Children’s home for one child at 4 James Avenue, Great Harwood

The site

The semi-detached dwelling has front and rear gardens, space for two vehicles and is about 480 metres from the town centre.

“Description of the Site and the Proposed Development This application relates to No.4 James Avenue, a semi-detached dwelling situated on the east side of James Avenue, immediately adjacent to the junction of Wordsworth Drive and James Avenue. It is attached to No.2 James Avenue, but is situated at a lower ground level, with the ridge/eaves being notably lower than that of No.2.”

Officer report

What officers recommended

Officers recommended approval, finding the property suitable, highway impacts acceptable and the identified planning harm insufficient to justify refusal.

“Officers consider that some weight should be afforded to the SPG document in the decision-making process, but any conflict with the SPG must be weighed in the planning balance. Planning Balance and Conclusion In conclusion, providing accommodation and care for looked-after children is worthy and necessary.”

“The proposed development would also result in the loss of a market dwelling at a time when the Council is unable to demonstrate a five-year housing land supply. However, it this particular case it is not considered that the identified harm would be sufficient to warrant refusal of the planning application, particularly when taking into account recent appeal decisions for similar development elsewhere in the borough.”

Officer report

Who spoke

The Chief Planning and Transportation Officer presented the proposal and explained the objections, recent appeals, guidance and housing supply position.

What members debated

Members discussed similar applications, whether the proposal would operate like a family home and the impact on children placed outside the area.

“Members discussed the number of applications for similar proposals which had been through the planning committee recently and questioned how closely the model mimics that of a family home. Members commented on the increased number of children being placed in these homes from outside the area and the impact this must have on vulnerable children.”

Minutes

The committee’s decision

Members voted against the officer recommendation and refused the application because it conflicted with the guidance and removed a market dwelling during a housing supply shortfall.

“Resolved – Members voted to go against the officer decision and refuse the application on the following grounds: - Conflict with Policy 1 of the SPG - Removing a market dwelling at a time when the council cannot demonstrate a 5-year supply of housing.”

Minutes