[30 JUNE 2010]

CC: Mr Keith Holland; Cllr A. Crawford; Cllr F. Williams; Mr D. Strong; Mr P Burns.

Dear Ms Tushingham,

My comments regarding the Cargate Conservation Area appraisal are as follows:

1. Although the general aspects and elements of the conservation area are noted in the appraisal document, it is unfortunate that it has not elaborated on anything significantly from the last document. I find that more information and expression is required in order to be a truly helpful reference for architects/designers or residents that may be carrying out developments in the future, not to mention as a guide for planning control.

2. The varied array of typology in the area, from the vast villas to the modest two-storey terraces, is a phenomenon that ought to be stressed further in order to promote understanding for future developments that may occur. It has been touched upon in the document, but the diversity and frequent juxtaposition of architectural forms and scales is something of a curiosity, and should be expressed more fully and with visual references. The mix of size, form and type could be celebrated in future developments and projects and allow a certain degree of flexibility.

3. The visual depiction of the area in the appraisal is in need of much improvement as there are few photographs that examine and express the character of Cargate and many of the images are out of date. Indeed, it is peculiar that the front page of the appraisal depicts three streetscenes but with not one of them being of any of the ‘principle’ streets or significant buildings. I hold a vast bank of photographs that I would be willing to allow for use by the council.

4. I would also to suggest that antique photographs of the area would be a very positive inclusion in the appraisal as there is no better way of displaying the true historical character of a place and the world it was built from.

5. Notes on No. 23 Lansdowne Road could be elaborated on, simply for the reason that it is a phenomenal architectural event. One could say that it is arguably the most important building in the conservation area as it signifies the end of the pinnacle of Cargate and denotes a lifestyle and set of values only found at that time (by a privileged few, of course). It also displays a stark contrast when compared to the pastiche and regimented red-brick piles of Lansdowne Road, further emphasising its own individualism and Arts & Crafts style.

6. There are examples original stained/leaded glass windows that should be preserved, including a very impressive set of leaded lights on the oriel windows to the sides of No’s 29 and 31 Cargate Avenue, which are effectively irreplaceable.

7. ‘Pebble-dash’ is occasionally found on the later Arts & Crafts/Queen Anne dwellings and on select parts of the elevations. Remarkably, most of these examples have remained unpainted and it would be best to keep that quality.

8. Note that the issue of boundary treatments is one that requires clear yet detailed guidance for residents as many newly-built garden walls (though many have the right intentions) fail through incorrect proportioning, materials and detailing. Indeed, even when exploiting the “below 1 metre rule” brick walls are often built too high, when originally they would usually have been only a few courses high with heavy coping. Rather disappointingly, many new boundary treatments have been allowed by way of being dubbed ‘acceptable in principle’ by the planning authority, when in fact they are clearly of poor quality.

9. The substantial walls once belonging to large villas along Cargate Grove and Cargate Terrace are noted, yet those parts are proposed to be removed from the conservation area. As it is possible that redevelopment may occur there within the next century, it is important to make sure that these remnants are preserved as they explain the historic development of the area. Similarly, on Cargate Avenue stands a party garden wall currently separating Sales and Montreal Court, though it would have originally marked the boundary between two large dwellings. Although the post-War flats do not contribute [positively] to the character of the avenue, the wall itself marks the remains of its architectural fabric.

10.Chimney stacks are mentioned as an important element, yet there have been cases of partial or complete removal, damaging the consistency and visual rhythm of the streetscene. [Conversely], where chimneys have been reconstructed to service a fireplace [the works have] sometimes been done improperly with proportions and details that do not compliment the substantial quality of the 19th century stacks. The original chimney pots where they still exist are of note and should be retained.

11.The presence of lime trees is not mentioned in the appraisal. Lime trees were popular in landscaping within garden suburbs and a notably intact row is situated along the Upper Elms Road boundary of Bo[x]wood House, continuing across to No. 2 Lansdowne Road’s boundary up the hill. A small avenue of limes still exists on Cargate Terrace, which like the boundary walls situated there [provide] a narrative of what stood before.

12.19th century photographs of Cargate Avenue show that it was generously lined with lime trees to form a highly civilised boulevard appearance. Currently, only ordinary cherry trees are planted along the pavement and it would be positive to see a gradual restoration over the next quarter-century.

13.The following errors are present in the document:

○ On p.4 a photograph is noted as being of No. 23 Lansdowne Road, when it is in fact No. 8.

○ On p.5 a photograph is noted as being of No. 30 Cargate Avenue, when it is in fact No. 33.

○ On p. 13 (back paper) a photograph is said to be of Cargate Avenue ca. 1950; the photograph has to be much later than that as the side elevation of the early-1970s terrace is visible.

○ The appraisal states that only the Western side of Cargate Avenue is planted with trees; in actual fact both are lined with trees and always have been.

○ p.5 appears to be referring to No. 33 Cargate Avenue (Grasmere House) but instead notes it as No. 20.

○ p.5 appears to be referring to No. 30 Cargate Avenue (The Beeches) but instead notes it as No. 33.

Regarding the management plan:

1. As with the appraisal, more images ought to be included with this document as some aspects are not expressed visually at all.

2. The general thrust is agreed with, though given that there are so few points outlined the plan is very weak as it stands.

3. Pavements: While it could be said that the smaller paving slabs used are less inappropriate than standard bitmac, I would not consider it to be ‘traditional’ or wholly appropriate. Moreover, the poor quality workmanship and durability that raised many complaints last year did not do the appearance of the new paving material any favours.

4. I would like to suggest that the general aspect of ‘highways’ be put in the plan, seeing as the appraisal mentioned the cobbled gutters to the edge of the roads. Currently, on most streets they are covered by the road surface itself and are only visible where the tar has broken away. A former highway engineer based at Rushmoor agreed in conversation that it would be plausible to expose the cobbles, should future resurfacing works take place in the conservation area. In addition, I would suggest that the road surface itself should be detailed in the future to be more of an enhancement to the area and that road signage and markings are made to be more discreet.

5. Similarly, ‘street furnishings’ ought to be addressed as these are details that are in control of the local authorities and are details that can successfully compliment, or equally detract from the character of a place.

○ Sadly, practically all of the original cast-iron lampposts have been stripped from [within the proposed] area, leaving either banal modern posts in place or, at best, the mock-historical standards on the Avenue. Perhaps the original posts could be moved within the area in a more prominent position as more of an ‘event’.

○ Finally, street signs are a small detail that could be improved over time.

6. Boundary Treatments: Agreed.

○ At Lansdowne Road in particular, entire garden walls that would separate the depths of the boundaries between pairs of houses are missing. It would be positive to see such boundaries reinstated, although many residents utilise these gaps for parking.

7. Windows: Agreed, although front doors are also an issue that should be addressed.

○ It should also be stressed that as a rule it is just not possible to successfully imitate the appearance and aesthetic of timber with plastic in a way that is convincing.

8. Walls/Roofs Agreed.

○ Perhaps the removal paint/render where it has completely covered walls on buildings could be encouraged, though it is understood that such work is a large and expensive undertaking.

○ On a few buildings, the original fine pointing still exists and should be retained wherever possible.

9. It appears that the subject of timber detailing has been removed from the plan. This ought to remain included as bargeboards, soffits etc. are often a victim of removal and replacement with [unsuitable] PVC products, though remarkably many examples of original exterior joinery still exist in the area.

10.I would hope that the management plan can and will be elaborated on in the near future.

Thank you for consideration and I look forward to viewing the final publication.

Yours sincerely,<Gavril Postnikov>