Agenda item

MP introduced the application as above, for planning permission and listed building consent.  It was deferred in May to allow further discussions on design, size, and additional information on the tree protection.  A tree survey has been produced, together with a management statement, and a revised plan which omits the paving near the tree, making the scheme broadly acceptable from a tree perspective.  However, the footprint, massing and size of the proposal has not been reduced, and the recommendation therefore remains to refuse. 

Public Speaking:

None.

Member debate:

MC:  has now visited this property twice and can understand what the applicant is trying to achieve, but does not think this scheme is acceptable.  The applicant has received advice from planning officers but not taken this on board.  Will not support this application.

KH:  shares MC’s reservations.  Visited the site on Planning View;  has sympathy with the current use and what the applicant is trying to achieve, and is therefore sad not to be supporting it, but is trying to do the right thing and is not convinced that this is it.  Used to live opposite the site, which adds to the amenity of the locale – a very attractive building with an important story to tell, as reflected by its listed status.  The existing building tells its story better than it will with the proposed changes in place.  We have a special duty to care for buildings of this kind, with significant histories, and the proposal doesn’t take account of this.  It is disappointing and regrettable that the applicant wasn’t able to bring forward a proposal which planning officers felt able to permit.

PB:  did the Architects Panel and Civic Society comment on the scheme?

CH:  supported the application last time.  Understands what Members have said, but looking at various buildings around town (including the Municipal Offices) the fronts often look fantastic but the backs don’t - historically, architects focussed on the fronts.  Did not go on site visit, but doesn’t think that what is being proposed is so bad, especially as what is currently there isn’t brilliant.  Understands that the design could be better but feels that providing space for the residents is more important.

PT:  is minded to support the application.  Can see what the applicant wants to do.  If the proposal was to stick a big chunk on the back of an untouched house that would be different, but so much has been done already, it’s difficult to see how this will make it worse.  If anything, the proposal tidies the back up a bit; the south-west elevation will look better than it does now. 

BF:  goes with officer comments, and cannot support the application.  A lot has been added to this building over the years, and the car park and paving slabs mean that there is virtually no garden at the back for a substantial Grade II-listed house.  The current use of the building is immaterial – it may change – and too much has been done to the building already.  The conservatory and stairs at the back look horrific, and the result would not be in line with other properties in Cheltenham.  We live off our heritage in this town, and don’t want to spoil it.

CN:  this is a good example of listening to the debate and changing opinion accordingly.  It’s a shame there is no speaker in support tonight.  Has sympathy with MC, BF and KH but has stronger sympathy with PT and CH and is minded to accept.  Lives in Tivoli and walks past this building regularly.  Likes the front very much, but never actually sees the back.  Was touched by the letter of support; BF is right that this building may not always be care home, but if the lives of those currently living there can be improved by these alterations, is minded to approve. 

SW:  is being pulled both ways by the debate. Quite frankly, the back of the building is a total mess and if something is going to be done, agrees with PT to some extent that the proposal will be a marginal improvement – but that is not good enough.  Work to a listed building should be more than ‘making it not as bad as it was’. Maybe another wing would be more acceptable, but if something is to be done, it should make it better, and balanced.  A return to the original building is the best scenario; that cannot happen, but he cannot support the application as it is – it should be substantially better.

AL:  could easily go either way with this.  Quite likes the back of the building, but the issue for him is more that there is no huge benefit for the further erosion of the garden, which could also benefit the residents considerably.  A lot of points made tonight balance each other out, but for him the erosion of the garden tips the balance.

PB:  the applicant spoke passionately last time about the significant benefits to the residents that this proposal will have.  All design is subjective; notes that the Civic Society has made no comment and the Architects Panel is ambivalent.  Does not consider the objections significant enough to warrant a refusal, and the benefits outweigh them.  It will be a good thing if the tree can be saved – this is a benefit of having deferred the decision in May. 

PT:  in the negotiations and conversations, how much change was asked for?  As CH has said, historically the backs of buildings were not particularly important.  Was the recommendation to refuse on a a knife edge?

CC:  would also like to know the answer to that question, agreeing that there is a difference between the front and back of buildings – the Municipal Offices being a good example.  Attended the committee meeting in May as an observer  and heard the applicant speak and the detailed debate that followed.  Having read the papers, could go either way with this application, but is inclined towards supporting it, in view of the public benefit it will bring.  What would we like to see changed in the scheme?  If we don’t like the back of the building, what would make it better?  Members could give 14 different opinions on that.  What more can be done?  This is his view at the moment:  can accept the proposal as he sees the benefits.

BF:  people are talking about benefits, and saying the residents will have a better standard of life, but this cannot be quantified; all that can be said is that there will be more space in the building.  We work to planning guidance and rules.  What the building is used for is not a planning reason.  It is a Grade II listed building, and what is proposed at the back doesn’t sit well with a Grade II listed building. 

PT:  the Architects Panel seems support her view.  How much of the design detail has changed on officer advice since the last meeting? 

KH:  at the risk of putting an unpopular view, would like to speak in defence of the existing rear of the building.  Leaving aside the current use of the building as mentioned by BF, would say again that architecture is about telling a story, and although the back is not as as attractive as the front, there is some attractiveness in what it is.  The proposed extension has laudable aims, but would be a piece of pastiche tacked on the back, and we have special responsibility to protect these buildings regardless of what they are being used for. 

MP, in response:

-       negotiated with the applicant’s agent.  The suggested revisions would not have reduced the usable floor space, but would have been more modern and clearly read, with a flat roofed parapet.

CH:  at the meeting in May, the applicant spoke about the benefits the proposed changes and extra space would have for people with Alzheimer’s.  The case was well argued, and to say the proposal is ‘just a bit of extra space’ diminishes it; the extra space would make a significant difference to residents.  Officers are prepared to accept the extra space, but would like a design which would be acceptable to the local authority.  Is now in real difficulty; if the application tonight is refused, and the applicant comes round to a design which everyone is comfortable with, is minded to refuse.

GB:  as officers have said, they are not trying to diminish the size of the extension, just the design.

CC:  is there any prospect of getting to a point where have have that application before us? Is it worth asking for or not?  Agrees with CH in principle.

LS:  has been at committee meetings where particular consideration has been given to the circumstances of the application – such as modifications for a disabled resident – which all Members thought was OK.  Members should give special thought to the interests and circumstances of the residents of Lypiatt Lodge.  Disagrees with the officer recommendation.  Supports the application.

MP, in response:

-       the applicant was at the May meeting and heard the debate and Members’ suggestions, but made not attempt to address these.  Is not confident that they would make the alterations next time.

Vote on officer recommendation to refuse

7 in support

8 in objection (including Chairman’s casting vote)

REFUSE