Agenda item
The application is before the Planning Committee following a joint call-in request from Councillor Giancarlo Guglielmi and Councillor Alan Coley due to concerns raised in respect of the impact of the proposal on residential amenities.
Minutes:
It was reported that this application was before the Planning Committee following a joint Member referral request from Councillors Giancarlo Guglielmi and Alan Coley due to their concerns raised in respect of the impact of the proposal on local residential amenities.
Members were informed that the proposal was for the change of use of the existing residential dwelling into Use Class C2 (Residential Institutions) to operate as a children’s care home that would provide care for up to five children between the ages of 8 and 18, and would include between one and three members of staff who would rotate on a shift basis.
The Committee was reminded that Policy LP10 provided, in principle, support for such uses within settlement development boundaries, whilst the minor external alterations would not adversely impact upon the area’s character and appearance. In addition, there were not considered by Officers to be significant noise disturbances to warrant recommending a reason for refusal, and the development provided for adequate car parking provision.
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 (Michael Pingram) in respect of the application.
An update sheet had been circulated to the Committee prior to the meeting with details of one additional objection letter received from Lawford Parish Council on the following grounds:
1) Concerns regarding the level of staffing and the impact of this on the safety of the children concerned;
2) The mixture of gender and age of the children and again the safety of the children concerned;
3) The impact on the neighbours with increased ‘comings and goings’; and
4) The pressure on local schools which are already at capacity.
Lee Reed, the agent acting on behalf of the applicant, spoke in support of the application.
Councillor Carlo Guglielmi, a local Ward Member, spoke against the application.
Councillor Guglielmi also read out a written statement on behalf of his fellow Ward Member, Councillor Alan Coley, who had been unable to attend the meeting due to illness.
|
Outline of matters raised by Members of the Committee |
Outline of Officer response thereto |
|
Clarification sought as to whether any of the children would be in mainstream schools. |
There was no indication that any of the, potentially, five children would be educated in mainstream schools. |
|
There were only four parking spaces at the site so was this an issue for the children’s transport? |
Yes, there was a slight shortfall in parking spaces against the ECC Car Parking Standards but this was mitigated by the fact that the site was within 300 metres of a bus stop, was located within a Settlement Development Boundary and that Essex Highways Authority had offered no objections. Furthermore, it would be a rare occurrence that all the spaces would be needed at the same time. |
|
What were the sleeping arrangements for the night staff on duty? |
An upstairs bathroom had been divided into part bathroom/part bedroom where one member of staff will sleep whilst ‘on call’ and the other member of staff would be on duty. |
|
What would be the gender makeup of the children? |
This was not known. |
|
Would Fire Regulations apply? |
Yes. This would be part of the Building Regulations approval, which would be required as the property would be converted. |
|
Was it known what sort of ‘needs’ the children had? |
It was believed that they would be on the autism spectrum, but the end users were not known at this stage. |
|
Would this development impact on the street scene and the amenity of neighbours for example noise nuisance and traffic movements? |
This had been carefully considered and covered in the report. For the reasons given in the report the application was felt to be acceptable as no significant harm had been demonstrated. |
|
The objections that Lawford Parish Council had put forward – were they legitimate planning considerations? |
(1) Yes (2) No and Yes (3) Yes (4) Yes |
|
What were the views of ECC Education and ECC Social Care on this application? Had they been involved? |
ECC Education had been consulted but had not provided any comments. ECC Social Care would become involved later on if planning permission was granted and the project developed. |
|
Could this become a HMO? |
Permission for a C2 use was being sought. An HMO would require a separate planning permission and failing that it would be a breach of this planning permission (should it be granted). |
|
Are there any restrictions on the use of the parking spaces? |
No. |
|
Would this development need gates to be installed as it opened straight onto a main road and therefore the children could be at risk? |
There was no provision in the application or requirement under the proposed conditions for gates. The property was currently a domestic dwelling that could potentially have children living there. Any gates would be a consideration for the applicant going forward. Gates up to 1m high directly adjacent to a highway could be installed at any time under permitted development rights. |
|
Proposed condition 3 does not specify the ages of the children. Should it? |
That would be a reasonable addition to the proposed condition. |
|
Was there any impact on the Conservation Area? |
The property was adjacent to the Conservation Area. The proposed external alterations were minor and therefore were not considered to result in a negative impact on the Conservation Area. |
|
Was it correct that the security of the children was a matter for ECC Social Care and OfSTED? |
Yes, that was correct. |
Following discussion by the Committee:-
It was moved by Councillor Harris, seconded by Councillor Baker and:-
RESOLVED that the Assistant Director (Planning) (or otherwise delegated Officer after 26 October 2022) be authorised to grant planning permission, subject to the conditions as set out below, or as need to be varied (to account for any errors or legal issues et cetera) or otherwise added or removed as may be deemed necessary by the Assistant Director (Planning) (or otherwise delegated Officer after 26 October 2022).
Conditions and Reasons
1 The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration of three years from the date of this permission.
Reason - To comply with the requirements of Section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, as amended by the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004.
2 The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans:
Drawing Numbers 443-01 Rev A (Site Location and Block Plan), 443-11 Rev A (Proposed Ground/First Floor Plans, Proposed Elevation & Site Plan', the document titled 'Planning Statement', and the letter received from the agent for the application dated 29th September 2022 with a reference of 36088.
Reason - For the avoidance of doubt and in the interests of proper planning.
3 The use hereby permitted shall operate with a maximum of five children (between 8-18 years of age) to reside at the property at any time, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.
Reason – The proposal has been assessed on this basis, to ensure that the use is appropriate within this residential location, and to protect neighbouring amenities.
Supporting documents:
PDF 320 KB