Agenda item

Committee considered a detailed report in relation to the above application, presented by the Development Management and Land Charges Manager.

The application had been referred to the Planning Committee for determination due to significant resident objection.

The application was a proposal to change the of use of 16 The Chine, Broadmeadows Pinxton (C3a - dwellinghouse) to a Children’s Care Home (C2 - residential institutions) for a maximum of 3 children with 24-hour care supervision undertaken by the applicant One Home Property UK Ltd.  The use would see 3 no. young people under 18 having unrestricted access to the property with the aim to replicate a family household where children and staff members ate and lived together, albeit on a rota basis where staff do not live within the property as their full-time residence. 

The statement of purpose submitted with the application explained the property would be used for children at risk of CCE/CSE, drug/alcohol abuse, self-injurious behaviours, criminal behaviours, and complex needs.  The statement explained the team had experience of working with a range of young people with various complex needs who may come from homes/family breakdowns, fostering breakdown or from residential children’s homes.

The staff required to look after children would work to a register and weekly staff rota. Other visitors would include Social Services once every 6 weeks, an Ofsted visit taking place every 12 months.  At Least one member of staff would be required to sleep at the property overnight. 

No external changes were proposed to the appearance of the building.  The only minor operational development associated with the application was a proposal to widen the vehicular access and driveway hardstanding to facilitate additional off-road parking and turning for the proposed use.  The second floor of the building would not be in use.

Further information was contained in the Supplementary Update Report which advised that BolsoverDistrict Councillor Louise Fox and South Normanton Parish Councillor Julian Siddle had made a joint representation stating their concerns regarding the application, and that a further additional resident representation had been received.

Emma Swann attended the meeting and spoke against the application.

Patricia Baker attended the meeting and spoke against the application.

Marie Martin attended the meeting and spoke against the application.

June Lambert attended the meeting and spoke against the application.

James Stannard (Agent) attended the meeting and spoke for the application.

Further to a question from a Member, James Stannard noted he had worked with the applicant a number of times over the previous 18 months and the applicant had recruited extensively for very senior positions in care homes the applicant had set up.  Two representatives of the applicant who were present at the meeting, provided Members with their experience and number of years working with young people with complex needs and answered further questions raised by Members.

The Chair drew Members attention to the Principal Environmental Health Officer’s (PEHO) comment in the report where the PEHO had quoted the Ministerial Statement issued in 2023 by the Minister of State Department for Levelling Up, which confirmed “the planning system should not be a barrier to providing homes of the most vulnerable children in society.  As the statement did not state appropriate conditions would be unreasonable, the PEHO had recommended a two year temporary planning permission to enable any possible adverse impact on amenity to be monitored and evaluated during this period.

Councillor Phil Smith proposed an amendment to the recommendation in the report that a two year temporary planning permission be granted to enable any possible adverse impact on amenity to be monitored and evaluated during the two year period.

The motion was seconded by Councillor John Ritchie.

Following clarification sought on the reasons from the Development Management and Land Charges Manager, Councillor Duncan McGregor proposed a motion that the application be refused on the grounds that despite being located in an emerging town, the site had limited access to public transport, and as such, the future occupants, employees and support workers would be heavily reliant on the private motor vehicle for travel to and from the site, resulting in an unsustainable form of development and, as a consequence, vehicle movements and parking that would be detrimental to the residential amenity of the area.

After withdrawing his original proposal, Councillor Phil Smith seconded Councillor McGregor’s proposal.  Councillor John Ritchie withdrew his support for Councillor Smith’s original proposal.

On being put to the vote, the motion was won;

For the motion: 5 6 (amended at Planning Committee on 30^th October 2024)

Abstentions: 2

It was therefore RESOLVED that the application be refused.

As the time was 12:15 hours the Chair consented to a 15 minute break.