Home   Ashford   News   Article

Councillors slam plans for care home on former Ashford Hospital land

Plans for a "monolithic" care home and houses on a former hospital site have been thrown out.

Furious councillors slammed the plans for a 75-bed care home in Ashford as "another prison for elderly people".

A CGI of the front of the proposed care home on former Ashford Hospital land
A CGI of the front of the proposed care home on former Ashford Hospital land
The land in Chart Road has been unused for 30 years
The land in Chart Road has been unused for 30 years

At a full planning committee meeting, Ashford Borough Council refused the plans for the land that was once Ashford Hospital over the care home's design and issues around parking.

The proposal, which was first introduced in 2019, related to land in Chart Road that has laid derelict for more than 30 years.

The last of the buildings on the site were demolished in 2016, and much of the extended site has been redeveloped save for the space in question.

Under the proposal, part of the land would have been taken up by a care home, which would provide dementia-friendly care for up to 75 patients, while the second half would be taken up by private homes.

There would be a cycle path connecting the two halves of the development, 25 parking spaces for the care home and private parking for the houses.

While the council accepted there was a desire and need for building on the site, it was almost universally critical of the design.

Cllr Neil Shorter (Con) said the proposed look was "monolithic", and would be "unacceptable" in its current form.

"This is not what we believe that dementia patients deserve. We are not experts in dementia care, but we feel that this is not right," he added.

Cllr Linda Harman (Ind) said that she would "go a step further."

"It's hideous," she said. "It is the design of yet another prison for our elderly people."

"We heard that there are no balconies because some of the patients will have dementia. I have seen people with dementia hammering their fists on the windows because they cannot get out.

"It's absolutely inhuman to design buildings in this way."

The pair's arguments were supported by a number of other councillors.

Cllr William Howard (Con) described the design and many of the sketches in the application as "appalling".

"My six-year-old daughter has already reached the standard of this architect, so I am looking forward to her future career," he said.

A sketch showing the proposed care home
A sketch showing the proposed care home

"Like everyone else, I want something there. You've had 30 years to come up with an idea, try again."

Cllr Neil Ovenden added that the home looked like a prison "internally as well as externally".

"It has very narrow corridors, little open space and it doesn't have great outside access which is secure for the residents," he said.

"Those with dementia need that security in outdoor space. I think it needs a complete redesign and to think about the residents rather than the building."

An officer speaking in defence of the application insisted that the sketches "do not do the building justice" and that the CGI – which councillors agreed showed a more attractive building – was a more accurate showing of the building.

The proposed layout of the care home and houses
The proposed layout of the care home and houses

"There are far more features that would reduce that monolithic effect than the elevation pictures would suggest," he added.

"We can condition the application to ensure those features are part of the scheme."

However, there were also concerns over the parking for the care home, with several councillors questioning whether the allocated spaces would be enough.

Cllr Neil Shorter (Con) said the proposed parking was "inadequate" and would cause "mayhem" in the area.

"Just going off staff and not including any doctors that come to site, chiropodists, hairdressers or ambulances – I have come up with a figure of 50-plus [spaces needed]," he added.

"I am of a view that the parking is a primary issue, as if that is not resolved it will cause mayhem in the local community."

Following the debate, the proposal was refused by 12 votes to none.

Close This site uses cookies. By continuing to browse the site you are agreeing to our use of cookies.Learn More