Agenda item

We considered the report of the application which was recommended for approval subject to the three conditions, as outlined in the report.

 

Councillor V. Long, representing Mitchel Troy Community Council, attending the meeting by invitation of the Chairman, outlined the following points:

 

• Vulnerable young people need to be looked after in accordance with their individual needs.

 

• The issue is whether it is appropriate to have this type of business operating in Hazeldene, Mitchel Troy Common.

 

• In the access statement with the planning application it states that Monmouthshire County Council does not have any policies to cover conversion of private houses into small care homes, which is unfortunate in respect of this application.

 

• Even with the lack of planning guidelines, the location does not warrant a residential care home.

 

• Hazeldene would not be available for local children but for vulnerable children from outside the area.

 

• In the absence of guidelines in the Local Development Plan, the Community Council has looked at other areas that does have experience in category C homes, i.e., residential care homes should be located near to residential areas where there are residential facilities such as shops, health care facilities and public transport.  Mitchel Troy Common does not have these facilities.

 

• The Social Services Department considers that this development would not provide good outcomes for young people.

 

• Local residents had expressed concern regarding the type of issues that the children might have and the potential detrimental effects upon the area.

 

• At Hazeldene there are 20 properties opposite the proposed development which is in contrast to the application which states that there are only a few neighbours.

 

• The property is in two distinct parts, namely, the house and the former garage.  Some young people would sleep in the converted garage whilst the others would sleep in the house.  Only two staff will be on duty at night, one in each part of the property. This would not seem to be a normal family home arrangement or appropriate to meet the protection of these vulnerable children.

 

• Hazeldene is not a suitable property for a residential care home.

 

• The Priory Group is looking for a business opportunity.

 

Mr. J. Imber, the applicant’s agent, attending the meeting by invitation of the Chairman, outlined the following points:

 

• Seeks change of use to a small residential care home with a maximum of six young people residing there at any one time.  No different to a large family home.

 

• A condition is being recommended by Planning Officers restricting the use of the site solely for the use being applied for.

 

• The use will not require commercial delivery or large vehicles.

 

• The home will be registered with the Care Council for Wales and will be required to meet stringent regulatory requirements.

 

• The property will be staffed at all times including two overnight care staff.

 

• The residents will be young people with autism, and other learning difficulties. They will not pose a threat to people who live in the local area.

 

• This will not be a young offenders’ home.

 

• Residents will have a structured programme of education and will often be away from the home being educated or undertaking leisure activities.

 

• Family visits will often take place off site being pre-arranged.

 

• The proposal is in accordance with the Local Development Plan and is supported by Planning Officers.

 

• Priory Group does understand the concerns of local residents and has tried to allay their fears.

 

• Comments from the nearest neighbour had indicated that they were impartial to the proposal.

 

• Experience of similar sites in the area does not give rise to the kinds of concerns that have been expressed.

 

The local Member for Mitchel Troy, attending the meeting by invitation of the Chairman, outlined the following points:

 

• Speaking as the local Member and as the Cabinet Member for Social Services with responsibility for both adults and children.

 

• Grave reservations about the use of this property and for this purpose.

 

• Assessment of need is very specific as it concentrates on the needs of the individual and the outcomes that they wish for are the Authority’s primary challenge.

 

• The authority aims to provide care for Monmouthshire’s young people as close to a family environment as possible.

 

• Other authorities place beyond their borders many children coming into private care ensconced in Monmouthshire.  In most cases we are not informed of these young children when they arrive and frequently only become aware of them when absenteeism occurs from their place of residence.  Concerns were expressed regarding the safety of the young people should they abscond from the home onto the busy, fast road that is Common Road.

 

• There are sparse facilities available at this location and is totally unsuitable as a location for a residential care home.

 

Having received the report of the application and the views expressed, Members expressed concern that there was very little information via planning guidelines to make an informed decision regarding the application.  The Head of Planning advised Members that their decision should be based on the Local Development Plan policies referenced in the report and on material planning considerations, which include the amenities of neighbours and highway safety.

 

Some Members expressed their reservations in respect of the application and were sympathetic with the views expressed by the local Member, as the proposal was located close to existing residences.  Also, concern was expressed regarding the transport arrangements and the effect that this might have on the village.  Social Services had stated that they were not in support of the application in this location. The residents would not have adequate amenities.

 

However, other Members, whilst sympathetic to the views that had been expressed, considered that it would be difficult to refuse the application on planning grounds.

 

It was therefore proposed by County Councillor R. Hayward and seconded by County Councillor B. Strong that we be minded to refuse application DC/2015/01303 for the reasons expressed earlier.

 

Upon being put to the vote, the following points were noted:

 

For refusal                 -           5

Against refusal         -           8

Abstentions               -           0

 

The proposition was not carried.

 

We therefore resolved that application DC/2015/01303 be approved subject to the three conditions, as outlined in the report and that the number of young people to be cared for to be added to condition 3.