Issue - meetings

            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  ...  view the full minutes text for item 158