Agenda item

Twydall Ward

Change of use from dwellinghouse (Class C3) to residential institution (Children's Care Home) (Class C2).

Discussion:

The Senior Planner outlined the application in detail for the change of use from dwelling house (Class C3) to residential institution (Children's Care Home) (Class C2).

The Senior Planner confirmed there would be no internal or external alterations proposed.  There would be a maximum of 2 children with up to 2 members of staff. 

The Senior Planner drew Members’ attention to the comments made by the Head of Children’s Services Commissioning, as set out in the supplementary agenda advice sheet no. 2, stating no objections. 

With the agreement of the Committee, Councillor Browne addressed the Committee as Ward Councillor and raised the following concerns:

• Local residents had concerns with PCP Services.
• With the ratio of staff to children, this could suggest high need children.
• Some of the information in the Local Risk Assessment was out of date and a request was made that the application be deferred to enable time to ask more questions.

The Committee discussed the planning application noting the concerns raised by the Ward Councillor and noting that the Head of Children’s Service Commissioning had been unaware of this application until the Ward Councillor had contacted them.  

Members discussed the Local Risk Assessment, that was included in the supplementary agenda advice sheet no. 2, and noted there were several concerns:

• The assessment of the property was completed in November 2022 and would not be reviewed until November 2024 and Members felt that the assessment should have been undertaken more recently to be relevant.
• The photographs of the local amenities showed shops in other areas, not in Twydall and did not include photographs of the McDonalds. 
• In the report it stated there was no actual evidence of gang culture, however, there were high levels of crime. It was not stated how they would tackle these issues.
• There was no longer a specific Police Community Support Officer for Twydall even though this was referenced in the report. 
• On page 13 of the supplementary agenda advice sheet no. 2, under “Risks identified by Police”, there was no evidence that the police had been consulted on this.
• On page 14 of the supplementary agenda advice sheet no. 2, the local secondary health services were just generic contacts listing national groups. 

Members were concerned with the care provider for the site as the care provider’s website was not working and it seemed that the company had changed names every year.  The Head of Planning confirmed that from October 2023 all providers of care would need to register with Ofsted, however, that was not required at present.

Some members raised the possibility of a deferral not only from a planning perspective but as a Council and a Corporate Parent Body.  They felt they needed more information to make sure they could make the correct decision, however recognised that the lack of information was in regards to the care provider rather than the actual planning application. Another member pointed out that the precise operator was not a matter for Planning to consider as any planning permission runs with the land not the operator.

The Legal Advisor confirmed that the role of the Planning Committee was to approve or refuse the planning application in front of them.  She advised that when making a decision, the Committee could take into account material considerations.  

She added that the Committee was not qualified, nor was it in the Committee’s remit, to assess the Risk Assessment regarding the children’s needs and that Social Services would require more detail from the Risk Assessment when allocating children to the property.

Although the Committee was part of the Council, the Planning Committee itself was not acting as a Corporate Parent.  Its duty was to assess the suitability of the property, the location of the property and the application being determined.  All safeguarding aspects would be assessed and determined by Children’s Services.

The Head of Planning confirmed that a property with up to 6 people living as one family, with carers present 24/7, would require the class to be changed from C3 to C2.   Although as no children had been allocated to the property, there would be no reason to believe that these children were high need due to the ratio of staff to children, the report stated up to 2 staff members to 2 children.

The Head of Planning explained that following a previous application regarding a Children’s Home at Grain, Members asked that Children’s Services were consulted when determining the application.  This was actioned and Children’s Services were consulted and provided comments, which were included in the supplementary agenda advice sheet no. 2.  Those comments were passed to the Applicant, who then supplied the Local Risk Assessment which was passed back to Children’s Services for their comments, no objections had been made by Children’s Services.

Decision:      

Approved with conditions 1 to 5 as set out in the report for the reasons stated in the report.