We have yet another local “masterplan” to absorb, its major weakness very similar to that for the Sir John Moore Barracks. Tricky questions on energy are set aside for another day, instead of tackling them at the beginning.
The “Station Approach” development embraces a vast area, almost adjacent to the historic centre of Winchester. This offers a real chance to kickstart a low carbon urban environment, without too many heritage buildings to worry about.
There’s much to applaud in the plans but they lack the driving force of an inspiring headline vision. I’ve copied my comments below.
******
I apologise for not completing your Survey but its questions are limited to your chosen Themes. This makes it difficult to comment on cross-cutting issues, especially those which are notable by their omission.
The emerging District Local Plan, to which your presentation refers, includes a checklist of objectives to be covered by Masterplans for large developments (draft Strategy Policy D5). Your Masterplan addresses many of these in admirable detail but completely overlooks the objective to “assess the potential for including renewable energy schemes.” Indeed, I’ve been unable to find the word “energy” in the entire document, surely a fundamental oversight.
I feel that the Masterplan should articulate a vision for energy use that is appropriate for a low carbon city and that will guide the Energy and Carbon Statements accompanying future applications for individual projects. For example, how will the overall development generate electricity equivalent to its consumption? Is there a vision for an urban district heating solution, taking advantage of the scale of land and buildings? Will progressive options for construction materials and energy create spin-off opportunities to retrofit existing properties?
I’m further concerned that this is only one example of a lack of clarity in the concept of a low carbon city which a development on this scale can do so much to inspire. For example, the addition of residential homes is suggested without reference to the importance of greater density to drive down average household emissions. We should be hearing and debating whether the number of new homes will fulfil this opportunity.
I suggest that the root of the problem is the choice of “Sustainable Development” as one of the four “development principles”. This is a troublesome concept, very difficult to measure, and significantly overlapping with the principle of “Development for Winchester’s Future.” Promoting “carbon neutral city” to a “development principle” might establish a more robust context for the many supportive ideas in the Plan.
******
Connecting Place – Station Approach concept masterplan, from Winchester City Council