Agenda item

The Chestnuts, 12 Belvoir Road, Redmile

There was a proposal from Councillor Allnatt to suspend Chapter 2, Part 9, Paragraph 2.10 to allow Councillor Chris Evans to speak as the ward councillor, as he had missed the deadline due to illness. This proposal was seconded by Councillor Browne. The Legal Services Manager confirmed that these rules can be suspended. This was put to the vote and the motion was carried unanimously.

Prior to the Planning Officers presentation, the Planning Development Manager addressed the Committee to provide some context on other work that the Council is undertaking outside of the planning remit. In summary, Members were informed that Planning applications are required to be determined using the relevant Planning Policies and Planning Legislation and can only take into account matters which are material planning considerations.

However, the Council as a whole is aware of concerns relating to the number of children’s care homes currently operating or being proposed across the Borough. In response to this, the Council approved a Planning Guidance Note. The purpose of the guidance note is to clarify and provide information, whilst actively encouraging the applicant to go down the formal planning application submission route.

Planning Officer (AS) then addressed the Committee and provided a summary of the application. Following the presentation, Members asked the Officer questions of clarification.

Pursuant to Chapter 2, Part 9, Paragraphs 2.8-2.28 of the Council’s Constitution in relation to public speaking at Planning Committee, the Chair allowed the following to give a three-minute presentation.

• Ian Lowther – Parish Council
• Jim Greaves – Objector
• Jill Palmer/Melainie Dougill – Applicant, Esland
• Councillor Chris Evans – Ward Councillor

The Chair also read out an email he had received from Ward Councillor Simon Orson, which he had agreed to read out before Councillor Evans requested to speak. Councillor Orson was requesting the Committee to refuse the application.

Questions that were asked to the speakers:

• Is there proof that the ASB increased significantly once the two homes had opened.  Members were advised that there were minor instances when the first home opened but had increased significantly once there were two, with the Police being frequently called out.
• It was asked if the disturbances were overnight and members were advised a lot of these instances are in the early hours.
• The applicant was asked what they would do to stop the children from their home being out at night, Members were assured the staff are fully trained and they have not had any instances of ASB being reported in any of their existing homes.
• It was asked if the decision to purchase the home in Redmile had taken into account there are already existing children’s homes there and why they had chosen the village, knowing this.  The decision was made on the suitability of the home with it’s secluded location and large garden, they already have homes in locations with other children’s homes and have not had any issues, the needs of the child are always taken into consideration when placing them in their homes.
• Will the children being placed in the home be local to the area and how are they going to be integrated them into the local community.  Members were advised that it is preferred to have children that are local to the area, but this is not always possible, dependant on need etc. They try to place the children in mainstream schools, if possible, but do have a school in Grantham if they have special requirements.  They do try and get the children involved with local clubs and events.
• The question was raised if the 6 parking spaces would be sufficient or if they would need to park on the road as well.  Members were advised that they wouldn’t require any further spaces.
• The Childrens home provider was also asked if all their existing properties were Class 2. Members were advised they do have some Class 3, but prefer to have Class 2, although the process is very complicated.

These were the points that were raised in the debate:

• Thanks were given to all who have worked on the application.
• Ofsted are not doing what they should and the law needs to be changed as planning are working within the criteria given.
• It was noted that one of the local homes is closing.
• There is a saturation in Redmile of care homes, and it is not right to replace much needed housing with care homes.
• There is a real need to look after vulnerable children, even if not stated in the local plan.
• The National Planning Policy states that developments should create environments that are safe and accessible and the fear of crime should not undermine the quality of life.
• Should not let another company’s way of running care homes prejudice any decision made.
• It was asked if temporary permission could be given for a year, Members were advised although it could be put into the conditions, it would be complicated to do, technically don’t need planning permission to operate it would not be possible to enforce.

Councillor Allnatt proposed that the recommendations within the report are approved. Councillor Cumbers seconded the motion.

The Planning Committee voted against the motion and therefore it fell.

(For 1, Against 7, Abstentions 3)

Councillor Browne proposed that the application be refused contrary to Officer recommendation. Councillor Allnatt seconded the motion.

RESOLVED

The Planning Committee REFUSED the application contrary to Officer recommendation.

(Unanimous)

REASONS

In the opinion of the local planning authority the approval of another children’s care home in the village of Redmile would result in an unsustainable development, contrary to policies SS3 and C7 of the Melton Local Plan as there are already two other care homes in the village and insufficient services to cater for them. Furthermore, this would result in an unacceptable impact on the residential amenity of neighbouring properties. It is considered that an additional care home would exacerbate the fear of crime and contribute to existing anti-social behaviour and criminality being experienced in the village, contrary to the overall aims and objectives of paragraphs 96 and 135(f) of the NPPF.