Protest over rejected Moreton-in-Marsh care home plan

A protest has taken place against a council’s decision to refuse plans for a new care facility in the Cotswolds.

Minton Health Care’s bid to build a 48-bed home and 49 extra care apartments and bungalows in Moreton-in-Marsh was rejected by Cotswold District Council.

It has handed a petition to the council claiming the process was unfair as plans were not decided by a committee “in full public view”.

The authority said it was within its rights to make the decision.

‘Shocked’

An authority spokesman said: “The council’s adopted Scheme of Delegation allows for applications such as this one to be determined under delegated powers, in consultation with ward members and/or the chair or vice-chair of planning committee.”

According to Minton Health Care, the proposals had widespread support, with 80 residents writing to the council in favour of the plans and six writing against.

A petition, signed by 86 people, has been handed to the leader of Cotswold District Council at its headquarters in Cirencester.

The director of MHC, Adam Simpkin, said: “We are shocked that Cotswold Council is refusing our plans for a new Continuing Care Retirement Community without so much as a vote.

“This is a major planning application, dealing with a vital local social and health care issue, which has attracted the written support of over 80 people to the council.

“It should be decided by a planning committee in full public view – not by an unelected council officer.
Cotswold District Council offices The authority, based in Cirencester, said it had concerns about the visual impact of the proposals

“We urge Cotswold Council to reconsider and give the community its chance to see these important plans decided in public at a meeting of the council’s planning committee.”

In a statement, the council said it had concerns relating to the impact of the development on the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty.

It said that numerous meetings had been held with the applicant’s agents and even after revisions to the plans it still held concerns regarding the “negative visual impact” of the proposed development.