A care home company is threatening legal action against Birmingham City Council if plans for a new 60-bed facility in Sutton Coldfield are not approved.
The chairman of Moundsley Hall Nursing Home claims the firm has bent over backwards to satisfy planning officers before submitting its proposals for the home in Penns Lane.
But the plans for a £6.5m care home are recommended for refusal when the planning committee meets this week, with officials concluding the scale and design of the building would result in 'a dominant and incongruous building at odds with the character of the area'.
READ MORE: {}
Resident groups, local councillors, the town's MP Andrew Mitchell and Sutton Coldfield Civic Society have all made formal objections to the development, claiming the busy road could not cope with extra traffic generated and that a large care home was not appropriate in a mostly residential area.
Two large family homes on site, numbers 63 and 65 Penns Lane, were demolished last year.
In 2008, planning permission was granted for a 61-bed care home and 11 houses on a larger site covering four properties - numbers 61 to 67.
There was widespread local opposition back then but senior planning officers doubted refusal would be defended on appeal.
Moundsley chairman Mike Gimson has now accused the council of bowing to the 'not in my back yard' (NIMBY) lobby and argued the development complied with all planning policies and met with the growing demand for care home places.
Most Read
He said: "We have taken more abuse from local residents than we would normally tolerate but still we have offered to explain to them how we see the site working. But it is a simple case of not in my back yard they are not interested."
He said that he was stunned by the planning officer's recommendation of refusal as the committee established the principle of a care home development on this site and the development was in line with government guidelines.
He said an earlier version of the scheme had been pulled to make amendments to the plans in line with the council's requests.
"Our architects have been talking to planning officers regarding design of this site for longer than I care to remember and we have done our level best to meet all officers' demands but all to no avail," he added.
He said that if the refusal was confirmed by the planning committee they would go to appeal in front of a planning inspector and seek costs from the council.
An officer's report to the planning committee recognises that improvements have been made to the design but concludes it is still 'over development' of the site.