Change of use from Dwelling (C3) to Children’s Home (C2).

Earlier on in the meeting, as reported under Minute 10 above, Councillor S Honeywood had declared that she was the local Ward Member and had called-in the application and exercised her right in those capacities to speak on the application.

It was reported that the proposed change of use was considered acceptable and would not result in material harm to the character of the area, heritage assets, highway safety, residential amenity, drainage, ecology or biodiversity interests.

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 Team Leader (AN) in respect of the application.

An Officer Update Sheet had been circulated to Members prior to the meeting which informed the Committee as follows:-

“Additional Objection

One additional letter of objection has been received from a member of the public raising the following material planning considerations;

-       Harm to the Gardens Area of Special Character, specifically its intention to protect the special residential nature of the area.

Officers Response – The proposal has been fully assessed against Policy PPL12 of the Tendring District Local Plan and found to be acceptable for the reasons set out within the Committee Report.

Updated Consultee Comment – ECC Children’s and Families – Children’s Residential

Updated comments have been received from ECC Children’s and Families – Children’s Residential. Whilst their original consultation response advised that the applicant had not been in contact with the service, the consultee has now confirmed that the applicant has attended a weekly drop-in session and engaged with officers. No objection is raised. The updated comments are set out below:

From a review of the documents submitted we can see that the proposal is to provide accommodation for up to five children and young people aged 8–17. This would include four bedrooms in the main house, along with a self-contained annex designed to support one young person preparing for independent living, meaning a maximum of five children or young people would be living at the property at any one time.

The children placed in the home would have emotional and behavioural difficulties. The care approach is described as trauma informed.

We also note that the home is intended to be registered with Ofsted and run in line with the Children’s Homes (England) Regulations 2015.

We have reviewed our data to provide you with a picture of the current situation in the area in question.

In respect to the data regarding children in mainstream homes, the following data is applicable at present:

How many CYP with Tendring as home district are in mainstream residential care homes? 4

How many CYP with Tendring as home district are supported in district in mainstream residential care homes? 0

The total number of Essex CYP supported in district in mainstream residential care homes is 4

In respect to the data regarding children in children with disabilities (CWD) homes, the following data is applicable at present:

How many CYP with Tendring as home district are in CWD homes? 2

How many CYP with Tendring as home district are supported in district in CWD homes? 0

The total number of Essex CYP supported in district in CWD homes is 2

The total number of registered homes in the district is 12.

The total number of registered beds in the district is 42.

The applicants have discussed their plans with us at one of our weekly Children’s Residential drop-in sessions, where colleagues from our residential, commissioning and procurement teams can offer advice, guidance and support on their proposals. This is something we welcome, as it helps us to understand plans in greater detail.

As a general principle, provision with larger numbers of residents or a more institutional presentation do not align with Essex County Council’s preferred model, nor with our current sufficiency needs. However, we note that the applicant is proposing a four-bed home within the main residence, alongside a self-contained annex to support a young person preparing for independent living.

This particular facility promotes inclusion within the local community and enables step-down pathways where appropriate through the use of the attached annexe. In this respect, the proposed children’s home broadly aligns with our preferred model in terms of scale, for supporting children who can live within a group home setting.”

Jeremy Hughband, the representative for the applicant, spoke in favour of the application.

Antony Cannon, member of the public, spoke against the application.

Councillor S Honeywood, the Ward Member and the Caller-in, spoke against the application.

It was moved by Councillor Land, seconded by Councillor Alexander and:-

RESOLVED that:-

1)    the Head of Planning and Building Control be authorised to refuse planning permission subject to the reasons as stated below that follows:-

-       the proposal, by reason of its intensified and non-typical residential use, would introduce a level of activity and comings and goings that would erode the established quiet residential character of the Gardens Area of Special Character, contrary to Policy PPL12 and SP7;

-       in addition, in the absence of robust, site-specific evidence demonstrating that the operation of the children’s home would not materially impact neighbouring occupiers, the proposal fails to satisfactorily demonstrate compliance with Policies SPL3, LP10 and SP7 relating to the protection of residential amenity; and  

2)    the applicant be sent any informative notes, as may be deemed necessary, by the Head of Planning and Building Control.