£750k anonymous donation could be lost if Lancaster hospice plans for family support centre are blocked

A £750,000 donation has been offered by anonymous supporters of St John's Hospice to pay for a 'much-needed' facility to support families.
The lodge at the entrance to St John's Hospice.The lodge at the entrance to St John's Hospice.
The lodge at the entrance to St John's Hospice.

A couple who wish to remain anonymous have offered the money for a centre, which would provide therapeutic support and counselling for children and young people aged four to 16 and their families who have lost parents, siblings and close relatives.

The Slyne Road hospice has submitted plans to Lancaster City Council for the 19th century lodge on its site to be demolished to make way for the new centre.

Hide Ad
Hide Ad

But council officers say Slynedales Lodge is a non-designated heritage asset.

How the proposed centre would look.How the proposed centre would look.
How the proposed centre would look.

It is the former gate lodge to Slynedales, which is the former 1890s country house to the west of the hospice that has been occupied by CancerCare since 1990.

It was converted to office use, and later housed dropped-off donations for the charity, but is currently not in use, and the hospice sees it as an ideal location for a new centre.

The shape and style of the building has been designed to be attractive to families and young people and is purposely similar to the buildings on the Beaumont College site rather than the hospice.

Hide Ad
Hide Ad

Hospice chief executive Sue McGraw said: "A donation of £750,000 has been given by a couple who wish to remain anonymous.

Some images of how the proposed centre would look.Some images of how the proposed centre would look.
Some images of how the proposed centre would look.

"They are keen that Lancaster should have a world-class space to support families, children and young people affected by bereavement and grief. During and after Covid, this will be a much-needed facility."

However, since the couple wish to see the money used for this specific purpose, it is not expected that it would be used elsewhwere within the charity should the scheme fall through.

As we reported earlier this week, the plans are recommended for refusal when they go before the city council's planning committee on Monday.

Hide Ad
Hide Ad

Council officers have said the loss of the building it would replace was 'not justified'.

The basis for the application follows research undertaken last year with Lancaster University which highlighted gaps in local service provision regarding whole family support, pre and post bereavement.

It is hoped the new two-storey centre would be completed during 2021 to coincide with the 35th anniversary of the hospice.

Almost 30 members of the public, including the hospice's immediate neighbours, Slyne-with-Hest Parish Council and Lancaster MP Cat Smith, have supported the plans.

Hide Ad
Hide Ad

Many felt it was a much-needed community facility which would enable the hospice to continue to support the local community and contribute towards the locality’s wellbeing.

It would also reduce the need to rely on services further away.

But, in their report to councillors ahead of Monday's meeting, officers said: "Clearly the proposed family support centre would represent a valuable asset in terms of the delivery of much needed pre and post bereavement care, and it would appear to resolve a gap in service provision across the district.

"These are matters that weigh positively in terms of the planning balance. However, the principle and design of the development is considered to be unacceptable and is not in compliance with relevant development plan policies or the National Planning Policy Framework.

Hide Ad
Hide Ad

"The application seeks planning permission to demolish a non-designated heritage asset and to replace it with a family bereavement centre.

"Whilst the basic principle of a community use is acceptable and is compliant...the loss of the non-designated heritage asset is not justified.

"Officers are unable to conclude that there are material overriding public benefits to warrant the loss of the non-designated heritage asset."