Reform UK councillors explain vote against 74-bed Sparth House care home

All three Reform UK councillors serving on Rochdale Borough Council's Planning Committee voted against the proposed 74-bed care home development at Sparth House, Manchester Road, when the application returned to the Committee.

The application had previously been deferred after members raised concerns regarding the scale and massing of the proposed building, its impact on neighbouring residents, the loss of mature trees, parking provision and whether the development represented an appropriate use of the site.

In a statement setting out their reasons, the Reform UK group said that when the revised application returned to Committee, its councillors remained of the view that those concerns had not been adequately addressed. Whilst amendments had been made to the application, the group said it did not believe they sufficiently overcame the fundamental planning issues that had led to the original deferral.

"Let us be absolutely clear," the statement said. "Reform UK fully supports investment in high-quality care facilities. We recognise the growing need for dementia and nursing care across Rochdale Borough, particularly as our population ages. However, supporting better care does not mean supporting every planning application regardless of its merits."

The group said every development must be judged on whether it is appropriate for its location, whether it protects neighbouring residents, whether it provides suitable living conditions for future occupants and whether local infrastructure is capable of supporting it.

In this case, the Reform UK councillors concluded that the proposed four-storey building represented an overdevelopment of a constrained site, arguing that its overall scale, height and massing would create an overbearing presence, harm the character of the surrounding area and adversely affect neighbouring residential amenity.

The councillors also said they were concerned by the environmental impact of the proposal, including the loss of mature trees, together with what they considered to be limited meaningful outdoor space for a development accommodating 74 vulnerable residents.

Parking provision remained another significant concern for the group. With 13 parking spaces proposed for staff, visitors, healthcare professionals and servicing vehicles, the councillors considered there to be a real risk of additional parking pressure on surrounding residential streets.

Whilst not a material planning consideration and ultimately a matter governed by Building Regulations, the group said members also noted concerns raised during the planning process regarding the practical challenges of evacuating a four-storey building occupied by elderly and vulnerable residents, including people living with dementia, in the event of an emergency. Although these matters fall outside the planning system, the councillors said they nevertheless formed part of the wider public concerns expressed during the application process.

The statement also criticised the local MP, Elsie Blundell, who the group said had commented critically on the decision on social media rather than engaging with the planning concerns debated by the Committee. "Planning decisions should be based on planning merits, evidence and policy, not reduced to political point scoring," the group said. Ms Blundell has been invited to respond, and any reply will be added to this article.

The Reform UK councillors said their responsibility as Planning Committee members is not to approve applications simply because they provide a particular type of development, but to consider every application impartially against planning policy, the evidence before them and the impact on both existing and future residents.

"Had this application demonstrated an appropriate scale, adequate infrastructure, sufficient parking, suitable landscaping and a design compatible with its surroundings, Reform UK would have had no hesitation in supporting it," the statement concluded. "Good care homes deserve good planning. Residents deserve developments that are both needed and appropriate. We will continue to stand up for both."

Planning applications refused by the Committee can be appealed by the applicant to the Planning Inspectorate.