After setting out the cases put forward by both Cambian Healthcare and Doncaster Council, the planning inspector explains how she came to reject both of Cambian's appeals.

The dispute centres on wether or not the current use of the site could be classed as a residential or nursing home for planning purposes.

Mrs McKay's report stated: "It is necessary to consider wether the present use with this particular type of rehabilitation as its central task, and all that that entails, has resulted in a material change in the nature of the facility so that it falls outside the category of a nursing home for planning purposes."

After giving consideration to the rehabilitation treatment undertaken by patients, the planning inspector concluded that the Aspens could not be described as a "nursing home".

She said: "Whilst The Aspens does provide accommodation, personal care and medical care and treatment, a major part of the 'package' involves education, training or re-training. In my view, the particular type of intensive rehabilitation offered as the focus of the package at The Aspens goes far beyond what a nursing home provides and carries with it land use implications that impact upon the surrounding area.

"I consider that the 'package' as a whole has resulted in a facility that is materially different in character compared to a nursing home both in visual terms and also as regard the impact upon the local community. Taking all thesefactors into account I find, as a matter of fact and degree, that what takes place at The Aspens is not a nursing home use."

Mrs McKay went on to describe the security arrangements at the facility which includes a two-metre high security fence,polycarbonate treatment on windows and CCTV cameras.

"I believe that the requirement in this case to detain sectioned patients, who constitute the great majority of occupants, has resulted in a level of security and control that one would not normally associate with a nursing home.

"Even discounting the CCTV cameras, and recognising that there may be a dual purpose to some features, there is clearly a strong element of security to the physical measures which have been taken. The fencing and window treatment give the premesis an external appearance that is uncharacteristic of a nursing home. These factors result in a facility that gives the impression of being isolated from and alien to the neighbourhood."

Mrs McKay also mentioned the "public fear" felt by residents living close to the facility, "Residents, in general, complain of hearing patients swearing, screaming and shouting in the grounds. Those living on Manvers Road state that they frequently hear the panic alarm going off and find this disturbing.

"Whilst the noise disturbance is intermittent it nethertheless contributes to the stress experienced by residents. At the inquiry, evidence was given that some residents have moved into the back part of their houses, leaving the front part virtually unused.

"It is clear that the prescence of the rehabilitation units has caused considerable public fear and anxiety and has seriously affected some people in their day-to-day activities and the enjoyment of their homes and the neighbourhood."

She concluded: "For the reasons given above and having regard to all other matters raised, I conclude that the appeal should not succeed. I shall uphold the enforcement notice with variations and refuse to grant planning permission on the deemed application."

There was some consolation for Cambian Healthcare as the inspector described them as a "top provider of care" and she also extended the original two month time frame in which the firm was given to close the Aspens.

Mrs McKay said: "In my opinion, an extension of the compliance period to 12 months would give the appealants further time within which to seek suitable alternative premesis and would not have a disproportionate impact on the business or occupants."