Development Control - TrustNews Spring 1993
A fact that members may not appreciate is what a long time an application can take to wend its way through the planning system, especially when there are environmental problems or differences of opinion between the applicant and the local authorities. For example, of the nine schemes discussed in our newsletter a year ago, four are still outstanding: three awaiting appeals to be heard (35 Wharf Hill, Petersfield Road and Pick fords Depository, St Paul's Hill) and, not surprisingly, the vast development on the Peninsula Barracks site, which is still under discussion.
The appeals system can sometimes take a very long time, especially when a Public Inquiry is sought; decisions made after an Informal Hearing or by Written Representation are usually processed more quickly. Two appeals mentioned in our last newsletter were both decided by Written Representation, which may be why the decisions have already been made.
The second appeal made by Wyatts of Winchester to erect a free-standing sign on the brow of the hill in Bar End Road was dismissed, and the garage has now put in yet another application for what seems to be a virtually identical sign; the Trust again objected and the City again refused permission. Seeing how tenacious the applicants seem to be no one will be surprised if they make yet another appeal, in which case the Trust will write yet another letter supporting the City's refusal.
As was thought possible, the Diocese of Winchester did go to appeal with their second application to turn the garden of 9 The Close into a car parking area. Both appeals were heard together and were decisively dismissed by the Inspector who, amongst other comments, stated that he agreed with the Winchester Preservation Trust that the argument put forward was specious since, in the absence of stringent control of existing parking in The Close, to increase the amount of parking space would increase both the number of parked cars and the vehicular activity within The Close. It is good to know that the effort that goes into composing appeal letters is not totally wasted!
Not all appeals go the way the Trust would wish, however. In April last year the Abbey National applied for a change of use from retail to financial and professional services at 118-121 High Street. We objected to this because we considered the Pentice stretch of the High Street should remain dedicated to retail use and so avoid having the blank windows typical of building societies. The City refused permission on the grounds that the change of use was contrary to the Local Plan because of the loss of existing retail floorspace in the primary shopping area for an additional service for which there was no overriding justification. The Inspector allowed the appeal on the grounds that there is an over-abundance of retail floorspace in Winchester, no external alterations would be made, and the City's objection was based on an out-dated development plan that did not take recent national policy statements into account. It was also said that permission in this case would not therefore be a precedent for any other proposal which "by itself or cumulatively, would be harmful".
The Trust is not so sure that this is in fact true. There is an appeal by the Woolwich Building Society against a refusal for a similar change of use at 131/132 High Street currently awaiting a decision, and we have written supporting the City's view and expressing our concern in the light of the Abbey National decision. One of our main worries is that in the same week as the Woolwich made their application, the Halifax Building Society applied for a similar change of use in the adjacent 129 High Street, which was also refused. An appeal against this refusal may well also be made (or already be in the pipeline), and the Trust fears that if the Woolwich appeal is allowed a precedent with harmful cumulative affects would indeed have been set, and one that would also be difficult to oppose in the future.
At first sight these proposed changes of use seem attractive because they would generate activity in the High Street in premises that would otherwise remain empty. But this could be the siren voice of short-term expediency. No one can deny that, due to recession and the construction of The Brooks, at present Winchester has plenty of floorspace available for both offices and shops in the central Conservation Area. Equally, whatever the national policy may be, it is difficult to deny that for the pedestrian the windows of building societies (like those of the ubiquitous estate agent) are less interesting to look at than those of shops with window displays. The centre of Winchester already suffers from the consequences of the City's lack of legal control to influence the type of outlet and the Trust would argue that as change of use is one of the few controls still remaining to the Local Authority, this type of occupancy should be resisted lest the floodgates open and a tide of building societies and other financial services engulf the High Street.
The appearance of Romsey Road looks set for a fair amount of change in the future. The most immediate is likely to be at H M Prison, where major alterations are to be undertaken. The laundry, kitchen and store blocks are to be located within the existing prison walls and will therefore impinge very little on the Winchester scene, but the remaining development, being outside the prison walls, will have a considerable affect on the neighbourhood. These include the re-alignment of the western boundary wall, new staff and visitor waiting centres, and a three-storey entry building. The original scheme had two components that were very unsatisfactory: the new western wall, which encroached to an alarming extent on the privacy of the houses in Nursery Gardens and Greenhill Close, and the new staff centre, which was to be placed on land outside the prison walls at the extreme eastern end of the Romsey Road frontage of the prison where it would be very prominent. After consultations with the City a more acceptable layout has been presented, with a redesigned entry building allowing greater space between the wall and Nursery Gardens, and the staff centre re-located at the western end of the frontage in place of the present car park. The Trust does however have considerable reservations about the design of both the visitor waiting centre and the staff centre. The intention is that the former should have a friendly domestic scale, but a single-storey building of indifferent design crouching by the prison walls in front of a three-storey building is more reminiscent of a garden-shed than the house that was intended. The choice of a mainly glazed southern elevation for the staff centre seems strange, since the outlook is only onto the hospital buildings on the other side of the road. No details were given about the type of glass or fenestration that would be used, but being a sizable building situated close to the boundary with the road it would obviously have a dominating influence on Romsey Road, whether the facade consisted of ordinary clear glass (probably with an assortment of blinds or curtains to keep the sun out) or had the blank stare of solar-responsive or mirror glass.
Listed Buildings at West Downs School
The execution of the other proposed Romsey Road scheme is more remote in this time of recession. This is a major development at West Downs School where it is proposed that the existing Listed Buildings should be converted (the school and master's lodge into flats and houses, and the chapel and hall for community use) and that 70 new dwellings should be built in the grounds. Members of the Trust's Council and Development Control Committee much appreciated the presentation of the scheme they were given by the architect and his instructive guided tour of the site helped them to understand the complexities of the variety of levels found on the site. On the whole the proposed treatment of the Listed Buildings was found acceptable, although concern was raised at the evident deterioration of the fabric resulting from missing guttering and pipework. The opinion of these Trust members was that the layout and style of architecture chosen for the new development were very inappropriate for both Winchester and this extremely unusual and attractive site.
We live in a city that is mainly the product of organic growth rather than conscious design, and a formal layout of squares, terraces and a crescent is more suited to somewhere like Bath or parts of London, although it might be acceptable (though not necessarily desirable) on a central site like Peninsula Barracks. Neo-classical housing may sell well, but the architectural success of classical terraces and houses depends upon their proportions, and these were not designed to incorporate double garaging. On this land-locked site there is no need to blend with the architecture found elsewhere in Winchester, as this scheme purported to do. The design of the development could therefore be innovative or related to the smaller of the adjacent Listed Buildings, provided of course that its style of layout and architecture is more suited to the high level of car parking this scheme requires (three spaces per house in some cases) and makes the most of the site's unique terrain.