Children’s home condition change at 5 Saint Bedes Park, Sunderland

What was proposed

The application sought to change condition 6 so the detailed management plan would be approved before occupation instead of within three months.

“Proposal: Variation of condition 6 (Detailed Management Plan) attached to 23/02476/FUL (Change of use of property at 5 Saint Bedes Park from a dwelling (Use Class C3) to a children's home (Use Class C2), and associated shared use of residential garden) to amend the wording of condition 6 so as to change the timing trigger for submission from 3 months to prior to occupation of the development.”

“This application relates to the variation of condition 6 (Detailed Management Plan) attached to previous planning permission ref. 23/02476/FUL to allow for amendment to the associated timing trigger of which, as approved, required submission in writing to the Local Planning Authority of the requisite management plan within 3 months of the date stated on the decision notice (where, for the avoidance of doubt, the decision notice was dated 05/08/2024).”

Officer report

The site and approved use

The proposal concerns changing a dwelling into a children’s home with shared use of the residential garden, while leaving the approved development otherwise unchanged.

“The development approved under planning permission ref. 23/02476/FUL otherwise remains unchanged in all other respects.”

Officer report

Officers’ recommendation

Officers recommended approval because the change affected only the timing trigger, did not alter the permission’s development description, and remained acceptable.

“Given the nature of the proposed change, which is solely incidental to the timing trigger of the required management plan, it is considered prudent to consider the scope of amendments to a planning permission able to be made by applications submitted under s73 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended).”

“At present, however, it remains the case that s73 of the Act cannot be used to vary the operative part of a planning permission, i.e. the scope of development set out in the description of the approval. The proposed variation would not alter nor conflict with the operative part of the extant planning permission.”

Officer report

Who spoke

Two residents spoke against the application, while the applicant and the care provider spoke in support.

What was discussed

Opposing speakers questioned the management plan, placements, vulnerability, local pressures and safeguarding; supporters said safeguards and the development remained unchanged.

“[name withheld] stated that he had an issue with the reference of working with Together for Children as having made a number of Freedom of Information requests, TfC had confirmed they had no plans to make any placements here and no other local authorities had confirmed placements.”

“[name withheld] also advised that the area around the property was known for substance misuse and the Management Plan failed to meet the needs of the people and created safeguarding issues.”

Minutes

The committee vote

The Chairperson put the officers’ recommendation to the committee, which approved the application subject to the stated conditions.

“There being no questions or comments from Members, the Chairperson put the Officers recommendation, as set out in the report to the Committee. it was:-”

“RESOLVED that Members APPROVED, subject to conditions contained within the report.”

Minutes