Decision details

Following a short adjournment, it was confirmed that County Councillor Clarke's declaration of interest as Chair of the Corporate Parenting Board was a non-pecuniary interest and, as such, County Councillor Clarke could exercise his right to vote on this application.

A report was presented on an application for the change of use of an existing residential dwelling house at 23 Hutton Drive, Burnley (planning use class C3(a)) to a children's home (use class C2), to enable the property to be used as a home for up to three young persons between the ages of 11 and 17 years with no more than two carers staying in the property overnight, providing care as required.

The property was in the process of being purchased by the applicant (Lancashire County Council) and the property would operate as a Lancashire County Council care facility.

The report included the views of Burnley Council, Lancashire County Council Policy, Commissioning and Children's Health and Lancashire County Council Highways. 61 representations objecting to the application had been received and 2 letters of support, the details of which were provided in the Committee report.

The Senior Planner presented a Powerpoint presentation showing site location plans and an aerial view of the site, the internal layout, and photographs of the front elevation of the property, side elevation (east facing) of the property, views westwards along Hutton Drive, the view eastwards along Hutton Drive (from adjacent no:9) and the views eastwards from the property and its relationship to no:26 Hutton Drive.

Committee's attention was drawn to the Update Sheet which included details of the petition received requesting refusal of the application and reference to the additional information provided collectively by a number of residents which had been circulated to the Committee. It was reported that the restrictive covenant was a separate issue to the planning application and that this was a private legal matter for Lancashire County Council as landowner and that it was not a material planning consideration.

Elizabeth Grieves, local resident, addressed the Committee and said the following:

'I live at 28 Hutton Drive. I moved here 10 years ago with my husband who is now in a care home with severe Alzheimer's disease, hence I live alone. Whilst I appreciate how difficult it must be to find suitable homes for young people with complex needs, I feel Hutton Drive is an inappropriate setting for them. According to a government website, some behaviours could result in safeguarding risks, such as aggressive, sexualised or offending behaviours, as well as going missing frequently. All of these can make it difficult to keep children safe. Often some behaviours manifest from learning difficulties, autism and ADHD being the most common. Obviously these conditions need specialist help in schools and in this area there is a shortage of places. There are covenants attached to all properties on Hutton Drive, two of which will have an impact on the decision. Covenant B says 'No building on the property shall be used for any purpose other than as or incidental to a private dwelling house.' Covenant E says 'Nothing shall be done or suffered to be done upon the property, which may be to the annoyance, damage, or disturbance of the owners, lessees, tenants, or occupiers of any adjoining or neighbouring property.' The covenants don't allow for a change of use to C2, and also we would like to point out that the property cannot function as a C3 either for the following reasons. Carers who provide 24 hour care but who are not resident cannot be regarded as living together in a household. The concept of living together as a household means that a proper functioning household must exist, and children and carer must reside in the premises. In these circumstances, the use cannot be considered to fall within a C3. The children's home run on shift patterns cannot be considered to fall within class C3 because clearly this is not occupation of a dwelling house by a single person or people living together as a family. I'm also concerned that there appear to be no Burnley councillors on this Committee. Can it be that no Councillor knows the area or has inspected it for suitability? Finally, why, when the house was bought in April 24, did residents only get knowledge of this in late May; surely, before purchase was a time to allow residents to air their views?'

Imtiaz Hussain, local resident, addressed the Committee and said the following:

'My reasons for objecting to 23 Hutton Drive for change of use is as follows. (1) LCC are going to open a business institute in the middle of our residential area (2) the residence clause has already been mentioned (3) we don't know what state of mind these children are in - mental health, emotional, physical, social well-being and the use of revolving door - so it'll be a revolving door, as soon as they get to an age, they get kicked out and some more come in. (4) the house is environmentally in the wrong place - dense woods with the river Calder running through it. Now when it rains, it actually can rise by 4 to 5 feet and it can wash people away. It's very dangerous to say the least. We've also got motorways where people regularly unfortunately end their lives, and I was only just walking yesterday when I've seen new flowers put on the canal and on the walkway bridge. So it's really dangerous for that to be in this place. On Hutton Drive probably 90% of these people are elderly.  Now, I was thirty when I moved there, and most of these people are in their 80s and 95 year old people. So we find it very difficult and most of these people also have other carers because they need care. I know of five people already that their husbands or wives are bed bound, they can't do anything for themselves. I have lived at 26 Hutton Drive since 1991 when it was built. In2009, my late wife was treated in hospital for cancer, she was pregnant with my son.He was delivered at 29 weeks and she was treated for cancer before she passed away.Now my son is severely disabled. He was assaulted by a carer, he has brain damage, he can't walk, he can't talk, he can't eat, he can't do anything but gives me the most gracious smiles when he hears my voice. I left my work ten years ago to look after him. My son has at least 7 to 8 professionals involved with his equipment – oxygen cylinders, beds, all sorts of equipment. There's doctors, nurses, occupational therapists, respiratory professionals, social workers, health workers, management, senior supporters, training staff, school nurses, pharmacists delivering medication, specialised milk, syringes, drainage bags - I can go on and on. Previously, my son had three or four incidents where the ambulance couldn't get through Hutton Drive. They have to stop at the top and they have to come out and support my son because the cars are parked by other people who are there to care for other people. So I please ask everybody to reject this application for the reason that it would put my son's life at risk.'

Anne Marie Parker, local resident, addressed the Committee and said the following:

'My husband and I emailed our objections to Lancashire County Council on 1^st June, following receipt of a brief letter they sent on 16^th May and our research for more detailed information on the plans for no:23. Hopefully, the planning committee will have seen all the objections raised so far. Following other research by our neighbours, we now object to the lack of transparency demonstrated by LCC. They purchased no:23 for £375,000 on 12^th April – something not mentioned in their letter to residents on 16^th May. We must presume, therefore, that they expected no objections from residents of Hutton Drive, or that they believed that you would grant planning permission to change the use of no:23 on the nod. Residents were also not told that if permission is given to change the use of no:23, it can be changed again without LCC needing to consult residents so we have no guarantee as to its long term status. LCC has made much of how no:23 will be just like any other typical family home on Hutton Drive. If that is true, then LCC would not need to make this planning application for a change of use. Therefore, it will not be operating as a typical residential family home. The only actual residents living and sleeping there full time would be 3 children between the ages of 11 and 17. I refer you to the conclusions in the North Devon judgement of 2003 expecting children to look after themselves in a single household is unrealistic. Children need to be looked after, they cannot run a house, they cannot be expected to deal with all the matters that go running a home. Part of LCC's justification in their Market Position Statement of November 2023 is that there are too many agency care homes in this county that do not care exclusively for Lancashire children. This clearly demonstrates LCC's inability to control these practices. I have not seen any reassurances that they have a plan to ensure this situation will be brought under control and prevent it becoming worse. If, in the future, LCC needs to raise money and decides to sell on the business operating at no:23 to an agency, the residents of Hutton Drive have no guarantees that LCC will control its use, based on their performance to date. There will be no safeguards to ensure that our quiet residential area will remain so. In the spirit of our new Government's pledge to ensure that those in public office serve their communities, I urge you to reject this application.'

Nicola Auty, local resident, addressed the Committee and said the following:

'Hutton Drive is a fairly unique avenue in this area as there is  concentration of elderly retirees. I have seen first-hand some of the residents frailties, a number of which live alone and I would say are extremely vulnerable. From a personal perspective, the first floor bedroom windows of no:23 overlook my back garden and once the overgrown trees are cut down at no:23, the front also, I have privacy concerns for my family, my private life and that of my home. Given the nature of the proposal, I feel it would be an unjustifiable intrusion – please see submitted pictures. Guidance for children's homes state is it needed locally? Is it safe? Is it in the right place? Does it promote positive opportunities for children? I don't think any of these boxes can be ticked. Is it needed locally? There's already four times the number of care homes needed in Lancashire. There's already an Ofsted children's care home 500 metres from the proposed property. There's also a Stepping Stones project for young individuals less than 500 metres away. Is it in the right place? It's incompatible with the residential character of the area and would have a harmful impact upon nearby neighbouring residents by virtue of noise and disturbance. There is insufficient parking at the property - please see submitted picture. There is a shortage of SEN schools in the area. Is it safe? There appears to have been no input from the police on their views on its suitability; they can advise on local criminal activity and exploitation risks such as grooming, gangs. We already know there are criminal hotspots in Burnley town centre which is less than a mile away. Does it promote positive opportunities for children? Positive peer interaction will be limited, due to the demographic of the residents. In conclusion, I understand it's very difficult to find suitable homes. However, I don't think Lancashire County Council have carried out enough due diligence on no:23. I would respectfully request the application is declined as it has restrictive covenants that run with the deeds of the property restricting its use to a dwelling house only - please see submitted document. It's not safe. It has too many accessible environmental dangers, which could ultimately lead to tragic outcomes - please see submitted images. It's not in the right place. It's in the middle of elderly and vulnerable people which most would agree is totally inappropriate.'

Cindy Whittle, local resident, addressed the Committee and said the following:

'I've been a social worker in Burnley for 12 years. I previously worked on the child protection children in our care team and within the court arena. I am concerned regarding first-hand experience of working with children in care and the issues that some of these children may display by way of complex mental health needs and high risk of exploitation. During my time on the children in care team I have faced verbal and physical abuse, been spit at and kicked. 23 Hutton Drive is across the road from my house and I can see it quite clearly. Living near a children's home might expose me to challenging situations - there is every chance that, in time, children may move into the home who I have previously worked with. This could cause serious ramifications. Statistics show that, on average, a social worker is assaulted every 30 minutes in the UK. Sadly, this only begins to illustrate the scale of risk I could possibly face. I am quite recognisable due to a private car registration which is in full view of the potential parents who could visit the home. There is also the risk that relatives could potentially want information about their children and there is always the fear of what these relatives may do. This may ultimately impact on my safety and emotional wellbeing. I am aware of the precautions LCC put into place to safeguard social workers and the hazards they may face related to violence and aggression. I feel living near a children's home I might find it challenging to disconnect with my professional responsibilities. Also, the government Security Clearing Corporation have guidelines on professional boundaries following issues of proximity being cited as a factor of social workers living near a children's home. Employers have a duty to protect social workers by reducing the risk of physical and verbal abuse, and a condition to provide support and opportunities for staff to maintain their well-being. There is every chance that opening the children's home may impact and blur boundaries between my work and professional life. I believe everyone deserves to live and feel safe within their own home and be supported that the physical and mental well-being for social workers living in close proximity of the potential risk myself and my family may incur, to be taken into consideration. There is a high risk of the children being groomed and exploited. There is also probation bail accommodationwithin walking distance of Hutton Drive, which is a risk to these children and many of the vulnerable residents on Hutton Drive. Should any of the children be reported missing there's a protocol to call the police.'

Councillor Don Whitaker, Burnley Borough Council, addressed the Committee and said the following:

'First of all, a lot of the things I was going to say have already been spoken about by the residents who I think you will agree, have been quite upfront about how they feel about this application. About myself, I am the borough councillor for this particular ward, I'm a retired police officer who's seen first-hand the consequences of antisocial behaviour, criminality, lots of other things caused by children with complex issues. I was first contacted about this application the moment it went in. When I say contacted, I was inundated, literally inundated by emails, people calling me. I attended a residents meeting; it wasn't just 10 or 15 people, but the room was full. The room is two or three times the size of this cabinet room. I genuinely listened to what the people had to say. The residents of that area, and I don't say this lightly, they do all firmly object to it for valid reasons which are placed here today before you. For reference, you can see on the map behind us there where Hutton Drive is,  people have spoken about safety of people and children especially there. Just next to that red block you will see there's a small footpath that leads directly to the canal. It also leads directly to the M65 motorway and towards the river. I'm sorry to say that tragically over the last couple of years, especially since the pandemic, several people have committed suicide in that area. Most of those people did not have complex mental health issues that we are aware of. These children, we are aware that they do have these issues at this moment in time. My main fear is not just for the residents who I am pretty certain from my experience in the police will be subjected to increased criminality, anti-social behaviour, is for the children that are going to be at that home. From the papers I've read they are supervised whilst they're in the property but when they're not in the property, i.e going to school, etc, they're not. So what's going to happen to these children if they are unsupervised and they've got access to so many dangers that are around them? I've seen enough death in Burnley in this area, I don't want to see young children throwing themselves off bridges or running in front of motorways. Your own policy for highways states that it can have an abject affect. This sounds awful, but if a motorway is closed, it has a massive economic effect. When motorways are closed for suicides, they're closed for long periods of time, I don't want to see that happening to the economy, I don't want to see it happening to the children in that area and I certainly don't want the residents I represent in Whittlefield and Ightenhill to be subjected to an increase in criminality and anti-social behaviour in that area.'

County Councillor Scott Cunliffe, local councillor for Burnley Central West, addressed the Committee and said the following:

'In a previous life, I worked in conflict zones and suffered a lot of PTSD, and when bridges come into mind, I still get suicidal tendencies. They are specifically deep for vulnerable people for going over bridges. I've never walked, I daren't walk over those bridges, so that reiterates a little bit of what Councillor Whitaker was saying then.Now when we look at these vulnerable people, I don't think we're actually here today to discuss the need. I agree there is a need - even yesterday, Lancashire County Council launched a new campaign for foster parents to come forward in the area, and I think that's a massive part of the policy which was not referred to, that we are really pushing for foster parents, and I think foster homes are a better solution to this. Why I'm objecting to this is because, not just around the need and the policy, but it's not a suitable location. Now if we span out on Google Earth further into Burnley Central West, my division, just over the motorway bridge as we go into the town centre you've got a need for dealing with many vulnerable people who are in institutions, you've got a drug rehabilitation centre and another residential home for people coming back from drug addiction. That's within walking distance of those bridges you cross over. On a recent litter pick around there, how many hundreds of needles did we uncover and gas canisters in the bushes surrounding that area? This highlights the area, not just the residential area, but the area coming further afield round there. Now we've also got to look at the loss of amenity, which the residents so eloquently covered in their objections. But thirdly, when we're looking at change of use, and I think once it goes into a C2 and I think, rightly we've got to point out what C2 is, and C2 is a residential institution, it's not going from a residential to a residential home, it's going to a residential institution and a previous speaker was rightly pointing out that once it's changed, it's very difficult to change it back. This is a place of work essentially for a lot of people, and once it goes to a place of work, it can't go back. So it's a serious point of balance to take in, I think for Members looking at this. Also, the selection criteria is market driven on here. This post code is one of the poorest postcodes in the country, so you get very few of these sort of houses in Burnley's local plan. There's no one building this size house in Burnley's local plan and I've been on planning at Burnley for the last three years until May. Now, the selection for its criteria - it came up for sale - if it hadn't come up for sale, it wouldn't have happened there. It's clearly market driven.'

Amanda Barbour, Head of Service, Fostering, Adoption Lancashire Blackpool and Residential Services, addressed the Committee and said the following:

'I represent Lancashire County Council as a Head of Children's Residential Services. Lancashire County Council have 12 Ofsted registered children's homes across Lancashire. These provide a home for 52 of our children who cannot safely live at home with their families. Where Our Children Live is a programme of work that's been designed to support the vision of Lancashire homes for Lancashire children, and create more homes for our children who need them. We have decades of experience in managing children's homes and the trauma response behaviours of our children in these homes. Our staff are highly trained and skilled and we have some amazing partnerships and links with specialist support services across the whole county, who we work really closely with. We also have some really positive relationships with our neighbours. In our home in Chorley, our home manager visits our neighbours twice a year as check-ins, and invites the neighbours into the home to meet the staff team and young people. In one of our homes in Lancaster, we have a really close relationship with our 82 year old neighbour. Our young people take gifts and cards at Christmas and Easter, and we cut her adjoining hedge and also do the occasional odd job for her. In our home in Preston, one of our young people recently sent a bunch of flowers to the neighbour when she heard that she was unwell. We also encourage our young people to make a positive contribution to the community. Our young people in Lancaster donate their activity money at Christmas to buy a food shop for the local food bank, and they purchase from their own pocket money Christmas gifts for the elderly. A number of our young people have completed various sponsored events for local charities in the areas which they live. Some of our young people in Nelson and Thornton bake cakes and deliver them to the local care home for the elderly. Our young people in Accrington and other homes support the Cards for Kindness Appeal each year. These are just a handful of examples. As a local authority provider, we take our responsibilities very seriously - our responsibilities to Lancashire children, to Lancashire residents and to all the communities across Lancashire. We understand and appreciate the worries and concerns of local residents on Hutton Drive. However, we are committed to working together with the local community, as we do with all our children's homes, to be good neighbours and a valued part of the wider community. In summary, our proposal is seeking to provide a Lancashire home for three Lancashire children. These are our children who need us to look after them. They need stability, opportunities and, most of all, a place they can call home.'

The Senior Planner answered questions from Committee.

County Councillor Clarke wished to place on record that he would not be exercising his right to vote on this application.

After a discussion, it was:

Resolved: That planning permission be granted subject to conditions controlling time limit, approved plans, restricting the use to a children's home only, as set out in the Committee report and installation of a vehicle charging point.