Agenda item

 

Application Number:			14/01586/LBC
Location:	159 Fairview Road, Cheltenham
Proposal:	Installation of a Banksy mural on south east facing flank wall (incorporating the artwork and a communication dish) (Retrospective application)
View:	Yes
Officer Recommendation:				Grant
Committee Decision:			Grant
Letters of Rep:		28	Update Report:		Officer update and letter from property owner’s solicitor

 

MC described the proposal as above, a retrospective application for listed building consent for the Banksy mural and communication dish on the gable end of this property.  The application seeks to authorise the works and no more.  Officers have asked the applicant to consider how the artwork can be retained in view of the poor condition of the render – this is set out in the officer report.  Officers are confident that repairs can take place without compromising the mural, and the recommendation is therefore to permit.  As stated in the conclusion of the report, authorisation does not and cannot automatically mean retention.  The applicant does not own the building. If authorised, there may be further applications concerning the mural – the current application is just to authorise the work.

 

Public Speaking:

Mr Possee, owner of 159 Fairview Road, in objection

The Banksy mural was created without the permission of the property owner, and on a listed building is not only unauthorised but also a criminal offence.  The building is currently empty and uninhabitable, in need of damp-proofing repairs, with the render in a state of disrepair which makes it dangerous to the public.  The applicant has only given vague reassurance to officers on how he intends to fix it.  This architectural style of building was not intended to have any kind of art of its wall; the building may be in a poor state, but it is valuable due to its age and architectural design, and the mural does nothing to protect the character of the building.  By adding it to the building’s listed status, there are many unanswered questions:  how it will be retained in the long term; how can the unstable render be repaired while keeping the mural in place; how can the house continue to be used as a residence.  The applicant has failed to answer these questions, and the repair of the defective render is not being considered.  The retention of the mural is impeding the repairs, and until this can be done, the listed building must remain unoccupied. 

 

Mr Kaveh, applicant, in support

Thanked officers for their clear and well-balanced report.  A number of people have given up a lot of time to secure this artwork for Cheltenham, including Martin Horwood MP and the business community. There has been national and international press interest in the case, and the local economy has benefited from the tourism that it has brought and continues to bring to the town.  It only makes sense for this artwork to stay in Cheltenham.  If listed building consent for it is granted today, this won’t be the end of his investment of time and financial input – it will only be the beginning.  The Banksy has been vandalised but has now been treated with anti-graffiti paint, which will continue at all times until the graffiti has been removed and the Banksy restored.  Is prepared to fund any work and work with officers to ensure the long-term protection of the Banksy.  If permission is granted today, will move to the next stage of the restoration.  Has faith in himself, the business community, and the residents of Cheltenham to ensure support for the its retention.  Is also willing to pay for any render work necessary, and more than happy to ensure that everything is safe at the property.

 

 

Member debate:

JF:  will permission be granted for six months, as suggested by the conservation officer?

 

MJC, in response:

-       the recommendation is to grant permanent consent.  The original recommendation from the conservation officer was not a valid way to proceed, and her advice was subsequently revised, once they felt comfortable with the proposal.

 

CM:  asked for clarification that the telephone box isn’t actually part of the mural and isn’t included in the application – the artwork loses its significance without it.

 

MJC, in response:

-       confirmed that this is the case – the telephone box does not form part of the application..

 

BF:  this is the oddest application he has every heard.  If the artwork was of no value, it would be long gone.  The property was tenanted when the Banksy first appeared, and there have been various claims of ownership.  The telephone box has to be retained for it to have any significance.  Why is the satellite dish included in the application but not the telephone box, which together make this a humorous piece of art.  Banksy is admired all over the world.  Feels sure the artwork can be saved, and that it should be saved where it is.  Regarding the render, believes this can be repaired to alleviate the damp.  We have to approve this application and protect the artwork, in view of its significance to this town only. 

 

MS:  agrees with BF.  It is unfortunate in many ways for the owner of the property to have this valuable artwork donated to the side of his house, but we are very lucky to have an applicant prepared to take on responsibility for protecting it for future generations.  This artwork is unique and a real tourist attraction - there is nothing like it anywhere else, and its value can be enhanced once it’s fully protected.  We need to talk to BT or someone about the telephone box and how this can be retained.  The Banksy should be supported, and Cheltenham is very lucky to have someone prepared to fund the work.

 

AM:  feels much the same as MS.  When the Banksy was first revealed, it was wonderful – appropriate, witty, Cheltenham-esque – but after the euphoria died down, the problems began to emerge.  This is street art, on an unstable wall.  Considers the proposed way forward to be sensible, offering the opportunity to protect the mural and keep it in the public domain.  The telephone box is not significant; if BT remove it, it would not be beyond wit to  put another one there.  We have to take this forward; we have spent too long waiting to work out what to do.  This is a viable solution and we should progress with it. 

 

PT:  regarding the telephone box, we have listed telephone boxes on the Promenade, and could presumably list this one too in due course, as it is so much part of the mural and Cheltenham scene.  Is sorry that the owner of the building doesn’t see this the same way as Members do.  Is ashamed of the people who defaced the artwork – this is appalling behaviour, not seen anywhere else.  It is a shame the owner can’t see the value of what he has on the end of his building.  Doesn’t consider it devalues the house – it could be repaired, let, lived in, sold.  The Banksy should be retained and we should do the best we can to protect it over the years to come.

 

GB:  is fairly sure the owner of the building does realise the value of what he has, but is concerned about other issues.

 

CH:  is very supportive of retaining the Banksy.  Lives locally and it is amazing to see how many people came to visit it as soon as it was done.  Weeks later, just before the hoardings went up, people were still visiting, taking photos.  It is a real asset to the town, and local shops and businesses are really pleased to have it as it has made such a difference to the community, so much so that the business community is prepared to do all sorts of things and offer monetary backing to keep this important feature in Cheltenham.  It is sad that the artwork has been blocked off for so long, but as an aside, the comments and additional graffiti that appeared on the hoarding were all interesting too.  The telephone box is not an insurmountable issue. In a very short space of time, the Banksy has become an integral part of that area of town, and it’s very important that it stays in Cheltenham.  This application has his whole-hearted support.

 

DS:  understands that this is only Stage One of a lengthy process. Where do we stand legally regarding who owns and/or maintains the artwork at present, and what happens when the work is paid for by someone who doesn’t own the building.  It is a legal minefield. 

 

KS:  the practical question is what will happen if we approve this application.  The render should have been repaired a long time ago.  There is clearly no love lost between the owner and the applicant, so what will be done?  Will the building be left to rot?  Will it be in CBC’s hands, and be subject to enforcement action?  What if the mural falls off the wall, or if the wall falls off the mural?  This ordinary phone box is now a local landmark; it’s really important that the artwork is retained and better if it is retained where it is.  Is disappointed that work has already been done inside the building without permission.  Would the Banksy be better protected at The Wilson?  Is worried that it will be subject to attack by passers-by for ever.  This is quite a saga:  it shows Cheltenham in a good light, that we can laugh at ourselves, but also in a poor light that this work of art has been defaced and attempts made to take the side of the wall off to make money.  We have to find a way to move forward.  The render on the side of the house needs to be sorted out.

 

PB:  the phrase ‘looking a gift horse in the mouth’ comes to mind here.  Cheltenham is very lucky to have this fantastic piece of art donated to it, as a centre for tourism, arts, culture, festivals and so on.  It is a shame common sense can’t prevail here; people love the Banksy and want to retain it.  The applicant wants to help, as does the business community.  The applicant, owner and council officers need to sit round a table a sort it out. 

 

CL, in response:

-       the question of who owns the Banksy is an interesting one. It is understood that the owner of the building owns the wall, although there had been some suggestions that it was owned by the County; what is clear is that  the applicant doesn’t own it;

-       regarding future maintenance, this application is purely retrospective, concerning the artwork already painted on the wall.  It is an unauthorised alteration to the listed building, and it was a criminal offence to put it there in the first place.  If it wasn’t already done, would we be happy to give permission for it?  The issue today is, going forward, whether to authorise it or not.

 

MJC, in response:

-       Members have answered their own questions about the phone box.  There are limitations to what this particular application can achieve, but the phone box can be retained in some way;

-       to KS, officers have reflected long and hard in considering this application, who will maintain the artwork in the future, and how CBC can influence that.  By granting listed building consent, we will give the applicant a greater level of confidence to proceed with conversations with the owner;

-       however, CBC has had no influence over those discussions or conclusions.  The render is in a poor state and we can influence its improvement – the council has been aware of this since January 2014, before the Banksy was added, and can issue an S215 notice to ensure the work is done, as it is in the public interest to improve the quality of the land.   This, however, is a last resort, and it’s hoped that the work can be done through discussions between the owner and the applicant, with the council in the background;

-       the NPPF is relevant in this case, with its advice to look for solutions rather than problems.  The solution here is to retain this important piece of art, but we cannot give a definitive answer to this yet – each application will have to be considered at the right time, on its own merits;

-       the first stage is to grant listed building consent and see what the owner and the applicant can come up with.

 

KS:  if we authorise the listing and someone attacks the artwork, they will be committing a criminal offence.  How can we ensure it is protected?  What security measures can be used?

 

CM:  has listened to the debate and understands that the applicant is in negotiations and is prepared to pay for the repairs to the wall, but what will happen if the negotiations break down and the owner is

left with the burden of the repair and maintenance?

 

DS:  if listed building consent is granted, will we not be encouraging people to go round painting on other people’s houses?

 

MJC, in response:

-       the burden of repair of the render was with the property owner long before the Banksy appeared in April 2014, so there is no shifting of responsibility here.  What we now have is an applicant willing to take it on and facilitate the repairs; if the discussions fail, the situation will be no different from what it was before the Banksy, although this is an added complication;

-       at the nub of the issue, however, is the written assurance from a surveyor that the remediation work can take place without compromising the Banksy itself; 

-       the ongoing protection of the Banksy is one of the unknowns. The applicant doesn’t own the building so is not responsible for protecting it, but it is hoped that by authorising the Banksy, discussions with the property owner can be advanced;

-       if the application is refused, there will be no encouragement for these discussions to take place.  This is why officers feel it is right to take a positive approach in facilitating the retention of the Banksy, and consider any further applications on their own merits in time;

-       everyone acknowledges that the work is important and brings many benefits to the town, which is why the Committee would be right to support its retention.

 

CM:  this must be considered a win-win situation, if the applicant is prepared to pay for the work.

 

BF: to DS’s comment that granting permission could encourage anyone to paint on any building, it is only being retained because it is a Banksy.

 

JF:  most graffiti has no artist merit, and any other graffiti art in the area would be removed.

 

KS:  on the issue of money and how much is the Banksy worth to the person who owns the house if he was to remove and sell it, its retention on the building is in the interest of the building itself.  It  is not just the render that would have to be removed; the property is built with very old bricks, and it would be difficult to remove these without removing the render and damaging the Banksy.  To preserve the artwork in situ is the only option, and hopes that this moves forward soon before it is further defaced.

 

AM:  Members are making very heavy weather of this.  At the moment, the Banksy has no legal rights – it is a piece of vandalism on the side of a listed building.  All Members are being asked to do tonight is to give it the right to exist – that is the sum total – to be followed by further discussions between the owner and the applicant.

 

GB:  that is right.  The issue has been debated well. 

 

 

Vote on officer recommendation to grant

12 in support

1 in objection

GRANT