Agenda item

REFUSED

Change of use of a single dwelling house (C3a) to residential care home (C2) as a children’s care home.

In response to Members’ questions the Planning Officer advised that:

-  Two overnight staff would be on duty 24/7, with an additional manager on site between 9am and 5pm Monday to Friday.

-  Childrens’ Services were in support as Bromley does need residential care providers/facilities, but the application was still subject to Ofsted approval.

-  It would be up to the Ofsted inspection, report etc whether it was felt additional bathroom facilities were required.

-  The Borough could limit the current number of cared-for children to three, but the Applicants could apply to increase the number in the future.

-  Despite the low PTAL rating (1b), Planning Officers felt the application site was still near enough to public transport.

-  There are four bedrooms for three children and two staff, but the night staff would not be sleeping at the property.

An oral representation in objection to the application was received from a neighbour, representing the views of eighty residents on the Marlings Park Estate. Members heard that neighbours understood the need for a children’s care home, but the suitability of the Applicant’s company was in question as they had not run such a facility before. Concerns were raised in that the property had previously been rented to criminals and criminal activity had taken place at the location. The Speaker informed Members of the poor access to public transport and the lack of space on the driveway and road for additional vehicles. With staff arriving and departing, deliveries etc the increase in traffic and trips would increase the likelihood of accidents. The negative impact on neighbouring properties of having the care home was also raised.

An oral representation in support of the application was then received from the Children’s Care Home Manager. Members were informed that the Application Company, Bithoms, had been operating since 1999 and they were now looking to make an impact on caring for younger children with the provision of this home for residential care. The plan was to guide and prepare the children for the future through teaching various life skills. Travel training would be part of the teaching, together with budgeting, cooking etc. The Speaker confirmed that the Company/site would have to be approved by Ofsted and would abide by Ofsted rules, regulations etc.

In response to Members’ questions, the Speaker stated that:

-  The driveway has space for two cars, and all deliveries would be carefully managed and organised.

-  Children would go through a referral process and those with similar needs would be given a place at the home. It was important to ensure staff were able to manage the children and any extra provision and support would be in place if required.

-  The bedroom with a door directly onto the garden would not be used for children.

-  The storeroom may be used as a quiet room or activity room in the future.

-  Bithoms is registered with the Care Quality Commission (CQC) as they deal with social care for adults. The only body the proposed Children’s Care Home has to satisfy is Ofsted.

-  Bithoms took on renting the property as a new location for a Children’s Care Home and has no connection or contacts with the previous tenants and the criminal activity that took place.

-  The children would benefit from living in a suburban environment and being given almost a ‘normal’ family life, with the chance to establish relationships and hopefully participate in mainstream schooling.

-  The existing trees and vegetation would be retained. The company understood the importance of maximising all areas available to teach the children.

An oral representation was given by Visiting Ward Member, Councillor Price, who confirmed to Members that the application had been discussed by the St Paul’s Cray Councillors, together with Councillors from Chislehurst Ward. Members heard of the following issues and concerns with the application:

-  Concerns regarding the appropriateness of the Company, the location and history of the property.

-  There had been 84 objections to the application with many referring to the importance surrounding the need to protect vulnerable children.

-  The Company’s website only mentions caring for the elderly and not for children.

-  It is a high-risk option for the Council and is the Company just using this opportunity to make profit?

-  The location has a low PTAL rating and is inconveniently located for access to public transport, thus reducing the options for children to develop independence.

-  Taking into account the property’s recent history, it is not a suitable location for a children’s home.

A written representation in objection to the application had been received from Ward Member, Councillor Hitchins, and had been circulated and tabled for Members. Committee Member, Cllr Harris, also read out the statement at the meeting.

In response to a Member’s question regarding any restrictive covenants in place for the property, the Planning Officer confirmed that it was a civil matter and not a planning consideration.

During discussions Members agreed that although there is a strong need for this type of property that can provide residential care for children, this was the wrong property and location for this proposal. Concerns were raised regarding the lack of suitable play areas at the property, the lack of security, the standard of the proposed site and poor nearby transport availability. Members also agreed that if the Borough is housing children in such care homes then there is the need to be 100% certain that they are housed in suitable locations with suitable providers.

Members having considered the Report, objections and representations RESOLVED that the APPLICATION BE REFUSED for the following reason:

The change of use from dwellinghouse (Class C3) to supported care for three children (Class C2)  would result in over-intensive use of the site which has a limited size rear garden to serve the intended use, which is inconveniently located for transport links and public services and which would be out of keeping with the residential character of the area, resulting in increased noise and disturbance with associated impact on the residential amenities of neighbouring properties, thereby contrary to policies H12 and T4 of the London Plan and Policies 11, 37 and 44 of the Bromley Local Plan.