Agenda item

It was noted that, within the officer’s report on page 15, the planning application history reference WL/2025/957 related to 70 Walkerith Road and not to the application site. The reference had been included due to its proximity to the application site and because it had been submitted by the same applicant. Members were also advised that the extension and garage conversion shown within the presentation photographs had already been completed.

 

The Officer then introduced the presentation. The application was for a change of use from a dwelling house to a children’s home, including a single storey rear extension and the conversion of the existing garage. The location of the application site within Morton, off Walkerith Road, was identified.

 

The Chairman thanked the Officer for their updates and presentation and welcomed the first speaker Councillor Bruce Allison as Parish Council representative to address the Committee.

 

Councillor Allison referred to Sections 1 and 23 of the Central Lincolnshire Local Plan (CLLP) and the Morton Neighbourhood Plan, stating that a children’s residential care facility within a Tier 5 village would not provide sufficient facilities for the likely occupants. It was stated that the application focused on the physical alterations to the property rather than on the proposed change of use.

 

Reference was made to neighbourhood plan policies requiring that development should not adversely affect the amenity of nearby residents, including matters of massing, overlooking, and noise. The speaker noted that Morton predominantly provided facilities for an older population, as set out in paragraph 2.10 of the Morton Neighbourhood Plan, and was considered distinct from Gainsborough.

 

Concerns were expressed that Morton Playing Field was not accessible during school hours or before 6pm, and that the nearest well?equipped play area was at Richmond Park, approximately 1.5 kilometres from the application site with no safe crossing points. It was further stated that there was no direct transport to the West Lindsey Leisure Centre.

The speaker questioned the purpose of local planning policies if the tier system was not adhered to and suggested that allowing the development would create a precedent for similar proposals not supported within a Tier 5 settlement.

 

Policy 53 of the CLLP was cited, together with Ofsted guidance, noting that children’s homes should avoid over?concentration to prevent cumulative adverse impacts on residential areas and local services. It was stated that Morton, with a population of 1,325, already accommodated one children’s residential facility, one care home for adults with mental health needs, and two large adult residential care homes. The speaker contended that these existing facilities had not been fully considered within the application.

 

Reference was also made to Policies 47 and 49 of the Local Plan, which required safe and well?designed access. Walkerith Road was described as a busy route, with locally collected vehicle data indicating over 1,000 vehicle movements per day, speeds averaging 37 mph, and some recorded at up to 73 mph in a 30-mph zone. The speaker stated that Ofsted advised against locating such developments near busy roads.

 

It was further stated that the proposal required three off?street parking spaces but only provided two. Concerns were raised regarding the proximity of the site to the junction of Nursery Vale and the potential for hazardous on?street parking. Reference was made to complaints about obstruction caused by contractor vehicles during the build phase. The speaker disputed the assumption that an average household would generate three vehicles, noting that the proposed use would attract additional staff and visitors, increasing parking demand, as evidenced at other care establishments in the village.

 

Finally, reference was made to Section 21 of the CLLP regarding flood risk. It was stated that the flood risk assessment related only to the extension and not to the proposed change of use. The speaker contended that the National Planning Policy Framework required an assessment of the whole building.

 

The Chairman thanked Councillor Allison for his comments and invited the second speaker, the applicant to address the Committee.

 

Reference was made to comments from the previous meeting held on 10 December 2025, during which a Member of the Committee had observed that a household in a village could comprise a family with several children and that such circumstances would not constitute a planning matter. The applicant stated that this principle was central to the proposal, asserting that the application was for a family home and that the key planning issue was whether the use would be materially different from any other dwelling in the street. It was highlighted that Officers, including County Council Highways Officers, had concluded that it would not.

 

The applicant noted that the Officer report confirmed the proposed use would not be dissimilar to a C3 dwelling, with levels of activity, comings and goings, and noise reflective of ordinary family life. The only difference identified was that the home would be regulated and inspected by Ofsted, operating under strict statutory requirements and a higher standard of oversight than a typical private household.

 

The applicant provided context regarding engagement with neighbours and the Parish Council. It was stated that the Parish Council had been contacted proactively in July 2025, prior to the submission of the application, with an offer to attend a meeting and discuss the proposal. It was reported that although an initial acknowledgement was received, no further contact was made. The applicant stated that it was therefore disappointing to later see comments on the planning portal suggesting a lack of transparency. Evidence of the earlier correspondence was referred to.

 

The applicant reported meeting two Parish Councillors at an open day at a local school, during which it was suggested that confusion may have arisen between Morton and Marton. The applicant stated that they accepted this explanation and again offered to attend a meeting, including the possibility of an extraordinary meeting, although this invitation was not taken up. Attempts to engage with neighbours were also detailed, including an arranged evening for discussion, which only two residents attended.

 

Where concerns had been raised, the applicant stated that action had been taken. In relation to drainage, a neighbour had queried capacity, and a drainage report had been commissioned, which identified no issues. The applicant stated that there was no planning basis to suggest that a children’s home of this scale would place any greater demand on drainage infrastructure than a typical family dwelling.

 

Reference was made to concerns raised regarding interpretation of Local Plan policy relating to residential care accommodation. The applicant stated that the policy could not reasonably be interpreted to imply that individuals requiring assistance should be excluded from certain settlements, as this would misapply the policy and risk discriminatory outcomes. Reference was also made to similar proposals in Doncaster and Morton, which had been approved, with the applicant stating that consistency in decision?making was important.

 

The applicant emphasised that planning decisions must be based on land?use impacts rather than assumptions about future occupants. It was stated that there was no evidence of material harm, and that professional advice supported approval. The home would be carefully managed and subject to regular oversight.

 

The Chairman thanked the speaker and invited the third speaker, an objector, to address the Committee.

 

An objector addressed the Committee and advised that they lived adjacent to the application site at 78 Walkerith Road. The speaker raised concerns regarding the cumulative impact of the proposal when considered alongside the existing children’s home at 70 Walkerith Road. It was stated that Walkerith Road was a quiet residential street of family homes and that a C2 children’s home was not comparable to a typical dwelling due to 24?hour staffing, shift changes, and visits from external professionals.

 

The speaker expressed concern that these activities would result in disturbance during the night and early mornings, affecting both their own amenity and that of nearby residents, including elderly neighbours. It was stated that the proposal would lead to a change in character from residential to institutional.

 

The speaker expressed concern about loss of residential amenity, stating that the rear extension overlooked their property and affected privacy within their home and garden. It was felt that increased occupation and staff presence would increase overlooking and general activity. The speaker noted that they had invested significantly in their property and had chosen the location because of its quiet residential character. It was stated that the proposal could affect the value of their property and their willingness to continue investing in it.

 

Concerns were also raised regarding personal safety and anxiety. The speaker advised that they lived alone for much of the time and felt that the presence of a staffed children’s home next door could increase their anxiety and reduce their sense of security. It was stated that peace and safety in their home were important and that the intensified use would affect their day?to?day living conditions.

 

Highway and access issues were highlighted. The speaker reported that Walkerith Road was narrow and already struggled with access and referred to ongoing issues with construction vehicles obstructing driveways during the build phase. Evidence was said to be available. It was stated that staff vehicles and visitors would worsen congestion and that emergency access was a concern. The speaker considered the location unsuitable for what they viewed as an intensive use.

 

Drainage and infrastructure concerns were also raised. The speaker stated that there had been past problems with blocked drains and that Yorkshire Water had previously been required to attend to an issue affecting properties along the road. It was felt that a more intensive residential use would place additional strain on the drainage system, which the speaker did not believe could cope.

 

Further concerns regarding transparency were raised. The speaker stated that residents had initially been informed that the property would remain a family home. It was alleged that development work had continued after a previous refusal, causing noise and disturbance, and it was suggested that aspects of the build quality warranted scrutiny. The speaker stated they held evidence relating to these matters.

 

The Chairman thanked the speaker and invited the final speaker Councillor K. Carless to address the Committee.

 

Councillor Carless addressed the Committee in her capacity as Ward Member. She stated that her comments were made from the perspective of a corporate parent and regarding the safeguarding and wellbeing of vulnerable children. She emphasised the need for the Committee to be confident that the intentions and implications of the proposal would serve the best interests of children who might reside in the property.

 

Councillor Carless advised that private provider models for children’s residential care had been a concern of hers for some time. She noted her experience as a volunteer contact worker in Gainsborough, working with another vulnerable cohort requiring safe and supervised environments. She highlighted that Morton already accommodated two residential elderly care homes and a mental health care facility, all of which were openly established and identifiable within the community. She questioned why the children’s home model proposed by the applicant was not similarly identifiable to residents.

 

Concern was expressed regarding the number of residential properties acquired by the provider, Illuminate Care Group, and by another private provider in the area. Councillor Carless stated that residents should be aware of the presence of such homes within their communities, as local awareness could contribute to safeguarding. She queried the applicant’s description of the home as a “traditional family setting,” suggesting that a blended family model might be a more accurate term.

 

Councillor Carless stated that private residential children’s homes were part of a wider national model that had been identified as profit?driven, often involving the purchase of small properties in lower?cost housing areas. She raised concerns that children could be regarded as units of budgetary income, and that financial considerations might lead to selective placement practices. Reference was made to national discussions concerning profit caps for children’s home providers.

 

The financial pressure on local authorities in relation to such models was highlighted, concern was expressed that budgetary challenges were expected to increase. Councillor Carless stated that when a child took up residence in a private model overseen by Ofsted in the district, questions remained as to whether the local authority, as corporate parent, would conduct due diligence. It was considered important to understand whether children placed would be local or from out of area, particularly in relation to safeguarding and transition to new environments.

 

Councillor Carless stated that private residential models could be approved through local authority processes but questioned whether the Council was satisfied that such models might be expanded across wards without full scrutiny. Councillor Carless stressed that any placement should be made solely with the best interests of the child at the forefront.

 

Concerns were raised regarding the potential for private providers to cease operations. She asked what emergency contingency arrangements would be in place for children in such circumstances. She also sought clarity on security measures, both inside and outside the property, for the children, staff, and wider community, as well as the emergency planning arrangements with relevant emergency services.

 

Councillor Carless acknowledged that many of the issues she raised were not material planning considerations. However, she stated that, as a corporate parent, she had a duty to ask such questions on behalf of the children who might reside in the proposed home.

 

The Chairman thanked Councillor Carless for her comments and with no response from Officers opened for the Committee to debate.

 

NOTE: Councillor Carless left the meeting at 6.59pm. 

 

In response the Lead Officer outlined that Local Plan policy stated residential care accommodation requiring on?site assistance should normally be located within settlement tiers 1 to 4. Morton was identified as a Tier 5 medium village; however, the Officer advised that, unlike many similar settlements, Morton was contiguous with Gainsborough and benefitted from a wide range of nearby services and facilities. The site was approximately 70 metres from an hourly bus service providing direct access into Gainsborough.

 

The Officer noted that this served to differentiate Morton from more isolated Tier 5 settlements and formed the basis for the recommendation. In terms of intensity, it was confirmed that number 82 was the only such proposal on the street. Although the applicant had sought planning permission for extensions at number 70, no application for change of use had been submitted for that property.

 

A Committee Member considered that, although the site was within a Tier 5 settlement, its immediate proximity to Gainsborough and access to services justified an exception, and the proposal was comparable in scale to a typical family home.

 

Another Committee Member noted the site’s location within flood zone 3A but observed that the building already existed. Matters relating to build quality and works undertaken without approval were regarded as enforcement issues rather than material to the application. Having reviewed the policies, the Member stated they could not identify a defensible planning reason to refuse.

 

A further Committee Member commented that similar developments elsewhere had operated without issue, and that the proposed occupancy was typical of an ordinary dwelling. Shift patterns and the ages of children were noted to be outside the scope of planning. The Member highlighted the absence of highway objections and that flooding matters had been addressed.

 

A Member of the Committee expressed unease about the wider principle of children being treated as a “commodity” within private care models. While acknowledging that there were no planning grounds for refusal.

 

The proposal to accept the Officers recommendations was duly seconded and voted upon. It was therefore agreed that planning permission be GRANTED subject to the following conditions:

 

Recommended Conditions:

Conditions stating the time by which the development must be commenced:

 

1. The development hereby permitted must be begun before the expiration of three years from the date of this permission.

 

Reason: To conform with Section 91 (1) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended).

 

Conditions which apply or require matters to be agreed before the development commenced:

 

None.

 

Conditions which apply or are to be observed during the course of the development:

 

2. With the exception of the detailed matters referred to by the conditions of this consent, the development hereby approved shall be carried out in accordance with the following drawings and documents:

FF-230-2 Rev A dated July 25

FF-230-3 Rev A dated July 25

FF-230-5 dated July 25

FF-230-7 dated July 25

FF-230-8 Rev A dated July 25

 

The works shall be carried out in accordance with the details shown on the approved plans and in any other approved documents forming part of the application.

 

Reason: To ensure the development proceeds in accordance with the approved plans and to accord with the National Planning Policy Framework and Policy S53 of the Central Lincolnshire Local.

 

3. On site staffing numbers shall not exceed 2 other than at shift changeover times and arranged visits and the use shall only provide care accommodation for a maximum of 3 children at any one time.

 

Reason: In order to maximise the sustainability of the development to accord with the National Planning Policy Framework and local policies S23 and S53 of the Central Lincolnshire Local Plan.