Agenda item

Proposal: Change of use from Use Class C3 Residential Dwelling House to Use Class C2 Children’s Care Home

Location: 9A School Lane, Colsterworth, Lincolnshire NG33 5NW

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

 Proposal: Change of use from Use Class C3 Residential Dwelling House to Use Class C2 Children’s Care Home

Location: 9A School Lane, Colsterworth, Lincolnshire NG33 5NW

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

 

Noting comments in the public speaking session by:

 

District Ward Councillor:                           Cllr David Bellamy

Against:                                                     Ian Thorpe

Sirah Parkes

Darron Haylock

Applicants                                                 Rachael Allen and Melanie Fletcher

 

Together with:

 

·       Provisions within South Kesteven Local Plan 2011-2036 (Adopted January 2020), Design Guidelines for Rutland and South Kesteven Supplementary Planning Document, National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) and Colsterworth and District Neighbourhood Plan 2016-2026.

·       No comments received from Historic England.

·       No comments received from SKDC Environmental Protection.

·       Comments received from Lincolnshire County Council Highways.

·       Comments received from Environment Agency.

·       Comments received from Colsterworth Parish Council.

·       No comments received from Lincolnshire Police Crime Prevention Design Adviser.

·       Comments received from Conservation Officer.

·       No comments received from Lincolnshire County Council Senior Commissioning Officer.

 

During questions to Public Speakers, Members commented on:

 

·       It was queried whether there was a river close by to the proposed site.

 

The Public Speaker clarified that there was a river approximately 6 metres away from the boundary.

 

·       It was stated that the river was prone to flooding. A query was raised on whether it caused disruption to traffic.

 

A Public Speaker stated that in 2024, the fire service was called due to the river flooding, where residents were rescued from the end of School Lane. The fire engine struggled to access certain properties on the lane.

 

·       It was queried how frequently the area flooded.

 

The Public Speaker, who was a long-standing resident of the area noted that the river flooded atleast annually.

 

·       Whether any mitigation had been recommended to be put into place for flooding.

 

The Environment Agency had attended School Lane to clear drains and provide a flood defence mechanism. They had also attended to escort elderly people out of their homes prior to a flood taking place.

 

·       It was queried whether any properties on School Lane had experienced internal flooding.

 

It was stated that recently residents that lived within 10 metres of the river had to be rescued from their properties and a number had experienced internal flooding.

 

·       There was a boundary fence between 9 and 9a School Lane, it was queried who had responsibility of the boundary fence.

 

It was unknown who had responsibility of the boundary fence. The fence was 1.1m away from 9a School Lane and 1.5-2m away from 9 School Lane.

 

·       The Public Speaker was requested to expand on their concerns of the river in relation to safety.

 

The Public Speaker clarified that recent flooding was excessive and floodwater came up to the doorstep of the proposed site and footpaths were not passable by foot or vehicles. 

 

·       Members requested further information on the location of flood photographs provided.

 

(Councillor Gloria Johnson left the Chamber at 13:53 and returned. She did not further participate in the vote).

 

·       It was queried who would provide education and therapeutic support for the children from diverse backgrounds and what qualifications would be expected of them.

 

The Applicants confirmed the following teams that would make up the care of the children:

 

-       Care team, level 3 in children and residential care

-       Managers, level 5 in in children and residential care.

-       Education team, qualified teachers or TA’s.

-       Clinical team, overseen by a Clinical Psychologist with qualifications relevant to the area of work.

 

It was clarified the children could attend a specialist school or an online service. Clinical appointments and therapy would be attended away from the home.

 

It was clarified that only 2 children would reside at the property, at any one time.

 

·       It was noted that children would range from 6-17 years old. A query was queried whether any perimeter and mitigation fencing would be to protect the 6-17 year olds.

 

The Applicant stated that children would be placed in an area where environmental concerns were minimal. The home would be staffed on a 1-1 basis and the children would always be supervised.

 

·       Concern was raised on parking for 5 vehicles and the monitoring of children during shift changes.

 

It was confirmed that a manager would always be onsite should any vehicles need to be moved. The allowance for constant supervision had been considered.

 

·       Whether the Applicant had any plans to increase parking provision on site.

 

The Applicant felt the parking provision at present was sufficient. Further parking would be created if necessary.

 

·       How far the specialist school was from the site and whether the young people would be transported to the school each day was queried.

 

A specialist school was located in Grantham, however, the type of education accessed would be specific to the children’s needs.

 

·       Clarification was sought around timings of shift changes.

 

It was confirmed staff members would work 24-hour shifts with a sleep-in period at the home. Shift changeovers would generally be between 8-10am.

 

·       It was queried whether the children would come from within the District or the County.

 

The Applicant’s stated that children from the local area would have priority, however, children that needed placement away from their local area would be considered.

 

A business development team work with local authorities such as Lincolnshire County Council to offer their services once the home was in operation.

 

·       Further clarification was sought around plans for boundary mitigations.

 

The Applicant did not anticipate making any changes to the boundary at present. They were leasing the property, and no works had been undertaken by them at the property at present.

 

During question to Officers and debate, Members on:

 

·       Clarification was sought around the dual planning uses as outlined within the report.

 

Class V was part of the General Permitted Development Order and covered the opportunity for an Applicant to identify multiple uses that they may wish to develop the property for. This application was for a children’s care home (C2), Class V allowed the Applicant’s to change the use within the class providing it met certain conditions of the permitted development order, for example the change of use for another institutional care home.

 

·       Whether the permitted change of use meant that other forms of care could take place at the home, for example, an elderly care home.

 

C2 use covered residential institutions meaning that only forms of care accommodation could take place on site. Condition 3 restricted the manner in which the property could be used and the number of children that can reside in the property.

 

·       How the Committee could be assured that conditions applied would be adequate for a future change of use without coming back to the Committee.

 

The Permitted Development Order stipulated that an Applicant could not undertake a change of use if it conflicted with a condition on the permission granted. Condition 3 would prevent the change of use from taking place.

 

The Assistant Director of Planning clarified the application was for the use of the property as a children’s care home (C2). A recommended condition would control the use of the property.

 

·       Whether the 10-year timescale was fixed.

 

Within legislation, the 10-year was fixed with any Class C application. The condition recommended removed the permitted development right meaning the use must stay as a children’s home within the use class.  The conditions would remain until removed, varied or replaced by a different planning permission.

 

·       Whether concerns around flooding and health and safety concerns should be a material consideration for the Committee or the operators of the care home. 

 

The Committee were to determine the change of use as a property and whether it was appropriate for a children’s care home. Concerns raised on the operation of the care home were for Ofsted to consider.

 

·       It was queried whether parking spaces were of specified width and whether any flood lighting was proposed to be within the scope of change of use.

 

The Planning Officer clarified that the proposed parking was of standard size (2.3 by 5m) with the double garage being around 2.7m by 5m wide. The Applicant’s had not provided any details in relation to lighting, it was deemed inappropriate to have flood lighting on a residential property.

 

The property was within flood zone 1, however, access to the property did fall within flood zone 2. It was stated that a flood evacuation plan could be conditioned for the application, if necessary.

 

·       Several Members felt the application location was out of character for the area and outlined further concerns on health and safety of children being close to the river and insufficient boundary treatments. It was questioned whether Highways had addressed any transport or traffic problems with the site.

 

The Planning Officer clarified the Committee could impose a condition to require details of boundary treatments and parking. They would need to be submitted prior to first occupation, which would provide an element of control to ensure appropriateness for the character of the area.

 

·       Whether any evidence had been provided from Lincolnshire County Council that they would use the property to house local children and how this complied with Policy H4 (meeting the needs of households in the District).

 

Lincolnshire County Council had produced a recent ‘Children in Care Sufficiency Strategy’ which detailed Lincolnshire’s position in terms of children in care. The population of children in care was increasing and they were keen to find placements. The aim was to place children close to home, however, 53% of children were not being placed in Lincolnshire.

 

The Chairman clarified that the application plan before the Committee did not state removal of any trees but implied removal due to four trees being left in total on the plan presented to the Committee.

 

·       It was questioned whether a condition could be included to protect any remaining trees.

 

The Assistant Director of Planning and Growth clarified the application was not seeking the removal of any trees. An existing block plan showed six trees shown which was the same as the proposed plan.

 

A condition could be imposed to require a landscaping scheme alongside a further condition to protect the landscaping within the first 5-year period.

 

Councillor Vanessa Smith proposed to authorise the Assistant Director – Planning & Growth to GRANT planning permission, subject to conditions and the addition of a flood evacuation plan, parking management strategy, specific boundary treatment and to condition lighting and a landscaping scheme.

 

This proposal fell.

 

·       Members raised further concern on the location and proximity of the site to the river in conjunction with the ages of the children that would be residing at the home and their safety.

·       It was highlighted that the vegetation, trees and hedges contributed to the landscaping of the area and the setting of listed buildings within the vicinity.

·       In addition to the concern around close proximity to open running water, the steepness of the site both down to the river at the side of the house and to the road from the house was raised.

·       That the site would need to be accessed via an exceptionally steep set of steps, which would make it difficult to use as a family home. It was felt the gate at the bottom of the driveway would not be secure

 

The following concerns were raised on the open plan design of the property:

 

·       Affords access to the kitchen area which could be hazardous.

·       The open plan design may mean the only place staff could have a private discussion would be upstairs in a bedroom, as there was no designated office space.

 

The Chairman highlighted paragraph 115b of the National Planning Policy Framework which related to safe access, Paragraph 181e of the National Planning Policy Framework related to safe access and escape routes.

 

·       It was queried whether the age of the children could be conditioned to older children who may be less attracted to the river.

·       Concern was raised on the boundary between 9 and 9a School Lane and the boundary at the front of the property and the side boundary near the river.

·       Comments were raised on the flooding concerns from objectors.

·       One Member was not satisfied with the internal layout of the property taking needs of the children into consideration. The ground floor of the property was open plan. 

 

Members were requested to differentiate between the current use of the building as a dwelling house and the proposed use. They considered the additional staff movements and the vulnerability of the type of children residing the care home.

 

Paragraph 181 of the National Planning Policy Framework stated that where a development or part of a development is located in a higher risk area (access to property in flood zone 2). Section E outlined that the development should provide safe access and escape routes where appropriate, as part of an agreed emergency plan.

 

The Assistant Director of Planning and Growth stated that Paragraph 102 of the National Planning Policy Framework outlined planning policies and decisions should promote public safety and take into account wider security and defence requirements by:

 

a)    Anticipating and addressing, where possible, malicious threats and other hazards were the natural ‘man-made’, especially in locations where large number of people are expected to congregate. Policies for relevant areas, such as town center and regeneration frameworks and the layout and design of development should be informed by the most up-to-date information available from the Police and other agencies about the nature of potential threats and their implications. This includes appropriate and proportionate steps that can be taken to reduce vulnerability, increase resilience, and ensure public safety and security. The safety of children and other vulnerable users in proximity to open water, railways and other potential hazards should be considered in planning and assessing proposals for the development.

 

A footnote stated that a) included hubs, nighttime economy venues, cinemas, theatres, sports stadiums/arenas, shopping centers, health and education establishments, places of worship, hotels, restaurants, attractions and commercial centers.

 

The Assistant Director of Planning and Growth noted that Paragraph 102 of the National Planning Policy Framework related to larger venue and facilities and was not aimed at the type of development proposed.

 

(Councillor Tim Harrison arrived at 15:10)

 

It was proposed, seconded and AGREED to REFUSE the application for the following reason:

 

The nature of the proposed use would involve occupation by vulnerable users, and the proposed development is located within close proximity to the River Witham without any secure boundary treatments. These safety concerns would require the implementation of revised boundary treatments, which would have an adverse impact on the character and appearance of the area, contrary to Policy DE1 of the Local Plan and Paragraph 135 of the National Planning Policy Framework.

 

(The Committee had a 10-minute break).