Members of the Northern Planning Committee have voted to defer on making a decision regarding plans for a new care home on the site of a builders' merchant and car wash due to concerns over whether there really is a need.
Cllr Stewart Gardiner raised concerns about the accuracy of the needs assessment which was carried out by the applicant, stating that it should be challenged.
He said "The reality is this report would have been prepared at the request of the applicants to reflect a certain situation. There has been a specific question mark raised by Adult Social Care, who were consulted on the application, about the robustness of the data provided and the integrity of the information that it presented and therefore I think it is appropriate that those questions should have been formally addressed to the developer and a response provided."
He added "Effectively what we are being asked to do is approve something which requires a proven need but with a question mark over whether that need truly exists."
Altrincham based McGoff Group Properties Ltd are seeking permission to demolish the existing buildings and replace them with a 66 bedroom care home for New Care to provide nursing and residential care for a range of needs, including dementia care within a specialist unit.
The planning officer recommending the plans for approval at the Northern Planning Committee meeting, on Wednesday, 20th August, as they were satisfied there is a need - stating "The delivery of 66 bed care units would help relieve an identified unmet need including the provision of specialist dementia care and would also add to the Council's housing land supply."
Some councillors raised additional concerns over design, overdevelopment, parking and layout flexibility.
Councillor Harrison said "I'm actually minded to refuse the application on grounds of overdevelopment and lack of meeting the needs of parking provision. I'd prefer a refusal rather than a deferral."
However, committee members agreed to defer the application to a later date to allow concerns over the proven need, the layout being too uniformed (ie no rooms to accommodate a couple), contaminated land and insufficient parking be assessed further.
