Agenda item

Temporary change of use of the property from a C3 Residential dwelling to C2 Children's Home for a period of up to 3 years.

The Senior Planning Officer, Lisa Morina gave a detailed presentation on the report relating to the abovementioned planning application, a copy of which had been circulated (for copy see file of minutes).  Members noted that the written report was supplemented by a visual presentation which included photographs of the site.  The Senior Planning Officer advised that some Members of the Committee had visited the site and were familiar with the location and setting.  The application was for a temporary change of use of the property from a C3 residential dwelling to C2 children's home for a period of up to 3 years and was recommended for approval, subject to the conditions as set out in the report.

 

The Senior Planning Officer noted the application was for up to two children aged 3-17 years old, for temporary use, up to three years.  She added that the property had been used as an un-registered crisis home since February 2023, and as the home currently had one child the application was retrospective.  It was noted the application had been called-in by Councillor J Blakey, on the basis on anti-social behaviour issues associated with the property. 

 

Members were informed that there had been no objections from the Highways Section or Durham Constabulary.  It was noted that Cassop-cum-Quarrington Parish Council had objected to the application.  The Senior Planning Officer noted internal consultee responses had included no objections from Environmental Health, and with the Council’s Children and Young People’s Service (CYPS) offering no objections and noting there was a need for such children’s homes.

 

The Committee were asked to note there had been 47 letters of objection, with a summary of the concerns set out within the report, which included: anti-social behaviour, business use without permission, and devaluing nearby property values.  The Senior Planning Officer explained that the Police and Crime Commissioner, Joy Allen had raised concerns in terms of the demand on policing from such C2 children’s home use increasing within the county.

 

It was noted that subsequent to the agenda papers being published there had been a further two letters of objection, one relating to damage and vandalism to their property, including a Police report and images of graffiti, the other being from a resident who was unable to attend Committee who noted the impact of the children’s home on their physical and mental health.

 

 

The Senior Planning Officer noted the application had been considered under the relevant children’s home policy and while there had been concerns raised by local residents, Officers did not feel they were sufficient to refuse the application.  She explained the application was in line with CDP Policies 18, 21, 29 and 31 and that the Council had a duty under the Childrens Act to provide sufficient space for children in care.  She noted there were no external works to the property, with the Highways Section considering that the proposals offered sufficient parking, and therefore the application was recommended for approval.

 

The Chair thanked the Senior Planning Officer and asked Councillor J Blakey, Local Member, to speak in relation to the application.

 

Councillor J Blakey noted that within her electoral division there had been a spate of children’s home applications, six within the last three years, with not all of those presenting an issue.  She noted that the property in question had not been operating sporadically, rather it appeared to have been operating permanently since its initial opening, with Local Members having not been made aware that this children’s home had been operating.  She added that upon contacting the Head of Children’s Services at the Council, she learned that the Council had not been aware that the children’s home had been operating and the home was not registered with Ofsted.  She added that further discussions had revealed that the child within the home was from another Local Authority area.

 

Councillor J Blakey explained that the Police had been called to the property so many times that it was not possible to count, adding she had asked the Police for the figures in relation to call outs, however, to date she had received no response.  She noted that the Police had attended the property three to four times a day on some occasions.  She added there was an impact on the families bringing up their children in the area in terms of the parking and number of incidents.  She noted that CDP Policy 18 stated that children should be ‘appropriately matched’, however, the impact on local residents’ amenity from the activity at this property was immense.  She noted that she felt it was contrary to CDP Policy 31, with there being anti-social behaviour at all hours of the day and night, adding that was not a normal life for either the child within the children’s home, or the residents within the area.

 

Councillor J Blakey noted that there was not a plan in place, the applicant had applied now, not previously and properly.  She added that she had witnessed cars parked all over, not adhering to any management directive.  She explained that the children’s home had already been in operation since February 2023, already over a year, and residents had already put up with a year’s worth of anti-social behaviour and asked should they have to put up with another three years’ worth. 

She concluded by asking the Committee to look really carefully at the objections to the application.

 

The Chair thanked Councillor J Blakey and asked Sarah Wilkinson, Local Resident in objection, to speak in respect of the application.

 

S Wilkinson explained she was representing herself and her neighbours from the local community.  She noted the property was not a registered children’s home and explained it was not a ‘might’ the home was causing impact now.  She explained that the operator, Juniper Care and Support, were not adhering to the parking plan, with an average of four to six cars blocking the road, with bin lorries unable to access properties as a result.  She noted this impacted on residents’ friends and families being able to park, with spaces taken up 24 hours a day by care staff.

 

S Wilkson noted that there had been a number of incidents at the property and there was a frequent Police presence, two or three times a day, day and night.  She added that the property had not been ‘sporadically’ occupied, rather as far as local residents could see, it had been near constant.  She noted that the children’s home had not been registered officially and a governance statement said, ‘Juniper Care and Support were fully registered’.

 

S Wilkinson noted that there was a restrictive covenant within the deeds for properties on the estate, stating no business use was allowed, and allowing such use in this case could set a precedent for anyone to operate a business from their property.  She gave an example of an ambulance having to attend the property and asked, if the child had been correctly supervised, how had they become hurt.  She added that children had been loitering around the unregulated care home.

 

S Wilkinson explained that residents should not have to live like they are, with their children regularly being woke up by the disturbance from the children’s home.  She added there had been incidents of criminal damage, so there was actual crime, and the fear of crime for residents.  She noted that there were usually four carers at the property, not two carers, and despite that there was continued damage caused and children absconding from the children’s home.  She asked if that was how they performed with one child, how would they manage with two children.  She reiterated the child in the home had smashed glass, threatened to self-harm and absconded from the property.  She noted that residents had only been given contact details for Juniper Care and Support after 15 months.

 

 

 

 

S Wilkinson explained that within the area there were 15 children under 10 years old, with 10 under five years old, and residents did not want their children to be intimidated in their homes and cited an example of one child walking around in a balaclava, entering other residents’ gardens and shouting abuse.

 

S Wilkinson noted it was a shame that locals’ wellbeing had not been considered when opening the children’s home, the impact on their lives had not been considered.  She noted that the Council’s Vision 2035 was for children to enjoy the best start in life, good health and emotional wellbeing, and have a safe childhood, and she asked was that the future for the children of residents in the area.

 

The Chair thanked S Wilkinson and asked Lee Sowerby, the applicant, to speak in support of his application.

 

L Sowerby noted the scale and staffing arrangements for Juniper Care and Support, noting two ex-Head Teachers as staff, experienced managers, and regular support from a child psychologist.  He emphasised that the company and all staff were dedicated to making a difference to the lives of those young people in their care.

 

L Sowerby noted a ‘Durham First’ approach, with the Council’s commissioning service for such homes having noted that there were few two to three bed homes offering that type of accommodation, therefore the proposals supported Durham in that regard.  He added that where there were contradictory views, he would ask that independent views were taken on board and given more weight.  He noted the comments from such independent professionals included noting that Juniper Care and Support offered ‘proactive care, genuinely focussed on the young person’s care’, and that ‘working with Juniper in three locations, they have a different relationship, engaging in education, the progress they have made with our client shows the level of experience they have, and I cannot speak highly enough of them’.

 

L Sowerby noted that several points raised had been asserted as fact, however, that was not the case.  It had been noted that all downstairs windows at the property had been smashed, L Sowerby noted this was not true.  He noted the reference to a child being left alone was not true, it was in fact true that child that had previously been in care, who had made great progress, had returned to the property from his hometown after feeling they needed support and therefore turned to the people that had supported them previously.

 

 

L Sowerby concluded by thanking all the Durham County Council staff for their professional support in relation to the application and noted that Councillor J Blakey had not responded to an offer of contact from Juniper Care and Support.

 

The Chair thanked L Sowerby and asked the Committee for their comments and questions.

 

Councillor A Bell noted he felt this was a sad application to hear, noting the many issues set out by residents, some outside of planning matters, and that he felt the Committee needed more reassurance that those issues impacting residents would be rectified and asked whether it would be possible to defer the application, in order to receive more information as regards processes in place.  The Senior Planning Officer asked what specific information Members would wish to receive.  Councillor A Bell noted that the speaker in objection had related details of a number of incidents that had been of concern, in terms of anti-social behaviour and the Police attending the property, and therefore he felt Members needed assurance that there would be appropriate support in place.  The Senior Planning Officer noted that a management plan had been agreed with the Police, and they were in accordance with that, however, Officers could ask that more contact details are provided.  She added that other than those additional contact details, with the management plan had been sufficient for the Police and the property to be registered with Ofsted, subsequent to planning approval. 

 

Councillor A Bell asked if Ofsted registration could be obtained prior to planning permission approval and noted that the Police and Crime Commissioner had objected, highlighting resource implications in terms of children’s homes.  The Senior Planning Officer noted that the comments from the Police and Crime Commissioner was a generic comment in relation to any children’s home application across the county.  She added that the Durham Constabulary Architectural Liaison Officer had not objected when being consulted on this specific application.  She added she was not aware of the Ofsted application process, that would be for the applicant, however, noted comment from Ofsted in terms of not being able to decide upon registration until proof of permission was provided.

 

The Chair asked, if Ofsted required that planning permission to be in place, how had the children’s home been open for the last 12 months.  The Senior Planning Officer noted that there were two separate elements, unregistered provision, and Ofsted registered provision, noting the application was for regulated use, with Ofsted.

 

 

 

Councillor P Jopling noted that Members were very much aware of their duty as corporate parents, however, she had serious concerns as regards the application, including the wide age range proposed, eight to 17 years old, especially in the case where the children would not know each other and one was eight, the other 17 years old.  She added that she noted that she felt there had been a number of children’s home applications coming through in what she felt were inappropriate areas.  She noted that residents had very eloquently spoke in respect of their issues and believed those residents had rights too, and there was a need to balance the needs of the child against those of residents.  She noted it may have been different if the application was in an area where it did not impact residents, and questioned the company’s choice given there were already issues as set by the Police and Crime Commissioner in her submission.  She added she did not feel she could support the application, however, was not sure on what grounds it could be refused.

 

Councillor D Oliver explained that he heard and understood the difficulties in terms of considering the application.  He noted a somewhat similar children’s home in his electoral division, where there had initially been a number of complaints.  He added that since the home had been established, the concerns had diminished and a similar management plan was now in place, and the home had registered with Ofsted, again similar to the application before the Committee.  He noted that he felt that, in principle, the concerns could be addressed and reiterated the point raised previously in terms of Councillors and their role as corporate parents.  He noted the concerns raised by residents, however, he was confused that neither the Police nor the Council’s CYPS had flagged any concerns when consulted on the application.  He noted that the comment from the Police and Crime Commissioner appeared to be a generic comment, and if there had been any specifics to this application, surely, they would have been set out.  As he could see no specific reason to refuse the application, such as a steer from the Police, he would look at the bigger picture in terms of the need for such children’s homes and therefore he was minded to approve the application.

 

Councillor L Brown noted she was disappointed not to have the crime figures listed and noted she was the Chair of the Police and Crime Panel, the Panel being the forum to hold the Police and Crime Commission to account.  She noted that the Police and Crime Commissioner had noted at meetings that she was worried about the amount of time and resources taken up in relation to children’s homes.  Councillor L Brown noted that she felt that the issues raised meant that it had gone beyond what she would consider acceptable.  She added there was a children’s home in her electoral division, with parking being the biggest issue, whereas in this case incidents referred to by residents included a broken window, crime and anti-social behaviour. 

Councillor l Brown added she felt the application should be refused as it was contrary to CDP Policy 31, in terms of impact upon residential amenity, and NPPF Part 8, in terms of crime and the fear of crime.

 

Councillor K Shaw echoed the comments from Councillor L Brown and noted similarities to an application fought against in his electoral division, with crime and the fear of crime being big issues.  He asked if therefore the application could be deferred, as proposed, else he would be minded to vote against the application.

 

Councillor J Elmer noted he felt the application rested on the Committee’s understanding of the levels of anti-social behaviour in the area, and he did not feel that there was a clear view.  He noted he had changed his mind on the application two or three times during the debate and felt that if the application was deferred, that may allow time for more information to be gathered.  The Senior Planning Officer noted the Police were asked for statistics, however, they provided wider statistics for the Bowburn area, not down to the detail of this particular property.  She asked what additional information Members would wish to have.  The Chair noted that, if the Committee were minded to defer the application, he could not see why specific information could not be obtained.  The Senior Planning Officer noted that for a previous application, specific information was requested, however, the response had been with generic information.  She noted that therefore the request could be made, however, specific information may not be provided.

 

Councillor P Jopling noted her position had not changed, noting that residents had demonstrated the Police attendance at the property.  She noted that she still had concerns in terms of the age range proposed and felt the Committee could not ignore what had been going on and should not add to the burden of those living in the area.

 

Councillor A Surtees noted that the proposals and subject were emotive ones adding she was struggling in respect of the application, in balancing the needs of a child and of residents.  She noted all would want the best care and start in life for such children in care, but also for residents’ children too.  She added she did not believe that more detailed information could not be obtained from the Police, and she did not feel there was evidence from Juniper Care and Support in terms of addressing the issues raised.  She added she felt it was a struggle to find the right place for a children’s home and noted she was torn between being against the application, or for deferral.  She explained she would be happy for deferral, if that would allow for more information to support the application, and to address the concerns as raised by residents.  She asked if the Legal Officer could provide clarification whether Councillors needed to declare an interest as corporate parents. 

The Lawyer (Planning and Highways) noted that Councillors did not need to declare an interest as a corporate parent.

 

Councillor D Oliver noted he understood the points that had been raised, however, he felt that Members could use the professional information and opinions at their disposal, and he valued the comments that had been put forward by the Police.  He noted that should extra Police information come forward, he was not sure he would have enough confidence to say the property was an unsuitable location.  He reiterated that he saw many parallels with the similar children’s home in his area and felt it was acceptable on balance.

 

Councillor A Bell noted he still felt there was sufficient reason to defer the application, to ask for more information from the Police.  He noted that of cause those children needed a home, however, Members needed information that the property was being ran properly, and that there could not be a cost placed on a child’s care.

 

The Lawyer (Planning and Highways) noted the proposal for deferral in order to have further information from the Police and Police and Crime Commissioner, and Members’ request for information amplifying the management plan.  Councillor L Brown noted she would support deferral.  Councillor A Bell asked as regards exploring having Ofsted in place in advance.  The Lawyer (Planning and Highways) noted that was under separate regulatory framework, outside of planning, though more information could be sought for information.

 

It was proposed by Councillor A Bell, seconded by Councillor J Elmer that the application be deferred and upon a vote being taken it was:

 

RESOLVED:

 

That the application be DEFERRED.