DPC approves St Andrew’s Church project

The historic St Andrew’s Church is set to be refurbished following the approval of a full application by the Development and Planning Commission at Thursday’s meeting.

Permission was sought for the refurbishment and redevelopment of the existing building, to convert it into a hub for multi-faith dialogue and learning, called The Rock Sanctuary, which is driven by businessman Leslie Ratcliffe. 

The church, a historical landmark in the heart of town when it was opened in 1854, will see comprehensive conservation works, the replacement of the roof and timber elements, and sensitive internal adaptations to accommodate community, educational, and visitor uses.

Guest accommodation and ancillary facilities will be situated at basement level, while the ground floor nave is to serve as a flexible event space, with the former altar adapted as a stage.

Further reforms entail reconfiguring the western annex to house shared facilities and accessible toilets, with the reinstatement of historic arched window openings.

The first-floor gallery will be modestly extended to incorporate technical resources for broadcasting, together with access to a landscaped roof terrace. Notably, a new clock will be installed on the building’s north facade as part of a wider heritage restoration programme.

“In terms of our assessment, we welcome the proposals and also the dialog that the applicant has had with us and the heritage bodies during this project to this stage,” said the Deputy Town Planner, Chris Key.

“The proposals, in the town planning department's opinion, constitute a sensitive and adaptive reuse of the listed Church, which will secure the building's long-term future.”

“The Works internal and external, will retain the principal historic fabric of the building.”

He added that with respect to some existing pipe work, it should be raised so it exposes the existing Keystone, and recommended that a revised plan is submitted to reflect this.

“Overall, we consider that the proposals are consistent with the strategic aims of the development plan to safeguard heritage assets,” said Mr Key.

Members were unanimously in favour of the project, subject to compliance with several conditions, including the development of a fire strategy, a sustainability statement, and the restoration of parking spaces following construction.

OTHER PROJECTS

The application for House 4, The Quarters, 2 Hospital Ramp, for a roof-top extension was refused by the DPC members, who voted eight against and three for.

The applicant, James Boord, sought permission for an extension, designed to match the development's aesthetics, which would provide a gym, utility room, and toilet.

“Since its inception, there were many iterations before we got to the scheme, which was approved, which is shown on this scheme,” said Chris Key the Deputy Town Planner.

There was a minor amendment submission for the whole development, including one for a staircase and a free-standing open pergola.

Concerns were raised about the cumulative impact and potential for future extensions. Despite no objections from heritage or environmental departments, the town planning department recommended refusal due to the precedent it could set.

The vote resulted in eight members in favour of refusal and three in favour of approval.

An application for 8 Transport Lane by Albert Borrell for a landscaped garden and deck area within the adjacent open land was refused when seven members voted against it and only four in favour.

The applicant sought permission for the extension of a private garden and incorporate some of the land into the rear garden of his home, with works including a perimeter wall, timber fencing, landscaped planters, and retention and protection of mature trees.

Mr Key told the members that the Department of Environment voiced strong objections, warning that the scheme would “result in the removal of a publicly accessible open space and would reduce its recreational, amenity, and community value.”

They suggested the site’s biodiversity and public benefit could instead “be enhanced through native planting and wildlife features, which could then upgrade the community value of the area whilst retaining its open communal nature.”

“And they consider that the introduction of boundary walls would go against this and would diminish the openness of the site, negatively affecting the surrounding area.”

The Ministry for Heritage were not against the application.

In reading the Town Planner’s assessment, Mr Key said that the department considers the area as part of an open, accessible and formal green space, which in planning and urban design terms could be enhanced to be a fully functional as a public place to serve the south district.

“We consider that should the Commission approve the application, it would lead to a precedent, and there's a very realistic possibility that other applications to encroach on the open area could be submitted.”

He added this could lead to a further erosion of what is “valuable, open amenity space”.

“We would agree with the comments raised by the Department of Environment, and that instead of its enclosure, the area the existing site could be enhanced, which would upgrade the amenity value of the area was retaining its open, communal nature,” he said.

“We would stress that the existing condition of the open space could be improved if this space was maintained appropriately.”

“Overall, we would consider the private benefit gained through the acquisition of part of a wider open space to provide an increased enclosed garden for an individual doesn't outweigh the harms the public benefit that would occur as a result of the proposed encroachment.”

“This would carry significant weight, as well as the associated loss of place making opportunity to provide an enhanced open green space in the future.”

He added that in view of this, they considered that the development is contrary to policies and recommended the refusal of this application.

DPC member, Janet Howitt, said: “Enclosing it would be a sin, sorry to say, but it really would be a sin, and really felt by the people of the area.”

The Minister for Environment and for Heritage, Dr John Cortes, said that his two departments had conflicting opinions on the application.

“Clearly the area could be enhanced as a whole, but the area could also be developed in the future by less environment sensitive people, in a way, protecting this as a garden, provided it stays as a garden, in some way banks it as a green area,” he said.

He added that he normally does not like enclosing public spaces, but he saw the danger of public spaces not being enclosed when looking at future pressures.

“I think that we could gain something here if we were to encourage the applicant, if this is approved, to actually contribute to doing in the surrounding area exactly what you're recommending, by assisting in the planting of native vegetation and increasing the biodiversity,” he said.

He noted that the heritage advisors said the proposal is sensitively designed and it is going to be a green area.

“On balance, and because I think this will actually bank a green area, potentially for longer, and possibly with getting the applicants to support some perhaps government run work in improving the surrounding area. I'm going to support this application,” he said.

DPC member Dr Keith Bensusan, Director of the Gibraltar Botanic Gardens and the General Secretary of (GONHS), said he had to “disagree entirely” with Dr Cortes’s position.

“Because the area's chief value is as a public amenity. I'm never going to support the conversion of public amenity into private amenity, because for everyone except for the property owner, what we're going to see is a wall. So I'm against it,” he said.

The owner of that property and applicant, Mr Borrell, was given a moment to speak at the meeting after he was asked by Minister Leslie Bruzon if there would be a guarantee that no permanent structures be placed in the garden.

“The area would be preserved as open air space, and that it wouldn't be used for anything other than the garden with no permanent structures, and I'm happy to subject it to contractual and legal commitments,” he said.

The ESG’s Janet Howitt expressed concern at Dr Cortes’ comments.

“I think that really fills the community with dread, because we consider this to be a public space, a public amenity, and this threat that we have to give something up because we're going to see a major development is really quite frightening,” she said.

“I think if it doesn't have adequate protection, as one of the few remaining green areas that we have around the urban areas in Gib, then we have to increase protection. We can't sacrifice some of it and this isn't a huge plot anyway, so we have to protect it, and we should do everything we can to do so.”

Dr Cortes said his comments were not a threat and that he would not support any construction there, and that he will protect it as much as he can.

But, he said, in the future other governments may have different priorities and pressures on urban areas in Gibraltar.

“It wasn't a threat, but I genuinely think that it could bank an open area or green area in a way that future governments would not be able to change, whereas now we are open to what the future may hold, but it was not a threat, from my part at all,” he said.

She replied that she firmly believes that what is best for this area is “bank the entire area as it stands as public amenity, and that’s the best outcome for the environment.”

“Don’t you agree?” she asked him.

He replied he did indeed agree with her but that was not the application in front of them today and stated: “Your argument is a wider argument.”

Dr Bensusan clarified he did not take Dr Cortes’ comments as a threat but rather as pessimistic.

“When, in fact, it's in the ministry's gift to do something about it, whether to enshrine it in policy or wider legislation regarding green areas, that's up to the ministry, but I thought it was unduly pessimistic,” Dr Bensusan said.

Dr Cortes agreed it was pessimistic and that they could legislate “but future governments which have less green criteria could also legislate in the opposite direction”.

“I hope it never happens, and as long as I'm alive, I will try hard that it doesn't happen. But at the moment, I cannot guarantee the future,” he said.

The application was put to a vote, resulting in seven in favour of refusal and four in favour of approval. The four in favour included the two Ministers,

Finally the application for Piece of Cake, Unit 2, The Residence, obtained planning approval to enclose an outdoor area of the premises.

During the session, the owner of the café Mrs Garcia outlined ongoing challenges with the café’s exterior planters, which she described as being regularly damaged, misused as litter bins, and frequented by local cats.

These issues, she said, created hygiene concerns and negatively impacted customers’ experience, with the area also serving as an informal seating spot for smokers.

To address these problems, she proposed enclosing the external space with glass, enabling her to better maintain plants and preserve both cleanliness and the café’s atmosphere.

While some commission members suggested alternative measures, such as making the ledge less inviting or using deterrents for cats she explained that these methods had already been attempted without success.

Following a discussion on the impact to street aesthetics and responsibility for planter maintenance, the commission initially considered requiring modifications to the proposal.

However, after further debate and a vote which saw only one member in favour of the modification, the majority of the commission approved the application as submitted, with nine in favour, one against, and one abstention.

The proposal for the refurbishment and extension of a residence at 15 Scud Hill, which includes the construction of a ground floor garage, was not discussed as it was deferred by the applicant.