Agenda item

Consideration was given to planning application 23/1899/FUL

1 Whitehouse Drive, Stockton-on-Tees TS19 0QE

 

The application site was a detached 4-bedroom two storey dwellinghouse within the defined settlement limits of Stockton-on-Tees.

 

The application was seeking planning permission for the change of use of 1 Whitehouse Drive from a four-bedroom dwellinghouse (Use Class C3) to a children’s home (Use Class C2). The site benefited from off street parking, and a rear private amenity space.

 

The proposed children’s home would provide accommodation for a maximum of 4 children between the ages of 7 and 17 years with 24-hour adult support, provided on a shift basis. Up to three members of staff would be present at the premises each day between 07:30am- 9:30pm. Two awake staff members would be present overnight.

 

As part of the change of use the existing garage would be converted to an office window replacing the garage door. A side window would be blocked up, internal alterations to rooms, and an extended driveway.

 

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 the application be recommended for approval with conditions for the reasons as specified within the Officers report.

 

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

 

. A local resident who lived in close proximity to the proposed development expressed that should the children residing at the home be young offenders then this would put themselves and their family at risk.

 

. Concerns around Anti-Social Behaviour was highlighted.

 

. It was felt that the drive at the proposed property could not accommodate 5 vehicles. In addition, 5 spaces would not be enough for staff and visitors therefore more spaces were needed otherwise cars would spill out onto Whitehouse Drive exacerbating current highways issues.

 

. Whitehouse Drive was a very narrow road.

 

. The home was in close proximity to a school, college and football club which already suffered with highways issues in terms of egress and exit at Whitehouse Drive.

 

. There were parking issues in the area due to regular activity at Stockton Football Club.

 

. People were parking on grass verges and there had also been damage to pavements in the surrounding area.

 

. Traffic congestion was particularly bad during school drop off and pick up and it was difficult for residents in the local area to get on and off their driveways .

 

. Questions were raised as to why residents had only received notification of the Planning Committee 2 days prior to the meeting.

 

. It was felt that the children in the home occupying the proposed downstairs bedroom would cause disturbance possibly late into the night to the neighbouring property where a vulnerable person lived.

 

. The report did not present a full picture of the current issues in the area, and there were inaccuracies such as reference to a 4-bed property which was only a 3-bed property. It was also highlighted that the objections within the report were not representative of what had been submitted. A request was made that Members defer the application so an accurate report with all the facts be presented as well as Members undertaking a site visit.

 

. Clarity was sought relating to a request which had been made during May from a local resident to Stockton-on-Tees Borough Council whether the proposed development was to be changed to a children’s home. A quick response was received in June explaining that it would be looked into. A reply was received in September stating that an investigation had taken place, and that nothing was planned, however plans were then submitted early October. Why had this taken so long to be looked into and why, 1 week after receiving the letter that nothing was planned, plans were submitted?

 

. A resident highlighted possible dangers to the children living at the home due to it being so close to Stockton Football Club as it was a licensed premise. The football club held many parties and there had been issues with teenagers having their parties there.

 

. One resident who explained they were a vulnerable person expressed their fear should the development be approved. Part of the resident’s property had an external passage less than 2 metres away from the garage at the proposed site. The resident also explained that they also had a low fence along that part of the property which they did not want to make higher as this would cause the passageway to be dark.

 

. There were already existing issues with people parking outside of the resident’s house making it difficult to negotiate the pathways with their wheelchair.

 

. There would be increased issues for emergency vehicles accessing Whitehouse Drive if the development was approved.

 

The Applicant attended the meeting and was given the opportunity to make representation. Their comments could be summarised as follows:

 

. The planning application accorded with council policy.

 

. The accommodation would provide specialist services to vulnerable children and extra care would be made regards the accommodation and would support social care and wellbeing.

 

. The house would be refurbished to a high standard and would not be out of character as there were many diverse house types in the area.

 

. It was unfortunate that young looked after children continued to be stigmatised.

 

. The house was not for young offenders it was for 4 vulnerable children.

 

. No planning or building regulations had been breached.

 

. If the application was not approved the applicant would decide whether to rent or sell the property.

 

. The Applicant acknowledged there was parking issues in the area however these were already there and not as a result of the Applicant arriving.

 

.The structural layout at the property had been amended to meet parking needs.

 

. In terms of resident’s queries regarding the timeline relating to the request for an investigation by the Council as to whether the property was to become a children’s home, the Applicant confirmed  they had only purchased the property in September 2023 and therefore this was nothing to do with Stockton Council.

 

. The applicant had corresponded with 20 residents and provided his personal details to enable them to contact him with any concerns.

 

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

 

. The home was for 4 vulnerable children who required specialist providers.

 

. There was space for 5 cars on the driveway and if necessary, this could be widened.

 

. Letters were despatched 10 days prior to the committee meeting which was standard practice.

 

. Summarising objections within the report was standard practice.

 

. The home was currently a 3-bed property however would be a 4-bed once works were complete.

 

. The request received on the 30 May in terms of whether the house was to be a children’s home was looked into and although there may have been speculation it had nothing to do with the Council.

 

. In terms of concerns raised relating to Stockton Football Club being licensed and a risk to the children residing in the home and linking the children to Anti-Social Behaviour, this would apply to any family with children.

 

. Regarding claims that access to the road was narrow, the road was 4.8 metres wide, and the minimum required for a road with 2 way traffic was 4.2 metres, therefore the road was in excess of the minimum requirement.

 

. The driveway to the proposed development could actually accommodate 6 parked vehicles however this was not what was required.

 

. Where it was claimed there had been pathways damaged due to parking issues the Principal Engineer from Highways, Transport and Environment stated this would be passed onto the Highways Maintenance Manager for future inspection.

 

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

 

. This application was a concern as it appeared to be retrospective, and providers appeared to be secretly acquiring these homes which was not inspiring.

 

. The report stated that the proposed home was surrounded by 3 other homes when it was in fact surrounded by 4 other properties, 1 being a bungalow which had amenity space opposite. The application was also too close to these properties.

 

. Bishopton Road West was a very busy road with traffic backing up making it dangerous.

 

. The infrastructure could not cope with more building in the area.

 

. There were parking issues in the area and by widening the drive at the proposed property it would take away curtilage parking.

 

. Members sought clarity following the Polices recommendation for good lighting and security and the impact this may have on the 4 neighbouring properties as it was felt this would be out of place and not in keeping with the character of the surrounding area.

 

. The illustration of the car park at the property showed stacked car parking which would present difficult manoeuvres when entering and leaving the drive.

 

. It was important that the management structure was right for the children.

 

. The children in these types of homes were vulnerable and were there through no fault of their own and needed to be cared for by the Local Authority. These types of homes were needed due to a lack of kinship and foster care.

 

. There were myths about all children in these types of homes being young offenders, they needed to be well looked after like any other child.

 

. One Member referred to a children’s home in close proximity to a family member, which was also within a blue light zone and there had been no issues.

 

. These children needed to be kept in the Stockton area so they could continue to go to the same schools and keep the same friends.

 

. If the house was up for sale a family with 3 children could buy it and each family member could have a car.

 

. The home was in a good location as it was near to many local amenities and schools.

 

. Members did request the Applicant get in touch directly with the resident who had explained their vulnerabilities and fears to enable them to discuss their concerns directly and gain reassurance. The Applicant agreed.

 

. Although it would be too in-depth to have all objections in the report it was felt there was important information missing from the report which had appeared on the Planning Portal such as a response to a resident from the Applicant relating to the height of the resident’s fence.

 

. It was also highlighted that a Ward Councillors comments had been omitted from the report.

 

. Clarity was sought as to when the Applicant had first discussed the application with the Council.

 

. Clarity was sought as to how many employees the Applicant had as the report stated there were 14 employees, therefore this suggested the car park may need to be increased to accommodate those staff.

 

. It was highlighted that the Applicant had a children’s care home in Thornaby, where the same concerns had been raised with a lot of objections, however since opening there had not been any trouble and local residents had engaged with the children. Some residents who had originally objected had expressed that they were happy the home was there.

 

. The application could only be considered on planning grounds and there were no grounds to refuse the application.

 

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

 

. In terms of car parking spaces, the Applicant had provided requisite parking of 5 spaces even though 6 could be achieved at the site, in addition if the drive was widened a maximum of 10 spaces could be provided.

 

. If additional lighting was a statutory nuisance, then this would be picked up by Environmental Health.

 

. The parking layout on the drive was a standard layout in most developments and properties. Officers did accept vehicles would have to be reversed off the drive, and there was also a dropped kerb so people wouldn’t be able to park on the kerb.

 

. In terms of highway safety, accidents in the last 3 years had been minimal and there had not been any on Whitehouse Drive, therefore highways could not raise any concerns, and the application was considered acceptable.

 

. There was an objection from a Ward Councillor however this was from a private e mail address.

 

. Any pre application advice was confidential and could not be disclosed, the Council could only consult when the application was submitted.

 

. The 14 staff referred to in the report was for the wider company. There would be 3 care givers at the home during the day and 2 during the night.

 

A vote took place, and the application was approved.

 

RESOLVED that planning application 23/1899/FUL be approved subject to the following conditions and informatives below;

 

Time Limit

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

 

Approved Plans

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

 

Plan Reference Number    Date Received

SBC0002A    31 October 2023

SBC0001      9 October 2023

WHD100       9 October 2023

WHD101       11 October 2023

WHD102       9 October 2023

WHD103       11 October 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: Cleveland Police

On commissioning, the Manager should contact Cleveland Police to discuss appropriate support at [email protected]. Cleveland Police can also provide support regarding security of 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