Agenda item

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 sets of friends and family.
• Petitioners disagreed with paragraph 7.32 of the report. Footfall and vehicular traffic would lead to the property having a feel of a commercial enterprise rather than a family dwelling. This would cause significant disturbance to the locality in increased carbon emissions
• The property had a PTAL (Public Transport Accessibility Level) score of 0 as per the transport assessment report. Public transport was not a viable or convenient alternative. Care home staff and visitors would have to rely on their own private vehicles, thereby increasing the vehicle trips
• The nearest shops were 15 minutes away by foot, or a bus or car ride away
• Moreover, there were no state schools for children aged 11 plus in Northwood. The nearest schools were in Northwood Hills, Pinner, or Watford. Not only would this give rise to more vehicles, but was this location even an appropriate location for a care home for 12 and 16 year olds?
• There was a profound and extensive opposition and concern from residents to the proposal which did not comply with the Local Plan
• Petitioners requested the Committee put residents’ interests first, as per the Hillingdon motto, and not the interests of a for-profit company.
• This proposal would alter the fabric of the neighbourhood

The applicant’s representatives addressed the Committee and made the following points:

• The representatives thanked the Committee for giving them the opportunity to share their views
• The directors of the children’s home had extensive experience working with children and families
• Collectively they had over 35 years of experience working in various roles within social care
• This experience demonstrated their commitment to promoting the welfare and safeguarding of children
• They also had insights and the ability to understand what contributed to positive outcomes for children looked after
• They understood the journey of the child and often the trauma they had experienced before coming into care
• Children looked after came from diverse cultures and backgrounds and for various reasons were unable to live with their birth families. Therefore, the applicants had made it their responsibility to ensure they had the opportunity to thrive, find happiness and lead fulfilling lives
• The goal was to provide children looked after with practical and emotional support to help them map out their clear route to a prosperous, independent future
• New Chapters Homes were driven to ensure that the children in their care feel valued and safe, and they aimed to give them a childhood where they were no longer experiencing significant harm
• They had reviewed the information shared within the petition
• They empathised with residents and recognised that the unknown can be daunting
• The petition referenced children looked after being linked to increases in antisocial behaviour and personal risk. In the professional capacity of the applicant, children looked after were often vulnerable and did not present a greater risk to adults or children around them
• With the right support and environment, they can have the same outcomes as children who were not in care
• The applicant wished to work with residents and not against them
• The representatives highlighted the lived experience of a young person currently living in a children’s home, whose name had been anonymised:
  • My name is Lily and I'm 12 years old
  • I feel scared at home sometimes and don't always know how the adults in my life are going to treat me
  • I'm worried about being at home, but I don't want anyone to know
  • Every night I would lie awake, dreading the sound of my bedroom door creaking open
  • They told me to keep quiet, blaming me for everything, so I stayed silent at school
  • At school I watched other kids laugh, feeling like there was a wall between us
  • I pretended everything was OK, even though I was falling apart inside
  • One day, a teacher noticed how I flinched when someone touched me
  • She kept asking me questions, showing kindness I hadn't felt in a long time
  • Eventually I broke down and told her everything. I was terrified she would blame me, but she didn't
  • She held my hand and told me it wasn't my fault, that I was brave for speaking up, and that's when I met my social worker
  • I moved in with a foster family, but they didn't understand me, and I felt uncomfortable in someone else's home
  • I hurt myself and ended up in hospital
  • My social worker told me after that it would be difficult for me to be given a placement with a foster family again
  • I felt like it was my fault and that I didn't deserve anything good
  • I was moved to a children's home and was really scared when I saw the house. I'd never been in a house this big and quiet
  • I didn't feel like I belonged in this home or the area, and I wanted to run away when I first got there, but I knew I couldn't go home to my family
  • I was given a key worker who helped me feel a little bit more at home and I was able to have my own room and choose what colour the room would be and now things are still hard but I'm not alone anymore
  • I'm learning that my past doesn't define me and that I deserve to laugh and be happy too
  • I now have adults around me that I can trust at the home, But I miss my home and hope to go back one day

Members asked about the staff numbers and ratios presented in the application. Clarification was sought on the expected number of staff during the busiest days. The representatives explained that while the capacity was for up to four children, it was unlikely to have four children at once due to the need for matching and considering the children’s needs. It was not expected for there to be more than four staff members in the day, including senior management. Members replied that one of the petitioner’s concerns was the number of car journeys, especially given the PTAL rating of 0. Members asked for further clarification on numbers of staff. The representatives noted that due to the complexity of the children it was unlikely that there would be four children at one time. It would be important to ensure that from the time the first young person was received in the home, any additional young people had to be matched. If a young person had a high level of need and needed a staff ratio of 2:1 of 3:1, it was very unlikely that the home would be able to take on another child.

Members asked for more clarity on the number of staff if there were four children. The representatives noted that if there were four children, it would have to be four children with low level needs where they could a 1:1 worker or no worker. Children came with different complexities. For example, a child who struggled with sleeping at night but was able to function in the day may not require a 1:1 worker. If there were children of this nature then there could be up to four children and it would only require two to three members of staff in the day. A child with more complexities may require 1:1 or 2:1 support. The work with children would involve things such as art therapy, music therapy, talking therapy and this required space.

Members asked about the parking provision, noting concerns about accessing certain bays when other bays were occupied, and the impact on local traffic. The representatives explained that any on-site parking issues could be resolved as all staff working there would know each other, similar to at a family home.

Members asked how the number of staff would translate into parking and vehicle movements. The Highways officer noted that they would expect, and asked for a condition for, the parking layout to be revised to ensure five usable spaces. Officers referred to the development plan to determine how many car parking spaces proposals can provide. The London Plan was silent on care homes, in which case officers had referred to the Local Plan. The Local Plan would require two car parking space plus one space per warden. It was taken that there would be three wardens. A minimum of two spaces plus three for wardens gave five spaces. Therefore, officers took the view that five was the maximum amount of car parking spaces that the policy would allow. If the demand for parking exceeded supply, consideration would have to be given to parking displacement. It was noted that this would not raise highways concerns.

The Chair noted that there were some parking restrictions on the road and it was congested during school times.

The Chair noted the comments from Councillor Lewis as Ward Councillor which had been noted within the addendum.

There was a need nationally and locally to look after vulnerable children. There was a need for this type of accommodation and the challenge was to ensure that it was the right development for the area and that residents’ concerns were listened to.

Members asked about the possibility of conditioning the ratio of parking to the occupancy of the home and level of need of the children. Officers noted that it would be unreasonable to condition the car parking on the basis of staff numbers. There was a condition on a maximum of four children. A parking management plan could be considered.

Members asked about potential noise and disturbance from the facility, particularly during staff shift changes. Officers noted that conditions related to noise and disturbance were typically covered by other legislation and may not be enforceable through planning conditions.

Members further asked if conditions could be imposed on timing of staff shift changes. Conditions would need to be enforceable and precise. A condition on this would be difficult to enforce.

It was highlighted that the parking scheme was nearby, not in the road in question. These restrictions had been provided for road safety purposes such as double yellow lines on the corners, the keep clear markings outside the school and the 20mph speed limit.

Members noted some confusion around a number of aspects including the number of staff and the parking provision. The Chair suggested that a site visit may help to ascertain the parking situation. Members queried how a site visit would clarify the numbers of staff. It was noted that if the item was deferred in that there was not full information in front of Members, an additional benefit would be a site visit.

The petitioner had noted that the Council did not investigate domestic noise complaints and Members asked if this would constitute domestic noise. It was noted that these types of noise issues were covered by separate legislation and this would be outside of planning legislation.

It was summarised that Members wanted additional information on how many staff were going to be on site, and shift times.

The proposal to defer for further information and to undertake a site visit was moved, seconded and when put to a vote, agreed.

RESOLVED: That the item be deferred