Development Control - TrustNews Winter 1992
Although recession may not yet be over, development schemes seem to be on the move once more, albeit rather slowly. The original planning applications for the Peninsula Barracks lower site have been withdrawn, and a revised scheme has been put forward. This was presented to the Trust by members of the City's Planning Department, and the reduced density of 127 (from 142) residential units was welcomed, since this left space for more satisfactory landscaping. Many of the Trust's suggestions for improving the previous scheme have been included, so it is not surprising that members found it generally more acceptable. It was however felt that the architectural styles of the blocks tended to vie for dominance, rather than acting as foils for each other, and that this could have an overpowering effect in such a large development. Serles Place, the office building that is to replace the existing guardhouse, was considered too intrusive in both size and design for its sensitive position next to Serles House, and it was felt that the design of Castle Crescent should be simpler and more in sympathy with the elegant terrace it will face across St James Lane.
The effect of the proposed car park and the additional traffic generated remains the main concern of the Trust. It is proposed that the 100 underground parking spaces will only be used by visitors to museums on the Upper Barracks site; the Trust questions this usage because of its location near Will Shorts garage, which is a considerable (up-hill) distance from the museums, and the difficulties of monitoring who actually parks there. Presumably those with disabled badges will be allocated parking spaces on the Upper Barracks, but members felt that visitors with walking problems would be better served by space in the Tower Street car park or, better still, by being delivered to the museum door by bus, having left their cars in a perimeter car park under a Park & Ride scheme. There was considerable concern over the extra traffic this public car park would add to the already congested Southgate Street, where traffic lights are to be installed at the junction with the entrance into the site, between the two churches, Garrison and St Thomas. The applicants have made the assumption that cars going into the city centre will have clear onward passage from the lights (users of the road will know that even out of peak periods traffic can back up beyond this point); it is also claimed that cars otherwise planning to park in the centre will be diverted to the new car park (as it is only for visitors to the museums, these drivers should not be using it in any case). Members were also worried about the effect the new lights would have on the St Swithun Street junction. This car park has been described as a peripheral one because it is outside the central gyratory traffic system; to anyone living or working in Winchester it is as central as Tower Street (and not up a hill) and closer in than Chesil Street. The Trust feels strongly that this proposed new car park is out of step with current thinking and could prejudice the future success of a Park & Ride scheme, and has therefore objected to this aspect of the application.
There have also been several other housing development applications, of course all much smaller than the vast Barracks proposals. There is a revised scheme for low-cost housing on the former UBM site, Upper Brook Street, where it is proposed to build twelve terraced houses in three blocks, together with a semi-detached house adjoining the existing Victorian house fronting onto the street. The unassuming style of this development is a considerable improvement on the design of the original scheme, although there are some reservations about the style of the windows proposed for the building adjoining the Victorian house. A planning bonus is that the County Council standard of two car-parking spaces per dwelling has been waived because of the central position of this development.
Unfortunately the same waiver was not part of another scheme in Wharf Hill. In company with ten others, the Trust objected to a development proposed for 35 Wharf Hill and its garden, where it was intended to build three semi-detached dwellings, one detached house and a block of two flats, as well as an extension to the existing house. This was considered much too high a density for this restricted site, where the buildings and car-parking requirements occupied virtually all the available land, leaving very little space for landscaping and raising the possibility of surface run-off causing pollution in the neighbouring River Itchen. The treatment proposed for the existing house and the design of the new buildings were also thought inappropriate and out of character for this sensitive location. The scheme was withdrawn before a decision was reached by the Local Authority.
The same parking drawback is apparent in an outline application for a site on the corner of Andover and Boscabel Roads. Here the proposal is to build a block containing four flats and a maisonette, and while the Trust welcomed the removal of the unsightly advertising hoardings that would result from this development, the vast barren area allocated for car-parking was very much disliked. Flats require a disproportionate amount of land for car-parking, and it was felt that none should be permitted on this site. A planning decision on this application is still awaited.
The site on the hill to the north of Petersfield Road is once again under consideration. Several large houses have already been built on this hillside and, with one exception, their stances are rather reminiscent of surprised rabbits sitting up to see across the valley, mainly due to their siting on the hill and the fact that their garages are placed beneath them. Permission to build houses of a similar type has already been granted for this site, but this latest application is for three blocks of what are described as 'invaluable low-cost units to the benefit of the area'. They mostly consist of two-bedroom flats, with a few one-bedroom and studio flats, and one block also incorporates snooker areas, a gym, solarium and recreation hall. It was therefore difficult to equate the description with the scheme, which seemed to be neither low cost nor of much value to the local citizenry, who would presumably be excluded from the amenities by the electrically-controlled gates fitted to the entrances of all the blocks. Like the houses, the three blocks would incorporate their garaging in the basement area, but as they are proposed to have another three storeys, compared with the two of the houses, and would also be very much more bulky, they would seem very tall and towering to anyone on the Petersfield Road below, and it was felt that their vast roofscapes would be very visible from across the valley. The design of the blocks was uninspiring, and in one case upsetting (mock Tudor was considered very inappropriate for this location!), and made very unsympathetic use of the hilly terrain. The Trust objected to this application, and would prefer a scheme with a lower density, housed in longer, lower blocks that were designed to fit into the contours of the hill. This would seem to be a good opportunity for some interesting modern architecture and it was wondered whether the developer could be persuaded to organise an architectural competition for the design of this scheme.
Two recent external refurbishments proposed for existing buildings provide interesting contrasts of approach. One was for the former Pickfords Depository, St Paul's Hill, which is to be upgraded by a hi-tech firm for light industrial, office and storage use. The change of use was welcomed by the Trust, but there were considerable reservations about the external 'improvements' proposed for the building. These consisted of a predominantly neoclassical treatment of the facade which, combined with an overabundance of decorative features and windows of uncharacteristic art decco design, lost the air of lightness possessed by the original building. The Trust objected to the proposed alterations and hoped that more of the building's original character could be retained; a decision on this scheme has still to be made. The other was a scheme to refurbish the elevations and roof of a 1960s building at 21 Hyde Street. While in principle the hanging of a complete neo-period facade onto a more recent building gives rise to some concern, this scheme appears to have been well considered, with proper attention to appropriate details and proportions. Permission to go ahead has been given for this scheme.
Many of the other applications considered during this period related to signs and shopfronts proposed for establishments in Winchester by their national head offices. A prime example of this was the application made by Fortecrest, Paternoster Row (ex Wessex Hotel): here it was obvious that 'Head Office' had provided this scheme for the proposed signs without any reference to either the requirements of an historic city or to the unique siting of the hotel in such close proximity to the Cathedral. The Trust objected to this application, which was refused by the Local Authority.
As well as the weekly vetting of planning applications in the City, the Development Control Committee carries out a variety of other activities. During the past few months these have included the distribution of Shopfronts: Advertisements in Historic Towns, the publication of The English Historic Towns Forum that was mentioned in the last newsletter. The Trust has purchased a number of these booklets, and members of the committee have been distributing copies selectively within the City centre shopping area. A response has also been made to a request by the Chief Planning Officer to comment on how these guidelines related to Winchester, and consequently how the City Council's own 1976 draft policy on signs and shopfronts should be amended.
Another activity has been the recording of the interior of Century House, Jewry Street. The gutting of the building considered essential to make it suitable for modern usage has already been approved, and ready co-operation was given by the owners, who granted interested members of the Trust access to photograph the interiors for posterity before they are dismantled.