DEVELOPERS hoping to build a 42-bed ‘extra care’ home for the elderly on the outskirts of Grayshott have re-submitted their plans to East Hampshire District Council (EHDC) after taking legal advice that the council had wrongly refused planning permission.

The application on a green field site west of Ludshott End, off Headley Road, has been made by Dr and Mrs Dowson

The site – if approved – would be operated by Cinnamon Care, which maintained this week there was a need for the accommodation, which would provide independent living for the elderly but also give them extra support.

EHDC refused planning permission in November last year on several grounds including that the home was on a greenfield site outside the settlement boundary of both Grayshott and Headley Down.

Planners also said it was within the local strategic gap, and was not in a sustainable location for people to access without private cars and because of the impact on the Wealden Heaths phase two special protection area – being opposite Ludshott Common.

The council also stated the development would “fundamentally change the character of the area from an undeveloped field to an urban form of development of substantially scale and mass”.

However the applicants say they have re-submitted the plans because they believe the council failed to adequately assess the proposal in terms of both the local demand for an extra care facility and the use class of the proposal under planning rules.

They say legal advice from a Queens Counsel (QC) concluded the council incorrectly determined the application as a C3 use and not C2 use.

Class C2 is for residential accommodation and for people in need of care, but C3 is usually for self-contained homes which can be for families or supported housing schemes.

Other arguments put forward in support include claims that the strategic gap is not defined in the current EHDC development plan.

The site is between Heatherley Wood natural burial site to the west, and a small strip with four properties to the east. Further along in the same direction is Applegarth Farm, where permission has now been given for 80 new homes.

In a detailed planning statement to EHDC the applicants also maintained there was a need for the home, quoting a report which stated there was a shortfall of 246 extra care beds within a seven-mile radius of the site.

It also said there were no other available sites in the area.

The planning statement also said there would be five car parking spaces for residents as it was expected to be a self-sufficient community, but two request bus stops would be installed at the entrance to encourage staff and visitors to use public transport.

Last year, the scheme attracted more than 40 objections from residents when it was originally proposed as a 64-bed care home in July, with residents re-submitting their objections when the plans were amended in October.

Villager Hugh Shearer, whose home is on a strip of land next to the site, is urging people to object once more.

He said: “Although nothing has changed, the applicants Dr Dowson and Mrs Dowson have re-applied.

“Local residents should not assume their objection to the original application will be considered, therefore, although it’s a pain, everyone should re-submit their objections.”

Mr Shearer said the applicants had failed to provide any statistics to support the claim there was a demand for extra beds for the elderly in the area, adding: “Research has shown there are 33 care homes within three miles of Grayshott, and 50 within 5.9 miles.

“Grayshott has a population of approximately 2,500, therefore there is one care home for every 50 members of the Grayshott community, regardless of their age.

“How many of these 50 people, if any, will be committed to a care home?

“By comparison, Alton with a population in excess of 18,000 appears only to have five homes, the same applies to Petersfield, with a population in excess of 13,000.

“These statistics show how absurd it is to consider converting a greenfield site into yet another care home, but as many people in the local community have expressed the opinion that this application is not about the need for a care home, but more about the lure of a huge pay day, if only the owners and developers can persuade our planning authorities that there is a need.

“If EHDC confirms its original decision to refuse permission, as we would expect them to do because nothing has changed since their decision in November last year, maybe it is time for the owners to consider an alternative option for this land, that does not involve any commercial/residential construction of any kind, and that would retain this land as it is now – part of our countryside.

“The pay day would probably not be so great but they would at least achieve the objective of raising capital.”

Mr Shearer added that advances in medication and surgery meant that although people were living longer, they were remaining independent and the need for care homes would diminish.

Comments on the plan should be made by Thursday, July 14 - the reference number is 55801/001.

The application can be viewed at www.easthants. gov.uk by clicking on the planning links.