Children’s home at 30 Epping Avenue, Altham

What was proposed

The application sought to change a four-bedroom dwelling into a children’s home for one child, with staff attending on shifts and two parking spaces retained.

“There is a rear garden and a forecourt partly landscaped and providing 2 car parking spaces for the property. Another car space (of an adjacent house) is immediately next to/separated by a white line from the 2 spaces. The ownership/correct application site is made clear in the Location Plan above.”

“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 property is a detached two-storey house in a residential area, with a rear garden and two forecourt parking spaces.

“Description of site and proposed development The application relates to a detached dwelling house in a residential area as shown on the location plan and images as follows.”

Officer report

What officers recommended

Officers recommended refusal because the proposal could worsen parking, pedestrian safety and residential character, and did not demonstrate local need.

“The proposed Children’s Care Home is located within a residential area, adjacent 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.”

Officer report

Consultation responses

Thirteen neighbours, the parish council and county children’s services objected; highways and environmental health raised no objections.

“LCC has previously stated that there is no requirement for any new provision of these homes within the borough, with only 16% of agency children’s homes beds in Lancashire used for local children, and has raised concerns about the high number of children from outside the county being placed in Lancashire, which has the highest number of such placements in the country, placing strain on the local services.”

“Senior Commissioning Manager for Lancashire County Council: Lancashire County Council Children's Services objects to this planning application for the following reasons: - 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.”

Officer report

What people objected to

Objections concerned parking, congestion, community disruption, nearby care facilities, local need, antisocial behaviour and the suitability of the site.

“Parking congestion/ blocking of driveways. Deeds do not allow business uses. Anti-social behaviour/ community disruption. Overconcentration / 2 services together doubles the issues. Bringing in children from outside Lancashire. Contrary to Human Rights Act; infringing right to private life and peaceful enjoyment of family homes.”

“We feel that the “no objection on highway grounds” response from Lancashire County Council is unacceptable due to the heavy population of vehicles in that area, restrictions on the highway in close proximity to the property and the limited parking available at the property, which would impact on highway safety, along with the LCC NO Tolerance on pavement parking, for which they have previously patrolled the same area and issued parking tickets? Parking on the estate is at…”

Officer report

Who spoke

A parish councillor and a representative of neighbouring residents spoke against the application, raising concerns about parking, local services and neighbourhood change.

Members’ discussion

Members considered the proposal similar to the earlier application and said two children’s homes next door would affect parking and residential character.

“Members of the committee noted the similarities to the previous application and agreed that having 2 Children’s Homes next door was not a good idea and would significantly impact parking in the area and the residential character of the street.”

Minutes

The committee vote

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

“Resolved – The committee voted by unanimous decision to refuse the application as per officer recommendation.”

Minutes