Agenda item

MJC introduced this application for planning permission and listed building consent as above.  The recommendation is to refuse, essentially because officers feel the building has already seen enough development.  It is listed, and any further extensions will be harmful.  Obviously officers have had to weigh this against the benefits to the care home but on balance, feel that the harm outweighs the benefits, hence the recommendation to refuse. 

Public Speaking:

Mr Jones, applicant, in support

Is director of the company which bought the building in 2015, in a dilapidated state and with a bad reputation, and has since spent a lot of money bringing the building back to its former glory; it is still run as a nursing home, offering a much-needed service in the community but lacking the ability to maximise its potential.  With the backing of GPs and specialists, hopes to offer accommodation for elderly individuals with complex needs.  To do this, an enlarge sitting room on the lower ground floor and extended kitchen on the floor above are needed, adding no more that 3% to the total floor area, complementing the work being done in the garden and elsewhere in the building.  It will change the way the building functions and vastly improve the lives of current and future residents, with larger, more accessible common areas and a landscaped garden accessed from the new sitting room.  The small addition to the building replaces an unsightly corner supported by a corroded metal pillar, dating from the 1990s.  There is precedent in Lypiatt Road for more development than is being proposed here, and the proposal is sympathetic to the rest of the building.  It will not impact on neighbouring properties – not overlooking windows and a large boundary wall on the Tivoli side. There are no highways issues; environment health officers have raised the question of cooking emissions, which the architect can address with careful design; trees officers are concerned about the beech tree and a method of construction sympathetic to its roots will be used.  There are been two letters of support from relatives of current residents.  To conclude, the proposal is roughly 35 sq metres sympathetic to the building design, doesn’t impact on neighbours, will enrich the lives of residents and enhance the enjoyment of the are and offer a vital service to the community.

Member debate:

SW: officers have done a good job of balancing the considerations here, putting weight on both sides, and ultimately decided one way.  Looking at the back of the building, its appearance is not good, with a number of extensions having been added one to another, but tends to fall to the view that the potential benefits of this application slightly outweigh the harm.  Is marginally in favour of it, rather than taking the officer’s view.

KS:  on site visit, found this a very difficult building to read, and would have appreciated a 3D model or 3D drawings to compare.  Supports the officer recommendation to refuse, but has sympathy with the owners and gives them credit for bringing the building up to standard again.  Development should be done in a holistic way, and there could be benefits for the building and for the people using it if the architects go back to the drawing board.  The extension is not overly offensive but drawing on the style of a modern extension and therefore not appropriate for a building of this age.  Does not consider this proposal can be approved yet, but remains sympathetic with the applicant wanting to improve it.

PB:  disagrees with officers.  It is all about judgement and there will always be pros and cons.  The report update states that officers consider the harm to the building to be less than substantial, but it will provide real value to the residents and the area.  The applicant has invested a lot of work and time in this development; the building is a dog’s dinner as it is and this additional work will cause less than substantial harm.  Agrees it is a marginal decision, but feels that the benefits outweigh the damage in this case.

PM:  it was obvious from the locked side gate noted on site visit that this home caters for people with dementia – it is their world, and the building is similar to the Municipal Offices and houses in Royal Well.  Once the scaffolding is off, the façade will look wonderful.  Went to look at the side from the Tivoli side, and all that can be seen is a big wall and three tall trees – it was OK.  Has concerns about the beech tree; could a few branches be removed to allow the development.  Overall, feels that the benefit to the people of Cheltenham outweighs the negative aspects of the scheme.

CM:  agrees with this, but can a condition be added to protect the tree?

KS:  would like to comment on the issue of the big wall between the rear and the main road.  Is worried that we might end up saying it’s OK to do this work on the listed building because people won’t see it behind the wall.  This is dangerous; it is clear that officers have concerns about this.  Is worried about the flat roof; ours is not the right climate to make it easy to maintain, and an additional flat roof on a building of this age could be harmful.  PM has said it cannot be seen from the main road, but it is still a listed building and it is intrinsically important because of its age – buildings are not built like this any more.

GB:  agrees with KS; work cannot be done to the inside of a listed building without permission, and that certainly cannot be seen from outside. 

CH:  regarding KS’s concern about flat roofs, but these have been around for many years, and the materials used can cope with different weather conditions; it’s not the bitumen type of roofing.  Flat roofs per se are not a problem.  It will be important to residents to have this communal area.  The building is in desperate need of modernisation.  Anything which can be done to improve the quality of life for people suffering from Alzheimer’s is really important; there aren’t enough places at the moment.  With changes in legislation, it will be come more and more difficult, and with no really strong objections to the proposed changes to the buildings, would say the applicant should be allowed to go ahead.

GB:  would just point out that this is a Planning Committee, and is not supposed to be considering any health issues. 

CH:  has been in meetings before when meeting the needs of different groups of people is given consideration.

GB: recognises the needs but the question is whether what is proposed is appropriate in these circumstances when dealing with a listed building.

MJC, in response:

-       on the question of less than/substantial harm, this is not a remark made by officers, who have to differentiate and weigh the negative aspects against the public benefit.  Has heard from Members and has sympathy with the applicant’s desire to improve the building further, but believes it could be done better than this.  Officers have pushed the applicant hard regarding the design of the listed building, which deserves something better and of more merit;

-       will ask CC to speak on the tree issue – it is not just a question of protecting branches of the tree; the proposed building will be very close to it and additional information may be needed before officers could even consider approving the work.

CC, in response:

-       there are British standards for trees which require information about their protection during the demolition and construction process to be submitted as part of the application.  No details were submitted with the application in 2015, and have not been produced since;

-       work should not be done within a 12m radius of the trunk; this development will require excavation to 5m of the trunk, giving rise to serious concerns, especially as this tree is on a higher level, giving rise to concerns about its future structural stability and long-term safety;

-       it is lamentable that no such details came in after the previous application; these should be submitted with the planning permission, prior to determination.

KS:  having heard concerns both from the officer and the trees officer, maybe Members should defer their decision.  Doesn’t want to refuse and is not unsympathetic to the applicant – this type of accommodation is important -  but further information about the tree, the design, and how the finished building will read would all help with the decision making.  Will more to defer.

PT:  thinks this is a good idea.  If officers feel they could have influence on the way the owners succeed in doing what they want to achieve – access for residents to get out into the garden – it would definitely be worth deferring.   In relation to the tree, instructions could be added not to damage it – the applicant will have to take this into consideration and influence the way the extension is built to create the best possible home.  Fully appreciates the listed buildings around the town but this one has been a care home for some considerable time and we owe it to the people living there to give them the best possible facilities.  Their lives are not pleasant, and we should help make them as comfortable as possible.

PB:  the applicant has suggested that he is keen to preserve the beech tree.  Would be disappointed if this application is refused but would support a deferral for the tree issue and to sort out some of MJC’s concerns.

Vote on KS’s move to defer

14 in support

1 in objection

MOTION CARRIED - DEFERRED