2025: 88 bed care home on the site of the Bull & Monkie - amended plans

This is a copy of our objection to amended plans for an 88 bed care home on the site of the Bull & Monkie, Churchgate, Spalding

Introduction

After a decade of complete neglect of the site by the applicant, with the result that it has been allowed to become a major blight in one of the most sensitive parts of the Conservation Area, it is a positive step to see the applicant has put forward proposals for the site.
 
However, there is now a danger of falling into the trap of feeling anything would be better than its present derelict state. We do not agree with that notion. This is a key site in the town in an extremely sensitive location. Whatever is developed on the site is likely to stand for at least a century, so it is vital that it is right for the location and does not become an issue of regret in the future.
 
When we received your notification of this revised application we contacted both the Conservation Officer and the Agent by email requesting that the agent comes up to Spalding to meet with us to discuss our concerns and to explore ways in which the application might be approved.

We feel that such a meeting would be in the spirit of paragraph 41 of the current National Planning Policy Framework which states:-

Local planning authorities have a key role to play in encouraging other parties to take maximum advantage of the pre-application stage. They cannot require that a developer engages with them before submitting a planning application, but they should encourage take-up of any pre-application services they offer. They should also, where they think this would be beneficial, encourage any applicants who are not already required to do so by law to engage with the local community and, where relevant, with statutory and non-statutory consultees, before submitting their applications.”

Despite receiving read receipts from both, we have not received any response from the Agent or had any contact from the Conservation Officer regarding our concerns. As far as we are aware the planning authority has not taken action to encourage such a meeting.

We must therefore register a formal objection to this revised application.

As in our objection to the original proposals, this objection to the revised proposals covers three main areas of concern; Functioning of the building; the detailed design of the building and finally its impact on the Spalding Conservation area.

We cannot see that the agent has supplied an updated design & access statement setting out how our concerns and that of the wider general public and members of the planning committee to the original proposal have been addressed by the amended proposal now before us. Has such a document been prepared?

Functioning of the building

Parking

We note that the Transport Assessment admits that parking falls well below the standards set out in the South East Lincolnshire Local Plan (para 4.12). The 13 spaces provided for are less than half the standard and suggests that visitors should make use of the pay and display parking in the town. 

• However many vacant spaces there may be in public carparks within a 500-metre walk, all of them, except the Vista’s, would involve visitors having to cope with the difficult and dangerous six-road junction at High Bridge.  Only the Vista will be regarded as nearby.
• The nearest roadside parking (west side of Churchgate) is usually full all day long as it is.
• Both these car parking areas are at times in full demand as they are nearest to Ayscoughfee Hall and Gardens.
• Whilst it is accepted that almost none of the residents will have cars, some will surely have Motability vehicles, for which there appears to be no provision (cover, charging points).

This reliance on public parking spaces to make up a shortfall in provision of parking spaces seems at odds with the guidance published by the Care Quality Commission relating to Regulation 15 (1)(f) Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014

When planning the location of premises, providers must take into account the anticipated needs of the people who will use the service and they should ensure easy access to other relevant facilities and the local community.

Facilities should be appropriately located to suit the accommodation that is being used. This includes short distances between linked facilities, sufficient car parking that is clearly marked and reasonably close, and good access to public transport.

Indeed, when reading the requirements of the above regulations together with policy 36 of the South East Lincolnshire Local Plan which requires that “Parking for residents, employees and visitors should be integral to the design and form of all new development alongside the justification for policy 36 in particular para 8.5.6:-

The availability of car parking is often seen as key to economic prosperity of the town centres; provision is about right for current demand, although the quality in some areas does not always meet users' expectations. In the long-term, should car ownership and population growth continue to rise without sustainable transport intervention, demand may outstrip supply in Spalding Town Centre. Ensuring town centre car parks are convenient, safe and secure for all, including for those with disabilities will be a priority.

In light of the aforementioned, we do not consider that there can be any justification for any car parking provision below the standard set out within the South East Lincolnshire Local Plan.

Refuse Collection

The supporting documents contradict each other:

 
Transport Statement para 4.29-4.30 “the Council’s Waste and Recycling Collection …… operatives will access bins stored in the refuse store …… and [after emptying] return them to the bin store”.

 
Planning Statement para 4.9; “Refuse will be managed via a private commercial contract”. 
The proposals in the Transport Statement overlook that SHDC only collects plastic bags from the curtilage. Therefore, the care home operator would have to arrange for rubbish to be put out. The volume would inevitably be high and a visual eyesore.

If the proposals set out in the Planning Statement were to apply, then there would need to be a commitment for them to collect and return bins or skips to the enclosure.

Inadequate Green Space

• During the covid lockdowns people learnt the importance of green space, contact with nature, for both mental and physical well-being.
• The ‘Garden Club’ areas are a nice touch, but the green space is confined to a narrow strip, dominated for three-quarters of its length by the four-storey building.
• The courtyard has planting but is predominantly paved and overpowered on three sides by four-storey building.  Only open aspect faces north, so the courtyard will be almost entirely in shadow for much of the year.

The amended design of the building

The unchanged Heritage Impact Statement describes the Churchgate frontage as a “large single Georgian detached house” (para 5.17) and the Vista frontage as a “traditional Georgian terrace” (para 5.11).  A large Georgian Mansion of the same scale as this building would have far more detail in its design. Whilst the amended design is improved, both elevations remain asymmetrical. We illustrated what we mean by this in our previous objection in the examples we provided of traditional Georgian buildings in the town which we repeat on the following pages. 

The feature to the left of the Churchgate elevation along with the side profile of the Vista elevation will be read as asymmetrical in the main frontage. Symmetry is a fundamental element of classical Georgian architecture. (contrast with Welland Terrace, The Sycamores and the modern Merchants House interpretation shown below)

Updated Churchgate Elevation

The fenestrations remain inconsistent with traditional Georgian design, whilst the central entrance lacks the detail that would be expected with a building of this scale.

Welland Terrace

Holland House

The Vista elevation is worse. It is a hotchpotch of different architectural styles, creating a completely asymmetrical look. Whatever it is meant to be, it is not a traditional Georgian Terrace. Contrast with Welland Terrace (see above). Dutch gabling, for example adds a completely different style.

Amended Vista elevation

Impact on Spalding Conservation area

Discussion of the building’s impact on the conservation area and neighbouring listed buildings in the unchanged Heritage Impact Assessment is inadequate.  It is limited almost entirely to impact on immediate neighbours, confined to matters such as privacy and possible light loss.  Consideration of the wider context or “view” is essential, indeed statutory. Paras 135 and 137 of the National Planning Policy Framework are  pertinent to this application  as is policy 29 of the South East Lincolnshire Local Plan.

 
Thus, the airy dismissal of the grade 1 listed Ayscoughfee Hall is surprising; even more so the complete exclusion of the grade 1 listed parish church from all illustrations and computer images.  Both are key elements in the view, especially from the opposite bank of the river.  

Take for example views of the church. The scale of the proposed building is such that it will have a detrimental impact on the views of the church from various vantage points in the town. Some views are most apparent in the Winter when there are no leaves on the trees. In our original objection, we requested the applicant to provide visual images showing how the building would look in relation to the church spire from various vantage points in the town and these have not been provided. On the following pages we include various views of the church spire taken during the Winter months showing that it is clearly visible from different parts of the town. It is very likely that these views of a grade 1 listed building will be substantially impacted. 

The Vista from London Road

Below is our own mock-up of how the site might look compared with the current view of the Church from Vine Street based on the original design. 

The pictures have been matched as accurately as possible (NB :the telephone box). The fake “Georgian” monster of a building will obliterate the view of the church and overpowers the many real Georgian buildings in a key part of the Conservation Area.

There are also other areas around the conservation area where we feel that existing views of the site area may be impacted by the building from various parts of the Spalding Conservation Area. 

Church Spire from Holland Road

Site view from Bath Lane

Much is made of the stepping-down to the height of the Crystal Inn and Ye Olde White Horse, but this is to focus on a small part of the view only.  The stepping-down from the tall buildings of High Street characteristic of town centres has already been done by the Church Street gap, so that in the wider context the left-hand end of the care home marks a stepping-up again to town centre heights.  Its 4-storey height alone would make it obtrusive.  Combined with its overall massing and position at the front edge of the site we feel that it becomes aggressively so. Self-important, in approaches from the town centre it will completely conceal the Parish Church until one draws level with the Vista.  From the south, we fear that its sheer bulk will distract attention from anything else.  Far from respecting the listed buildings and conservation area heritage here, it could bully them into insignificance.
The overall character of the east side of the river at this point, after the two modest hospitality buildings, is of 2-storey buildings set back from the road – as Holyrood House was and the social services building and Ayscoughfee Hall are, even the mediocre Bull and Monkie – the whole group softened by trees and grass and planting, leaving St. Mary and St. Nicolas Church rightly dominant.  If the application were to go forward as submitted, the care home would dominate everything with its still flawed Georgianism.

Statutory Planning Policy Obligations

We fail to understand why the planning authority has not insisted that the illustrations we have requested are supplied. By not considering the specific conditions of paragraph 135 of the National Planning Policy Framework, the authority would in our view be failing in its statutory obligations. For the avoidance of doubt, paragraph 135 of the National Planning Policy Framework states:-

Planning policies and decisions should ensure that developments:

(a) will function well and add to the overall quality of the area, not just for the short term but over the lifetime of the development;

(b) are visually attractive as a result of good architecture, layout and appropriate and effective landscaping;

(c) are sympathetic to local character and history, including the surrounding built environment and landscape setting, while not preventing or discouraging appropriate innovation or change (such as increased densities);

(d) establish or maintain a strong sense of place, using the arrangement of streets, spaces, building types and materials to create attractive, welcoming and distinctive places to live, work and visit;

(e) optimise the potential of the site to accommodate and sustain an appropriate amount and mix of development (including green and other public space) and support local facilities and transport networks; and

(f) create places that are safe, inclusive and accessible and which promote health and well-being, with a high standard of amenity for existing and future users  ; and where crime and disorder, and the fear of crime, do not undermine the quality of life or community cohesion and resilience.

The following are pertinent to ask: -

Will the development function well and add to the overall quality of the area, not just for the short term but over the lifetime of the development?

Our comments on parking suggest that it won’t.

Is the development visually attractive as a result of good architecture, layout and appropriate and effective landscaping?

Our comments on the poor understanding of Georgian design principles, the scale of the building and lack of greenspace lead to the conclusion that it does not.

Is the development sympathetic to local character and history, including the surrounding built environment and landscape setting, while not preventing or discouraging appropriate innovation or change?

Our comments on the build line and scale of the proposed development in comparison with both Holyrood House and Ayscoughfee Hall as well as impacts on views of and from the Church lead us to conclude that it does not.

Paragraph 137 of the National Planning Policy Framework states:

Design quality should be considered throughout the evolution and assessment of individual proposals. Early discussion between applicants, the local planning authority and local community about the design and style of emerging schemes is important for clarifying expectations and reconciling local and commercial interests. Applicants should, where applicable, provide sufficient information to demonstrate how their proposals will meet the design expectations set out in local and national policy, and should work closely with those affected by their proposals to evolve designs that take account of the views of the community. Applications that can demonstrate early, proactive and effective engagement with the community should be looked on more favourably than those that cannot.

As the applicant has failed to respond to our approaches, let alone approached the Society as a key stakeholder in the town or undertaken any other proactive engagement with the community, we feel that this application should not be looked at in a favourable light.

In addition, paragraph 210 states: -

In determining applications, local planning authorities should take account of:
(a) the desirability of sustaining and enhancing the significance of heritage assets and putting them to viable uses consistent with their conservation;
(b) the positive contribution that conservation of heritage assets can make to sustainable communities including their economic vitality; and
(c) the desirability of new development making a positive contribution to local character and distinctiveness.

This application does not enhance the significance of the surrounding heritage assets. It detracts from them. Neither does it make a positive contribution to local character.

Paragraph 213 states:- 

Any harm to, or loss of, the significance of a designated heritage asset (from its alteration or destruction, or from development within its setting), should require clear and convincing justification. Substantial harm to or loss of:
(a) grade II listed buildings, or grade II registered parks or gardens, should be exceptional;
(b) assets of the highest significance, notably scheduled monuments, protected wreck sites, registered battlefields, grade I and II* listed buildings, grade I and II* registered parks and gardens, and World Heritage Sites, should be wholly exceptional. 
 

This application significantly affects the setting of surrounding grade 1 and grade 2 listed buildings with no exceptional justification.

Whilst paragraph 219 states:-

Local planning authorities should look for opportunities for new development within Conservation Areas and World Heritage Sites, and within the setting of heritage assets, to enhance or better reveal their significance. Proposals that preserve those elements of the setting that make a positive contribution to the asset (or which better reveal its significance) should be treated favourably.

This application does not enhance the view of the Church; it detracts, obscures or dominates it. Therefore, we do not consider that the application should be treated favourably.

Given the potential impact on views of the Church, we remain of the view that the  building should be reduced by one storey, or better, two, with a symmetrical design on the Churchgate frontage.

 
We also feel that the build line should be set back from the road to reflect the legacy of Holyrood House and the build line of Ayscoughfee Hall. Even the Bull & Monkie build line did that.

Sustainable use of the site

When the original application came before planning committee, concern was expressed that this application represented the only sustainable option for the site. However, this is not the case. As suggested in our objection, the existing building could be restored and repurposed as a Town Hall for a Town Council. 

Local Government Reform means that a Town Council is no longer an aspiration; it will be a necessity. If the local authority considered this site along with the empty Barclays Bank building and Council Offices, a scheme could be devised that would enable the Bull & Monkie to be repurposed as a Town Hall and the Barclays Bank building purchased for use by the unitary authority which will inevitably require a smaller amount of space in the town. This would have the advantage of bringing council services into the heart of the town. The existing Council Offices could then be sold for use as a Care Home. Whilst it would require some consideration to determine whether such an arrangement is viable, given the respective values of each site, if adopted, there is the potential for a significant profit to be made that could benefit the town of Spalding in future.

 
Not only is there a potential for a significant profit, such a scheme involving the Bull & Monkie site, the Council Offices and the empty Barclays Bank building would make it easier for the planning committee to justify refusing the recent planning application (H16-0518-25) to change the usage of the ground floor from Class E to Sui Generis to facilitate a betting office.

 
Conclusion

Therefore, in light of the planning concerns that we have raised, we ask that the planning authority request the planning department and the agent to engage with us directly to see how the design could be improved and to provide the visual images that we feel are necessary to fully understand the impact of such a large building on the town. This would also allow an opportunity to consider the clear potential for an alternative sustainable use of the site to be explored that could have significant benefits for the local authority, the applicant, the agent and the care home operator.

 
We therefore request that the decision on this application is deferred again. Whilst this does mean that we would have to put up with the eyesore of the current building for a bit longer, we feel that the benefit of establishing whether the views of the Church can be retained along with the alternative sustainable use we propose would be in the interest of this sensitive part of the conservation are and potentially the economic interests of the town.