As you may know, there are current planning applications for two very large buildings at the back of the Gunwharf site for a total 465 new dwellings including 120 affordable units in the form of key worker accommodation (26%). The Society is opposed to both of them as they stand. Details of the two new blocks are:

A*36334/EE 'East Side Plaza' site Three linked blocks of 4/5/6/8 storeys rising to 13 storeys and 26 storeys to form retail units on ground floor up to 2089 square metres with 307 dwellings over.

A*36334/EF 7/11 storeys to form day nursery, up to 583 square metres and function hall up to 982 square metres and 158 dwellings over and hotel (under construction)

The south block rises from 4 to 7, 13 and 26 storeys, and builds up to a focal point opposite the 8 storeys of Canalside ( at present being built) which has a roof top element. It is claimed to be a counterpoint to the scale of the end of the tower at the other end of the Millennium Boulevard. The 26 storeys are 80m high; the Spinnaker (not yet built) is 95-100-105n, for the viewing platforms, 150m to the top. To give you an idea of scale, Millgate House in St. George's Square across the railway line is 18 storeys.

The Society is not opposed to tall buildings, and had anticipated that Gunwharf would benefit from taller buildings at the landward end of the site. However, these proposed blocks are just not good enough in design for such an important location. So much more has already been crammed onto the site than first envisaged, that we said that the two applications "far exceed the City Council's Development Brief for the site, and constitute excessive over-development". The buildings and landscaping are poorly designed, and unsustainable in terms of energy consumption. We also objected to the loss of the hotel originally proposed for one of the sites, which in our view would have been an important ingredient in the Gunwharf development overall, and to the loss of yet another historic building, Donegal Lodge, currently Berkeley's office.

Key worker housing

Until these applications, the Council had not insisted that there was any affordable or key worker housing in the Gunwharf redevelopment. We welcome this offer of 120 flats by the developers, but not at the expense of such a massive overdevelopment. In our view it is a very ugly, dull block in the worst location, against the access road and railway line. It also contains a conference centre and nursery. We also question whether the nursery and the associated open space labelled 'future play spaces' – for which there are no details - would be adequate as an environment for young children, given the shadows and down draughts from the surrounding very tall buildings.

The design of the two blocks will dominate a wide area in Old Portsmouth, Portsea and southern Gosport and the view from the harbour with very large, dull, poorly detailed buildings, which would do nothing to enhance this conservation area – a consideration which the planning authority are obliged to take into account. Here the comments by the Architects' Panel, English Heritage and CABE, not yet available, are crucial in informing public responses. Will their comments be made public as part of the consultation process? We believe that best practice means that they should be now, in the consultation period. Does the proposal conform to the government's tall buildings policy?

Lack of quality open space

The original application by Berkeleys included high quality open spaces, including an amphitheatre at the end of the canal, yet all that is offered by these applications is a windy circular space with a site for public art marked in the centre. In contrast, Gosport Millennium walk has a whole series of artistic additions, many of them in paving in interesting materials in a coherent scheme of the highest quality. To imply that 'public art' can only be vertical surely suggests an inadequate grasp of its potential. We are pleased to hear that Adrian Fisher (world famous designer of paving designs and mazes, until recently based in Southsea) is involved in the design of the important circular space; we hope that his designs are available before the applications are put to committee, rather being treated as a matter to be dealt with later. One per cent of the cost of the scheme – as recommended by many planning authorities and in Portsmouth's draft cultural strategy - should surely yield a greater investment in public art than what is proposed in these applications.

Donegal Lodge to be demolished

Despite the references in the application to the historic environment, this has not constrained the developers from the demolition of Donegal Lodge. Gunwharf is still designated as a conservation area, yet the redevelopment of Gunwharf has already led to the loss of many eminently reusable buildings. We object to the loss of Donegal Lodge on top of all these. The replacements do not look like "enhancement".

Sustainable development?

The government's stipulation that new developments should be sustainable would surely be breached by 465 air-conditioned dwellings. The glass cladding, particularly of the tower blocks facing east and west will mean the flats suffer from considerable solar gain, since each unit has only one opening window on the side elevations of the 26 storey block, so there will have to be climate control. We were told when some windows are open in tall blocks, it looks a mess... but we cannot believe natural ventilation cannot be designed in.

The wind effect

At a meeting with Society members Charles Burns, Celia Clark and Roger James on 20 December 2002, Paul Newbold, City Planning Officer and Alan Banting, we held to our view that, unless specially designed, tall buildings cause unacceptable wind effects. We asked for information on exactly what is being done to prevent these effects, since we were not convinced by the wind tunnel tests that the designers have really introduced features that will prevent unpleasant effects which afflict so many taller buildings eg at the Civic Offices, Fastnet House and in Somerstown. We asked for assurances on this.

Berkeleys have a model of the development which the Planning Dept. will put on display before the Development Control Committee. As a result of the flyby the planners asked for detailed shadow drawings, which show that it is a good location for tall buildings – eg the east/west juxtaposition.

Paul Newbold acknowledged that the numbers of units were well beyond the original brief, but Berkeleys are challenging us to think about the potential of Gunwharf – a great, successful location and sustainable (?). According to Berkeleys, 50% of visitors are not coming by car. The car park is rarely full. The planning brief was written long before Berkeleys were on the scene and before the bids were looked at. He said we would be missing an opportunity for the city if we stuck to it rigidly. Six to seven years on, we are not going to say that we are cannot entertain a new idea.

We are impressed

We said we were impressed by the amount of work the planning department has put into getting the design improved, and to asking the developers for additional information. We asked that Berkeleys provide details of their expected demographic profile: who the occupants of the development will be. This will have an important bearing on the social, educational and health provision on the site, about which we and the councillors are bound to be concerned. As a new quarter of town (nearly all the yearly housing provision on one spot) does it need a new doctors' surgery or primary school, or is it expected that the blocks will mainly be lived in by retired people or as second homes? How much new traffic would be generated by so many new flats? Charles Burns suggested that this was an ideal site for trying out the idea of car sharing which has been tried out in other central areas. Paul Newbold liked the idea and said he would press it.

We agree that this part of the Gunwharf site offers a very important opportunity for increasing the scale of development and making a considerable contribution to the city's housing allocation. However, despite the planning department's welcome negotiations with Berkeleys over design and detailing, we are not convinced that Broadway Malyan's design is worthy of such an important site. Our objections are to the massing and the detail of the two blocks.

Reject on design grounds

We believe that the Council should resist this application, which in our view is a 'Manhattan on Portsmouth Harbour', which would seriously unbalance the surrounding townscape. A lower density, better designed scheme could then be generated. The Oxford Westgate scheme was called in by the Government Office of the South East on design grounds, while GOSE have refused to do so here. The council have the powers to reject applications on design grounds and should do so here. Our fear is that the temptation of increased council tax income plus the incentive (or bribe) offered by Berkeleys of £3million towards the cost of the Millennium tower may otherwise lead to permission being granted to a far too large, ugly and non sustainable scheme of no discernable benefit to the existing residents of Portsmouth. If you feel strongly about these applications, you still have the chance to object.

Finally, we asked that the Section 106 agreement should stipulate a public, cultural use for the Vulcan South Wing, which would provide a much needed cultural dimension to a new city quarter.

Celia Clark