A developer who hopes to transform a former care home into apartments has criticised a councillor who suggested they would be operated as holiday lets.

Renglade Properties launched a bid to revamp the former St John Home in Tankerton after residents were forced to move out by its charity owners in May 2020.

The firm put in plans to convert the Gloucester Road building into seven flats and had an initial bid rejected, but a revised application is due to be considered next week.

Ahead of a decision being made, Renglade director John Murphy has hit out at Tankerton councillor Neil Baker for sharing “baseless speculation” about the proposal.

The Conservative has publicly said of the plans: “I cannot for one moment imagine these proposed units being permanent homes for anyone.”

He added it was “hardly a stretch to assume they would not be occupied by permanent residents”, but “people coming and going at all hours” on a short-term basis.

His comments were submitted to the city council and also shared on his Facebook page - to the frustration of Mr Murphy.

“We were disappointed to see that he chose to resort to Facebook to suggest that our intention for the site was a series of holiday lets,” he said.

“I really don’t know where that’s come from, and we found that sort of baseless speculation really unhelpful. The reality is that that couldn’t be further from the truth, and in fact we did reach out to Mr Baker when we first bought the site to discuss the project with him, but heard nothing back.”

Mr Murphy says the firm’s intentions for the site are in line with previous projects and will provide “good quality” one- and two-bedroom apartments ideal for first-time buyers and elderly residents looking to downsize.

“In terms of benefit to the area, you only have to do a basic Google search to see how little of this type of property is available in Whitstable at the moment, and yet the demand for them is as strong as ever,” he added.

The first application to develop the site was refused in August because it had “poor standards of accommodation” due to “restricted, cramped and unusable” private amenity spaces and “poor outlook” from rooms.

Reacting to Mr Murphy’s frustration, Cllr Baker said: “It’s not unusual that I post comments I make to applications that receive public interest on social media - if nothing else, it’s easier to direct people who ask there than to navigate the council’s planning pages at times.

“The first application for this site was rejected and the second, which is still being considered, seems to do little to answer the reasons given for that rejection.

“Whether any future residents are of a permanent nature, short-term visitors or a mix, my own view is that at least some of the proposed flats will be cramped and not offer a sufficient quality of life for anyone living there.

“While I imagine the area would look very different, hopefully for the better, if I had as much influence over planning matters as is being suggested, the fact is that I do not.

“At a time when the system is skewed towards the developer and obtaining decent development feels increasingly like a battle between David and Goliath, trying to achieve the outcome local residents want doesn’t seem unreasonable.”

Cllr Baker says the developers did email him, but by that point it was “clear to me that without a radical change in approach, any application would struggle to obtain any local support”.

“I think it’s much better that suggestions about what may work on the site come from residents who will be most impacted and are also, wherever possible, available publicly,” he added.

“There are only so many ways I can say ‘converting this building into flats without any off-street parking won’t work’.”

The city council’s planning committee will discuss the scheme on Tuesday, February 8.