Agenda item

Consideration was given to Planning application 23/1406/LA 2 Speeton Close, Billingham, Stockton-On-Tees. Change of use from residential dwelling (C3) to a children’s care home (C2)

 

The application site was a detached four-bedroom two storey dwellinghouse within the defined settlement limits and was approximately 1.3 miles north east of Billingham Town Centre.

 

The application was seeking planning permission for the change of use of 2 Speeton Close, Billingham from a four-bedroom dwellinghouse(Use Class C3) to a children’s home (Use Class C2). The site benefitted from off street parking, detached garage and a rear private amenity space.

 

The proposed children’s home would provide accommodation for a maximum of three children between the ages of 7 and 17 years with 24-hour adult support, provided on a shift basis. Three members of staff would be present at the premises one being an Ofsted registered manager Monday- Friday between 9am- 5pm. 2 staff members would be present overnight.

 

As part of the change of use the existing rear ground floor study window would be replaced with a door.

 

Following the consultation process there had been 95 letters of objection received and 2 letters of support. The majority of objections related to highway issues including increase in the volume of traffic and off-street parking, noise, privacy, anti-social behaviour/crime, impact on character and appearance of the street scene and the community.

 

The consultees that had been notified and the comments that had been received were detailed within the main report.

 

Neighbours were notified and the comments received were detailed within the main report.

 

The planning policies and material planning considerations that were relevant to the consideration of the application were contained within the main report.

 

The Planning Officers report concluded that for the reasons outlined within the main report, it was recommended that the application be approved with conditions.

 

Members were presented with an update report which since the original report detailed further comments which had been received from Councillor Clare Gamble, Councillor Marc Besford, and 3 local residents.

 

In summary the comments raised concerns regarding the location of the use, anti-social behaviour, ability to control residents, security recommendations from Cleveland Police and inadequate parking facilities at the property which would lead to highway safety concerns which had been set out in the original report. Whilst it was noted the comments raised concerns regarding obstructions for emergency services and dangerous on street car parking with a need for these to be conditioned, unfortunately on street car parking was not within the gift for the Local Planning Authority to control outside of the considerations of the proposed planning application.

 

In respect of ensuring adequate incurtilage car parking would remain at the property, this could be secured by a condition as follows:

 

Incurtilage Carparking

The development hereby approved shall retain a minimum of 5 incurtilage car parking spaces via the existing driveway in accordance with SPD3: Parking Provision for Developments 2011. The parking provision shall be retained thereafter for the lifetime of the development.

 

A Member of the Planning Committee requested that the planning application be deferred due to new information coming to light which related to an additional children’s home within the same locality as the proposed application, and which was to come to a future Planning Committee. The new information had not been shared with consultees including the police and ward councillors however it was felt that this new information should have been. It was also felt that the Director of Childrens Services should have attended the Planning Committee to answer any questions the Committee may have had.

 

The Head of Legal Services reminded Members of the Planning Committee that the new information which had recently been received was confidential and not a material planning consideration. It was not up to the Local Authority to decide whether the information could be made public as that was a matter for the author and therefore further consultation could not take place.

 

A motion was proposed and seconded that the application be deferred to a future meeting of the Planning Committee for the reasons as outlined above.

 

A vote took place, and the motion was not carried.

 

Objectors attended the meeting and were given the opportunity to make representation. Their comments could be summarised as follows;

 

. There were a number of outstanding objections which had been submitted online which had not been addressed.

 

. It was alleged that a Member of the Planning Committee had been overheard saying that they would not want the proposed dwelling next to them.

 

. Mental health issues of local residents effected by this proposed application should not be dismissed.

 

. It was stated within the report that the proposed application would be no different to any other residential home, however, there would be a change of character of use, dealing with children with complex needs. Ofsted requirements would need to be met with multiple professional service providers being present at all times to safeguard the residents living there. There would be additional comings and goings of staff and other professional services / external agencies which was not typical of a conventional home as well as ad hoc emergency visits. Most placements usually lasted less than 3 months which was materially different to a family home.

 

. The Council was profiting from these children’s homes, and questions were asked as to whether it was right that these children deserved to be used as a form of profit for the Council.

 

. The children accommodated in these types of homes had complex needs with mental health issues and could be violent and aggressive and possibly increase crime and Anti-Social Behaviour. These children were also prone to go missing putting a strain on the local police.

 

. The location of the proposed application site was unsuitable due to the increasing age of the local population and there were very few facilities for the children nearby.

 

. There was a national shortage of qualified professionals required to work in children’s homes. It was also highlighted that the manager of the proposed home would also be managing another home within the local area, therefore each home would only have half a manager post. The children residing in the home would be difficult to control, negatively impacting on the recruitment / retention of qualified staff.

 

. Cleveland Police had made a number of recommendations which if implemented would change the appearance of the property spoiling a much-loved landscape. It was also suggested that any children’s home placed on Speeton Close would take away the sense of space residents currently had.

 

. Speeton Close was a narrow road and there were inadequate car parking facilities at the home which would result in council staff parking outside of resident’s properties which had already been witnessed and photographed. The site needed an additional car parking space, a suitable place for an ambulance to turn and a larger car parking space for disabled access.

 

. Concerns around highway safety were highlighted due to previous traffic accidents at the property when it was a residential home, where cars had reversed off the property and collided with other vehicles. The proposal if approved would also increase car journeys due to staff coming and going from the property as well as increasing traffic noise.

 

. There was a hammerhead within the close which was used by many vehicles such as delivery drivers to turn. Concerns were raised that the increased traffic created from the proposed home would exacerbate the situation effecting residents living close to the hammerhead.

 

. Comments were made regarding the inadequate dimensions of the car park at the proposed site. The drive to the property also needed to be wide enough to accommodate the bringing in and out of waste, cutting of lawns etc without moving cars.

 

. The planning application did not consider dropped kerbs and barring gates which would reduce the drive space by a third.

 

. There was no mention of any provision of cycle parking on the proposed plans.

 

. One objector explained that an elderly lady who lived close to the proposed site felt that her independence would be stopped as she would be too frightened to go out if the application was approved.

 

. Advertising of the application had been minimal; however, it had been widespread on social media which was felt to be a safeguarding issue for the children that would reside there.

 

. Concerns around privacy to neighbouring properties were raised.

 

. An increase in noise impacting on neighbours from the children in the property, due to meltdowns, confrontations and violence which could spill out into the street.

 

. Having younger people on Speeton Close would change the nature of the area. There was also a fear that if the children did get angry, vandalism could increase in an otherwise quiet and peaceful area.

 

. Questions were asked as to whether the home would be better located closer to local facilities such as Billingham forum allowing for ease of access to local amenities and the chance for the children to meet like minded youngsters.

 

. Fire safety within the proposed property was not up to required standards and needed to be upgraded to safeguard occupants. It was also highlighted that should the occupants need to leave the building due to fire risk, the occupants would have difficulty doing so if the car park was full.

 

. Questions were asked as to why loss of property value was not a material planning consideration when it was an option on a drop-down list when making representation on the Planning Portal.

 

. It was felt that the Councils finances should be considered a material planning consideration due to a recently reported overspend in children’s services which had been detailed within the Councils ‘Medium Term Financial Plan’.

 

. It was highlighted that there was misinformation within the Planning Committee report, the Design Access Statement within Stockton Borough Councils Local Planning Policy had expired and there were scale bars missing off some drawings.

 

. The boiler at the proposed site was to be located in the loft, use of the loft ladders would block the stairs making it difficult for occupants to leave should there be a fire.

 

. There would be disturbance to local residents during staff change at night.

 

. There was no mention of fire detection system to BS5839 which was a requirement in this type of property, therefore the application should not be approved.

 

. Reference was made to the NPPF paragraph 132 which talked about early discussions with applicants, the local planning authority, and local residents in terms of design quality, however no dialogue had taken place with local residents. In addition, contractors had recently arrived at the application site to undertake work and when approached they told residents they weren’t allowed to talk to them.

 

. It was felt the consultation process had not been undertaken correctly. A community engagement letter had been received by local residents 4 to 5 days after the consultation period. Non-disclosure documents may have been used before the planning application was officially outed. Ward Councillors had told residents that they knew about the application before the recent local elections. 75% of questions raised by residents during consultation could not be answered and 25% were given vague answers. Freedom of Information (FOI) requests had also been blocked regarding the children’s home.

 

. A former employee of Stockton Council explained that they had previously worked in children’s care homes and children in those homes were more likely to enter into the youth justice system. The former employee also felt that the Council should be looking to placing children with other family members such as grandparents and looking to fund adaptations to their homes to make the home suitable for the children to stay, or alternatively looking to foster care rather than buying houses and turning them into children’s homes.

 

. Reference was made to the lack of disabled provision at the proposed site. The Planning Officers report detailed that specialist provision was not required as the home was to be ran as a family home, however it was felt that this would limit the number of professionals that could work at the home and dismissed the needs of the disabled population.

 

. It was highlighted that paragraph 30 of the NPPF stated that’ Planning policies and decisions should ensure that developments will function well and add to the overall quality of the area, not just the short term but over the lifetime of the development’, however it was felt that this would not be fulfilled for the lifetime of the development as children’s homes were prone to closing down due to staffing issues and poor management.

 

. The costs associated to children’s social care needed to be diverted to treating the cause.

 

. Comments were made regarding restrictive covenants.

 

. A concern was raised that a Committee Member had carried out their own site visit without following Council protocol.

 

. Comments were made relating to Stockton Councils Corporate Parenting Policy. The Council took pride in being the top Local Authority placing children within a 20 mile radius of their home, however the Council were taking children in from further away than a 20 mile radius which was taking places from their own.

 

. Concerns were raised relating to staff smoking outside the property impacting on neighbouring residents and passers-by being subjected to second hand smoke.

 

Officers were given the opportunity to respond to comments/issues raised. Their responses could be summarised as follows: -

 

. The appearance and character of the property was a consideration where there was a change in activity, however officers felt that the home which would house up to 3 children would be comparable to the same activities carried out in a 4-bed residential dwelling and the comings and goings of staff and supporting agencies would not generate such a significant level of activity and therefore there was no fundamental change in character.

 

. There was a minor alteration to a window which would be changed to a door on the ground floor rear elevation and would not adversely impact upon the appearance and character of the property.

 

. The length of the driveway was 22 metres, and the width was 4.28 metres.

 

. The management of the home was not a material planning consideration and there was no evidence that children’s homes increased Anti-Social Behaviour.

 

. In terms of noise, this would be similar to noise activity in a residential home.

 

. Concerns raised relating to the safeguarding of children in the home in terms of privacy, this would be no different regards the same level of privacy you get with a residential home.

 

. Demographics of the area had been considered.

 

. Structural improvements to the property would be managed through building regulations and were not a material planning consideration.

 

. It was explained that the drop-down box on the planning portal which allowed consultees to select ‘loss of property value’ was a standard system drop down list, however this had no bearing on the application and therefore was not a material planning consideration.

 

. Plans within the report were up to date.

 

. Site notices were displayed in accordance with procedural rules and the consultation that was carried out conformed to requirements as set out within ‘The General Management Development Procedure Order 2015’.

 

. With regards to comments regarding restrictive covenants, this did not form part of the considerations of the application as it would be a civil matter.

 

. In terms of staff smoking outside of the property, the council smoking policy would be adopted at the home.

 

. Where concerns had been raised relating to traffic accidents and increased vehicle movement, officers considered those issues against the NPPF. Staff shift changes could potentially increase to 4 or 5 vehicle movements, however as there were 2500 vehicle movements on Low Grange Avenue the increase was not considered severe. Also, a normal residential property would be expected to have 3 to 4 movements a day. There was no history of any traffic accidents at the property.

 

. The width of Speeton Close met street standards and more then met vehicle movements.

 

Members were given the opportunity to ask questions / make comments. These could be summarised as follows: -

 

A second motion to defer was moved and seconded to enable officers of the council to attend and because Mr Lawson indicated that the Director of Children’s Services had been aware of the issues about the second children’s home for a while and should advise members accordingly.

 

A vote was taken and the motion was not carried.

 

. The home would not be the same as a family home.

 

. The Director for Childrens Services should have attended Planning Committee to speak about Stockton’s ‘Looked after Children’.

 

. The Cabinet Member for Children and Young People should have also attended to speak up for Stockton’s children.

 

. Residents had a lack of information and had only received a procedural Teams meeting.

 

. This would be a Council ran home with all council controls in place.

 

. A Member of the Planning Committee informed the Committee that they had a family member that lived close to a council ran children’s home and had not experienced any issues and were not aware of high turnover of staff.

 

. Comments made relating to children receiving kinship care rather than going into homes, was what Stockton Councils Social Workers would attempt to do in the first instance. Children would also reside in children’s homes prior to living independently.

 

. It was acknowledged that a lot of the ‘Looked after Children’ would have mental health issues, however through no fault of their own.

 

. One Member explained that they encouraged the police to come into children’s homes to build relationships with the children.

 

. Staff treat children’s homes as a home and treat the children as their own.

 

. There were already 2 homes in Billingham, and you wouldn’t know they were there as the children were well looked after and cared for.

 

. Courts made decisions to place children in care homes and Local Authorities had to provide care homes for children. For whatever reason children could not remain in their own homes, Local Authorities had a legal responsibility to look after them and as there was a shortage of foster carers or kinship care, Local Authorities had to provide care homes.

 

. If the proposed home was a private residential home, any family could occupy it with any number of children.

 

. Assurance was sought as to whether the car park at the property could accommodate 5 cars.

 

Officers were given the opportunity to respond to comments/issues raised. Their responses could be summarised as follows: -

 

. It was confirmed that there could possibly be 7 cars parked on the property.

 

A vote took place, and the application was approved.

 

RESOLVED that planning application 23/1406/LA be approved subject to the following conditions and informative below.

 

Time Limit

01 The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration of Three years from the date of this permission.

 

Approved Plans

02The development hereby approved shall be in accordance with the following approved plans.

 

Plan Reference Number    Date Received

SBC0001      25 July 2023

23047-HL-ZZ-00-DR-A-1100-S2-P01      25 July 2023

23047-HL-ZZ-00-DR-A-2000-S2-P01      25 July 2023

23047-HL-ZZ-01-DR-A-1101-S2-P01      25 July 2023

23047-HL-ZZ-01-DR-A-2001-S2-P02      25 July 2023

23047-HL-ZZ-XX-DR-A-1200-S2-P01     25 July 2023

23047-HL-ZZ-XX-DR-A-2100-S2-P01     25 July 2023

 

03 Approved Use

The premises shall be used for a three person children’s home and for no other purpose including any other purpose in Class C2 of the Schedule of the Town and Country Planning (Use Classes) Order 2020 (or any order revoking or re-enacting that order with or without modification), without planning permission being obtained from the Local Planning Authority.

 

04 Incurtilage Carparking

The development hereby approved shall retain a minimum of 5 incurtilage car parking spaces via the existing driveway in accordance with SPD3: Parking Provision for Developments 2011. The parking provision shall be retained thereafter for the lifetime of the development.

 

 

INFORMATIVE OF REASON FOR PLANNING APPROVAL

 

Informative: Working Practices

The Local Planning Authority found the submitted details satisfactory subject to the imposition of appropriate planning conditions and has worked in a positive and proactive manner in dealing with the planning application.

 

Informative: Effective Management

On commissioning, the Manager should contact Cleveland Police to discuss appropriate support at [email protected]

 

Informative: Secured by Design

The applicant is advised to contact Cleveland Police regarding security of the property, particularly bedroom doors, windows, main entrance and rear access to the property. The contact details can be found at https://www.securedbydesign.com/contact-us/national-network-of-designing-out-crime- officers?view=article&id=308#cleveland-police