Agenda item

Proposal: Change of use from dwelling (C3) to children’s home (C2) for up to 2 young people

Location: The Lodge, Main Street, Hougham

Recommendation: To authorise the Assistant Director Planning & Growth to GRANT planning permission subject to conditions

Proposal: Change of use from dwelling (C3) to children’s home (C2) for up to 2 young people

Location: The Lodge, Main Street, Hougham

Recommendation: To authorise the Assistant Director Planning & Growth to GRANT planning permission subject to conditions

 

Noting comments in the public speaking session by:

 

Hougham Parish Council                                          Peter Baker

Against                                                                      Marc Whelan

                                                                                  Rod Bonshor

 

Together with:

 

·       Provisions within South Kesteven Local Plan 2011-2036, Design Guidelines for Rutland and South Kesteven Supplementary Planning Document, National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) and South Kesteven Local Plan Review 2021-2041 (Regulation 18 Draft).

·       Comments received from Hougham Parish Council.

·       Comments received from Lincolnshire County Council (Highways & SuDS).

·       No comments received from Lincolnshire County Council (Children’s Care Home – Senior Commissioning Officer).

 

During questions to Public Speakers, Members commented on:

 

·       Whether the Parish Council had engaged with the Applicant for this application.

 

The Applicant stated they would engage with the local community and Parish Council and had view of objections made.

 

·       Clarification was sought around amenities available in the village which could be accessed by the children.

 

A Public Speaker confirmed a playing field was shared with Marston and was outside of the Hougham boundary. It was noted there were no clubs of facilities for children to attend within the village.

 

·       Where the nearest facilities available were.

 

A Public Speaker clarified there were no actual facilities within the vicinity. The closest children facility was in Long Bennington, which was 6 miles from Hougham.

 

·       Clarification was sought from a Public Speaker who had stated the applicant had supplied incorrect or misleading information.

 

The Public Speaker noted the Applicant had stated there were two double garages on site, however there was one garage. The Applicant’s parking plan stated that staff could utilise a Call Connect service, however this was not available for shift pattern suggestions. Other information related to a differ in numbers of children that would live in the home.

 

During question to Officers and debate, Members commented on:

 

·       Clarification over the number of children that would reside in the home.

 

The Principal Planning Officer confirmed the application was for up to 2 children which would be strictly controlled by condition 3 of planning conditions.

 

·       That the Applicant’s had applied for a lawful development certificate which had previously been refused by the Council as the property would not operate as a residential dwelling, there would be an increase on vehicle movement, in excess of a ‘normal’ dwelling and would become a place of residence and work. It was felt the change of use could impact on neighbouring properties.

 

A lawful development certificate and planning application assessments were different. The certificate was to a degree on whether a change of use was occurring, it did not gauge any assessment on whether the change of use was acceptable or not.

 

Officers had accepted a material change of use which gave some rise to impact, but it was not harmful or unacceptable.

 

·       That Hougham was a small, agricultural village with limited amenities.

·       Concern was raised on the size and number of vehicles travelling through the village.

·       That the Ministerial Statement highlighted that children’s homes should be close to children’s communities, access to schools and community support. It was felt that children’s homes should be more within an urban area.

·       The application form had stated care for up to 2 young people, however, the form also stated the dwelling had 5 bedrooms and 3 bathrooms and the Applicant’s intention was to have any more than 4 young people living in the home.

 

The application was for 2 young people which was covered by condition. Another application for variation would need to be submitted if the operators wished to have 4 young people living in this home.

 

·       That a rural village may be more suitable for the needs of the young people possibly living there.

·       The balance of the benefit of the young people to the detriment to surrounding neighbours was discussed.

·       Whether the Council had received any evidence that the care provider was a suitable organisation to care for young people.

 

The Principal Planning Officer highlighted that the organisation was not relevant to the application. The operation of the home would be covered by OFSTED.

 

·       Further concern was raised that the young people become isolated with limited access to peers and excluded from the wider community.

·       Whether any weight could be given to the lack of communication between the Applicant and local community and Parish Council.

 

It was highlighted that the private property could be occupied by a young family with 2 children, meaning access to facilities would remain the same. The property being isolated would have to be defended at an appeal against a young family living there against 2 young people with carers living and working there.

 

·       It was noted that young people living in this property would be in need of special care and would not have the same behaviours as a family living in the property. Concerns from public speakers was that the young people would not be supervised 24/7.

 

The safety and supervision of children related to the appropriate management of the site itself and was relevant to the application. The application was for land use only.

 

It was confirmed that a site management plan could be conditioned.

 

·       The wellbeing of the young people’s mental health was a concern.

 

(It was proposed, seconded and AGREED to extend the meeting until 18:15)

 

·       The sustainability of location for a business of this type was discussed.

 

The Assistant Director of Planning and Growth reminded the Committee of the existing dwelling which could be occupied for a family. The differences of the proposed use and a single dwelling were requested.

 

It was proposed, seconded and AGREED to authorise the Assistant Director Planning & Growth to GRANT planning permission subject to conditions:

 

Time Limit for Commencement

 

1)    The development hereby permitted shall be commenced before the expiration of three years from the date of this permission.

 

Reason: In order that the permission is commenced in a timely manner, as set out in Section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended).

 

Approved Plans

 

Approved Plans

 

2)    The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following list of approved plans:

 

·       Site Location Plan (received 2^nd October 2024)

 

Unless otherwise required by another condition of this permission.

 

Reason: To define the permission and for the avoidance of doubt.

 

Before the Development is Occupied

 

3)    Notwithstanding the submitted details, before the development hereby permitted is occupied, a site management plan shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The Site Management Plan shall include, but shall not be limited to, the following details:

 

• Staff numbers
• Ratio of children to staff
• Supervision arrangements for occupants on and off site
• Shift patterns
• Staff parking management
• Additional service requirement (including any scheduled visits for education or healthcare purposes)

 

Thereafter, the approved Site Management Plan shall be implemented prior to first use and shall be strictly adhered to throughout the operation of the use, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

 

Reason: In the interests of the safety and amenity of the occupiers, and to protect the residential amenity of neighbouring properties, as required by Policy DE1 of the South Kesteven Local Plan.

Ongoing Conditions

 

Use of the Property

 

4)    Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (Use Classes) Order 1987 (or any order revoking and re-enacting that order with or without modification), the premises shall be used only as a children’s care home for up to two children and for no other purpose (including any other use falling within Class C2 of the Order).

 

Reason: To ensure that the development operates as assessed.