Agenda item - BH2014/01236- 240 Dyke Road, Brighton - Full Planning

Full planning - Change of use from single dwelling (C3) to children's Home (C2).

RECOMMENDATION - GRANT

(1)       The Area Planning Manager, Nicola Hurley introduced the application and gave a presentation by reference to plans, photographs and elevational drawings. The site related to a semi detached property located on the eastern side of Dyke Road, close to the junction with Wincome Road. The two storey property was currently in use as a single family dwelling. The main considerations in determining this application related to the acceptability of the proposed change of use, the impacts upon the neighbouring properties and transport and sustainability issues. The applicant currently operates 3 children’s homes within the City and it was proposed that the home would operate and be managed in a similar manner to that located in Seafield Road, Hove. No more than 5 young people would be residing at the property at any time and given the size of the property that number or more could be living there if it was a residential dwelling.

(2)       It was considered that the proposed change of use was acceptable in terms of policy requirements and was not considered to be out of character with the surrounding area. Subject to compliance with the recommended conditions, it was not considered that the proposed use as a children’s care home would have a significant detrimental impact on the amenity of neighbouring properties or parking within the area and approval was therefore recommended.

            Public Speaker(s) and Questions

(3)       Dr Simcock spoke as neighbouring resident setting out his objections to the scheme and those of four other neighbours. He disputed the applicant’s assertion that they had been unable to find other suitable accommodation elsewhere in the city, contending that they should be required to prove that this was the case. There were also concerns about bringing young people who had complex issues into close proximity to other families bearing in mind that the property was semi-detached rather than detached. As these children required support he contended that this would generate more traffic movements and footfall to the property than those to a residential property and would impact on parking and traffic flows to a far greater extent than had been indicated. Additionally the proposed use was contrary to the council’s own policy HO9 and would set an undesirable precedent which could give rise to the loss of residential family properties elsewhere across the city.

(4)  Mr Menedue spoke on behalf of the applicants and was accompanied the manager who ran the group’s existing homes in the city. He explained in answer to questions by Councillor Jones that the Lioncare Group had run homes successfully across the city for 23 years and had assisted 150 children. They had been looking for a house with suitably sized bedrooms for the last 3-4 years but had not been able to find any that were not too far from the city centre. The home would provide accommodation for children aged between 12-16 years usually for between 18 months and 4 years. Staff would be encouraged to use public transport and in addition to the children there would be a Manager, Deputy Manager and 6/7 staff.

(5)       In answer to questions by Councillor Hyde it was confirmed that there would be 3 staff on site at any one time all of whom were highly trained.

(6)       The Chair referred to paragraph 4.2 of the report which stated that placements to the home would not be open to young people wit severe learning or physical disability, severe mental health disorders, acute drug or alcohol dependence or a propensity for ongoing criminal behaviour in the community. It was confirmed this would be adhered to.

(7)       In answer to questions by Councillors Theobald and Pissaridou it was confirmed that the children would all be at school during the day and would travel to their respective schools each day on foot or by public transport. After school they would attend clubs and activities as did other children and at weekends would have contact with their families or go out with friends.

            Questions for Officers

(8)       Councillor Cox referred to the earlier permission which had been given to convert the property to a residential home enquiring whether permission should have been sought to return it to use as a family home. The Area Planning Manager explained that that the earlier permission may not have been implemented and that although that might have been the case technically, planning policies had changed significantly since permission had first been granted. The current application had been considered against current policies.

(9)       Councillor Wells referred to the comments made by the objector that the application was contrary to policy H09. The Area Planning Manager explained that HO9 related to retention of smaller dwellings where permission was being sought to convert them into flats so was not relevant to consideration of this application.

(10)     A vote was taken and on a vote of 11 with 1 abstention Members voted to grant planning permission.

31.6    RESOLVED – That the Committee has taken into consideration and agrees with the reasons for the recommendation set out in section 11 of the report and the policies and guidance in section 7 of the report and resolves to GRANT planning permission subject to the Conditions and Informatives set out in section 11 of the report.