CONTROVERSIAL plans to demolish Malvern’s old community hospital and replace it with a care home could gain the support of the district council at the fourth time of asking.
Planning officers have recommended the authority approves Montpellier Estates’ proposals to knock down the former hospital in Lansdowne Crescent and replace it with a 46-bed care home at tonight’s (Wednesday) southern area planning committee.
The developers submitted two applications back in 2015 for a 50-bed care home – one in a contemporary style and the other more traditional – but both were rejected in 2016.
Another application followed for a 46-bed home but it was refused last year.
This is now subject to an appeal with an informal hearing to take place on August 29.
The fourth application has been amended to completely change the design of the planned care home, proposing a traditional scheme similar to the other terraces in Lansdowne Crescent.
In their application, Montpellier said: “We are committed to the process of public consultation and have engaged with the district council, the regional design panel MADE as well as the community during the course of the three previous applications.
“The design proposals attempt to respond positively to the comments arising from these pre-application consultations, particularly in respect of the view of the general public and those of community representatives.”
However, the latest application has once again been met by strong opposition from Lansdowne Crescent residents, Historic England, Malvern Civic Society, Malvern Town Council and the district council’s own conservation officer Sarah Lowe.
She said: “From the heritage perspective, the impact of the proposal on the Great Malvern Conservation Area is considered to be at the minor level of harm.
“In relation to the former Malvern Community Hospital, the harm is considered to be substantial.
“In both these cases the heritage conclusion must be the proposal should be refused due to the harm identified.”
A Malvern Town Council spokesperson said: “We would like the majority of the building to be retained, especially the existing facade, and for any development to reflect and be sympathetic to the history of the building as well as the surrounding area.”
