One-child residential care home at 30 Bluebell Way, Huncoat

What was proposed

The application sought to change a dwelling into a residential care home for one child, with carers attending on shifts and no external alterations.

“Description: Change of use from dwelling (Use Class C3a) to residential care (Use Class C2) for one child…”

“The present proposal is to change the use of the building to a children’s home providing accommodation for one child. The child would live at the property as their main residence – the carers would attend on a rota/shift basis. The applicant’s submitted Planning Statement describes the proposal as follows:”

Officer report

The site

The site is a two-storey detached three-bedroom dwelling with gardens and two front parking spaces on a main residential estate road.

“Description of site and proposed development The application relates to a detached dwellinghouse fronting Bluebell Way as shown on the location plan and image as follows.”

“Briefly, the detached dwellinghouse is of two storeys. It has 3 bedrooms (one with ensuite facilities) and a bathroom on the upper floors; a kitchen, dining room, lounge, garden room, snug, utility room, hallway and accessible wc, at ground floor level; and, rear and front gardens. Originally the dwelling was built with an integral garage; this in more recent years has been converted to form part of the living accommodation.”

Officer report

Consultation responses

Highways and Environmental Health raised no objections, while Lancashire Children’s Services objected because there was no identified local need for a solo children’s home.

“- The provider, Prosperity Children's Services, has not consulted Lancashire Children's Services about this proposed home to establish whether there is local need for this provision. - As the attached Market Position Statement 1 clearly sets out, there is not considered to be a local need for solo children's homes.”

“If this planning application is approved, it is highly likely that the home will not be used for a Lancashire child and will, like all their other homes, be used to care for children from outside Lancashire, some of whom may be a long distance from home – which is not in line with best practice of children in care living close to their local community, friends and school etc.”

Officer report

Residents’ concerns

Sixteen neighbouring residents objected over parking, highway safety, disturbance, cumulative impact, residential character and the location’s suitability.

“Representations have been received from 16 neighbouring residents making objections and comments summarised and itemised as follows:”

“Parking congestion resulting from staff and professional visitor parking; increased pavement parking; blocking emergency vehicles; increase difficulty negotiating highway bends. Affect highway safety. Disturbance during shift change and coming/going of staff and professional visitors. Application at a similar property previously refused and dismissed on appeal. Detrimental cumulative impact as already one care home on street. 6.”

Officer report

Who spoke

A speaker against the application referred to the previous refusal, similar applications on the estate and the nearby existing care home.

Members’ discussion

Members considered the new guidance helpful, particularly on the nearby care home and changes to residential character, while recognising the need for suitable locations.

“Members of the Committee discussed the application, paying particular attention to the new Supplementary Planning Guidance in relation to Children’s Care Homes. Members agreed across the board that the guidance was helpful in coming to a decision and allowed for weight to be given appropriately to prevalent concerns such as the proximity to an existing care home and how this would likely change the residential character of the area.”

Minutes

The vote

The committee voted unanimously to refuse the application in line with the officer recommendation.

“Resolved – Members of the committee voted unanimously to refuse the application as per officer recommendation noted below.”

Minutes

Why it was refused

The committee found that parking would be insufficient during shift changes and visits, causing cumulative highway and residential character harm, and that local need was unproven.

“The proposed Children’s Care Home is located within a residential area, in close proximity to another similar care home on the same residential road. It would provide two off-street parking spaces which would be insufficient to accommodate staff cars during the shift-change period, and cars of other persons visiting the premises, resulting in vehicles parking on the street and due to the narrow highway width likely parking partly on the footway.”

“The proposed development, by virtue of its failure to demonstrate a local need and its nature and scale failing to align with Lancashire Children's Services commissioning strategies is contrary the Children’s Residential & Supported Accommodations SPG and the National Planning Policy Framework.”

Minutes