Agenda item

Application for determination:

Change of use from existing residential dwelling to Planning Class C2. Internal alterations and revised fenestration to south east elevation at 26, Tuffley Lane.

The Planning Officer presented his report which detailed an application for the change of use from existing residential dwelling to planning class C2. Internal alterations and revised fenestration to south east elevation at 26, Tuffley Lane.

Hugh Goodwin, a planning consultant, addressed the Committee in opposition to the application on behalf of local residents.

Mr Goodwin stated that the application was intended to accommodate four seriously troubled children who had been abandoned by the parents and could be drawn into crime or abuse. He noted that it was intended to employ up to five full time staff to manage four children.

He believed that there would be constant visits by the police and social services. He noted that there had been incidents of intimidating behaviour at another similar establishment in Tuffley Lane.

He expressed concern at the impact of the proposal upon the day nursery next door where toddlers were at play in the grounds. He believed that concerned parents could remove their children from the day nursery which could result in the closure of the business and the loss of seven jobs.

He noted that the Environmental Health Officer had requested a noise management plan and he questioned how such noise could be managed.

He believed that the proposals would have an unreasonable impact on the amenity of neighbours and were therefore contrary to policy BE.21 (Safeguarding of Amenity).

Kate Orchard, Director of Flourish Child services, addressed the Committee in support of the application.

Ms Orchard advised that the application was intended to provide high quality children’s services and would help to address the acute shortage of accommodation.  She noted that there had been 627 children in the care of the local authority in 2016 and due to a critical shortage of accommodation some of them had to be placed outside the County on a temporary basis.

This placed pressure on other areas of the care system and she noted that those children housed under temporary arrangements had significantly poorer outcomes.

The proposal was to house a maximum of four children with their own bedrooms and encourage them to integrate into the local community. They would be living in a controlled environment subject to oversight by OFSTED and the Gloucestershire County Council commissioning team.

There would a minimum of two staff members sleeping on the premises and she noted that there had been no technical objections. She considered that the application complied with policy H.18a and would be sympathetic to the area.

Councillor Finnegan, as the Council’s Health Champion, noted that the staffing levels proposed would suggest that the children would have severe needs. She had experience of living near children’s homes and stated that they did have an impact on a locality.

She stated that the proposals had the potential of damaging the day nursery next door and she believed that the Council had a duty of care to the day nursery.

The Chair expressed concerns regarding the amenity of the nearest neighbours.

Councillor Hanman believed that it was inappropriate to locate these premises next door to a day nursery for toddlers.

Councillor Dee, as ward Member, stated that there had not been many objections from local residents but he noted that the day nursery next door was a long established business much valued by the local community.

He noted that the police had been called to similar premises in Tuffley Lane and while he acknowledged the need for such homes but they should not be permitted to present a risk to the day nursery.

Councillor Lugg noted the high staffing levels proposed and observed that the presence of a police vehicle did not necessarily indicate trouble at the premises.

Councillor David Brown expressed concerns regarding the tone of the debate. He noted that the proposal would be regulated and asked if the police had expressed any concerns.

Councillor Finnegan stated that she had worked in homes of this sort and she believed that they were better suited to a rural environment.

Councillor Joanne Brown believed that children needed to be given a chance.

Councillor Hanman called for the application to be refused due to the adverse impact upon the amenity of neighbouring properties.

The Solicitor advised members that should the Committee be minded to refuse the application they may wish to consider policy BE.21 (Safeguarding Amenity) as the most appropriate in light of concerns raised during the debate.

RESOLVED that the application be refused as it is considered to be contrary to policy BE.21 (Safeguarding Amenity).