Proposals to build a new care home in Westfield have been refused by Rother planners.
On Thursday (April 18), Rother District Council’s planning committee considered an application seeking permission to build a 64-bed care home at the Moorhurst Care Home site in Main Road.
While the scheme had been recommended for approval, the committee had concerns about going against the site’s allocation as land for ‘housing with care’ — a category which does not include care homes.
Proposing refusal, Cllr John Barnes (Con) said: “We are taking away the last major site in Westfield where housing can be developed to meet local needs and we are doing it for something which is a generic need of the district.”
He added: “[The proposal] won’t be of any great benefit to Westfield in particular and I think this is likely to do demonstrable harm to a key local service, namely primary care services.
“With the best will in the world … this is likely to be a high demand, not a low demand service, because you are moving towards end-of-life care. There will be people on medication who require INRs and things like that. All of that puts a strain on an already strained local service.”
Similar concerns about the care home putting pressure on local health services had also been put forward by Westfield Parish Council, ward councillor Beverley Coupar and other committee members.
These concerns were not shared by everyone on the committee, however.
Cllr Sam Coleman (Lab) said: “It seems unlikely to me that housing would be built. We certainly can’t, I don’t think, rule against the officers’ recommendation on this on the hypothetical of housing.
“It is not this versus housing, it’s this versus not this, with the potential for housing possibly at some point in the future, despite the fact that the providers of such houses with care suggest it is not viable to do so.
“I don’t see it as a strong enough reason to go against the officers’ recommendation as set out in the report.”
Cllr Coleman also took issue with the arguments around pressure on healthcare services, pointing out how no concerns had been raised by NHS Sussex.
A similar caution was given by officers, pointing out that the new care home would be replacing a similarly sized facility. They also said it was unlikely the council would be able to successfully defend a refusal at appeal and could even face costs for unreasonable behaviour.
Ultimately, however, the majority of the committee supported a motion to refuse the scheme on the grounds it would harm Westfield’s ability ‘to meet its housing needs’ and ‘adversely impact’ the provision of primary healthcare services.
