New Helensburgh care home design 'unsuitable' – council report

The advice comes in a consultation response from a ‘design and conservation officer’ at Argyll and Bute Council, commenting on revised proposals for a former local authority depot next to the town centre park.

Simply UK withdrew a previous application to develop the site earlier this month – and within days lodged a new, revised set of proposals for a four-storey care home on the site.

The officer’s report says the building in the revised plan is of similar height to the original application, and so would still impact on views of the adjacent war memorial.

The red brick finish is also said in the report to be unsuitable for the parkland setting.

Neighbouring residents have also lodged objections with the council.

Fifteen objections have been received by the authority as this article was published – most, if not all, from people who also objected to the original application.

The design and conservation officer’s response says: “The design and access statement states that ‘the monument is a considerable distance away from the application site’.

“However, Historic Environment Scotland’s [HES] professional assessment was that while being some distance away from the memorial the current massing, scale and height would have an impact.

“Whilst HES’s position in terms of the previous proposal was not to object as the issues are not of national significance, it is considered that these historic environment issues are still of regional and local significance.”

The report then adds: “The red brick is not considered to be suitable for the parkland setting as it would neither integrate harmoniously nor make a high quality contemporary statement.

“As detailed in this assessment, it is considered that this proposal is not suitable for the site from a heritage/design point of view.

“However, if consent were granted then samples should be submitted for all materials as well as details of the proposed windows.”

Richard Cullen, of the Friends of Prince Albert Terrace, also lodged  a 23-page submission with the council, taking issue with a number of points in the revised application’s design and access statement.

In relation to the plans including alterations to the memorial garden, he said: “Restoration of the memorial garden is complete. There are no alterations planned to this space.”

And on DTA Architects’ assertion that the war memorial is designed to be viewed and enjoyed from close up, he said: “This subjective view is difficult to understand.

“The war memorial rises some 20ft above its walled garden setting and is topped by a gold cross, designed to catch the setting sunlight and the eye of the passer by.

“War memorials were designed to be beacons of remembrance and as such, designed to dominate their landscape setting through clear visual sight lines.

“To dismiss the importance of extended view lines is disingenuous and shows little understanding of visual impact within the built environment.”

Professor David Walker, a founding editor of the Dictionary of Scottish Architects, has also submitted an objection, as he did the first time around.

He said: “The new proposals do not address your planning officer’s advice on height.

“The elevations to Hermitage Park are still four storeys high and kindest description that could be applied to the southwest gable would be non-traditional in profile.

“If the applicants cannot meet the specific recommendation of your department in respect of wall heights and roofs then this proposal should be re-sited elsewhere. It is over-development of the site.”

Bars and a beauty salon are among the facilities at the proposed 64-bedroom care facility, which would be over two blocks in an L-shape arrangement.

The architects’ planning and access statement says: “To consider that the proposal would create a dominant addition to the skyline cannot be sustained given that the immediately adjacent residences on Prince Albert Terrace will remain the tallest and most dominant building on the skyline.

“The application proposal will not interrupt views of or to the monument nor would it affect one’s ability to understand and appreciate the historic asset contained within the walled garden setting.”