A PLAN to build a 64-bed care home in a Cornish village has been dismissed at appeal.

Cornwallis Care Services Ltd originally submitted outline plans to Cornwall Council for a 76-bed home near St Austell to improve dementia care in the area. The company then reduced the size to 64 beds following local opposition.

Plans were unveiled in May 2024 for a purpose-built nursing home to replace the existing Hendra Court care home on St Andrews Road, Par.

According to the application, the Local Neighbourhood Plan showed that the parish of Tywardreath and Par has an ageing demographic with one in four residents living with a limiting, long-term illness.

Stuart Clarkson, managing director of Cornwallis Care Services, said in the application details: “The plans for increased dementia and mental health beds in Par are critical for Cornwall Council to achieve their strategy for care home provision. Put quite simply, there is insufficient care provision for dementia health nursing in mid Cornwall.”

The proposed development would have seen the demolition of 18 existing care bedrooms and the construction of a replacement four-storey care home, supporting residents with dementia and nursing needs.

However, many local people weren’t happy with the proposals. Signs were put up in the area saying ‘No 4-storey development here’, ‘No 4-storey Hendra Court Heights’, ‘No mass development here’ and ‘Too big 4 here’.

The application also received 213 comments on the council’s planning portal from members of the public, with none in support.

The plan was refused by the council’s planning department in September 2025 on the grounds that it would create unreasonable unneighbourly impact and be harmful to the character of the area due to its scale and design.

David Ellsmore, of Cornwallis Care Services Ltd, then appealed against Cornwall Council’s decision. Following a site visit made by a planning inspector in March, the appeal has now been dismissed.

The inspector noted that the proposal would harm the living conditions of the occupiers of a neighbouring property called Woodside with “particular regard to privacy and outlook”.

“Although I have found no harm with regard to the effect on the character and appearance of the area, I have found that the development would harm the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers.

“In my view, this is the prevailing consideration, and the development should be regarded as being in conflict with the development plan, when read as a whole,” added inspector C Rose.