Agenda item - BH2015/01677, 23 Ditchling Crescent, Brighton - Full Planning

Change of use from dwelling house (C3) to residential children's home (C2).

RECOMMENATION – GRANT

Ward Affected: Patcham

Change of use from dwelling house (C3) to residential children's

home (C2).

(1)          The Planning Manager (Applications), Nicola Hurley, gave a presentation by reference to photographs, plans and elevational drawings. The application site comprised a semi-detached bungalow located on the west side of Ditchling Crescent. The area was characterised by similar bungalows set on land that fell sharply to the rear. A grassed embankment sat opposite with Ditchling Road beyond. This application was a re-submission of the previous application refused on 11 May 2015.

(2)          The main considerations in determining the application related to the principle of change of use, including the loss of housing, the impact of the proposal on amenities of adjacent occupiers, and transport. It was noted that no external alterations were proposed to the building. The previous application for this use had been refused on the grounds that no information had been provided with the submission to identify the nature of the use, how it would operate on a day-to-day basis, or how it would be likely to impact on the amenities of adjacent occupiers. This information had been provided subsequently and it was now considered that the earlier grounds for refusal had been overcome. Matters raised in relation to covenants on the land were not a material planning consideration and although a resident had identified a badger sett nearby as no external construction works were proposed there was no evidence that this would be disturbed. It was noted that a letter had been received from one of the Ward Councillors, Councillor G Theobald setting out his objections to this proposal and indicating that he had received many representations from local residents objecting to this proposal, this had been appended to the “Additional Representations List”. A separate petition signed by local residents who objected to the scheme had also been received and had been circulated to Members. These matters had been addressed in the report and there was no evidence that the children residing at the home would require specialist amenities above and beyond those suitable for a family. Photographs had been submitted by the objector showing damage to the wall which divided the application site from his property, but it was confirmed that this was a separate issue and was not a relevant planning consideration in determining this application.

(3)          It was considered that the change of use of the site would be acceptable and that subject to the proposed conditions would not significantly harm the amenities of neighbouring occupiers or impact on highway safety, in accordance with development plan policies. Approval was therefore recommended.

              Public Speaker(s) and Questions

(4)          Mr Lawden spoke on behalf of neighbouring objectors setting out their objections to the proposed scheme. He referred to the petition which set out the concerns of all neighbouring residents. He explained that the applicant had disposed of a property which was not fit for the purpose proposed. The property which formed part of a pair of semi-detached dwellings represented an unneighbourly development which would seriously impact on his amenity and cause significant harm and disturbance to himself and his neighbours due to noise and anti-social behaviour emanating due to a residential home being placed in such close proximity. Further disturbance would result from use of the steep shared driveway. Mr Lawden worked as a pilot often having to sleep during the day and was concerned that he would be unable to do so due to noise disturbance.

(5)          Mr Hall spoke on behalf of the applicant in support of their application and was accompanied by Ms Gibson who was available to answer questions on behalf of the provider. He explained that measures had been undertaken to see Ms Gibson pointed out that although perhaps not planning considerations, it should be noted that Compass who would be providing care at the home were recognised by Children’s Services as providers with a good reputation for quality care, meeting rigorous Ofsted requirements, being inspected twice annually. All facilities ran by Compass, had been rated good or excellent, they wished to work in partnership with their neighbours. The children would be local placements and the intention was to mirror a safe caring home environment.

(6)          In answer to questions by Councillor A Norman it was explained that the house would be fully staffed 24 hours, there would also be a manager in residence.

(7)          In answer to further questions by Councillor Gilbey it was explained that it was anticipated that the children would attend local mainstream schools and that when at home they would be engaged in various organised activities and that use of the garden would be regulated.

              Questions for Officers

(8)          Councillor Inkpin-Leissner referred to comments purportedly made by the applicant in relation to potential noise nuisance enquiring regarding the level of soundproofing to be installed. It was explained that the proposed Conditions 4 and 5 identified the level of soundproofing to be provided. Officers would have to be satisfied that this would be sufficient.

(9)          Councillor Cattell, the Chair, enquired whether it would be possible to require a higher level of soundproofing than that required by Building Control regulations. It was noted that Environmental Health had raised no objections provided that details of the soundproofing to be provided between the party walls were received and were deemed to be sufficient.

(10)       Councillor Miller enquired whether account had been taken of the need for one of the occupiers of the neighbouring dwelling to sleep during the day, the speaker had indicated that noise nuisance could result in significant harm for him. It was explained that many individuals in the city worked shift patterns which required that they sleep during the day. It was not considered that noise generated would be different from that generated by a family home.

(11)       Councillor Janio enquired regarding measures that could be put into place to ensure that there would not be an intensification of use of the site in future. It was explained that the floor plans showed three bedrooms for the children who would be living there, one for each of them.

(12)       Councillor Morris enquired regarding the level of information provided detailing how the home would be run on a day to day basis and regarding measures to be put into place to ensure its effective management. He also requested sight of a photograph indicating the location of the shared driveway between the application site and the neighbouring dwelling.

              Debate and Decision Making Process

(13)       Councillor A Norman, whilst recognising the need to provide a family home for these children considered that use of the shared driveway and the potential requirement for on-street parking was contentious. The fact that a semi-detached rather than detached property was to be used could be problematic, notwithstanding that soundproofing measures would be undertaken, she was aware of instances in her own ward where the level of soundproofing had been inadequate and had resulted in noise nuisance. She queried whether in the light of these issues and the level of local objections this was the best location to provide a home environment for vulnerable children.

(14)       Councillor Miller had similar concerns, whilst acceptable in planning terms he considered that use of a detached property would have been preferable.

(15)       Councillor Janio stated that he did not consider that the application site was suitable for use as a children’s home. The driveway would be heavily used, more so than if it was a family dwelling and this would give rise to nuisance and loss of amenity.

(16)       Councillor Barradell considered that the proposed use would provide a family environment. Provided sound proofing works were carried out to an appropriate standard she considered that it was acceptable and supported the officer recommendation. Councillor Gilbey concurred.

(17)       Councillor Littman supported the application, he did not consider that the proposed use would, subject to proper soundproofing generate any greater noise levels than if it was in use as a traditional family dwelling.

(18)       A vote was taken and on a vote of 10 to 2 planning permission was granted.

45.3       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 and resolves to GRANT planning permission subject to the Conditions and Informatives set out in section 11.