There is still anger from Ashby residents and councillors about the decision to give the go-ahead to the new Loudon House secure institution.

The Rushcliffe Care Group scheme was given planning permission by North West Leicestershire District Council's planning committee on Tuesday night Loudon House plans get the go-ahead

That saw a number of comments on the Ashby Nub News Facebook page following the move.

Over 770 residents signed a petition to stop the development going ahead - with fears over the location of the facility at the top of Ridgway Road and its proximity to Ashby Willesley Primary School Hundreds sign petition to stop Ashby development.

Ashby de la Zouch Town Council also voiced strong objections to the scheme on the grounds of the location of the plan and the fact that there had been little or no communication with Rushcliffe Care Group about what the building will be used for.

A district council report attempted to allay fears and, on the night, some councillors agreed with that view and supported the application.

Now there is a call for a judicial review into the decision - but there would be high costs involved.

Cllr Geraint Jones represented the Town Council at the meeting, and afterwards, he told Ashby Nub News: "I most certainly objected to the application from over five years ago when the idea first surfaced, 1. totally unsuitable location,2.unsuitable location, 3.unsuitable location.

"The unsuitable location is simply one of safety - over 400 primary schoolchildren, many of whom walk past this site twice a day often accompanied by their elderly grandparents.

"The building of a secure unit on this site for the use by Rushcliffe Care group, who have had many a set to with the Care Quality Commission over their standards of operation whilst a care come, does not auger very well for the operation of a secure facility at this residential area of Ashby.

"It is not surprising that the fear of the consequences of this development with security fences and secure windows will potentially seriously damage the quality of life of not only nearby residents, but also diminish the not inconsiderable efforts and achievements of the Town Council over recent years against the National trend.

"The residents of Ashby who pay substantial amounts of local taxes should be allowed to live their lives free of the fear of crime, this development only increases those prospects."

Cllr David Bigby, who represents the Willesley Ward, made his feelings known on Facebook.

He posted: "A very frustrating North West Leicestershire District Council Planning Committee meeting.

"They agreed the application to build a secure mental hospital on the site of Loudoun House on the corner of Ridgway Road.

"This proposal was opposed by all the ward councillors of all political persuasions, as we believe strongly that this is the wrong place to site this type of facility.

"During the meeting, those of us who spoke against the proposal were accused by some members of the committee of not caring about mental health and wanting to hide mentally ill patients away in remote asylums.

"This was a gross misrepresentation of our case, which was that good NHS facilities are needed but this was DEFINITELY THE WRONG PLACE for such a hospital being only 220yds from Willesley primary school.

"Rushcliffe Care inherited Loudoun House from the County Council as a well run Old Peoples' Care Home.

"They closed it when it stopped making enough money and now they wish to cash in by jumping on the highly profitable bandwagon of creeping privatisation of the NHS and mental health facilities.

"It would have been far better to have rebuilt Loudoun House for its original purpose as a Care Home for the elderly, or to have sold the land for housing and built their secure mental hospital in a more appropriate location.

"I feel I should apologise to the Willesley community for failing to have prevented this development."

Tim Jones represented local residents at the Planning Committee meeting.

He said: "So it got passed. The whole thing was outrageous in my opinion. Three spoke against it and no one for it, 771 signed and petition and there were over 40 objections.

"I was only given three minutes to speak, which was not enough time to explain the objections in full and one of the other objectors was cut off when he had not even finished his speech.

"Worse, one of the councillors who objected to this was not even allowed to vote because the building is in his constituency. I find that crazy.

"The scheme was recommended to be passed by unelected council officers, one of the councillors who did have a vote was the boss of these officers - so how can he have a balanced view?

"Voting against his own team's recommendation wouldn't make sense but why did he get a vote and the guy who represents the people in the area it will be built did not get a vote?

"The 'for' arguments implied those against this were against mental health care in general and also focussed on RCG saying: 'We think it will only be people with mild depression', whereas it could be people with far more serious issues and who pose an escape threat.

"I felt some councillors felt under pressure to support this just to show they supported mental care generally, despite the fact this facility will be by a school in a residential area.

"We find this unbelievable and now wonder why. Why did Rushcliffe Care Group not even attend and speak for it?

"At the meeting there was a clear agenda, in my view, of 'if you vote against this, then you're anti-mental health care.'

"This was totally unfair on those who objected as they all made clear they supported mental health care but did not think the location was suitable for a secure unit. One councillor in particular drove this agenda and it seems to me he influenced others.

"There is a lot of concern about the risk of someone escaping from this type of unit, our research shows this happens a lot more than you would expect.

"The BBC reported 116 instances of people escaping from secure units in one year alone. So obviously it seemed to us that putting a secure unit in a residential area so close to a school was irresponsible.

"Developments are not supposed to cause 'the fear of crime… in the community', it is clear from the reaction on social media following the decision and also from the many objections and the petition put to the planning committee that this does lead to the fear of crime in the community.

"I thought one councillor in particular placed real emphasis on the cohort of patients with the least problems and that this was particularly underhand, as RCG can now take any kind of patient they want, even though they have provided no details on how they will be safely looked after or on how they will ensure the safety of people living in the area.

"I and many others think the whole process was wrong and that due to the exceptional nature of this case it should be halted and reviewed and RCG should be obliged to provide more details and assurances. The fact that it does have risks to local people, the poor track record of RCG at the site and the real fear of crime this causes are enough reasons for this to be called for."