Children's care home at 8 Ingress Gardens, Greenhithe

What was proposed

The application sought to change a dwelling into a children’s care home for up to two children aged 10 to 17.

“(6) Planning permission is sought for the change of use from a single dwellinghouse (C3 use class) to a children's care home (C2 use class). The site would provide accommodation for up to 2 children between the ages of 10-17.”

“(8) The planning statement advises that staffing levels will be determined based on risk assessments tailored to the needs of the specific children at the home. If the children are considered to require less supervision then there would be 2 staff members on site at all times. If the children would require more supervision due to their particular needs or younger age, then an additional staff member would be assigned i.e. 3 staff on site at all times.”

Officer report

The site and its setting

The site is a two-storey end-of-terrace house in a mainly residential area, with no dedicated parking space and a modest rear garden.

“(2) The property is a 2-storey, end of terrace house with a small frontage and modest paved rear garden. Access to the dwelling is via shared walkways to the south east of the site. Its front (principal) elevation faces north towards a steep grass bank which rises up by some 3 metres towards Knockhall Road. The dwelling has 3 bedrooms and a family bathroom at first floor level, a large reception room, kitchen, rear conservatory, front porch and downstairs WC.”

“(3) The site area is approximately 120sqm. There is a gate within the garden wall which forms the side (east) boundary providing access to the rear garden. The land about the property, including the access paths to the front and rear, are owned by Dartford Borough Council (DBC). The houses in Ingress Gardens were previously owned by DBC but many of the houses are now privately owned, including the application site.”

Officer report

Site history

The property was built in the 1960s, and a conservatory was added in the 1990s.

“(11) The property was built in the 1960s and a conservatory was erected in the 1990s.”

Officer report

What officers recommended

Officers recommended approval because the modest use would not cause significant harm to neighbours, parking or highway safety, subject to conditions.

“(57) It is considered that the proposed change of use of the residential dwelling (Class C3) to a care home for children (Class C2) would result in no significant harm to the amenities of neighbouring properties, harmful parking pressures or highway safety/amenity concerns. The scale of the children's home would be modest and would not result in an over-intensive use in this residential area in my view.”

“Grant planning permission for the reasons set out above and subject to the conditions set out below.”

Officer report

Responses from organisations

The town council did not object but raised parking concerns, while other consultees gave security, housing standards and highway comments.

“(13) Swanscombe and Greenhithe Town Council do not object to the application, but they raise concerns in relation to the availability of parking for both staff and visitors to the site.”

“(14) Private Housing advise that the occupation of the property as a C2 children's home may mean that the house could be considered a HMO under the Housing Act 2004. Therefore, the property should meet certain fire and health and safety standards. The applicant is advised to contact the Council's Housing Team to ensure that all relevant standards are met.”

Officer report

Objections from residents

Twenty-one objections raised concerns about noise, disturbance, parking, safety, the location, property conditions, lighting and safeguarding.

“- Noise and disturbance from childcare home - Increased vehicle movements from staff, visitors and potential service providers causing traffic and parking issues causing safety issues - The proposed change is not considered in keeping with the residential character of the neighbourhood and risks undermining the safe and family-oriented environment valued by existing residents - Concern about disturbance from proposed residents on existing older residents in the community -…”

“- Noise pollution - No nearby teenage engagement facilities - Provision of one bathroom is a concern in relation to safeguarding - Disruption late at night and worry about nearby children being woken by disturbance - Concern about police being called out regularly due to children escaping - Safety impacts to existing families - The property was built for a single family - Violation of their right to peaceful enjoyment of their homes and their children's right to live in a…”

Officer report

Who spoke

A ward member spoke against the application, followed by a public speaker who also opposed it.

What members debated

Members discussed parking, disturbance, external lighting, safety and the benefits of providing accommodation for vulnerable children.

“In the debate that followed Members noted concerns around increase demands on parking provision and disruption and disturbance to neighbouring residents. However, other Members indicated their support for the application arguing that it provided much needed provisions around childcare for vulnerable children.”

“3 CHAIRMAN’S INITIALS Designing out Crime Team’s secure by design recommendations. The Member asked if the disruption caused by external lighting could be limited by a condition around the times that the lights would be in use.”

Minutes

The vote and decision

Members supported the officer recommendation, and the Board granted planning permission subject to conditions.

“A Member moved a motion to support the officer’s recommendation to grant planning permission. the motion was seconded, put to a vote and carried.”

“To grant planning permission subject to conditions.”

Minutes