Agenda item

Change of use of a dwelling to a children’s home for a maximum of six children (Use class C2) and a garage conversion into a habitable space.

 

Walnut Tree Farm

Punchbowl Lane

Brothertoft

Boston PE20 3SB

 

Virtue Therapeutic Care and Education (East Sussex Ltd)

 

Rose Consulting.

Change of use of a dwelling to a children's home for a maximum of six

Children (Use class C2) and a garage conversion into a habitable

space

 

Walnut Tree Farm, Punchbowl Lane, Brothertoft, Boston PE20 3SB

 

Virtue Therapeutic Care & Education (East Sussex Ltd)

 

The Senior Planning Officer presented the report advising that application had been called-in to committee by the ward member Councillor Stuart Evans.

The site to which the application related was an existing, detached, two-storey residential dwelling located on the northern side of Punchbowl Lane, Boston. The site was extensive, which included the dwelling itself, a wooded area to the west and two paddocks to the north, with the larger of the two extending past the eastern boundary. The site had a neighbouring property to the east (Orchard Meadow), but it was separated by the large paddock and was approximately 107.9m from the side elevation of Walnut Tree Farm. Opposite ‘Orchard Meadow’ were two other residential dwellings. The site sat within a countryside location and was approximately (when measured in a straight line) 2454.4m from the settlement boundary of Boston. Punchbowl Lane did not benefit from street lighting or a pavement. The site had no immediate neighbours and is surrounded by agricultural fields to the north and west. The site is located within Flood zone 3.

Planning permission was sought to convert the existing dwelling into a Children’s Home that would house a maximum of six children (use class C2). Included in the proposal is the conversion of an existing garage into a habitable space. There is no increase to the overall footprint of the dwelling and no alterations to the existing access arrangements.

The home would facilitate and provide care for the children and young people for the duration of their placement. It was proposed that there would be four members of staff on site during the day and two members of staff during the night. The facility would be registered and inspected by Ofsted.

The site had been subjected to two previous applications, one for a single storey side extension granted in June 2005 and a further for the erection of single dwelling with a garage which had been refused in November 2007.

There had been significant objection to the application from residents who had cited concerns about the speed limit on the road outside the site; the lack of any street lighting and no pavements along the road; the proximity to farm buildings and a chemical store along with the impact on neighbours and concern at the issue of water run-off and flooding.

The Parish Council had also objected along similar lines as the residents with added concerns in respect of the impact on local wildlife and increased noise levels.

Whilst concerns had been voiced by the statutory consultees, they had been mitigated by conditions.

 

It is noted that significant representation and member commenting and questioning followed (including repetition of commenting) and the minute below provides the key matters tabled. A recording of the full meeting is available on YouTube for any person wishing to hear a verbatim recording of this meeting.

 

Representation was received by Mr C Wicks in objection to the application which included:

Members were advised that Mr Wicks was speaking on behalf of residents who had asked him to consider the application and present his conclusions. Mr Wicks had undertaken two site visits to the application site and noted concerns in respect of accessing and exiting the site via a main road with a 60pmh speed limit, which was one of the most dangerous in the borough. One exit turn out of the site did provide the statutory 250m clear view, the opposing turn only provided a 40m turn with it making it impossible to see vehicles travelling from the west with a large shrub blocking vision. There was no street lighting and no public footpath along the road with deep dykes on either side. There was no main sewer on the site or on any other local house in the area and no rock to build on. The traffic along the road was mostly HGV lorries from a nearby business and large farm vehicles.

Residents had acknowledged the need for such a home and historically he had designed something similar which was sited in the town curtilage, close to amenities and not on a major road, ensuring the safety of the children.

 

In response to significant member questioning Mr Wickes responded where able which included:

Whilst he had no evidence on which to base his observation that the road was one of the most dangerous in the borough, following two site visits he had noted the type and volume of traffic and in his experience as a road designer for over 40 years, his opinion was that it was a dangerous road and he felt that whilst LCC Highways had no objection, he felt that the application should be refused due to highway safety. He agreed the suggestion of a member that the location should be in the town centre on a road with a 30-mph speed limit. Referencing the distance to the nearest working farm from the site, Mr Wicks said he estimated 200 metres, but it was an estimation. 

It is noted that questioning in respect of the residents who would be located at the facility were raised which were re-tabled during the agents question session following Mr Wicks representation.

The Assistant Director – Planning and Strategic Infrastructure addressed the meeting and urged caution on any conjecture. LCC Highways were a statutory consultee and they had been formally consulted and had raised no objection. Members were remined that the site could house a family with children and that the internal operation of the building within the application was governed by Offsted and was not a relevant planning matter.

 

Representation was received by the Applicants Agent Mr D McCullum which included:

Providing clarification on the proposed facility, members were advised that it would home six children with mild to moderate learning difficulties. The home itself was subject to strict Offsted regulation. The residents would not impact on the local community, they would impact on health services but not on any educational facilities as the operator had their own education provision. Members were further advised that the agent had reached out to the Parish Council to meet with them and to discuss their issues, which had proved a beneficial step on previous applications for similar facilities with Parish Councils and residents.

 

In response to several members questions Mr McCallum responded where able which included:

The applicant had considerable experience within the field of the provision of such facilities, currently providing nine comparable homes and also three schools. The age range of the residents would be between seven and eighteen with four members of staff on duty during the daytime and two members of staff on duty overnight. When a resident left the site, it would be by a private car, and they would also be accompanied by a member of staff and supervised at all times. Offsted conducted detailed site visits prior to any agreement of suitability of a site and their overviews included all safety considerations.

It is noted that during questioning members tabled enquiries in respect of the nature and level of need of the residents, in relation to their specific requirements including their schooling and the Chairman intervened voicing concerns that the social aspects of the facility were not a matter for committee consideration and should not cloud members minds when considering the application on material planning matters.  Equally questions in respect of the operation of the site were subject to Offsted regulations and not a planning matter.

In response to several enquires relating to the access and egress of the site, the Senior Planning Officer confirmed that the existing electric gate was 4.8 metres back from the highway allowing sufficient space for cars to pull in off the road and that once inside there were three parking spaces in front of the house separating from the boundary. Furthermore, the Assistant Director – Planning and Strategic Infrastructure referred members to paragraph 7.31 of the report which was a key in respect of queries in respect of the highway.

 

Representation was received by Parish Council Early which included:

 

Committee were advised that residents and the Parish Council recognised the need for the facility within the application, but it was the location of the site that was of considerable concern to them. The road had a 60mph speed limit which was often exceeded and was a rat run to avoid congestion. It had no foot lights nor any bus route, with the majority of traffic being heavy farm traffic and lorries. There was no local community to integrate into and it was 2.5 mile to the nearest shop. The main concern of all the objectors was their duty of care for children and they felt that application did not meet the children’s needs. Such homes needed to be in the right location with community support and in a safe area.

 

No questions were table to Parish Councillor Early.

 

Representation was received by the Ward Member Councillor Stuart Evans who advised that many of the his concerns had already been tabled by the other speakers (as noted above including the speed limit along the road, increased vehicles movements and dangers to the residents of the home and a lack of amenities, plus the lack of a main sewer and the nature of the residents within the home – responses to all provided by officers again as noted above) all of which he echoed.

Additional points to those already tabled included reference to previous applications along Punchbowl Lane and the reasons for their refusal. B 07.0423 for a light industrial workshop which was refused contrary to Local Plan Policy CO1 which resisted new development unless supported by other policies. Local Plan Policy ED7 permitted industrial development only if it provided new employment, on a scale significant to the borough. The second application B.07.0202 which had been subject to similar objections as the application under consideration, and which too had been refused citing the reasons as an unsuitable form of development in the area and an increase to and from the site within a rural area. A query was also noted n respect of the application form which indicated no trees on adjacent land, when there were eighty-two trees on the land, and a list of comparative homes was noted, all of which were sited on roads with a speed limit of 30pmh. Committee were advised that if the speed limit outside the application site was changed to 30mph then if would help to satisfy residents and referred to recent incidents close to the site.

Members were asked to recognise that residents felt fear of the impact of the home, and that fear was a material consideration.

Comments were also made in respect of the applicant’s website and also to a document which the committee had not had sight of ahead of the meeting nor had it been provided in advance for reference within the meeting.

 

Questions were tabled to Councillor Evans which included:

 

As members questioned the document provided and also the references to the nature of the residents, three points of clarification were made as follows:

 

The Planning Officer confirmed that the document refenced was a Community Involvement Statement called a Good Neighbour Policy produced by the applicant but had not been issued as part of the planning report and was not for consideration in respect of the application.

 

The Assistant Director–Planning and Strategic Infrastructure drew members attention back to the application under consideration which was for a change of use of a dwelling to a children’s home for a maximum of six children under Class 2 and the discussion made were all covered by Class 2. For further clarity members were advised that similar applications historically had been in isolated locations and whilst the human reaction was to question the inner workings for of the home and its residents, such issues were not relevant in planning terms and for members of the committee, for robust decision making, the application for determination was about the use of the land, the policies in place for consideration and any impacts arising, also taking into account the statutory consultations.

.
The Legal Officer further confirmed that Class C2 was for a residential institution and that covered the use for the provision of residential accommodation and care to people in need of care other than a use within Class C3, which was a dwelling house, used as a sole or main residence, its use as a hospital or nursing home and use as a residential school, college, or training centre. It did not include secure residential accommodation such as prisons, young offenders’ institutes, detention centres. That was a separate use class, and it would need a separate
application to that use so we are looking at use Class C2 which was residential accommodation.

 

It is recorded that Councillor Stuart Evans left the meeting at this part in the proceedings.

 

Committee deliberation followed which included:

 

Concerns were noted by members which included the speed limit along the road and the possibility of dangers and potential accidents from increased traffic, along with the lack of footpaths and lighting and issues in accessing and exiting the site. Further concerns also noted that the report / application was unclear on areas in respect of the residents and the function within the of the home including schooling queries and safety issues in respect of the site. Advice was provided by officers that no additional conditions in respect of highways could be implemented, nor any in respect of the actual management of the home.

There was recognition that whilst some members did not agree with the application, they knew that they had to determine it on planning grounds and that, as there was no statutory objections, – and that the home itself would be governed and managed in line with Offsted regulations, there were no grounds on which to refuse it.

 

RESOLVED:

That the committee approve the application in line with officer recommendation and subject to the following conditions and reasons:

 

1. The development hereby permitted must be begun not later than the expiration of three years beginning with the date of this permission.

 

Reason: Required to be imposed pursuant to Section 51 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004

 

2. The development hereby permitted shall only be undertaken in accordance with the following approved plans:

 

§  Proposed Block Plan, Drawing No. BL-301.1 REV 2

§  Proposed Floor Plans, Drawing No. EP-300.2 REV 2

§  Proposed Site Plan, Drawing No. BL-301.2 REV 2

§  Design and Access Statement, Produced by Rose Consulting Planning and Regeneration, Dated 04/09/2024.

 

Reason: To ensure that the development is undertaken in accordance with the approved details, in the interests of residential amenity and to comply with Policies 2 and 3 of the South East Lincolnshire Local Plan 2019.

 

3. The development hereby approved shall be undertaken in complete accordance with the Flood Risk and Drainage Assessment [Produced by Roy Lobley Consulting, dated 23/09/24], unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority, including the following mitigation measures:

 

§  Maintain the existing floor levels.

§  Water resisting airbricks.

§  Backwater valves and non-return valves to be used.

§  New electrical installation to be above 3m AOD.

§  Safe refuge provided on the first floor.

 

The mitigation measures shall be fully implemented prior to occupation and subsequently remain in place.

 

Reason: In the interest of reducing flood risk in accordance with Policy 4 of the South East Lincolnshire Local Plan 2019.

 

4. The measures set out in the Flood Warning and Evacuation Plan [Produced by Roy Lobley Consulting, dated 01/11/24] hereby approved shall be fully implemented prior to occupation and subsequently remain in place.

 

Reason: To reduce the risk of flooding to the proposed development and future occupants in accordance with Policy 4 of the South East Lincolnshire Local Plan 2019.

 

5. Prior to occupation of the development, details of measures to enhance biodiversity on the site shall be submitted to and agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Measures to improve biodiversity should, where appropriate, include:

 

§  Planting a range of native trees, shrubs, and flowers

§  Installation of bird and bat boxes and hedgehog gaps

 

The details approved shall be implemented prior to occupation of the development and shall be maintained thereafter.

 

Reason: In the interests of biodiversity and in accordance with Policy 28 of the South East Lincolnshire Local Plan 2019.

 

6. Prior to the installation of any new lighting on the site, details of the type, location, spill and timings of operation shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The details shall be implemented as approved and retained thereafter.

 

Reason: In the interest of protecting amenity and limiting light spill in the open countryside

 

7. The cycle storage, shown on Drawing No. BL-301.2 REV2 and the Bike Shed Sheet, shall be implemented prior to first occupation of the building and maintained in perpetuity thereafter.

 

Reason: In the interested of amenity in accordance with Policies 2 and 3 of the South East Lincolnshire Local Plan 2019.

 

8. The bin storage, shown on Drawing No. BL-301.2 REV2 and the Bin Store Information Sheet, shall be implemented prior to first occupation of the building and maintained in perpetuity thereafter.

 

Reason: In the interests of amenity in accordance with Policies 2 and 3 of the South East Lincolnshire Local Plan 2019.

 

9. The development hereby approved shall be occupied as a children’s home for no more than 6 Children at any one time.

 

Reason: In accordance with the submitted detail and in the interest of residential amenity, in accordance with Policies 2 and 3 of the South East Lincolnshire Local Plan 2019.