Residential children’s home at 12 Carisbrooke Avenue, Beeston

What was proposed

The application sought to change a dwelling into a two-place residential children’s home, with two carers providing round-the-clock cover and no physical alterations.

“The application is brought to the Committee at request of Councillor Steve Carr. Purpose of the Report 1.1 The application seeks planning permission to change the use of the property from residential (C3) to a residential children’s home (C2). Recommendation The Committee is asked to RESOLVE that planning permission be granted subject to conditions outlined in the appendix. 3.”

“The application seeks planning permission to change the use of the property from residential (Class 3) to a residential children’s home (C2). The type of care will be the provision of care for two young persons aged between 5 to 17 years old who have behaviour, social and emotional needs, learning difficulties and/or sensory impairment.”

Officer report

The site and surroundings

The site is a semi-detached two-storey house in a residential cul-de-sac, with adjoining homes, a rear garden and an outbuilding.

“The dwelling is a semi-detached two storey house located in a cul-de sac location. To the front there is a small paved area . The property has a single storey rear extension, loft conversion with rear dormer and a large outbuilding to the rear.”

“To the south west is located 10 Carisbrooke Avenue, a semi-attached two storey dwelling. This property has a single storey rear extension and the common rear boundary is formed by a 1.8m high fence.”

Officer report

Earlier planning history

Permission was granted in 2020 for a rear extension and dormer, and prior approval was not required for a further rear extension.

“Planning permission was granted on 1 June 2020 under reference 20/00077/FUL to construct a single storey rear extension and to install a dormer to the rear. Prior Approval was not required to construct a single storey rear extension, extending beyond the rear wall by 6m under reference 20/00480/PNH.”

Officer report

What officers recommended

Officers recommended approval, considering the residential use, care accommodation benefits and proposed controls outweighed potential impacts on neighbours.

“The benefits of the proposal are that the care home would enable more targeted service provision to the benefit of the users of the facility and to the benefit of the wider community, and would enable the retention of a residential use, which could be converted back to a dwelling should there be a demand in the future, without recourse to major alterations.”

“On balance. It is considered that, for the reasons above, the benefits of the proposed development would outweigh any potential negative impact and that planning permission should be granted.”

Officer report

Consultation responses

Highways raised parking concerns, Environmental Health accepted the noise plan, and Children and Families expressed caution about information and local saturation.

“Prior to the use of the property being used as a residential children’s home, a noise management plan shall be submitted and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The noise management plan must be implemented in full for the lifetime of the use thereafter. For the avoidance of doubt the noise management plan shall include;”

“Nottinghamshire unlike other parts of the UK is moving towards a point of saturation of children’s homes whilst simultaneously not being able to meet the needs of all our children and young people. This is because there has long been a focus on the occupancy of children’s home placements rather than the specific needs of our children and young people. Nottinghamshire require specialist homes who are able to support children and young people with complex needs.”

Officer report

What neighbours said

Three objections raised concerns about notification, parking, traffic, noise, disturbance, privacy, antisocial behaviour, suitability and property values.

“Five neighbours either adjoining or adjacent to the site were consulted and a site notice was posted on Carisbrooke Avenue to inform neighbouring properties about the change of use. Three responses were received raising objections for the following reasons: • Late notification, location of site notice and lack of notice on the property • Cumulative impact on traffic, parking and residential character of the area • Potential increase on existing levels of occupancy and…”

Officer report

Who spoke

No public speakers addressed the committee.

What members debated

Members considered the information insufficient, questioned engagement with Children’s Commissioning, and raised further concern about parking.

“The Committee opened the debate, which covered the information provided by the applicant was not sufficient to make a decision to approve the application. Concern was raised that the applicant did not appear to have engaged with Nottinghamshire County Council Children’s Commissioning Team.”

“Further concern was raised regarding the lack of parking.”

Minutes

The committee’s decision

The committee refused permission because the information did not justify that parking and neighbouring amenity would avoid adverse impacts.

“RESOLVED that the Planning permission be refused due to the lack of information provided, fails to justify that this development would not have an adverse impact on the parking issues within the locality and the amenity of neighbouring properties. Therefore, the application is contrary to policies 10 of the Aligned Core Strategy (2014) and 17 of the Part 2 Local Plan.”

“The Council has acted positively and proactively in the determination of this application by working to obtain sufficient information available to the Local Planning Authority to assess the proposal, but further information was not forthcoming.”

Minutes