Man Denied Council Permission Three Times for Care Home Bungalow for Wife
David Marks' repeated attempts to build a single-storey dwelling with a care suite for his terminally ill wife have been rejected by planners.
David Marks, 78, has been repeatedly denied permission by Ashford Borough Council to build a bungalow with an attached care suite for his wife, Yvonne, who has advanced dementia and Parkinson's disease. This marks the third time the council has refused his plans for the single-storey dwelling on land he owns in Smarden, Kent.
Marks, a property developer, had hoped to construct the home to personally care for his wife, who has been in a care home for nearly three years. He fears he may not be able to build the property before her condition deteriorates further.
His initial proposals two years ago were for an eco-house with five bedrooms, designed to be off-grid with solar panels and featuring a new pond for water management and surrounding orchards. However, Smarden Parish Council deemed these plans an unsuitable 'overdevelopment' of the rural area, leading to rejection by the borough council.
The most recent application, a scaled-down version, received no objection from the parish council and garnered support from neighbors. Residents highlighted the lack of single-level dwellings in Kent and the need for such properties given an aging population and increasing health conditions impacting mobility. One neighbor called it 'madness' not to approve the application, stating the bungalow would be in keeping with the area and improve the site's appearance.
In his design statement, Marks explained his intention to relocate from his current home to the new bungalow to provide personal care for his wife. He also argued that the bungalow would contribute to the council's housing delivery targets, which are reportedly challenging to meet.
The planning officer refused the latest application in June, citing that the proposal was unacceptable and wrongly encroached on a greenfield site, despite acknowledging the human rights considerations. The council has stated that as the matter is currently under appeal with the Planning Inspectorate, they are unable to comment further.