Revised extension for Staverton House refused by Wiltshire Council

The strategic planning committee voted against the expansion of Staverton House care home at a planning meeting on Wednesday, August 7.

The applicant, Fidelia Care, had submitted a revised application after plans to replace the building with a larger facility were previously refused by Wiltshire Council in 2023.

It had caused controversy at the time, with neighbours objecting to the size of the new development and the demolition of the Old Vicarage.

READ MORE: Revised plans to be considered for Staverton House

Indicative view of the new extension in comparison to the Old Vicarage. (Image: Fidelia)

Wiltshire Council’s decision was appealed but later upheld.

The applicant claimed that this most recent submission addressed the appeal dismissal grounds through changes such as a reconfiguration of the layout and a change in footprint.

However, neighbour Eric Anderson maintained that the three-storey building was too large.

He described the application as trying to fit a “square peg in a round hole” and reported that the process had been a “rollercoaster” with a “dramatic” effect.

He said: “My wife and I, for example, have felt quite threatened and concerned by the scale of this proposition and the proximity of it.

“I think we have felt a lot of stress and anxiety about the uncertainty for the future and the threat of two or more years of construction noise and disruption.”

The manager of Staverton House, Claire Sweeney, was also present at the meeting to speak about the demand for their “constantly full” services.

She said: “Sadly, the service we offer is quite rare – we provide specialist dementia care.

“You could be forgiven for thinking most care homes do, but this is not the case.”

She added that Staverton House takes in many people who have been sent away from other care homes that are “unable to meet their needs”.

Ms Sweeney continued: “Without our service, they would have nowhere else to go, nowhere to call home.”

The director of the care home, Ashley Jones, described it as a “classic trade-off” between “the concern of our neighbours” versus the “substantial benefits of a much larger community”.

He concluded: “For our residents, this is their home too.”

Despite the adjustments to the application, the case officer report noted: “Whilst the proposal is an overall improvement when compared to the appealed scheme, when tested against the appeal dismissed grounds, the harmful impacts identified by the planning inspector pursuant to No 6 Littlebrook would remain.”

The planning committee voted in accordance with the officer’s recommendation to refuse the application.