PROPOSAL: Change of use of dwelling and adjacent detached dwelling from C3 (dwelling house) to C2 (children’s care home).  Erection of a replacement single storey rear extension and erection of front and rear dormer extensions; front and rear dormer windows. 

OFFICER RECOMMENDATION: Permit

10.29        This application was for the change of use of a dwelling and adjacent detached dwelling from C3 (dwelling house) to C2 (children’s care home); erection of a replacement single storey rear extension and erection of front and rear dormer extensions; front and rear dormer windows.

10.30        The Planning Officer advised that the site was situated in the service village of Minsterworth at the end of a linear form of development with an existing access onto the A48.  The proposal was for the change of use of the property known as Charlton, a semi-detached dwelling, and the adjacent new detached dwelling to a care home for children.  Extension and alterations to Charlton were proposed in the form of a single storey rear extension, a small front dormer and a larger rear dormer extension to accommodate a loft conversion.  The development would provide accommodation for children under the age of 16 to be run by an established organisation which provided supported accommodation for young people.  The people in the properties would not be living together as a single household as the children would be looked after by staff on a rota basis; there would be a maximum of two children and two members of staff per dwelling with a changeover of staff between 1430 hours and 1530 hours; and children would attend schools and clubs in a similar way to a household.  The application had been called-in for a Committee decision by the local Ward Councillor and objections had been received from the Parish Council and neighbouring residents in terms of design, the proposal not being in keeping with the surrounding area, noise, nuisance, fire risk, anti-social behaviour, impact on neighbouring amenity, parking, access onto the A48 and drainage.  Given the extensions and alterations that could be made to a residential dwelling under permitted development rights, the Planning Officer explained that the proposed extensions and alterations to Charlton were not considered to be disproportionate additions.  There was no uniformity in the character of the streetscene and the front dormer was small in scale and was not considered to harm the visual qualities of the area.  In terms of fire risk, it was noted that the proposal would be required to conform with building regulations and would be assessed as part of that process.  Due to the separation distance between properties, there was no impact in terms of overlooking from the front dormer of the extension, there was already overlooking of the adjacent properties from the first floor windows of Charlton and views from the box dormer would be directed toward the rear of the site.  Therefore, it was considered there would be less than substantial harm in terms of overlooking.  With regard to children, they would be supervised by staff on a one-to-one ratio.  The level of accommodation was not dissimilar to residential use and the Council’s Environmental Health Officer had no objection in terms of noise.  Whilst there would be peaks in movements in the early afternoon due to the changeover in staff shifts and occasional visits from social workers, this would be no more harmful to neighbouring residents than that of normal C3 use.  Members were informed that the proposal used the existing access to the A48 and there was sufficient parking, turning and manoeuvring on site.  County Highways had no objection to the application but recommended conditions regarding access, parking and the submission of construction management plans.  Further details were required in terms of foul drainage arrangements – a private treatment plant had been installed for the new dwelling as part of the original application, not a septic tank, and details of the capacity of this system and the secondary treatment were now required.  The system was subject to building regulation approval; however, as Building Control Officers had been unable to visit the site in the current circumstances, a condition was recommended for details of the foul drainage arrangements to be submitted and agreed prior to commencement of the proposed use. 

10.31        The Chair invited the representative from Minsterworth Parish Council to address the Committee.  The Parish Council representative explained that he intended to focus specifically on drainage, although the Parish Council supported the comments that had been made by others in relation to the inadequate parking and the unsuitability of a semi-detached house as a care home.  Soakaway systems had long been a problem for the heavy clay soils of Minsterworth and, because of the specific drainage history of the houses adjacent to the Charlton site, the Parish Council was very concerned about the efficacy of the current proposed drainage system and had objected on that basis, contrary to the Officer report.  The Parish Council representative went on to explain that Charlton and its semi-detached house, Horaldene, had originally been built in the 1930s with a septic tank half in Horaldene and half in Charlton and the soakaway for dispersal in Horaldene; Charlton had never had its own soakaway and consequently it was not known how well it would work.  In the early 1990s it was clear that the soakaway systems for Horaldene and many other houses along the road were not functioning adequately, leading to areas of boggy and unfarmable land in the adjacent fields.  As a consequence, a new piped system was installed that would take any excess effluent from all homes across the field and discharge to a hedgerow on adjacent farmland – this was paid for by the individual houses.  The Parish Council representative indicated that he had seen the discharge from the pipe and it was definitely not clean water and was certainly not running into a continuously flowing stream.  The building of the new house had started around 2016 but it was not until 10 months ago in August 2019 that its drainage was connected to the soakaway of Charlton, at which point the connection to Horaldene was disconnected.  Hence the current effluent from Charlton and the new house was to be discharged by a soakaway – which did not work in Minsterworth – and any excess would not be connected to the pipework, an important fact that had been omitted from Paragraph 7.23 of the Officer report.  Furthermore, the Parish Council understood from Building Control that the new drainage system was yet to be checked and signed-off.  The Parish Council very strongly recommended that, as with all other new developments in Minsterworth, there should be a revised drainage report for the premises, carried out by an independent company, and that should be completed before planning permission was granted.

10.32        The Chair invited a local resident speaking against the application to address the Committee.  The local resident wished to highlight a few key areas of concern regarding the application, starting with highways and road safety given that the A48 was a fast-moving road with an accident record that sadly included several fatalities and serious injury collisions.  He noted that County Highways had raised no objection to the proposal; however, there was an issue that had potentially not been considered that had been highlighted by the Parish Council around parking constraints on the site given that staff, visiting social workers, health professionals, service user visitors and delivery vehicles would all have to use the very small parking facilities or the roadside verge.  He asked Members to consider the gated access to the agricultural field adjacent the site which was crucial at times of flooding – quite frequent in Minsterworth.  This land needed to be available for animal safety at those times and any obstruction would mean pulling up a vehicle and animal trailer in order to attract the owners of any obstructing vehicle on a very busy A road with limited street lighting.  A tractor and trailer would take up half the width of the highway meaning passing vehicles would be in conflict with oncoming traffic on the opposite side; in his view, this was unacceptable on the A48 or any A road.  Turning to drainage and the issues the change of use would cause in terms of capacity, he noted that the Council’s Flood Risk Management Engineer had not commented on the application which was surprising based on the recent changes to legislation and the fact there was no mains sewerage network in Minsterworth.  The whole area was subject to the use of septic tanks and he believed the issues of the previous application remained unresolved despite still being in the reserved matters.  With many past applications in Minsterworth, those applying for planning permission had to go to considerable lengths and expense in order to comply to stringent treatment of effluent and risks of discharge into local watercourses and ditches.  He had considerable concerns regarding the application and respectfully requested that Members refuse the application until they had been fully addressed.

10.33         The Chair invited the local Ward Member to address the Committee.  The local Ward Member explained that she was speaking in opposition to the application in her capacity as a Ward Councillor and someone with good working knowledge of Minsterworth.  Minsterworth was a small village but was not opposed to residential homes of which there were already several for people with learning disabilities, challenging behaviours and mental health issues – she was not opposed to a children’s home but not on this site.  The two properties were very close together and shared a small parking area just off the main A48.  This was a very fast, dangerous road with a history of multiple accidents and was not a suitable forecourt for children with unpredictable behaviour.  The area was not adequate to take the amount of staff cars and service vehicles that would be required to run the homes – 23 cars and other vehicles had been recorded locally as having visited the properties in a five week period from the end of April to the end of May which was a significant increase on what would be expected for a residential property, particularly during lockdown.  The proposal would turn the semi-detached house, Charlton, into a five bedroom property yet it was suggested only two children should live there so she questioned why it needed to be that size.  The property next door had four bedrooms so there would be a total of nine bedrooms which would inevitably put more pressure on the limited parking area.  A major concern was noise as loud voices, music and door slamming would all be heard by the neighbouring resident.  In her opinion, a semi-detached house did not make an ideal children’s home.  Traffic turning in and out, parking on the grass verges and blocking the farm track had already been an issue and it was dangerous for an animal transporter to have to stop on the road, whilst getting a staff member to move their car, before being able to safely drive up the farm track which had happened already.  County Highways had recommended that conditions be placed on the access splay and parking but, to her knowledge, they had not yet been completed and needed to be prior to permission being granted.  There was local evidence to suggest Christie House was already being used to look after children although this had been denied by the owner when questioned by the Planning Officer.  It was believed that Christie House had already been earmarked for a children’s home when the original planning permission for a residential property had been submitted, to add to the existing portfolio of 15 houses owned by the applicant.  In her opinion, the location was unsuitable for two children’s homes and the danger of the A48 would increase the risk of an accident.

10.34        The Chair indicated that the Officer recommendation was to permit the application, subject to conditions, and he sought a motion from the floor.  A Member indicated that he would like the application to be deferred for a virtual Planning Committee site visit in order to assess the Parish Council concerns regarding drainage and outfalls.  The Technical Planning Manager indicated that he was unsure what a virtual site visit would show Members that they could not already see from the photographs that had been submitted and presented.  He recognised there were concerns in respect of drainage and suggested that Members may wish to consider a deferral for further information and advice in respect of drainage, including seeking a view from the Council’s Flood Risk Management Engineer.  The Member explained that he was particularly interested in the pipework across the field which emptied against the hedgerow and he would be satisfied if photographs could be provided in relation to that.  He also felt there was insufficient information on traffic movements which he would like to see provided as part of the deferral.  The Chair noted that the local Ward Member had made reference to the fact that there were only intended to be two residents but there would be five bedrooms which raised the question of who the additional rooms were for. It was subsequently proposed and seconded that the application be deferred in order to receive further information regarding the drainage proposal, including a view from the Council’s Flood Risk Management Engineer and further information in respect of traffic movements as well as clarification as to the number of children and staff who would be resident and their relationship to the bedrooms shown on the plan.

10.35         A Member indicated that he would be supporting the motion for a deferral and explained that, as a farmer, he was not permitted to discharge drainage water into a ditch and yet that was what was being proposed here.  Furthermore, there had been 25 collisions on the A48 within the past three years with the figures increasing every year so vehicle movements and safety needed to be carefully considered.  The seconder of the motion indicated that she would like to see a plan demonstrating the position of the property as it was located at the start of quite a sharp bend.  She also pointed out that two sites directly opposite had been the subject of permission in principle applications so it was important to consider the wider context.  The proposer of the motion confirmed he was happy for the provision of a larger scale site plan to be included in the reasons for deferral and, upon being put to the vote, it was

RESOLVED          That the application be DEFERRED in order to receive further information regarding the drainage proposal, including a view from the Council’s Flood Risk Management Engineer; further information in respect of traffic movements; clarification as to the number of children and staff who would be resident and their relationship to the bedrooms shown on the plan; and a larger scale site plan.