Agenda item

This was an application for change of use from dwelling house (use class C3) to Residential Institution (use class C2) at 34 Avon Close, Little Dawley, Telford, Shropshire, TF4 3HP.

This application had been referred to Planning Committee as the proposal had received a notable number of objections.

Mr Blair, member of the public, spoke against the application on behalf of the local community and neighbours.   He raised concerns in relation to the impact on the close-knit community and older people in the cul-de-sac, traffic, parking, the nearby pool, noise and impact on amenity.  Further concerns were raised in relation to the Deed which had been signed by all local residents that no trade or business would be undertaken in the private dwelling that would cause nuisance or annoyance to any adjoining houses.  He suggested other areas may be more suitable for this application.

Mr Wiatt, applicant, spoke in favour of the application and following on from comments from the previous speaker he felt that this was the perfect place for the care home.  The application complied with planning legislation and would be a family-like setting for two children.  Hours of operation would be 24-7 and would have three staff on site at any given point as set out in the staff operational plan.  High safety perimeters and fencing panels, together with vegetation would decrease any impact on the local community.  Ofsted regulations would also set out mitigation measures required but the home would work as a loving home for children to give them a stable family life and would fill the gap left by the lack of foster families.

The Planning Officer informed Members that an amended site plan had been received showing three parking spaces, together with additional information in relation to staff shift patterns.  The application site was in the built-up area of Telford where the principle of development was considered acceptable and was within an existing dwelling.  There would be no external alteration but internal conversion to allow for a third bedroom/office for staff.  The scale and design would not be altered or have an impact on the street scene and was considered acceptable for the type and level of care proposed.   Policy HO7 stated that this specialist housing need required Use Class 2 and the Specialist Housing Team supported the proposal.  Care would be provided by two support workers, a senior officer and a manager with staff changeover every 48 hours but staggered to limit disruption.  A maximum of three staff to be present at any one time with the manager on call.   It was considered that visits from other professionals would be infrequent.  Staff meetings and training would not take place on site.  A balanced approach had been taken and a temporary two year planning consent put forward to ascertain if the use can be undertaken without detriment to the locality and the site managed successfully.

During the debate, some Members noted that the Parish Council had not commented on the application.  There was a need for this type of care and there would be conditions and agencies to deal with any difficulties and due to the minimal risk and they were happy to support the application.  Other Members echoed these comments and as corporate parents all children should be given opportunities to provide the best start in life, be welcomed into local communities and society.  Clarification was sought on whether the property was a semi-detached or detached house and concerns raised regarding noise impact on a semi-detached property.  A suggestion came forward that additional insulation be installed between the property as a noise mitigation measure.   Some concerns were raised regarding parking during staff changeover, transport to and from school and additional car journeys associated with the care home.  A question was raised in relation to the Deeds stating that no business could operate at the properties and how this affected the care home’s operation.

The Planning Officer confirmed that the property was semi-detached and that the applicant would need to meeting building regulations but that insulation could not be included as a condition.  In relation to handover and car journeys, two staff work on a ‘two days on two days off’ basis and staff changes were staggered so there would be no more than three cars on site at any one time.  No information had been supplied in relation to pool cars and staff would use their own cars for school journeys.

The Development Management Service Delivery Manager advised Members that as a mitigation measure against noise the application had been conditioned for two years in order this could be monitored and if any issues were raised the applicants would need to re-submit the application on the expiration of the permission.

In relation to the Deeds, the Legal Advisor informed Members that this was a personal matter for the homeowners and was not a material planning consideration.  In relation to noise additional conditions could be looked into.

It was proposed and seconded that an additional condition in relation to noise be sought.  This was unanimously agreed.

On being put to the vote it was, unanimously:

RESOLVED – that delegated authority be granted to the Development Management Service Delivery Manager to grant Planning Permission (with the authority to finalise any matter including conditions, legal agreement terms, or any later variations) subject to conditions (with authority to finalise conditions and reasons for approval to be delegated to Development Management Service Delivery Manager) and informatives set out in the report.