TrustNews March 2020
Chairman’s Jottings
Station Approach
As I am sure everybody is by now well aware, the City of Winchester Trust overturned the outline planning permission granted by Winchester City Council for 17,500 sq.m. of offices on the Carfax site (Station Approach). The planning permission was challenged via a Judicial Review on five grounds and the City Council consented to the quashing of the planning permission on one of them, that is that the Council failed to consider the effect of the proposed development on the setting of listed buildings, St Paul’s Church, and the views from St Catherine’s Hill.
Some of our other concerns with the scheme are:-
The existing, attractive Gladstone Street terrace scale of housing was likely to lose much of its character by being overpowered by a wall of offices opposite, exacerbated by the car park position, which both enters and leaves the underground car park from Gladstone Street.
The overpowering of the County Record Office.
The way in which the development was likely to be procured seemed to relinquish much of the control over the aesthetics and size of the buildings, as the site was to be sold with outline planning consent only, the only control being via a long City Council-held leasehold clause.
We were of course aware that the WCC application reacted to previous comments from various quarters by lowering the height by two metres and by reducing car numbers, but this did not alleviate fundamental problems as set out above.
Much of what could be achieved might well be resolved by following the adopted Local Plan which sets out what a developer should consider for Station Approach. The reference for this in the Local Plan Part 2 document is Policy WIN6 .
We recognise that with some councillors and WCC officers, the City of Winchester Trust is considered a reactionary body of people who object to initiatives and that our reaction to the Station Approach application crosses the co-operation line. In fact, we would encourage development on Station Approach, but development that relates in scale and is in sympathy with central Winchester which we have argued is not the case at present.
We have also been accused of ‘losing’ the local authority a £5 million grant to undertake work to the public areas of Station Approach. It seems to us that to build an overpowering block in a prominent position which can be seen across the bowl in which the City Centre conservation area is sited, and is likely to be there for many years to come, is a result that is not a desirable outcome. Consideration of the historic core of Winchester should come first – why, because people visit and want to live and work in Winchester, and they all come with great expectations. Expectations are more than Winchester’s history, it is the way in which the built environment is configured which contributes to our appreciation and enjoyment of a place. The style of architecture and grandeur of buildings is secondary to a successful urban space often articulated by quite modest buildings.
So, the impact of a large block on the upper tip of the City’s conservation area should contribute to the visual delight of much of Winchester by complementing, adding and linking such development to the existing townscape.
Keith Leaman
reorganisation
The new year brings in a new way in which the Trust is organised. The way we are undertaking the reorganisation is not really new – the process we are adopting is, as probably many of you will be aware, widely used by many other organisations. Reorganisation will allow us to involve more members to help with much of the work that the Trust undertakes. We have arranged the Trust into various groups, each of which becomes responsible for the various activities we promote or in which we take part. With this explanation, we indicate with our organogram how the new system should work. As I have already indicated, we are hoping that members who are interested in contributing towards a particular group activity will come forward, as we now have a vehicle to accommodate them. If you have any questions or wish to volunteer, please contact our secretary, Tessa Robertson, at secretary@cityofwinchestertrust.co.uk.
Keith Leaman
Planning the built environment
There have been three publications issued which are worth reading:
• ‘Living with Beauty’, the report of the Building Better, Building Beautiful Commission (see article page 15).
• Planning report by the Policy Exchange think tank;
• Manifesto by the Civic Voice organisation of which we are a member (see article page 15).
All these reports revolve around how to deliver a better system of improving the way in which the built environment is delivered, coincidentally all three documents have been published at roughly the same time, and all three documents can be accessed via the web.
The reports consider that the current planning system, which is now 70 years old, is no longer fit for purpose; this is exacerbated by a lack of resources and expertise in many local authorities. The current planning system very often impedes the delivery of innovative, well-considered design solutions.
The government was responsible for promoting two of the publications, however one does wonder whether the departments and ministers concerned do read them and then act positively in a way that would encourage vastly improved creative results in order to achieve distinctiveness in schemes which are built for everybody’s delight and satisfaction.
One of the main growth areas are housing estates. Most lack any sense of community. The reports home in on the planning system that delivers these projects, and suggests ways the government could encourage the quality and visual delight of schemes. However we are now on our tenth Housing Minister since 2010; they never seem to be in post long enough to grasp an understanding of a creaking planning system which does need an overhaul.
Keith Leaman
Planning Appraisal Group
There is always a period over Christmas and New Year when the number of applications coming in to be reviewed slows to a trickle, and this year was no exception. However, the New Year brings pay back time. I think we have now caught up and are seeing 2020 applications coming through.
We have not recently objected to many applications, although we have tried to make constructive suggestions for modifications in several cases, especially those for large extensions which threaten loss of light to neighbouring gardens. We do also try to hold the line on shop frontages. 5 Southgate Street is one example where we objected to the initial proposal to put in an expanse of plate glass. Historic Environment Officers agreed that there was a need for stall risers (bases to the windows) and a more traditional look. The approved drawings have been significantly revised to conform with these suggestions. We also in general object if there is a proposal to put illuminated signs (whether projecting or in the window) on the High Street.
We encountered LDP (Lawful Development Certificate for Proposed Use) applications for poorly designed large ‘sheds on the roof’ which yet again demonstrate the deleterious effects of permitted development. These applications are determined on a purely legal basis on which we cannot comment. The question is simply whether what is proposed is within the definition of what is permitted.
Another application which raised a concern that our panel was not really able to address was 6 Woodpeckers Drive (19/02677/ FUL). This is an application from Alfred Homes to demolish the existing house and replace with four new houses. This is the same company that has been doing other developments on adjoining sites in Weeke (including Meadowlands). Our panel expressed concern at the piecemeal way in which three adjoining sites had been acquired by the same developer within a relatively short timescale and put forward for separate planning approvals while linking the sites. The developers are linking the designs for individual houses, but their approach means that access, landscaping, car parking and other issues cannot be considered as a coherent whole. No doubt it also has an impact on other aspects, such as contributions to affordable housing and CIL. The planning authority was asked to consider whether these really are separate sites and whether they should be dealt with separately, although as things stand this seems to be quite possible.
Previously we alerted you to an issue concerning nitrate levels in the Solent, something you may also have seen discussed in the Hampshire Chronicle as a result of complaints from smaller local developers negatively impacted by delays in planning permission. This has had implications for Winchester District among others. WCC has held back on a significant number of planning cases and has now issued a paper outlining its position. This is a lengthy document and one which leaves me with a far from clear understanding of the Council’s position. It does seem clear that the whole of Winchester District (excluding the South Downs National Park) is implicated. It is also clear that part of the problem is the mixed messages coming from central government – a requirement of nitrogen neutrality from Natural England, a no change policy from the Department of the Environment (which includes not imposing higher standards on sewage treatment works) and no let up on the housing push. This leaves planning authorities in the affected region in a difficult position. WCC has requested clarification from central government, but in the meantime has faced pressure from small developers to develop an interim policy, which is what we now have. This basically seems to place an additional obligation on developers who will have to address this issue in their planning application before it can be approved. It also places an additional responsibility on those reviewing documentation. The additional condition to be attached to any planning permission for new development would be:
“The development hereby permitted shall not be occupied until:
“A water efficiency calculation which demonstrates that no more than 105 litres of water per person per day shall be consumed within the development, and this calculation has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. [2016 Building Regulations require ≤125 litres per person per day of potable water. Sustainable homes level 3-4 requires ≤105 l/p/day, level 4 requires ≤90 l/p/day.]
“A mitigation package addressing the additional nutrient input arising from the development has been submitted to, and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Such mitigation package shall address all of the additional nutrient load imposed on protected European sites by the development when fully occupied and shall allow the Local Planning Authority to ascertain on the basis of the best available scientific evidence that such additional nutrient loading will not have an adverse effect on the integrity of the protected European Sites, having regard to the conservation objectives for those sites; and
“All measures forming part of that mitigation secured along with an implementation strategy agreed with the Local Planning Authority.” Reason: To accord with the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017, and Policy CP11, CP16 and CP21 of the Winchester District Local Plan Part 1.”
The wording of the proposed condition will need to be reviewed to ensure it is legally effective bearing in mind the policy tests for conditions outlined above. For sites on agricultural land that are nitrogen neutral, or in other circumstances, alternative conditions or Section 106 legal agreement may be required depending on the circumstances in each case.
In addition WCC proposes to develop an avoidance and mitigation package to assist applicants, and this will include reviewing the scope for additional water use reduction measures in WCC owned housing stock. It promises to work with partners to identify opportunities to secure agricultural land de-commissioning (which can be used for offsetting) if the developer has no other means of meeting the requirement. There will be a fee for this service.
Finally, I received a request from PAG panel members to provide an annual summary of the number of cases in which their objections had any impact. So I did take a look at 2019. This turned out to be much more complicated than I had anticipated so this is just a very preliminary report (where the numbers don’t quite add up!). The reason it is quite hard to work out is because of the delay between our comments and a decision being made on an application; this can be quick or it can be quite a long time. To get a more accurate picture I should really analyse all the applications that start with 19/... and see what the decision was, but until this week we were still reviewing those applications. So please take this as a very rough estimate.
In 2019 we reviewed 462 applications, objected to 79, commented on 159 and made no comment on 224.
So in 2019 we objected to just under 16% of applications (but some of these were holdovers from 2018).
Of these: 12 were refused; 10 were allowed after modifications; 19 were allowed; 10 were withdrawn. There are currently at least 20 undecided cases where we had objected. I know the numbers don’t quite add up and will do another analysis once all the 19/... cases have been decided.
Mary Tiles
Members and Public Comments
The Trust welcomes informative comments from local people, but must avoid being influenced by vested interests or personal matters. Individuals who believe their interests are being threatened by proposed schemes are advised to contact their Ward Councillors, who have more influence over such matters. If you would like to see details of Trust objections to planning applications and their fate, please go to the monthly PAG reports on our website.
Trust visits 2020
Members are invited to apply for three visits which have been arranged for this summer: a coach trip to Greenwich on Tuesday 19 May, a trip to Salisbury on Thursday 4 June and a coach trip to the painted churches of Hampshire and West Sussex on Wednesday 8 July. Flyers with application forms are enclosed with this issue of TrustNews. Numbers are strictly limited by the venues and, as always, places are allocated in order of receipt of applications. A visit has also been arranged to the Edward Barnsley Workshop at Steep. This is to take place on 13th March so was announced by e-mail. It is heavily over-subscribed, so we hope to arrange another visit in the autumn.
Lessons for Winchester from Main Street America
The Heritage Trust Network (HTN) is an umbrella body for 300+ groups, and some individuals, concerned with building conservation. It evolved some three years ago from the Association of Preservation Trusts, and the majority of its members are still building preservation trusts, bodies dedicated to the rescue, repair and reuse of what are fondly called the basket cases, the historic buildings for which there is no other solution. The success record is long and proud – examples can be found on the HTN website: heritagetrustnetwork.org.uk Each year HTN holds a national conference, rotating, as it covers the whole of the UK, around the four countries. Last year the conference was held in Derry/Londonderry, and hosted by the remarkable Inner City Trust, set up in the 1970s to mitigate some of the worst damage of the Troubles. The title, cleverly and appropriately, was Heritage Transforming Neighbourhoods, and the keynote speaker was the remarkable Professor Ed McMahon, from Main Street America. What he had to say was not only highly relevant to the attendees but also to civic bodies like the City of Winchester Trust.
Main Street America is not, as I’d supposed, a body aiming to counter the effects of Wall Street (“Main Street, not Wall Street” being a slogan following the crash of Lehman Brothers and the subsequent massive bail-outs) but a body established by the National Trust for Historic Preservation in 1980. Its mission, they say, is to “lead a movement committed to strengthening communities through preservation-based economic development in older and historic downtowns and neighbourhood commercial districts”. Working with a nationwide network of coordinating programs and local communities, Main Street has helped over 2,000 communities across the country bring economic vitality back downtown, while celebrating their historic character, and bringing communities together. I could write pages about what Professor McMahon said in his presentation, but will restrict myself to some particularly significant quotes.
“It is a mistake to think that economic revival is always about “the one big thing.” America’s communities are littered with projects that were sold as the “silver bullet” solution to a city’s economic woes. Whether it was a festival marketplace, a convention centre, a casino, a new factory or a big box store out on the highway, locality after locality has followed the copycat logic of big project mania. However, successful economic development is rarely about the one big thing. More frequently, it is about lots of smaller things working synergistically together in a plan that makes sense. Main Street demonstrates the power of small.”
“Twenty-first century economic development focuses on what a community has, rather than what it doesn’t have. Too many communities spend all their time and money on business recruitment. They build an industrial park and then try like crazy to attract a plant, factory or distribution centre to move there. The few communities that are successful at this strategy usually accomplish it by giving away the store.”
“All development is not created equal. Some development projects will make a community a better place to live, work and visit. Other projects will not. The biggest impediment to better development in many communities is a fear of saying “no” to anything. In my experience, communities that set low standards, or no standards, will compete to the bottom. On the other hand, communities that set high standards will compete to the top. This is because they know that if they say no to bad development, they will always get better development in its place.”
“If you design a community around cars, you get more cars, but if you design a community around people you get more people and better places.”
It was an inspiring presentation; I doubt there was a delegate there who didn’t go home vowing to make their own community a better, more people-centred, place.
Professor McMahon has also written about tourism, in the journal LandWrites. He asks, “If a destination becomes too crowded, too commercial, or too much like every other place, then why should tourists bother to go there?” The first of his Ten Principles for Responsible Tourism is “Preserve and restore historic buildings and landscapes.” When Historic England reports over 200m heritage-related trips to England alone in 2018, worth over £17bn*, it’s hard to argue with the professor.
Judith Martin
* from Heritage Counts: Heritage and the Economy, 2019
planning coach tour
On Friday 4 October Penny Patton and I boarded the coach for WCC’s annual planning department tour of recent developments. This year the focus was on the North of Winchester District, next year it will be the South. Having a focus makes sense since the district is quite large. Our first stop was in Sutton Scotney at what used to be the station yard. The planning application (16/00999/FUL) was permitted in 2016 after going to the Planning Committee. It allowed construction of 27 residential dwellings with associated access, parking and landscaping. Just two of the dwellings were designated as affordable. It has to be said that the overall impression created by harshly red brick topped by lots of black timber was pretty depressing. We did not feel that this was a good fit with the village context. This development is next to the recent development at Taylors Yard which fits into the scene very much more appropriately – many of those houses are rendered. There were a few solar panels, but nothing like the quantity that are going to be required. There seemed to be very little in the way of porches or places to leave buggies or bicycles. The paved surfaces were said to be permeable to reduce the need for drainage. Sutton Scotney does not have mains sewers or mains gas so the buildings are heated by LPG, with centrally located tanks. The sewage treatment plant was fairly odorous at the time of our visit – we do not know whether it is adequately sized for the development. The pedestrian connections to Sutton Scotney and to the surgery next door were good.
Our second stop was in King’s Worthy at the controversial Lovedon Lane development. (15/01624/FUL, permitted 29.01.2016). This was for the erection of 50 dwellings with comprehensive landscape works to include the expansion of Eversley Park and enhancement of its facilities. The development was only permitted because benefits were promised to the Kings Worthy community and the story has not had a happy ending. The developer has run out of money so that the promised landscaping has not really been completed and none of the benefits promised to King’s Worthy have been delivered. The site still has the air of a building site. It was said that this is due as much to mismanagement as to actual lack of financial resources. On the other hand the houses are all built and are really well designed both inside and out and use what we felt was a much more pleasing pallet (certainly less hard on the eyes). The development as whole is pretty discrete compared to others that we visited. They show what should be happening with solar panelling, i.e. covering the whole roof. The roofs of garages have been used to provide private decking space and the garages are spacious enough to handle cars plus provide significant storage. It is a pity that this development has not delivered on all its promises because it gives a bad impression of the viability of sustainable housing.
The next stop was in Alresford at The Dean, the new McCarthy & Stone extra care scheme (18/00985/FUL, permitted 13.08.2018). This was built by Warwick Bros (Alresford) Ltd. It was redevelopment of a brown-field site and involved the erection of a three storey building. The exterior is unashamedly modern and is quite well designed except perhaps for the rather prominent rail on the roof line which health and safety must have insisted on for maintenance workers going up there. It is much better than the pastiche styles of those McCarthy & Stone homes which try to look older. But as with most McCarthy & Stone developments they have tried to crowd the site by building pretty much to the boundaries. There is some pretty standard landscaping and too little parking. The interior is very much like a hotel. There is a buggy store with recharging points which is good and the development is only a short, not intensively trafficked, walk from Alresford High Street.
Our final stop before lunch was also in Alresford at the Long Barn (19/00619/ FUL, permitted 18.07.2019 as a somewhat controversial committee decision which upset many of the traders actually in Alresford). One can see why town centre traders would have been against the development which included very considerable extensions. The Long Barn used to be a place to go for lavender products and not much else; now it is a place to go for almost anything else providing it is upmarket, expensive and on trend. There is a cafe/restaurant with clothes and jewellery sold alongside plants and plants pots. There is lots of space for parking. The owners claim it actually benefits the high street, but it is a bit hard to see how.
After a lunch at the Cart and Horses, London Road, King’s Worthy, which succeeded in excluding greenery, we went on in the rain to pay a visit to Kings Barton. Phases 1A and 1B of the Barton Farm site were permitted in 2014 and the build-out has been slow. The total was for 423 dwellings (200 in phase 1A and 223 in phase 1B). This was an opportunity to see what it is like now that more has been built. It was raining quite hard, so we may not have had the best impression, but it still seemed pretty bleak. A wider variety of styles of houses has been built although all with the aggressive red brick and black timber.
Again there is a dearth of solar panels, decent porches for buggy or cycle storage and no cycle hoops for short term stays. Indeed for some of the affordable homes there did not seem to be any way to access the shed (supposed to be for cycle storage) without taking the bike (or push chair) through the house. The landscaping is minimal although it can be said that those trees that have been planted will grow eventually. We could see (from a distance) that the construction of the school is underway.
Our final stop was at one of those buildings which one does not realise is even there on a street which passes unnoticed because it is so close to the traffic lights by the railway station. This was Victoria House on Victoria Road (14/00667/FUL (New Homes Delivery) permitted after going to planning committee 23.07.2014). It involved demolition of an existing building and redevelopment comprising 11 one bed flats and 7 two bed flats, basement car park incorporating bin and cycle stores in block A and 9 two bed flats in block B with an associated communal area. The blocks are not very noticeable – i.e. they fit in well with the neighbourhood, which includes a Victorian terrace opposite.
This is all affordable housing, much of it for rent. There is very adequate, secure cycle storage and a small communal garden. Parking is underground. In contrast to the private developments this one had mostly been very well thought through. We did go into one of the flats and one peculiar detail was that the very large bathroom included no plumbing for a washing machine, which instead had to be squeezed into the very tight kitchen space. This was a one-bedroom flat with a very large bedroom.
Overall it was an interesting view of how developments turn out and of the problems that can arise after planning permission has been granted.
Mary Tiles
design - an essay
Design – an essay “Ceci n’est pas une définition.” This non-visual paraphrase on Rene Magritte’s famous painting of a pipe is probably about as close as one can get to a definition of what Design might be. We use and abuse the word Design constantly and further colour and confuse it by preempting any meaning it may have to suit visual prejudices, especially by value judgements, i.e. ‘good’ Design, ‘bad’ Design. The word Design itself, in our context of a euro-centric culture, originally stems from artists’ early attempts at formulating precepts that eventually elevated the creative process beyond craftsmen’s workshop practices. During the Early Renaissance, Handbooks and Treatises proliferated as artists desired to have Art put on a parallel with the Liberal Arts that included science and mathematics, so making it an intellectual pursuit as well as a creative one. The words disegno, colorito, compositione and inventione proscribed the principal creative guidelines, and of these disegno was deemed the more important since it revealed the artist’s creativity when Idea and Form would become manifest through drawing. Art was then not so narrowly defined: it was a multidisciplinary activity that included artefacts, building and writing: Leon Battista Alberti (1404–72) is a good example of this new breed of artists; architecture also became known as the ‘mother of all arts’, signifying a body that housed all aspects. The styles developed from this period persisted into the eighteenth century, remaining mainly in the classical canon bar changes in taste and fashion. The Industrial Revolution, however, became the most effective catalyst for change because of innovations in engineering, social migration and growing commercial wealth. These factors contributed towards our notion of Design as we see it today. Those early beginnings of mass production made possible through mechanization demanded variety and novelty due to growing consumerism and ever-changing popular taste. An earlier euro-centric culture now absorbed new forms, new ideas from very different cultures through increased trade in the colonies and empire giving rise to a form of multi-culturalism expressed in the manufactured arts and demand for these was assured through the publication of illustrated catalogues. But the availability of cheap, decorative objets d’art engendered also imitations that corrupted the artistic integrity of established manufacturers in fabrics, glass, ceramics and metalwork. Competition among manufacturers was great and the apogee of all this would be seen in the Great Exhibition of 1851 which was intermixed with exhibits from all over the world which set the pattern for International Exhibitions thereafter. The extraordinarily innovative Crystal Palace, a vast pre-fabrication of cast iron and glass was itself an architectural landmark, a culmination of engineering ideas that had developed from the later eighteenth century to meet the fast-growing needs of transport, especially those of the new railway system with the building of bridges, stations, tunnels and viaducts.
In the so-called Age of Enlightenment that preceded these results of the Industrial Revolution, philosophers and scientists explored ideas to embrace aesthetic, social, economic and moral issues that offered a sense direction and purpose, and these in turn began to re-emerge in a more radical way that sought to reform through education and political theory. John Ruskin and William Morris were the influential creative thinkers of this period and their idealistic notions of beauty and design attempted to combat the excesses of Victorian households stuffed with ill-considered decorative bric-a-brac. Their somewhat doctrinal aesthetics were born of a reaction to the spoils of the new mechanized industrial age and were a return to a dream-world of the Middle Ages which became a point of departure for subsequent ideologies, i.e. a return to Nature inspired the Arts and Crafts Movement and out of which came the international Art Nouveau that discarded old historicist approaches, to adopt instead a self-consciously new style that was to be manifested in many guises across Europe and America. With the turn of the century, Europe found itself in a soclo-economic and cultural melting pot. A rapid succession of radical movements, political and artistic, jostled for centre stage; one of the more extreme being the Italian Futurists. Their manifesto glorified new science and technology, advocating the dynamism of modern life with a complete rejection and destruction of past cultural edifices and values, together with all bodies associated with the old order and establishment. The intervention of WWI calmed such youthful endeavours but in Russia spawned a complete revolution which achieved what the Futurists could only dream of. War had accelerated innovation and methods of production that were to be harnessed towards meeting ever-increasing consumerism and its concomitant demand for new ideas and new products. Schools of Art, Architecture and Design that had grown rapidly across Europe and America in the later 19tC now benefitted from a new lease of life tempered by radical post-war creative thinking that sought to replace more traditional methods by theory and practice expressive of and fit for a modern society – most notably, the Bauhaus. A less attractive aspect of this can be sensed from the high moral stance imposed that dictated what was significant and appropriate, and dismissive of those who resisted. Paradoxically, it was the rise of totalitarianism in Europe that in turn labelled the moderns as degenerates and so caused the exodus of artists, designers and architects into the free world, remodelled again by WWll, to perpetuate a continuum of styles which has been constantly changing and developing in a global sense that responds to the pace and demands of life today governed by cybernetics.
One can sense from this all too brief historical vignette that to define Design further would have to take into account innumerable and diverse factors that condition this illusive word, and that a strict definition would be unrealistic and probably misleading. To overcome this dilemma might it be simpler to suggest that we try to understand Design as sensation, not a finite state, something alluded to. This means that Design cannot really be taught as the variables involved are too subtle, like quicksilver, in that they cannot be grasped in didactic terms but only perceived visually, sensationally. Schools of Art, Architecture and Design today certainly are places for learning essential techniques and creative processes but, more importantly, they offer a place for immersion and exposure to collect a wealth of visual experience that forms a personal state of understanding for Art, whatever its outcome. These collective sensibilities combine to form a personal core that directs an elected creative process towards a visual manifestation in Art, Architecture and Design.
To take an example from any one of these areas is inevitably to present a prejudicial value judgement. Our human condition, however, cannot avoid this since it is not in our nature to be super-impartial; we do need to be able to exercise our critical faculties towards an appreciation and understanding of aspects of Design and how these might determine our response to either a building or a planning issue that may arise.
Last year, at the Royal Academy, I saw an extraordinary retrospective exhibition of the work of the architect Renzo Piano. All the galleries were replete with drawings, photographs, videos, engineering models and architectural scale models – breathtaking by their sheer creative brilliance and scope. What most impressed, however, was a darkened centre room that displayed The Renzo Piano Island – it took a little while to take this surprise in – a marvellous conceit of all his projects on an imagined island!
In his architecture there is no one identifiable style; every project is expressed differently, being pertinent to the purpose and function of the building and its spatial context. One can, nevertheless, identify a certain process of conceptualization that cohesively underpins Piano’s creative personality; a lightness of touch that still gives sureness to elegant form and detail with surface materiality employing conscientious ecological technology to determine construction. Since the Centre Georges Pompidou in Paris, completed in 1977, that established his reputation, Piano has been moved to create a bottega, a workshop that encourages a collaborative approach to problem-solving. This is called the Renzo Piano Building Workshop (RPBW) and within this one can sense there being a constant exploration of creative ideas architectural that relentlessly test all configurations and issues that keep their projects alive, to relate vitally to context and place, recreating and to arrive at a unique sense of place – of truly civic buildings.
What makes this Island so relevant in a Design context is that, unlike previous ‘ideal cities’ proposed by architects (pace) there is no suggestion of imposition to dictate the nature or character of the place, for example, Pienza, a delightful mini city built for Pius lI by a pupil of Alberti, Bernardo Rossellino, in 1459–62 that adhered to a new renaissance of architecture. Cities usually emerge organically overtime, adopting changes that add character and uniqueness, something we can enjoy if its urban nature has been sympathetically considered to meet civic human needs.
The Island is not a city, as such – though it could be, as it shows such possibilities that are too often lacking in an ad hoc urban framework. All the buildings were created for specific sites in different countries, societies and environments, some densely urban, some open natural surroundings. Piano has modelled this island plane in relief to be a varied landscape and urban cityscape, that embrace his tremendous range of building types from airports, museums, galleries, cultural centres, medical centres and work and residential areas. These potentially disparate edifices nonetheless share relationships of shape, form, light, shade, texture and spaces that are compatible with each other despite the fact they were conceived years apart and uniquely. This complex configuration presents an aesthetic and spatial dialogue that harmonizes and humanizes these elements of disegno in the prospects provided within the panorama of the urban lslandscape.
To end this essay, I cannot resist paraphrasing once more, and this time from E.H. Gombrich’s ‘Story of Art’ and his two opening sentences: “There is really no such thing as Design. There are only designers.”
To understand better Piano’s ideas, sources and working methods, and the importance he gives disegno, I recommend watching a 45 minute interview he gave, entitled ‘On the Shoulder of Giants’, which can be seen on YouTube. A definitive book written about Renzo Piano is ‘The Art of Making Buildings’, published by the Royal Academy to coincide with his exhibition.
Arthur Morgan
civic voice
The City of Winchester Trust was one of the first members of Civic Voice when it was launched nearly 10 years ago to represent the civic societies of England as a successor to the Civic Trust which was considered to have become too detached and unrepresentative of its members. One of its founding principles was to listen to and express the views of its member societies and it has been faithful in keeping in touch and surveying the membership frequently about the work it should do.
Influencing government
An area of importance to the members is influencing government about planning policies and the way the planning system functions, too often generating opposition and confrontation when significant development is proposed. So, much of Civic Voice’s time is spent in lobbying government ministers and members of parliament through the all party parliamentary group for civic societies which our MP, Steve Brine, agreed to join at the Trust’s request. The growing influence of Civic Voice is indicated by the government’s invitation to be one of the members of the government’s Future High Street Task Force addressing the decline of high streets in England, its role being to provide advice on community engagement (see www.highstreettaskforce.org.uk); also it met the members of the Building Better Building Beautiful commission whose final report, Living with Beauty, was published on 30th January (www.gov.uk/government/ publications/living-with-beauty-report).
Civic Voice Manifesto 2020–2023
When the 235 member societies were surveyed by Civic Voice in 2019 it was clear there was widespread dissatisfaction and distrust in the planning system, with 80% feeling developers do not engage effectively with the community and 72% saying the same about local authorities. Civic Voice’s latest manifesto has been framed to address this by moving away from confrontation and adopting collaboration, participation and conversations. We have experienced good and bad engagement in the planning process in Winchester where the excellent community planning weekend about the regeneration of central Winchester, organised by the consultant architects and master planners, JTP, in March 2017 is to be contrasted with the unsatisfactory consultation process on the Station Approach development which has resulted in the current confrontation between the Trust and the City Council.
The manifesto promotes Winchester’s experience of JTP’s approach to collaboration by: advocating a number of specific proposals including early and meaningful engagement with communities, which helps to connect people more strongly with their own community and increases trust in the planning system; requiring developers and local authorities to publish a summary of the views of communities and responses to the comments made; give community representatives a meaningful voice at every stage of the planning process; expand the role of neighbourhood planning into wider community plans setting out the vision for an area.
Local authorities have been subject to years of cuts in their central government funding and while austerity may be coming to an end for the NHS and education it is not clear that this will extend to local government. It is generally agreed that many more houses need to be built but it is vital to ensure we achieve a high standard of development that gains the approval of the community. The manifesto recognises that to succeed in this aim, local authorities need more resources to improve the way the planning process functions and ensures good community involvement and decision making. The manifesto also calls for more resources so local authorities can take action to address the degraded and neglected state of conservation areas. For many years they have not been able to conduct appraisals of conservation areas to assess their condition nor prepare improvement action plans; unfortunately this is the situation we are experiencing in Winchester.
John Beveridge
Sandys Lecture The Civic Voice – 21 January 2020 at Senate House, University of London
Laura Sandys introduced Ivan Harbour as a “rock star” in the field of architecture but, today, without his guitar! Be that as it may, Ivan is an architect and senior partner at Rogers Stirk Harbour & Partners and twice winner of the prestigious Stirling Prize, for Terminal 4 at Barajas Airport, Madrid, in 2006 and Maggie’s West London, a cancer support centre, in 2009. Alongside high-end projects he also involves himself with low- cost housing issues and promoting mixed-use civic redevelopment.
Ivan Harbour’s lecture took us at a breathless pace through the topics that most concerns him beginning with a cri de coeur about the state of things architectural: the loss of streets and social housing; a suburban free-for-all where developers (not an architect in sight or on site) encroach on the green-belt; the building of spread-out estates with no sense of urban planning; houses that mimic eclectic vernacular styles that meet certain tastes; densities that allow for one car per bedroom! The image of king penguins huddled together neatly summed up Ivan’s ideas about increasing housing density which he felt might be answered by a return to terraced building where close proximity leads to better community since everyone knows each other. He emphasised also the importance of mixed-use areas, business and residential, as these make places with social and economic benefits, giving Poundbury as a good example of this – though he admitted the architectural styles were possibly not to everyone’s taste!
Ivan felt that meeting constraints and embracing technical challenges inspire architects, and a project that he was obviously proud of was one that involved a restricted brown-field site on a long disused part of dockland overlooking Sydney Harbour. Despite attendant difficulties that added expense, his high-rise block of a zero-carbon design with apartments above and shops and cafes below, the control of one developer, with recycling and being car-free, created a successful, popular meeting place. The slides testified to an attractive, buzzy, busy area full of life, regenerated from a hitherto dead, neglected suburb of Sydney. Ivan feels that utilising brown-field sites has particular value in the cityscape, citing part of West Kensington, in partnership with Transport for London, for a mixed housing development, and another project in Tower Hamlets where the old, disused gas-holders were harnessed as shells that when opened up gave new interesting spaces in a re-designed residential area. On the outskirts of Florence he redeveloped an area that brought together small, undistinguished and untidy suburban settlements to become a whole community with a grand new piazza as its proud focal point, now re-named Scandicci.
The importance of adding value through patronage involving local collaboration with the council met with success in Hammersmith with the re-development of their old Town Hall. (Ivan said that when they used to have their studio in Hammersmith there was little communication, if any!). Ruthlessly inclusive of all groups of stakeholders and with their consensus, the zero-carbon development offered a new Town Hall on top of the old, a town square, pedestrian access, a residential street with ground floor start-up units, 52% affordable housing, open access for all services and a marketable office block to generate income. Could a lesson be learned here?
Building better by improving construction methods, accounting for environment, energy considerations, conservation and flexibility could be resolved by modular construction methods which offered an easier, less costly means of maintaining existing communities. The Lewisham Council scheme for homeless families with pre-fabricated balconied unit blocks of 24 opening onto airy communal spaces, that also provided entrepreneurial units, seemed a way forward to meet urgent housing and employment needs. He felt such flexibility within a place gave more opportunity for an appropriate response and should be considered in the future.
Ivan Harbour’s stimulating talk was copiously illustrated with slides to emphasize the numerous points made. Much of his work can be seen on various websites under his name and that of his practice, which incidentally is in the Shard.
Arthur Morgan
carfax hotel
The cover of December’s TrustNews was a photo of the former Carfax Hotel, and our caption said that it was demolished to make way for the County Record Office. However, Geoffrey Burnaby, who was a senior member of the County Architect’s Department from 1964 to 1990, points out that the Carfax Hotel was actually demolished in the late 1960s. He says:
“It was to make way for the widening of Sussex Street to form part of a mad proposal for an inner ring road from Bar End along Chesil Street, across the river, along North Walls and City Road, up Sussex Street, Romsey Road, Crowder Terrace and on. This was fortunately cancelled, but not before some buildings had been demolished along the route.
“The proposal for a new County Record Office on the ‘Carfax site’ was not mooted until the early 1980s. The City Planning Officer asked the County Architect to produce an outline plan for the future redevelopment of the whole site. It was proposed to build along the whole perimeter, leaving a central secluded “green” space. The landscaping behind the Record Office would form part of this. The siting of the Record Office left space along Station Hill (at present used for HCC car parking) for future commercial development. The Great Western Hotel – later the Register Office – was of course to be retained.
“The present outrageous proposal for development totally ignores earlier informal discussions.”
The Editor
Captain Ian Grant
We are sorry to report the death on 21st December of Captain Ian Fothergill Grant who, after a distinguished career in the Royal Navy and a brief period as a Winchester City Councillor, served the Trust as Hon. Treasurer between 1998 and 2004. He did so with aplomb and good humour, entertaining us all with his idiosyncratic AGM reports. At first some members were puzzled by his style but it soon became apparent that he had a firm grasp of our finances. He was informative with a light touch.
Michael Carden
Rosemary Kinnaird-Smith BA Cert Cons
We are sorry to report that Rosemary, who was an active member of the Trust Council (1986–2005) and chairman of the Archives Committee, died in Winchester on January 4th this year, aged 89. She was also a very active member of the Winchester Archaeological Rescue Group, and professionally she was Hampshire County’s Textile Officer, based at Chilcomb, with connections to the Textile Conservation Centre when it was in Winchester. Should people be interested in attending a gathering in her memory, please let the CWT secretary know.
Michael Carden
Memoir of St Michael’s Parish
by Kathleen (“Kitty”) Bishop (1916–99) of 22 Culver Road, edited and annotated by The Editor
St Michael’s Parish
Before the war, St Michael’s parish was like a village. The Victorian rectory stood where St Michael’s Gardens now are. Its kitchen garden was where the new houses are in St Michael’s Road. Originally the garden next to me was also the Rectory kitchen garden. As this was too much garden for the Rector, it was let to Mr. Williams, the Headmaster of the College Choir School. In the 1930s it was put up for sale and Mr Tuckett, the College dentist, bought it. The Reverend Canon Quirk then decided that he would like to give it to the City Council as a public garden and so asked Mr Tuckett if he would sell it to him and promised to give Mr Tuckett enough land for a garage. In the early days the Council paid for a gardener to come every morning. [It is still a public garden, maintained by the City Council, with a small children’s play area.]
In those days there were many ‘characters’. I can remember two ladies particularly: they were Miss Bramston and Miss LeRoy who lived at Witham Close [62 Kingsgate Street] at the bottom of St Michael’s Passage. Miss Bramston’s father was a Dean of Winchester and is commemorated in the Quire of the Cathedral. She was a formidable lady and a Town Councillor. I can see her now in a voluminous Harris tweed coat and skirt, riding her tricycle. She founded Winchester High School in North Walls. [The High School became St Swithun’s School, now located on Alresford Road; the building on North Walls became the Reference Library and has now been converted to housing.]. Miss LeRoy was a petite lady who painted in water colours and helped to found the High School. A few doors away lived Miss Sybil Blunt, a mannish lady but very artistic. She made the papier-mâché nativity figures which are displayed each year on the High Altar in the Cathedral. The figures are white and the dark background gives a Wedgwood effect. Miss Blunt also designed many of the cushions on the stalls in the Quire. She was generous to the children of the parish and sometimes gave them Christmas parties with very nice presents.
When I was a child, Mrs Loom in Canon Street turned her front room into a shop where she sold “stick-jaw” and the most delicious cakes filled with apricot jam and covered with white or chocolate icing! There were three pubs in Canon Street: near the top was “The Perseverance” and almost opposite was a small general stores. “The White Horse” was halfway down and “The Wykeham” was at the bottom but not very salubrious. There was a shop, Miss Hazell’s, at no 67; it was kept by two maiden ladies and always reeked of paraffin. The third shop was at no.36 and was kept by a far from clean old man called Mr Culley (I was not allowed to buy anything there). At number 60 lived Ron Greener who used to mend punctures etc. on bicycles He always stood at the door wearing greasy overalls. Marjorie Elkins who lived at 20 Culver Road always called him “The Great Unwashed”.
Culver Road
My father bought our house in 1925. At that time the land opposite my garage was our kitchen garden which my father rented from Alfred Bowker, who was also our solicitor. He owned the ten houses in Culverwell Gardens and our house. The Cottage Improvement Society bought them and now own only four. Each house and ours is built on exactly the same plan. In No. 10 the stairs are on the right and No.9 on the left and this plan extends along the row; but going from 10 to 1 they get slightly smaller. They are all smaller than mine. Numbers 11-12 were built in 1932. In Culver Road the College houses on the east side were built in 1987 and those on the west side in 1995. The latter were built in what was the garden of the corner house in St Michael’s Road and the former on the kitchen garden of Moberley’s in Kingsgate Street.
Before the war the majority of houses in Culverwell Gardens, Culver Road and Canon Street were let, but in Culver Road at least four houses were owned. At one time there were racing stables here, I think where the Mews are now, and the trainer lived in 20 or 18, so I imagine these are the oldest houses. In my time Wilfred Andrews’ mineral water factory was behind the houses on the east side. At the time we had a crate of a dozen bottles every weekend. The ice-cream soda and ginger beer were my favourites, In the early days the horse belonging to the delivery cart was stabled on what is now the garden of no.2 Culver Road. For several years the Dumper family lived in that house, which has been much improved. Joe Dumper was a member of the Salvation Army and took part in The Winchester Gun Riots of 1908 when a mob assembled in the Broadway to prevent the removal of Winchester’s souvenir of the Crimean War. The gun had served as a sort of Speakers Corner. Eventually the gun disappeared in 1939 as scrap metal. (See Barbara Carpenter Turner’s A History of Winchester.)
St Michael’s Church
The sun-dial on the outside of the south wall is seventh century, one of the best in Hampshire and one of the oldest relics in Winchester. In the days of the Saxon Kings it served to mark the time for those who dwelt outside the city walls. The tower is the only remaining part of the early structure. The church was rebuilt and restored in 1583 and rebuilt in 1822. The chancel was added in the 1880’s. The church was practically rebuilt and re-seated in 1882–90 [by William Butterfield who also designed the hospital on Romsey Road] at a cost of £2,640. In 1910 the church was again restored and redecorated at a cost of £300.
Mrs Bishop died in 1999 leaving a substantial legacy to the Trust.
The content of TrustNews is copyright © City of Winchester Trust Ltd unless otherwise noted. However, views expressed in articles are not necessarily the views of City of Winchester Trust Ltd. The Editor welcomes letters or other contributions: please contact editor@cityofwinchestertrust.co.uk