A care home is to be converted into flats – despite a shortage of residential care places.

The owners of The Vale Care Home in Otterbourne Place, Maidstone, have won planning permission to convert the building into 11 flats, which will result in the loss of 27 care beds.

The head of planning at Maidstone Borough Council (MBC), Rob Jarman, told councillors the authority had no planning policy to protect care bed spaces, and therefore this was not a valid legal reason to refuse the application.

The planned conversion has upset the other residents of Otterbourne Place, two of whom spoke at the planning committee meeting to urge councillors to reject the proposal.

Peter May said that although he was not opposed to the conversion per se, but the applicants “were shoe-horning too much into too little space.”

David Elsworth, a resident of 45 years, said the scheme would be “ecologically and socially devasting on the small cul-de-sac”.

Much of the concern centred around the parking provision as the conversion will provide only 13 spaces, although it will create a total of 17 bedrooms, with several double rooms, adding to the parking pressure in the close.

The standard parking regulations would require the provision of 16 spaces.

The applicants argued the shortfall could be overlooked since the development was in a “sustainable location”.

This again was contested by local residents who said the nearest bus stops were a long walk away in either direction, and the site was not itself served by a bus.

Mr Jarman again advised the committee that the borough had no policy defining what constituted “sustainable”.

There was also concern that an existing green space in front of the care home would be lost to create the parking area, but councillors were told the applicants proposed extra landscaping with trees and hedges to shield the public view of the car park.

Charing Healthcare told councillors the nursing home, on the corner with Willington Street, which they had been operating for 25 years, was no longer viable.

They also argued that redevelopment of the scheme would not create a sufficient profit to provide any element of affordable housing, and they produced a viability assessment to that effect.

The assessment was based on the assumption that Charing Healthcare would be paid £1.3m for the site.

Under normal council regulations, the scheme should have provided three affordable housing units.

The conversion will involve extending the existing building and knocking down the front boundary wall.

The proposal is for six one-bed flats, four two-bed flats and one three-bed.

Find out about planning applications that affect you at the Public Notice Portal.

Several councillors were reluctant to approve the plans.

Cllr Valerie Springett (Con) said: “I’m sad about the loss of the wall. And the parking is going to be challenging.”

Cllr Maureen Cleator (Lab) regretted the lack of policies to oppose the application. She said: “I would like to see some common sense in planning – this is going to totally change the street scene.”

However, Cllr Tony Harwood proposed granting permission saying: “It is policy compliant. There are no grounds for refusal.”

That was despite advice from Mr Jarman, who said: ”There is a deficit in parking provision of three spaces. You could legally refuse - the application does not meet parking standards.”

The application was passed by nine votes to three, with one abstention.

After the meeting, Mr Ellsworth said: “I believe this was totally wrong and have made a formal complaint about the advice given by the officers.

“A previous similar but much smaller scheme on this site was refused on the grounds of destroying the street scene and multiple non-compliance with council policies, but this much worse scheme is allowed.

“The case officer had already admitted to us that he would basically be doing all he could to get approval so it would not have to go to appeal which would cost the council money.”

‘There is no interest at all in the democratic rights of the people...’

“There is no interest at all in the democratic rights of the people. It stinks.”

Mr Ellsworth added: “Planners chose to ignore the fact that the four most intrusive parking bays cannot have hedging in front as they drive onto the road.

“They said that all existing trees will be maintained. That’s untrue, as a huge mature tree is to be felled for parking.

“They said the application was ‘fully supported’ by the highway authority. In fact, the highways authority (KCC) simply did not object, as it is basically unaffected.

“They said there were good transport links. Untrue, there are none.

“They said there were good local facilities. Untrue, no local doctor, dentist, or school.”

Details of the application can be found on the council’s website under reference number 23/503025.

The Vale Care Home had a Good rating in the last inspection by the Care Quality Commission, which had been carried out as recently as April.