Agenda item

MP introduced the application as above, to convert a GII listed building in a prominent location .  Officers consider the scheme to be in accordance with local and national policy and therefore recommend it be permitted, with conditions.  It is at Committee at the request of Councillor Fisher, due to concerns about the loss of the care home and employment. 

Public Speaking:

None. 

Member debate:

BF:  asked for this to come to Planning Committee as not long ago, another planning application for this property was submitted and we were told that the facility was very much needed in the town, that Cheltenham has a shortage of this type of care. The care home employs 20 or so people, so is also important from an employment point of view – skilled people in this type of business are much needed in the town.  There is also the question of the people who live there; permission was given to extend the premises, make it more comfortable for the elderly residents.  Officers were originally reluctant to allow the alterations, but Members felt it was the right thing to do.  Now these residents will have to be found somewhere else to live.  Has concerns about the loss of the loss of a facility we can’t afford to lose.  Planning structures and systems do little to support these people; it is a tragedy, and needs to be highlighted.  Vulnerable people will be evicted so that that building can be turned into flats – the building is clearly worth more as flats than as a care home.  Was elected as a councillor because he cares about people.  Can this application be refused on loss of employment or loss of a facility needed in the town?

LS:  BF makes some good points, and would be interested to know from officers what consideration can be given to these, in particular the disruption and adverse consequences of residents being rehoused.  Can we give any weight to this as a Committee?

AH:  is not for or against this proposal, but comes from a long line of carers and there are some issues of which councillors need to be aware.  There has been a trend in recent years to turn larger houses into residential homes, but most of these are not fit for purpose, especially listed buildings – truck pulling and lifts are required, which damage the fabric of the building.  This recommendation could potentially be looking at/encouraging the developer to build a brand new nursing home which is fit for purpose.  On the flip side, moving residents from here to somewhere else could drastically reduce their life expectancy; this should be taken into account.

SW:  is in a quandary, like BF.  A lot of alterations to this building have been permitted in the last few months which were not brilliant – but we allowed them because of the needs of the people who live there,  to make their lives better.  Now the owners want to make the building into flats.  Have they been pulling the wool over our eyes?  This isn’t a planning objective, but we have allowed things to be done to the building for the good of the elderly people.  This is a nursing home, somewhere we need, and the alterations have been allowed for those people.  Would prefer therefore to keep the building as it is; cannot support people having to be moved elsewhere.

GB:  we are on slightly dodgy ground here; no planning reasons for refusal have been suggested.  The developer is a commercial business and has set out the reasons for the change which are, in part, based on the needs of the residents.

AL:  there are several newly-built residential homes in town; how many care beds have been created in recent years?  Do officers have any idea of the number of residential care beds throughout the town?

CN:  isn’t quite sure of the relevance of what he is about to say but wants to share the knowledge with Members nonetheless.  Was out canvassing recently, chatting to a lady whose husband is a resident in this care home.  She said that the home is a lot better now under new management than it used to be, and that residents’ families know all about the proposal being considered today.   Cannot be completely sure of the credibility, but she said that the owners are short of cash to improve access to the upper floorsand that this application is more about increasing the value of the property so that they can raise more money on the mortgage.  Have officers picked up on this?

GB:  doubts that this story can be validated, or that it is a planning issue.

CH: when applications for this building have come up in the past, has voted against the majority to try and get changes to make life better for the people in the home.  Has some sympathy, and the care of the residents is important, but it is not a planning consideration.  It was important to do everything possible to improve life for residents in the listed building, but they would be better looked-after in purpose-built accommodation.  It would have been nice if we knew what the plan is for residents and how they will be re-housed, to allay Members’ fears, but will vote to permit.  There are no valid reasons not to,  and if the owners can’t make the business succeed, this planning application is irrelevant – if the home has to close, a new use will be found for the building anyway.  It would be good to know what happens.  We have heard one rumour that if the owners can’t make the place work, they will sell and use the cash for a purpose-built home – if this is the case, it is a win-win situation.  As discussed at Council on Monday, this building would be perfect for long-term five-year lets for 25-40-year-olds – the Local Plan can do something really useful with a building like this.

Councillor Hobley arrived at this point – agreed not to vote but asked if it would be alright for him to speak; NJ felt it would be OK for him to speak.

KH:  has no remarks about the current care home, but in terms for the proposal for the building, agrees with CH on the suitability of this for certain demographics – though this will be in the future as we are not yet at that point.  There is not enough car parking space for the number of flats proposed, though there isn’t much to be done about this other than tarmac-ing the garden, which would be too much.  Would be interested to know from officers, given the age and historical significance of the building, whether they are aware of any interiors that should be protected in any way?

MP, in response:

-       In terms of principle, there is no specific policy in the Local Plan which could be used to support a refusal.  The use falls outside the B1-B8 employment categories, which are safeguarded.  The building was originally a residential property and is therefore excused; residential use is wholly appropriate;

-       To BF, the flats now proposed don’t include the extension previously permitted; that will not be built out;

-       To AL, does not have the numbers he requests to hand so unfortunately cannot help here;

-       To CN, the story he told also appeared in the Echo.  The update from the applicant actually sets out the process and what has happened – issues regarding the lift and the need to secure funds – although these are not part of the planning consideration;

-       To KH, one parking space is provided for each flat; appreciates his thinking that this is not enough, but there is no standard parking requirement at the moment;

-       To his second question, this is, of course, a listed building and is therefore protected; the conservation officer has visited and secured various changes to ensure no harm will be done.

BF:  will not vote in favour of this.  Was unhappy about the proposal anyway, and AH’s confirmation that moving people at this time of life will shorten their lives has sealed his view. 

CH:  before the vote:  notes that one parking space is provided for each dwelling, but that the application doesn’t specify whether these are allocated?  In his own ward, flats have been built without allocated car parking spaces, but the sales team doesn’t seem to have taken this on board, advising prospective residents that they will need to apply for resident parking.  While this statement is true, it is worrying because it causes stress to people who don’t read the fine print – they can apply, but they stand a chance of not getting a permit.  This has been an issue elsewhere, and while we cannot include a condition, we need to be very much aware that there may be complaints to the County or borough if this is not made clear.  Is raising this as an issue which might arise if the parking spaces are not allocated.

MP, in response:

-       Believes that the spaces are allocated but can’t guarantee that they are.

CH:  can we ask that they are?

Vote on officer recommendation to permit

10 in support

1 in objection

1 abstention

PERMIT