Plans for three-storey, 68-bedroom care home to be built in Mulfords Hill in Tadley have been refused

Plans for a three-storey, 68-bedroom care home to be built in Tadley have been refused by Basingstoke and Deane Borough Council.

The planning application was submitted by Boutique Care Homes – a small, independent provider that already runs two homes in the UK with a third currently in development – in May.

Boutique wanted to build the home on land currently occupied by 8a and 10 Mulfords Hill.

The council refused the care home plans on several grounds, including the impact the development would have on the surrounding area, including nearby trees and residential properties.

In the application’s notice of refusal – which was issued on October 20 – the planning officer stated: “The proposal, by virtue of its scale, bulk and massing, would not be sympathetic to the character and visual quality of the area.

“It fails to positively contribute to local distinctiveness, and the sense of place and would appear incongruous within the existing streetscene and cramped within the site.

“The development cannot be successfully integrated or mitigated within the landscape and surroundings.”

The application site is also situated within the detailed emergency planning zone (DEPZ) surrounding the Aldermaston Atomic Weapons Establishment (AWE).

One reason for refusal was the application’s proposed emergency response plan being “insufficient” in relation to being within the DEPZ.

Another was the “harmful impact” the care home would have on a neighbouring residential property, 8 Mulfords Hill.

The planning officer said: “The development would result in a dominant and overbearing experience for 8 Mulfords Hill, causing an intrusive, oppressive and claustrophobic effect on their living conditions, which would result in a loss of privacy and outlook from their dwelling and garden.”

The refusal will likely be welcomed by Tadley residents, several of whom voiced their objections to the plans on the Basingstoke and Deane planning portal.

Most people objected on the grounds that there isn’t sufficient enough infrastructure in the town to cope with the addition of a care home and that the facility would increase traffic problems in the area.

In her objection letter, Jasmine Lawrence said: “I live at 8 Mulfords Hill and as a homeowner and a mother I object to this application.

“The plans for this are less than five feet from my home, my children will be looked upon from this care home and not to mention the noise distribution that will come from the progress of this and the residents, our wildlife that we love so much will be ruined.

“The mental wellbeing of myself and my family will deteriorate because of this.”