A 60-bed care home near Westwood Cross is likely to be refused due to concerns about woodland loss in Kent.
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/2cbc8/2cbc875d60ab00b175311dc1917ec58eee96d120" alt="Care Home Plan Near Westwood Cross Faces Refusal Due to Woodland Loss Care Home Plan Near Westwood Cross Faces Refusal Due to Woodland Loss"
Rooksmead Residential wants to build the care home near Westwood Cross, on Westwood Lodge grounds. The lodge is a listed building, and the project could create sixty jobs.
The council met on Wednesday, February 19, to discuss the care home plans. Planning officers suggested approval, but councillors delayed the decision.
Simon Warner spoke for the developers, highlighting the need for a care home. He said it could offer dementia care, end-of-life, nursing, and respite care.
Rooksmead seeks basic approval first to build on Poorhole Lane. They are not focusing on design details yet, and the plan had 66 beds previously, now down to sixty.
The building would be two stories tall with eighteen parking spaces, eleven for visitors. The area hosted a site office before for a housing project.
The site has some listed buildings, including Westwood Lodge, built in 1864, and a 17th-century cottage.
An officer said the project has benefits, including sixty-two direct and twenty-one indirect jobs. He believes these benefits outweigh any harm and suggested approving the project.
Councillors like the idea of a new care home but worry about losing woodland space. Some details about the trees are unclear, although the site was previously used as an office, and more information may come later.
Cllr Steve Albon is concerned about the woodland, stating it steadily disappears because of construction, a sentiment shared by others.
Cllr Rebecca Wing feels disappointed, believing the design should protect the woods. A management plan exists for the woodland, initiated during a housing project.
Rooksmead must manage the plan if they build. Cllr Mike Garner spoke about grassland, noting its importance for birds and other animals.
Ultimately, the vote to approve failed. A new motion asks for refusal reasons, stressing the need to protect the woodland, and the committee will decide later.