Agenda item

The application was reported to the Planning Committee because the number of objections received exceeded that which can be considered by Officers, as such the application fell outside of the Scheme of Delegation to Officers.

Officers presented the report and in doing so, drew Members’ attention to the presentation slides on pages 5 to 12 of the Site Plans and Presentations pack.

The application was for 15 Neighbrook Close, Redditch, Worcestershire, B97 5YA and sought the Change of Use from a Dwellinghouse (Use Class C3) to a Children's Care Home (Use Class C2).

The proposed Children’s Care Home would be for Children between 8 and 17 years of age who would be identified as having emotional and behavioural difficulties or other specific needs. It was further detailed that no more than 3 children would be resident at any one time which would be secured under Condition 3.

There would also be 24-hour caregivers working on site who would be working in a shift pattern. It was detailed that there would be 3 caregivers on site for 1-2-1 care and a manager during the day.

There would be a further 2 parking spaces provided by the development, no other alterations would be made to the structure or external appearance of the property. It was further clarified that the main consideration for Members was the Change of Use from C3 to C2.

No objections had been received from consultees, which included Worcestershire County Council, Highways (County Highways).

At the invitation of the Chair the following addressed the committee under the public speaking section of the meeting

• Matt Bluck, Local Resident in opposition (4 minutes)
• John Williams, Local Resident in opposition (4 minutes)
• Statement against the application read out on behalf of Adam Joseph, Local resident, by Officers (2 minutes)
• Bradley Hartles, Applicant’s Agent and Issha Barr, Children’s Care Home Manager in support (10 minutes shared)

The following was then clarified by Officers after questions from Members.

• That 24 letters were sent to nearby properties as part of the consultation process which was above the statutory requirement of only informing adjacent properties.
• That 4 parking spaces would be provided. It was recognised that there would be handover periods where there may be more carers on site. However, this was deemed not to be a suitable reason to refuse the application.
• There was expected to be no impact on local wildlife which included bats. Compliance with the wildlife and countryside act would fall to the developer and an informative could be added to this effect. No protected species report was required as part of the application
• The 24-hour caregivers were expected to be waking night shifts as detailed on page 16 of the main agenda pack

Members then debated the application which officers had recommended for approval.

Although Members sympathised with the residents and the impact that they would experience as part of the development, they saw no material planning reason to refuse the application. Members expressed the opinion that although they may not entirely agree with the application, without a valid objection from suitable Consultees such as the County Highways, nor a material planning reason to refuse, they should support the application. Therefore, on being put to the vote it was

RESOLVED that

having had regard to the development plan and to all other material

considerations, planning permission be GRANTED subject to the Conditions as outlined on page 21 of the Public Reports pack and subject to an informative highlighting applicant’s responsibilities under the Wildlife and Countryside Act