Development Control - TrustNews Summer 1993
The next year or so will see many of Winchester's open spaces disappearing under bricks and mortar. Some of these developments will be welcome, since they will be replacing unsightly semi-derelict areas, such as the two sites to the north of the Heritage Centre. The disappearance of the UBM warehouse has never been regretted, and the intimate character of Upper Brook Street should benefit greatly once there are buildings of a domestic scale on both sides of the road. The original scheme on the UBM site was for social housing and had an unassuming design that suited the simplicity of the terrace opposite; the site has subsequently been acquired by a more commercial concern, and sadly the features being added to make the new scheme more up-market have resulted in a loss of earlier no-nonsense style to one that is less characteristic of the district.
The density of both the developments on the Upper Brook Street is high, which is acceptable in the surroundings in which they are located. A similar opinion was reached by the Inspector of the appeal about the development in the garden of 35 Wharf Hill to which the City objected, and this scheme can now go ahead. While it may be sad that the open space of this garden has been lost, the slightly lower density of the second scheme, although still high, seems appropriate for the eastern side of the river on which the site is located.
Another high density scheme re-appearing in the applications is an amended scheme for the Lower Peninsular Barracks. This is another site where it would be good to see some action, though not necessarily exactly as currently proposed. The Trust welcomes the reduced allocation of office floorspace in the Garrison Church area (there will now be no extension to the church itself and no new Garrison Mews building facing onto Southgate Street) and the reduction of car-parking this brings, and also the fact that no underground parking is included in the amended scheme. It is now proposed that the public car parking should be located at the southern end of the upper Peninsular Barracks site, with access from Southgate Street through the lower barracks site. Two options for this have been suggested: for two levels of 46 and 54 spaces that would require little alteration to the existing topography, or for a two-storey carpark with 100 spaces on each floor, which would be very much more environmentally damaging, especially to St. James Lane. Although this parking is supposedly only for visitors to the museums on the upper barracks site, the Trust has reason to believe that it is being considered as part of the parking provision for the City Centre and objects strongly to any such public car parking on either the upper or the lower site, since both are within the central area of the City. To want public parking here is a hang-over from a previous scenario that is now out of date. St Cross Road and Southgate Street already suffer the consequences of too many vehicles, and although the traffic generated by office development and the 127 residential units might just be accommodated by the capacity of the existing roads, can they really be expected to cope with the additional 200+ trips (in and out) or possibly 400+ journeys that would be generated by this public car parking? The Trust thinks not.
Amended plans for yet another large scheme with a high density have just been submitted. It is disappointing that although the detailing of the new houses proposed for the grounds of West Downs School appears more acceptable than the previous scheme, the layout and general style remain the same: a grid of straight roads incorporating a formal square and crescent, with buildings of supposedly classic style. Neither the layout nor the style of the houses has any relationship with the existing Listed Building, which might be on a different planet for all the notice that has been taken of it. For this and the reasons set out in the last newsletter, the Trust considers such an approach inappropriate for this unique site and mourns the opportunity that could have been lost. Here was a chance to establish a community that could have included a central communal area and perhaps even some local shops to act as the focal point of the development: what is proposed is a rather an arid area of formal housing set in a landscape that is largely composed of hardstanding to accommodate the specified 3 parking spaces per house, with any communal land appearing to be placed in area not thought suitable for housing. We will continue to object to this scheme.
The old football ground in Airlie Road -
a much needed oasis of green in an area of high density housing
High density is also the order of the day on what was once the football pitch in Airlie Road, a plot that regretfully the City did not feel it could acquire when it first went on sale. So, instead of a much needed oasis of green in an area of high density housing, we are to have yet more of the same, with only a strip of land for public use running the length of the railway boundary of the site, which will at least give pedestrians unhindered access from St James Lane to Airlie Road. Admittedly the style of the housing is different, being the standard developer-type housing both informally laid out and is what apparently the most desirable current selling feature, a formal square. As with the West Downs scheme, this has period-style terraces with incongruously incorporated garages and is not a true square with similar buildings on all four sides. In this instance, one terrace (Type G with integral garages) gives the impression of being a mixture of two standard models, since the ground floor bears no relationship at all to the upper storeys, which seem almost identical to those of terrace Type F that has no garaging.
The feeling that new developments are being generated (it is impossible to say they have been designed) from standard computer programmes arises from extraordinarily similar styles appearing in the houses at Airlie Road and at Kings School, Romsey Road, where high density housing with a disastrous layout is proposed. Both have houses with similar plans, onto which differing external elevations have been imposed with varying degrees of success, and similar architecturally-dubious developments can be seen in many other places.
In the right hands Computer Aided Design (CAD) should be beneficial for the designers of our buildings. but the evidence is that the operators of such programmes have no understanding of the principles on which the design concepts are based. Why else are the houses already built at Berwick Field a mongrel-mix that includes Elizabethan half timbering, 'leaded' windows and Georgian-style porticoes, or the proposed terrace at Airlie Road have a ground floor that bears no relationship to the fenestration of the floors above?
It is a regrettable fact that current legislation means that the City's Planning Department has little control over the design of developments outside Conservation Areas, and less than might be desired within them. As a result it is currently very difficult to influence the design of developers' schemes, especially as architecturally uncksuable features seem to have become a big selling point We should perhaps therefore be grateful at the withdrawal of the scheme to build three large and ungainly blocks on the north side of Petersfield Road that was discussed in the Winter 1992 Newsletter.
It would be delightful if the same could be said about the proposed Tesco supermarket at Bar End, but as readers of the local papers will be onty too aware, this is now going to appeal because the local authorities have failed to reach a decision within the statutory period of eight weeks. This approach into the City is a rare attribute that should be cherished because so many of the components common to entrances into many similar cities are missing: an industrial estate, large commercial development, a suburb of new housing. There is an industrial/commercial component here, it is unobtrusively sited and Winchester still has a rare entrance into its centre: from the green fields into housing typical of a city centre, then over the City Bridge into the heart of the city. The Trust considers the preservation of this unique approach into Winchester should be reason enough to resist the Tesco development at Bar End; it is however also extremely concerned about the additional traffic that would be generated in the ancient narrow routes into the city, Chesil Street and City Bridge. It is claimed that a large proportion of the shoppers at the new store will come from Winchester itself, as well as from places made accessible by the M3, and it hoped locally that the latter will then extend their trip by visiting the specialist shops of the city centre. Theoretically visitors to Winchester would make use of the Park & Ride facilities at Bar End and should therefore add little to the traffic into the town center, but the Trust has considerable fears that Chesil Street and City Bridge could suffer considerable environmental damage because this would be the main route for all Winchester residents shopping at the Tesco Bar End superstore. Given the commercial muscle of Tesco, this is clearly going to be a difficult battle for our financially embarrassed City Council, who will need to get all the help they can get.
It is therefore hoped that all members supporting the Trust's objection will take the time to make their views clear by writing to their member of parliament and local councillors because these protests could be of great value as evidence at an appeal. There is only one Winchester and if we care about its character we should do all that we can to preserve it.