Plans to demolish a former care home to build flats for older people has been described as “incongruous” to the street scene of a prominent area of Criccieth.

The proposed development on High Street prompted strong local objections over demolition and design, whilst others feared it could “bring in strangers”.

Developers argue it could make a “meaningful contribution to the local housing strategy, to support older residents who may not qualify for social housing but are unable to access open-market homes”.

Council planners believe the scheme does not meet certain policies and have earmarked it for refusal.

Gwynedd’s planning committee will consider the full application to demolish the former Plas Newydd residential care home when it meets on Monday, 23 March.

The plan includes the creation of nine independent living flats with extra care services for those over 55 and is described as 100 per cent affordable.

The three-storey building no longer operates as a care home after it was decommissioned in January 2024.

The proposal involves the erection of a four-storey building, slightly taller than the existing building, set further back.

The application has been made by Meddyg Care Group Holdings Ltd.

The applicants say the proposal would provide a “sustainable opportunity to deliver a high-quality Extra Care Independent Living scheme for residents aged 55 and over”.

The nine fully affordable one-bedroom apartments would be designed to support independent living with access to care and communal facilities.

The proposal adds it would replace an “underutilised building with a modern, energy-efficient development that meets current housing and care standards”.

It adds: “It will create a safe, supportive environment for older residents while helping to free up larger family homes for younger households.”

It added there was a “clear and evidenced need for this type of accommodation in Criccieth and across Gwynedd”.

A swathe of public objections included concerns over the demolition and its impact on houses and land nearby.

Others felt there would be a loss of a “quality and character building which blends in” whilst some felt there was a lack of need due to the number of homes for the elderly already in Criccieth.

Other feared it could “attract more strangers to the area” and some were worried over what they felt was the building’s “oppressive scale and height,” saying the design “introduced an incongruous feature completely incompatible with the current development pattern”.

Public Protection officers raised issues over the demolition and construction calling for a detailed plan over noise and dust.

Social services raised questions over how affordable the units would be for local residents and the biodiversity unit identified invasive plants, including Japanese knotweed.

Planners concluded that whilst “elements of the proposal are acceptable, it is not considered that the proposal has succeeded in this case in securing a building that is of acceptable design, scale and appearance, as it would be detrimental to the visual amenities of the local area and the context of the site”.

They added: “It would also, based on its setting, bulk and features, adversely affect the residential amenities of adjacent residents. Therefore the proposal as submitted is not believed to be acceptable or in compliance with the requirements of the relevant policies and guidelines.”

The committee is being recommended to refuse the proposal.

The recommendation notes: “It is not considered that the design of the proposal, in terms of siting, scale and massing would add to or enhance the character and appearance of its site context nor fully integrate into the context of the immediate street scene and its prominent location in this part of Criccieth.

“Due to the scale, massing, location and certain elements to be included with the proposed development, this would create an unacceptable impairment and overbearing effect on adjoining properties and their curtilage.

“It is therefore considered the proposal would have a significant adverse impact on the amenities of residents of local properties contrary to policy.”