City of Winchester Trust
  • kingalf
  • cathedral
  • roundtable
  • westgate
  • guildhall
  • wolsey
  • stcross
  • library



Planning Applications


Some of the most important and influential work of the Trust is in its appraisal of planning applications. The Trust makes carefully considered comments on planning applications taking into account the Planning Policies, the context of the proposal and the effect on its surroundings. To review Planning Applications, the Trust has four Viewing Panels, each with a lay chairman, an architect (normally retired) and two further lay members. The Viewing Panels have written guidelines and check list.

One of the Panels meets each week in the City Planning Office to consider the Planning Applications within the wards of Winchester City and the Panel may also make site visits. The full list of planning applications and the decisions made by the Planning Department are on the Winchester City Council's Website.

The Trust Viewing Panels see between 40 and 60 applications per month, the majority of which are for shop signs, small extensions, conservatories and the like, on which we make no comment. Where we think improvements could be made to the scheme, or it might possibly have a detrimental effect on neighbouring properties, we suggest what might be done to improve it - again, these are usually small relatively uncontroversial proposals. We comment in more detail on the remaining applications, which we feel would have an effect, good or bad, on the immediate area or Winchester as a whole. It is a sad reflection on the standard of design that very few schemes deserve unqualified praise, and consequently most of the applications listed are those to which we have made an objection. The Chairman of the Planning Appraisal Group, Mary Tiles, reports the comments, including any formal objections, to the City Council and, each month to the CWT Council. The monthly reports produced are posted on this website.

The date associated with the applications in the lists on this web site are the dates the application was initially published by Winchester Council Planning Department. The case number is the reference to the application given by Winchester Planning Department. Several of the monthly Planning Reports presented to the Trust Council are shown below.

To explore comments made by the Trust the latest City of Winchester website planning search provides a search facility to find past applications for a property in Winchester and the details include Trust comments.

Update

New Applications

Appeal & Presentation News


4th Sept 2018 Planning Report

Overview
.During August the Trust reviewed 36 applications, objected to 2, commented on 16, and made no comment on 18.
The weekly list system is, at least partially restored. For August though I have relied on searching back at least 6 weeks to find applications we have not reviewed. I think we are pretty much caught up now and if so this means there has been a drop in the number of applications.

Mary Tiles, 02/09/2018


Update

New Applications

Appeal & Presentation News


2nd Oct 2018 Planning Report

Overview
During September the Trust reviewed 28 applications, objected to 3, commented on 12, and made no comment on 13.
I was going to report that the weekly list system has been restored, since there has been one for the past couple of weeks, but not this week unfortunately. In the meantime the number of applications has been down but is gradually picking up.

Mary Tiles 30/09/2018


Update

New Applications

Appeal & Presentation News


Nov 2018 Planning Report

Overview
During October we reviewed 34 applications, objected to 3, commented on 18, and made no comment on 18.
Several applications of interest were decided at the meeting of the Planning Committee held on 31 October. The major item was the new Leisure Centre at Bar End, which was approved by 6 to 1 with 1 abstention. There were few negative comments on the actual architectural work; in fact it was clear that the building has been designed to achieve the highest environmental standards (BREAM excellent) compatible with the brief. There was some criticism of fact that there will be no more indoor court space than currently provided at River Park. There was considerable discussion of the fact that, because of the much expanded swimming pool provision and the increase in the overall size of the building, while carbon dioxide emissions per square metre would be 27% lower than at River Park, the total carbon dioxide emissions would be 35% greater than those of River Park. The question of offsetting the additional emissions was discussed but no commitment was made. Drainage may be an issue at the site because despite assurance to the contrary it was revealed that currently local groups periodically clear a critical culvert which is on HCC land (just outside the Garrison ground). HCC assured they would take responsibility for keeping it clear. Almost everyone whose spoke (this included Councillors and other objectors including CWT) was critical of the transport and access plans and some felt that it was premature to bring the proposal forward at this stage because there were many missed opportunities and because the movement strategy is due to be made public in mid-November. The pedestrian and cycle access routes have not been fully thought out; access by public transport is currently inadequate and nothing seems to have been done to improve it, so inevitably people will be using their cars. There were also concerns about opening hours and as a result these have now been reduced from 5am-12am to 5am - 11pm.
Other applications of interest to the Trust were discussed in the afternoon session. 30 Clifton Road had submitted a new application after an unsuccessful appeal against refusal of the previous application, which had included extension of the front bay window down to the basement level. The revised proposal was for a much more modest light well, with a separate bicycle store. Pre-application advice had been taken and followed. We had not objected since we thought it a reasonable response to the comments from the Planning Inspectorate. None of those who wrote objection letters had registered to speak. The application was allowed.
As mentioned above, the application for a sui generis HMO at 34 Chalk Ridge was approved much to the consternation of neighbours who spoke to me as I was leaving the meeting (since we had objected). Some of their objections concern the impact of HMO's on a residential neighbourhood and others concerned the impact on parking (already a problem). This case highlights the fact that having Article 4 notices regarding HMO's in some areas (Stanmore and Winnall) only serves to drive the problem to others. There really needs to be an overarching policy for Winchester. Parking regulations may also need review. HMO's and student accommodation currently are not subject to the same requirements as residential buildings, yet they can attract just as many cars if there are no explicit policies or conditions to prevent tenants bringing cars with them. If the building at Chalk Ridge were being divided into one-bedroom flats the current policy would require there to be at least 7 parking places, whereas in this case there are less than 3 (currently parking 3 cars spills over to a neighbour).

Mary Tiles, 02/11/2018


Update

New Applications

Appeal & Presentation News