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 three Viewing Panels, each with a lay chairman, an architect (normally retired) and two further lay members. The Viewing Panels have written guidelines.


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 50 and 80 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 of the weekly report in which the application was initially published by Winchester Council Planning Department. The reference number defines the actual building or location and the case number is the reference to the application. 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


7th March 2017 Planning Report

Overview
During February we reviewed 45 applications, objected to 5, commented on 16 , and made no comment on 24.
As mentioned at the February Council meeting, Julian Harvey, one of our long serving PAG chairs is in the process of stepping down (he will be doing two more reviews). We are really grateful for the service (he has given over the years, but as with development in Winchester, change is not all bad and we are very pleased that Sue Owers has agreed to take over as a panel chair, after serving on a panel for several years.
Panel chairs and I had a lunch last Thursday where Sue was able to ask questions and where we were able to share views. There was some feedback about PAG Guidelines. In particular clarity is sought about the scope of comments.


Mary Tiles 01/03/17


Update

New Applications

Appeal & Presentation News


11th April 2017 Planning Report

Overview
During March we reviewed 40 applications, objected to 5, commented on 14 , and made no comment on 21. A letter has been senrt (under the Chairman's name) regarding the appeal against the refusal of permission for the development at Vale Farm, Pitt.
It will be noticed that a number of our recent objections concern “dormers”. Michael Carden supplied the following a propos of one of these: 'The dictionary description of a dormer is “a small window with a gable, projecting from a sloping roof”, nothing like the proposed structure which projects over the whole roof.' We are increasingly seeing application for such large “dormers”, which really are not dormers but amount to the addition of a whole floor to the top of a house. The SPD 'High Quality Places' adopted by WCC in 2015 has the following to say on dormers:
8.27 Dormer windows need to be well designed, which normally relies on ensuring that they are not over scaled and do not dominate the roof. The detailing also needs to be good quality and the materials need to be well related to the existing roof.
8.28 In particular, box dormers are nearly always over scaled and unsympathetic to the character of the host building.
8.29 Dormers need to be well related to the existing fenestration on the building (for example by lining up with the existing windows, or being centrally located between existing windows).
This guidance is what our panels have sought to implement, but it is at odds with the central government document on permitted development. Perhaps our panels should be thinking in terms of 'roof extensions' where the guidance in the SPD is
8.32 In some instances the whole roof is extended. Such designs need to relate successfully to the retained part of the building, and the roof should not become overly dominant in relation to the existing building or excessively prominent in the street scene.M
Permitted development policy, which refers to roof alterations rather than to dormers and is what WCC planners have to work with, has a volume allowance that is very generous but there is insistence that “the materials used in any exterior work shall be of a similar appearance to those used in the construction of the exterior of the existing dwelling/house”. This does raise a question about the status of the SPD.

Mary Tiles 03/04/17


Update

New Applications

Appeal & Presentation News


2nd May 2017 Planning Report

Overview
During April we reviewed 32 applications, objected to 3, commented on 13 , and made no comment on 10. Easter, unsurprisingly, seems to have created a pause in the flow of applications.
I did receive a phone call from the case officer for the Barton Farm Application letting me know the the information about the signs and their size had mistakenly been coded so as not to be visible to the public, but when I checked later it was still not visible. Knowing the style of the NFU signs it was not likely to be objectionable.
The case of 180 Greenhill Road raises a policy issue. Our panels seem to feel that it is better both for Winchester and the students to house them in relatively high density purpose built accommodation rather than consuming more and more of Winchester's conventional housing provision through conversion to HMOs, but do not think the Greenhill Road is the right site. If there is going to be increased demand for student housing, there does need to be a way of finding and agreeing appropriate sites and perhaps determining who should be responsible for the housing provision.

Mary Tiles 30/04/17


Update

New Applications

Appeal & Presentation News