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.

Recommendation: Approval

RESOLVED: That the application be approved.

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

Officers introduced the application and highlighted the additional information in the addendum. The application was recommended for approval.

Three petitions in objection to the application had been received and two lead petitioners were in attendance to address the Committee Members. Members were presented with a Notes of Evidence document for reference. The following points were highlighted:

• The site had previously been the subject of a National Crime Agency raid for drug dealing.
• The applicant was the owner of the property, and First Chapter Homes was to care for the children despite having no track record in running a children's care home, as the company had been set up in March 2024.
• There was significant opposition to the proposal from local residents, with three petitions and over 360 signatures, as well as support from Ward Councillor Lewis, local MP David Simmonds, and the headmaster of nearby Saint Martin's School.
• The Committee was urged to refuse the application to protect the residents' right to quiet enjoyment of their homes.
• Noise concerns were raised, with the Council’s noise officer concluding that the noise would not be above the norm within a residential setting, which was contested by the residents.
• The number of people in the home was expected to exceed the norm, with four children, four carers, a cleaner, a cook, social workers, youth workers, family members, and friends visiting regularly.
• The use of restraining techniques was mentioned, with three pages dedicated to how they would be used.
• The planning officer had conceded that the procedures suggested by the applicant would not necessarily prevent potential noise and disturbance.
• Residents were expected to engage the police or local authority if there was antisocial behaviour, which was seen as impractical.
• The garden was deemed unsuitable, and it was anticipated that children would play at the front of the house.
• Valuable residential space would be lost to a commercial operation during a housing crisis. The Borough's housing buyback scheme had been announced by Councillor Eddie Lavery in 2024 and there was an acute need for housing in the Borough.

• The location of the proposed Children’s centre was unsuitable - Northwood had already lost its police station, and the nearest police presence some distance away.
• It was a strategic objective to ensure that development contributed to a reduction in crime and disorder which this application would fail to do.
• Officers claimed there was no evidence that criminal activity or antisocial activity was more prevalent or extreme in a children's care home, but this was inaccurate as evidenced by Ofsted.
• The proposal would lead to an increase in antisocial behaviour.
• The location was unsuitable for teenagers due to its lack of entertainment and amenities.
• Existing housing stock should be prioritised unless there were exceptional circumstances.
• The application was deemed speculative and incoherent, with no guarantee that the adolescents housed there would be from the Borough.
• The application was almost universally opposed by residents.
• Parking on site would be inadequate.
• If approved, the application would set a very poor precedent.

Councillors sought further clarification from petitioners regarding the relevance of criminal activity statistics, including county lines and the exploitation of vulnerable people, to a change of use application for a children's home. It was explained that the details in the “Note of Evidence” paper provided to Members for reference, supplied general background information on the use of children's homes and the increasing problem with county lines. It was confirmed that, according to the British Transport Police, 38% of those involved in county lines were aged between 11 and 17, hence the relevance to this application.

Members also enquired about the relevance of anti-social behaviour statistics, such as noise nuisance, verbal abuse, and vandalism, to the application. Petitioners confirmed that this was additional general background information. It was noted that some children in care homes, including the one in question, were vulnerable and often caught up in crime. Petitioners mentioned that the report referenced the need for restraint techniques and multiple carers per child due to the challenging nature of some children in these homes.

In response to further questions from the Committee, petitioners acknowledged that it was preferable for vulnerable children to be housed in a family area. However, it was felt that the proposed location was not appropriate for a children’s home due to issues with parking, numbers of residents in the home, noise, nuisance and disturbance to neighbours.

The applicants were in attendance and addressed the Committee Members. Key points highlighted included:

·         A management plan would be provided to allay the fears of neighbouring residents.

·         There were two state schools in close proximity to the application site.

·         Many of the children would be tutored off site.

·         The children’s home would be regularly monitored by Ofsted to ensure compliance with all regulations.

·         A maximum of 4 staff would be on site at any time.

·         Highways officers had raised no concerns regarding parking – 5 spaces would be available for 4 staff hence there would be no requirement for on-street parking.

·         Many meetings would be held virtually or off site – it was not anticipated that the home would generate unacceptable levels of noise or cause disturbance of neighbours. A noise management plan would be provided.

·         There was a stigma around children in care which was unjustified. The children at the home would have experienced neglect and abuse – they needed a safe environment to enable them to grow and flourish.

In response to questions from the Committee, it was confirmed that there would be a maximum of 4 staff and 4 children on site at any time. There would be no additional cleaner or cook at the premises as staff would undertake these duties themselves. Members heard that the children’s social workers would visit the home once every six weeks and the premises would be inspected once a month. It was noted that contact with family would occur off site. No visitors would be allowed on site as the children needed a stable and safe environment.

Members sought further clarification regarding the schooling arrangements for the children at the home. It was confirmed that some children would attend mainstream schools, and staff would be responsible for dropping them off and collecting them. Other children might be schooled in a library environment or online.

Ward Councillor Richard Lewis was in attendance and addressed the Committee Members. Key points highlighted included:

·         The application site was situated in a peaceful residential community.

·         The impact on neighbours was a matter of concern.

·         There would be constant disruption, and this was not the right location for such a facility.

·         The proposed parking layout would not work in reality.

·         If approved, the children’s home would result in a loss of character to the local area and would create additional traffic, parking stress and pollution.

·         The application site had very poor transport links.

·         Young children in the nearby St Martin’s School would be subjected to unacceptable swearing and noise emanating from the children’s home.

·         The Management Plan lacked detail, the directors lacked experience, and a better location could have been selected for this project.

·         Planning concerns were cited.

In response to questions from the Committee, it was confirmed that there would not be two staff occupying one bedroom at nighttime as one would be on duty while the other was sleeping.

Members were reminded that the suitability of the applicants was a matter for Ofsted and was not a planning consideration.

With regard to the concerns raised in the Note of Evidence in relation to antisocial behaviour and crime, officers affirmed that these were generic statements. It was noted that the Development Plan supported the provision of care homes in the Borough, which should be embedded in a residential setting. Officers observed that parking provision was considered adequate and there was ample on-street parking available.

Members were advised that, were the matter to go to appeal, many of the proposed conditions which aimed to protect local residents, could be removed by the Inspector.

Members sought further clarification regarding staffing arrangements and were advised that two staff would be in attendance at the home overnight – one on duty and one sleeping. Management would be on call if needed. Four staff members would be on day duty. Members were reminded that staffing arrangements were a matter for Ofsted and were not within the remit of the Planning Committee. The final decision as to whether the proposed children’s home went ahead ultimately lay with Ofsted.

At the request of Members, it was agreed that visiting times be reduced from 8pm to 6pm, except in the case of emergencies and visits from medical professionals.

Noting that the Committee was doing everything possible to protect residents, the officer’s recommendation was moved, seconded and, when put to a vote, unanimously approved.

RESOLVED: That the application be approved subject to the amendment of Condition 6 to reduce visiting hours from 8pm to 6pm except in the case of emergencies and visits from medical professionals.