Two-child children's home at Applegarth, New Road, Crook

What was proposed

The application sought to change a bungalow into a children’s home for up to two children aged 7 to 17, with staff present at all times.

“Full Application Description: Change of use from residential dwelling (Use Class C3) to children’s home (Use Class C2) for up to 2 Children aged 7-17 years, including demolition of existing garage, enlarged parking area and associated internal and external alterations.”

“Solo Provision: Daytime:- 2 daytime support staff and 1 registered manager (typically 9am-5pm, Mon-Fri) Night time:- 2 overnight support staff • Dual Provision: Daytime:- 3 daytime support staff and 1 registered manager (typically 9am-5pm, Mon-Fri) Night time:- 2-3 overnight support staff. • Handovers at Applegarth will avoid peak travel times and minimise the number of vehicles parking at the site. They will typically happen at 7am and 10pm.”

Officer report

The site and surroundings

The detached bungalow is on New Road in Crook, beside homes and near a park, with steeply sloping land, walls, gates and a rear boundary.

“The application site is a detached bungalow situated on New Road in Crook which is one of the main approaches towards the Town Centre. Land levels to the site slope steeply down to the south east. Residential properties are located either side of the host property and a park is located to the rear. The property is enclosed by walling and gates to the front of the site and walling to the rear.”

“Trees are located on the site which are not protected and the property is not a listed building. The site is not within a flood risk zone nor is it within a coal mining risk area or a nutrient neutrality catchment area.”

Officer report

Planning history

There was no relevant planning history for the site.

“There is no relevant planning history on this site.”

Officer report

What officers recommended

Officers recommended approval because they considered there was a need for small children’s homes and found no unacceptable effects on amenity, character, highways or safety.

“It is noted that concern is raised regarding the need for children’s homes specifically within Crook given they understand there are already 5 in existence and another two due to open. The Councils CYPS have confirmed that there is currently 4 Children’s Social Care Services in operation in DL15 postcode area. More closely there is 1 x 3 bed EBD (Education and Behavioural Difficulties) and 1 x 4 bed EBD Children’s home in operation approx.”

“It is noted that concern has been raised that the number of children who would occupy the property would increase due to its size. The proposed home is intended to accommodate a maximum of 2 children and the number of children occupying the site could be restricted via planning condition to prevent any further increase in children which would be considered necessary in this instance given the number of bedrooms proposed and the fact that staff would also sleep over at…”

Officer report

Consultation and objections

Highways, environmental health, children’s services and police raised no objections, while 31 public objections cited crime, antisocial behaviour, safety, disturbance and parking.

“The proposal will increase the anti social behaviour which already occurs and damage to properties has occurred previously. This could be from either the children from the home or harassment from the local children or more likely a combination of both. • Information in the form of a newspaper article has been provided which shows anti-social behaviour within the area.”

“In addition, Joy Allen, Police and Crime Commissioner for Durham and Darlington has raised objection to the application with concerns about children being placed mainly from out of the area whereby little information is known about the child locally, the amount of police resources this takes up responding to children reported missing from these homes and community concerns that are raised with me, linked to the increases in Crime and ASB.”

Officer report

Who spoke

The local member and two objectors spoke against the application, while the applicant and agent spoke in support.

What members debated

Members discussed crime, boundary security, children’s ages, staffing, police visits, highway access and whether the environment was safe for vulnerable children.

“Councillor M Stead stated that he had also seen several properties come through the planning committee for a change of use into children’s care homes. The material planning considerations had to be looked at when determining the applications. Objectors had implied that the area had been targeted for crime ant that no family was safe to live there.”

“Councillor R Roddis explained that the objectors were not worried about the children residing at the care home or their behaviour but rather about children in the town knowing that there were two vulnerable children in homes along the path/park area which they could target. He reiterated there was a lot of ASB in the town where arson attacks had lost the community hub and windows had been damaged.”

Minutes

The vote

Councillor J Campbell moved refusal, Councillor D Saunders seconded it, and the committee voted to refuse the application.

“Councillor J Campbell noted from what she had heard had conceded that it was not the children’s behaviour living in the home which was the issue but the environment not being safe for the children living in the home. She felt the area was inappropriate and moved a motion to go against officer recommendation and refuse the application.”

“L Ackermann, Legal Officer (Planning and Highways) asked Councillor J Campbell and Councillor D Saunders on what policy grounds they wanted to refuse the application.”

Minutes

Why it was refused

The application was refused because the committee considered that the site did not offer a positive and safe environment in light of the latest crime and safety statistics.

“The Principal Planning Officer stated the within Policy 18 criterion b) could be applied for reasons for refusal as the site had to offer a positive and safe environment for the occupants of the premises to ensure that there was appropriate access to local services and community facilities and criterion d) that the occupants could not be placed at risk having regard to the latest crime and safety statistics in the area which the councillors had raised concerns over.”

“That the application be REFUSED based on contravening Policy 18 that the site did not offer a positive and safe environment based on the latest crime and safety statistics.”

Minutes