Monmouthshire Council - Planning Committee

Transcript

Welcome everybody to this planning committee meeting on the 8th of May 2024. I am Councillor Phil Murphy, chair of the committee and in a sec when we just dealt with a little technical issue. Dale, could you like to have a book? Hi, I'm Councillor Dale Rook, I'm the vice chair of the planning committee. Craig O'Connor, head of placemaking. Philip Thomas, development services manager. Amy Longford, development management area manager. Andrew Jones, development management area manager. Julian Sanders, Mr. Anna Hawker, training sister. Richard Williams, democratic services. Thank you for that everybody. Can we go to the agenda now then please? Richard, we have any apologies? Yes, here apologies from Councillors with crook web and howls. Thank you. Any declarations of interest? As and when if not, okay, thanks very much. Can I have somebody to propose we accept the minutes of the previous meetings? Sue McConnell and Councillor Maureen Powell, thank you very much. Can I remind everybody online to use the hands up facilities please so that I can see you and to keep the camera on at all times so that you can vote? The first item on the agenda is application DM 2.0, 2.0, 1.4, 3.8, a development of 15 dwellings in Little Mill. We need to make a statement on that and head of planning Craig O'Connor is going to deliver that. Thank you, Chair. Unfortunately, I've advised the Chair that I think it's appropriate that we defer this planning application from today's meeting. There is a technical report which unfortunately wasn't uploaded to the external website and that information needs to be made available to public and to yourselves as members in to inform your decision making. So unfortunately, I apologise on behalf of the head of service in terms of having to defer this at this late stage, apologise to the applicants for that information not being uploaded and that will be rectified ASAP and be proposed to come back to the next meeting next month and that information will certainly be forwarded to all members as well. So apologies for that members of the planning committee. Okay. Thank you, Craig. The next item on the agenda is DM 2.0, 2.0, 2.0, 6. If this is in respect to the lawful development certificate for the proposed use of a property, 28 Jasper Tudor present in landfoyst for five elderly persons. This is a C3 use class and we need to determine whether or not any change is appropriate. Amy, you're going to deliver that one. Thank you very much, Chair. So as you can see on the location plan in front of you, the site is located in landfoyst. It is part of the residential development opposite Waitrose supermarket. The property is marked in red on the plan and is adjacent to the open space play area. The next slide shows the floor plans of the house. There are no proposed changes to the property. The ground floor plan shows a kitchen diner with a living room study and downstairs toilet to the ground floor. There are four bedrooms, one on suite and a bathroom to the first floor and two bedrooms to the and a landing area to the second floor. The next slide shows the elevations of the building showing the front with the parking area and then there are two slides showing the views up and down the street. So this application relates to a lawful development certificate which is different to planning applications that members usually see before them. The difference is that in determining a lawful development certificate, the local planning authority are not granting planning permission. A certificate in this case for the proposed development poses the question that is planning permission required for the proposed use. In this case, the proposed use of the building is to provide accommodation for five elderly residents with a carer in the day and overnight. There will be a maximum occupancy of six people at the property with five people being permanent residents. The current use of the building is for residential purposes which falls into the C3 use class. Within this use class there are three categories, C3A, C3B and C3C. Planning permission is not required to remove between these categories or within the C3 use. As stated, the current use class of the building is C3A and for the reason set out in the officer's report, it is considered that the proposed use class falls within the C3B category which is up to six people living together as a single household and receiving care. For example, supported housing schemes such as those for people with the learning disabilities or mental health problems. In coming to the conclusion, the assessment has been, will the proposed occupants be using the property as a single household. So case law provides some background into assessing what constitutes a single household. These are things such as how the residents can't be living together and how the future residents may be introduced, how the residents daily lives integrate with each other and who is responsible for managing the home and looking after it, whether the residents were able to or did they lock their bedrooms and how stable the group composition is and how communal the living arrangements are. These questions have been further considered at various appeals. Inspectors have given weight to the living arrangements within the house, stating that where arrangements promote the formation of living relationships, supporting the communal living, sharing living spaces such as kitchen and living areas and which contributes to the creation of single households. Inspectors repeatedly gave less weight to the care of being a permanent resident. Inspectors have also considered the scale and degree of the proposals in relation to the property, looking at the accommodation available and what might be reasonable to be occupied as part of family. Inspectors have also considered the tenancy arrangements and the degree of transients of residents, considering how often the household composition changes and giving more weight to a consistent communal group. Inspectors did consider that the residents of properties do not have to be related to live together as a household. In addition, the presence of staff or carers would not change the dynamic as the carers there to support the household in much way as a household might have employed staff such as a nanny. The presence of locks on bedroom doors was not itself a determinant factor, especially when balanced against the provision of communal areas. In this case, it's considered that the proposed use falls within this C3B category. The residents have lived together as one group for about 20 years and have been sharing communal spaces and developed a stable relationship. Further information has been provided by the applicant, Pavel, to explain how the household operates on a daily basis. The group will share these communal spaces, the main living rooms such as a kitchen, living rooms and the amenity space. They will have separate bedrooms with locks on, however, this is for private use. The tenancy is managed by Pavel, who are seeking to maintain a cohesive group who can live freely together and anticipate limited change. The residents are free to come and go as any other normal household. In addition, the property is a six-bedroomed house which can easily accommodate six persons as proposed without alteration, and so it is not considered that proposals intensify the use over and above its existing use. As a result, it is considered that the proposals are aligned with a number of the key considerations borne out of the inspectors' appeals above. A specific case in North Devon has also been cited as being relevant to the consideration of a single household. This related to a lawful development certificate as well. However, this considered children are not adults and determined that there was a change of use from C3 to C2. The judge considered whether the children could reasonably form a household without the carer element. Previous considerations have determined that the carers can be part of the household and not have to reside at the premises. However, the North Devon case concluded that the children and the carer are needed to reside at the premises for the case to be considered a single household as the children needed to be looked after and could not run the house without the care element. The case before you relates to adults and not children. As here, the adults are able to form a single household without the care element needing to reside at the property. Therefore, they can operate as a single household. In this particular instance, there is one carer for five adults, which suggests low levels of care and guidance. The adults themselves form the household with the additional support of the carer. Officers have had extensive discussions over the merits of the case and have consulted with legal officers regarding the case store above. This has not been in a formal written response. However, officers are satisfied that the interpretation of the above case law is appropriate and the informal guidance which has been provided supports this. Given the above case law and a specific nature of the proposals in front of us, it is considered that the proposed development falls within the category of C3B, and so planning permission is not required and the certificate should be allowed. Thank you. Thank you, Amy. The local member here is Councillor Ben Callard. Ben has been in touch with me today. Unfortunately, his work commitments are going to prevent him from addressing us today, but he wanted everybody to know that he has, in fact, been in touch on it. We've also seen correspondence related to Ben's involvement in this case, so we're familiar with that. The next person to speak is Councillor Cahuert-Jones, who's speaking on behalf of Land Voice Community Council. Gareth, you have four minutes. Thank you very much, Chairman. Before I start, can I ask you to talk directly into the mic, Mr. Gower? Is that clear, Chairman? Thanks. Before I start, what Amy has just presented is not in the office's report, so the statement I'm preparing is based on the office's report, particularly in the interpretation of North Devon. What she's just said is completely news to me and two of the residents. Starting off with my statement, then, the Community Council objects to the proposal for a law for development certificate to be granted in respect of 20H just for due to the president to be used as a C3B dwelling as described in the application. The Community Council believes that the proposal in reality is for a C2 dwelling and a such planning approval should be sought for material change of use, as expounded below. The Community Council recognises that the proposal for a lawful development certificate announced that a change within the C3U class from C3A to C3B would not generally be subject to the normal rigour that would be applied to a proposal for material change of use. However, the Community Council notes that the proposal is submitted is for a dwelling for five elderly people with 24/7 living care and support. In reality, this support would need to be provided by a rotor at least two people. Indeed, the proposal indicates that two shift workers would provide care and possibly more. Taking Popo's proposal at face value, there would be at least seven people in the property during a 24-hour period, five residents and two shift-working carers and therefore there are at least seven people in the group which fall to be considered. C3B provides for up to six people living together as a single household. In the case of North Devon Council and the first Secretary of State, the court held that for the use of all within C3, the residents and carers must live on the premises. Otherwise, the use falls within Class C2. In the North Devon case, it was held that shift workers were not living on the premises. That is precisely the case in this scenario. It is clear that as regards for 28 just but due to crescent, 24-hour carers are required. Otherwise, this would not fall part of the proposal. I think that'll be crucial actually. As the carers are a) necessary for functioning of the household and b) cannot be set to fall before part of the household, given that they do not reside there and c) contribute to a group which you see C3B. Well, I've made the main point, so the other step is to do with the nature of the proposal, to understand that they're not relevant. But it's interesting that that still did fall part of the office's report. Okay, thank you for that. There were a couple of points in there. I think what we're going to do today, every time somebody addresses the committee, we're going to go straight to the office. Otherwise, we're going to lose the track of people's arguments. Amy, would you like to come back on that? There was a particular point about seven people that you might like to address. Yes, thank you very much. I think the reason why we've cited the North Devon case today, and it's not in the report, is one that it was raised in late correspondence. Secondly, it was raised on site yesterday to remember site visits and requested that members be informed about the outcome of the North Devon case. So there is so we only consider it appropriate then to provide that information back to members. There's a point in relation to where carers did need to reside at the property or not. There's significant inspectors reports that say that carers do not have to reside at the property to be classed as part of the household. In some instances, with this case with the North Devon one where they are children, it was considered that that was necessary because children couldn't care for themselves and operate as a single household. The second point, or sorry, third point then, about seven people living at the property. This is an application for five elderly persons, plus a carer. The carers you can't do a 24-hour shift consistently, so that carer as an individual would change, but there will only be one carer overnight sleeping at that property. So there'll be a maximum of six, which again aligns with the category C3B. Okay, thank you, Amy. The next speaker is Tom Wayer, who was speaking on behalf of the objective. First of all, thank you for the opportunity to address you on behalf of the community. The conclusion of the planning report that I have before you states, and I quote, "The information submitted and the assessment above demonstrates the use of the site as a supported living for five elderly persons under the supervision of one staff at any one time. Would not represent a material change of use from the existing C3 running house. The proposal would fulfill the criteria of 3B as the household would contain less than six residents and care is provided to a degree similar to that expected within a typical family home. Therefore, the proposal is lawful as you would not result in a material change of use. In this case, planning permission is not needed. We agree that a change of use from class C3A to class C3B does not need planning permission. Our submission is that the change of use is not from class C3A to class C3B, but from class C3A to class C2, which does require planning permission. The up to six residents criteria is referred to and considered at length in the North Devon District Council and the first Secretary of State case, the leading case on this issue, which the planning department report to you fails to refer to at all. Firstly, by the application submission, there are at least seven people in the property during a 24-hour period, five residents and two ship working carers. And therefore, there are at least seven people in the group which fall to be considered. This clearly exceeds a stipulated requirement of up to six people living together as a single household. On the basis of the numbers alone, if they were considered a single household, the property would fall into class C2. The question arose in the North Devon case and this is key as to where the carers who do not live on the premises but who provide 24-hour care can be regarded as living together as part of the household. The answer was no. The court held that for the use to fall within class C3B, the residents and the carers must live on the premises. Otherwise, the use falls within class C2, a residential institution. This is precisely the situation here in that the cared for will live on the premises in just pursuit of the present. The carers will live in their own premises, their own homes and work in just but due to the present, which will therefore be a residential institution at class two premises which does require planning permission. The leading case law has not even been referred to in the planning department response. It has, however, been referred to in the letter from public planning and development consultants as re-planning, to Monmarshia Planning Department dated 5th of February 2024, which accompanied the public application form. I quote from the address planning letter of the 5th of February. Nevertheless, case law, North District Council, the first secretary of state, provides that if the residents could not function as a household without carers who do not reside at the property, then the use would fall into C2. It's quite difficult. We agree, and it does fall into C2. Once the classification has determined to C2, there falls into question whether the change of use is material or not. That's a separate question which the community would likely opportunity to formally respond to once C2 has been determined as appropriate. You have 30 seconds time. Since Mr Joyce discons in the northern case may declare that depends on individual facts of the case and whether or not they change the material. It's a question of fact and degree. We are sorry, but in our opinion, the planning department inclusion in this case is fundamentally forward. We would encourage that having heard the community concerns, if you are in any way uncomfortable, as we most certainly are, with the planning department responses, they should defer a decision until such time as you can fully satisfy yourselves in this matter. Chair, could I possibly create your indulgence and just respond to a couple of points that Amy made? Very briefly then. Thank you. Amy is about to come back on your points. In relation to that, the North Devon children needed 24-hour care. The residents in this case, by the statements provided, by probable, need to 24-hour care, otherwise they wouldn't have two people working back to back. The North Devon case was concerning children, quite clearly. But the judge, Mr Justice Commons, did not discriminate between the provision for children and the provision for adults. Thank you very much. Okay, Amy, there's a couple of points there. I know you've dealt with them before, but can you reiterate? Yes, thank you, Chair. First of all, I think it's important to note that although the North Devon case provides us with insight on how to assess what a single household would be, it is not the leading case on this decision. There is a lot of case law, including a number of inspectors' decisions that look at all aspects of what constitutes a household, and it isn't just the provision of whether the carer is a resident or not. I think one of the important things to note about the North Devon case is that it relates to children and not adults, and therefore, I think in the judge's consideration, he does specifically state that the children are unable to perform a household as they need. They cannot run a house by themselves, which is a distinction between children and adults. It's been mentioned again that there are seven people in the property. That isn't the case. That's confirmed by the information from Pobble that the aim of the proposal is to support five elderly persons, sorry, with learning support, with a 24/7 support by one member of staff, not two. And again, I think the distinction between the cases, as I will reiterate, is the level of care that could be reasonably required to form a household. Here, we do have five adults that have been living together for a consistent and quite lengthy period of time, and have been able to form that household together, and the care support will be additional. I think it's important to note that there is one member of staff for five adults, which suggests that the care level is relatively low. I think those all point. Thank you, Amy. We now have the applicant's agent. Caroline Jones, chair, do you have four minutes? Chair, members, good afternoon. My name is Gary Jones from Asprey Planning. Thank you for allowing me to address you today in support of the application. As the committee report confirms, this application is for a lawful development certificate to confirm if the proposed use of the property being used as a supported living home for five elderly persons under the care and supervision of one staff member at any time would require planning permission. The LDC was submitted to confirm that the proposed use would fall within a C3 residential use class, which is within the same use class as the existing house. The committee report and office of presentation confirms this and agrees that there would be no change of use. It is clear from the case that we have set out on the assessment in the committee report that there is no need for a planning application. On this basis, the LDC has been recommended for approval. The applicant, Power Group, provides an exceptional residential care for all the people with learning and support requirements, such as what is being proposed here. They provide tailored support to each and every individual, depending on their needs. Within our application, we submitted a number of similar cases from other local planning authorities in South Wales, including Newport and Caffilly, where it has also been agreed that four or five persons living with a carer can do so within a C3 use class and there is no need for planning permission. Some of these cases have also been considered a plan in appeal and inspectors have again confirmed the position. However, as part of the consideration of the application by officers, partly in response to the level of interest that there has been in the application from local residents and the community council, further evidence was required on how the property would remain as a residential house. This confirmed that it would function in the same way as any household would, such as the group has lived together for over 20 years. The longest length of residency has been in place since the service first started operating. There is a low turnover of residents using the service, as it is designated for adults with learning difficulties. In the last five years, there has been one new service user to join the group and this change came about to do to the death of a previous long-term resident. As such, this is a very stable service provision. In terms of how the carers interact with the group, the carers provide background support, helping with everyday living and assisting with some trips into Abigavani. Cooking is sometimes done together or the residents will prepare their own meals with assistance if it is required. There are no set meal times or provisions of meals, as you may expect in a care home. Carers make with residents or not on a day-to-day basis. The group's level of independence varies from person to person, but assistance is available when needed, rather than being required to support them in all aspects of their lives. The representations against the application have been addressed in the committee report. In the vast majority of cases, they are not material planning considerations that have been raised. In summary, the use of the dwelling would not be materially different in planning terms to its use as a single C3 residential household, and therefore, no material change of use would occur when planning permission is not required. Finally, I wanted to emphasise that Monardshire Commissioners and the local health board have visited the site and expressed their full support for the re-provision of the service and recognised that this scheme will significantly enhance the well-being of the people using the service. Thank you for your time and we would respectfully request that the LDC is approved in line with the officer's recommendation. Thank you. Thank you. I don't think there was anything you needed to pick up on there, maybe? Okay. Well, thanks for that, everybody. We've got no specialists scheduled to discuss anything with us today, so I'll leave it open to members now. If anybody wants to raise any questions, then feel free to do so. Sue Riley. Thank you, Chair. I fully understand the explanations in relation to the existing household, and I've read all of the, obviously, the neighbours' concerns. The question I want to ask, which doesn't feel entirely comfortable, is as the elderly residents become more elderly, their care needs are likely to increase, and if for whatever reason voids occur, then either there will be less residents or possibly more staff. So, where does that fit with this application? Thank you for that. So, Amy, do you want to come back or can I answer that? I don't mind answering it. I was just good checking that that was, you'd finished. I didn't want to jump in there. Well, I think so. It's a bit uncomfortable. With what we're talking about, if voids occur and you've got less people there, then you're either going to have to introduce more, or if the care needs, there will be more carers, if the care needs increase, and one of those may occur, one or both of those. So, it just seems that this is fairly short-term arrangement. I think there's been quite a consistent tendency or the household group have been running for more or less 20 years together. If it transpires that the residents need additional care and that intensifies the use on the site, and it may be that the situation changes, that a planning application might be required in the future if things change. But what we need to be clear of right now is that we are looking at the certificate and whether it requires planning commission or not for the proposed use that it's in front of us as it is now. So, if the circumstances change in the future and it is exact any kind of situation, whether things change, we would need to revisit that in case planning permission is required. But we're making an assessment on what we have in front of us right now. Could I just come back on that then? So, how would we know? Would we be informed if somebody moved out or something was occurred, or if the care needs were increased? How would we know? Well, we may well be informed by a member of the public that things have happened. I'm sure that Paul are a very responsible manager of their property, and if they feel as well that things have changed and the level of care in that environment needs to change, then they have the option of taking the individual out of that property and putting them in a position where their care needs are better met elsewhere, or there's the option for them to come back and say, our care needs and our requirements for this property have changed, and therefore we feel that we would need a new planning application. Can I just clarify one more point on that then? So, if voids for whatever reason occurred, are they going to leave those voids, I would be running it down to maybe two, one, two or three adults, or would they be reintroducing more people to fill those voids? Well, the certificate is for up to five persons with one carer, so it could be three persons living in that property, or it just has to be a maximum of five with one carer. I don't know whether Paul wouldn't come back in and comment on how you would be managing the property on a daily basis. Yeah, so if you need any more information and get that from Paul, as I'm the agent on the application, or ask for the agent on the application, but I think what's been prevented is that it demonstrates that this has been a long-term service that's been provided with only one change over the last 20 years, but appreciate what you're saying as potentially people pass away, would that be filled? And if it stayed within that five, then that wouldn't trigger the need for another planning application. They have had one person come in to fill in potentially avoid previously in the existing facility, but if that happened again, then that wouldn't trigger the need for a planning application. If one person saw apologies. Sorry. That was my point. So, I suppose the point I'm trying to make is it's being presented as a stable static group of five, and I just wanted us to acknowledge that that may not always be the case. Is that fair? Yeah, no, that's fair, that's fair. If I could just add to it, I think it's important to note that any residential property with a certain amount of documents may not be a completely stable residency for the entirety of those people occupying that property, so I think that's important to note. Councillor POLL. Thank you, Chairman. What I'd like to say is this, you can have a family of six parents and poor children living in a house like this, and things could change, but these people have lived together as a family, and no doubt they get on probably just as well, if not better, than a natural family. So, I can't see that there's a problem at all. If they can't get more less able to craft themselves, obviously they might have to go to a proper nursing home, but if they can stay able, I can't see there's a problem, and I don't know why people shouldn't mind that it's five people, perhaps elderly, living in a house, any more than a family living in the house, it seems to me to be people looking for difficulties. I mean, I hope that I don't have to go into any sort of care. I'm 86 now, and I'm sure that I can, I hope I carry on the same as I am now. Nobody knows what the future holds, but those five people have lived together as a family, that length of time, so I'm sure they're perfectly able to live together as a family there, and I can't see what problem it is to the neighbours. Are they going to have big wild dances or something? I just don't see where their objections are coming from, and I think it's a very good idea. There should be more places like it. Thank you. Thank you, Councillor POLL. Councillor Thank you, Chair. It was very useful to go to the site yesterday and meet residents as well, and one of the concerns was about vehicle movements. I just wondered how many cars are operated by residents at the moment, if any cars are, and whether it's possible that there might be movements, for example, food deliveries like meals on wheels, that type of thing. There was also concern by residents about future use, so if the, as time progresses, if the age group of the service changed and to younger people began to move in as the elderly residents passed away, would that then necessarily become a planning decision in the future, or could we at this point look at maybe a condition to review as time passes on the use of the property, because that would hopefully come with your residence that it's going to remain as a service, is at the moment rather than changes where younger people might be moving in over time. Thank you. Thank you, Councillor CURK. We can't condition lawful development certificates, but Amy, do you want to come in on that? Yeah, thank you very much. In relation to parking and car use, I think it's important to note that this is not a planning application. We are not looking at the merits of the proposals. We are looking at the technical question of is planning permission required, and does the proposals operate as a single household or not? So I think I just need to bring it back to that key question that we're looking at today. If the question over does, but the occupancy, again, I think that there's a very similar question that was asked earlier. The certificate is for five elderly people to be living together. If the circumstances change, then a new certificate might want they can apply for a new certificate, or we might need to reconsider the level of care that is being provided, and a new planning application may be required. And again, as the Chair has kindly mentioned, we can't put conditions on a certificate. This is not a planning application that we are approving or refusing. It is a certificate. The question is, does planning permission required or not? Thank you, Amy. Councilor Eason? Yeah, thank you, Chair. Mine comes up with a technical, as you're talking about whether they should be planning an application or are just a licence. What complications would it make if this was a planning application? Was it the moment? It's a licence for five adult members and in-house carer. If a planning application was put in, how would that change the tenor of what the property would be used for? I understand the book park and things like that. But it doesn't mention the possibility of children in the future. How would that fit in? What really is the difference? No, not the difference. What really is the problem, but if it went for plan application, you would find or probably might find it moving forward? I think I'm understanding the question correctly. How would we consider a planning application? Basically. If a planning application came in, it would have to go through all the normal processes of the consultation, et cetera, et cetera. We would be asking for opinions. That's not what's before us today. I don't want to get into the pre-judging what may or decision may or may not be made by a planning application in the future. That would be subject to a completely separate process. So I think we need to bring it back to the merits of the proposals in front of us and do we consider these proposals to operate as a single household and just look at the certificate? You did mention whether you did mention a planning application scenario that might exist. Am I right? I can see what the license is about. If circumstances change and the use of the property is intensified and it does start to operate as a residential care home or if any other change of use is required, then a planning application would be required for those. We can't pre-judge what may or may not happen in the future. But there are circumstances that would require a change of use. All right. Another comment, I didn't like the comment by a neighbor saying that they may be under social issues, causing risks, especially the children. I think that was an appropriate acceptance comment by a neighbor by the way. Thank you. Thank you, Councillor East. I entirely understand why you asked that question, but can I remind everybody again what we are looking at here today? It's so easy to drift off into planning terms. We really do need to concentrate on what's in front of us. Councillor McKenna. Thank you, Chair. Thank you for your presentation, Amy, and for all of the speakers who've attended today. I'm satisfied from the site visit yesterday. The officers report the presentation today and what I've heard and read about the planning law and the case law that this application appears to fall within the C3B use for up to six people living together and therefore planning permission is not required. I appreciate that some residents may find my view disappointing. But as a planning committee and what was already been stressed to us previously, we have to look at what is before us and focus on where the planning permission is required or not. There are no material changes and anything that is a civil matter because yesterday we did hear from residents about a few civil issues that is actually outside the remit of this committee and the property is not succeeding. It's intended use and will run as a single household. I think maybe Councillor POWell was in support of this, but I just wanted to propose that we support the officers' report if she hasn't done so already. I did have three questions, but they've already been asked, so thank you. Thank you, Councillor McKenna. Councillor Burch. Thank you, Chair. Again, thanks to the officers presenting the report and to those who have spoken. I think it would be entirely wrong for us to judge from this point on this on terms of the amount of care to be provided. Any of us can need care in our homes at any time of our lives, particularly in later life. So really, whether these residents require care or not is entirely a private matter. The issue here is whether they live together as a household and it seems to me that evidently they do, and that is the intention of the setup within the home, is that these adults should live together as a household. Also, we should not be discriminating because the house is being purchased by Pobble rather than being purchased by an individual. I think if this was a property which had been purchased by five able-bodied and able-minded friends who chose to live together, this application for a change of use would not even have come to this committee, or sorry, for these certificates of lawful development would not even have come to this committee. And in terms of the impact on residents, if the house was purchased by an extended family, by a large family, certainly adult children and their partners with a car each, I think there would be far more impact on the residents. So I think we should move to approve the certificate of lawful development. Thank you, Councillor perch. Councillor Boon. I'm just going to, basically, what I was going to say is the same as Councillor Mckenna and Councillor Boonch that I see no reason not to approve a lawful development certificate here. This family appears to fit very well within C3B category and the city with the area looks perfect who support or supported living accommodation, being as it is walking distance to the local supermarket and to town for employment and social activities for the residents, the future residents. And in fact, as Councillor Boonch says, ordinarily people with disabilities are less likely to own cars and be drivers and therefore would have less likely to have an impact on the surrounding parking situation than it would if there were two adults and four grown children living in the house. And therefore, yeah, I'm happy to approve. Thank you. Okay, thank you for that. I've got no more people on my list to speak unless somebody is going to do their normal trick and stick their hand in just as I'm about to wind up. Okay, we've had quite a good discussion on this thing. A lot of points have been covered. Several people have indicated that they wish to support it. So just to get it down for the minutes, can I have somebody propose that we agree the lawful developments, Councillor Powell? Is that seconded by Councillor Green? Okay, thank you very much. Richard, can we have the voting function out, please? Okay. Thank you. a lot. a lot. a lot. thank you, so the vote has been received. It's in favour of the proposal. All 14 have voted yes. Thank you very much, Julian. Thanks to everybody for their submissions today. We'll now move on to the next item on the agenda. And Andrew, you're going to cover those? Yes, thank you, Chair, to wait for the slides to come up. This is just your information to report a couple of recent appeal decisions. So the first one was an application where we refused planning permission. This was at Rose cottage up in Norway. You can see the site there on screen. So it was outside of the boundary open countryside location and they were seeking to permission to provide a front boundary wall and gates to encloses quite a large vehicle opening on the site. We'll see on the next picture. So it's the retaining boundary walls and gates was what was sort of commission. Obviously it was over a meter adjacent to the highway. That's what required permission. And you'll see from the slides, the wall was high. It was very severe and almost an urbanizing effect within the country side, where prevailing character of softer boundaries, hedging, coastal wire fence and things of that nature. And we felt that that would be very strong sort of defensive enclosure in that instance. And the inspector agreed. And so the appeal was dismissed, planning commission withheld for the reasons we gave in terms of our design criterion and the appropriateness of context and the importance of boundary treatments. So that was burst appeal. The second appeal was stereo lodge just outside of car went. This was for a building was previously a garage. It had been given permission in 2017 to be converted to a holiday let. That's the building there. I think it's the one to the right. Yeah, that one there. So it's a modern building effectively. But there are sort of separate policies for holiday let's as opposed to residential use. So we had refused planning commission to remove the conditions of the holiday let, which would have had the effect of an unrestricted residential use as it was contrary to our strategic policy S1 in the LDP, which has sort of set criteria where unrestricted residential use would be. And the inspector agreed again. And so the planning appeal were dismissed. There was debates around the application of policy H4, which is the conversion of buildings to dwellings. But the inspector was clear that the conversion had already happened. So it wasn't a conversion as such. And in any event it was it was still a modern building, which would have failed the relevant criteria for that. So yes, well done to the case officer. I think it was the same case officer for both. And good that the decisions we make in are being sort of validated and upheld by PEDU. So just for your information. Thanks. Thanks so much for that Andrew. That concludes the items on the agenda for today. So thank you very much everybody and we'll see you next time.

Transcript

Welcome everybody to this planning committee meeting on the 8th of May 2024. I am Councillor Phil Murphy, chair of the committee and in a sec when we just dealt with a little technical issue. Dale, could you like to have a book? Hi, I'm Councillor Dale Rook, I'm the vice chair of the planning committee. Craig O'Connor, head of placemaking. Philip Thomas, development services manager. Amy Longford, development management area manager. Andrew Jones, development management area manager. Julian Sanders, Mr. Anna Hawker, training sister. Richard Williams, democratic services. Thank you for that everybody. Can we go to the agenda now then please? Richard, we have any apologies? Yes, here apologies from Councillors with crook web and howls. Thank you. Any declarations of interest? As and when if not, okay, thanks very much. Can I have somebody to propose we accept the minutes of the previous meetings? Sue McConnell and Councillor Maureen Powell, thank you very much. Can I remind everybody online to use the hands up facilities please so that I can see you and to keep the camera on at all times so that you can vote? The first item on the agenda is application DM 2.0, 2.0, 1.4, 3.8, a development of 15 dwellings in Little Mill. We need to make a statement on that and head of planning Craig O'Connor is going to deliver that. Thank you, Chair. Unfortunately, I've advised the Chair that I think it's appropriate that we defer this planning application from today's meeting. There is a technical report which unfortunately wasn't uploaded to the external website and that information needs to be made available to public and to yourselves as members in to inform your decision making. So unfortunately, I apologise on behalf of the head of service in terms of having to defer this at this late stage, apologise to the applicants for that information not being uploaded and that will be rectified ASAP and be proposed to come back to the next meeting next month and that information will certainly be forwarded to all members as well. So apologies for that members of the planning committee. Okay. Thank you, Craig. The next item on the agenda is DM 2.0, 2.0, 2.0, 6. If this is in respect to the lawful development certificate for the proposed use of a property, 28 Jasper Tudor present in landfoyst for five elderly persons. This is a C3 use class and we need to determine whether or not any change is appropriate. Amy, you're going to deliver that one. Thank you very much, Chair. So as you can see on the location plan in front of you, the site is located in landfoyst. It is part of the residential development opposite Waitrose supermarket. The property is marked in red on the plan and is adjacent to the open space play area. The next slide shows the floor plans of the house. There are no proposed changes to the property. The ground floor plan shows a kitchen diner with a living room study and downstairs toilet to the ground floor. There are four bedrooms, one on suite and a bathroom to the first floor and two bedrooms to the and a landing area to the second floor. The next slide shows the elevations of the building showing the front with the parking area and then there are two slides showing the views up and down the street. So this application relates to a lawful development certificate which is different to planning applications that members usually see before them. The difference is that in determining a lawful development certificate, the local planning authority are not granting planning permission. A certificate in this case for the proposed development poses the question that is planning permission required for the proposed use. In this case, the proposed use of the building is to provide accommodation for five elderly residents with a carer in the day and overnight. There will be a maximum occupancy of six people at the property with five people being permanent residents. The current use of the building is for residential purposes which falls into the C3 use class. Within this use class there are three categories, C3A, C3B and C3C. Planning permission is not required to remove between these categories or within the C3 use. As stated, the current use class of the building is C3A and for the reason set out in the officer's report, it is considered that the proposed use class falls within the C3B category which is up to six people living together as a single household and receiving care. For example, supported housing schemes such as those for people with the learning disabilities or mental health problems. In coming to the conclusion, the assessment has been, will the proposed occupants be using the property as a single household. So case law provides some background into assessing what constitutes a single household. These are things such as how the residents can't be living together and how the future residents may be introduced, how the residents daily lives integrate with each other and who is responsible for managing the home and looking after it, whether the residents were able to or did they lock their bedrooms and how stable the group composition is and how communal the living arrangements are. These questions have been further considered at various appeals. Inspectors have given weight to the living arrangements within the house, stating that where arrangements promote the formation of living relationships, supporting the communal living, sharing living spaces such as kitchen and living areas and which contributes to the creation of single households. Inspectors repeatedly gave less weight to the care of being a permanent resident. Inspectors have also considered the scale and degree of the proposals in relation to the property, looking at the accommodation available and what might be reasonable to be occupied as part of family. Inspectors have also considered the tenancy arrangements and the degree of transients of residents, considering how often the household composition changes and giving more weight to a consistent communal group. Inspectors did consider that the residents of properties do not have to be related to live together as a household. In addition, the presence of staff or carers would not change the dynamic as the carers there to support the household in much way as a household might have employed staff such as a nanny. The presence of locks on bedroom doors was not itself a determinant factor, especially when balanced against the provision of communal areas. In this case, it's considered that the proposed use falls within this C3B category. The residents have lived together as one group for about 20 years and have been sharing communal spaces and developed a stable relationship. Further information has been provided by the applicant, Pavel, to explain how the household operates on a daily basis. The group will share these communal spaces, the main living rooms such as a kitchen, living rooms and the amenity space. They will have separate bedrooms with locks on, however, this is for private use. The tenancy is managed by Pavel, who are seeking to maintain a cohesive group who can live freely together and anticipate limited change. The residents are free to come and go as any other normal household. In addition, the property is a six-bedroomed house which can easily accommodate six persons as proposed without alteration, and so it is not considered that proposals intensify the use over and above its existing use. As a result, it is considered that the proposals are aligned with a number of the key considerations borne out of the inspectors' appeals above. A specific case in North Devon has also been cited as being relevant to the consideration of a single household. This related to a lawful development certificate as well. However, this considered children are not adults and determined that there was a change of use from C3 to C2. The judge considered whether the children could reasonably form a household without the carer element. Previous considerations have determined that the carers can be part of the household and not have to reside at the premises. However, the North Devon case concluded that the children and the carer are needed to reside at the premises for the case to be considered a single household as the children needed to be looked after and could not run the house without the care element. The case before you relates to adults and not children. As here, the adults are able to form a single household without the care element needing to reside at the property. Therefore, they can operate as a single household. In this particular instance, there is one carer for five adults, which suggests low levels of care and guidance. The adults themselves form the household with the additional support of the carer. Officers have had extensive discussions over the merits of the case and have consulted with legal officers regarding the case store above. This has not been in a formal written response. However, officers are satisfied that the interpretation of the above case law is appropriate and the informal guidance which has been provided supports this. Given the above case law and a specific nature of the proposals in front of us, it is considered that the proposed development falls within the category of C3B, and so planning permission is not required and the certificate should be allowed. Thank you. Thank you, Amy. The local member here is Councillor Ben Callard. Ben has been in touch with me today. Unfortunately, his work commitments are going to prevent him from addressing us today, but he wanted everybody to know that he has, in fact, been in touch on it. We've also seen correspondence related to Ben's involvement in this case, so we're familiar with that. The next person to speak is Councillor Cahuert-Jones, who's speaking on behalf of Land Voice Community Council. Gareth, you have four minutes. Thank you very much, Chairman. Before I start, can I ask you to talk directly into the mic, Mr. Gower? Is that clear, Chairman? Thanks. Before I start, what Amy has just presented is not in the office's report, so the statement I'm preparing is based on the office's report, particularly in the interpretation of North Devon. What she's just said is completely news to me and two of the residents. Starting off with my statement, then, the Community Council objects to the proposal for a law for development certificate to be granted in respect of 20H just for due to the president to be used as a C3B dwelling as described in the application. The Community Council believes that the proposal in reality is for a C2 dwelling and a such planning approval should be sought for material change of use, as expounded below. The Community Council recognises that the proposal for a lawful development certificate announced that a change within the C3U class from C3A to C3B would not generally be subject to the normal rigour that would be applied to a proposal for material change of use. However, the Community Council notes that the proposal is submitted is for a dwelling for five elderly people with 24/7 living care and support. In reality, this support would need to be provided by a rotor at least two people. Indeed, the proposal indicates that two shift workers would provide care and possibly more. Taking Popo's proposal at face value, there would be at least seven people in the property during a 24-hour period, five residents and two shift-working carers and therefore there are at least seven people in the group which fall to be considered. C3B provides for up to six people living together as a single household. In the case of North Devon Council and the first Secretary of State, the court held that for the use of all within C3, the residents and carers must live on the premises. Otherwise, the use falls within Class C2. In the North Devon case, it was held that shift workers were not living on the premises. That is precisely the case in this scenario. It is clear that as regards for 28 just but due to crescent, 24-hour carers are required. Otherwise, this would not fall part of the proposal. I think that'll be crucial actually. As the carers are a) necessary for functioning of the household and b) cannot be set to fall before part of the household, given that they do not reside there and c) contribute to a group which you see C3B. Well, I've made the main point, so the other step is to do with the nature of the proposal, to understand that they're not relevant. But it's interesting that that still did fall part of the office's report. Okay, thank you for that. There were a couple of points in there. I think what we're going to do today, every time somebody addresses the committee, we're going to go straight to the office. Otherwise, we're going to lose the track of people's arguments. Amy, would you like to come back on that? There was a particular point about seven people that you might like to address. Yes, thank you very much. I think the reason why we've cited the North Devon case today, and it's not in the report, is one that it was raised in late correspondence. Secondly, it was raised on site yesterday to remember site visits and requested that members be informed about the outcome of the North Devon case. So there is so we only consider it appropriate then to provide that information back to members. There's a point in relation to where carers did need to reside at the property or not. There's significant inspectors reports that say that carers do not have to reside at the property to be classed as part of the household. In some instances, with this case with the North Devon one where they are children, it was considered that that was necessary because children couldn't care for themselves and operate as a single household. The second point, or sorry, third point then, about seven people living at the property. This is an application for five elderly persons, plus a carer. The carers you can't do a 24-hour shift consistently, so that carer as an individual would change, but there will only be one carer overnight sleeping at that property. So there'll be a maximum of six, which again aligns with the category C3B. Okay, thank you, Amy. The next speaker is Tom Wayer, who was speaking on behalf of the objective. First of all, thank you for the opportunity to address you on behalf of the community. The conclusion of the planning report that I have before you states, and I quote, "The information submitted and the assessment above demonstrates the use of the site as a supported living for five elderly persons under the supervision of one staff at any one time. Would not represent a material change of use from the existing C3 running house. The proposal would fulfill the criteria of 3B as the household would contain less than six residents and care is provided to a degree similar to that expected within a typical family home. Therefore, the proposal is lawful as you would not result in a material change of use. In this case, planning permission is not needed. We agree that a change of use from class C3A to class C3B does not need planning permission. Our submission is that the change of use is not from class C3A to class C3B, but from class C3A to class C2, which does require planning permission. The up to six residents criteria is referred to and considered at length in the North Devon District Council and the first Secretary of State case, the leading case on this issue, which the planning department report to you fails to refer to at all. Firstly, by the application submission, there are at least seven people in the property during a 24-hour period, five residents and two ship working carers. And therefore, there are at least seven people in the group which fall to be considered. This clearly exceeds a stipulated requirement of up to six people living together as a single household. On the basis of the numbers alone, if they were considered a single household, the property would fall into class C2. The question arose in the North Devon case and this is key as to where the carers who do not live on the premises but who provide 24-hour care can be regarded as living together as part of the household. The answer was no. The court held that for the use to fall within class C3B, the residents and the carers must live on the premises. Otherwise, the use falls within class C2, a residential institution. This is precisely the situation here in that the cared for will live on the premises in just pursuit of the present. The carers will live in their own premises, their own homes and work in just but due to the present, which will therefore be a residential institution at class two premises which does require planning permission. The leading case law has not even been referred to in the planning department response. It has, however, been referred to in the letter from public planning and development consultants as re-planning, to Monmarshia Planning Department dated 5th of February 2024, which accompanied the public application form. I quote from the address planning letter of the 5th of February. Nevertheless, case law, North District Council, the first secretary of state, provides that if the residents could not function as a household without carers who do not reside at the property, then the use would fall into C2. It's quite difficult. We agree, and it does fall into C2. Once the classification has determined to C2, there falls into question whether the change of use is material or not. That's a separate question which the community would likely opportunity to formally respond to once C2 has been determined as appropriate. You have 30 seconds time. Since Mr Joyce discons in the northern case may declare that depends on individual facts of the case and whether or not they change the material. It's a question of fact and degree. We are sorry, but in our opinion, the planning department inclusion in this case is fundamentally forward. We would encourage that having heard the community concerns, if you are in any way uncomfortable, as we most certainly are, with the planning department responses, they should defer a decision until such time as you can fully satisfy yourselves in this matter. Chair, could I possibly create your indulgence and just respond to a couple of points that Amy made? Very briefly then. Thank you. Amy is about to come back on your points. In relation to that, the North Devon children needed 24-hour care. The residents in this case, by the statements provided, by probable, need to 24-hour care, otherwise they wouldn't have two people working back to back. The North Devon case was concerning children, quite clearly. But the judge, Mr Justice Commons, did not discriminate between the provision for children and the provision for adults. Thank you very much. Okay, Amy, there's a couple of points there. I know you've dealt with them before, but can you reiterate? Yes, thank you, Chair. First of all, I think it's important to note that although the North Devon case provides us with insight on how to assess what a single household would be, it is not the leading case on this decision. There is a lot of case law, including a number of inspectors' decisions that look at all aspects of what constitutes a household, and it isn't just the provision of whether the carer is a resident or not. I think one of the important things to note about the North Devon case is that it relates to children and not adults, and therefore, I think in the judge's consideration, he does specifically state that the children are unable to perform a household as they need. They cannot run a house by themselves, which is a distinction between children and adults. It's been mentioned again that there are seven people in the property. That isn't the case. That's confirmed by the information from Pobble that the aim of the proposal is to support five elderly persons, sorry, with learning support, with a 24/7 support by one member of staff, not two. And again, I think the distinction between the cases, as I will reiterate, is the level of care that could be reasonably required to form a household. Here, we do have five adults that have been living together for a consistent and quite lengthy period of time, and have been able to form that household together, and the care support will be additional. I think it's important to note that there is one member of staff for five adults, which suggests that the care level is relatively low. I think those all point. Thank you, Amy. We now have the applicant's agent. Caroline Jones, chair, do you have four minutes? Chair, members, good afternoon. My name is Gary Jones from Asprey Planning. Thank you for allowing me to address you today in support of the application. As the committee report confirms, this application is for a lawful development certificate to confirm if the proposed use of the property being used as a supported living home for five elderly persons under the care and supervision of one staff member at any time would require planning permission. The LDC was submitted to confirm that the proposed use would fall within a C3 residential use class, which is within the same use class as the existing house. The committee report and office of presentation confirms this and agrees that there would be no change of use. It is clear from the case that we have set out on the assessment in the committee report that there is no need for a planning application. On this basis, the LDC has been recommended for approval. The applicant, Power Group, provides an exceptional residential care for all the people with learning and support requirements, such as what is being proposed here. They provide tailored support to each and every individual, depending on their needs. Within our application, we submitted a number of similar cases from other local planning authorities in South Wales, including Newport and Caffilly, where it has also been agreed that four or five persons living with a carer can do so within a C3 use class and there is no need for planning permission. Some of these cases have also been considered a plan in appeal and inspectors have again confirmed the position. However, as part of the consideration of the application by officers, partly in response to the level of interest that there has been in the application from local residents and the community council, further evidence was required on how the property would remain as a residential house. This confirmed that it would function in the same way as any household would, such as the group has lived together for over 20 years. The longest length of residency has been in place since the service first started operating. There is a low turnover of residents using the service, as it is designated for adults with learning difficulties. In the last five years, there has been one new service user to join the group and this change came about to do to the death of a previous long-term resident. As such, this is a very stable service provision. In terms of how the carers interact with the group, the carers provide background support, helping with everyday living and assisting with some trips into Abigavani. Cooking is sometimes done together or the residents will prepare their own meals with assistance if it is required. There are no set meal times or provisions of meals, as you may expect in a care home. Carers make with residents or not on a day-to-day basis. The group's level of independence varies from person to person, but assistance is available when needed, rather than being required to support them in all aspects of their lives. The representations against the application have been addressed in the committee report. In the vast majority of cases, they are not material planning considerations that have been raised. In summary, the use of the dwelling would not be materially different in planning terms to its use as a single C3 residential household, and therefore, no material change of use would occur when planning permission is not required. Finally, I wanted to emphasise that Monardshire Commissioners and the local health board have visited the site and expressed their full support for the re-provision of the service and recognised that this scheme will significantly enhance the well-being of the people using the service. Thank you for your time and we would respectfully request that the LDC is approved in line with the officer's recommendation. Thank you. Thank you. I don't think there was anything you needed to pick up on there, maybe? Okay. Well, thanks for that, everybody. We've got no specialists scheduled to discuss anything with us today, so I'll leave it open to members now. If anybody wants to raise any questions, then feel free to do so. Sue Riley. Thank you, Chair. I fully understand the explanations in relation to the existing household, and I've read all of the, obviously, the neighbours' concerns. The question I want to ask, which doesn't feel entirely comfortable, is as the elderly residents become more elderly, their care needs are likely to increase, and if for whatever reason voids occur, then either there will be less residents or possibly more staff. So, where does that fit with this application? Thank you for that. So, Amy, do you want to come back or can I answer that? I don't mind answering it. I was just good checking that that was, you'd finished. I didn't want to jump in there. Well, I think so. It's a bit uncomfortable. With what we're talking about, if voids occur and you've got less people there, then you're either going to have to introduce more, or if the care needs, there will be more carers, if the care needs increase, and one of those may occur, one or both of those. So, it just seems that this is fairly short-term arrangement. I think there's been quite a consistent tendency or the household group have been running for more or less 20 years together. If it transpires that the residents need additional care and that intensifies the use on the site, and it may be that the situation changes, that a planning application might be required in the future if things change. But what we need to be clear of right now is that we are looking at the certificate and whether it requires planning commission or not for the proposed use that it's in front of us as it is now. So, if the circumstances change in the future and it is exact any kind of situation, whether things change, we would need to revisit that in case planning permission is required. But we're making an assessment on what we have in front of us right now. Could I just come back on that then? So, how would we know? Would we be informed if somebody moved out or something was occurred, or if the care needs were increased? How would we know? Well, we may well be informed by a member of the public that things have happened. I'm sure that Paul are a very responsible manager of their property, and if they feel as well that things have changed and the level of care in that environment needs to change, then they have the option of taking the individual out of that property and putting them in a position where their care needs are better met elsewhere, or there's the option for them to come back and say, our care needs and our requirements for this property have changed, and therefore we feel that we would need a new planning application. Can I just clarify one more point on that then? So, if voids for whatever reason occurred, are they going to leave those voids, I would be running it down to maybe two, one, two or three adults, or would they be reintroducing more people to fill those voids? Well, the certificate is for up to five persons with one carer, so it could be three persons living in that property, or it just has to be a maximum of five with one carer. I don't know whether Paul wouldn't come back in and comment on how you would be managing the property on a daily basis. Yeah, so if you need any more information and get that from Paul, as I'm the agent on the application, or ask for the agent on the application, but I think what's been prevented is that it demonstrates that this has been a long-term service that's been provided with only one change over the last 20 years, but appreciate what you're saying as potentially people pass away, would that be filled? And if it stayed within that five, then that wouldn't trigger the need for another planning application. They have had one person come in to fill in potentially avoid previously in the existing facility, but if that happened again, then that wouldn't trigger the need for a planning application. If one person saw apologies. Sorry. That was my point. So, I suppose the point I'm trying to make is it's being presented as a stable static group of five, and I just wanted us to acknowledge that that may not always be the case. Is that fair? Yeah, no, that's fair, that's fair. If I could just add to it, I think it's important to note that any residential property with a certain amount of documents may not be a completely stable residency for the entirety of those people occupying that property, so I think that's important to note. Councillor POLL. Thank you, Chairman. What I'd like to say is this, you can have a family of six parents and poor children living in a house like this, and things could change, but these people have lived together as a family, and no doubt they get on probably just as well, if not better, than a natural family. So, I can't see that there's a problem at all. If they can't get more less able to craft themselves, obviously they might have to go to a proper nursing home, but if they can stay able, I can't see there's a problem, and I don't know why people shouldn't mind that it's five people, perhaps elderly, living in a house, any more than a family living in the house, it seems to me to be people looking for difficulties. I mean, I hope that I don't have to go into any sort of care. I'm 86 now, and I'm sure that I can, I hope I carry on the same as I am now. Nobody knows what the future holds, but those five people have lived together as a family, that length of time, so I'm sure they're perfectly able to live together as a family there, and I can't see what problem it is to the neighbours. Are they going to have big wild dances or something? I just don't see where their objections are coming from, and I think it's a very good idea. There should be more places like it. Thank you. Thank you, Councillor POLL. Councillor Thank you, Chair. It was very useful to go to the site yesterday and meet residents as well, and one of the concerns was about vehicle movements. I just wondered how many cars are operated by residents at the moment, if any cars are, and whether it's possible that there might be movements, for example, food deliveries like meals on wheels, that type of thing. There was also concern by residents about future use, so if the, as time progresses, if the age group of the service changed and to younger people began to move in as the elderly residents passed away, would that then necessarily become a planning decision in the future, or could we at this point look at maybe a condition to review as time passes on the use of the property, because that would hopefully come with your residence that it's going to remain as a service, is at the moment rather than changes where younger people might be moving in over time. Thank you. Thank you, Councillor CURK. We can't condition lawful development certificates, but Amy, do you want to come in on that? Yeah, thank you very much. In relation to parking and car use, I think it's important to note that this is not a planning application. We are not looking at the merits of the proposals. We are looking at the technical question of is planning permission required, and does the proposals operate as a single household or not? So I think I just need to bring it back to that key question that we're looking at today. If the question over does, but the occupancy, again, I think that there's a very similar question that was asked earlier. The certificate is for five elderly people to be living together. If the circumstances change, then a new certificate might want they can apply for a new certificate, or we might need to reconsider the level of care that is being provided, and a new planning application may be required. And again, as the Chair has kindly mentioned, we can't put conditions on a certificate. This is not a planning application that we are approving or refusing. It is a certificate. The question is, does planning permission required or not? Thank you, Amy. Councilor Eason? Yeah, thank you, Chair. Mine comes up with a technical, as you're talking about whether they should be planning an application or are just a licence. What complications would it make if this was a planning application? Was it the moment? It's a licence for five adult members and in-house carer. If a planning application was put in, how would that change the tenor of what the property would be used for? I understand the book park and things like that. But it doesn't mention the possibility of children in the future. How would that fit in? What really is the difference? No, not the difference. What really is the problem, but if it went for plan application, you would find or probably might find it moving forward? I think I'm understanding the question correctly. How would we consider a planning application? Basically. If a planning application came in, it would have to go through all the normal processes of the consultation, et cetera, et cetera. We would be asking for opinions. That's not what's before us today. I don't want to get into the pre-judging what may or decision may or may not be made by a planning application in the future. That would be subject to a completely separate process. So I think we need to bring it back to the merits of the proposals in front of us and do we consider these proposals to operate as a single household and just look at the certificate? You did mention whether you did mention a planning application scenario that might exist. Am I right? I can see what the license is about. If circumstances change and the use of the property is intensified and it does start to operate as a residential care home or if any other change of use is required, then a planning application would be required for those. We can't pre-judge what may or may not happen in the future. But there are circumstances that would require a change of use. All right. Another comment, I didn't like the comment by a neighbor saying that they may be under social issues, causing risks, especially the children. I think that was an appropriate acceptance comment by a neighbor by the way. Thank you. Thank you, Councillor East. I entirely understand why you asked that question, but can I remind everybody again what we are looking at here today? It's so easy to drift off into planning terms. We really do need to concentrate on what's in front of us. Councillor McKenna. Thank you, Chair. Thank you for your presentation, Amy, and for all of the speakers who've attended today. I'm satisfied from the site visit yesterday. The officers report the presentation today and what I've heard and read about the planning law and the case law that this application appears to fall within the C3B use for up to six people living together and therefore planning permission is not required. I appreciate that some residents may find my view disappointing. But as a planning committee and what was already been stressed to us previously, we have to look at what is before us and focus on where the planning permission is required or not. There are no material changes and anything that is a civil matter because yesterday we did hear from residents about a few civil issues that is actually outside the remit of this committee and the property is not succeeding. It's intended use and will run as a single household. I think maybe Councillor POWell was in support of this, but I just wanted to propose that we support the officers' report if she hasn't done so already. I did have three questions, but they've already been asked, so thank you. Thank you, Councillor McKenna. Councillor Burch. Thank you, Chair. Again, thanks to the officers presenting the report and to those who have spoken. I think it would be entirely wrong for us to judge from this point on this on terms of the amount of care to be provided. Any of us can need care in our homes at any time of our lives, particularly in later life. So really, whether these residents require care or not is entirely a private matter. The issue here is whether they live together as a household and it seems to me that evidently they do, and that is the intention of the setup within the home, is that these adults should live together as a household. Also, we should not be discriminating because the house is being purchased by Pobble rather than being purchased by an individual. I think if this was a property which had been purchased by five able-bodied and able-minded friends who chose to live together, this application for a change of use would not even have come to this committee, or sorry, for these certificates of lawful development would not even have come to this committee. And in terms of the impact on residents, if the house was purchased by an extended family, by a large family, certainly adult children and their partners with a car each, I think there would be far more impact on the residents. So I think we should move to approve the certificate of lawful development. Thank you, Councillor perch. Councillor Boon. I'm just going to, basically, what I was going to say is the same as Councillor Mckenna and Councillor Boonch that I see no reason not to approve a lawful development certificate here. This family appears to fit very well within C3B category and the city with the area looks perfect who support or supported living accommodation, being as it is walking distance to the local supermarket and to town for employment and social activities for the residents, the future residents. And in fact, as Councillor Boonch says, ordinarily people with disabilities are less likely to own cars and be drivers and therefore would have less likely to have an impact on the surrounding parking situation than it would if there were two adults and four grown children living in the house. And therefore, yeah, I'm happy to approve. Thank you. Okay, thank you for that. I've got no more people on my list to speak unless somebody is going to do their normal trick and stick their hand in just as I'm about to wind up. Okay, we've had quite a good discussion on this thing. A lot of points have been covered. Several people have indicated that they wish to support it. So just to get it down for the minutes, can I have somebody propose that we agree the lawful developments, Councillor Powell? Is that seconded by Councillor Green? Okay, thank you very much. Richard, can we have the voting function out, please? Okay. Thank you. a lot. a lot. a lot. thank you, so the vote has been received. It's in favour of the proposal. All 14 have voted yes. Thank you very much, Julian. Thanks to everybody for their submissions today. We'll now move on to the next item on the agenda. And Andrew, you're going to cover those? Yes, thank you, Chair, to wait for the slides to come up. This is just your information to report a couple of recent appeal decisions. So the first one was an application where we refused planning permission. This was at Rose cottage up in Norway. You can see the site there on screen. So it was outside of the boundary open countryside location and they were seeking to permission to provide a front boundary wall and gates to encloses quite a large vehicle opening on the site. We'll see on the next picture. So it's the retaining boundary walls and gates was what was sort of commission. Obviously it was over a meter adjacent to the highway. That's what required permission. And you'll see from the slides, the wall was high. It was very severe and almost an urbanizing effect within the country side, where prevailing character of softer boundaries, hedging, coastal wire fence and things of that nature. And we felt that that would be very strong sort of defensive enclosure in that instance. And the inspector agreed. And so the appeal was dismissed, planning commission withheld for the reasons we gave in terms of our design criterion and the appropriateness of context and the importance of boundary treatments. So that was burst appeal. The second appeal was stereo lodge just outside of car went. This was for a building was previously a garage. It had been given permission in 2017 to be converted to a holiday let. That's the building there. I think it's the one to the right. Yeah, that one there. So it's a modern building effectively. But there are sort of separate policies for holiday let's as opposed to residential use. So we had refused planning commission to remove the conditions of the holiday let, which would have had the effect of an unrestricted residential use as it was contrary to our strategic policy S1 in the LDP, which has sort of set criteria where unrestricted residential use would be. And the inspector agreed again. And so the planning appeal were dismissed. There was debates around the application of policy H4, which is the conversion of buildings to dwellings. But the inspector was clear that the conversion had already happened. So it wasn't a conversion as such. And in any event it was it was still a modern building, which would have failed the relevant criteria for that. So yes, well done to the case officer. I think it was the same case officer for both. And good that the decisions we make in are being sort of validated and upheld by PEDU. So just for your information. Thanks. Thanks so much for that Andrew. That concludes the items on the agenda for today. So thank you very much everybody and we'll see you next time.

Transcript

Welcome everybody to this planning committee meeting on the 8th of May 2024. I am Councillor Phil Murphy, chair of the committee and in a sec when we just dealt with a little technical issue. Dale, could you like to have a book? Hi, I'm Councillor Dale Rook, I'm the vice chair of the planning committee. Craig O'Connor, head of placemaking. Philip Thomas, development services manager. Amy Longford, development management area manager. Andrew Jones, development management area manager. Julian Sanders, Mr. Anna Hawker, training sister. Richard Williams, democratic services. Thank you for that everybody. Can we go to the agenda now then please? Richard, we have any apologies? Yes, here apologies from Councillors with crook web and howls. Thank you. Any declarations of interest? As and when if not, okay, thanks very much. Can I have somebody to propose we accept the minutes of the previous meetings? Sue McConnell and Councillor Maureen Powell, thank you very much. Can I remind everybody online to use the hands up facilities please so that I can see you and to keep the camera on at all times so that you can vote? The first item on the agenda is application DM 2.0, 2.0, 1.4, 3.8, a development of 15 dwellings in Little Mill. We need to make a statement on that and head of planning Craig O'Connor is going to deliver that. Thank you, Chair. Unfortunately, I've advised the Chair that I think it's appropriate that we defer this planning application from today's meeting. There is a technical report which unfortunately wasn't uploaded to the external website and that information needs to be made available to public and to yourselves as members in to inform your decision making. So unfortunately, I apologise on behalf of the head of service in terms of having to defer this at this late stage, apologise to the applicants for that information not being uploaded and that will be rectified ASAP and be proposed to come back to the next meeting next month and that information will certainly be forwarded to all members as well. So apologies for that members of the planning committee. Okay. Thank you, Craig. The next item on the agenda is DM 2.0, 2.0, 2.0, 6. If this is in respect to the lawful development certificate for the proposed use of a property, 28 Jasper Tudor present in landfoyst for five elderly persons. This is a C3 use class and we need to determine whether or not any change is appropriate. Amy, you're going to deliver that one. Thank you very much, Chair. So as you can see on the location plan in front of you, the site is located in landfoyst. It is part of the residential development opposite Waitrose supermarket. The property is marked in red on the plan and is adjacent to the open space play area. The next slide shows the floor plans of the house. There are no proposed changes to the property. The ground floor plan shows a kitchen diner with a living room study and downstairs toilet to the ground floor. There are four bedrooms, one on suite and a bathroom to the first floor and two bedrooms to the and a landing area to the second floor. The next slide shows the elevations of the building showing the front with the parking area and then there are two slides showing the views up and down the street. So this application relates to a lawful development certificate which is different to planning applications that members usually see before them. The difference is that in determining a lawful development certificate, the local planning authority are not granting planning permission. A certificate in this case for the proposed development poses the question that is planning permission required for the proposed use. In this case, the proposed use of the building is to provide accommodation for five elderly residents with a carer in the day and overnight. There will be a maximum occupancy of six people at the property with five people being permanent residents. The current use of the building is for residential purposes which falls into the C3 use class. Within this use class there are three categories, C3A, C3B and C3C. Planning permission is not required to remove between these categories or within the C3 use. As stated, the current use class of the building is C3A and for the reason set out in the officer's report, it is considered that the proposed use class falls within the C3B category which is up to six people living together as a single household and receiving care. For example, supported housing schemes such as those for people with the learning disabilities or mental health problems. In coming to the conclusion, the assessment has been, will the proposed occupants be using the property as a single household. So case law provides some background into assessing what constitutes a single household. These are things such as how the residents can't be living together and how the future residents may be introduced, how the residents daily lives integrate with each other and who is responsible for managing the home and looking after it, whether the residents were able to or did they lock their bedrooms and how stable the group composition is and how communal the living arrangements are. These questions have been further considered at various appeals. Inspectors have given weight to the living arrangements within the house, stating that where arrangements promote the formation of living relationships, supporting the communal living, sharing living spaces such as kitchen and living areas and which contributes to the creation of single households. Inspectors repeatedly gave less weight to the care of being a permanent resident. Inspectors have also considered the scale and degree of the proposals in relation to the property, looking at the accommodation available and what might be reasonable to be occupied as part of family. Inspectors have also considered the tenancy arrangements and the degree of transients of residents, considering how often the household composition changes and giving more weight to a consistent communal group. Inspectors did consider that the residents of properties do not have to be related to live together as a household. In addition, the presence of staff or carers would not change the dynamic as the carers there to support the household in much way as a household might have employed staff such as a nanny. The presence of locks on bedroom doors was not itself a determinant factor, especially when balanced against the provision of communal areas. In this case, it's considered that the proposed use falls within this C3B category. The residents have lived together as one group for about 20 years and have been sharing communal spaces and developed a stable relationship. Further information has been provided by the applicant, Pavel, to explain how the household operates on a daily basis. The group will share these communal spaces, the main living rooms such as a kitchen, living rooms and the amenity space. They will have separate bedrooms with locks on, however, this is for private use. The tenancy is managed by Pavel, who are seeking to maintain a cohesive group who can live freely together and anticipate limited change. The residents are free to come and go as any other normal household. In addition, the property is a six-bedroomed house which can easily accommodate six persons as proposed without alteration, and so it is not considered that proposals intensify the use over and above its existing use. As a result, it is considered that the proposals are aligned with a number of the key considerations borne out of the inspectors' appeals above. A specific case in North Devon has also been cited as being relevant to the consideration of a single household. This related to a lawful development certificate as well. However, this considered children are not adults and determined that there was a change of use from C3 to C2. The judge considered whether the children could reasonably form a household without the carer element. Previous considerations have determined that the carers can be part of the household and not have to reside at the premises. However, the North Devon case concluded that the children and the carer are needed to reside at the premises for the case to be considered a single household as the children needed to be looked after and could not run the house without the care element. The case before you relates to adults and not children. As here, the adults are able to form a single household without the care element needing to reside at the property. Therefore, they can operate as a single household. In this particular instance, there is one carer for five adults, which suggests low levels of care and guidance. The adults themselves form the household with the additional support of the carer. Officers have had extensive discussions over the merits of the case and have consulted with legal officers regarding the case store above. This has not been in a formal written response. However, officers are satisfied that the interpretation of the above case law is appropriate and the informal guidance which has been provided supports this. Given the above case law and a specific nature of the proposals in front of us, it is considered that the proposed development falls within the category of C3B, and so planning permission is not required and the certificate should be allowed. Thank you. Thank you, Amy. The local member here is Councillor Ben Callard. Ben has been in touch with me today. Unfortunately, his work commitments are going to prevent him from addressing us today, but he wanted everybody to know that he has, in fact, been in touch on it. We've also seen correspondence related to Ben's involvement in this case, so we're familiar with that. The next person to speak is Councillor Cahuert-Jones, who's speaking on behalf of Land Voice Community Council. Gareth, you have four minutes. Thank you very much, Chairman. Before I start, can I ask you to talk directly into the mic, Mr. Gower? Is that clear, Chairman? Thanks. Before I start, what Amy has just presented is not in the office's report, so the statement I'm preparing is based on the office's report, particularly in the interpretation of North Devon. What she's just said is completely news to me and two of the residents. Starting off with my statement, then, the Community Council objects to the proposal for a law for development certificate to be granted in respect of 20H just for due to the president to be used as a C3B dwelling as described in the application. The Community Council believes that the proposal in reality is for a C2 dwelling and a such planning approval should be sought for material change of use, as expounded below. The Community Council recognises that the proposal for a lawful development certificate announced that a change within the C3U class from C3A to C3B would not generally be subject to the normal rigour that would be applied to a proposal for material change of use. However, the Community Council notes that the proposal is submitted is for a dwelling for five elderly people with 24/7 living care and support. In reality, this support would need to be provided by a rotor at least two people. Indeed, the proposal indicates that two shift workers would provide care and possibly more. Taking Popo's proposal at face value, there would be at least seven people in the property during a 24-hour period, five residents and two shift-working carers and therefore there are at least seven people in the group which fall to be considered. C3B provides for up to six people living together as a single household. In the case of North Devon Council and the first Secretary of State, the court held that for the use of all within C3, the residents and carers must live on the premises. Otherwise, the use falls within Class C2. In the North Devon case, it was held that shift workers were not living on the premises. That is precisely the case in this scenario. It is clear that as regards for 28 just but due to crescent, 24-hour carers are required. Otherwise, this would not fall part of the proposal. I think that'll be crucial actually. As the carers are a) necessary for functioning of the household and b) cannot be set to fall before part of the household, given that they do not reside there and c) contribute to a group which you see C3B. Well, I've made the main point, so the other step is to do with the nature of the proposal, to understand that they're not relevant. But it's interesting that that still did fall part of the office's report. Okay, thank you for that. There were a couple of points in there. I think what we're going to do today, every time somebody addresses the committee, we're going to go straight to the office. Otherwise, we're going to lose the track of people's arguments. Amy, would you like to come back on that? There was a particular point about seven people that you might like to address. Yes, thank you very much. I think the reason why we've cited the North Devon case today, and it's not in the report, is one that it was raised in late correspondence. Secondly, it was raised on site yesterday to remember site visits and requested that members be informed about the outcome of the North Devon case. So there is so we only consider it appropriate then to provide that information back to members. There's a point in relation to where carers did need to reside at the property or not. There's significant inspectors reports that say that carers do not have to reside at the property to be classed as part of the household. In some instances, with this case with the North Devon one where they are children, it was considered that that was necessary because children couldn't care for themselves and operate as a single household. The second point, or sorry, third point then, about seven people living at the property. This is an application for five elderly persons, plus a carer. The carers you can't do a 24-hour shift consistently, so that carer as an individual would change, but there will only be one carer overnight sleeping at that property. So there'll be a maximum of six, which again aligns with the category C3B. Okay, thank you, Amy. The next speaker is Tom Wayer, who was speaking on behalf of the objective. First of all, thank you for the opportunity to address you on behalf of the community. The conclusion of the planning report that I have before you states, and I quote, "The information submitted and the assessment above demonstrates the use of the site as a supported living for five elderly persons under the supervision of one staff at any one time. Would not represent a material change of use from the existing C3 running house. The proposal would fulfill the criteria of 3B as the household would contain less than six residents and care is provided to a degree similar to that expected within a typical family home. Therefore, the proposal is lawful as you would not result in a material change of use. In this case, planning permission is not needed. We agree that a change of use from class C3A to class C3B does not need planning permission. Our submission is that the change of use is not from class C3A to class C3B, but from class C3A to class C2, which does require planning permission. The up to six residents criteria is referred to and considered at length in the North Devon District Council and the first Secretary of State case, the leading case on this issue, which the planning department report to you fails to refer to at all. Firstly, by the application submission, there are at least seven people in the property during a 24-hour period, five residents and two ship working carers. And therefore, there are at least seven people in the group which fall to be considered. This clearly exceeds a stipulated requirement of up to six people living together as a single household. On the basis of the numbers alone, if they were considered a single household, the property would fall into class C2. The question arose in the North Devon case and this is key as to where the carers who do not live on the premises but who provide 24-hour care can be regarded as living together as part of the household. The answer was no. The court held that for the use to fall within class C3B, the residents and the carers must live on the premises. Otherwise, the use falls within class C2, a residential institution. This is precisely the situation here in that the cared for will live on the premises in just pursuit of the present. The carers will live in their own premises, their own homes and work in just but due to the present, which will therefore be a residential institution at class two premises which does require planning permission. The leading case law has not even been referred to in the planning department response. It has, however, been referred to in the letter from public planning and development consultants as re-planning, to Monmarshia Planning Department dated 5th of February 2024, which accompanied the public application form. I quote from the address planning letter of the 5th of February. Nevertheless, case law, North District Council, the first secretary of state, provides that if the residents could not function as a household without carers who do not reside at the property, then the use would fall into C2. It's quite difficult. We agree, and it does fall into C2. Once the classification has determined to C2, there falls into question whether the change of use is material or not. That's a separate question which the community would likely opportunity to formally respond to once C2 has been determined as appropriate. You have 30 seconds time. Since Mr Joyce discons in the northern case may declare that depends on individual facts of the case and whether or not they change the material. It's a question of fact and degree. We are sorry, but in our opinion, the planning department inclusion in this case is fundamentally forward. We would encourage that having heard the community concerns, if you are in any way uncomfortable, as we most certainly are, with the planning department responses, they should defer a decision until such time as you can fully satisfy yourselves in this matter. Chair, could I possibly create your indulgence and just respond to a couple of points that Amy made? Very briefly then. Thank you. Amy is about to come back on your points. In relation to that, the North Devon children needed 24-hour care. The residents in this case, by the statements provided, by probable, need to 24-hour care, otherwise they wouldn't have two people working back to back. The North Devon case was concerning children, quite clearly. But the judge, Mr Justice Commons, did not discriminate between the provision for children and the provision for adults. Thank you very much. Okay, Amy, there's a couple of points there. I know you've dealt with them before, but can you reiterate? Yes, thank you, Chair. First of all, I think it's important to note that although the North Devon case provides us with insight on how to assess what a single household would be, it is not the leading case on this decision. There is a lot of case law, including a number of inspectors' decisions that look at all aspects of what constitutes a household, and it isn't just the provision of whether the carer is a resident or not. I think one of the important things to note about the North Devon case is that it relates to children and not adults, and therefore, I think in the judge's consideration, he does specifically state that the children are unable to perform a household as they need. They cannot run a house by themselves, which is a distinction between children and adults. It's been mentioned again that there are seven people in the property. That isn't the case. That's confirmed by the information from Pobble that the aim of the proposal is to support five elderly persons, sorry, with learning support, with a 24/7 support by one member of staff, not two. And again, I think the distinction between the cases, as I will reiterate, is the level of care that could be reasonably required to form a household. Here, we do have five adults that have been living together for a consistent and quite lengthy period of time, and have been able to form that household together, and the care support will be additional. I think it's important to note that there is one member of staff for five adults, which suggests that the care level is relatively low. I think those all point. Thank you, Amy. We now have the applicant's agent. Caroline Jones, chair, do you have four minutes? Chair, members, good afternoon. My name is Gary Jones from Asprey Planning. Thank you for allowing me to address you today in support of the application. As the committee report confirms, this application is for a lawful development certificate to confirm if the proposed use of the property being used as a supported living home for five elderly persons under the care and supervision of one staff member at any time would require planning permission. The LDC was submitted to confirm that the proposed use would fall within a C3 residential use class, which is within the same use class as the existing house. The committee report and office of presentation confirms this and agrees that there would be no change of use. It is clear from the case that we have set out on the assessment in the committee report that there is no need for a planning application. On this basis, the LDC has been recommended for approval. The applicant, Power Group, provides an exceptional residential care for all the people with learning and support requirements, such as what is being proposed here. They provide tailored support to each and every individual, depending on their needs. Within our application, we submitted a number of similar cases from other local planning authorities in South Wales, including Newport and Caffilly, where it has also been agreed that four or five persons living with a carer can do so within a C3 use class and there is no need for planning permission. Some of these cases have also been considered a plan in appeal and inspectors have again confirmed the position. However, as part of the consideration of the application by officers, partly in response to the level of interest that there has been in the application from local residents and the community council, further evidence was required on how the property would remain as a residential house. This confirmed that it would function in the same way as any household would, such as the group has lived together for over 20 years. The longest length of residency has been in place since the service first started operating. There is a low turnover of residents using the service, as it is designated for adults with learning difficulties. In the last five years, there has been one new service user to join the group and this change came about to do to the death of a previous long-term resident. As such, this is a very stable service provision. In terms of how the carers interact with the group, the carers provide background support, helping with everyday living and assisting with some trips into Abigavani. Cooking is sometimes done together or the residents will prepare their own meals with assistance if it is required. There are no set meal times or provisions of meals, as you may expect in a care home. Carers make with residents or not on a day-to-day basis. The group's level of independence varies from person to person, but assistance is available when needed, rather than being required to support them in all aspects of their lives. The representations against the application have been addressed in the committee report. In the vast majority of cases, they are not material planning considerations that have been raised. In summary, the use of the dwelling would not be materially different in planning terms to its use as a single C3 residential household, and therefore, no material change of use would occur when planning permission is not required. Finally, I wanted to emphasise that Monardshire Commissioners and the local health board have visited the site and expressed their full support for the re-provision of the service and recognised that this scheme will significantly enhance the well-being of the people using the service. Thank you for your time and we would respectfully request that the LDC is approved in line with the officer's recommendation. Thank you. Thank you. I don't think there was anything you needed to pick up on there, maybe? Okay. Well, thanks for that, everybody. We've got no specialists scheduled to discuss anything with us today, so I'll leave it open to members now. If anybody wants to raise any questions, then feel free to do so. Sue Riley. Thank you, Chair. I fully understand the explanations in relation to the existing household, and I've read all of the, obviously, the neighbours' concerns. The question I want to ask, which doesn't feel entirely comfortable, is as the elderly residents become more elderly, their care needs are likely to increase, and if for whatever reason voids occur, then either there will be less residents or possibly more staff. So, where does that fit with this application? Thank you for that. So, Amy, do you want to come back or can I answer that? I don't mind answering it. I was just good checking that that was, you'd finished. I didn't want to jump in there. Well, I think so. It's a bit uncomfortable. With what we're talking about, if voids occur and you've got less people there, then you're either going to have to introduce more, or if the care needs, there will be more carers, if the care needs increase, and one of those may occur, one or both of those. So, it just seems that this is fairly short-term arrangement. I think there's been quite a consistent tendency or the household group have been running for more or less 20 years together. If it transpires that the residents need additional care and that intensifies the use on the site, and it may be that the situation changes, that a planning application might be required in the future if things change. But what we need to be clear of right now is that we are looking at the certificate and whether it requires planning commission or not for the proposed use that it's in front of us as it is now. So, if the circumstances change in the future and it is exact any kind of situation, whether things change, we would need to revisit that in case planning permission is required. But we're making an assessment on what we have in front of us right now. Could I just come back on that then? So, how would we know? Would we be informed if somebody moved out or something was occurred, or if the care needs were increased? How would we know? Well, we may well be informed by a member of the public that things have happened. I'm sure that Paul are a very responsible manager of their property, and if they feel as well that things have changed and the level of care in that environment needs to change, then they have the option of taking the individual out of that property and putting them in a position where their care needs are better met elsewhere, or there's the option for them to come back and say, our care needs and our requirements for this property have changed, and therefore we feel that we would need a new planning application. Can I just clarify one more point on that then? So, if voids for whatever reason occurred, are they going to leave those voids, I would be running it down to maybe two, one, two or three adults, or would they be reintroducing more people to fill those voids? Well, the certificate is for up to five persons with one carer, so it could be three persons living in that property, or it just has to be a maximum of five with one carer. I don't know whether Paul wouldn't come back in and comment on how you would be managing the property on a daily basis. Yeah, so if you need any more information and get that from Paul, as I'm the agent on the application, or ask for the agent on the application, but I think what's been prevented is that it demonstrates that this has been a long-term service that's been provided with only one change over the last 20 years, but appreciate what you're saying as potentially people pass away, would that be filled? And if it stayed within that five, then that wouldn't trigger the need for another planning application. They have had one person come in to fill in potentially avoid previously in the existing facility, but if that happened again, then that wouldn't trigger the need for a planning application. If one person saw apologies. Sorry. That was my point. So, I suppose the point I'm trying to make is it's being presented as a stable static group of five, and I just wanted us to acknowledge that that may not always be the case. Is that fair? Yeah, no, that's fair, that's fair. If I could just add to it, I think it's important to note that any residential property with a certain amount of documents may not be a completely stable residency for the entirety of those people occupying that property, so I think that's important to note. Councillor POLL. Thank you, Chairman. What I'd like to say is this, you can have a family of six parents and poor children living in a house like this, and things could change, but these people have lived together as a family, and no doubt they get on probably just as well, if not better, than a natural family. So, I can't see that there's a problem at all. If they can't get more less able to craft themselves, obviously they might have to go to a proper nursing home, but if they can stay able, I can't see there's a problem, and I don't know why people shouldn't mind that it's five people, perhaps elderly, living in a house, any more than a family living in the house, it seems to me to be people looking for difficulties. I mean, I hope that I don't have to go into any sort of care. I'm 86 now, and I'm sure that I can, I hope I carry on the same as I am now. Nobody knows what the future holds, but those five people have lived together as a family, that length of time, so I'm sure they're perfectly able to live together as a family there, and I can't see what problem it is to the neighbours. Are they going to have big wild dances or something? I just don't see where their objections are coming from, and I think it's a very good idea. There should be more places like it. Thank you. Thank you, Councillor POLL. Councillor Thank you, Chair. It was very useful to go to the site yesterday and meet residents as well, and one of the concerns was about vehicle movements. I just wondered how many cars are operated by residents at the moment, if any cars are, and whether it's possible that there might be movements, for example, food deliveries like meals on wheels, that type of thing. There was also concern by residents about future use, so if the, as time progresses, if the age group of the service changed and to younger people began to move in as the elderly residents passed away, would that then necessarily become a planning decision in the future, or could we at this point look at maybe a condition to review as time passes on the use of the property, because that would hopefully come with your residence that it's going to remain as a service, is at the moment rather than changes where younger people might be moving in over time. Thank you. Thank you, Councillor CURK. We can't condition lawful development certificates, but Amy, do you want to come in on that? Yeah, thank you very much. In relation to parking and car use, I think it's important to note that this is not a planning application. We are not looking at the merits of the proposals. We are looking at the technical question of is planning permission required, and does the proposals operate as a single household or not? So I think I just need to bring it back to that key question that we're looking at today. If the question over does, but the occupancy, again, I think that there's a very similar question that was asked earlier. The certificate is for five elderly people to be living together. If the circumstances change, then a new certificate might want they can apply for a new certificate, or we might need to reconsider the level of care that is being provided, and a new planning application may be required. And again, as the Chair has kindly mentioned, we can't put conditions on a certificate. This is not a planning application that we are approving or refusing. It is a certificate. The question is, does planning permission required or not? Thank you, Amy. Councilor Eason? Yeah, thank you, Chair. Mine comes up with a technical, as you're talking about whether they should be planning an application or are just a licence. What complications would it make if this was a planning application? Was it the moment? It's a licence for five adult members and in-house carer. If a planning application was put in, how would that change the tenor of what the property would be used for? I understand the book park and things like that. But it doesn't mention the possibility of children in the future. How would that fit in? What really is the difference? No, not the difference. What really is the problem, but if it went for plan application, you would find or probably might find it moving forward? I think I'm understanding the question correctly. How would we consider a planning application? Basically. If a planning application came in, it would have to go through all the normal processes of the consultation, et cetera, et cetera. We would be asking for opinions. That's not what's before us today. I don't want to get into the pre-judging what may or decision may or may not be made by a planning application in the future. That would be subject to a completely separate process. So I think we need to bring it back to the merits of the proposals in front of us and do we consider these proposals to operate as a single household and just look at the certificate? You did mention whether you did mention a planning application scenario that might exist. Am I right? I can see what the license is about. If circumstances change and the use of the property is intensified and it does start to operate as a residential care home or if any other change of use is required, then a planning application would be required for those. We can't pre-judge what may or may not happen in the future. But there are circumstances that would require a change of use. All right. Another comment, I didn't like the comment by a neighbor saying that they may be under social issues, causing risks, especially the children. I think that was an appropriate acceptance comment by a neighbor by the way. Thank you. Thank you, Councillor East. I entirely understand why you asked that question, but can I remind everybody again what we are looking at here today? It's so easy to drift off into planning terms. We really do need to concentrate on what's in front of us. Councillor McKenna. Thank you, Chair. Thank you for your presentation, Amy, and for all of the speakers who've attended today. I'm satisfied from the site visit yesterday. The officers report the presentation today and what I've heard and read about the planning law and the case law that this application appears to fall within the C3B use for up to six people living together and therefore planning permission is not required. I appreciate that some residents may find my view disappointing. But as a planning committee and what was already been stressed to us previously, we have to look at what is before us and focus on where the planning permission is required or not. There are no material changes and anything that is a civil matter because yesterday we did hear from residents about a few civil issues that is actually outside the remit of this committee and the property is not succeeding. It's intended use and will run as a single household. I think maybe Councillor POWell was in support of this, but I just wanted to propose that we support the officers' report if she hasn't done so already. I did have three questions, but they've already been asked, so thank you. Thank you, Councillor McKenna. Councillor Burch. Thank you, Chair. Again, thanks to the officers presenting the report and to those who have spoken. I think it would be entirely wrong for us to judge from this point on this on terms of the amount of care to be provided. Any of us can need care in our homes at any time of our lives, particularly in later life. So really, whether these residents require care or not is entirely a private matter. The issue here is whether they live together as a household and it seems to me that evidently they do, and that is the intention of the setup within the home, is that these adults should live together as a household. Also, we should not be discriminating because the house is being purchased by Pobble rather than being purchased by an individual. I think if this was a property which had been purchased by five able-bodied and able-minded friends who chose to live together, this application for a change of use would not even have come to this committee, or sorry, for these certificates of lawful development would not even have come to this committee. And in terms of the impact on residents, if the house was purchased by an extended family, by a large family, certainly adult children and their partners with a car each, I think there would be far more impact on the residents. So I think we should move to approve the certificate of lawful development. Thank you, Councillor perch. Councillor Boon. I'm just going to, basically, what I was going to say is the same as Councillor Mckenna and Councillor Boonch that I see no reason not to approve a lawful development certificate here. This family appears to fit very well within C3B category and the city with the area looks perfect who support or supported living accommodation, being as it is walking distance to the local supermarket and to town for employment and social activities for the residents, the future residents. And in fact, as Councillor Boonch says, ordinarily people with disabilities are less likely to own cars and be drivers and therefore would have less likely to have an impact on the surrounding parking situation than it would if there were two adults and four grown children living in the house. And therefore, yeah, I'm happy to approve. Thank you. Okay, thank you for that. I've got no more people on my list to speak unless somebody is going to do their normal trick and stick their hand in just as I'm about to wind up. Okay, we've had quite a good discussion on this thing. A lot of points have been covered. Several people have indicated that they wish to support it. So just to get it down for the minutes, can I have somebody propose that we agree the lawful developments, Councillor Powell? Is that seconded by Councillor Green? Okay, thank you very much. Richard, can we have the voting function out, please? Okay. Thank you. a lot. a lot. a lot. thank you, so the vote has been received. It's in favour of the proposal. All 14 have voted yes. Thank you very much, Julian. Thanks to everybody for their submissions today. We'll now move on to the next item on the agenda. And Andrew, you're going to cover those? Yes, thank you, Chair, to wait for the slides to come up. This is just your information to report a couple of recent appeal decisions. So the first one was an application where we refused planning permission. This was at Rose cottage up in Norway. You can see the site there on screen. So it was outside of the boundary open countryside location and they were seeking to permission to provide a front boundary wall and gates to encloses quite a large vehicle opening on the site. We'll see on the next picture. So it's the retaining boundary walls and gates was what was sort of commission. Obviously it was over a meter adjacent to the highway. That's what required permission. And you'll see from the slides, the wall was high. It was very severe and almost an urbanizing effect within the country side, where prevailing character of softer boundaries, hedging, coastal wire fence and things of that nature. And we felt that that would be very strong sort of defensive enclosure in that instance. And the inspector agreed. And so the appeal was dismissed, planning commission withheld for the reasons we gave in terms of our design criterion and the appropriateness of context and the importance of boundary treatments. So that was burst appeal. The second appeal was stereo lodge just outside of car went. This was for a building was previously a garage. It had been given permission in 2017 to be converted to a holiday let. That's the building there. I think it's the one to the right. Yeah, that one there. So it's a modern building effectively. But there are sort of separate policies for holiday let's as opposed to residential use. So we had refused planning commission to remove the conditions of the holiday let, which would have had the effect of an unrestricted residential use as it was contrary to our strategic policy S1 in the LDP, which has sort of set criteria where unrestricted residential use would be. And the inspector agreed again. And so the planning appeal were dismissed. There was debates around the application of policy H4, which is the conversion of buildings to dwellings. But the inspector was clear that the conversion had already happened. So it wasn't a conversion as such. And in any event it was it was still a modern building, which would have failed the relevant criteria for that. So yes, well done to the case officer. I think it was the same case officer for both. And good that the decisions we make in are being sort of validated and upheld by PEDU. So just for your information. Thanks. Thanks so much for that Andrew. That concludes the items on the agenda for today. So thank you very much everybody and we'll see you next time.

Transcript

So, however, the Community Council notes that the proposal is submitted is for a dwelling for five elderly people with 24/7 living care and support. In reality, this support would need to be provided by a rotor, at least two people. Indeed, the proposal indicates that two shift workers would provide care and possibly more. Making couples' proposal at face value, there would be at least seven people in the property during a 24-hour period, five residents and two shift-working carers, and therefore there are at least seven people in the group, which fall to be considered. C3B provides for up to six people living together as a single household. In the case of North Devon, the first Secretary of State, the court held that for the use of all within C3, the residents and carers must live on the premises, otherwise the use falls within Class C2. In the North Devon case, it was held that shift workers were not living on the premises. That is precisely the case in this scenario. It is clear that its regards for a 28-jasper due to crescent, 24-hour carers are required, otherwise this would not fall part of the proposal. I think that would be crucial, actually. As the carers are a) necessary for functioning of the household, and b) cannot be said to be formed part of the household, given that they do not reside there, and c) contribute to a group which you see to see. I have 30 seconds left. Okay. Well, I have made the main point, so the other step is to do with the nature of the proposal, but I understand that they are not relevant, but it is interesting that that still did form part of the office's report. Okay. Thank you for that. There were a couple of points in there. I think what we're going to do today, every time somebody addresses the committee, we're going to go straight to office, otherwise we're going to lose the track of people's arguments, so Amy, would you like to come back on that? There was a particular point about seven people that you might like to address. Yes. Yes. Thank you very much. Yeah. I think the reason why we've cited the North Devon case today, and it's not in the report, it is one that it was raised in late correspondence, and secondly, it was raised on site yesterday to remember site visits and requested that members be informed about the outcome of the North Devon case. So, there it is, and we only consider it appropriate then to provide that information back to members. There's a point in relation to where as carers did need to reside at the property or not, there's significant inspectors reports that say that carers do not have to reside at the property to be classed as part of the household, in some instances, with this case with the North Devon one where they are children, it was considered that that was necessary because children couldn't care for themselves and operate as a single household. So, the second point, oh sorry, third point then, about seven people living at the property. There is, this is an application for five elderly persons plus a carer. The carers you can't do a 24-hour shift consistently, so that carer as an individual would change, but there will only be one carer overnight sleeping at that property, so there will be a maximum of six, which again, aligns with the category C3B. Okay, thank you, Amy. The next speaker is Tom Wyatt, who is speaking on behalf of the objective. First of all, thank you for the opportunity to address you on behalf of the community. The conclusion of the planning report I have before you states, and I quote, The information submitted and the assessment above demonstrates the use of the site as a supported living for five elderly persons under the supervision of one staff at any one time, would not represent a material change of use from the existing C3 running house. The proposal would fulfill the criteria of 3B as the household would contain less than six residents and care is provided to a degree similar to that expected within a typical family home. Therefore, the proposal is lawful as it would not result in a material change of use. In this case, planning permission is not needed. We agree that a change of use from class C3A to class C3B does not need planning permission. Our submission is that the change of use is not from class C3A to class C3B, but from class C3A to class C2, which does require planning permission. The up to six residents' criteria is referred to and considered at length in the North Devon District Council and the first Secretary of State Case, the leading case on this issue, which the planning department report to you fails to refer to at all. Firstly, by the application submission, there are at least seven people in the property during a 24-hour period, five residents and two ship working carers, and therefore there are at least seven people in the group which fall to be considered. This clearly exceeds a stipulated requirement of up to six people living together as a single household. On the basis of the numbers alone, if they were considered a single household, the property would fall into class C2. The question arose in the North Devon case, and this is key, as to whether carers who do not live on the premises but who provide 24-hour care can be regarded as living together as part of the household. The answer was no. The court held that for the use to fall within class C3B, the residents and the carers must live on the premises, otherwise the use falls within class C2, a residential institution. This is precisely the situation here, in that the cared for will live on the premises in just pursuit of present, the carers will live in their own premises, their own homes and work in just virtue of the present, which will therefore be a residential institution at class C2 premises which does require planning permission. The leading case law has not even been referred to in the planning department response. It has, however, been referred to in a letter from public planning and development consultants as pre-planning, to Monmouthshire Planning Department dated 5th of February 2024, which accompanied the public application form. I quote from the out of this planning letter of the 5th of February,Nevertheless, case law, North District Council, the first secretary of state, provides that if the residents could not function as a household without carers who do not reside at the property, then the use would fall into C2. It's quite difficult. We agree. And it does fall into C2. Once the classification has been determined as C2, the falls into question whether the change of use is material or not. That's a separate question, which the community would likely opportunity to formally respond to once C2 has been determined as appropriate. You have 30 seconds time. Since Mr. Joyce discons in the North Avenue case, may declare that it depends on individual facts of the case and whether or not they change the material. It's a question of fact and degree. We are sorry, but in our opinion, the planning department conclusion in this case is fundamentally forward. We would encourage that having heard the community concerns, if you are in any way uncomfortable as we most certainly are with the planning department responses, they should defer a decision until such time as you can fully satisfy yourselves in this matter." Chair, could I possibly crave your indulgence and just respond to a couple of points that Amy made? Very briefly, then. Thank you. So Amy is about to come back on your points. Okay, so in relation to that, the North Devon children needed 24-hour care. The residents in this case, by the statements provided, by probably need 24-hour care, otherwise it wouldn't have two people working back to back. The North Devon case was concerning children, quite clearly. But the judge, Mr. Justice Commons, did not discriminate between the provision for children and the provision for adults. Thank you very much. Okay, Amy, there's a couple of points there. I know you've dealt with them before, but can you reiterate? Yes, thank you, Chair. First of all, I think it's important to note that although the North Devon case provides us with insight on how to assess what a single household would be, it is not the leading case on this decision. There is a lot of case law, including a number of inspectors' decisions that look at all aspects of what constitutes a household, and it isn't just the provision of whether the carer is a resident or not. I think one of the important things to note about the North Devon case is that it relates to children and not adults, and therefore, I think in the judge's consideration, he does specifically state that the children are unable to perform a household as they need—they cannot run a house by themselves, which is a distinction between children and adults. It's been mentioned again that there are seven people in the property that isn't the case, that's confirmed by the information from Pobble, that the aim of the proposal is to support five elderly persons with learning support with a 24/7 support by one member of staff, not two. Again, I think the distinction between the cases, as I will reiterate, is the level of care that could be reasonably required to form a household. Here we do have five adults that have been living together for a consistent and quite lengthy period of time and have been able to form that household together, and the care support will be additional. I think it's important to note that there is one member of staff for five adults, which suggests that the care level is relatively low. I think those are all points. Thank you, Amy. We now have the applicant's agent, Karen Jones, Chair. You have four minutes. Chair, members, good afternoon, Prince Houndar. My name is Karen Jones from Aspiri Planning. Thank you for allowing me to address you today in support of the application. As the committee report confirms, this application is for a lawful development certificate to confirm if the proposed use of the property being used as a supported living home for five elderly persons under the care and supervision of one staff member at any time would require planning permission. The LDC was submitted to confirm that the proposed use would fall within a C3 residential use class, which is within the same use class as the existing house. The committee report and office of presentation confirms this and agrees that there would be no change of use. It is clear from the case that we have set out on the assessment in the committee report that there is no need for a planning application, and on this basis, the LDC has been recommended for approval. The applicant, Power Group, provides an exceptional residential care for older people with learning and support requirements, such as what is being proposed here. They provide tailored support to each and every individual, depending on their needs. Within our application, we submitted a number of similar cases from other local planning authorities in South Wales, including Newport and Caffilly, where it has also been agreed that four or five persons living with a carer can do so within a C3 use class and there is no need for planning permission. Some of these cases have also been considered a plan in appeal and inspectors have again confirmed the position. However, as part of the consideration of the application by officers, partly in response to the level of interest that there has been in the application from local residents and the community council, further evidence was required on how the property would remain as a residential house. This confirmed that it would function in the same way as any household would, such as, the group has lived together for over 20 years. The longest length of residency has been in place since the service first started operating. There is a low turnover of residents using the service, as it is designated for adults with learning difficulties. In the last five years, there has been one new service user to join the group, and this change came about to do to the death of a previous long-term resident. As such, this is a very stable service provision. In terms of how the carers interact with the group, the carers provide background support helping with everyday living and assisting with some trips into Abigavani. Cooking is sometimes done together, or the residents will prepare their own meals with assistance if it is required. There are no set meal times or provisions of meals, as you may expect in a care home. Carers make with residents or not on a day-to-day basis. The group's level of independence varies from person to person, but assistance is available when needed, rather than being required to support them in all aspects of their lives. The representations against the application have been addressed in the committee report. In the vast majority of cases, they are not material planning considerations that have been raised. In summary, the use of the dwelling would not be materially different in planning terms to its use as a single C3 residential household, and therefore no material change of use would occur when planning permission is not required. Finally, I wanted to emphasise that Monosha Commissioners and the local health board have visited the site and expressed their full support for the reprovision of the service and recognised that this scheme will significantly enhance the well-being of the people using the service. Thank you for your time, and we would respectfully request that the LDC is approved in line with the officer's recommendation. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you, guys. I don't think there was anything you needed to pick up on there, maybe. Okay. Right. Well, thanks for that, everybody. We've got no specialist schedule to discuss anything with us today, so I'll leave it open to members now. If anybody wants to raise any questions, then feel free to do so. Sue Riley. Thank you, Chair. I fully understand the explanations in relation to the existing household, and I've read all of the, obviously, the neighbours' concerns. The question I want to ask, which doesn't feel entirely comfortable, is, as the elderly residents become more elderly, their care needs are likely to increase, and if for whatever reason voids occur, then either there will be less residents, or possibly more staff. So, where does that fit with this application? Thank you for that. So, Amy, do you want to come back or can I answer that? I don't mind answering it. I was just checking that that was, you'd finished, I didn't want to jump in there. Well, I think so. It's a bit uncomfortable with what we're talking about, but if voids occur and you've got less people there, then you're either going to have to introduce more, or if the care needs, there will be more carers, if the care needs increase, and one of those may occur, one or both of those, so it just seems that this is fairly short-term arrangement. I think there's been quite a consistent tendency, or the household group, have been running for more or less 20 years together, if it transpires that the residents need additional care and that intensifies the use on the site, and it may be that the situation changes that a planning application might be required in the future if things change, but what we need to be clear of right now is that we are looking at the certificate and whether it requires planning commission or not for the proposed use that it's in front of us as it is now. So if the circumstances change in the future, and it is exactly any kind of situation where the things change, we would need to revisit that in case planning permission is required, but we're making an assessment on what we have in front of us right now. Could I just come back on that then, so how would we know, would we be informed if somebody moved out or something was occurred, or if the care needs were increased, how would we know? Well, we may well be informed by a member of the public that things have happened. I'm sure that Paul are a very responsible manager of their property, and if they feel as well that things have changed, and the level of care in that environment needs to change, then they have the option of taking the individual out of that property and putting them in a position where their care needs are better met elsewhere, or there's the option for them to come back and say our care needs and our requirements for this property have changed, and therefore we feel that we would need a new planning application. Can I just clarify one more point on that then? So if voids for whatever reason occurred, are they going to leave those voids, I would be running it down to maybe two, one, two or three adults, or would they be reintroducing more people to fill those voids? Well, the certificate is for up to five persons with one carer, so it could be three persons living in that property, or it just has to be a maximum of five with one carer. I don't know whether Paul will want to come back in and comment on how you would be managing the property on a daily basis. Yeah, so if you need any more information and get that from Paul, as I'm the agent on the application or ask for the agent on the application, but I think what's been prevented is that it demonstrates that this has been a long-term service that's been provided with only one change over the last 20 years, but appreciate what you're saying as potentially people pass away, would that be filled? And if it stayed within that five, then that wouldn't trigger the need for another planning application. They have had one person come in as to fill in potentially a void previously in the existing facility. But if that happened again, then that wouldn't trigger the need for a planning application. If one person saw apologies. Sorry. That was my point. I suppose the point I'm trying to make is it's being presented as a stable static group of five, and I just wanted us to acknowledge that that may not always be the case. Is that fair? Yeah. No, that's fair. That's fair. If I could just add to it, I think it's important to note that any residential property, whether a certain amount of documents, may not be a completely stable presidency for the entirety of those people occupying that property. So I think that's important to note. Councillor Powell. Thank you, Chairman. What I'd like to say is this, you could have a family of six parents and four children living in a house like this, and things could change, but these people have lived together as a family, and no doubt they get on probably just as well, if not better, than a natural family. So I can't see that there's a problem at all. If they can't get more less able to cut off themselves, obviously they might have to go to a proper nursing home. But if they can stay able, I can't see that there's a problem, and I don't know why people shouldn't mind that it's five people, perhaps elderly, living in a house, any more than a family living in the house. It seems to me to be people looking for difficulties. I mean, I hope that I don't have to go into any sort of care. I'm 86 now, and I'm sure that I hope I carry on the same as I am now. Nobody knows what the future holds, but those five people have lived together as a family with that length of time, so I'm sure they're perfectly able to live together as a family there. And I can't see what problem it is to the neighbours. They're going to have big wild dances or something. I just don't see where their objections are coming from, and I think it's a very good idea. There should be more places like it. Thank you. Thank you, Councillor POLL. Councillor Gower. Thank you, Chair. It was very useful to go to the site yesterday, meet residents as well, and one of the concerns was about vehicle movements. I just wondered how many cars are operated by residents at the moment, if any cars are, and whether it's possible that there might be movements, for example, food deliveries like meals on wheels, that type of thing. There was also concern by residents about future use. So as time progresses, if the age group of the service changed and to younger people began to move in as the elderly residents passed away, would that then necessarily become a planning decision in the future? Or could we at this point look at maybe a condition to review as time passes on the use of the property, because that would hopefully come with your residents that it's going to remain as a service, is at the moment rather than changes where younger people might be moving in over time. Thank you. Thank you, Councillor CURK. We can't condition lawful development certificates, but Amy, do you want to come in on that? Yes, thank you very much. In relation to parking and car use, I think it's important to note that this is not a planning application. We are not looking at the merits of the proposals. We are looking at the technical question of is planning permission required, and does the proposals operate as a single household or not? So I think I just need to bring it back to that key question that we're looking at today. If the question over does, but the occupancy, again, I think that there's a very similar question that was asked earlier, the certificate is for five elderly people to be living together if the circumstances change, then a new certificate might, well, they can apply for a new certificate or we might need to reconsider the level of care that is being provided, and a new planning application may be required. And again, as the Chair has kindly mentioned, we can't put conditions on a certificate. This is not a planning application that we are approving or refusing. It is a certificate, the question is does planning permission require or not? Thank you, Amy. Councillor Eason. Yes. Thank you, Chair. As a technical, as you were talking about, whether this should be a planning application or just a licence, what complications would it make if this was a planning application? Was it the moment, it's a licence for five adult members and in-house carer. If a planning application was put in, how would that change the tenor of what the property would be used for? I understand the book park and things like that. But it doesn't mention the possibility of children in the future. How would that fit in? What really is the difference, not the difference. What really is the problem, but if it went for a plan application, you would find or probably might find it in moving it forward. I think I'm understanding the question correctly, is how would we consider a planning application? Basically. Well, if a planning application came in, it would have to go through all the normal processes of the consultation, et cetera, et cetera. We would be asking for opinions. That's not what's before us today. I don't want to get into the pre-judging, what may or may or may not be made by a planning application in the future, that will be subject to a completely separate process. So I think we need to bring it back to the merits of the proposals in front of us and do we consider these proposals to operate as a single household and just look at the certificate? You did mention a planning application scenario that might exist. Am I right? I can see what the license is about. If circumstances change and the use of the property is intensified and it does start to operate as a residential care home, or if any other change of use is required, then a planning application would be required for those. We can't pre-judge what may or may not happen in the future, but there are circumstances that would require a change of use. Yes. All right. And another comment, I didn't like the comment by a neighbor saying that they may be under social issues causing risk, especially the children. I think that was an appropriate acceptance comment by a neighbor, by the way. Thank you. Thank you, Councillor HUIS and yeah, I entirely understand why you asked that question, but can I remind everybody again what we are looking at here today? It's so easy to drift off into planning terms. We really do need to concentrate on what's in front of us. Councillor MACKENNAH. Thank you, Chair, and thank you for your presentation, Amy, and for all of the speakers who've attended today. I'm satisfied from the site visit yesterday. The officers report the presentation today and what I've heard and read about the planning law and the case law that this application appears to fall within the C-3B use for up to six people living together and therefore planning permission is not required. I appreciate that some residents may find my view disappointing, but as a planning committee and what was already been stressed to us previously, we have to look at what is before us and focus on where the planning permission is required or not. There are no material changes and anything that is a civil matter, because yesterday we did hear from residents about a few civil issues that is actually outside the remit of this committee and the property is not exceeding its intended use and will run as a single household, so I think maybe Councillor POWE was in support of this, but I just wanted to propose that we support the officers' report if she hasn't done so already. I did have three questions, but they've already been asked, so thank you. Councillor MACKENNAH. Thank you, Councillor MACKENNAH. Councillor BIDGE. Thank you, Chair, and again, thanks to the officers presenting the report and to those who have spoken, I think it would be entirely wrong for us to judge from this point on this in terms of the amount of care to be provided. Any of us can need care in our homes at any time of our lives, particularly in later life, so really whether these residents require care or not is entirely a private matter. The issue here is whether they live together as a household, and it seems to me that evidently they do, and that is the intention of the set up within the home, is that these adults should live together as a household. Also, we should not be discriminating because the house is being purchased by Pobble rather than being purchased by an individual. I think if this was a property which had been purchased by five able-bodied and able-minded friends who chose to live together, this application for a change of use would not even have come to this committee, or sorry, for the certificate of law for development would not even have come to this committee. In terms of the impact on residents, if the house was purchased by an extended family, by a large family, I don't know, adult children and their partners with a car each, I think they would be far more impact on the residents, so I think we should move to approve the certificate of law for development. Thank you, Councillor BOURGE, Councillor BOURGE. I'm just going to, basically, what I was going to say is the same as Councillor MACKEN and Councillor BOURGE that I see no reason not to approve a law for development certificate here. This family appears to fit very well within C3B category and the city with the area looks perfect who support or support to live in accommodation, being as it is walking distance to the local supermarket and to town for employment and social activities for the residents, the future residents, and in fact, as Councillor BOURGE says, ordinarily, people with disabilities are less likely to own cars and be drivers and therefore would have a less likely to have an impact on the surrounding parking situation than it would if there were two adults and four grown children living in the house and therefore, yeah, I'm happy to approve. Okay, thank you for that. I've got no more people on my list to speak unless somebody is going to do their normal trick and stick their hand in just as I'm about to wind up. Okay, we've had quite a good discussion on this thing, a lot of points have been covered. People have indicated that they wish to support it, so just to get it down for the minutes, can I have somebody propose that we agree the lawful developments, Councillor POLL? Is that seconded by Councillor BOURGE? Okay, thank you very much. Richard, can we have the voting function and please? [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] Thank you, so the vote has been received and it's in favour of the proposal. All 14 have voted yes. Thank you very much, Julian. Thanks to everybody for their submissions today. We'll now move on to the next item on the agenda, and Andrew, you're going to cover those? Yes, thank you, Chair, to wait for the slides to come up. This is just your information to report a couple of recent appeal decisions. [BLANK_AUDIO] So the first one was an application where we refused planning permission. This was at Rose Cottage up in Norbury, you can see the site there on screen. So it was outside of the boundary open countryside location, and they were seeking to permission to provide a front boundary wall and gates to encloses quite a large vehicle opening on the site. We'll see on the next picture, so it's retaining their potential. Boundary walls and gates was what was sort of commission. Obviously, it was over a meter adjacent to the highway. That's what required permission, and you'll see from the slides. The wall was high, it was very sort of inclusive and also an urbanizing effect within the countryside where prevailing character of softer boundaries, hedging, coastal wire fence, things of that nature. And we felt that that would be very strong sort of defensive enclosure in that instance. And the inspector agreed, and so the appeal was dismissed. Plan commission withheld for the reasons we gave in terms of our design criterion. And so the appropriateness of context and the importance of boundary treatments. That was burst appeal, second appeal, wisteria lodge, just outside of car went. This was for a building that was previously a garage. It had been given permission in 2017 to be converted to a holiday let. That's the building there. I think it's the one to the right, yeah, that one there. So it's a modern building effectively. But there are sort of separate policies for holiday let's, as opposed to residential use. So we had refused planning commission to remove the conditions of the holiday let. Which would have had the effect of an unrestricted residential use. As it was contrary to our strategic policy S1 in the LDP. Which has sort of set criteria where unrestricted residential use would be. And the inspector agreed again. And so the planning appeal was dismissed. There was debates around the application of policy H4. Which is the conversion of buildings to dwellings. But the inspector was clear that the conversion had already happened. So it wasn't a conversion as such. And in any event it was still a modern building which would have failed. The relevant criteria for that. So, yeah, it was modern to the case officer. I think it was the same case officer for both. And the decision we make in being sort of validated and upheld by PEDU. So just a few more information. Thanks. Thanks so much for that Andrew. That concludes the items on the agenda for today. So thank you very much everybody and we'll see you next time. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you.

Planning Committee - Wednesday, 8th May, 2024 2.00 pm

Summary

Attendees

Documents