Hove nursing home appeal closes

A nursing home in Hove on the edge of the Downs would address genuine local need, a planning inquiry was told today (Wednesday 15 January).

Harriet Townsend, the barrister representing the company behind the nursing home proposal, accused the council of being unreasonable in opposing the plans.

Mrs Townsend said: “Not only does the appeal scheme deserve permission on its merits but it responds to and goes some way to address genuine local needs.”

She was speaking on behalf of Thornton Properties, owned by local property developer Mike Holland, who was refused permission for the scheme last year.

He wants to demolish Court Farm House and build a 58-bed nursing home and five houses at the top of King George VI Avenue – known locally as Snakey Hill – in Hove.

The nursing home would be two to three storeys high and the houses would be four-bedroom family homes, two storeys high. The site would include 28 parking spaces and parking for 15 bikes.

Brighton and Hove City Council turned down the proposal because it wanted to put together a planning brief for Court Farm and the neighbouring land in Toad’s Hole Valley.

The council hopes to build more than 700 homes on the site, a secondary school and high-grade office space.

Talks have been held with the Cook family, who own Toad’s Hole Valley, and the architects Enplan, based in Tunbridge Wells.

The council also said that, when the Planning Committee turned down the application, the site was regarded as downland, outside the built-up area, and inappropriate for development.

In addition it said that the plans failed to provide for the travel demand that they created.

Mrs Townsend said: “The uses are those which the owner of the site wishes to make provision for and that the market wants to see delivered.

“They will provide new employment in a sector of considerable value to Brighton and high-quality accommodation for 58 individuals and five families.

“They are considered particularly well designed in the light of a careful analysis of the site.

“The council has no proper basis for forcing a co-operation between adjoining landowners in the absence of the case for the exercise of CPO (compulsory purchase order) powers.

“There is no proposal by the council to assemble the sites so they are in the same land ownership and there is no case for overt land assembly.

“The evidence has confirmed that the council is seeking an open-ended moratorium on development on the site while it decides how it ought to be developed comprehensively with the adjoining land.”

Planning agent Simon Bareham, of Brighton consultancy Lewis and Co, said that there was a qualitative need for nursing home accommodation in the area.

Mr Bareham, who was also representing Thornton Properties, said that the need had been assessed as 637 beds across Brighton and Hove – a figure that would rise to 827 by 2022.

He added that there was currently no provision in the City Plan – a key council planning document – to meet this need.

Hilary Woodward, the council’s solicitor, said: “New development will be expected to make the best use of the site.”

Mrs Woodward said that the council’s requirements included “a minimum of 700 residential units at a density within a range of 50 to 75 dwellings per hectare”.

She said that the council’s planning policies did not list a nursing home as a priority and “the council does not agree with Mr Bareham that the need for a nursing home and housing have equal weight”.

She said that the nursing home would provide 60 jobs but other employment use would be expected to provide many more jobs.

Her colleague, local development team manager Liz Hobden, suggested a figure of 291.

Mrs Woodward added: “The council believes that the appeal proposal would result in an unacceptable underuse of the site.”

The two-day appeal was heard by planning inspector Joanna Reid at Hove Town Hall.

No date was given for the Planning Inspectorate to publish a decision on the appeal.