THE FORMER Hyde Nursing Home will be converted into a unit for men living with mental health problems after planning permission was granted.
That came despite all three Hyde Godley Councillors speaking against the proposal and more than 200 objections.
Cygnet Health Care will use the Brook Close site, close to Grange Road South, to treat a maximum of 47 patients after the go ahead was given at a meeting of Tameside Council’s Speaker’s Panel (Planning) committee on Wednesday, March 18.
Extensions, the removal of the existing conservatory entrance and amendments to existing parking areas, gardens and boundary treatments, will now take place.
But many who believed a change of use application from use C2 to C2A, which means people there are being detained, and worries over parking provision – especially as there will be 130 staff employed – were left disappointed.
Planning officers explained: “Patients would be vulnerable individuals requiring care and not detention.
“Importantly, the building will remain in use Class C2 as a residential institution providing care. This would not be a C2A secure residential institution.
“Any security features, such as controlled entrances and garden fencing, are in place solely to protect the wellbeing and safety of residents, not because they pose a risk to the public.
“The refurbishment will significantly improve the appearance of a neglected site.”
But Cllr Andrea Colbourne told the panel: “The transport statement confirmed the development could generate over 100 vehicle movements a day, and that level of traffic is simply not compatible with the narrow residential streets around the site, which already experience heavy parking pressure.
“Emergency vehicles already struggle to pass safely, and this is particularly worrying given the number of school children walking to all the high school.
“The travel plan is simply not fit for purpose.
“It assumes walking and cycling, including at unsociable hours. Expecting staff, including women and younger workers, to walk longer distances in the dark among poorly lit groups is unrealistic and unsafe.
“The crime impact statement claims no recent evidence of attempted entry and says the building is being monitored.
“However, when the nursing home first closed, I and my colleagues received an email from local police asking who owned the building because someone had already broken in.
“This is a quiet community. Residents want to be very clear that they are not opposed to a mental health facility in principle. The concern is that the specific type of unit proposed is the wrong kind of provision in the wrong place.”
Cllr Joe Kitchen asked the panel to remember five words – secure male mental health hospital.
He also cited worries over pupils using the route to get to nearby Alder Community High School, saying: “Children from 11-years-old just starting high school take that route.
“Hundreds of children pass the front door of that facility. You’ve got to remember they’re extending this facility. 100 beds already and they’re extending it for only 47 beds.
“If you want to believe that, it’s entirely up to you. I certainly don’t. This isn’t a local facility. It is not needed here at all.”
The third Godley Councillor, Betty Affleck, added: “Cygnet maintain this will be a C2 care home facility. Yet in their planned statement, they say they are providing a much-needed men’s mental health hospital.
“The statement indicates air-locked doors, restricted windows, CCTV, three-metre high fences and floodlights. All this for a care home.”
Another objector, Gareth O’Neill, commented: “I have counted ten documents within the planning application using the word PICU, psychiatric intensive care unit.
“The Royal College of Psychiatrists’ definition of a PICU is a specialist in-patient ward designed for short-term management of individuals in an acute phase of serious mental health.
“Patients exhibit severe acute behavioural symptoms that cannot be safely managed on a general acute ward. PICUs are locked secure environments that provide enhanced levels of physical procedure and relations securely, high staff to patient ratio one-to-one nursing.
“Tameside Council should move to reject the incorrect application that should be under a C2A.”
Sarah Keegan, acting as agent for Cygnet Health Care, replied: “All care will be delivered on site with the primary purpose of the service being to provide a safe place to help adults recover in comfort.
“Whilst we understand sometimes people are concerned about individuals requiring mental health care, we can offer our assurance that this facility will be a C2 hospital where the focus and primary purpose will be supporting people in need of care
“In comparison, the primary purpose in Class C2A is one of security, detention and containment. Class C2A makes no reference to the provision of care.
“Here, the focus will be on providing appropriate care and treatment to enable those staying there to feel supported and safe.
“All referrals come from local NHS trusts and the integrated care boards, not the criminal justice system.
“It is a healthcare service for people experiencing mental distress. The people Cygnet care for will be someone’s husband, father, son, brother or friend with successful treatment.
“To put it simply, the CQC, the Care Quality Commission, would not register this facility unless it had the right planning permission in place.
“The purpose of this facility is to rehabilitate people so they can return to normal lives.”
Questions over why the building would be extended when the number of beds is being more than halved were answered as the first floor will be taken up by a gym, therapy spaces, staff offices and training rooms.
Rooms will also be larger and have their own private en-suite bathroom.
Despite those answers, panel member Cllr Doreen Dickinson said: “It says principally that the facility will deliver acute mental and mental health services, including psychiatric and intensive care units.
“That is change of rules. That is not C2. So, I don’t understand why the planning officer is saying it’s not a change.”
She, along with Cllrs Gary Ferguson and Adrian Pearce, voted against the application, but five members were in favour, subject to conditions, with one abstention.