Last October two further planning applications were published for buildings on Gunwharf Quays to occupy the undeveloped south eastern quarter of the site. There were to be two large buildings mainly of flats containing a total of 465 dwellings, each with a tower, and involving the demolition of Donegal Lodge, the former commanding officer's residence and the one remaining heritage building.

The applications were named Ariadne (157 flats) and East Side Plaza (308). We and others objected to the design of both buildings. English Heritage and CABE criticised them, E.H. particularly severely: "The building lacks any strength of modelling, articulation or architectural reference to Gunwharf."

The planning officers negotiated for changes and later designs took the total to 471 flats. The result was that there were two or three versions of the designs and we don't know what E.H. thought of the amended version; but the local Architects Panel said "there is no significant improvement on the originally submitted scheme". While there may be no objection to tall buildings in this location, all current government advice is that new buildings must be of the highest quality, which this application signally fails to achieve.

Criticisms

Another serious criticism is that the application does not respond to the recommendation by a recent conference on housing in South East Hampshire that because of the area's serious housing shortage there should be 40% of affordable housing. This scheme provides 25% of its 471; but there are none at all in the hundreds already built or under construction on the Gunwharf site. If it could have been shown that these two proposals would make a significant contribution towards Portsmouth's housing shortage, we might have looked on them in a more kindly way. We are also concerned about the likely wind effects caused by so many tall buildings, especially on the children's playground and pedestrians at ground level.

Hurry to develop

Clearly in something of a hurry, the Ariadne application only was brought to the Development Control committee on April 23 with a report from the City Planning Officer written before the receipt of the latest consultations. It detailed many of the severe criticisms made by the consulting bodies, did not include a single plus point, but went on regardless to recommend conditional permission. The hurry was to secure a government use of the office accommodation which would secure 200 to 300 jobs. Councillors complained about being pressurised by Berkeleys.

Key Worker housing

Ariadne, in the worst location near the elevated railway line, is to contain 120 flats for 'key workers' as well as 44 others. We had suggested a car-sharing arrangement for some of the flats in both blocks. It might suit, in particular, elderly well-to-do residents and those who would take the train to London twice a week from the adjacent harbour station. But the actual proposal stands our idea on its head, with the key workers being the only residents in the whole 30-acre development who are not to be allocated a car-parking space.

One of the changes since Ariadne was first proposed was to introduce a few floors of offices. Previously those floors had been allocated as a double-height conference facility/exhibition space. This function room has been deleted - and there is also no sign of a condition which we know was proposed by the planning officers that, as part of a Section 106 agreement, public use might be made of the Vulcan Building, an ancient monument and Grade II listed building, formerly the Grand Storehouse of 1814. This fine building is one of the few historic buildings surviving in the redevelopment. As members know we have been trying hard for a year or more to get a worthy public use for it, so that the public can see its splendid interior. Recently Berkeleys applied for permission to convert it for residential use. The Development Control Committee, against officers' advice, firmly rejected this application which would have closed the building to public view for ever.

Deputations

At the meeting to consider the revised design for Ariandne, Celia Clark, for the Hampshire Buildings Preservation Trust and Roger James, for the Society, spoke as deputations against the application to the D.C. Committee. The meeting started in some confusion with Councillor Jacqui Hancock being excluded from it for the crime of having allegedly made up her mind against the proposal in advance. In the end that was the decision the committee came to without her. Deferment was on the basis that councillors would prefer a less dense scheme. Presumably the application will then be considered at the same time as East Side Plaza, as we and many others said it should have been in the first place. But East Plaza is a much more controversial proposition, containing as it does the 30-storey tower.

Design champion needed

The most depressing thing was that there was no one at the committee meeting capable of explaining what distinguishes a good building from a bad one; we clearly need a design champion to replace the role once played by the City Architect.

Roger James