Let's step back for a moment here to look at the town's c19 heritage plan, assuming such a concept then existed, because a historically disturbing parallel emerges, involving Cheltenham's two most prestigious colleges, and whether they have learned any lessons for the future remains to be seen. Whilst we are now in quite different times it doesn't alter the fact that the very essence of Georgian Cheltenham Spa - was it's Spas, and the premier spa was Royal Old Wells, patronized by King George III in 1788 and thousands of his subjects thereafter. What would people then have said had they known that less than a century later others would consciously destroy Cheltenham's signature landmark to make way for another educational establishment, which could have been sited almost anywhere else around Cheltenham? For that is precisely what happened when certain people, who thought they were acting in a proper and businesslike manner, razed this historic treasure to the ground in 1873, effectively burying the Royal Old Wells beneath the bricks and mortar of Cheltenham Ladies' College.

 

Royal Old Wells
and nearby buildings.
Lost under Cheltenham Ladies' College in the 1870s

 

Such schemes generated as little enthusiasm in Cheltenham then as others have since and we can sense something of the mood of the time from the local Press in 1875, as it campaigned to save yet another threatened spa, cautioning the developers by saying, 'this significant information should awaken the attention of those who profess to be interested in the welfare of the town, and who, anxious for new attractions to uphold its prosperity, yet allow the old ones to pass away without any effort to preserve them. For lack of such an effort the Royal Old Wells, the foundation of the town's celebrity, with its glorious avenue of Elms, erewhile the boast of Cheltenham, was allowed to pass into the hands of speculators in bricks and mortar, who have effectively erased it from the map'.

 

Significantly, during the 1870s it was proposed to build a 'Lunatic Asylum' in Charlton Park, but that too did not happen, even though the location would have confined its occupants in a peacefully beneficial environment. But by the 1960s another businesslike design group, comprising learned councillors from the town's second prestigious seat of learning saw fit to draw up similarly destructive plans to pile-drive through this beautiful parkland and erect five horrendously massive concrete structures upon it. Some may say it is inappropriate or disingenuous to make comparisons between the 1870s and the 1960s but clearly little had been learned about heritage or aesthetics in the meantime. A century on, despite its ring-fenced and historic past, Charlton Park was no longer immune to what may now be seen as another variant of madness in the park, when people who 'could do better' were prepared to embark on an equally damaging venture as 'speculators in bricks and mortar'. Charlton Park was no longer protected by Reeves' covenants, unless of course Cheltenham College chose to adhere to the spirit of them.

 

Should anyone consider this account an exaggeration of this architectural near-miss, a sizeable comparison is justified to gauge the environmental impact these mega structures would have had on Cheltenham generally and Charlton Park in particular. As you view the town today, from almost any vantage point, the Eagle Tower (former administrative headquarters of Eagle Star Insurance) dominates the town's skyline. Eagle Tower (opened October 1968) is only 13-storeys high. This enables us to better judge how five 20-storey blocks (not to mention the additional 7-storey blocks accompanying them) would have impacted on the town. There is nothing like it in Charlton Kings either, where the tallest buildings - two 6-storey blocks of flats in Moorend Park (Withyholt Court) were not built until September 1964. The picture on page 58 is probably the best way to evaluate the impact it would have had on the town.

 

Not easily thwarted, in 1963 the College attempted to come to some agreement with the County Planning Officer regarding height and density, but his views differed so widely from the views of the Local Finance Committee that the College Council decided at a meeting in December 1963 that the best course would be to obtain a decision from the Ministry of Housing & Local Government by way of appeal. An appeal was lodged and an Inspector was appointed by the Ministry to hold the Inquiry on 14 July 1964. One week before the Inquiry a conference was held with Counsel who advised that even if the appeal was successful it was doubtful if anything of value would be achieved, unless College was certain of finding a developer willing to undertake the project in the form settled by the appeal. On this advice it was decided to adjourn the appeal sine-die. The action taken to adjourn the appeal was confirmed by the College Finance Committee in August 1964. At this meeting, the Committee resolved to engage first class estate agents.

 

In February 1965 a firm of (London) Estate Agents and Surveyors were instructed and in May 1965 the College Finance Committee considered their report in which they advised that a scheme be prepared containing a mixture of relatively high, slender tower blocks, some two or 3-storeyed dwellings and some houses, keeping the site open and preserving the trees. They envisaged access only from Old Bath Road. In the light of discussions with the County Planning Officer, they suggested a density target of 250 units. The Finance Committee instructed the London Agents to submit a formal application to the Planning Authority to obtain outline planning permission, but without withdrawing the appeal previously lodged. This application was submitted in September 1965 and refused in November 1965. The grounds for refusal were that "the application for planning permission ought not to be considered separately from the siting of buildings, particularly in relation to the existing trees and groups of trees, their numbers and types and point of access." This meant that a detailed tree survey and similar plans for the access road was now required. A comment of a member of College Council on hearing of this was 'it is clear that the Planning Authorities have taken Messrs. Drivers, Jonas & Co [the agents] for a long ride and have now dumped them in the desert far away from the planning battleground'.