Home > Council and Democracy > Agenda item

Agenda item


To consider an application for the use of premises as a residential care home for up to two people over the age of 18.


The Planning Committee considered planning application 20/0530 for 124 Norbreck Road, Blackpool.


Miss Susan Parker, Head of Development Management, outlined the report, the nature of the application and the details of the proposal.


The application was for the use of a premises as a residential care home for up to two people over the age of 18. The application had been brought before the Planning Committee at the request of the ward councillor and the recommendation was for refusal. Miss Parker outlined the planning history of the site and reminded the Committee that the application had been before the Committee before and had initially been recommended for approval, however whilst the S106 agreement was being prepared, the Council had obtained additional legal advice.  As the property fell within 400m of a semi-independent living facility for young people, the application had been brought back to the Committee and refused on the basis of conflict with Policy BH24 of the Local Plan.


The proposed scheme would serve adults rather than children and as such there was no locational conflict with Policy BH24. However the key issue for the Committee to consider was one of need and the Council’s Children Adults and Family Services Team had confirmed that there was currently no need in Blackpool for the type of accommodation proposed. In addition, as there was no confirmed need, it was feasible that the placements could be from outside the Borough, which would be contrary to the Council’s strategy.


Miss Parker noted that the scheme was not considered to represent sustainable development and members were recommended to refuse the application for the reasons set out in the officer’s report.


Mr Daniel Lee, as the applicant, spoke in favour of the application and asked the Committee to give limited weight to the Policy DM3 in the Blackpool Local Plan Part 2. He noted the objections raised by residents and the Member of Parliament. The issue of the facility being used by people from outside the Borough was speculative and could be mitigated by a S106 agreement. Mr Lee outlined the previous planning history of the application and his disappointment with the previous decision to refuse. Mr Lee queried Councillor Sloman’s links with another care provider in terms of her objections to the application.


Councillor Mrs Callow spoke on the application as a Ward Councillor and stated that the Committee had excellent reasons to refuse the application. The property had been rented on a 5-year lease to the applicants and in that time the garden had become overgrown and an outbuilding had been used by a rough sleeper. She stated that the elderly residents nearby had been disrupted by the application and did not feel that their views had been taken into account by the applicant and asked the Committee to refuse the application.


Councillor Sloman addressed the Committee as a Ward Councillor and stated that she had left the employ of a care company in May 2021, confirmed that her husband did not work for their either and that she was speaking on this item on behalf of her constituents as their representative. Councillor Sloman referred to the Independent Review of Children’s Social Care in England report issued by Josh MacAlistair and noted that the applicant had not provided a statement of purpose and was unclear as to the adults that would be accommodated within the facility. Councillor Sloman asked the Committee to refuse the application.


In response to issues raised by the speakers, Miss Parker reminded the Committee that limited weight should be given to Policy DM3 and that the application was a breach of the Council’s current policy BH24 which was referenced in the proposed reason for refusal. A S106 agreement could have been considered only where the Children’s and Family Service had confirmed a need for this facility. Therefore, the application did not meet the policy. The condition of the garden was not a material planning consideration.


The Committee discussed the application and stated that this was outside of the Council’s policy.



That the application is refused for the reasons outlined in the officer’s report.

Supporting documents: