Agenda item

Councillor Ovens declared an interest in the following application as a member of the Corporate Parenting Board.

The Officer summarised the officer report which had been pre-circulated and advised Members that two additional comments had been received since the preparation of the report querying the use of the property for a business and asking whether officers had visited the site.

Members sought questions of clarification around the following matters;

• Planning Permission was granted for the property in 2021, why had it not gone ahead and why was it before the committee again?
• The report advised that there were 4 car parking spaces provided including 1 in the garage however the storage of bikes in the garage would restrict the parking of a car and 3 cars would not be able to park on the hardstanding;
• Concerned about the original comments from the engineer on the 30 September 2024 where he submitted lengthy objections in which he mentioned a travel plan and the potential for displaced parking. On the 3 December 2024 the engineer made an additional response however he gave no evidence as to why he had changed his mind and there was no evidence of a travel plan being submitted;
• Sat on the previous application and highway issues were a major concern;

The objectors present at the meeting made the following comments;

• Having previously lived in the property there were visibility issues when reversing off the driveway with many near misses;
• The garage was small and only suitable for one small car and there would not be room to park three cars on the driveway;
• The road had a blind corner, was on an incline and had double bends so this property could not be in a worse location;
• When the current owner visited the property there was no regard for highway safety;
• There was no available space for on road parking;
• 60 objections had been received including Guisborough Town Council and Ward Members;
• Members were obliged to responsibly review all the evidence and make the right decision to protect the residents;
• Similar evidence was presented in 2021 and officers had come to the same conclusion as now ignoring our concerns;
• Legal action would be taken if an accident occurred as we have provided evidence that the road was not safe;
• The application stated that the property would generate the same amount of cars as a family home but we have now collected evidence from other premises run by the applicant that showed that this type of business would generate parking beyond that of a family home;
• At another of the applicants premises there were 6 cars parked so 3 parking spaces here just will not be enough;
• Access for pedestrians, pushchairs and wheelchairs would be problematic;
• It would be a business first and foremost;
• There would be support staff coming and going throughout the day and night;
• Residents close to the applicants other premises have had no end of difficulty accessing their properties and near misses had occurred;
• There had never been a commercial business operating previously;
• One of our residents had worked at a similar business in Leeds and was of the opinion that the property was not suitable in size or location;
• Why have you not taken into account the evidence and the witness statements provided?

Members questioned the objectors on the following points;

• We have heard a lot of information regarding parking, was it a daily issue?
• What had the house been used for since the 2021 application?
• Was the issue the highway element or the fact that it would be operating as a children’s home?

The Ward Member present made the following comments;

• 70 objectors and the residents of Bransdale disagree with planning strategy stating that it would not give rise to prejudicial highway safety and the Ward Members agreed with the objectors;
• Guisborough Town Council agreed that the proposal did not comply with policy H5d;
• The initial reports from the Highways Engineer were sensible stressing that the location was unsuitable only for that to be withdrawn;
• The only change to the original application was that bikes were now to be stored in the garage;
• The proposed parking for 3 cars was small and if 3 cars parked on the driveway they would not be able to get out of their cars;
• A resident who lived close to the applicants premises in Acklam stated that there were 4/5 cars parked;
• There would not be only 2 members of staff at the property;
• There were too many ifs and buts;
• The property would accommodate 3 children and 2 adults, so where would they sleep, would they be expected to share spaces inside the property?

Members questioned the Ward Member on the following points;

• What was the age demographic of the area and did the properties all have parking spaces on their drives?

The applicant present at the meeting made the following comments;

• There will be up to 3 young people accommodated at the premises;
• Staff would always be present at the premises;
• It would not be a behavioural home;
• The reason this area was chosen was that it is a nice area which was safe;
• The staff would be trained;
• There was as much of a chance that a family could move in with antisocial behaviour and with children who all drove too;
• They would be investing in the property;
• The company had two other homes with no police call outs;
• Any parking concerns had been addressed by extending the driveway. 3 cars could now park and that had been tested;
• There should be no more than one visitor at any one time;
• The car at the neighbouring property parks on the roadside;
• Neighbours need only knock on the door if there was a car in their way;
• There would not be two staff sleeping at any one time and there would be no sharing of bathrooms with the young people.

Members questioned the applicant on the following points;

• In respect of the parking arrangements was there a wall that could be removed to give extra space?
• Other similar premises had more than 3 cars visiting in 1 day and here there was no extra space for parking so where would they park?
• How many of these homes do you run?
• Do the premises have a travel plan?
• Have you managed other properties?
• What would be the age range of the young people?
• Was there a requirement for 3 spaces on the drive?
• Would any of the young people have physical disabilities?
• Was there joint access with next door?
• Would you consider gravelling over more of the driveway?

Members debated the application and made the following comments;

• Could we take the parking issues experienced elsewhere into consideration;
• Looking at the site and the nature of the space available for parking and the availability of parking elsewhere people would be parking on Farndale Drive;
• Was it a suitable location for this home;
• Speakers had referred to the fact that it would be difficult to get 3 cars parked on the driveway;
• Not happy with a gravel driveway and could we ask for a more permanent surface;
• The garage was to be used for the storage of bikes but could access be gained to the garage when cars were parked on the driveway;
• A similar property in New Marske was well looked after;
• Sat on the committee in 2021 when there were the same objections.

Following the debate members resolved to grant Planning Permission subject to the following conditions:-

1.The development shall not be begun later than the expiration of THREE YEARS from the date of this permission.

REASON: Required to be imposed pursuant to Section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.

2.The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans:

Location plan received by the Local Planning Authority on 03/09/2024

Site plan with parking received by the Local Planning Authority on 03/09/2024

Existing and proposed plans and elevations (003) received by the Local Planning Authority on 03/09/2024

REASON: To accord with the terms of the planning application.

3.The use of the property hereby approved shall be restricted to that of a small children's care home of not more than five residents within Class C2 (Residential Institutions) of the Town and Country Planning Use Classes Order 2020 (as amended) and for no other purpose including any other purpose within Class C2 of the Order.

REASON; To accord with the terms of the application and allow the Local Planning Authority to exercise appropriate control over any other use within Class C2 in the interests of protecting the amenity of the area.

4.Prior to the commencement of the use hereby approved the three parking spaces shown on the submitted site plan shall be provided on the site, be available for use and maintained as such. In addition, the existing vehicle crossing shall be extended in accordance with details to be agreed with the Council's highways engineers and the extended crossing shall be installed prior to the commencement of the use. The enlarged parking area shall either be made of porous materials, or provision is made to direct run-off water from the hard surface to a permeable or porous area or surface within the curtilage of the property.

REASON: To ensure the development is provided parking in accordance with the Council's adopted standards, that access from the adjoining highway is improved to the required standard and that provision is made for the disposal of surface water without increasing flood risk.