Care home expansion rejected (From Hampshire Chronicle)

Care home expansion rejected

7:40am Tuesday 7th October 2008

• Print
• Email
• Share
• Comments(0)

PLANNERS overwhelmingly rejected a scheme to extend a Winchester care home, which would have more than doubled its capacity.

The Greensleeves Homes Trust, which runs St Cross Grange in St Cross Road, said it needs to expand the home to remain viable.

The trust wants to demolish some 20th century extensions to the mid-19th century property, and put larger ones in their place.

The capacity for specialist, dementia and general care beds would rise from 29 to 62, while the size of the building would more than double. Several trees would be cut down to make room for the new extensions.

The trust argues that there is a shortage of elderly care beds in Hampshire, possibly up to 200 across Winchester, Eastleigh, Stockbridge and Romsey.

As a result, 19 people wrote to Winchester City Council to support the plans.

However, 57 local people objected. Concerns included the care home being too large, and a loss of privacy with the removal of trees.

The council's planning committee met in Winchester to decide the matter.

Planning officers recommended refusal. In a report, they said: "The proposed extensions are large in scale, height and massing and would increase the overall footprint of the original building substantially. As a result, it is considered that the proposed extensions would engulf the original building."

Cllr Fiona Mather, who represents St Cross, also urged rejection. She said: "This is simply trying to put a quart into a pint pot and it will overwhelm the original building and damage the character of the area."

Kate James, chief executive of the trust, which operates 15 further care homes elsewhere in Britain, said the property needed to be modernised and expanded to make it viable.

Cllr Barry Lipscomb said: "The problem is, as I think we all agree, that it is just too big for the site, and the number of trees that will be lost is too many. This is the wrong site for a building of this size."

The committee rejected the scheme by 10 votes to none with one abstention.

• Print
• Email
• Share
• Comments(0)