Change of use from existing dwelling (C3) to children's residential home (C2) (as amplified by noise management policy and details of staff schedule and vehicle movements received 29 November 2024, and as amplified by corrected plan showing parking provision and boundary treatment, and by supporting statement received 11 February 2025).
Minutes:
Councillor Scott Houghton declared a non-registerable interest in this item as he was the local ward member. Councillor Houghton stood down from the committee during the consideration of this application and did not participate in the debate or vote.
The committee considered planning application P24/V2426/FUL:
Change of use from existing dwelling (C3) to children's residential home (C2) (as amplified by noise management policy and details of staff schedule and vehicle movements received 29 November 2024, and as amplified by corrected plan showing parking provision and boundary treatment, and by supporting statement received 11 February 2025).
Consultations, representations, policy and guidance, and the site’s planning history, were detailed in the officer’s report, which formed part of the agenda pack for the meeting.
The planning officer presented the report to members.
The proposal was to change the use of the dwelling to a children's home for a maximum of four young people. The property was located at the end of Long Place and accessed off Fogwell Road. A stream ran along the bottom of the garden, and a footpath ran along the side of the driveway. The rear garden backed onto dwellings along Eynsham Road.
Care would be provided by a management company 24 hours a day. Support workers would care for young people with learning disabilities and/or on the autism spectrum. The dwelling had six bedrooms, including accommodation in the annex. The children's home would have a staff office, a staff room, and bedrooms for four young people. The number of young people able to live on site would be limited to four and secured by condition.
Concerns were raised during the consultation process over parking provision, noise disturbance, and safety measures on site. The officer confirmed that three on-site parking spaces was provided at the front. Any shift changes would happen in a staggered approach, requiring staff to park on surrounding streets for a short period only. This arrangement was reviewed by the highways officer following a site visit, who deemed it satisfactory.
The care approach was to provide a family setting for the young people, with appointments taking place using existing services and facilities away from the property, ensuring specialist care providers would not generate additional vehicle movements to and from the property.
In terms of noise disturbance, the application included general noise management procedures. Although the environmental health officer was satisfied with the information provided, it was recommended that additional detail, management contacts, and an escalation protocol be secured under condition 5.
It was recognised that the dwelling could currently accommodate a large family. The change of use to accommodate four children with three support workers on site would not represent an intensification of use over a single household that could currently take place at the property.
Concerns had been raised over a stream at the bottom of the garden. Suitable measures and supervision would be determined by the regulatory body. This issue did not have a bearing in planning terms. If planning permission was approved, the children's home would still need to meet the requirements of the relevant regulatory bodies.
A further condition was recommended requiring a waste collection and storage statement, proportionate to the scale of the proposal. This would clarify the required domestic or commercial collection and storage of wheelie bins. There was space on site to accommodate either option, and the condition was sufficient to secure the final detail.
The officer addressed a question raised during the site visit regarding permitted development rights. The building could, for the purposes of permitted development, still be classed as a dwelling house, even in C2 use. Therefore, extensions, outbuildings, and changes to the roof could still be carried out. If members felt it was necessary to remove permitted development rights under Part 1, they would need to be clear about the reason for that. The condition restricting the number of young people on site was highlighted and was deemed a sufficient measure to manage the scale and intensity of the use.
In conclusion, while concerns had been raised by residents, the location was sustainable and within easy access of play spaces, services, and facilities, which was the policy standard for all residential developments. The location within the neighbourhood also provided the opportunity for young people to develop connections with peers within the community, promoting well-being and community cohesion. There were no technical objections to the proposed use, and the officer recommended approving the proposal, subject to the conditions outlined.
Councillor Judy Roberts spoke on behalf of Cumnor Parish Council, in objection to the application.
James Major spoke in objection to the application.
Isabel James spoke in objection to the application.
Jesse James Harmon, the applicant, spoke in support of the application.
Ward member Councillor Scott Houghton spoke on the application.
Members asked if the planning permission was granted on the basis that no more than four children reside at the property at any one time. The officer confirmed that any variation to the condition to accommodate additional children would require a new planning application, which would involve reassessment.
Members enquired about the traffic modelling performed at the site to determine that three parking spaces were adequate. The officer explained that initially four spaces were shown on the plans, but it was advised that three spaces were more practical. The arrangement was deemed safe due to the low speeds and appropriate visibility in the residential street. Short-term on-street parking for staff shift changes was considered acceptable and would not present harm or pressure on parking.
Members sought clarification on the additional conditions related to waste management and noise management. The officer explained that the noise protocol would capture details in a short statement tied to the application. The waste management condition would confirm whether domestic or commercial collection was required, ensuring space on site for storage.
Members asked about the implications of permitted development rights if not removed. The officer explained that the building could still be classed as a dwelling house, allowing for extensions, outbuildings, and changes to the roof, but that any significant changes would need to be assessed for their impact.
Concerns were raised about the potential change in character of the area due to the children's home. The officer confirmed that the area was residential, and the proposed use was comparable to a large family living in the property. The supporting statement in the application emphasised the importance of providing a family setting for the young people, which aligned with the character of the area.
Members noted that the aim was to create a community environment for the children, which was seen as a positive move away from traditional institutions. Members agreed that the intensity of use would not be excessive compared to a typical family home and emphasised the benefits of such facilities in residential areas for the well-being of the children.
Members and officers clarified the conditions being added to the recommendations within the written report, including noise management and waste storage, but agreed not to add a restriction on permitted development rights.
A debate ensued regarding concerns about the change in the residential area's character and the potential impact on the neighbourhood. Members noted the public sentiment and a petition from local residents opposing the application. There were worries about noise, traffic, and the suitability of the location for a children's home.
Members discussed the intention the home would provide a necessary and beneficial environment for the children, comparable to a large family living in the property. They highlighted the importance of community engagement and communication from the care provider to address any concerns.
The debate acknowledged the difficulty of the decision, with valid representations on both sides.
A motion, moved and seconded, to approve the application was carried on being put to the vote.
RESOLVED: to approve planning application P24/V2426/FUL subject to the following conditions:/for the following reasons:
1.Commencement within 3 years
2.Development in accordance with approved plans
3.Reduction of front boundary treatment.
4.Provision of cycle storage, prior to occupation
5.Noise management protocol – condition amended by committee:
Notwithstanding the details that have been submitted in the ‘Noise Pollution Policy for Heartview Children Homes Ltd' and ‘Supporting Statement - Heartview Feb 2025’, a detailed noise management protocol shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the LPA before the first occupation of the children’s home.
Details shall include:
These measures must be implemented in perpetuity and any variance to the approved measures must first be approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.
Reason: To protect the amenities of adjacent dwellings (Policy DP23 of the adopted Local Plan 2031 Part 2, and Policy RES1 of the Cumnor Neighbourhood Development Plan).
6.Retention of parking spaces
7.Maximum number of residents – 4
8.Restriction of use – C2 Children’s home
9. Waste management statement – additional condition agreed by committee:
Prior to the first occupation of the children’s home hereby approved, a waste management statement shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.
Details shall include:
The arrangements for waste storage and collection shall be implemented in accordance with the approved details prior to the first occupation of the children’s home, and thereafter shall remain permanently in place.
Reason: To ensure arrangements for refuse and recycling storage and collection are available for use, in the interest of public health and amenity (Policy DP28 of the adopted Local Plan 2031 Part 2 and Policy RES1 of the Cumnor Neighbourhood Development Plan).
Councillor Houghton re-joined the committee.
Supporting documents:
01235 422520
(Text phone users add 18001 before dialing)
Vale of White Horse District Council
Abbey House, Abbey Close,
Abingdon
OX14 3JE
PDF 273 KB
