Agenda item

This was an application for a 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 had been deferred at the meeting of the Committee on 12 November 2025 to enable Members to undertake a site visit.

A site visit took place on the afternoon prior to the meeting.

Councillor O Vickers, spoke on behalf of the Parish Council and the residents of Donnington who understood the need for a good decent home for children, but raised concerns in relation to the suitability of the property, standard of care, lack of parking, arrival and departure times of staff, professionals and family members at regular times which would exacerbate the current parking difficulties.  He asked that the Committee refuse the application.

Mr S Pierce, member of public, spoke against the application and raised concerns regarding the unsuitability of use class C2 and felt this was driven by investment rather than care.  He raised further concerns regarding the true pattern of the on street parking and the precedent that would be set for such use on a cul de sac, the antisocial behaviour and the risk of absconding, the commercial frontage of the premises, round the clock care and change over patters in relation to noise from car alarms, doors and windows.  He considered that children needed to be in a safe and secure home but this was not a suitable property.   

Mr A Blake, Applicant, spoke in favour of the application which would be a care home for two children with disabilities and would provide the young people the opportunity to unlock their potential.  The property would not be suitable for wheelchair users.  The company was not new to Telford and had not had complaints and had care homes in various locations within the borough.  He understood the concerns of the community but advised that there were four weekly inspections and unannounced inspections made by Ofsted.  Community liaison was important and he would work with the local community with any feedback. 

The Planning Officer informed Members that this application was for a childrens care home for up to two children with two staff and a manager present.  There would be a staggered changeover pattern being 6.30am and 7am and 6.30pm and 7pm in order to limit car movements.  Policy HO7 supported sustainable development which related well to the local context.  The scale, design and form was highly sustainable and the Commissioning Team had raised no objections.  Amended plans had been submitted in relation to parking and the vehicle arrangements would be in character with nearby properties.  Highway Officers supported the application and the Applicant had made a commitment to ensure that parking was monitored and that spaces were utilised in order to prevent on street parking.  The fallback position was that the premises could be occupied by two adults and four to six children on which the Council would have no control.  It was considered that there was no detrimental impact in relation to parking and traffic and the amended plans were sufficient to accommodate four vehicles.

During the debate, some Members asked if the parking spaces and the soundproofing would be dealt with prior to any children residing at the property.  It was felt there was a lot of fear in relation to these applications but there was nothing to say the children would be delinquent and that they could not see a reason for this application not to be approved.  Other Members felt that the site visit had reaffirmed the suitability of the property, waste removal could be accommodated but they did feel that the parking would be an issue, particularly with the position of the lamp post and that the garden space was limited.  It was asked if there were any standards regarding outdoor space as this would impact the ability to support the application.  Other concerns raised were who were the owners of the segment of grass used as the pavement area and did the Applicant have permission to cross this, removal of the fence would impact child safety, the pond opposite the dwelling, if the children would be attending school and what would happen if the Applicant wanted to increase the number of children in the property to four.

The Planning Officer confirmed that there would be conditions in place that parking spaces and soundproofing was implemented prior to any occupation.  It was acknowledged that the garden space was slightly smaller than would be expected but that the dwelling could be occupied by a larger number of children and it had to be looked at in the context of a general family residence.  In relation to the grass verge, it was confirmed that the Council did not own the land but it was for the Applicant to ensure they had the correct permissions in place but this was not a planning consideration.  In relation to safety of the children in relation to the fence and the pond, again this would be the same fallback position to that of an existing residential property and the carers would be responsible for the children.  If the Applicant wished to increase the number of children, they would have to formally apply in writing to vary the conditions and this would be considered on its own merits and would go out to consultation for comments.

The Area Team Planning Manager – East, confirmed that the application would need to be considered on planning policy and on planning merits.  The existing house and garden were appropriate for a typical family who would use the property and garden for comparable uses.  Ofsted would regulate the legislation and issues covered by separate legislation were not part of the planning process.  There wasn’t anything set out in planning documents and this couldn’t be taken into account as part of the current application.  Ofsted would need to be satisfied on the appropriateness of the use and the Applicant would have several hurdles to get through.  If the verge was adopted by the Council then the Applicant would have to apply for a licence to drop the kerb to allow for the parking.  In relation to standards for outdoor space, guidance would be applied at the point of the development, as the building was already in existence it can operate as expected regardless of guidance.  The Planning Officers could not dictate how the facility operated and children would be able to attend SEN schools or have tutoring at home and the parking spaces provided would be used to accommodate any visitors.

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

RESOLVED – that delegated authority be granted to the 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 Condition(s) and informatives (with authority to finalise Condition(s) and reasons for approval to be delegated to Development Management Service Delivery Manager) as set out in the report.