, as anyone walking there will be aware. An application was made in the middle of last year to turn the garden of 9 The Close into a car parking area. The Trust objected to this proposed transformation of a green garden into a barren parking area and the application was refused by the City; the matter subsequently went to appeal. The Trust's Development Control and Landscape Committees wrote a joint letter to the Depart¬ment of the Environment, supporting the City's reasons for refusal, since we feel strongly that the aim should be not to provide additional parking but to institute a more rigorous control of the cars already parking there - in places that used to be forbidden in former years. A second similar application has recently been made. The Trust has again objected, and the City has again refused permission. We wait to see whether there will be a second appeal.
It is very much to be regretted that another garden, that of 5 Newburgh Street on the corner of Upper High Street, has been lost to car parking. It had been a welcome green oasis, with a hedge, trees, shrubs and rambling wisteria that drew the eye away from the nearby unlovely drill hall; it also had what appeared to be the original railings, gate and brick wall and piers. All are now gone, and although the low wall and railings have been replaced, their colouring and design leave much to be desired. Some new trees and roses have also been planted, but are an inadequate replacement for what was there before, and worst of all, the area available for planting has been considerably reduced to provide parking space for up to four cars. The fact that the only remaining proper front garden in the street has vanished overnight is upsetting; that the removal of trees was done without permission in a Conservation Area is very disturbing, for an undesirable precedent has been set for the future that bodes ill for successful planning controls in other sensitive parts of the City.
A similar disregard for planning control was shown by the Citroen garage in Bar End Road, now known as Wyatts of Winchester. In March last year permission was sought for a new fascia and a large free-standing sign in the form of a totem pole sited on the pavement boundary of the forecourt, both of which had already been installed. The Trust objected to the intrusive totem pole, which was very uncharacteristic of this largely residential part of the road and stuck out like a sore thumb because of its position near the brow of the hill. The application was refused, and in August a similar one was made. This was also refused by the City, and the matter went to appeal in October, with the Trust writing in support of the City's refusal. The appeal was subsequently dismissed, but it was not until legal action was threatened that the offending totem pole was eventually taken away. Another application, for a differently shaped, but just as intrusive sign (because of its size, colour, illumination and proposed position on the pavement boundary) is now going through the system. One again the Trust has objected, the City has refused permission and an appeal has been lodged; the Trust has again written supporting the City's refusal and a decision is now being made by the Department of the Environment. For the sake of this important route into Winchester, let us hope that this second appeal is also dismissed.