Respite care home at 5 Kings Head Court, Colchester

What was proposed

The application sought to remove the temporary condition on a change from a dwelling to a respite care facility for up to two young people.

“Description of the Proposal 4.1 The application seeks the removal of condition 1 for temporary 2 year planning permission, see below, for the change of use of the dwelling house from C3 to C2 to provide a respite care facility to support up to two young people aged 12 to 18 to allow their primary carers to take a break from their responsibilities.”

“The period of this permission, in so far as it relates to the use hereby permitted, shall expire on 20th December 2026. On this date the lawful use of the building and the wider site to which this permission relates shall revert to use Class C3 (Dwellinghouse), unless otherwise agreed, in writing, by the Local Planning Authority.”

Officer report

The site and its setting

The site contains a bungalow in a residential backland development of five bungalows, surrounded by two-storey homes.

“Site Description and Context 3.1 The application site contains a bungalow in residential use (Use Class C3) as an independent dwellinghouse. The application site is located within Colchester, and the area comprises a backland development of five Bungalows that are surrounded by semi-detached and terraced two storey residential dwellings. The site does not lie within a Conservation Area, and no Listed Buildings will be affected by the proposal.”

Officer report

Earlier decisions

A previous application approved the respite care facility temporarily, while an earlier lawful development certificate application was refused.

“Relevant Planning History 6.1 241083 Lawful Development Certificate Application for a Lawful Development Certificate for Proposed use as a residential care home. Refuse – 10/07/2024”

“241456 Full Respite care facility to support up to two young people aged 12 to 18 to allow primary carers a break. Approve Conditional - 20/12/2024”

Officer report

Why officers supported it

Officers considered the use would meet a local respite care need without significant harm to residential amenity, parking or highway safety.

“Local Plan Policy DM22 covers the provision of parking and refers to the adopted County Council parking standards. These are maximum standards for commercial uses. Policy DM15 states that all development should create a safe environment and Policy DM21 provides that all development should be safely accessible. With regard to parking provision, two spaces are provided on the site.”

“Given that the Highway Authority has not raised an objection, that the site is in a sustainable location and has good access to public transport, it is therefore considered an adequate level of parking provision would be provided for the use of the property as a C2 respite care facility, with the numbers of cares and staff controlled by condition, which is not the case with the existing C3 residential use.”

Officer report

What neighbours raised

Objections concerned access being blocked, contractor parking, amenity, antisocial behaviour, the temporary permission and alleged restrictive covenants.

“Representations from Notified Parties 10.1 The application resulted in a number of notifications to interested third parties including neighbouring properties. The full text of all of the representations received is available to view on the Council’s website. However, a summary of the material considerations is given below.”

“- Unable to assess the impact of the proposed change of use which was the purpose of the temporary permission. - Contractor parking blocking access road and turning head. - Impacts to amenity - Antisocial behavior - Restrictive covenants for no commercial use should take place…”

Officer report

Who spoke

The applicant spoke about adaptations and community commitments, while a visiting councillor opposed the location because of access and safety concerns.

Members’ discussion

Members considered turning space, wheelchair access, the waste plan, covenants, neighbour support and the balance between care needs and local impacts.

“The Chair invited Members of the Committee to ask questions and discuss the proposal. Members who had gone on the site visit found it helpful in gaining a better understanding of the issues and suggested that it might be possible to lose some of the greenage to make more room for turning, as well as better wheelchair access. They discussed the importance of balancing the need for homes for children with special needs with the impact on neighbours.”

Minutes

The committee vote

The Committee approved the application as recommended, with ten members voting for and one abstaining.

“A proposal to accept the application as per the recommendation with additional conditions regarding hardstanding and a revised Management Plan was seconded.”

“RESOLVED that (TEN voted FOR, ONE ABSTAINED from voting.): the application for Planning Permission be approved subject to the following conditions:”

Minutes

The decision

Planning permission was approved subject to the reported conditions and additional requirements for turning space and neighbour liaison.

“The Planning Permission to be subject to the conditions and informatives set out in the report before the Committee and subject to:”

Minutes

Additional conditions

The added conditions require enlarged hardstanding to remain clear for turning and a revised management plan covering neighbour contact and complaints.

“Condition to require a plan to show additional hardstanding to enlarge the turning area (to be implemented as agreed prior to first occupation and to remain clear for use as a turning area free of parking thereafter) • Condition to secure revised Management Plan (to include details of how neighbouring residents can liaise with the operator and the mechanisms for any complaints, disputes, and/or conflict resolution).”

Minutes