Agenda item

This was an application for a change of use of 4no. dwellinghouses (Use Classes C3 and C3(b)) to Residential Institutions (Use Class C2) at Tzigane House, Managers Office (Tzigane House), Rhapsody House, Maurice House and Ravel House, Freeston Avenue, St Georges, Telford, Shropshire,

TF2 9EF

St Georges and Priorslee Parish Council had requested that the application be determined by the Planning Committee.

Councillor R Overton spoke against the application on behalf of the Parish Council who strongly objected in relation to highways, parking and congestion in relation to Policy C5 and BE1, overdevelopment, traffic noise, impact on quality of life and amenity of residents in relation to Policy HO7 and BE2, oversubscription of local services and in particular relating to Policy HO7 and CM1 and the oversubscription of children in care in the local primary school, not in keeping with the local area, age and vulnerability of the local residents in relation to Policy BE1 and BE2 and the 50mph speed limit.  A previous application had been refused and there were issues with ground levels which were being looked at by the Enforcement Team and he asked that the application be refused.

Mr G Jones, Applicant’s Agent, spoke in favour of the application as there was a need for specialist accommodation in order that children were not placed out of the area ensuring that local children stayed local.  The application met the principle of development under Policy NPPF63 and Local Policy HO7 and the Transport Statement gave details of staff patterns, visitors and the operational needs of the development.  Sufficient on-site parking and the reduction of the number of children to one child per dwelling addressed the concerns raised by the highways authority.  The amenity of neighbouring properties had not been affected as there were no external alterations and the application was considered a betterment as there could potentially be more children on site if the property was sold on the open market.   There were no technical objections to the application and he asked that the application be approved.

The Planning Officer informed Members that the application was in the urban area of Telford in a highly sustainable location.  Amended document had been submitted which outlined that there would be one child and one member of staff per dwelling which equated to four children and four staff at any one time.   It was likely that a manager would also be present at times.  Staff changeover times were staggered into two patterns with change overs taking place at two properties at a time.  The application was compliant with Policy HO7 which specified a need and the scale, design and form was acceptable.  No external changes were proposed.   Highway impact was minimal with ten spaces being available on site.  No technical objections had been received.   Impact on residential amenity was limited and there was no evidence to suggest the scheme would cause noise or light pollution or impact that a typical residential dwelling would have if there were two adults and two children living in the property with no external control in relation to vehicles on site or the impact of journeys.  In relation to the enforcement action, work on the replacement fencing had taken place and was now installed on the site.  The Application for the levels had been received and the application was working with the Council to resolve this.  Change over times and shift patterns had been addressed.  In relation to antisocial behaviour, it should not be an assumption that this would occur and this could take place in any regular dwelling house.

During the debate, some Members asked what assurances could be put in place to ensure that antisocial behaviour and parking issues are resolved quickly and could the planning application be rescinded.  Other Members considered that the application was acceptable as the fencing had now been completed and there were no privacy issues, it was in a cul-de-sac and there was sufficient parking spaces and shift patterns had been designed to avoid peak times and that the children would be living as part of society.  The reduction in the number of the children was an improvement and there would be no increase on the footprint of vehicles, amended plans had been received and some of the issues raised by residents during the consultation had been mitigated against.  It was asked if a condition could be put in place that staff had to use the onsite parking spaces in order to alleviate concerns or if this was not possible, suggest to the applicants that staff be advised not to park in the street.  As a Corporate Parent some Members felt that there was an identified need to look after children, but it was important to do as much as possible to alleviate the concerns of residents.

The Planning Officer confirmed that the Management Plan would be conditioned and that this outlined the shift patterns and the amount of children that were allowed and this could not be increased without requesting a change to the planning application.  Antisocial behaviour was difficult but the could not be an assumption that this would take place.  In relation to parking, work had taken place with the applicants to design a better layout but in terms of what was required there would not be a need to park on the street.  It would not be position to apply conditions regarding the parking as they would not be enforceable.

The Planning Area Team Manager (West) informed Members that the planning authority could hold discussions with the Children’s Commissioners and social workers if problems arise and the Police could intervene in relevant circumstances.

On being put to the vote it was, by a majority:

RESOLVED – that delegated authority be granted to the Development Management Service Delivery Manager to grant full planning permission (with the authority to finalise any matter including Condition(s) or any later variations) subject to the following:

a)    the conditions and informatives contained in the report (with authority to finalise conditions and reasons for approval to be delegated to Development Management Service Delivery Manager).