Issue - meetings

Change of use from residential dwelling (Use Class C3) to children's care home (Use Class C2), to include a bike and bin store.

Recommendations: Approval

RESOLVED: That the item be deferred

Officers introduced the application and noted the addendum, which referred to a submission made by a Ward Councillor.

Offices added a verbal amendment to Condition 4, which related to restricted permitted development rights. There was a reference in the condition to the third floor of the building being restricted but it was clarified that the restriction would cover the entirety of the building.

The lead petitioner addressed the Committee and made the following points:

• The petitioner thanked the Committee for giving them the opportunity to explain their position
• The petition reflected the concerns of a large number of petitioners, many of whom had been living in the neighbourhood for decades
• The applicant had attempted to airbrush the use as comparative to a family dwelling, but this was not true
• The proposal would have a significantly detrimental impact on noise both inside and outside of the property; parking; congestion; trip generation; CO2 emissions; and disturbance to neighbours due to comings and goings during the day and also during evenings and weekends
• The report stated that the property would cater for up to four children with emotional and behavioural difficulties with a staff ratio of two adults to one child. This implied up to eight carers plus managerial staff
• The report assumed there would be only three car users. This overlooked the 2:1 ratio
• There could be 14-16 people in the property at any one time
• Further footfall from social workers, support workers, parents and friends of the children had not been accounted for
• All of this would add to the noise, parking, traffic and CO2 emissions
• The report’s conclusions, that were based on three careers rather than eight, were hence flawed
• The application stated that there would be three parking spaces in front of the property and two additional spaces which were essentially a garage. However, once two cars were parked in the garage it would be difficult, if not impossible, to open a car door to get out of a vehicle. This was impractical
• One of the bays was blocked by another bay
• The report stated that the site can potentially accommodate in excess of half-a-dozen vehicles arranged in an informal fashion. The safety impact of jamming cars into the driveway had not been considered. There was no consideration for emergency vehicles to access the building. Displaced on street parking was therefore inevitable
• On noise, the application stated that the children would have behavioural and emotional difficulties, and acknowledged that despite meticulous planning and care, the children’s behaviour may occasionally fall below acceptable standards. Staff may need to use restraint techniques. This would cause noise and disturbance
• The noise control plan was merely words. It gave an email address to register a complaint which would aim to be resolved within three working days. The Council did not investigate domestic noises
• In addition to the noise, there would be disturbance from the comings and goings to the property by four children; up to 8 carers; social workers; health workers and four  ...  view the full minutes text for item 27