Agenda item

RECOMMENDATION: Conditional approval

Michael Firmager and Bill Soane re-entered the room.

Proposal: Full application for change of use from a residential dwelling house to children’s home.

Applicant: Wokingham Borough Council

The Committee considered a report about this application, set out in agenda pages 71 to 86.

The Committee were advised that updates contained within the Supplementary Planning Agenda included:

·         Removal of condition 4;

·         Minor amendment of the wording of conditions 1 to 3.

Nathan Whitley, on behalf of the applicant, spoke in support of the application. Nathan stated that the proposal would facilitate one member of staff and a maximum of two children to live in the property. The home would only accommodate one child, who was already in situ, unless there was an emergency which required a second child to be accommodated for a short period of time. Nathan added that at present, some children in the Borough were placed many miles away from their family, which had huge impacts on their wellbeing whilst also having a significant financial cost associated. Children often felt isolation and abandonment when placed far away from their families, and provision of this facility would allow a child, or a maximum of two, to be placed and cared for locally. Nathan added that it was difficult to support the health and wellbeing needs of children who were placed out of Borough. Nathan stated that this application was supported by CP2, whilst the property would be supported by an assistant manager solely for this property and a general manager who would oversee three total properties. Nathan confirmed that the home would be staffed twenty-four hours per day, whilst OFSTED would confirm the occupancy levels. Nathan concluded by confirming that the property was already accommodating the child in situ, and the application would not change current staffing levels.

Stephen Newton, Ward Member, spoke in objection to the application. Stephen stated that he was a foster carer, and therefore had first hand experience in supporting vulnerable children. Stephen added that whilst he supported the premise of this application there were clear differences between the planning application and the assurances he had been given by Children’s Services Officers. Whilst these conversations had given assurances of one child being accommodated at the property, the documentation within the agenda pack allowed for up to two children and the Supplementary Planning Agenda removed any reference to occupancy numbers. Stephen stated that nearly all looked after children were impacted by trauma, and may at times be noisy. With regards to parking, Stephen raised concern that the on-street parking situation was already very busy, and the accommodation of two children could worsen this via additional visitors. In the event of approval of this application, Stephen asked that should two children be accommodated on a long-term basis then conditions be applied to provide three car parking spaces and installation of soundproofing or sufficient community engagement to mitigate noise concerns.

Bill Soane queried reference to vulnerable adults in condition 4, and commented that it may be possible for side by side parking could be provided in place of tandem parking. James Fuller, case officer, confirmed that condition 4 and therefore the reference to vulnerable adults had been removed in the Supplementary Planning Agenda.

Michael Firmager sought additional detail regarding parking provision, and queried whether the site would be staffed round the clock. Jamed Fuller confirmed that highways officers had assessed the application and had not requested that an additional space be provided. Connor Corrigan, Head of Strategic Development, stated that there was potential to accommodate three cars parking side by side. James Fuller confirmed that the site would be staffed round the clock.

David Cornish voiced his frustration that the Ward Member had been told one version of occupancy levels, whilst the agenda and subsequent Supplementary Planning Agenda had amended those assurances two-fold. David asked that such numbers be confirmed in advance of agenda publication in future.

Andrew Mickleburgh queried whether the property could accommodate individuals up to the age of 18 or also care leavers. Nathan Whitley confirmed that the property would only be occupied to children aged 17 and below unless further permission was arranged to arrange their transition.

Andrew Mickleburgh proposed that additional conditions be added, requiring the applicant to submit details outlining how three cars could be accommodated on-site, requiring the applicant to monitor noise levels and review mitigation measures to limit impact on neighbours, and requiring the applicant to ensure ongoing engagement with the local community to ensure the success of the home.

After some discussion and advice from officers, Andrew Mickleburgh was content to propose the first suggestion as a condition and the following two as informatives.

Andrew Mickleburgh proposed that the application be approved in line with the officer recommendation, Supplementary Planning Agenda, additional condition requiring the applicant to submit details outlining how three cars could be accommodated on-site as resolved by the Committee, and additional informatives asking the applicant to monitor noise levels and review mitigation measures to limit impact on neighbours and recommending the applicant ensure ongoing engagement with the local community to ensure the success of the home as resolved by the Committee. This was seconded by Anthony Skuse.

RESOLVED That application 231453 be approved, subject to conditions and informatives as set out in agenda pages 79 to 80, removal of condition 4 and minor amendment to the wording of conditions 1 to 3 as set out in the Supplementary Planning Agenda, additional condition requiring the applicant to submit details outlining how three cars could be accommodated on-site as resolved by the Committee, and additional informatives asking the applicant to monitor noise levels and review mitigation measures to limit impact on neighbours and recommending the applicant ensure ongoing engagement with the local community to ensure the success of the home as resolved by the Committee.