Two-person children’s home at 240 Station Road, New Waltham

The site and its history

The detached five-bedroom property is in a residential area, and an earlier certificate application for a similar use was refused.

“SITE 240 Station Road is an existing detached, residential property located to the south side of Station Road. The area surrounding the property is residential in nature, with predominantly detached properties within the immediate vicinity of the application site. RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY DM/0165/25/CEA - Certificate of Lawfulness - Proposed Use for small scale residential home (Class C2) for up to 2 young people between the ages of 7 and 17 years - Refused.”

Officer report

Consultation responses

Highways, environmental health, ecology, children’s services and the safer communities officer raised no objections or supported the proposal, while the parish council objected.

“Confirm they have placed a number of children with this organisation and have delivered good support with appropriately skilled staff. The size and location of the home is considered suitable with a good level of space and care to be provided. Safer Communities Officer - No concerns with the proposal.”

Officer report

Who spoke

An objector raised concerns about the company, parking, traffic, noise, police incidents and the children’s needs; the applicant’s representative supported approval.

The committee debate

Members discussed consultation, the earlier refused application, company credibility and whether further engagement and information from services were needed.

“[name withheld] responded that he couldn’t confirm if the costs referred to were accurate, but that costs were not a material planning consideration. He added that the previous refused application was a certificate of lawful use application. [name withheld] said that the applicant had put forward that a change of use application was not needed, but it was deemed by officers…”

“Councillor Lindley said that the application was slightly different to the previous applications. He said that the application was for a children’s home for two children, which was slightly less than the previous two applications. Councillor Lindley said that he was pretty much in full support of the application, but what did jump out to him was comments on the credibility of the company.”

Minutes

The decision

The committee deferred the application, voting eight in favour and two against, rather than deciding whether to approve it at that meeting.

“RESOLVED – That the application be deferred.”

“(Note – the committee voted 8 for and 2 against for the application to be deferred.)”

Minutes