TWO planning applications for the old Malvern hospital in Lansdowne Crescent have been thrown out by district council planners.

Developer Montpelier Estates provided two alternatives for turning the site into a 50-bed care home, one in modern style, the other more traditional.

But both were heavily opposed by local residents, and both have now been given the thumbs-down by Malvern Hills District Council.

Many objectors criticised the fact that Montpelier’s plan called for the demolition of the hospital, which was opened in 1911 and was a gift to the town from philanthropist C W Dyson Perrins.

The refusal has been welcomed by Malvern Civic Society.

Vice-president John Harcup said: “I think its great news, The proposals were ghastly, and the hospital is a great little building which fits into the local environment perfectly.”

However, Montpelier said this week that it plans to return with a new application for the site.

In its refusal, the council said: “It is not considered that the public benefits of the scheme outweigh the impact upon the historic environment.

“The proposal fails to justify the loss of the existing building within the Conservation Area and the positive contribution it makes to the conservation area and the local significance of the existing building.

“The proposal does not demonstrate that the replacement building and proposed redevelopment would be of sufficient quality to preserve or enhance the character or appearance of this part of the conservation area.”

It also says that the bulk of the building would cause an unacceptable loss of outlook to a neighbouring property, which would be harmful to its occupiers.

James McGarry of Montpelier said: “We’re disappointed about this, after we have worked closely with the council, with residents and with the local design panel on this, but we will go away, study the reasons for the refusal and try to come up with something that will prove more acceptable.”

He said that the company will stick with a size of around 50 beds for the care home, because if it were any smaller, it would not be economically viable.