Issue - meetings
Meeting: 14/04/2026 - Planning Committee (Item 78)
PDF 277 KBChange of use from residential dwelling (Use Class C3) to a residential children’s home (Use Class C2).
Minutes:
Earlier on in the meeting, as reported under Minute 75 above, Councillor Scott had declared that he was one of the local Ward Members and the caller-in and that he had exercised his right in those capacities to speak on the application.
The Committee was informed that the proposal sought the change of use of an existing dwelling to a small Class C2 children’s home for up to three children, involving only minor external alterations. The development was considered by Officers to be policy-compliant, with no significant adverse impacts identified in relation to residential amenity, heritage, highways, trees, drainage, or biodiversity, and was therefore acceptable.
The Committee had before it the published Officer report containing the key planning issues, relevant planning policies, planning history, any response from consultees, written representations received and a recommendation of approval.
At the meeting, an oral presentation was made by the Council’s Planning Officer (CC) in respect of the application.
No updates had been circulated to Members in relation to this application.
Samuel Connor, the applicant, spoke in support of the application.
Scott Tucker, member of the public, spoke against the application.
Councillor Andrew Fairley, Vice-Chairman of the Great Bromley Parish Council, spoke against the application.
Councillor Gary Scott, one of the Ward Members and the caller-in, spoke against the application.
|
Matters raised by Members of the Committee:- |
Officer response thereto:- |
|
Are Members correct in saying that ‘covenants’ is not a material planning consideration? |
Yes, that is correct. |
|
If the applicant has the correct application and licence then planning permission is not required, is that correct and why is this application before Members if planning permission is not needed? |
Essentially it was down to the applicant’s discretion, and they would rather go in for full planning permission rather than a lawful development certificate and that is why the application is before Members today. |
|
Could you expand on that a bit? |
In these circumstances, Members’ debate has been on a case law basis. The debate is ‘what is the material change?’. Members are looking at a change of use from a C3 to a C2 which is a change from a standard residential property to a children’s home, but it is a degree of how institutionalised or how significant a change to that children’s home is considered to be material. Case law holds up that in small cases of very minor change, it could be held to be lawful and that there is no significant material change, whereas if the children’s home was a significant home with a lot of children and resources, it is considered to be a material change. In this case, the fallback is argued or potentially to be argued that because it is similar to a five-bedroom property in the nature of size and scale being proposed, that it could be regarded as non-material. It is a matter of judgement. The applicant could come back in if this was refused, with a certificate of lawful use application that Officers would have to ... view the full minutes text for item 78 |