Children's home at 9 Clive Road, Rochester

The proposed change

The application sought to change an existing dwellinghouse from Class C3 to a children’s home under Class C2.

“The Senior Planner outlined the application in detail for the change of use of existing dwellinghouse (Class C3) to children's home (Class C2).”

Minutes

The property and surroundings

The property was described as a family home with limited internal and external space, a small garden and a constrained cul-de-sac location.

“She supported the recommendation for refusal. The previous unauthorised children's home had not been commissioned by the Council and had experienced significant issues. • This was fundamentally a family home and not suitable for the proposed use. It lacked the amenities and facilities for young people with complex needs. The site was also not close to amenities that young people could benefit from. • The internal and external space was inadequate.”

“This record is available on our website – www.medway.gov.uk • This proposal was not comparable to a typical family dwelling. • The level and pattern of movements associated with the use were materially different from those of a normal family home. • At 112m², the property fell below the size referenced in the applicant's justification, which concluded that the property would be a viable family home.”

Minutes

Earlier use and experience

A previous unauthorised children’s home had experienced significant issues, including antisocial behaviour and concerns within the community.

“She stated that Ward Councillors, along with Clive Road residents, had made diligent and thoughtful representations. Their objections were not based on opposition to caring for young people, but were informed by previous experience, when poor management had led to antisocial behaviour and significant concerns within the community. • The property had already been extended and altered, yet it remained constrained.”

Minutes

Who addressed the committee

Two ward councillors addressed the committee and raised concerns about the property, its location and the proposed intensity of use.

The committee’s discussion

Members considered the report’s reasoning and the points raised by the ward councillors.

“The Committee discussed the planning application noting the reasoning within the report and the points raised by the Ward Councillors.”

Minutes

The committee’s decision

The application was refused for the report’s stated reason, with the plan reference corrected from T8 to T4.

“The Chief Planning Officer advised that there was an error in the reasons for refusal. The reason referred to ‘T8’ of the emerging Plan, and should read ‘T4’. It was also noted that the report erroneously referenced Gillingham.”

“REFUSED for the reason as set out in the report subject to reference to ‘T8’ being amended to read ‘T4’.”

Minutes