Agenda item

The Application had been brought to the Planning Committee for consideration at the request of Councillor K. J. May, Ward Councillor.

Officers presented the report and presentation slides, as detailed on pages 77 to 84 of the main agenda pack; and in doing so, highlighted that the application was for a change of use of a dwelling house (C3) to a residential children's home (C2) for up to three children with alternations to the site access.

The proposed children's home would provide long-term care for 8- to 17-year-olds, who would be educated offsite at school. There would be three staff on site 24/7 with a manager present during the day.

The dwelling was a detached four-bedroom property in a rural location not within walking distance of shops and amenities; therefore, the site was deemed to be in an unsustainable location. The parking plan proposed six car parking spaces and there was an increase in the existing access from 3.2 m to 5 m. No internal or external alterations to the building were proposed as part of the scheme.

36 letters of objection had been received concerning the scheme which included the Parish Council. The main issues for objection were the location, parking, principle of development, residential amenity and the impact on the surrounding highway network.

Officers noted that Condition 3 restricted the scheme to only three children and further restricted the C2 use to only a children's care home. Therefore, no other C2 use could be used without a further planning application being submitted.

At the invitation of the Chairman and in line with the Councils’ public speaking policy, the following individuals addressed the Committee.

In Objection

• Spencer Jenkins, Local Resident, Comments read out by Officers (1.5 Minutes)
• Donna Westwood, Local Resident, Comments read out by Officers (1.5 Minutes)
• Ian Saddler, on behalf of Belbroughton & Fairfield Parish Council (3 Minutes)
• Councillor S. Nock, Ward Member (3 Minutes)

In support

• Steve Travis, the Applicant’s Planning Agent (3 Minutes)

Members then debated the application, during which a number of points were clarified by Officers.

• That a previous certificate of Lawfulness application had been refused. This was on the grounds that a C2 class usage (Children’s home) was not the same as a C3 class usage (dwellinghouse) and that a planning application was required for that change.
• A care home provider needed to demonstrate that the proposed location was suitable and appropriately placed to safeguard children. This assessment would be undertaken by Ofsted and was not a planning consideration.

Members expressed an opinion that they did not consider how a care home was fundamentally different from a dwelling when considering that a dwelling could also have four cars in it with a similar number of residents and impact on the highway network. Members expressed the same opinion regarding the sustainability of the location; therefore, they did not consider those to be suitable reasons to refuse the application.

Members questioned that Officers had taken the view that the employment travel plan requested by County Highways was unreasonable due to the small scale of proposal. Members commented that Bromsgrove had a climate emergency agenda and that there was a bus stop within a couple of hundred meters from the site which could be used, expressing the opinion that the cost would be negligible to the applicant and therefore would be a reasonable condition. Members further clarified that it was an employment travel plan they were proposing and not in relation to the children.

Officers clarified in terms of the proportionality of a Condition, given the scale of the proposal and the fallback position of the dwelling, it would be onerous in terms of the tests they had to apply with respect to imposing Conditions, therefore they had taken the view not to impose an Employment Travel Plan on the application. However, Officers noted that it was within Members discretion to impose Conditions, having taken a different view.

Councillor A. Bailes proposed an amendment to the recommendation to include an Employment Travel Plan; the amendment was seconded by Councillor S. R. Peters.

On being put to the vote, with the recommendation including the amendment, as detailed in the preamble above, it was:

RESOLVED that having had regard to the development plan and to all other material considerations, the application be approved subject to the Conditions as detailed on pages 14 to 16 of the main agenda pack , and the amendment as detailed in the preamble above.