Agenda item

Rochester East and Warren Wood Ward

Change of use of existing dwellinghouse (Class C3) to children's home (Class C2).

Discussion:

The Senior Planner outlined the application in detail for the change of use of existing dwellinghouse (Class C3) to children's home (Class C2).

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

·             She supported the recommendation for refusal. The previous unauthorised children's home had not been commissioned by the Council and had experienced significant issues.

·             This was fundamentally a family home and not suitable for the proposed use. It lacked the amenities and facilities for young people with complex needs. The site was also not close to amenities that young people could benefit from.

·             The internal and external space was inadequate. A home requiring 24-hour supervision should provide sufficient living space for both residents and staff, including practical arrangements for supervision without difficulties such as the lack of parking and the nature of it being a cul-de-sac which would struggle with the additional vehicle movements.

·             The Council had a responsibility to think carefully about the young people who would live here and about the use of public money.

·             She reminded the Committee of the Council’s wider social responsibility and duty of care towards children in the care of the state, which whilst not strictly a planning matter, were relevant considerations.

·             She stated that Ward Councillors, along with Clive Road residents, had made diligent and thoughtful representations. Their objections were not based on opposition to caring for young people, but were informed by previous experience, when poor management had led to antisocial behaviour and significant concerns within the community.

·             The property had already been extended and altered, yet it remained constrained. The garden was very small and many of the facilities and opportunities that young people need were simply not available on this site. If there was a recognised need for this type of accommodation, it was important that appropriate standards were met.

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

·             Councillor Finch agreed with the officer's recommendation to refuse. This was not only about the need for children's homes or supporting children in care, but about the suitability of this particular property in this street.

·             The scale of disruption experienced during the previous operation of the home should be given significant weight, particularly given the constraints as a cul-de-sac with no suitable turning facility.

·             This proposal was not comparable to a typical family dwelling.

·             The level and pattern of movements associated with the use were materially different from those of a normal family home.

·             At 112m², the property fell below the size referenced in the applicant's justification, which concluded that the property would be a viable family home.

·             Whilst there was a need for children's homes, not every property was suitable for such a use.

·             Local concerns were not theoretical, but based on previous lived experience. Where residents had experienced issues including rubbish, noise, taxis arriving at unsociable hours, and threatening behaviour.

·             He advised that he and Councillor Murray had visited the site and the intensity of the proposed use would be inappropriate in this location and would harm the residential amenity and quality of life of existing residents.

The Chief Planning Officer advised that there was an error in the reasons for refusal. The reason referred to ‘T8’ of the emerging Plan, and should read ‘T4’. It was also noted that the report erroneously referenced Gillingham.

The Committee discussed the planning application noting the reasoning within the report and the points raised by the Ward Councillors. 

Decision:    

REFUSED for the reason as set out in the report subject to reference to ‘T8’ being amended to read ‘T4’.