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 previously 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 had been deferred by the Committee at its last meeting to enable more information to be obtained in terms of a robust management plan from the applicant and in respect of more detailed information from Durham Constabulary in terms of incidents within the local area.  She explained as regards the sporadic use of the home since 10 March 2023 and referred to site photos and proposed parking arrangements.

 

In reference to statutory and internal consultees, the Senior Planning Officer noted that Cassop-Cum-Quarrington Parish Council had objected to the application, and that the Council’s Highways Section and Durham Constabulary had offered no objections in relation to the application. 

 

 

 

She explained that Durham Constabulary had provided additional information in terms of anti-social behaviour (ASB) noting that in Bowburn, since 2021 to 16 May 2024, levels had reduced, and within the last year there had been five incidences of ASB at Grange Way, however, none related to the application property.  For the period 2021-22 there had been no incidents recorded at the property, with 54 incidents in 2023, and 10 incidents for the period January to May 2024.  She reiterated that Durham Constabulary had not objected to the application.  It was noted that the Council’s Planning Policy and Environmental Health Teams had offered no objections to the application, with the 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 (PCC), Joy Allen had raised concerns in terms of the demand on policing from such C2 children’s home use increasing within the county.  She added there had also been four letters of support for the application, noting that looked after children had as much right to a decent home and that there was bias against looked after children.  The Senior Planning Officer noted on further letter in support had been received following the previous meeting, and had a letter of objection had been received from Mary Foy MP, which noted several points relating to residents’ concerns, that the application was contrary to County Durham Plan policies 18 and 31, whether the services were being provided correctly, concern the home was operating without a change of use, and noted the callouts to the property being for safeguarding issues, rather than ASB.  It was added Mary Foy MP had noted residents noted the role of Councillors as corporate parents, their concerns should also be considered, and whether the site was the right one for a children’s home.  The Senior Planning Officer explained that the applicant had noted he would be complaining at Government level about the discriminatory language used within the MP’s letter.

 

The Senior Planning Officer noted there was a need demonstrated for such children’s homes, and Officers felt the proposals were in line with policy and that there would be no detrimental impact upon residential amenity.  She added there had been no objections in terms of Highways and Durham Constabulary had provided the statistics for call outs to the property and the ASB levels within the area and had provided no objections to the application.  It was noted that the applicant would seek Ofsted registration subsequent to planning permission, should Members be minded to approve the application.  The Senior Planning Officer concluded by noting Officers felt the proposals were in line with policy and therefore the application was recommended for approval, temporary for a three-year period.

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

 

Councillor J Blakey thanked the Chair and Committee, and Durham Constabulary for their attendance at the meeting.  She explained that she was not objection to the idea of children’s home, noting a children’s home had operated in Bowburn for over 50 years.  She added that, however, residents still had concerns as regards what was going on at this children’s home.

 

The Chair thanked Councillor J Blakey and asked Councillor G Hutchinson, Local Member, to speak in relation to the application.

 

Councillor G Hutchinson thanked Members for the opportunity to speak on the application.  He noted that according to their management plan, Juniper Care had been working with Durham County Council since 2022, and asked why the Council had not been aware that the property was operating as a children’s home until he and Councillor J Blakey had spoken to the Council in 2023.  He asked why Councillors had not been made aware of the children’s home.  He asked why, if the Council knew of the intentions of Juniper Care, why was planning permission not sought as soon as possible, if Ofsted registration was being sought, and that required planning permission, why was a planning application not submitted straightaway. 

 

Councillor G Hutchinson noted that Juniper Care stated that the care for the children was their highest concern, then why would they not have applied for planning permission, then obtained Ofsted approval, rather than operate illegally until caught.  He noted that Ofsted guidance stated that applicants should understand any restrictive covenants in place and asked therefore would Ofsted allow operation.  He noted that Juniper Care stated they offered the highest care, however, he noted that some of their job advertisements had as for ‘some’ care experience.

 

Councillor G Hutchinson noted that residents were not against the children, rather against Juniper Care, following 18 months of suffering by residents.  He noted Baroness Scott had stated that the that the care system should provide stable, loving homes close to children's communities, however, he felt this unregulated site did not work with DCC and was not serving the needs of children as per Baroness Scott’s statement.

 

In respect of the children’s home management plan, Councillor G Hutchinson noted it had referred to 24-hour supervision to be provided, and asked whether it was provided now.  He noted that children should not be unattended at night. 

 

He added that it was felt the application was contrary to CDP Policy 18(e) in respect of being ‘unlikely to cause unacceptable individual or cumulative impact on residential amenity, fear of crime or community cohesion’.  Councillor G Hutchinson noted those impacts upon residents in respect of crime, fear of crime and upon residential amenity were already having an impact upon local residents’ mental health.  He noted paragraph 92 of the Officer’s report referred to fear of crime and he added that there had been evidence presented at the last meeting and additional information would be brought forward today by residents.  He added the PCC had objected to the application in terms of the impact upon policing from the time dealing with call out relating to children’s homes.

 

Councillor G Hutchinson noted the Planning Officer had explained that the Police callouts to the property had not been in relation to ASB, rather safeguarding issues, however he would ask whether there was an issue with a children’s home where there had been 64 safeguarding visits since it had begun operating.  He noted that the Esh Group had objected, with criminal damage to their property.  He added that the application was contrary to Policy 31, residential amenity, in terms of potential impact upon residents.  He added it was not potential impact, there had already been a number of incidents already.  He noted that those children being looked after needed the best start in life, with care that meets their needs.  He noted there was no evidence there was suitable care within the letter from L Sowerby inviting residents to a meeting, with no telephone numbers being provided.  He added that when L Sowerby had been asked whether he would have a children’s home near to him he had smirked and replied noting he could ‘put three children in’.  He added the proposed time for a meeting, 4.30pm, had not been a suitable time, and that there had been an offer to hold the meeting at a different time at the local community centre. 

 

Councillor G Hutchinson noted that he would ask the Committee to make a decision on what was best for all parties and refuse the application.

 

The Chair thanked Councillor G Hutchinson and asked S Wilkinson, local resident in objection, to speak in relation to the application, noting a series of slides accompanied her address. 

 

S Wilkinson thanked the Officers and Committee for hearing the concerns of residents.  She reiterated that the issues were not with children, rather Juniper Care and how the planning application had been handled, noting that there had only been communication from Juniper Care subsequent to the Committee deferring the application at their last meeting.  She added there was still little regard for the community, and what was considered shameful comments with residents being called liars by L Sowerby.  She noted there had been 64 visits by Police to the children’s home, relating to safeguarding issues, at all hours, with one child having been removed. 

She explained there had been four different children at the home so far.  She noted that the response from L Sowerby to the MP noted no crimes had occurred relating to the home, however, there was video evidence of one child from the home smashing a shelter belonging to Esh Group, which was criminal damage and had resulted in injury to the child.

 

S Wilkinson added that one resident had been subjected to foul language in their garden, and last Friday a woman, who was with her two-year-old child, had been threatened.  She noted three carers had been aware of the incident, however, had not said anything, therefore the incident had been reported to the Police.  S Wilkinson added that one carer had been seen with three wine bottles, with the young person later had appeared intoxicated.  She asked why such glass bottle were accessible as there appeared to be issues in respect of self-harm.  She added that a 17-year-old should not be allowed to be drunk or vaping, with the issues witnessed having been reported to the Police and the Council’s CYPS as it was not felt to be acceptable standards regarding Ofsted.  S Wilkinson explained that the parking plan was continuously ignored, and there had been a last-ditch clearance of the garage to the property, with similar issues with their property at Ferens Park.

 

S Wilkinson noted that the children deserved better and asked how parents in the area could explain to their children about the noise, ambulances attending the property and self-harm occurring.  She asked why local residents’ children’s lives should be negatively impacted.  She explained that the local community was an established one, with families with children, and was not a suitable location for a children’s home.  She noted residents were pleading with the Committee to protect them and added that Members were not corporate parents to children from outside of County Durham and they had a duty to protect residents’ children and their community.

 

The Chair thanked S Wilkinson and asked L Sowerby, the applicant, to speak in support of his application, noting a series of slides accompanied his address. 

 

L Sowerby noted that at the children’s home there was a highly experienced team that cared for children with a number of issues.  He noted the additional information from Durham Constabulary which highlighted the low number of visits and reasons behind those visits, none relating to crime.  He added that the information provided from Durham Constabulary showed the issues were safeguarding relating to complex needs.

 

L Sowerby noted the law acknowledged that fear of crime was a concern for residents, however, case law and appeals noted such concerns should be reasonable, however the concerns raised were anecdotal, with Police information providing evidence of the actual events. 

He noted the home had not been operating illegally, rather the application for planning permission had been submitted and was on the record.  He added that safeguarding children was the highest priority and there was quality assurance through Regulation 44 and Social Care visits, as well as through other children’s home regulations and standards.  He added that a ‘Durham First’ approached was operated, and the Council CYPS had stated there was a need for these types of children’s homes.

 

L Sowerby noted monthly meetings with Directors, with a willingness to engage with neighbours.  He added the Council’s Highways Section had noted there was sufficient parking to service the property and therefore there was no highways reason to refuse the application.  He referred the Committee to slides highlighting highways issues caused by residents parking cars obstructing footpaths and referred to cars attending the children’s home parking vehicles within the garage and on the driveway.

 

L Sowerby explained there had been no objections from consultees and noted that the concerns raised by residents were anecdotal.  He added that there would be a highly trained team in place, giving a chance for a young person to thrive.  He reiterated there would be external management oversight, with Ofsted and from the Council’s CYPS Team.  He concluded by noting he was speaking on behalf of the vulnerable children being cared for, and praised his staff for their excellent work, noting they were heroes.

 

The Chair thanked L Sowerby and asked the Lawyer (Planning and Highways), Neil Carter to respond to some of the points raised by the speakers.

 

The Lawyer (Planning and Highways) noted the comments from Councillor G Hutchinson in respect of Ofsted regulation, he noted that was a separate statutory regime and outside of planning.  In respect of any restrictive covenant, he noted that was not a material planning consideration, being a private law matter, again outside of planning.  He added that any comments made in terms of the competency of the applicant were not directly relevant as planning was concerned with land use, and the identity of an applicant was largely irrelevant, as was the track record of the applicant, with the application to be looked at purely in land use planning terms.

 

The Chair noted there was representatives from the Police and Office of the Police and Crime Commissioner in attendance to answer questions as required.  He asked Members for their comments and questions in relation to the application.

 

Councillor J Elmer asked if the representative from Durham Constabulary could describe the nature of the 64 visits to the property and why there are required to attend. 

Sergeant Kevin Hall, Durham Constabulary noted he did not have a breakdown of each individual incident, however, they mainly related to safeguarding issues for an individual with complex needs, some needs being of a personal nature.  Councillor J Elmer asked if the visits were more routine types of visits or represented a more problematic issue.  Sergeant K Hall noted issues that could lead to a call out to a property could relate to children being missing from home, crime of varying levels, and wider range of issues that fall within the safeguarding arena.

 

Councillor D Oliver noted paragraph 99 of the agenda papers referred to the Police considering that ‘none of the reported incidents having a direct impact on the wider community’ and asked if it was accurate to say that any incidents were contained within the children’s home and did not have an impact beyond the home.  Sergeant K Hall noted the majority of incidents involved the children’s home and not residents, however, residents may witness or overhear those incidents.

 

Councillor A Bell noted the Lawyer (Planning and Highways) had set out what was material planning issues and what fell outside of planning.  He noted that the Committee had heard from Local Councillors and residents, and from the Police, noting 64 incidents.  He noted that it had been explained that attendance at the property by the Police had been in relation to safeguarding.  He added he was struggling with the application as it was being said that the management of the children’s home was not a planning matter, however, it was leading to ASB which the Committee was being told was an issue.  He noted that 64 call outs demonstrated that something was not right in terms of the number of reports.

 

Councillor L Brown noted she remained unhappy and noted that the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), set out that residents should not be left with the fear of crime and Policy 31 of the CDP referred to residents’ amenity.  She added that while Councillors were corporate parents for looked after children, they also represented all children within County Durham too.  The Chair noted the role of Members as corporate parents to looked after children from County Durham and noted a suggestion that the children care for at the proposed children’s home were from other Local Authority areas.  The Senior Planning Officer noted that the children currently being looked after at the property were not from County Durham, however, the applicant was working with the Council in terms of looking to house children via CYPS once Ofsted accreditation was obtained.  She added that the management plan referred to was conditioned and therefore it must be adhered to, and enforcement action could be taken in respect of any breach of conditions.  She noted the children’s home being used at the current time, and that there was a national shortage of such provision and therefore Local Authorities across the country were placing children ‘out of area’.  The Senior Planning Officer noted the applicant was working towards Ofsted accreditation.

Councillor A Surtees noted there was no dispute in terms of children who needed care, and as regards the care given by the staff at this children’s home.  She noted that Members had to weigh up the balance of the children’s home and children in care against the wider community.  She noted a huge concern in terms of not having had a management plan initially or having sought Ofsted accreditation in advance of opening.  She noted the application had taken 16 months to get to Committee and while appreciating it operated as crisis centre initially, she asked as regards that use and regular children’s home use.  She noted she took her corporate parent responsibility very highly, however, she did not feel comfortable to support the application.  She noted Policy 18 referred to the fear of crime and it was clear, from the comments from residents and the number of Police call outs to the property that there was an impact on community cohesion.  She therefore moved refusal of the application as she felt it was contrary to CDP Policy 18 in respect of the fear of crime and impact upon community cohesion.

 

Councillor K Shaw noted he would second the proposal from Councillor A Surtees, having a similar view on the proposals.  He added that while it was important to have facilities for children in care, there did not appear to be a joined up approach, citing similar issues in his Electoral Division, with a children’s home having been refused permission at Committee, the decision being upheld at the Planning Inspectorate and the children’s home still continuing to operate.  He added that it was a real issue for the Council in terms of how to deal with those types of issue.

 

Councillor J Elmer asked for a view from the Police in terms of ASB in the vicinity of the application, noting 168 incidents per year falling to 86 per year, noting that still seemed high and therefore did the ASB related to the children’s home.  Sergeant K Hall noted that the ASB did not relate to the children’s home and explained that within every issue there were issues with ASB, however, those cases referred to were not specific to this children’s home.

 

Councillor D Oliver noted he had spoken at the last meeting in terms of this application, referring to two similar children’s homes within his Electoral Division, established in 2018 and 2021.  He noted initially there had been similar concerns as raised by residents in terms of this application, however, now the impact was positive, the homes being Ofsted accredited, with three children in each of the two homes.  He explained over the last three to five years they had really absorbed well into the community, with very similar locations to that of the application property, demonstrating that these types of children’s home can be managed well.  He noted Members must based their decisions on evidence and while he had heard anecdotes, Durham Constabulary had not objected to the application, neither had the Council’s CYPS. 

He felt there was a need for a high threshold in terms of objections, as we needed to provide children’s home for our looked after children.  He added he felt the costs of delay and stopping the application would be significant and while not every application could be perfect, he felt there was evidence that the management of the children’s home could be met properly, and indeed with no objections from the Police one could not refuse the application on safety grounds.  Councillor D Oliver explained he looked at the bigger picture in terms of looking after those children in care and therefore he would support the application and moved approval.

 

Councillor M Currah asked the applicant whether it was common practice to set up a children’s home and operate, then to seek formal approval.  The Chair noted L Sowerby could respond.  L Sowerby noted that the landscape in terms of children’s care was very complex and reiterated he had been in contact with the Council in 2022 and he had spoken to Durham Constabulary prior to securing the property.  He added that of the 12-13 months so far, around six months of that had been in terms of that element.  He noted as regards the arrangements required in terms of getting staff in place.  He noted he was a Deputy Headteacher, and his brother worked with young people, and both wanted beautiful homes for their young people.  He noted that if they had not operated as they had done, then there would have been no care for the young person over that period until permissions and accreditations were in place.  Councillor M Currah noted he would have thought that a professional company would have sought permission first, and that if it was not standard industry practice, then he could not support the application.  L Sowerby noted that it was the only route they had, and that it was appropriate and that he wanted Ofsted registration and looked for quality assurance. 

 

Councillor M Currah asked Planning Officers if the approach that had been taken by the applicant was common practice.  The Senior Planning Officer noted that children’s home applications often were retrospective and reiterated that CYPS had noted they would look to make a placement once registered, as there is often a shortage of these types of children’s homes.  She added that was only on the provision that a children’s home was working towards Ofsted registration and planning permission.  She noted it could take time to get staff in place, to then be in a position to be ready to apply for Ofsted registration. 

 

The Chair asked what would happen, should the Committee not grant planning permission, would the children’s home no longer be able to operate or could it continue to operate.  The Senior Planning Officer noted that the applicant would have the opportunity to appeal any refusal decision, and Officer would await the actions from appeal prior to any enforcement action being taken. 

The Chair asked if the permission was ultimately refused, would the Council look to take enforcement action should the children’s home continue to operate.  The Senior Planning Officer noted action would only be taken if an appeal was dismissed.  The Lawyer (Planning and Highways) noted there was potential for enforcement if the application was refused and the children’s home continued to operate.  He noted that the Committee did not have an enforcement remit, rather that was an issue that was delegated to Officers to enforce, where it was expedient to do so.  He noted the appeal mechanism open to the Applicant in respect of an Enforcement Notice would result in the Enforcement Notice being suspended until any appeals process had been concluded.

 

Councillor S Deinali noted that she was finding it very difficult to come to a conclusion on this application.  She noted her experience as a teacher that those with complex needs often display via their behaviour and in some cases it did not matter what management was in place, it was having a supportive community around them that was important.  She noted the figures provided showed some signs of improvement in terms of reducing numbers of incidents, showing that the support for these particular looked after children was effective.  She noted, however, on the other hand there was the impact on the children and their families in the local community.  She reiterated that it was very difficult to weigh up the arguments that had been made on both sides and she would listen further to comments and questions from Members.

 

Councillor D Oliver noted that the report looked at the wider impact on the community and the Police had contact with Juniper Care, not the wider community.  He noted that looking at the wider spectrum of crime, ASB had decreased since the pandemic and issues were elsewhere, not with this particular children’s home.  He added he felt it was clear from the report that there was not an issue here and that if Members rejected the application today, there would be clear difficulties in terms of our looked after children, with them facing uncertainty as regards their future, with such uncertainty creating anxiety for those children.

 

Councillor A Surtees noted that was Councillor D Oliver’s interpretation of the position and while there had not been a physical crime that had impacted the wider community, the visits from the Police to the property and the perception from that had impacted upon the wider community.  She added that it was apparent that there had been an impact upon the community and that she was not fully convinced that it was the right community for this children’s home, based upon the impact over the last 18 months as described.

 

Councillor A Bell asked if the Planning Officer and the applicant could explain why there had not been an application submitted on day one, and that the children’s home had been operating unregulated. 

He added that the permission was only for three years, however, the home had operated for around 18 months with issues as described not giving a lot of confidence for the Committee to approve the application.

 

The Chair noted that Councillor A Surtees had referred to CDP Policy 18, while others had mentioned issues relating to Policy 31.

 

The Senior Planning Officer noted that there was the impact of the Police visiting the site and the impact upon the widen community.  She noted that Officers had considered whether such visits could occur at other regular residential properties, if there was a similarly troubled child living at a property.  She added that therefore Officers were looking for issues that were over and above regular C3 use.  She reiterated that Durham Constabulary had stated issues had been safeguarding related, not ASB and that issues were decreasing since operations had begun.  She added that C2 use would result in a management plan being required, Ofsted registration and was temporary for up to three years, therefore when unregulated there would not be as much control as a regulated children’s home with a planning permission with conditions in place.

 

The Lawyer (Planning and Highways) noted there had been a motion proposed and seconded to refuse the application, with refusal reasons being in terms of the fear of crime and ASB and the impact of this on residents.  He noted that there needed to be evidence of this, and while there was perception, the Police were experts on this area and within the report it was noted they had not objected to the application.  He added he understood that residents disputed that view, however, the Police had stated that the majority of the attendance at the property had related to safeguarding issues and not ASB.  Accordingly, the Lawyer (Planning and Highways) noted he was struggling to see how such a refusal reason could be sustained at appeal.  He added Police figures stated that the number of incidents were reducing, and the Senior Planning Officer had noted a slightly different use from the initial use as a crisis centre and the proposed use now including a management plan.  He noted that Officers had indicated that they felt regularisation of arrangements via a management plan would be acceptable.  The Lawyer (Planning and Highways) noted the Senior Planning Officer had referred to the possibility of a similar level of impact from a C3 use, and that the permission was on a three-year temporary basis and therefore if there were issues in terms of ASB, crime or disorder, then it would be very unlikely that a future application would be supported.  The Lawyer (Planning and Highways) noted that therefore the application was effectively on a trial basis and reiterated that he could not see the refusal reasons put forward being sustained at appeal without evidence from the Police and therefore it was likely costs would be award against the Council.

 

Councillor L Brown thanked the Lawyer (Planning and Highways) and noted that the item had been discussed for over and hour and a half at this point, and appreciated how difficult such applications were to determine.  She noted there were a lot of children’s homes applications coming through and it may be useful if the refusal of an application was considered at appeal, to give Members information when looking at future children’s home applications.

 

Councillor A Surtees noted she had not changed her mind and was still proposing refusal.  Councillor K Shaw noted he disagreed with the view from the Lawyer (Planning and Highways), adding he felt it was clear from residents of the impact upon their quality of life and therefore he was happy to second refusal.

 

In response to the comments from Councillor L Brown, the Senior Planning Officer explained that there had been appeals where such applications had been refused under delegated authority on the grounds of fear of crime.  She added that in those cases, the Inspector had dismissed the Council’s argument and permission had been granted.

 

Councillor D Oliver noted he felt there needed to be a balance, and that going on purely anecdotal evidence alone was a risk.  He added that the evidence from the Police had been black and white, and while the issue was being decided upon, children were facing a year of uncertainty which he felt was greater than the local perception of ASB.  He added he felt the Committee had been given clear advice on the matter by the Lawyer (Planning and Highways).

 

It was proposed by Councillor A Surtees, seconded by Councillor K Shaw that the application be refused and upon a vote being taken it was:

 

RESOLVED:

 

That the application be REFUSED as the proposed change of use to a children's home (Use Class C2) would be likely to result in unacceptable residential amenity impacts arising from an increase in instances of crime and disorder and the fear of such for existing residents, contrary to Policies 18e) and 31 of the County Durham Plan and Parts 8 and 12 of the National Planning Policy Framework.