Agenda item

Officer introduction:

BH introduced the application for a further three bedrooms at this property.  It is at Committee at the request of Councillor Hay, due to concerns regarding the management of the building.  The officer recommendation is to permit.

Public Speaking:

Mr De Vries, agent, in support

Concurs with the findings of the well-written officer support – this is a sustainable form of development, offering substantial benefits to the people whose lives will be enhanced by the proposal, and by the wider community.  There have been two objections from neighbouring properties, which the applicant has sought to address.  Firstly, regarding the position of the bin storage, this has been moved from the front to the rear of the property.  Secondly, the concerns about potential noise and disturbance and management of the building- the proposed use is similar to the previous use of this site, the applicants propose 24/7 monitoring, and will supply adjoining neighbours with their contact  details.  The proposed scheme does not cause any further privacy issues, but the comments from the neighbouring property have been incorporated into the scheme.  As stated in the committee report, the case officer agrees that the proposal does not constitute over-development of the site.

Member debate:

KH:  unfortunately will not vote in support of this proposal.  Pivotal Homes, the applicant, has a property in St Paul’s Parade, which is well known for problems with management and the people they work with.  This is a similar proposal.  In St Paul’s, there have been complaints about the management of the property; that scheme did not come through the planning department, and is pleased for the Prestbury Road residents that this proposal is being considered at Planning Committee, via Councillor Hay.  Taking into account the plans, and the inadequate staffing provided in his own ward, will not vote in support of this proposal.

PM:  is struggling with this proposal.  Cannot see how the lives of the residents will be enhanced, as stated by the agent.  The building currently houses 10 residents, with communal spaces; this proposal is for 13 residents, with no communal space.  Will they be confined to their individual units?  What about eating together and watching television?  These people need support, and it is a tragedy to think it’s a good idea to do away with communal living space.  Can ‘loss of amenity’ as a reason to refuse permission be applied to those living inside a building as well as those outside?

BF: As discussed with other applications tonight, these are not planning issues, and the planning permission does not cover them.  Regarding the problems in St Paul’s raised by Councillor Hobley, there are many badly-managed businesses of all kinds – offices, bars, retail – and the issues are largely dealt with by Environmental Health.  This planning application has been submitted before the changes are made, and can only be permitted or refused as applied for.

KS:  this is a difficult application.  This facility needs to be supported, but it is difficult to hear about the St Paul’s premises.  Is there evidence for the problems there, or are they based on hearsay?  Is disinclined to permit, as it will be to the detriment of the neighbourhood if the same problems arise here as in St Paul’s.  Has heard talk of problems regarding drug use, dealing and supplying in the front gardens at St Paul’s – where does that leave us with planning?  This proposal will see more people living in the house, with a provider which is not doing a good job elsewhere.  Feels there are enough concerns to question whether to permit or not.  What safeguards will be in place for the existing residents, who are in recovery, and for people living in the area? It is difficult to say, and incredibly worrying.

SM, in response:

-       It is really important to be aware that what has been discussed is the perception of crime; it is the application being considered that Members should be concerned with. What has or hasn’t happened on another side is not material.  Members need to be very careful.  Councillor Fisher is correct – these are not planning considerations, only hearsay and rumour.  Members must determine the application before them tonight.

MS:  it is disappointing that the house will lose its recreational space.  This facility has been working for many years, and is not aware of many problems to date.  It is difficult to make a determination without knowing the management structure of the building.  Could a condition be included, concerning how many people are required on site at all times, what hours they will be present etc?  This would give some comfort to local residents.

DB:  would like guidance on the earlier point by PM, as to whether loss of amenity within a building has any relevance.  One representation from a neighbour is concerned with the bin store, which could be unsightly and malodorous next to his back door – has this been addressed?  Remains worried about the loss of the communal space, and the management, but realises that there issues are not relevant to the planning decision.

BH, in response:

-       Regarding loss of amenity, this only applies to neighbouring amenity, not to any future occupiers of the facility;

-       Regarding management of the house, and whether an on-site member of staff 24 hours a day has been considered, the question would be whether this is reasonable, necessary and enforceable?  The enforcement team feel it would not meet that test, and it would therefore not be reasonable to include a condition;

-       The proposal continues an established use, and no-one is currently on site 24/7.  The main difference is the increase in the number of occupants from 10 to 13.

KS:  notes from the correspondence from neighbours that the previous planning permission was specific to the applicant.  Could a temporary permission be granted here, to see how the facility is managed?  This would give more confidence.  If permanent permission is granted and there are problems, who will sort those problems out?

BH, in response:

-       There is a lot of history on this site.  The conditions the neighbour referred to, specific to one user,  are not included on the latest use for ten residents.  This application is not for temporary use, and Members must take a view on whether what is being requested is reasonable.

PM:  still has concerns, and realises that some of these are not planning matters.  The big concern is that we ought to take more of a concerned interest in supported living accommodation.  If this isn’t a planning matter, where do we want to take this?  We could have had a policy about this, but without it there are not many options with this application.  Is there any way of taking this forward outside Planning Committee?

BF, in response:

-       There is government legislation regarding supported living accommodation.

GB:  is concerned that if Members are inclined to turn this application down, there are no planning policies to turn it down on.

SM, in response:

-       If Members want to refuse the proposal, they will need a reason, and it is difficult to identify a material planning consideration here.  Loss of internal amenity is not a reason to refuse.

GB:  this would be a difficult situation if the applicant went to appeal.

Vote on officer recommendation to permit

8 in support

4 in objection

2 abstentions

PERMIT

GB:  Hopefully the applicant will take note of the concerns raised by Members and take these into consideration.