Agenda item

REPORT OF THE DEVELOPMENT AND CONSERVATION MANAGER

Change of use of dwelling to registered residential children's home (C2) to accommodate 3 children with 24hr care staff (amended plans received 6 April 2025).

RESOLVED: That application 25/00012/FP be GRANTED planning permission subject to the reasons and conditions set out in the report of the Development and Conservation Manager.

Audio recording – 1 hour 1 minute 30 seconds.

 

N.B. Cllr Nigel Mason declared an interest in this item due to being a Hitchin Oughton Ward Councillor and had previously made comments on this application and therefore left the Chamber for the duration of the item. For this item, Cllr Emma Fernandes took over as Chair.

 

N.B. Cllr Claire Billing declared an interest in this item due to being the Member Advocate Objector and moved to the Public Gallery.

 

The Senior Planning Officer gave an update following a site visit stating that the applicant had decided to divide the garden into two sections following a visit from the Hertfordshire CYP Placement Officer, with one section being provided for the annexe to the property, which was envisioned would host an older child, who would require more independence.

 

The Senior Planning Officer presented the report in respect of Application 24/00012/FP supported by a visual presentation consisting of plans and photographs.

 

The following Members asked questions:

 

·       Councillor Dave Winstanley

·       Councillor Val Bryant 

·       Councillor Ruth Brown

·       Councillor Louise Peace

 

In response to questions, the Senior Planning Officer advised that:

 

·       Including the semi-independent annex there would be three residents.

·       All the residents would be under the age of 18.

·       For the three residents there would always be a minimum of two members of staff.

·       The residence was currently labelled C3b residential dwelling and was applying to become C2.

 

The Chair invited Mr Simon Brooks to speak against this application. Mr Brooks thanked the Chair for the opportunity and provided the Committee with a verbal presentation, including that:

 

·       He and his family lived next door to number 25, and he also represented other neighbours on Milestone Road.

·       When the original application for C3 was submitted last year, it had been advised that this would be like living next to a normal family. However, the reclassification to C2 could mean young people from prison or youth detention centres.

·       The changes to the garden had already been completed, which gave the impression that the applicant thought planning permission would definitely be given.

·       The dwelling was in the middle of the road that has elderly people and was located close to a school and nursery and there were concerns as to what measures had been put in place to keep other residents safe.

·       There were concerns as to whether the community would be informed if residents had prior convictions. The property looked like it had been changed to increase security, and there were concerns of the property becoming secure unit.

·       Concerns about an increased crime rate had been raised by police.

·       Care properties had become a lucrative business, what would be given back to the community.

·       There were risks that the community would like to be addressed.

·       He was worried about dangerous young people being next door to his children.

 

The following Members asked questions:

 

·       Councillor Val Bryant

·       Councillor Tom Tyson

 

In response to questions, Mr Brooks advised that:

 

·       The letter from the Crime Prevention Design Advisor had the reference number CPD 111652024.

·       There had been a lack of communication from Social Services regarding change of use.

 

The Chair thanked Mr Brooks and invited Councillor Claire Billing to speak against this application. Councillor Billing thanked the Chair for the opportunity and provided the Committee with a verbal presentation, including that:

 

·       That she supported the principal of the property and believed that children in care should benefit from the same opportunities as other young people, but the Council had a duty to make sure that dwellings such as this were safe for the community they were placed in.

·       Herts Police crime prevention services could not support the application in its current form and recommended that the applicant engage with the crime prevention service.

·       The application was originally for two young people but had increased to three.

·       Local families were worried about their own children, especially as there is nothing to prevent noise from the property impacting on neighbours.

·       There needed to be transparency and safeguards for a residence such as this.

 

The Chair thanked Councillor Biling and invited Mr Alvin Osei-Tutu, as Applicant, to speak in support of this application. Mr Osei-Tutu thanked the Chair for the opportunity and provided the Committee with a verbal presentation, including that:

 

·       He was co-owner of the property which already has planning permission for C3b.

·       The change to C2 was to allow for shift work and would require enhancements on the current safeguarding situation. 

·       He had many years of experiences in residences which provided care services.

·       The application was not for an institution, but a home for young people aged 8-18 where they could heal and grow.

·       The company would be employing trauma informed carers employed and would look to acquire an Ofsted accreditation.

·       Noise should be similar to a standard home with three children, with shift changes to happen at 8am and 8pm to reduce noise.

·       To increase safety, all carers would be DBS checked and well trained and the residence would be regulated by Ofsted.

·       There were no objections to the proposal from Environmental Health or Highways.

·       There was a pressing need for such homes as nationally there was a shortfall in small therapeutic homes.

·       This development was an opportunity to give children a safe place.

 

The following Members asked questions:

 

·       Councillor Dave Winstanley

·       Councillor Val Bryant

·       Councillor Martin Prescott

·       Councillor Bryony May

·       Councillor Louise Peace

·       Councillor Emma Fernandes

·       Councillor Ruth Brown

 

In response to questions, Mr Osei-Tutu advised that:

 

·       Children would be referred though Hertfordshire County Council in the first instance. However, if there were no children locally then the places would be opened up nationally

·       The ratio for staff will always be three children to two or more staff.

·       Most of the twelve staff were located within a twenty minute radius of the property.

·       This was the first Lumin home for young people, the business does also provide domiciliary.

·       This was a new protocol, which was designed with other companies and social workers.

·       Marge limited was the owner of the home, Marge partners were running the home and would be registered with Ofsted.

·       The aim was to provide long term care so hopefully a child would stay until 18 they were years of age.

·       Regular reviews would be carried out in conjunction with social workers.

·       Where possible children would go to schools locally, they could travel in the company car and would be encouraged to use public transport.

·       Staff members may need to be at school with the young people, or they may have other tasks to complete on the property, they would not be in the home if not necessary.

 

In response to questions the Development and Conservation Manager advised that members were to focus planning permission considerations and not the day to day running of the business.

 

The Chair thanked Mr Osei-Tutu for his presentation.

 

In response to questions the Senior Planning Officer advised that:

 

·       Children with extreme difficulties would not be selected for this property which was part of the conditions.

·       The Crime Officer report was completed before the current plans were clarified. Following clarification, the Crime Officer was reconsulted but no further response had been received. 

 

Councillor Ruth Brown proposed to grant permission. This was seconded by Councillor Tom Tyson.

 

The following Members took part in the debate:

 

·       Councillor Val Bryant

·       Councillor Dave Winstanley

·       Councillor Ian Mantle

·       Councillor Martin Prescott

·       Councillor Tom Tyson

 

The following points were raised:

 

·       Having visited the site, it was a good location to provide a normal environment for vulnerable children.

·       The company was new but that was not a planning concern and there were no planning considerations that would allow for refusal.

·       Smaller residential homes were better than larger homes.

·       There were no planning considerations to refuse.

·       It was shame children services could not be more involved with residence.

 

Having been proposed and seconded and, following a vote, it was:

 

RESOLVED: That application 25/00012/FP be GRANTED planning permission subject to the reasons and conditions set out in the report of the Development and Conservation Manager.

 

N.B. Following the conclusion of this item, there was a break in proceedings and the meeting reconvened at 21.00.

 

N.B. Cllr Mason and Cllr Billing returned to the Chamber at 21.00.