Agenda item

The application was introduced and Members of the Committee were advised that the proposal sought permission for the change of use of a dwelling from Use Class C3 to a children’s home within Use Class C2.

 

An additional representation had been received from a neighbouring property, which had been considered and was not considered to raise any new material planning matters beyond those set out in the Committee report.

 

The Officer advised that an update to the recommendation was proposed. Condition 3, as set out in the report, was to be replaced with two separate conditions controlling staffing arrangements and limiting the number of children to a maximum of three at any one time.

 

It was explained that the proposal would accommodate up to three children, with a minimum of two members of staff present overnight, alongside additional staffing arrangements as detailed within the submitted information.

 

The Committee was shown photographs of the site and surrounding area, noting that no external alterations were proposed and that on- street parking and a rear garden were available.

 

The site was identified within a Tier 5 settlement and was shown in the context of nearby services and facilities, including shops, a primary school, hospital and public transport links. The location of other similar facilities within the area was also indicated.

 

The Chairman outlined the procedure for public speaking.

 

Councillor Allison, speaking on behalf of Morton Parish Council, addressed the Committee and raised concerns regarding flood risk, stating that whilst the site was identified within Flood Zone 1, the wider area was subject to flooding and could become isolated. Reference was made to national and local planning policy, with the view expressed that insufficient weight had been given to the vulnerability of the proposed use.

 

Concerns were also raised regarding the concentration of similar developments within the area, the interpretation of Morton’s relationship with Gainsborough, and the potential impact on the local community. The Parish Council requested that the application be refused.

 

The applicant addressed the Committee in support of the application. It was explained that the proposal sought to provide a small-scale children’s home for up to three children, offering a stable and supportive home environment. Reference was made to the increasing number of children in care and the need for appropriate accommodation. Assurance was provided that the home would be professionally managed and regulated, with a focus on the wellbeing of both the children and the wider community.

 

The agent also addressed the Committee and outlined their professional experience within the public sector and children’s services. It was stated that the proposed development would operate under strict regulatory oversight, and that no objections had been raised by Lincolnshire Police. The view was expressed that children benefited from living within established communities with access to local services and facilities. The Committee was asked to support the Officer recommendation and approve the application.

 

An objector addressed the Committee, concerns were raised regarding the impact of the proposal on the character of the area, noting that it would introduce a more intensive, managed use within a residential estate.

 

Further concerns related to the accuracy of information submitted with the application, the potential for increased traffic and activity associated with staff and visitors, and the likelihood of noise and disturbance arising from a 24-hour operation.

 

Issues were also raised regarding the suitability and sustainability of the location, including access to services and perceived safety considerations. Concern was expressed regarding the loss of a family dwelling and the potential for a concentration of similar uses within the area. The Committee was requested to refuse the application.

 

With no response from Officers, the Chairman opened the floor to Members of the Committee for debate.

 

A Member of the Committee queried whether existing similar facilities within Morton had given rise to any issues or complaints, and whether information was available regarding their operation. It was noted that, whilst there was sympathy for residents, the Committee was required to determine the application on planning grounds. In response, the Lead Officer advised that no specific information was available at the meeting regarding the operation of existing facilities, and that such matters would ordinarily be considered by other regulatory bodies.

 

The Vice-Chairman raised concerns regarding the compliance of the proposal with Policy S23, particularly in light of the Tier 5 status of Morton and the accessibility of services and facilities. It was queried whether future occupants would have realistic access to education, healthcare and social opportunities. Further concerns were raised in respect of parking and the proposed staffing arrangements, with reference made to the alignment between the report and the wording of the relevant condition.

 

The Lead Officer advised that Policy S23 sought to direct residential care development away from isolated locations. It was acknowledged that Morton, as a Tier 5 settlement, was more rural in nature; however, it was considered to have access to services and facilities, including via public transport. Reference was made to a similar application previously considered by the Committee, where the location had been accepted in this context.

 

In relation to the proposed conditions, it was confirmed that Condition 3 would be replaced by revised conditions to reflect the staffing arrangements set out within the submitted Planning Statement, providing greater clarity and enforceability.

 

Members of the Committee reiterated that each application should be determined on its own merits, and continued concerns were expressed regarding the Tier 5 status of the settlement and access to services, particularly in relation to transport and opportunities for children.

 

The Legal Advisor reminded Members of the Committee that applications must be determined on their own merits. It was also noted that a previous decision of the Committee, in which Morton had been accepted as a sustainable location for a similar form of development, was capable of being considered as part of the overall planning balance.

 

A Member of the Committee expressed concern regarding the cumulative impact of similar developments within Morton and queried at what point further provision would represent an over concentration. Reference was made to the volume of objections received from residents, which were considered to reflect genuine planning concerns rather than general opposition in principle. It was suggested that such provision should be evidence based and strategically planned, with appropriate input from relevant bodies, and that limited information had been provided in this regard.

 

Concern was also raised regarding the potential for speculative development and whether the proposal reflected an identified local need, including the possibility that accommodation could be used by other authorities.

 

Further concerns were expressed regarding the character of the area, the level of activity associated with the proposed use, and the comparison with a typical dwelling. Reference was also made to parking constraints, the likelihood of additional vehicle movements, and reliance on limited public transport.

 

A Member of the Committee raised further concerns regarding highways impact, particularly in relation to parking pressures and the potential for increased congestion within the cul de sac.

 

In response, the Lead Officer advised that the application had been assessed in consultation with the Highways Authority. It was explained that the relevant test for refusal on highways grounds related to whether the development would result in a severe impact on the highway network. No objection had been raised by the Highways Authority, and the proposal had therefore been assessed in accordance with this advice, considering the anticipated vehicle movements and staffing arrangements.

 

It was further explained that the proposal represented a different use class to that of a standard dwelling and therefore required planning permission. The assessment had been undertaken on land use planning grounds only, with matters relating to operation and management controlled through separate regulatory regimes.

 

A Member of the Committee reiterated concerns regarding the localised impact on parking and residential amenity, and the implications for existing residents.

 

The Chairman noted that, in the absence of an objection from the Highways Authority, limited weight could be attributed to highways concerns in isolation, particularly in the context of any potential appeal. Issues were also raised regarding accessibility to services and facilities, including education, and the suitability of the location for future occupants.

 

A Member of the Committee acknowledged the points raised during the debate but noted that there appeared to be limited planning grounds on which to base a refusal. It was further noted that consistency with previous decisions of the Committee was an important consideration, and concern was expressed regarding the likelihood of a successful appeal should the application be refused without clear planning justification.

 

A Member of the Committee referred to national data relating to increases in the number of children in care and the growth in children’s homes, noting concerns regarding the significant expansion of privately operated provision and associated costs. Strong concern was expressed regarding the wider policy context and the increasing role of private operators within the sector, which the Member stated was not supported.

 

It was acknowledged that, in planning terms, the application appeared to comply with relevant policy and that there were limited grounds upon which to refuse permission. Concern was also raised that a refusal could be difficult to defend at appeal, potentially resulting in costs to the Council.

 

NOTE: Councillor David Dobbie abstained from voting on the following resolution.

 

Having been proposed and seconded, the Chairman took the vote. With equal votes for and against, the Chairman used his casting vote, and it was 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:

·         Site Plan – Produced on 27^th March 2026

·         Site Location Plan – Produced on 27^th March 2026

·         Proposed Floor Plans – Spring Hill House – Uploaded on 3^rd May 2026

 

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. The development must only be operated in strict accordance with the staffing structure, hours and attendance as set out on Pages 4 to 6 of the Planning Statement, Dated 4^th April 2026

 

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.

 

4. The use hereby permitted shall only provide care 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.