Agenda item

This was an application for the change of use of dwellinghouse (Use Class C3) to residential home for up to 2no children (Use Class C2) at 22 Bridle Walk, Donnington, Telford, Shropshire, TF2 7SJ

This application was before Planning Committee due to the number of objections received during the consultation period.

Councillor O Vickers, Parish Councillor, spoke against the application on behalf of local residents.  Although it was understood that it was essential for good and decent homes he raised concerns regarding the suitability of the property.   He considered that the parking was ambitious and imprecise and must be installed before any residents were in situ and given the 24hr intended use and in particular at staff change overs and during visits from social workers, inspectors and family members who would access the site regularly.   The road was not a wide road and had very limited space with a number of parked cars and it was felt that the residents parking issues would be exacerbated. 

Mr S Pierce, member of public, spoke against the application and raised concerns regarding the recent increase in C2 care home conversions, the suitability of the provider, “pop-up” homes lacking the proper wrap around support or community integration and once granted councils could not easily intervene or close them down when serious problems emerged.  The proposal was for children with emotional and behavioural difficulties including absconding and aggression and he felt placing such a cohort in a 79 home cul-de-sac raised safeguarding concerns.  Further concerns raised were recent crimes on the estate, parking provision, disruption, congestion, the hardstanding would commercialise the frontage of the property and forever change the character of the street scene, the 24 hour operation of a business in a semi-detached property.  He asked Members to consider how the provider would be held accountable, what was the physical accessible route for residents to raise complaints and would the Committee be the point of contact for residents once the home was opened.

The Applicant/Applicant’s Agent were not in attendance at the meeting for their public speaking slot.

The Planning Officer informed Members that the application was situated in the urban area of Telford and considered to be in a highly sustainable location.  During the application process, amended documents were received outlining the proposed provision of care.  Initially, the proposal was to accommodate four children with this being amended to a maximum of two children, with two staff members and a manager present on site at any one time.  Staggered staff changeover times were proposed, with two shift patterns and four changeover periods per day, resulting in minimal traffic impact. Policy HO7 supported development designed to meet residents’ needs in sustainable locations.  The council’s Commissioning Team confirmed a need for this type of accommodation and raised no objection to the amended scheme.  Officers considered the proposal was compliant with policy HO7. The existing driveway could accommodate two cars, and amended plans proposed extending to four spaces, similar to nearby properties.  The Highways Officer confirmed the layout was sufficient and the operator was committed to monitoring parking and avoid on-street parking.  It was considered that the scheme would not cause significant harm to neighbour amenity, noting the fallback position of family occupation. Given the low number of children and staff, limited parking, and staggered changeovers, the proposal was considered acceptable. Approval was recommended subject to conditions and informatives.  It was noted that this was a change of use application, not a personal consent, so another operator could manage the site under the same conditions. Ofsted registration and monitoring would apply, and the Commissioning Team confirmed the scheme was appropriate.

During the debate some Members raised concerns regarding the semi-detached property, noise levels and the thickness of the walls, the size of the driveway, the timings of the shift patterns and wagons making deliveries to the property.  Other Members felt that there was a growing need for community care providing a stable environment and setting.  There had been a reduction in the number of children and staff parking and the proposed scale would mean little visible change.  The proposal met Policy HO7 and had been mitigated by reduced occupancy and management controls.  It was asked in relation to soundproofing of the walls would Building Control be able to verify compliance prior to occupation and were there other similar C2 uses in the vicinity leading to over concentration of the building use.  Some further concerns were raised in relation to clinical waste bins and if there was sufficient space for these and for the wagons on delivery/collection and what mitigation measure would be put in place in order to keep the children safe.  It was considered that a semi-detached property was not the most ideal property for the proposed use and a question arose as to whether a wheelchair would fit the access the pathway.

The Planning Officer confirmed that they had proposed soundproofing as a condition under Part E of the Building Regulations and would ask the applicant to submit details prior to use which would be assessed.  The Commissioning Specialists would raise oversaturation if this was considered to be of concern and the application was considered acceptable following the reduction of the number of children with the remaining bedrooms being used for staff areas.  Despite the property not having the largest garden/amenity space, the application could not be refused on that basis.  There were no commercial bins required and this application would be consistent with a typical residential property. The end user was not currently known and it was for the regulators/providers to make a decision on the children residing at the property and this was outside of the planning jurisdiction.  If the property was not wheelchair accessible it was unlike a child requiring a wheelchair would not be placed, but it was a modern house and it could be adapted.

Following the debate, a discussion took place as to whether the Applicant/Applicant’s Agent could be allowed their speaking slot.  The Chair asked Members for a proposer and seconder to allow the Applicant/Agent to be allowed to speak due to their late arrival and missing their slot within the public speaking allocation. 

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

RESOLVED - that the Applicant/Applicant’s Agent be granted their speaking slot.

Mr Andrew Blake, Applicant, apologised for their late arrival and gave a brief background about their experience.  The organisation would be regulated by Ofsted and they understood the health, safeguarding and development of the children. As the property lacked wheelchair facilities it was not likely to be recommended and the Applicant, local authority and NHS meet and agree who will reside at the property.  Children deserved a chance in the community and it was important that they were not raised in institutions.

The Chair asked Members to consider the suggestion that had come forward that the application be deferred for a site visit to take place in order to address some of the issues that had been raised during the debate.

It was proposed and seconded that the application be deferred in order that a site visit could take place.

On being put to the vote the vote was tied and the decision was made by way of the Chair’s casting vote.  It was, by a majority:

RESOLVED – that the application be deferred for one cycle in order that a site visit could take place.