Plans to build a “care village” have been rejected amid fears adding more patients would overwhelm existing doctor surgeries and tip GPs “over the edge”.

Maidstone vouncil officers recommended members vote down plans for an 87-bed care home and 12 assisted living apartments in Sutton Valence.

Similar plans had been proposed and later withdrawn last year.

The facility was set to be located south of the village in the grounds of Forsham House, in Forsham Lane and also included a community cafe, doctors’ consulting room and parking.

Developers Cloverdown Ltd said the scheme would “allow excellent quality of care to be delivered by a dedicated team of experts for many years to come”.

But the “care village” was criticised by council planning officers for being “in an environmentally unsustainable location” with poor access for staff to commute and for residents to access by walking, cycling or using public transport.

Planning chiefs also argued the plans would harm the “local rural character and appearance,” and while they accepted ”a general need for care and extra care housing,” they believe it should be provided elsewhere.

At a council planning meeting last Thursday a spokesman for the developers attempted to address concerns on behalf of the developers and set out the “critical and urgent need” for the scheme.

“Every planning expert we have spoken to feels that the primacy of need has not been weighed fairly in the support submitted to you and dismissed as a minor matter when it is actually fundamental to national planning policy,” he said.

“We also scouted 369 sites, via 17 agents in four authorities, including this one, and the simple fact is no alternative site is available to meet these needs in a sustainable manner.

He also told members they were willing to sign a legally binding agreement to compel them to provide GP services at the home, and lessen the impact on nearby health services.

However, two doctors from the local GP surgery- Sutton Valence Group Practice - wrote in to object to the application on these grounds.

‘...Both our practice and other local practices are heavily oversubscribed with patients’

A statement written by doctors Will Mangar and Chris Cranston was read to members.

“At this current time, we at Sutton Valence Group Practice understand and appreciate the need for residential and nursing care for our local ageing community, which is badly in need,” they wrote.

“However at this time the heads of the practice unfortunately, firmly and clearly object to the planning approval of such a facility.

“Due to escalating volumes of residential units within our locality, both our practice and other local practices are heavily oversubscribed with patients.

“Indeed, a local practice has had to close its doors to new patients due to this crisis.”

They told of how their practice already has one nursing home - Barchester - in its area, and with two other care homes planned at Langley, the number of patients “would tip us over the edge”.

“We are currently experiencing serious staff shortages within administration and a recruitment crisis of new doctors and nurses, and we gravely regret to say we will be unable to provide safe and satisfactory care to another large nursing facility as is planned here.

A council planning officer responded to the developer’s arguments, saying: “We’re not arguing that there’s not a need for care accommodation, clearly the population is ageing and the statistics show that there is a general need.

“That doesn’t mean to say that you can build a care home wherever you like.

“This is a development of considerable volume in the garden of a detached house.”

Maidstone coiuncil’s planning committee voted unanimously to reject the scheme.