Agenda item

Committee considered a detailed report in relation to the above application.

 

The application had been referred to Planning Committee due to the number of objections received.  The Council’s Delegation Scheme required applications with more than 20 objections to be referred to Planning Committee for determination.

 

The application sought approval for the change of use from a dwelling (Use class C3) to a care home for children (Use Class C2.)  It was intended to be a specialist care home for up to three children aged from 7 -18 years with emotional and/or behavioural difficulties.  No physical external alterations were proposed to the property.

 

Further information was contained in the Supplementary Update Report and showed that a revised internal layout plan had been submitted.  The amended layout plan reflected the amended proposal as described and referred to in the main report, but the plan was not received until after the main report was submitted and therefore could not be included in the main report.  The amended plan showed the number of children’s bedrooms reduced to three, as the proposal was now for a maximum of three children.  It should however be noted that the internal layout could alter if the suggested layout did not meet Ofsted’s requirements, and this would not require subsequent planning permission provided it did not alter the total number of residents or staff set out in the suggested conditions in the main report. 

 

Objections had been received from 42 households, two councillors and Palterton Residents Association, who had also prepared a briefing pack which had been circulated to Members prior to the meeting.  A petition signed by 67 residents had been received and Mark Fletcher MP, had confirmed he had received a number of objections from residents and had asked that the legitimate concerns of the community be considered during the application process. 

 

Letters of support had also been received for the application and these were detailed in the report.

 

Concerns regarding on street parking had been raised, however, Derbyshire County Council as the Highway Authority were aware that the proposal would result in on street parking but did not consider this to result in an unacceptable impact on highway safety.

 

As detailed within the report the Environmental Health Officer had raised concerns over potential noise complaints that may arise and had suggested that if the application was approved it be granted for a 2 year temporary period, so that the impacts of the proposals upon the community could be fully evaluated.  

 

David Dozwa (Applicant) attended the meeting and spoke for the application.

 

In response to a Member’s query, the Applicant confirmed that it wasn’t standard practice for staff to use a taxi to travel to and from the site for their shift, however, this had been implemented to reduce the number of vehicles on site to minimise disturbance to neighbours.  Further to this, the majority of meetings and visits would take place away from the home.

 

In response to another Member’s query, the Applicant, advised that if the application was approved, it would be preferable for children to be from the local area, however, it would be subject to Ofsted to assess suitability for who would be best suited to what the home could provide.

 

YasiniMfunda attended the meeting and spoke for the application.

 

In response to a Member’s query, the speaker confirmed that Ofsted had, had little input, however, they would become heavily involved with the next stages if the application was approved.

 

Suzanne Barnicoat, Scarcliffe Parish Councillor, attended the meeting on behalf of Scarcliffe Parish Council and spoke against the application.

 

Mark Ogden attended the meeting and spoke against the application.

 

Ian Burdis attended the meeting and spoke against the application.

 

Wendy McGee attended the meeting and spoke against the application.

 

Gillian Ogden attended the meeting and spoke against the application.

 

Ian Kennan attended the meeting and spoke against the application.

 

Nick Grey Cowley attended the meeting and spoke against the application.

 

Allison Rigby attended the meeting and spoke against the application.

 

Chris Cave attended the meeting and spoke against the application.

 

Jeff McGee attended the meeting and spoke against the application.

 

A Member queried if overlooking windows and privacy concerns fell into a material consideration.  The Principal Planner advised that there was only a marginal difference as the property was still fundamentally classed as residential and there were no proposed changes to the external building so windows and privacy would be no different if it was occupied as a traditional family home or a care home.

 

Councillor Rob Hiney-Saunders requested it be noted in the Minutes, a point that had been raised by one of the speakers, that there had been a misrepresentation of the Derbyshire Childrens Homes assessment of the need as it did not appear on any objection that the Council had already received.

 

The Principal Officer advised that Planning Committee could not control who went into the care home if the application was approved – this would be up to Ofsted to decide who would do better in a quieter location. The Crime Prevention Officer had raised no objections. It would also be unreasonable to add a condition requiring staff to travel by taxi. The highways department also hadn’t raised concern about access for emergency vehicles and therefore there was little to no ground to be able to refuse the application due to highway safety.

 

Members noted that they appreciated the application was an emotive one and that all information needed to be considered carefully.

 

Moved by Councillor Duncan McGregor and seconded by Councillor Phil Smith

RESOLVED that the application be APPROVED for a temporary two year period following the recommendation of the Environmental Health Officer and subject to the following conditions:

 

 1.     The development must be begun before the expiration of three years from the date of this permission.

 2.     The applicant must notify the local Planning Authority of the date of the commencement of the use hereby approved, within 7 days of the date of that commencement. The use hereby approved must cease within two years of the date of its commencement unless planning permission has been granted by the Local Planning Authority to retain that use.

 3.     Before the use hereby approved is first implemented, a noise management plan must be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The approved noise management plan must be implemented in full concurrent with the first occupation of the site and must continue to be implemented in accordance with the approved scheme thereafter.

 4.     Before the development hereby approved is first implemented, two parking spaces must be provided on site in accordance with the block plan no. 2CV-DRA-01 Rev A submitted to the Local Planning Authority via email on 23rd January 2024 and must be maintained available for parking thereafter.

 5.     Notwithstanding the Town and Country Planning (Use Classes) Order 1987 (or any order revoking and re-enacting that order with or without modification) the premises must be used only as a children's care home for up to 3 children and for no other purpose (including any other use falling within Class C2 of the Order).

 6.     There must be no more than three members of staff on shift at the premises at any time unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority

 

Notes

 

1.    The three members of staff on shift must include the manager and carers on site.

 

Statement of Decision Process

 

Officers have worked positively and pro-actively with the applicant to address issues raised during the consideration of the application.  The proposal has been considered against the policies and guidelines adopted by the Council and the decision has been taken in accordance with the guidelines of the Framework. 

 

Equalities Statement

 

Section 149 of the Equality Act 2010 places a statutory duty on public authorities in the exercise of their functions to have due regard to the need to eliminate discrimination and advance equality of opportunity between persons who share a relevant protected characteristic and persons who do not share it (i.e., “the Public Sector Equality Duty”).

 

In this case, there is no evidence to suggest that the development proposals would have any direct or indirect negative impacts on any person with a protected characteristic or any group of people with a shared protected characteristic.

 

Human Rights Statement

 

The specific Articles of the European Commission on Human Rights (‘the ECHR’) relevant to planning include Article 6 (Right to a fair and public trial within a reasonable time), Article 8 (Right to respect for private and family life, home and correspondence), Article 14 (Prohibition of discrimination) and Article 1 of Protocol 1 (Right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions and protection of property).

 

It is considered that assessing the effects that a proposal will have on individuals and weighing these against the wider public interest in determining whether development should be allowed to proceed is an inherent part of the decision-making process. In carrying out this ‘balancing exercise’ in the above report, officers are satisfied that the potential for these proposals to affect any individual’s (or any group of individuals’) human rights has been addressed proportionately and in accordance with the requirements of the ECHR.