Agenda item

Report of the Assistant Director (Planning).

Report of the Assistant Director (Planning) on the change of use from a residential dwelling (use class C3(A)) to a residential care home to accommodate 3 x children (use Class C2).

This application was presented to DMC because Hatfield Town Council submitted a Major Objection, and it was called-in by Councillor P. Zukowskyj.

The site is located within the cul-de-sac of Strawberry Field and is occupied by a two-storey detached dwelling. The property would become a long-term home, providing 24-hour care, for up to three vulnerable children (ages 8-16). There will be seven full time staff and two part time staff. None of the staff will reside at the property, but one staff member will stay over-night.

This application follows a similar development at a different address in Hatfield which was approved at DMC in July 2022.

Six objections have been received. The main concerns related to restrictive covenants, the use of the property and the staff. No objections were received from statutory consultees.

No external changes are proposed. In terms of intensification of use, the number of bedrooms would not increase, and the number of future occupiers would not be materially different to the continued use as a four-bed dwelling. The applicants supporting statement explains that the proposed children’s home would in many ways be like a family home.

All bedrooms meet the National Technical Housing Standard and the property benefits from a garden to the rear.

With the three children to be cared for by three carers at any one time, the three off-street parking spaces are considered suitable. Concerns have been raised regarding increased visitors parking associated with the proposed use. The use will remain residential and with any residential use, there would be the potential for visitors to visit the property.

With the site still being in residential use, there would be no change to the existing waste storage and collection from that of the existing C3 residential use.

Officers summarised that there is no conflict with any current or emerging policies or national policy and therefore the application is recommended for approval, subject to conditions.

John McDougall, Objector, spoke on behalf of neighbours in Strawberry Field and stated:

Residents believe 2 Mulberry Meads has been cited as a precedent and consider this an oversimplification. The Mulberry Meads children were aged 9-18, vulnerable and were to be taken into care due to family breakdown, whereas the Strawberry Field application is for three children aged 8-16 with learning difficulties and probably more specialist needs. Although children’s services have not objected, they have made it clear that any facility must meet stringent standards. National minimum standards for children’s care homes require there to be rooms in which children can meet privately with visitors, and space for play and recreation. Residents are concerned about the credentials for the applicant to deliver the care and facilities required. Since the objective is to establish a care home in the community there has been no approach from any officers from Light Shine to any residents in Strawberry Field, although residents have made unsolicited offers and given assistance to temporary residents in that time. Residents were concerned when a member of this committee from outside the ward visited residents on 7 September 2022 saying that the care home is not for children with learning difficulties and would be for 8–18-year-old children who had been taken into care because their parents couldn’t look after them. He also suggested he had spoken to the applicant, and they already run care homes but did not have any evidence to confirm this. He indicated he would return to at least three of the residents and despite follow ups has failed to do this. Residents believe this committee would fail in their duty to exercise due diligence based on the information available to them and that it is not in the interest of the children that may be involved by approval being granted against what they see are inadequate amenities.

Councillor P. Zukowskyj, Ward member stated:

In principle he is extremely supportive of additional provision of quality children’s home places but believes this fails the Welwyn Hatfield Borough Council (WHBC) policy test outlined in the current district plan (D1) on high quality. The updated planning statement states ‘the proposal will not make any external or internal physical changes to the building’. Fire safety regulations have been tightened very considerably since Grenfell. In combination with the Children’s Home England Regulations 2015, the Building Safety Act 2022 enshrines the steps necessary to ensure fire safety in care homes. The current regulations state bedrooms of residents of care homes must be compartmentalised with a fire retardance of 30 minutes, new fire doors will not achieve this. The plans in the application appear to show a wall between bedrooms 2 and 3 and between bedrooms 3 and 4 unsupported by walls below. He believes the assumption must be that these are stud walls built many years before current regulations were in place. He also assumes the loft space and flooring is wooden with little or any fire retarding insulation, yet the applicant proposes no internal physical changes. He stated that our policy on building design says high quality, if a design is presented that clearly fails to demonstrate compliance with all necessary regulations, then it cannot be described as high quality. Also concerns about whether the application meets other requirements such as the Disability and Discrimination Act. Workplace legislation is also a concern, there are just two toilets in the building for seven staff and three users. He believes the response we can do all that under permitted development later should not be an acceptable to this committee, because granting permission could reputationally damage this council. The application should have included all necessary modifications at the start. He urged the committee to refuse this.

A discussion followed and a summary of the main points raised are shown below:

The chair advised that the committee is quasi-judicial so it can only determine based on planning policy and law.

Concerns were raised in relation to the increase in visitor parking. Officers said this would not increase any more than visitor parking if it were a residential dwelling.

Concerns were raised about the lack of space for private meetings. Officers said bedroom four would be used as an office and there is also a living room. Planning would not be able to determine the internal space usage.

Concerns were raised about the lack of external amenities; officers are of view this is sufficient.

Concern raised in relation to the credentials of the applicants to deliver the facility, but officers advised this is not a planning matter to consider.

Concern raised in relation to the quality of the proposal, particularly in relation to D1. Officers advised the application has been assessed against policies, and in their opinion is acceptable. In relation to care home requirements HCC would have specific regulations that would need to be met.

Concern raised about the lack of internal changes. In particular around there being only one bathroom. Officers said this has been approached as a family home and that bedroom four would be a suitable office space for staff.

Concerns raised into relation of fire regulations, and unsupported walls. As part of HCC requirements there would be a requirement for this to comply with building regulations.

Concerns raised that if the building doesn’t meet all regulations, it can’t be high quality. Officers advised this is predominantly in relation to new buildings and extensions, not a facility such as this that has no substantial changes.

Concerns in relation to staff, as seven full time and two part time staff. Officers advised there would only ever be three staff on site at one time.

Need to take into account as a consideration the Mulberry application.

Following discussion, it was proposed by Councillor R. Trigg and seconded by Councillor S. Tunstall to approve the application.

RESOLVED:

(7 in favour, and 6 against)

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