Agenda item

Report of the Assistant Director (Planning).  

Report of the Assistant Director (Planning) on the change of use from a C3 private residential dwelling to a C2 residential children’s home. The property would become a long-term home, providing 24-hour care, for up to four vulnerable children (ages 9-18) that have been taken into care permanently. The children would come to the home for several reasons, including a family breakdown or court ordered residential placement or removal. The children would not be placed here due to faults in their own behaviour, but those of their environment. The staff would comprise six full time staff and 4 part time staff. Circa two staff would be present at any one time. None of the staff would preside at the property, but one staff member would stay over-night, each night.

This application was presented to the Development Management Committee because Hatfield Town Council had submitted an Objection and it had been called-in by Councillor Bell.

Mr & Mrs Islam, objectors stated that they were residents of 1 Mulberry Mead and objected to the application for many reasons. Firstly, the change in the current class C3 use to a Class C2 use. Class C2 includes residential care homes, hospitals, nursing homes, boarding schools, residential colleges and training centres. The description of the development includes the Children’s care home if granted but the permitted change of use can change to any other uses within Class C2. If the scheme gets approved with a condition restricting it only to a children’s care home it will make it difficult for the Council in the future not to accept a change of use to any other use within C2 given they are grouped together in the same Class as they operate similarly and have the same impact on the community. The children will come from troubled and problematic backgrounds with no fault of their own and would be better suited in a setting where they have access to immediate support and services they require and can be adequately supervised. The property is situated on a busy corner. The street parking is very limited with narrow roads. This house has a garage which has now been proposed for bicycle storage which will lose a car space as a result leaving just one space in front of the house. The objectors stated that they will have difficulty coming in and out of their driveway. They felt that the change of dwelling will certainly cause severe anxiety to many residents, and confirmed that they had felt safe and secure in their home ever since they moved to this area when it was first built. They felt this house will cause a negative impact on their’s and their family’s quality of life and others too.

It was noted that all three of the ward councillors for Hatfield Villages were sitting on the committee and could not be seen to predetermine the decision and must assess subjectively the proposal that was in front of them in the context that was presented by the officer and residents. It was important to take into account the residents’ concerns on the application and take it to DMC for a decision. Some of the issues at the time were the consultation as this was not circulated widely enough, parking was a potential issue, anti-social behaviour and supervision were a concern. It was noted that it was important that the police and Hertfordshire children’s services were consulted.

Members asked about the consultation from the police and Hertfordshire children’s services and wanted to know the feedback received. Officers stated that Hertfordshire constabulary were consulted and they responded with no objection given the occupancy level and the nature of the tenure and there were no alterations to the external area and had no concerns. Hertfordshire Children’s services commented in support citing that there was an urgent need for this type of development and no comments were raised.

Members asked about parking in the area and asked officers if they knew about any parking restrictions and controls in the area that were due to be added to future work programmes. Officers stated that they were not aware of any parking restrictions coming into place regarding lines or permit schemes.

Members asked about safeguarding, when there are vulnerable people going to live in specific places, it is often ideal that people do not know that certain places exist but this is an application that is public and are discussing it in an open forum. Members asked if safeguarding considerations have been taken into account and how do the Council usually deal with applications like this especially where vulnerable people will be living. Officers stated that with the vulnerable children on site, there will always be two members of staff at the house apart from night-time when it will only be one member of staff.  There will be staff there should there be any issues arising from their residence. It was noted that if the council gets a women’s refuge application it would be dealt with in a confidential manner.

Members were concerned that as the meeting was being webcast and was public that if the application were to be approved, it would be on record that this was a home where vulnerable children were residing. Members had concerns that vulnerable people were at greater risk of exploitation and that being in the public domain that this was a house for vulnerable people. Concerned for future occupants as this is a house and was a greater risk of harm for vulnerable people. Members ask how did this relate to planning policy and to what extent is that an issue? The Legal adviser stated that under the policy framework applications have to come forward and be debated in a democratic way. The proposal does include for staff to be on site at all times and is something members need to give weight to in terms of mitigating and any potential crime and disorder or impact on vulnerable children.

Members asked about paragraph 10.7 of the report, which references policy H9 of the district plan. In the district plan it states that greater weight was given when these were located in town centres, lots of amenities around the area. The application is in a residential area and there were no shops in the area, it was half a mile to the garden village shops. It was not good to put young people in an area where there is no infrastructure to support them. Members asked about paragraph 9.47 of the district plan where it says greater weight needs to be given to have sufficient infrastructure to support the occupants of a care home and what weight if any should be given for a decision? Officers stated that east of the site would be Campion Road where there is a bus stop and will take people to different services around Hatfield town centre.

Members were disappointed to see so much negativity on the application possibly out of fear of the unknown. A lot of people have assumed that the four children that will be living there are some kind of threat to the local population, naughty children in some ways, or drug dealing or other issues. Members asked about the car parking, there were two members of staff on the site and there is space for two cars. Members felt that the area or presence of the children will not be degrading. Officer commented on the loss of cycle parking stating similarly to a domestic dwelling cycle parking is used in the rear of the property, it does have an ample sized garden and can accommodate cycle parking to the rear of the site.

Members asked about paragraph 2.4 of the report which states there will be six full time staff, four part time staff and two members of staff will be present at any one time with one staying overnight. The application has three bedrooms upstairs and one downstairs, looking at 24 hour care for the children so where will the member of staff sleep? Officers confirmed that there is an office upstairs where the member of staff would sleep when on duty. Office upstairs will mainly be used by the staff to do their office work while they are on duty throughout the day.

Members asked at paragraph 10.3 of the report specifically H3 which states that planning permission will not be granted if the change of use resulting in net reduction in the number of dwellings. The SADM9 of the emerging local plan 2016 which backs this up, the application is for children’s home and considered residential use under special need housing. Policy H9 sets out that “The Council will grant permission for schemes which provide special needs accommodation particularly in town centres or in areas which are close to community facilities and services. Town centre is 30 minutes’ walk from the property or within the community facilities. The council is going against their own policy and does not comply with H3 or H9 policies. It was stated that the Council does not need to comply with every single policy. Officer stated that there is a bus stop a short walk away near the property and provides access to the town centre and other amenities.

Members were not happy with the floor plan of the property. There was one shower room in bedroom 1, these children are supposed to be vulnerable and will be teenagers so will need to have their own shower and toilet facilities and there is only one bathroom for the three rooms on that floor. Members felt the children would need their own privacy so this would not be acceptable. It was noted that there was a bathroom near bedroom 3. Members asked does the shared bathroom have washing facilities and is it acceptable to have a shower room and 1 bathroom under current guidance? Officers stated that there is a shower room in one of the bedrooms and a bathroom on the 1st floor and a toilet on the ground floor, similar to a regular set up with a domestic dwelling and the washing facilities would be suitable. Officer were not sure if the facilities would be bath or shower but either or would be appropriate for washing facilities.

Members asked if they could set a condition on the property that the upper age of the children taken into this residence is capped at an age where they were not so keen to get a bus and go into town and would be happy to go to local parks. Is this something we could suggest? Legal advisor stated that the difficulty would be what the age limit will be set to and asking if the committee have the information in front of them to reasonably conclude in accordance with the NPPF and PPG that an age limit has to be set an a certain level and not read anything in the report that would justify an age limit and if a age limit was set it could potentially be arbitrary and could fail the necessity and reasonable distance test.

Members asked that as this relates to a change of use as opposed to a new development, where does the Council stand under policy D2 in relation to the wider area. If this went through it would be the only commercial property within the entire area of the garden village. Officers stated that it does not constitute necessarily to a change of use from residential to commercial use. It goes from c3 to c2 which is essentially the same class residential use so there is no commercial aspect in that regard. Still regarded as a children’s home so it is residential use as it will be similar to that of a normal family home. Members were concerned that the property could be used as anything within the c2 category. Officers stated that the applicant has not indicated that the property would not be used for anything else other than a children’s care home.

Members considered building a home within the Welwyn Hatfield area for children with problematic backgrounds so that their needs can be addressed and cared for, somewhere where they can grow and develop the skills that they need. Not the right location and have a negative impact on the surrounding area and homes. Increased noise and loss of privacy. Members wanted to know the impact on the neighbour amenities. Officer stated that there were no external changes to the property or internal changes to the property, so sunlight, and privacy would all be protected and regarding overlooking there are no additional windows being added and see no further issues of overlooking.

Members asked about the practically of the garage and parking at the property; feeling that they may not use the garage if it becomes too difficult to do so. They asked whether there is any way of checking to see if those two car parking spaces are being used as intended or checking the spill over in the street? Officers stated that there was a proposed condition to make sure the garage remains as a parking space. Unless there was a deviant from that condition to occur the team would look into that matter. It was noted that there were no comments from Highways authorities on parking.

The Chair gave an overview of the main points raised throughout the discussion.

Following discussion, it was proposed and seconded by Councillors P.Shah and C.Juggins to refuse the application due to:

•Change of use away from Class D3 would be out of keeping with the immediate surrounding area.

•Risks having a detrimental effect on the nearby neighbouring area.

•The Council does not feel that section H9/ 9.47 of the district plan to give access to local amenities has not been met.

RESOLVED:

(5 in favour, 7 against and 1 Abstention)

Following the defeated motion, it was proposed and seconded by Councillors S.McNamara and S.Tunstall to approve the application and

RESOLVED:

(7 in favour, 5 against and 1 Abstention)

That planning permission be approved subject to the conditions in the report.