Agenda item

To consider planning application 20/0407 for use of premises as a semi-independent supported living accommodation facility for four young persons aged 16- 17 with non resident carers (retrospective application) at 7 Holmfield Road.

The Planning Committee considered planning application 20/0407 for the use of premises as a semi-independent supported living accommodation facility for four young persons aged 16 – 17 with non-resident carers at 7 Holmfield Road.  This was a retrospective application which had been deferred from the last meeting, to enable additional information to be circulated.

Miss Susan Parker, Head of Development Management, provided an overview of the application and explained that the property had been in use as a semi-independent supported-living facility for the least three years and the applicant sought to regularise the use of the premises.  Miss Parker explained that the premises was within 400m of an existing facility and the outcome of this application could have an impact on any potential enforcement action against the unauthorised use of the neighbouring property as a semi-independent supported-living facility.

Miss Parker explained that the potential impact of a refusal on vulnerable young residents had been examined and clarified that this and the potential loss of jobs was a material planning consideration.  Information submitted in the Update Report indicated that the premises would not be financially viable if enforcement action were to be held in abeyance until the last residents had left the property.  The applicant had offered to enter into a Section 106 agreement which would give priority to Blackpool children, in consultation with the Children’s Services Department.

Miss Parker stated that the application was contrary to Policy BH24 of the Blackpool Local Plan 2000 – 2016 and the recommendation was to refuse the application.

Mr Patrick Meehan, applicant, spoke in support and acknowledged Policy BH24.  The Home was a family-run business in the applicants own former family home.  He considered that he had a positive relationship with the Children’s Services Team and had offered to enter into a Section 106 Agreement to give priority to Blackpool children.  He stated that he had been informed that he did not require planning permission or a HMO licence.

A colleague of the applicant, spoke and highlighted paragraph 13.2 of the agenda report.  He stated that their provision differed dramatically to the nearby provider.  He informed the Committee of the home’s successful outcomes and that they fully engaged with nearby residents.

In response to this, Miss Parker explained that in planning terms, the nearby premises within 400m of the application property was still a children’s home and that, if permission were granted, the home could revert to a different type of children’s/young person’s home without the need for planning permission in the future.

Members discussed the item and noted the negative impact of relocating children in care and also the positive relationship with Children’s Services.  The needs of the children in relating to the planning policy were noted.  Members also noted the fact that the home was operational for a significant period before the Council’s current understanding and general approach were developed, and before the relevant advice note was produced or published.  It was observed that, when the premises opened, the issues now raised may not have been identified.

The Committee concluded that it would be acceptable to approve the application, contrary to the officer’s recommendation, as closing the home would be detrimental to the operators and vulnerable children.

Resolved:

1.      To approve in principle planning application 20/0407 contrary to the officer’s recommendation for the reason that closing the home would be detrimental to the operators and children, when weighed up against Policy BH24. 

2.      To delegate approval to the Head of Development Management subject to a Section 106 agreement which would give priority to Blackpool children with approval from Children’s Services.

Note: Councillor D Coleman, having declared a prejudicial interest, left the meeting and took no part in the discussion or voting on this item.