Application Number: 10/01584/CLUPAPPLICATION NUMBER:
10/01584/CLUP
CERTIFICATE OF LAWFULNESS FOR THE PROPOSED USE OF A DWELLING AS A
HOME FOR TWO CARED FOR CHILDREN AT 8 Aberdeen Close, Bletchley,
Milton Keynes FOR Mrs Rashida Bouchada Target: 29th October 2010
Ward: Denbigh
Parish: West Bletchley Council
Report Author/Case Officer: James Kirkham Contact Details: 01908
252039
[email protected] Team Leader: Andrew
Horner Contact Details: 01908 252609
[email protected] 1.0 INTRODUCTION AND
SUMMARY
(A brief explanation of what the application is about, what the
main issues are and the officer's Recommendation to the
Committee)
1.1 The Site The application property is a four bedroom detached
house located at the end of a cul-de-sac in a residential area of
Bletchley. Parking is provided to the side of the house with one
space in front of a gate which sits flush with the front of the
house and two spaces behind this between the houses and the
boundary fence. Details of the location of the site and its
relationship to surrounding properties can be seen in the plans
attached to this report.
1.2 The Proposal The current application seeks a Lawful Development
Certificate for the use of the dwelling as a house for two looked
after children. The house would be a home for two children (between
5 – 12 years old) who experience emotional, social, and/or
behavioural difficulties. Two non-resident care staff will be on
duty at all times and would work 24 hour shifts with a change over
at 10:00am. The children would not be schooled from the property.
Social workers may visit the site occasionally however any other
therapeutic activities will take place away from the property. The
internal layout and external appearance of the dwelling would
remain as existing. One of the bedrooms upstairs would be used as
an office/bedroom for the carers. Details of the proposal as
described above can be seen in the plans appended to this
report.
1.3 Main Issues The main issue in this cases is whether the
proposed use would constitute a material change of use away from
the authorised use of the property as a
dwelling (use class C3). RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that a Certificate of Lawful Use is issued. 2.0
RELEVANT POLICIES
(The most important policy considerations relating to this
application)
2.1 This is not a planning application therefore planning policy is
not relevant. This is an application for a Certificate of Lawful
Use and the matters to be determined relate solely to matters of
evidence and law.
3.0 RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY
(A brief outline of previous planning decisions affecting the site
– this may not include every planning application relating to this
site, only those that have a bearing on this particular case)
3.1 MK/849/82 – Two storey side and single storey rear extensions
and front porch – Permitted MK/642/90 – Erection of front porch and
single storey side extension to form garage – Permitted.
3.2 There are a number of appeal decisions in other parts of the
country relating to similar uses. Some of these are appended to
this report.
4.0 CONSULTATIONS AND REPRESENTATIONS
(Who has been consulted on the application and the responses
received)
4.1 Legal And Property Services The application under reference
10/01584/CLLIP, was submitted by a Mrs Rashida Bouchada (of Summit
care) 27th July 2010. There are several other locations under
consideration by the Council relating to similar uses with
differing levels of care and we are taking considerable care and
time over the analysis of each of these applications which need to
be determined on there particular facts.
4.2 This application was for a certificate of lawful development
for an existing use of the property “as a home for 2 children who
are cared for by 2 carers on shift working, on a 12 hour rota –
which is said will continue to function as a normal family house,
the carers acting as parents to supervise and support the children
at all times”. There have been some anomalies in the information
submitted and the application has clarified that the property would
act as a home for 2 children cared for by 2 carers on a 24 hour
rota. The shift change over would be at 10am.
4.3 There are no physical changes to the layout of the property.
The certificate application was accompanied by the following
documents in addition to the application form: - 1) A ground floor
plan showing rooms and dimensions
2) A first floor plan showing rooms and dimensions which showed 2
children’s bedrooms and a staff bedroom/office 3) A supporting
statement from Summit care explaining how care will be provided to
the children at the property the accommodation arrangements, and
car parking.
4.4 The previous use of the site 8 Aberdeen Close has previously
been used as a residential family dwelling. As such its lawful use
as a dwelling house was within use class C3 of the Town and Country
Planning (use classes) order 1987. Planning permission is required
for development. Section 55 (of the Town and Country Planning Act
1990) provides that development means the carrying out of building,
engineering, mining or other operations in, on or over or under
land or the making of any material change in the use of any
buildings or other land.
4.5 The assessment that has to be made is whether or not the
proposed use of 8 Aberdeen Close for the care of 2 children will
result in there being a material change of use of the building
(currently in use class C3 dwelling house) such that a grant of
planning permission would be required. This assessment can only be
made by comparing the base use of the property which is a C3
dwelling house with the characteristics and activities associated
with its proposed use for the care of 2 children.
4.6 On the facts presented we can draw the following conclusions.
1) The occupancy of the proposed use will be no more than would be
expected from a family dwelling there being 2 children and 2 carers
at the property at any one time. 2) The activities at the property
the household - cleaning, it’s maintenance, shopping for food and
its preparation - is intended to follow a similar pattern to that
of a normal family. 3) Visits by external agencies will be kept to
a minimum and no education will be provided on the premises. 4) The
proposed use of the property will involve no structural changes and
the layouts of the 1st floor and the 2nd floor would be largely
consistent with family domestic use save that on the 1st floor
would be a staff bedroom / office and a staff bathroom. This is the
only indication in terms of the layout of the property that care is
being provided to the children. 5) The arrivals and departures from
the property would be limited to the staff attending shifts for
purpose of providing the 2 children with care and the need to
undertake a school run along with other movements would by
comparison be consistent with the level of use exhibited by a
family dwelling house. 6) The property can provide on site car
parking for 3 spaces so there will not be any additional on street
car parking requirement. I am informed that the house was last
occupied by an elderly couple as a family dwelling, who vacated
several months ago.
4.7 In conclusion there is an element of care provided to the 2
children. This would be consistent with the level and nature of a
use class C2 use. However
the overall/activities at the property are not very different from
use of the building as a dwelling house in use class C3. As such
there is no material change in use and in my view planning
permission would not be required. A certificate can be drafted to
set the parameters of the existing use clearly. This will limit the
scope for future changes of use.
4.8 Parish - West Bletchley West Bletchley Council strongly objects
to this application and contends that the proposal constitutes a
change of use of this property. This Council is opposed to the
proposed use of this dwelling as a home for cared for children,
which it understands would operate as a form of business with
employees, suppliers and visitors attending the site on a 24hr per
day basis. It believes that the proposed use would: i) generate
additional traffic and increase the parking requirement in this
area to an unacceptable level leading to both vehicle obstructions
and dispersed parking in adjacent roads, ii) result in a loss of
amenity, having a detrimental impact on the quiet enjoyment of this
area by local residents.
4.9 Ward - Denbigh - Cllr Long 'I do not believe that this is an
appropriate development for the identified property in the road in
question. I understand from the MKC website that the application
relates to a ‘Certificate of Lawfulness’. Firstly, I do not believe
that the application is a simple request relating to the creation
of a place of residence, in the form of a care home for 2 ‘looked
after’ children. The application appears to me to be a commercial
enterprise and the property is clearly about to have a change of
use from a residential property to a commercial business. Secondly,
I believe that there is a range of planning reasons why this
application should be refused by Milton Keynes Council. I set out
the reasons below. I would ask that the decision on the application
be made by the Council’s Development Control Committee and not
under the Officers delegated powers. Reasons for refusal of the
application There are three areas of planning policy that I believe
the application does not conform to:
• Change of Use. • Parking and traffic • Loss of Amenities.
i) Change of Use. The development will constitute a change of use.
It will no longer be as residential property in a quiet cul de sac,
where residents have mostly lived
for many years. It will become a commercial business with a large
number of staff, working shifts on a 24 hour basis. In addition
other visitors to the property will include tutors for the home
schooling and traders delivering goods to the property. This is a
proposed development by a company not based in Milton Keynes or in
Bletchley. Based in Southend, the applicant company is owned by
Blessed Progress Real Estate. I would suggest that this is a very
clear change of use and that it will have a detrimental impact on
residents including:
• Loss of quiet enjoyment • Significant parking/traffic problems •
Light pollution and potential noise.
ii) Parking and Traffic. Aberdeen Close is a narrow cul de sac. It
will be adversely effected by a regular flow of vehicles associated
with a staff shift pattern and the on site presence of an office
and manager. It is likely that throughout the day a total of 3 cars
will be parked by the house, this is likely to increase to 5 cars
when the shifts change. If a school tutor is in attendance this
would increase the number of parked cars further. As a, de facto,
children’s home it will be the subject of regulation. This means
there will be regular visits from Children’s Services staff. It
could be that at peak times that between 6-7 cars could be in
attendance. This would, I suggest could be a minimum peak. At night
the office manager would not be on site and visits from tutors and
social care staff would be unlikely. Cars could still number 4 at
night; say 10.00pm (at shift change). The flow of traffic would
inevitable impact on this quiet residential cul de sac. Whilst
there is a turning circle at the end of the cul de sac. When the
impact of the combination of resident parking, resident visitors
parking and the cars associated with the proposed development are
considered, this is likely to become a congested and noisy area,
especially at night around shift changes. It will not be easy to
turn. I conclude that this commercial development will have a
significant adverse impact on residents arising from parking and
traffic flow problems. iii) Loss of Amenities. I am further
concerned that the commercial development will:
• Lead to a loss of quiet enjoyment. There will be noise arising
from the movement of cars, even if the house itself remains silent.
That is, itself, unlikely and the combined impact will have a
detrimental impact on residents.
• The house will, I am sure, be properly lit, especially as the
shift pattern leads to a late night changeover of staff.
This lighting will directly impact on neighbouring residential
properties. I believe that I have highlighted strong arguments
showing that the proposed development constitutes a change of use
and why it is not suitable on a range of planning grounds.'
4.10 Local Residents There is no legal requirement to consult
neighbours on Certificates of Lawfulness. This is because the
matters to be determined are solely matters of evidence and law.
However to allow for more transparency the occupiers of the
following properties were notified of the application: 1 – 7 (all)
and 9 Aberdeen Close, Bletchley 57 -75 (odds) Angus Drive,
Bletchley
4.11 Letters of objection have been received by 11 properties.
These have raised the following issues:
- The premises will be run as a business. - Been informed by the
applicant that a minimum of 6 care workers will
be coming and going in and out of the quiet close when each shift
is over.
- How can the premises be run as a normal family home when staff
will be on shift patterns? Summitcare are a business and a business
making profit will be run from this property.
- Aberdeen Close will be affected by the increase in traffic at all
times of day and night including staff, visitors, deliveries,
social services, and nurses.
- There is only parking for one car and the area in front of the
house is use by residents and delivery drivers as a turning
point.
- Residents have been told there will be a manager on duty working
normal office hours. Also there will be three 8 hour shifts each
containing two staff and there would be a hand over report during
each shift turnover. It has also been stated children will be home
educated.
- Could be up to 5 cars at shift change over in this small Close. -
Emergency lighting, security looks, extra rubbish and regular fire
drills
will all add disruption and noise in a quiet close. Fire drills are
commercial in nature.
- The details of the use are extremely vague and confused. -
Aberdeen Close is a residential family close and is a safe place
for
children to play. Residents should not have stand by and watch a
quiet Close become a very busy and possibly unsafe location.
- Concerns over the impact the proposal may have on the confidence
of other children in the street and there desire to play
outside.
- Impact of future children on existing children in the Close. -
This is a residential area and should not have a business or
company
running from any of the homes without applying for planning
permission. The area is not suitable for a business.
- The proposal would result in a change of use from C3 to C2. - The
property will be run as a business not a normal family home. - The
proposals are against the deeds of the property. - The post code is
stated wrong on the application form and the
applicant does not live at the address. - The application states
this is a permanent use but the property is only
being leased for 3 years. - The owner of the property has been
misled. - The use would be more beneficial in a purpose built
facility where
longer term planning and full awareness of its purpose is fully
agreed. - The applicant has told neighbours that the Statement of
Purpose does
not apply to Victoria House (8 Aberdeen Close) - The proposal will
have a negative impact on house prices and will in
the least make it harder to sell houses. - Is the proposal allowed
by the tenancy agreement? The property is
already registered as an office for the business. - The letter
received with the application refers to the planning officer
by
their Christian name which suggests a level of informality which
could be construed as undesirable.
5.0 CONSIDERATIONS
(The analysis of the issues which are critical, material,
considerations and/or of greatest concern to objectors for the
Committee to weigh up before making a decision)
5.1 The current application is not a planning application. The
application is a Certificate of Proposed Use meaning that the
application must be looked at on solely the basis of evidence and
law and not the planning merits. The application seeks to determine
whether, considering the facts of the case and the relevant
planning law, the proposal would be a lawful use and thus not
require planning permission.
5.2 8 Aberdeen Close has previously been used as a residential
family dwelling. As such its lawful use is a dwellinghouse within
use class C3 of the Town and Country Planning (use classes) order
1987 (as amended 2010).
5.3 Planning permission is required for development. Section 55 of
the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 provides that development
means the carrying out of building, engineering, mining or other
operations in, on or over or under land or the making of any
material change in the use of any buildings or other land.
Therefore the important issue in this case is whether a material
change of use will occur away from the authorised use of the
property.
5.4 There is important relevant case law on similar children's home
uses. North Devon District Council v First Secretary of State
(2003) concluded that children could not on their own be considered
to constitute a fully functioning household and that that the
non-resident carers could not be regarded as living with the
children as a 'single household'. Therefore it is considered that
the proposed use does not fall within Class C3 of the Use Class
Order and that the circumstances of the individuals within the
property would therefore place the use within Class C2. However
placing the use in Class C2 does not necessarily constitute a
'material change of use' from C3 to C2.
This view was supported in the above case and has also been applied
subsequently in the case of other similar appeals by a number of
Planning Inspectors around the country. Some of these decisions are
appended to this report. These appeal decisions are relevant
material considerations which the council must take into account in
determining the present application.
5.5 The issue in this case is whether or not the proposed use of 8
Aberdeen Close for the care of 2 children by 2 carers on a 24 hour
shift pattern will result in there being a material change of use
of the building (currently in use class C3 dwelling house) such
that a grant of planning permission would be required. There is no
definition of what constitutes a 'material change of use' and this
has to be assessed on a case by case basis by judging the land use
consequences of the change.
5.6 This assessment has been made by comparing the base use of the
property, which is a C3 dwellinghouse with 4 bedrooms, with the
characteristics and activities associated with its proposed use for
the care of 2 children.
5.7 The proposed occupancy of the property by 2 children and 2
carers at any one time is not considered to be more than would be
expected by a family who may reside at this 4 bedroom property.
Although a third carer may be required on site occasionally, the
normal structure of the property would be two carers, and its not
considered to be significantly different in planning terms to
visitors to the normal house. The applicant has confirmed that the
children will not be home schooled and the general household
activities (cleaning, shopping, etc) would be similar to that of a
dwelling.
5.8 The proposal would not involve any structural changes
internally or externally to the dwelling and the layout would be
very similar to that of an ordinary house apart from the larger
bedroom upstairs being used as an office/bedroom for the
carers.
5.9 The arrivals and departures from the property would consist of
staff attending shifts on a 24 hour shift basis, the possible need
to undertake a school run, other movements such as shopping and
outings, and the occasional visits from family and social workers.
Although the level of movement is considered to be higher than the
previous occupation of this dwelling by 1 elderly resident, it is
considered that this level of movement would be similar to vehicle
movements normally associated with an 4 bed dwelling which can
consist of vehicles movements in regard to residents travelling to
and from work, school runs, visits from friends and family, and
deliveries to the property. The number of cars parked at the site
is not considered to be greatly different from what could be
expected at a 4 bedroom property in ordinary family use. Although
at shift change over time (10am) there may be up to 4 cars at the
property, if all staff were to drive, this would only be for a
short period of time and is considered to be comparable with the
expected level of use exhibited by a family dwelling house of this
size.
5.10 The fact that the property will be run as a business and may
generate profit is not considered in itself to result in a material
change of use occurring. As
discussed above the materially of the change of use has to be
assessed on the basis of the land use consequences of the proposed
use and through comparing the proposed use with the established
use. Businesses can in some circumstances operate from residential
premises without requiring planning permission. The applicant has
confirmed that the emergency lighting referred to in the Statement
of Purpose accompanying the application would only consist of an
emergency light at the top of the stairs inside the property in
case of a power cut. There would be no emergency lighting
externally. The fact the fire drills will occasionally also take
place is also not considered to result in a material change of use.
Due to the scale of the use, with only be 4 people at the property,
these are not considered to alter the materially of the development
in planning terms.
6.0 CONCLUSIONS
(The officer advice to the Development Control Committee on the
appropriate decision, based on the policies of the Development
Plan, taking into account the issues detailed in the report)
6.1 It is considered that the proposed use of this property as a
care home for 2 children with 2 carers, working a 24 hour shift
pattern would not fall into Use Class C3 as due to the nature of
the proposed occupiers they could not be regarded to form a family
or a single household. However it is considered that in this case
due to the scale of the proposed use and the similarity of the
nature and character of the use compared to the authorised C3 use
of the property, the proposal would not constitute a material
change of use requiring planning permission. Appeal decisions on
similar proposals elsewhere in the country have reached the same
conclusion. It is therefore recommended that a Certificate be
issued outlining the scale and nature of the use.
6.2 If the proposal is not operated in accordance with the
certificate and is of a greater magnitude then the Council would
need to re-assess whether the use required permission.
7.0 REASONS
(The reasons that officers recommend that a certificate be
issued.)