Small care home for children approved despite opposition from neighbours

The plans, submitted by Care Perspectives Ltd, will see three young people between the ages of seven and 17 living in a “family setting” in New Church Road, Wellington.

The children would each have their own bedroom, be in full-time education and would “have a normal day-to-day routine”, while a minimum of two carers would be on-site at all times while the children were at home.

The application attracted backlash from some residents, who raised concerns about the impact on the neighbourhood.

Speaking at Telford & Wrekin Council’s planning committee meeting, Mr Berry said: “No details have been given about how secure this site will be, but users and local residents need this reassurance.

“Absconding is the most common problem in these homes so security must surely be the priority, particularly with the availability of drugs in the local area and the vulnerability of the youngsters.

“Traffic and parking is another casing point. The council see no problem in this area, but residents see mayhem on a daily basis from 8am onwards. The nature of the care home proposed is at an intensity which is not appropriate within this residential area and will lead to fragmentation of this community.

“Whilst we acknowledge this children and young people need protection, the council also has a duty of care to its residents who invest so much in the town.”

Councillor Lee Carter, ward member for Arleston & College, said the property sits on the busy junction of New Church Road and Holyhead Road.

“There’s been significant investment in that junction but the problem still remains,” he said.

“The change of use of this house will be significantly out of character to the surrounding area, which is a well-established residential area that on the whole is a quite, peaceful neighbourhood. There has also beeen an increase in anti-social behaviour which has resulted in a significant council and police resources to tackle.”

The property has been sold Care Perspectives Ltd subject to contract.

Speaking on behalf of the applicant, Adrian Dallinson said the proposal “creates an opportunity to provide a small family-sized home to just up to three children”, adding that Ofsted encourages care providers to “move away from the traditional, institutional model of care home provision”.

“We’ve noted there’s been a number of objections to the proposal, some needlessly sensational, some fair, and some not related to planning,” said Mr Dallinson.

“Small care homes of this size are inherently acceptable in a residential area and would be inappropriate to house these children outside a residential environment. The use of public transport and car sharing would be promoted for all staff, but the site provides parking for up to six spaces which are sufficient to meet the needs of the home.

“The shift change would not take place at unsociable hours. There are also no reasons to believe that the children who will be residents of the home will have any propensity to be involved in any criminal or anti-social behaviour.”

Councillor Thomas Janke said he was concerned by some of the objections.

“There is an assumption that it’s going to be a detriment to the local community whereas people don’t have a clue,” he said.

“There are not enough of these settings – there is a huge demand in the care system to integrate these people in the society.”

Councillor Arnold England, added: “I’ve spoken at conferences on the benefits of child care for traumatised children and how they be integrated. I am totally in favour in principle of having a three-child home that is fully staffed, so the children can be properly integrated and become of society.”

Four councillors voted in favour, and four against. Councillor Giles Luter, the chair of the planning committee, was given the casting vote and refused it. This, he said, was on the basis that. although visually it doesn’t change the street scene, fundamentally it would because effectively it would now be a business.

However, Councillor Luter was advised that the council would struggle to defend that reason for refusal if it went to appeal.

Another vote was cast on the wording of the refusal, with three in favour, four against and one abstention.

Councillor Janke proposed the committee should vote again, while Councillor John Thompson argued that maybe a site visit would be beneficial, especially for members who are not familiar with the area.

After further discussion, the application was approved after the original recommendation was again put to a vote.