Care home and care units at Highfields, West Hill, East Grinstead

What was proposed

The application sought demolition of the existing dwelling and construction of a 78-bed care home with seven additional care units.

“Planning permission is sought for the demolition of the existing dwelling and the erection of a 78-bed care home and a separate building with 7 additional care units. Such a use of a care home and care units is classed as C2 (residential institution use) under the Town and Country Planning (Use Classes) Order 1987 (as amended). The submitted Planning Statement sets out the development would ‘deliver high levels of care.”

“This is important, not just operationally (efficiency, etc) but to ensure residents have familiar surroundings, regular staffing, benefit from socialising within small groups and, most importantly, give residents a sense of independence in terms of contributing to day-to-day tasks (albeit residents still have access to the wider ‘town centre’ facilities - shop, salon, gym, activities room, etc).’ In terms of the additional care building it is set out that the ‘level of care…”

Officer report

The site and surroundings

The site contained a large dwelling and outbuildings in extensive, sloping grounds surrounded by trees and residential properties.

“Relevant Planning History 8.1 DM/23/0007 - Outline application for Redevelopment of existing single dwelling house and erection of Care Home for up to 85 Bedrooms, with all matters reserved except for access. Whilst this was resolved to be approved at District Planning Committee in June 2023, the application was refused in November 2023 as the required section 106 legal agreement was not completed.”

“The site is surrounded by trees on all sides with a group TPO to the north-western, south-western and south-eastern boundaries (GR/04/TPO/84) of mixed woodland. These trees form part of the verdant character along West Hill on the north-western boundary. Surrounding the site are dwellings of a mixture of scale and design on varying plot sizes.”

Officer report

Why officers supported it

Officers considered the site suitable for specialist accommodation and found the proposal acceptable in principle, design, transport, amenity, trees and biodiversity terms.

“The site is within the built-up area of East Grinstead which is a Category 1 Settlement. The site it therefore considered to be a suitable and sustainable location for a care home. The proposed design of the care home building and extra care unit, whilst larger than the existing single dwelling on the site, is considered to be of an appropriate scale and design for its intended use and would not result in an overdevelopment of the site.”

“The access would be similar in context to that of West Lane set to the north-west of the site which retains the verdant character of this part of the highway. Due to the position of the buildings within the site and the relationship with surrounding residential properties, the proposal would not result in significant harm to the amenities of nearby residents through an impact on privacy, overlooking, outlook, daylight and sunlight, noise and light pollution.”

Officer report

Who spoke

One speaker spoke against the application and another spoke in favour.

The committee vote

Members approved the recommendations with eleven votes in favour and none against.

“The Chairman took Members to a vote on the recommendations, which were proposed by Councillor Sweatman and seconded by Councillor Whittaker. These were approved with 11 in favour and none against.”

Minutes

The decision

Permission was granted subject to conditions and completion of a legal agreement securing infrastructure contributions, a care package and biodiversity net gain.

“Planning permission be granted subject to the conditions listed in Appendix A and the completion of a section 106 legal agreement to secure the required infrastructure contributions, details of a care package and the biodiversity net gain requirements.”

“The proposal fails to provide the required infrastructure contributions and the biodiversity net gain requirements. The application therefore conflicts with Policies DP20, DP21 and DP38 of the Mid Sussex District Plan and the Mid Sussex Supplementary Planning Document ‘Development Infrastructure and Contributions’.”

Minutes