Agenda item

To receive the report of the Chief Planning Officer on  application 23/03811/FU for the change of use from dwelling (C3) to Children’s Care Home (C2) at No.8 Chatsworth Crescent, Pudsey, LS28 8LD

The report of the Chief Planning Officer presented a change of use application from Dwelling (C3) to Children’s Care Home (C2) at No.8 Chatsworth Crescent, Pudsey, LS28 8LD.

Members of the Panel attended a site visit earlier in the day.

Photographs and slides were shown throughout the officer presentation, and the following information was provided:

·  The proposal is for the change of use of a dwelling house within the Use Class C3 to a residential home within Use Class C2.

·  The use class is intended to provide safe accommodation for children who have a bad start in life and are put into the care system.

·  The site is located in Pudsey, and the wider character of the area is residential with detached and semi-detached dwellings of single and two storey heights.

·  The current set up of the property comprises a detached 5-bedroom semi-detached dwelling, with a driveway down the side of the property and a garage to the rear.

·  The proposals will accommodate up to 3 children, typically aged between 10 – 16. Although there may be children aged between 8 – 17. There will be a 24 hour staffing system, with 48 hours on working time and 48 hours off; 1 of them residing in one of the bedrooms.

·  There is a condition proposed to control the number of children at any one time, 3 being the maximum.

·  The proposal is no different to the current layout and instead of 5 bedrooms being occupied, the proposal is for 3 of the bedrooms to be used by the children and 1 of them for the staff onsite at that particular time. The other bedroom is intended to be used as a staff office.

·  There is parking for up to 3-4 vehicles.

·  No physical or internal changes to the appearance are proposed.

·  The representations received raise concerns regarding noise and disturbance. Appeal decisions in the past relating to similar change of use applications have concluded that they do not have an impact on neighbours in terms of anti-social behaviour and disturbance.

·  The applicant must submit a range of documents to OFSTED for the regulation of a children’s home.

·  Officers do not believe that the scale of the application will be harmful to its surroundings and there are conditions in place to limit the number of children and staff.

Councillor Amanda Carter attended the meeting and set out her objections as follows:

·  The children’s home will be a commercial venture for the applicant and is a loss of a residential unit.

·  The emotional difficulties of a child can contribute to anti-social behaviour and disturbance as children with such difficulties find it hard to articulate themselves.

·  Concerns regarding not delivering a secure environment these children need.

·  The property is situated on a bend and there are concerns regarding accidents in that location. Chatsworth Crescent is a well-known rat run.

·  Councillor Carter suggested that the application be deferred until further evidence is looked at in terms of the impact of the proposals in this location, against statistics and other associated information.

Further to questions from Panel Members, Councillor Carter explained:

·  Her concerns related to the most vulnerable children in our society, and it will be children who have been taken away from their families that may cause disturbance to the next door bungalow, which is the home of a disabled elderly lady.

·  Councillor Carter explained that the street is known for speeding and residents have been asking for speed mitigation measures on Chatsworth Crescent.

·  Further to concerns raised regarding private sector vs public sector providing child care, the Chair reiterated that the identity of the applicant is not a material consideration in planning law.

·  There is not a lot recreation wise for the current children living in the area to do. It was also mentioned that there is a lot of anti-social behaviour related issues in Pudsey with children. There are also extremely difficult cases with vulnerable children being brought into crime that West Yorkshire Police are currently dealing with.

Officers were not aware of the existing transport routes and frequency of public services but confirmed that the site is in a sustainable location and people will utilise bus services in the area. Councillor Finnigan commented that the application should be deferred until further details are put forward in relation to local provision of services and exploration of comments received by Councillor Amanda Carter. A motion was put forward that the application be deferred. This motion was moved and seconded. This motion failed and therefore the debate proceeded.

Further to questions to officers, the following was confirmed:

·  If the applicant or neighbours have any concerns, they have the ability to erect a fence. Care providers may also stipulate that boundary treatment up to 2m in height may be required. Further to a suggestion that a condition be incorporated to include the erection of a fence, officers suggested that this is not imposed, as the neighbour may not want this.

·  The transport situation is no different to its current use and the property can currently house up to 3 or 4 children. The proposal includes a condition to minimise the number of children at any one time.

Further to comments from Panel Members, it was commented that the proposals regulate the number of children in the property, and it is believed that its current use is no different to what is proposed or add to any disturbance that may be created by its existing use. It was also noted that there is a great need for children’s care services. Contrary to this, some Panel Members suggested that further information is required regarding issues on the impact of amenity and there is also currently no clarity regarding transport routes. Concerns were also raised regarding the number of cars parked onsite and whether this would limit room for children to play.

A motion was put forward to grant planning permission as per the officer recommendation. This motion was moved and seconded, and the vote was carried. Therefore it was

RESOLVED – To grant planning permission.