Agenda item

This application was for the change of use of a dwellinghouse (Use Class C3) to a small children’s residential care facility (Use Class C2), installation of 1no. window on the first floor north east elevation and creation of an extended driveway and vehicular access at 10 Emral Rise, Dothill, Telford, Shropshire, TF1 3LG.

The application had been called in by Councillor K Tomlinson, Ward Councillor and there had been a notable number of objections received.

Councillor K Tomlinson, Ward Councillor, spoke against the application and raised concerns regarding the lack of transparency, the application was contrary to Policy HO7 in relation to specialist housing, lack of outdoor space and the national guidance for dwellings, lack of parking impeded by bins and the lamp post, the bike store and the lack of access to the rear of the property.  She raised further concerns in relation to the number of errors within the documentation, design and access, impact on the highways and the neighbourhood plan, the business plan, safeguarding, the operational statement and staff rotas.

Ms N Pitchford, member of the public, spoke against the application and considered that the application was contrary to Policy HO7 and raised concerns in relation to it being a suitable location, staff rotas, highways impact, parking, safety and access, professional visitors increasing the number of vehicles parking on the street and it was unlikely that staff would travel by bicycle or on foot.  She considered that the amendments to the application did not address the fundamental issues and that it would cause harm and disruption and she requested that members refuse the application.

Mr L Jinks, Wellington Town Council, endorsed the comments of the previous speakers and reported that there had been over 50 objections to the application.  She raised concerns regarding the lack of traffic assessment, retrospective planning permission, technical issues which included overlooking the neighbour, the change of use to a commercial property in a residential area that housed maturing families who used mobility scooters, frames and assistance dogs, parking and antisocial behaviour.  It was recognised that children have to live somewhere in safety, but she felt that this was not the appropriate accommodation for this purpose.

Mr Madumere, Applicant, spoke in favour of the application and sought to allay the residents concerns.  Parking spaces would increase for four cars and the highways authority had deemed this sufficient.  There had been changes to the staff rota.  Work was undertaken to ensure that the children on site would blend to fit the local area and would be a stepping stone for the children to return to their family or until they were able to leave.  There were no changes to the premises and the window would be obscured to prevent any overlooking.  Their focus was on the local community it was not about profit and it was the intention to raise children within the community to live independent lives.

The Planning Officer set out that the application was within an existing four bedroomed house and would house up to three young people between the ages of seven and seventeen under the care of full time staff.  There were no external alterations to the property and this would not impact the scale and design or cause harm to the street scene and due to the number of children and the level of accommodation this would not intensify the use or cause overdevelopment.  The property was within the urban area and with a sustainable location close to local shops, services and primary and secondary schools.  It complied with Policy HO7 of the Local Plan and the Commissioning Team had raised no objections and it helped to meet the local sufficiency need.  Supporting information had been received which included the staff rota which set out there would be two staff on 48 hour shifts with a manager present between the hours of 9am and 5pm.  Shift changeovers were staggered with changeovers at 7.30am and 8am and 10.00am and 10.30am in order to avoid disruption.  Some other visits such as Ofsted were likely but the proposal would not adversely prejudice the surrounding area.  The additional window would be obscurely glazed and would be subject to a condition so this would not impact neighbour privacy.  Work would be taken to extend vehicular access to provide adequate parking and officers were satisfied with the scaled drawing.  Objections received during the consultation period had been noted.  Officers noted that there had been some inaccuracies within the application and the applicant was given the opportunity to finalise the documents.   The property was in a sustainable area and a family home environment which was favoured by Ofsted rather than institutional settings and it met local and national policies.  In relation to the lamp post, given the size of the driveway it was not expected that this would impact the access and the Applicant would need to complete a S184 vehicle access application separately to the planning process.  In relation to the bike store and the bin store shown to the rear of the property, this was considered beneficial but not necessary for this application to be compliant and there would be sufficient space for two cars to park in tandem.

During the debate, some Members raised concerns regarding on street parking and whether this could be monitored and enforcement action taken if necessary, the impact on the elderly population and would the ages of the children on site and their behaviour be properly controlled.  In relation to parking, even with a carefully crafted rota, there would be times when there would be additional vehicles to the four spaces allocated on site and it was felt that this application did not meet parking standards.  It was asked what was the purpose of the additional window.

The Area Team Planning Manager – East, informed Members that they could only determine the application and the information set out in front of them and where necessary enforcement action could only be taken if the site was operating outside of the management plan.  In relation to the ages of the children, placings would be undertaken by the Commissioning Team who would ensure that the placings were suitable.  In relation to parking, the proposed parking was considered sufficient and this was set out in the management plan and there was no technical reason to refuse.

The Planning Officer set out that in terms of the parking, the fallback position was that a C3 dwelling may also be in a similar position with delays and emergencies where off site parking would be occasionally required.  In relation to the window, the existing first floor bathroom was being subdivided  into a separate bathroom and an additional window was required.

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

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

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