Agenda item

            That planning permission be refused because of the perceived detrimental impact of the use on residential amenity and because it was in close proximity to schools. 

The Committee considered the report of the Chief Officer (Planning and Environment) in respect of this application which had been the subject of a site visit on 21^st March 2016.  The usual consultations had been undertaken and the responses received detailed in the report.  Additional comments received since the preparation of the report were circulated at the meeting. 

            The officer detailed the background to the report and explained that the main issues for consideration included the principle of development, highway implications, and effects upon the amenities of adjoining residents and upon existing health facilities in the area. 

            Mrs. Y. Bird spoke against the application on behalf of residents in neighbouring properties.  She expressed significant concerns raised by herself and her neighbours which she felt should be taken account of when considering the application.  She said that this was an extremely complex issue and she felt that there had been a lack of clarification and transparency about the intended users of the facility and the impact that this would have on the area.  It was felt that the proposed small group residential children’s home could have a negative effect on the neighbourhood which could have long lasting detrimental effect.  Many residents had moved to the area because it was a quiet location and Mrs. Bird referred to the lack of consultation and reassurance provided as part of the application.  The third concern related to the proposed use of the building which Mrs. Bird felt had not been made clear.   

            Mr. J. O’Leary, the applicant, spoke in support of the application.  He thanked the officer for the positive recommendation in the report and provided clarity for the committee of the comments in the late observations.  He explained that there were only three types of registration for such facilities, which he detailed, and initially it had been intended that the home would be for young people subject to Child Sexual Exploitation but following a meeting with officers, it was preferred that the registration was not specialised.  It was intended to close the facility in Flint if this application was approved.  On the issue of the impact on the wider community, he said there would be high staffing levels and it was not intended that there would be any impact on the community and added that the applicant operated nine other homes and there had not been any neighbour issues.  This facility would replicate a family environment and said that one of the issues that had to combatted was the exclusion of looked after children and it was hoped that the community at large would be supportive of the need to safeguard the wellbeing of these children. 

            Councillor Gareth Roberts proposed refusal of the application, against officer recommendation, which was duly seconded.  He said that the site was in a residential area and backed on to two primary schools and overlooked a smaller children’s play area.  Any perceived threat would inhibit the use of the play area and the children would have to use another play area which was up two flights of stairs.  He felt that there was no need for such a facility in the County which he felt would cater for those who lived outside the area and the Council would have no control over who stayed there.  The applicant stated it would be for five teenage girls but if approved any person with any behavioural problem could stay there.  The perception of risk was a material planning consideration and Councillor Roberts added that the site was in an inappropriate location for such a facility.  On the comments in the late observations, he shared the concerns raised by the Children’s & Workforce Services Manager. 

            Councillor Chris Bithell said it was inevitable that there was a need for these children to be cared for and dealt with but he was not sure if all that had been said was a material planning consideration.  He spoke of a children’s home that had previously been in Mold and the problems that had been experienced even though assurances had been given that there would not be any issues.  He said that there had been a high level of supervision at the facility but there had been no control and it resulted in problems for local people.  There was no evidence of whether the homes had operated well elsewhere and he felt that there were too many unknowns and insufficient evidence and therefore agreed that the application should be refused.  Councillor Derek Butler spoke of his wife who had worked with those who required specialist care.  He felt that there were no planning grounds to refuse the application apart from the possible disruptive nature of the individuals who would live in the children’s home but suggested that it may be in the incorrect location.  Councillor Richard Jones said that there was a need to integrate the young people into society and felt that it was sited in the correct location and added that he could see no reason to refuse the application. 

            Councillor Marion Bateman queried whether the guest house had been a going concern.  Councillor Nancy Matthews commented that if it had remained as a guest house, local residents could not choose the guests that stayed there and spoke of ‘deprivation of liberty’ and whether the unit would be secure or operating with more freedom for its residents.  Councillor Richard Lloyd said that the screening had been good except for one area and raised concern that the school playing area was very close and as noise could clearly be heard from the school, then the children in the playground would hear any noises from the children’s home.  He felt that the facility would not be in the correct location and Councillor David Cox concurred.  He commented on the proposal which was solely for a change of use and felt that advice needed to be sought on a direction for the Committee and raised concern that such a decision was not in the Committee’s remit. 

            The Housing & Planning Solicitor advised that the fear of the impact of a use of land on the surrounding area was capable of being a material planning consideration depending on the particular circumstances; the officer had treated it as such in his report but had given limited weight to it in light of the supervision arrangements. 

            Councillor Neville Phillips queried whether the application could be deferred to receive more information.  The Chief Officer (Planning and Environment) sought clarification on the details that the Committee felt it would need to make a decision.  Councillor Marion Bateman referred to the report where it was indicated that further discussions with the applicant were to be held and would be reported as late observations to the committee; she did not feel that Members had received information on those discussions.    Councillor Richard Jones referred to page 209 where it was reported that this property would replace the facility in Flint so felt that if there had not been any complaints reported at that facility, then it could be assumed that there would not be any complaints as part of this proposal. 

            In response to the comments made, the Development Manager appreciated that this was a difficult decision for the Committee to make.  He said that there were other issues such as health facilities but said that from a planning perspective it was a straight forward application for a change of use which was to provide a residential facility with an element of care.  It was proposed that the first use was for a small scale intensive care unit but Members needed to be aware that it could develop into a similar type of facility without the need for a further planning permission.  It had been said that the facility should not be in a residential area but Mr. O’Leary had spoken of the need to provide the residents with a home base to recuperate and on this basis a residential area was appropriate.  From a planning perspective officers believed that the controls were in place particularly by limiting the number of residents, hence the recommendation of approval.   

            In summing up, Councillor Roberts spoke of the perception of risk which he felt was a material consideration.  He was not against care facilities and in referring to the restriction to five residents, he spoke of a facility in Holywell with five residents and the issues and problems that had occurred there.  He said that there were people with real needs and behavioural problems with challenging issues but he reminded members that it overlooked a small children’s play area and he felt that there was no alternative but to refuse the application. 

            On being put to the vote, the proposal to refuse the application, against officer recommendation, was CARRIED.  Councillor Nancy Matthews asked that her abstention from voting be recorded in the minutes.     

            RESOLVED:

            That planning permission be refused because of the perceived detrimental impact of the use on residential amenity and because it was in close proximity to schools.