Central & North Buckinghamshire Area Planning Committee - Wednesday 4 February 2026, 2:00pm - Buckinghamshire Council Webcasting

Central & North Buckinghamshire Area Planning Committee
Wednesday, 4th February 2026 at 2:00pm 

Agenda

Slides

Transcript

Map

Resources

Forums

Speakers

Votes

 
Share this agenda point
  1. Cllr Patrick Fealey
  2. Cllr Phil Gomm
  3. Cllr Kathy Gibbon
  4. Cllr Robin Stuchbury
  5. Cllr Frank Mahon
  6. Cllr Caroline Cornell
  7. Cllr Andy Huxley
  8. Cllr Dean Field
  9. Cllr Raj Khan
  10. Cllr Llew Monger
  11. Cllr Chris Poll
  12. Cllr Patrick Fealey
Share this agenda point
  1. Cllr Patrick Fealey
Share this agenda point
Share this agenda point
Share this agenda point
  1. Bibi Motuel - Planner
  2. Cllr Patrick Fealey
  3. Cllr Raj Khan
  4. Bibi Motuel - Planner
  5. Cllr Patrick Fealey
  6. Cllr Robin Stuchbury
  7. Bibi Motuel - Planner
  8. Cllr Patrick Fealey
  9. Cllr Robin Stuchbury
  10. Cllr Patrick Fealey
  11. Cllr Frank Mahon
  12. Cllr Patrick Fealey
  13. Cllr Phil Gomm
  14. Cllr Patrick Fealey
  15. Cllr Raj Khan
  16. Cllr Patrick Fealey
Share this agenda point
  1. Cllr Kathy Gibbon
  2. Cllr Patrick Fealey
  3. Bibi Motuel - Planner
  4. Cllr Patrick Fealey
  5. Laura Pearson - Development Management Team Leader
  6. Cllr Patrick Fealey
  7. Public Speakers
  8. Cllr Patrick Fealey
  9. Public Speakers
  10. Cllr Patrick Fealey
  11. Public Speakers
  12. Cllr Patrick Fealey
  13. Public Speakers
  14. Cllr Patrick Fealey
  15. Public Speakers
  16. Cllr Patrick Fealey
  17. Cllr Dean Field
  18. Cllr Patrick Fealey
  19. Public Speakers
  20. Cllr Patrick Fealey
  21. Cllr Frank Mahon
  22. Public Speakers
  23. Cllr Frank Mahon
  24. Cllr Patrick Fealey
  25. Cllr Phil Gomm
  26. Public Speakers
  27. Cllr Patrick Fealey
  28. Public Speakers
  29. Cllr Patrick Fealey
  30. Cllr Caroline Cornell
  31. Public Speakers
  32. Cllr Caroline Cornell
  33. Cllr Patrick Fealey
  34. Cllr Dean Field
  35. Cllr Patrick Fealey
  36. Public Speakers
  37. Cllr Patrick Fealey
  38. Cllr Robin Stuchbury
  39. Cllr Patrick Fealey
  40. Cllr Phil Gomm
  41. Cllr Patrick Fealey
  42. Public Speakers
  43. Cllr Patrick Fealey
  44. Public Speakers
  45. Cllr Patrick Fealey
  46. Public Speakers
  47. Cllr Patrick Fealey
  48. Cllr Kathy Gibbon
  49. Public Speakers
  50. Cllr Patrick Fealey
  51. Public Speakers
  52. Cllr Caroline Cornell
  53. Public Speakers
  54. Cllr Patrick Fealey
  55. Cllr Dean Field
  56. Public Speakers
  57. Cllr Patrick Fealey
  58. Cllr Phil Gomm
  59. Cllr Patrick Fealey
  60. Cllr Andy Huxley
  61. Public Speakers
  62. Cllr Patrick Fealey
  63. Cllr Caroline Cornell
  64. Cllr Patrick Fealey
  65. Cllr Robin Stuchbury
  66. Public Speakers
  67. Cllr Patrick Fealey
  68. Cllr Chris Poll
  69. Laura Pearson - Development Management Team Leader
  70. Cllr Patrick Fealey
  71. Cllr Chris Poll
  72. Cllr Patrick Fealey
  73. Cllr Dean Field
  74. Laura Pearson - Development Management Team Leader
  75. Cllr Dean Field
  76. Cllr Patrick Fealey
  77. Cllr Caroline Cornell
  78. Laura Pearson - Development Management Team Leader
  79. Cllr Kathy Gibbon
  80. Laura Pearson - Development Management Team Leader
  81. Cllr Phil Gomm
  82. Laura Pearson - Development Management Team Leader
  83. Cllr Phil Gomm
  84. Laura Pearson - Development Management Team Leader
  85. Cllr Phil Gomm
  86. Cllr Patrick Fealey
  87. Cllr Robin Stuchbury
  88. Laura Pearson - Development Management Team Leader
  89. Cllr Robin Stuchbury
  90. Cllr Patrick Fealey
  91. Cllr Robin Stuchbury
  92. Cllr Patrick Fealey
  93. Cllr Robin Stuchbury
  94. Cllr Patrick Fealey
  95. Cllr Frank Mahon
  96. Laura Pearson - Development Management Team Leader
  97. Cllr Frank Mahon
  98. Laura Pearson - Development Management Team Leader
  99. Cllr Frank Mahon
  100. Laura Pearson - Development Management Team Leader
  101. Cllr Frank Mahon
  102. Cllr Patrick Fealey
  103. Cllr Kathy Gibbon
  104. Cllr Patrick Fealey
  105. Cllr Llew Monger
  106. Cllr Patrick Fealey
  107. Cllr Raj Khan
  108. Cllr Patrick Fealey
  109. Cllr Robin Stuchbury
  110. Cllr Patrick Fealey
  111. Cllr Dean Field
  112. Cllr Patrick Fealey
  113. Cllr Frank Mahon
  114. Cllr Patrick Fealey
Share this agenda point
  1. Cllr Patrick Fealey
Share this agenda point
  1. Webcast Finished

Cllr Patrick Fealey - 0:00:12
There we go. Can you hear me now? Good afternoon ladies and gentlemen, colleagues, to the Central
and North Buckinghamshire Area Planning Committee. Can I just remind everyone to turn your mobile
phones off or on silent and also to make people aware that this is webcast. So there will
be a recording of the proceedings which will be held and if you do not wish to
be webcast please see the clerk on the right hand side. Also we've got some
public speakers today I just wish to clarify that. We have Councillor Bateman
yes thank you. I have James King thank you. Mr. King you also then in second as
Mrs. B. Okay.
Now, just to clarify for your point, you only have a total of three minutes between you
when you come to do your presentation.
All right.
Right, may I introduce our team to you?
We have various counsellors from different wards.
We're also supported by a planning officer for the first case, BB.
We've got the senior planning officer, Laura Pearson.
I'm also supported by our legal team.
So Catherine Stubbs is our legal team and the clerk to the committee is on the right,
Leslie Atson.
I'll get it in five minutes.
But all the rest of the people here are ward councillors so that you know who they are.
So I will just run around each of them so that you know where, Sherry, they're from.
Councillor Gaughan, can you kick off?
Cllr Phil Gomm - 0:01:48
Sorry, pardon, Chairman. Councillor Galbally, I cover the Quaiton Ward.
Councillor Gibbons?
Cllr Kathy Gibbon - 0:01:53
I'm from Beethin, Kingsbrook and Wing.
Cllr Robin Stuchbury - 0:01:57
I cover the Buckingham Ward, which is about the size of the Kingdom of Australia, I think. Thank you.
Cllr Frank Mahon - 0:02:07
Councillor Mahan, Grendel on the ward and the Claidons Ward.
Cllr Caroline Cornell - 0:02:11
Councillor Cornell, ID Newton -Lumvild, I'm also the time counsellor on Winslow.
Cllr Andy Huxley - 0:02:16
Councillor Andy Huxley, Aylesbury East.
Cllr Dean Field - 0:02:21
Councillor Deanfield, Stoke -Manderville,
Wendover and Haltong Ward.
Cllr Raj Khan - 0:02:27
And Councillor Rice -Carnellesbury North Ward.
Cllr Llew Monger - 0:02:32
Lou Monger, Councillor for Winslow Ward.
Cllr Chris Poll - 0:02:39
Councillor Chris Pohl, Ivinghoe Ward.
Cllr Patrick Fealey - 0:02:42
Thank you very much.
I'm Councillor Patrick Feeley.
I have the pleasure of Grendan and Clayton Ward,
one of our busiest wards at the moment.
Just want to get that in.
Right, gentlemen, ladies and gentlemen,

1 Apologies

can we go to the agenda, please?
Have we got any apologies?
No apologies for absence, Chairman.
Cllr Patrick Fealey - 0:03:07
Can I have your agreement
of the minutes of the 5th of November?
Thank you.

2 Minutes

Thank you.

3 Declarations of Interest

Are there any declarations of interest?

4 PL/25/3845/FA - 17 Walton Place, Weston Turville, Buckinghamshire HP22 5RB

No, thank you very much. In that case we go to the first application, which is
PL stroke 25
3845 stroke FA for 17 Walton Street.
The reason this has come to committee,
as you'll be explaining shortly,
is because it's an officer of the council.
Thank you.
Thank you, Chairman.
Good afternoon, everyone.
Bibi Motuel - Planner - 0:04:01
Before I start the presentation,
I just wanted to remind you
that you've got a corregid under paper,
and it's got just some minor changes to it.
Right, this application seeks full planning permission
for a loft conversion with rear -facing dormer
and front -facing roof lights at number 17,
Walton Place in Western Tervier.
It is referred to the Planning Committee
due to the applicant being an employee
of Packing Honshire Council employed within the Planning
and Environment Department.
The application therefore must be considered
at this planning committee in line with the provisions
in the council's constitution to ensure openness
and transparency.
The property is a two -storey semi -detached property
located in the southwest corner of Walton Place
in Western Turville.
The house has previously been extended
and the surrounding area is residential in character.
Here is an aerial photo of the site from Google Maps.
This slide shows the proposed block plan.
As the proposal is for a loft conversion with dormer
and roof lights, there would be no change
to the built footprint.
This slide shows the existing first floor, the proposed first floor, and the proposed second floor.
That would be the loss of a first floor bedroom, but the gain of two bedrooms in the second floor, a net gain of one bedroom.
This shows the front and northeast side elevation as existing and as proposed.
There would be three small roof lights on the front elevation, each measuring about
0.6 metres by 0 .5 metres.
This shows the rear and southwest side elevations as existing and as proposed.
There would be a dormer window on the rear elevation measuring 6 .1 metres in width by
2 .7 metres in height.
This slide shows photos with parking on Walton Place, the access to this site and Western
Terville Village Hall which has about 50 parking spaces.
Here are footage of the front and rear of this site.
The property does not have any parking provision and the applicants tend to park their cars
in Wharton Place, which has no known parking problems.
In addition, there is public parking available 30 seconds walk away at Western Terville Village
hall on school approach.
The report considers the proposals
against development plan policies
in vail of Elsbury Blue Cross plan, Western Table neighbourhood
plan, and national planning policy framework advice.
The main issues are design, highways issues,
and residential amenity.
Starting with design, the proposed roof lights
on the front elevation would be visible from the public domain,
but they would be small in size and would not be overly conspicuous or harmful to the character of the area.
The proposed rear door map
window would not be excessively large in scale and would be subordinate addition. It would not be harmful to local character.
Turning to transport matters, dwelling does not have any off -street parking.
It currently has four bedrooms and so there is already a shortfall of free car parking spaces against optimum car parking
standards. This shortfall was noted by the case officer for a previous
application in 2020 who concluded that the parking shortfall would not justify
a reason for refusal. The current application would result in a net
gain of one bedroom and so there would be an increase of half a parking space
in the shortfall. However, as there are no parking issues that have been identified
and there is alternative available parking
about 30 seconds walk away at the village hall.
This would not justify refusal of the application.
Turning to the residential amenity,
an objection has been received from a neighbour
raising concerns that the proposal would be overbearing
and result in loss of privacy and outlook.
Although the windows serving the new double bedroom
would provide public views into neighbouring,
garden, this is unavoidable in built -up areas.
Furthermore, it would provide a similar outlook as the existing first floor openings would
not therefore any greater impacts in terms of overlooking or loss of privacy.
Due to its modest scale, the dormer would not appear overbearing to any neighbours.
In summary, the residential amenities of the adjoining neighbouring properties would not
be materially affected.
There are no concerns in relation to flooding, ecology, trees or heritage.
Taking all the relevant factors into account, it is considered the proposal to record with
the Development Plan and it is recommended for approval subject to conditions that are
set out in Section 10 of the report.
Thank you.
Cllr Patrick Fealey - 0:09:57
Thank you very much indeed.
We have no speakers for this application today and therefore I will go straight to a technical session.
If anyone's got any technical questions for the officers before we go to open debate.
Councillor Cohen.
Cllr Raj Khan - 0:10:18
Thank you, Chairman.
Bibi, can you please kindly explain that if this application was not a member of the Council,
would it be here today?
Bibi Motuel - Planner - 0:10:29
No, it wouldn't because the proposal is very much, can be dealt with under permanent rights.
Thank you.
Cllr Patrick Fealey - 0:10:43
It's just our constitution requires us to do it.
That's the reason why it's here.
Cllr Robin Stuchbury - 0:10:50
Any further technical questions Councillor St
record because one of the things which always comes up is car parking
questions around applications in in urban areas because everyone wants to
park themselves but always feels somebody else is parking it's different
but let's reaffirm their policies for the record please so we know them before
before we go into decision.
Bibi Motuel - Planner - 0:11:44
Like I say, this area, this particular property
doesn't have any off -street parking
and the applicant usually go and park on the Walton Place
and there hasn't been any objection from highways authority
and there hasn't been any problem parking
and most of the people there park there.
And if there are going to be a lot of parking
within Walton Place.
On a school approach, they can just go walk there
or just park in the Wonderverter,
Western Turbeil car park, which is just around the corner.
Thank you.
Cllr Patrick Fealey - 0:12:22
Councillor Carle?
Sorry, Chairman.
I'm just going to wait for a debate.
You're jumping ahead, Councillor Carle.
No further technical questions?
In that case, we go to open debate.
So a finger up Councillor.
Councillor Stott's.
Cllr Robin Stuchbury - 0:12:58
Minded to the application and the report addresses where it is and the circumstances that this
and that the officers have made no substantive negative views to this application. My view
would be supposed to agree the application. That's my view now and to debate it, most
upon the report, is open to do, but that's what I would be happy to propose to agree
it.
Cllr Patrick Fealey - 0:13:27
Councillor MOUR?
Thank you, Chairman.
Cllr Frank Mahon - 0:13:37
I totally agree with my colleague, Councillor Stutchbury, and I'm happy to second his proposal.
Cllr Patrick Fealey - 0:13:46
Okay, thank you.
Councillor Gough?
Cllr Phil Gomm - 0:13:50
Well, after going through the file, Chairman, I couldn't find any technical problems with it whatsoever.
And the applicant excelled to put their application in there, and officers followed that application and scrutinised that like nobody's business.
I'm you know we just have to follow policy so rather waste time I'd rather
just get on with the vote and because I think the officers done a fantastic job
scrutinising so I follow colleagues down here to my right.
Cllr Patrick Fealey - 0:14:17
Try not to rush me council Gaughan.
Cllr Raj Khan - 0:14:20
Yeah Jim I'd like to echo what my colleagues have said I mean I think the
officers done excellent inclusive on here and and I think it's because it's
to our constitution that this would not otherwise
have been here.
And I feel that having given it that identity,
my colleagues have already put the proposal.
But I'd like to formally propose it
to make sure we just get a vote on it.
Cllr Patrick Fealey - 0:14:48
So we have a formal recommendation,
which has been seconded.
All those in favour, please show.
Thank you very much.

5 PL/25/5593/VRC - 33 Gwendoline Buck Drive, Aylesbury, Buckinghamshire HP21 9FN

Right we'll go to our next application.
Okay, so we've got the next application, which is PL25 stroke 5593 VRC.
This is a variation of conditions.
Now, I just need to make everybody aware that this application, there has been some comments
made about people objecting to it on the grounds that the care home isn't being managed properly.
I just need to remind my colleagues and people in the audience that is not a planning issue that we can address
and therefore I will not permit it to be discussed or explored any further during the course of this meeting.
We need to be absolutely clear about that. We have no authority over how it is.
If anyone feels that something is not being done properly,
and they say responsibility as a corporate parent
to take it up with the appropriate department,
and it's not something that we will go any further with.
I want to make that clear at the start,
because I don't want to have to pull you up
during the course of a meeting
and stop you from making those comments.
And that means exploring it or going into it.
Is everyone comfortable with that?
Yes, John.
Okay, members of the audience, do you understand totally what I've just said?
Yes, thank you.
Cllr Kathy Gibbon - 0:17:11
Could I just, just for my own sort of personal understanding, just could you make something
clear. So if I wanted to ask about changing care for a different age group of child,
is that acceptable? This isn't saying anything about disagreeing with how the
place is run but just to do with the change in care. Am I allowed to ask about
that or is that also not...
Changing care if you want clarification on that.
Cllr Patrick Fealey - 0:17:36
You know when they change in care homes that's fine. What I want to admit is about the
home itself or any discussion about how it's managed or anything else.
Okay. Thank you.
Right, so we will go to the officer's report please.
Thank you Chairman.
Bibi Motuel - Planner - 0:18:04
The application is brought before the Central and North
Buckinghamshire Area Planning Committee due to a two -word
member calling in accordance with paragraph 3 .38
of the Council's constitution.
The reasons provided by the two -word councillors
for calling the application into committee's centre
upon concerns relating to impact on the residential
amenities of neighbouring properties and management of care home.
This application is made under Section 73 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990
as amended to vary condition 4 imposed on permission reference 24 oblique 03207 oblique
APP in order to extend the age range of children that care is provided for from 10 to 16 to
10 to 18.
Although often referred to as an application to vary or remove a condition, an application
under Section 73 of the Act actually has no effect on the original permission.
It is not an amendment to the earlier permission, it is a separate, free -standing permission
that the applicant is entitled to implement or ignore.
The principle of development for use of the building for purposes falling within use clause
2 was established by the grant of previous planning permission reference 24, oblique
03207, APP.
In granting planning permission under application reference 2403207APP, the description of development
for the application referred to changing the use of the building to use use class C2, which
would allow for use as a children's home.
Condition 4, imposed on permission reference 2403207, APP, sought to limit the use further
to a specific age range for children looked after to between the ages of 10 to 16.
This is on the basis that this was the age range of children specified within the supporting
application form for planning application reference 24 -03 -2 -07 APP.
In this instance, the similarities of the proposed variation of consciousness poor would
propose no unacceptable harm to the area.
The increase in the age of the children being cared for by two years would have no material
impact on the permitted use of the site as a care home, and as such, the proposed variation
with a court with a description of the development approved under permission 24 03207 APP.
Overall the scheme can be considered as sustainable development in a court with the development
policies within the development plan.
The day -to -day management of the property in terms of care offering are not matters
for this application.
On this slide, it shows the site, which comprises a mid -terrace property to the north west of
this section of Gwenlyn Park Drive in Asbury.
The property is set back within its lots and from the highway.
The property benefits from both a front and rear garden and allocated parking for two
cars to the front of the dwelling.
The surrounding area is mostly residential in nature, with the addition of a stoic mandible
hospital to the front of the property.
No internal or external changes are proposed to the existing building in order to facilitate
the proposal.
Given the lack of any external changes required to facilitate the proposal, it is considered
that the proposed development would not adversely impact the character and appearance of the
area.
Overall, given that the proposed use does not differ fundamentally to the existing consented
use, it is considered that the variation of the conditions such to allow for the age of
the children cared for to increase from 10 to 16 to 10 to 18 would not unreasonably harm
any aspect of the amenity of existing residents.
Whilst the concerns raised by neighbours
and ward councillors are noted,
there is no substantive evidence to support concerns
raised by neighbours and ward councillors
that increasing the age of the inhabitants
of approved care home would be detrimental
to the neighbouring amenity by way of negative impact
in relation to parking, noise, disturbance,
or highway safety.
As such, it is considered the proposed would not
unreasonably harm any aspect of the amenity
of existing residents.
It is considered that the proposed change in age range
of children looked after would not result in an increase
in the comings and goings to and from the premises,
nor the number of users of the premises at any one time
or the associated levels of traffic generated.
Furthermore, when having regard to paragraph 116 of the NPPF,
it is considered the proposal would not have an unacceptable
impact on highway safety, nor would the development result
in severe residential cumulative impacts on the road network,
such to justify refusal of the application.
I have a selection of photos of the site.
First, we have a photo of the front elevation property,
Gwendolyn back drive and the allocated parking
to the front of the property.
Next, we have photos of the rear of the property.
This is a, this slide shows the location plan
and aerial image of the site.
This one is an existing and proposed condition wording.
Following the publication of the agenda,
no updates to the report are required.
Thank you for your time.
Cllr Patrick Fealey - 0:25:05
Just one point of clarity.
Laura Pearson - Development Management Team Leader - 0:25:07
It's come to officers' attention that in terms of proposed condition one, in the event that
members were to go with the officer recommendation, the first sentence of condition one needs
to be deleted, as this requires the development to be carried out within three years.
However, given the use as a children's home has already commenced, it's not necessary to include that time limit within that first condition.
Thank you, Chairman.
Cllr Patrick Fealey - 0:25:35
Okay, thank you very much.
Right, could I now call Councillor Bateman, please?
Councillor you have three minutes to make your presentation and if you don't mind remaining
seated afterwards for any points of clarification we will only be asking you to clarify what
you've said so we will not be going into any other areas apart from what you present to
us. There's a talk coming up behind me and that will give you a time to weigh
Public Speakers - 0:26:14
you go. Thank you just a couple of points for clarification although this is
registered to be a children's home nobody's actually occupied it yet so
there's been nobody no children in it and I'm here today to represent the
residents who agree that children's homes are needed but there are
concerns about the children and other residents within the location with the
Priority being that there's nothing that can be found about the providers of the care
There's nothing on the website to say that they look after children
Under the age of 16, so we're very concerned that they're now looking to have children from 16 to 18 in that property
There are currently two parking spaces for the house
That was allocated and they the residents feel that the parking will be stressed
once, or stretched even, once the children's home starts and we have in there two children
plus the carers. And if the children are to be extended in age from 16 to 18, then in
time they could have motorbikes and cars and there would be a potential parking problem
and two parking spaces wouldn't be enough. There are concerns about noise disturbances
and currently although there's nobody in the house there are people going in to
look after the house consuming weed whilst they're there and being asked to
stop what they're up to because it's disturbing the residents. The residents feel
that this is...
Cllr Patrick Fealey - 0:28:05
Make sure we...
Oh, OK, OK, OK. Sorry, I misheard.
Right, we can only have your presentation where there is evidence of it, what you're saying, because you've got to be really careful...
OK, so my...
possibly weed, then that is a social issue that would need to be dealt with outside this
premises. It's not something that we can deal with in planning terms. Now at the moment,
this application is only referring to a change of condition. The application previously heard
gave them permission for a care home and we cannot alter that. So the only bit we can
look at is are we willing to extend the age range from 16 to 18.
And indeed it's amazing that it was 16 originally, but that's the only bit we can look at.
We've got to be really careful about making allegations about social misbehaviour or anything like that.
So I just ask them to be cautious of it.
Public Speakers - 0:29:26
Thank you. So there are inaccuracies in the original application which we're
very concerned about and even in the slide today where it says there's four
bedrooms when there's three. So we're concerned about the increasing of the
age and what that might bring to the local area and the residents are feeling
oversubscribed with the planning because this is the second one within a few five
houses apart from each other. The impact on the street is concerning in that they
have also planning coming in from Stoke Mandeville Hospital and feel that they're
being oversubscribed at the current time. We'd like to see if the how this
children's home organisation is registered and how they will look after
these young people and seek clarification.
Officer clarification.
Sorry, I'm really sorry.
Cllr Patrick Fealey - 0:30:18
That is not a planning issue.
The application was from any applicant.
They put in for a care home.
It doesn't matter who it is.
We have no jurisdiction other than the application before us.
Public Speakers - 0:30:38
Have we not previously discussed when the noise mitigation and the plans?
Cllr Patrick Fealey - 0:30:45
Can we not bring that one in? Is that something I can't talk about?
Just let me know what you want to say.
Public Speakers - 0:30:50
So it's, have the matters been considered under the regulatory basis and considered the permission granted before?
Cllr Patrick Fealey - 0:31:02
No, the only thing we can do today is look at the application before us which is a change of condition.
Okay.
So nothing else outside that we can look at.
Public Speakers - 0:31:11
So the residents are concerned about the application today because of the potential increase of activity with the age group of change and the parking conditions.
Okay.
And the safety and wellbeing safeguarding of the residents themselves.
Are you saying that the residents feel threatened?
Uncomfortable with the situation, yes.
Cllr Patrick Fealey - 0:31:39
Again, it's not a planning application. If there was evidence of that and there was social misbehaving,
then we would either have evidence from the police or somebody else where we could take that into account.
Then it would become a planning matter. But as of now, there is no evidence and there's no anything that we can say
that's affecting those residents and they've not been harassed.
Okay.
Okay, thank you.
Sorry, Councillor Field.
Cllr Dean Field - 0:32:17
I thought we allowed the person to speak for three minutes and then we cross -examined them.
When the officers gave evidence, no one in the room cross -examined whilst you gave her presentation.
I think the points of planning could have been said after the presentation's been done.
I think you normally would be right.
Cllr Patrick Fealey - 0:32:34
The situation is we need to be very strict about what we can talk about.
I don't want to make it difficult for the presenter if he didn't understand that.
Okay, noted. Thank you.
Public Speakers - 0:32:52
Is there anything else you wish to add?
Cllr Patrick Fealey - 0:32:54
No, thank you.
Thank you very much.
Councillors, have you got any points of clarification?
Thank you.
Councillor Muholland.
Cllr Frank Mahon - 0:33:11
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. You said earlier on in your speech that there was
evidence, I'm not too sure if that's the right word or not, that the applicant was only going to use
the care home for 16 to 18 year olds.
Where is the evidence?
Is there any evidence of that?
I didn't say that.
I didn't say it.
You said that...
Public Speakers - 0:33:36
I said that on their website there's no evidence
that they look after children under the age of 16.
Sorry, that's correct.
Cllr Frank Mahon - 0:33:43
You didn't...
So, just let me get this clear.
There's nothing on their website to say
that they're caring for under 16 -year -old kids, is that right?
Does it say on the website that they're caring for 16 to 18 -year -olds?
Yes.
It does?
Yes.
Okay, thank you.
Cllr Patrick Fealey - 0:34:05
Thank you very much.
Councillor Gough.
Cllr Phil Gomm - 0:34:09
Excuse my throat.
Well, keep quiet.
You picked up the application previously.
It was, it mentioned four bedrooms and three bedrooms, okay?
and there's a concern there, but I just want to pick up on you.
You mentioned there's a concern with residents, etc.,
about between the age of 16 to 18 about extra vehicles coming in.
Maybe that's something we could put forward to the plan,
or whatever there is, a condition there.
But that would happen anyway if there was a family moving into that property
at the end of the day.
So that's what we consider. That's how I see it.
And, you know, and again, not that it really comes into a planning matter, but behaviour and stuff, well that could happen anyway.
So, but regarding the vehicles, I do understand that a little bit, Chairman, so maybe it's something we could add in.
Can I respond to that?
Public Speakers - 0:35:06
Yes.
So it's a three bedroom house, we should have two residents, and it would also have sleeping over of carers.
So the concern is that if there were two carers there, if there were 16 to 18 year olds there may be a third or a fourth vehicle.
But you're right, that could happen in any of the households.
Cllr Patrick Fealey - 0:35:28
But generally speaking there would be a carer there during the night and also a carer during the day?
Yes.
Right, ok.
Public Speakers - 0:35:37
It's not currently working, there's nobody there.
No, no, I understand that.
Cllr Patrick Fealey - 0:35:40
Councillor Conloy.
Thank you, you say that it's not actually being used as a children's home at the moment.
Cllr Caroline Cornell - 0:35:45
Sorry, can you hear me?
It's not being used as a children's home, there's no residents in it?
So this is just surmised that it's going to be noisy, there's going to be extra cars,
and you don't actually know anything for sure at the moment?
Public Speakers - 0:36:03
No, this is the second one in the road and the residents are concerned about it.
But do the other residents of that road not have children as well?
Yes.
Cllr Caroline Cornell - 0:36:15
Cllr Patrick Fealey - 0:36:17
Cllr Dean Field - 0:36:20
teenagers yes sorry okay thank you chair you touched on that some a bit so you
the property at the moment isn't being used as a care home but we're not the
opening statement from the chair there's bad reports regarding this care home so
I'm a bit confused. That's what we have in the report.
That it's not being used as a care.
Right, okay.
Now the other stuff I agree to a
No, I'll take this to technical. No further questions, Cheryl.
Cllr Patrick Fealey - 0:36:59
Councillor, um
Can I come on to you in a minute? Okay, start to me.
In the situation with 16 to 18, and obviously they got permission from 10 to 16,
what was your view about that? If there was somebody in care there from an early age,
would you expect them to leave at 16 to go somewhere else?
Public Speakers - 0:37:29
So I'm representing the residents and their views and they have the concerns about the increase of the age.
Okay. And they would be concerned about that would they?
About children being there and then up to you?
I don't know that answer.
Cllr Patrick Fealey - 0:37:47
I'll ask the rest of it.
And Stuthrie.
Cllr Robin Stuchbury - 0:37:50
Firstly, let's not confuse the calling and the Councillor and the calling.
I think what I'm recognising is the Councillors called an application in at request of their
constituents.
What I will say is, listen to it,
and I think that many of the points raised
are not planning issues.
There are processes in the council
that you as a local member,
if those elements of concern proved to be an issue,
there are due process for you to use it.
I think the chair expressed that quite well.
We mustn't confuse your representation
of your constituents and try to present your view.
I think in this case, you've called it in
because you requested to from local concern.
Would that be correct?
Yes.
And furthermore, just as it, whatever the decision is today,
there are always other means within the council
to monitor any business like this or any care like this.
There are processes outside planning.
Cllr Patrick Fealey - 0:38:58
Okay, thank you.
Cllr Phil Gomm - 0:39:02
Thank you. Councillor Gorman. Yeah I just want to come back there Chairman about this age issue
because that's what we're looking at is the change of condition from 16 to 18. You know we're talking
the two years. I think what we need to be sure and let the residents know is a condition and if that
condition is accepted today and those 16 to 18 years are being naughty because there's
a bit of discrimination going on here to assume that they're going to be. There are conditions there to
bring that back to the planning department to consider anyway if they
breach that condition so does that not sort of help the residents a little bit
more if the age was increased if there was no condition there it's just a
normal household going in there and that happened you would have no recourse
whereas here with the condition may have a recourse am I not correct chairman?
Cllr Patrick Fealey - 0:39:53
Can I respond?
Public Speakers - 0:39:54
Yes, sure.
Cllr Patrick Fealey - 0:39:56
Can I respond to that?
Public Speakers - 0:39:59
You can?
So I'm here on behalf of the residents who would like their voices heard today and they do understand that, as you have said, naughty children.
They're not going to be naughty children. They're children that do need support and what they're concerned about is that their voices are heard today and considerations are taken into account.
Cllr Patrick Fealey - 0:40:23
Thank you. Thank you. Right, thank you for your time. Right, could I call Mr. King and
Mrs. B please? Or is it just Mr. King? Okay. Mr. King, you've also got three minutes to
make your presentation and again if you don't mind remaining seated afterwards
for points of clarification on what you have said.
Public Speakers - 0:40:49
Okay, so clock will go, there we go.
Okay, thank you for letting me speak.
Gwen Dolanbuck Drive is a short, quiet residential street
and within the past year, two children's homes
have already been approved on this road.
They're located only five doors apart.
Residents accept that homes are part of the street
and we are not asking for any old or existing permissions to be overturned,
despite the fact that over 80 objections were formally recorded on the original application
for number 33 from members of that community. What residents are asking for today is the council
to draw a clear line in the sand and provides meaningful safeguards and clarity for the
residents that live in the street about its future. The proposal before you represents
intensification and a concentration of use within an extremely small and limited area.
When assessed cumulatively, alongside the existing children's homes already in the street
of which there are two, which you now know, and planned future development across the
road from Stope Manivore Hospital, this small street is oversubscribed to planning applications.
This isn't a minor change.
Increasing the age range to 18 can bring those additional things we mentioned earlier of traffic, vehicles, staffing,
and residents in this street do have concerns about the future of those issues.
These care homes in the streets are only two doors apart, and we feel that this is sufficient in one street,
and that a line should be drawn in the sand
so no more planning applications
could potentially be submitted
or oversubscribe this street to future changes
when we've already carried a share of those changes.
The Council has a duty of care
to the residents of Gwen Donanbutt Drive
to ensure that children's homes are appropriately located,
proportionately scaled and fairly distributed.
Concentration and ongoing intensification
of this small street does not support long -term outcomes
for this community.
Buckinghamshire's housing and community principles are clear.
Established residential areas should remain balanced,
stable and sustainable,
and incremental changes should not be allowed
to erode character over time.
In summary, residents are asking
for these planning applications on this street to now cease.
there are already two children's homes operating within a very short stretch of road.
Further changes in expansion create the perception that limits no longer exist for the residents or community in this street and
applications can continue without regard to
cognitive impacts or community well -being.
Residents are looking to their council today for support, security and some clear boundaries and this application
represents a further intensification on the street that is already
carrying two children's homes. Thank you. Thank you very much.
Cllr Patrick Fealey - 0:44:10
Do you have any points of clarification?
Cllr Kathy Gibbon - 0:44:31
So, is one of the things that you're sort of hoping for is to be safe in your local
environment because I know these children can't, you know, they've had difficult lives.
It's not really their fault that they may have gone a bit astray, but statistically it does show
that these older children can cause more harm in the local environment with noise or property
damage or vaping or whatever. So it's one of your concerns that you really want proper supervision
to make sure with this older age range that they are sort of cared for and monitored in the way
that they do not cause these problems.
Thank you.
Public Speakers - 0:45:13
Yeah, that is a concern, and I'm not here to speculate
about what children of that age range can or can do
or will or will not do.
What I'm here to really is to talk about
the additional planning issue
that has been placed upon this property,
and there's been two applications on this property
within the last two years,
and from this same care company,
five doors down or four doors down,
you can look at the map and work it out yourself.
There is another care home operating.
And my point I raise to you today is that this is too much
for a small street to have two operating companies
within such a small location of each other.
And the reason we've come here to speak
about this particular planning point
is because we would like to have some support
or a line drawn where we feel we've taken our share
of the burden with planning.
So we're here for this planning point
to ask of you today to either delay, consider,
or please place some safeguards for the people
of this street in the future,
because we've had a lot of changes in this company
come into the street in recent years.
And I know you're going to criticise
about it's just this one point, this age range,
but the reason we've highlighted this point, please,
is because we need a line in the sand
for the people that live here.
What's the future -proof going ahead?
Is there going to be a change of use again next year?
Will I have to come here and sit again and ask of you to then change or consider or stop?
We are not against care homes in any shape or form.
And I think you'd do well to find anyone in society that is against a care home.
But what we ask is for fair compromise and common sense and some boundaries put in so
So you can maintain that community structure
and you safeguard everyone by doing that.
Cllr Patrick Fealey - 0:47:09
Mr. King, it's very difficult,
I understand where you're coming from totally,
but the only thing we can judge is what's before us.
We have no control over who puts an application in
or what their background is or anything like that.
All we can look at is whatever's before us,
what evidence we've got, either from the applicant or from the officers, to make a decision on it.
So it's very difficult for us. We cannot give you that assurance because we have no jurisdiction over what comes in later.
And therefore I would not want you to go away and say we've agreed to something like that. We have not. We can't.
We're not in that position. I totally understand your position. I understand the other care homes in there.
Right, can I...
Okay, thank you. Can I respond to that?
Public Speakers - 0:47:58
You can, of course, yes.
So our argument is that this is an over intensification and an over subscription.
It is another planning application on the same property.
That is the point I make, that it's over subscribed.
Okay. Councillor Cornell.
Cllr Caroline Cornell - 0:48:17
Thank you, sir. You talk about security.
I presume it's because you're going to have 18 year olds there. Yeah?
You talk about security. So if anybody else in the street has a 17, 18 year old, that's fine.
Public Speakers - 0:48:32
I think when I talk about security, it's more about the staffing and the impacts that comes with this operation.
And what we are concerned about is the increase in ages increases the scale and scope of that operation.
and that can bring different security risks to that street.
Different staff, different people, traffic movements,
that's really the issue that we're concerned about.
So how many traffic movements are there?
How many traffic movements are there?
In Gwendalup Baye there's quite a lot of traffic movements
and I know it's not related to this issue,
but we're so close to the hospital,
we have our own difficult parking issues.
Okay, thank you.
Cllr Patrick Fealey - 0:49:18
Okay, Kanza Field.
Right there.
Cllr Dean Field - 0:49:23
Thanks very much for your presentation.
You've done well there getting it all out and did a bit
in such a professional manner.
Looking and listening to you and listening
to what's being said, has anyone engaged
with the residents at all?
because I see applications and we look at other ones
where care homes talked about and there has been engagement.
And I wonder how many people
around this room actually knows the area
of where this care home is.
It's a very built up housing, a small housing state which used
to be the entrance to the old Gutman stadium at the back.
So I hear you, what you're saying,
there's a few items there
which doesn't meet the criteria of planning.
However, I think if the applicant had engaged
with the residents, because a lot,
what I find, residents don't like change.
And I'd like to let you come back on that.
No further questions on that.
Public Speakers - 0:50:37
No, no, so there's been no engagement at all.
And I believe under the current planning applications is they have to have a noise management plan
and some other documents in place to ensure they can operate effectively.
But no, there's been no engagement.
And it kind of links to what your colleague said earlier about security is that because
there is no engagement.
There is a different person or different people
turning up all the time doing different things.
And that links to that security issue, like who's coming,
who's going.
Is it regulated?
I certainly don't know who it is.
So it's very unlikely you are going to know who it is.
And these are some of the concerns that we have.
Cllr Patrick Fealey - 0:51:23
Council Gough.
Cllr Phil Gomm - 0:51:25
Thank you, Chairman.
Two questions.
I've got a few for Technical.
Well presented, I want to say that to you.
What I'd like to ask is just dig a little bit into the accumulative factor you go on about.
Is there just a map of the area, just to give me an idea please, of the street and...
Does it focus in? Oh, that's better.
Could you just tell me, because I'm not too sure, where the other two care homes are, just to pick up on what you said?
Yes, so the red one circled is number 33, correct?
Okay, so that's the care home.
Then if you go west, yes, so see where the mouse is hovering west of there?
That's the other one.
And where's the other one?
Where the mouse is hovering, just there.
I thought you said there was another two on top of this one?
Two in total.
Oh, two in total, including this one?
Oh right, sorry, I misunderstood there then.
Okay, thank you for bringing the accumulative effect up.
Gemma, before I just come off, I want to make one point clear a second, and I've heard it a few times,
and I'm quite upset that we refer to 18 -year -olds as trouble.
We are all corporate parents at the end of the day, and I want it noted, because people are watching this,
that not all of us believe that children of, well, young adults of that age are trouble,
because a lot of the children that come into our corporate care are needy children as well.
I want to make a point of that, Charles.
No, save it until the open debate.
Well, OK, but that's all I want to say.
Cllr Patrick Fealey - 0:52:57
Councillor Huxley.
Cllr Andy Huxley - 0:53:03
Thanks, Chairman.
One of my concerns here is that we've heard a lot of,
as you pointed out, speculation going on,
which is not certainly helpful to our cause, if you like.
But one of my concerns is we talk about two other care homes and is there evidence that there are issues at those care homes?
That would be my first question.
Are you asking me?
Yes.
Public Speakers - 0:53:36
I couldn't possibly say because they're both currently empty as far as I believe.
Alright.
That probably answers the question.
Cllr Patrick Fealey - 0:53:44
Thank you.
Thank you.
Cllr Caroline Cornell - 0:53:47
Cllr Patrick Fealey - 0:53:49
Councillor Cornell? No I think that's answered my question as well, thank you, Chair.
Sorry.
Cllr Robin Stuchbury - 0:54:05
I mean, firstly, I have no doubt that your purpose in being here is not because you're prejudiced against children or young adults.
I'd like to make that absolutely clear that you've demonstrated anything like that.
What I am having difficulty with is, because it's not like a full burn planning application, it's not the same.
And I'm I'm just want you to explore what you have said because
It's quite in planning reasons
within your conversation
which
I'm having difficulty doing and I don't think
Listening to you the council or ever none of you are prejudiced against anyone
You're concerned, but I will discuss the
It's not right now in technical, but I don't think it's the right time to discuss it.
And you mentioned it, and I've noted all what you said.
No real question there, just I feel that these things are difficult enough for you to come
to a meeting like this, and let me be assured, for my personal view, and I can't speak for
others, I've got absolutely no doubt you're not prejudiced against anyone.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Public Speakers - 0:55:26
We are just discussing that planning application and we're asking for some assistance in the amount of planning applications surrounding that property and in the street just because there's been a lot of planning application and changes.
Cllr Patrick Fealey - 0:55:46
Yep, well I understand that. Thank you.
Mr King, thank you for your time.
All right Councillors can go to Technical.
Councillor Paul.
Cllr Chris Poll - 0:56:14
Thank you Chairman.
I have one for Ms Pearson and one for you.
So for Ms. Pearson, do we have a policy regarding density of children's homes?
And for you Chairman, on what grounds was this permitted a hearing today?
Laura Pearson - Development Management Team Leader - 0:56:33
So within the Vale of Alsbury local plan there is no specific condition in terms of restriction in policy terms,
in terms of the number or density of children's homes that can be provided in any one location.
It's directed by the policies referred to in the officer report in terms of
sustainability and creating mixed communities but no specific policy
Cllr Patrick Fealey - 0:56:57
requirements. I felt it was necessary to bring it forward for clarity for the
local members because it was something they wanted to raise with us and
particularly about the change of age from 16 to 18. I think it's useful for us
to have put some information behind that because currently the care homes we have are for older
children. You know I would not expect a child at 16 to have to leave a care home and to
move on at that late age. So I think it's important that we debate it and that we come
up almost with a standard for it because we're getting lots of requests for care homes and
and indeed we have some of our own care homes where we do permit it.
And indeed also there may be the situation where we would want the children to be there till 2025.
So children that are in care with possibly special needs, we look after them until they're 25.
So I think this is a whole difficult point at the moment because as you know,
we're embarking upon 10 care homes within our organisation
and we're getting lots of requests from others.
Cllr Chris Poll - 0:58:14
If I may, Chairman, sorry, that's a different issue.
And the consultation that this council carries out
with its care homes is totally different to this case.
But I was asking, you know, what planning reason,
not an overall sense of policy,
Cllr Patrick Fealey - 0:58:38
but a planning reason why. It was borderline. It was a borderline decision
but we felt that we needed to explore it more and that's why I brought it here.
Cllr Dean Field - 0:58:51
Councillor Field. Yes this is to the officer. So there's been some speculation and I'll
just bring up I think speculation on both sides so if I can just take you to
5 .21 it is considered that the proposal change of the range age of the children
looked after would not result in an increase where's the data in that so in
Laura Pearson - Development Management Team Leader - 0:59:22
terms of what's already being granted permission for the change of use in
four bedroom dwelling to a children's home already to be occupied by two children and two carers.
In terms of Aylesbury being a sustainable location, as part of the use of the house originally as a dwelling,
it was consented with two car parking spaces.
And as part of the change of use to the care home, children's home that's already been granted,
that parking provision remains unchanged.
So in terms of us now considering whether the age range increasing by two years to 18 would warrant any additional parking or any increase.
We don't have specific evidence, but it could equally in terms of officer assessment be said that two adults and two teenage children could occupy that property as a dwelling house.
So there's no evidential situation that we can put forward that there be any intensification in that regard.
Cllr Dean Field - 1:00:23
Okay. I do not have a question but I've just forgot it. So Mark will come back. Sorry.
Cllr Patrick Fealey - 1:00:30
I'll come back to you. Come back to you.
Councillor Cornell.
Cllr Caroline Cornell - 1:00:33
Thank you, Chair. I think Councillor Fielder has actually asked my question and answered about the parking.
But we are not... we don't have taken into account the Stoke Mandeville problem, do you?
No, so it's literally our parking. Thank you.
Laura Pearson - Development Management Team Leader - 1:00:46
Correct. So this development can't look to address other parking pressures already.
They're outside of the scope of this application.
So now our members can only consider what's in front of us today as part of this application proposal.
Councillor Gough.
Very kind. It's all digging into this.
Cllr Kathy Gibbon - 1:01:01
I got question marks all over my piece of paper, so there will be.
What I'd just like to pick up on is, again, just the car parking,
because they did have a point.
If I know it's allocated to two at present,
but could it accommodate more if required?
Because could it, what I'm trying to just probe
out here slightly, Chapman,
is that if there were two carers there,
two cars acceptable because it's too big.
But if a young adult did luckily pass a driving test
at 17 and have a car, could we not put a restriction,
a condition on there to say
that if there was any young adults that came out they couldn't have a transport
Laura Pearson - Development Management Team Leader - 1:01:43
you can't okay no it wouldn't be reasonable in the same way that if a
family were to occupy that property yeah it wouldn't be reasonable I'm only
Cllr Phil Gomm - 1:01:52
asking that question say so and then my next question is respect with me please
chairman is bedrooms so we were told it was a free bedroom property I keep
looking up they go well it's a four bedroom property could we please
Laura Pearson - Development Management Team Leader - 1:02:11
clarify is it a three or four bedroom property? It's a four bedroom property
I'm really sorry I can't zoom in but there are two bedrooms at first floor
and two at second floor so it's a four bedroom property, two car parking spaces
that's exactly what it was as a dwelling house, grant permission as it was the
same as granted for the children's home for young or children up to the age of
16 between 10 and 16 there's no change in bedroom numbers as part of this. Yeah
Cllr Phil Gomm - 1:02:34
And that's why it's quite approachable again that was said and with the age group possibly changing the bedrooms are required to be one more question.
I picked on your accumulative question and I know we don't have policy but again it's quite a good point that they picked up on.
I know it's only not two plus one care homes there now it's one plus one.
But we do talk about a cumulative like solar places and all that sort of stuff.
Could it be a consideration that we maybe make a proposal to council to bring a policy and not to have too many care homes in an accumulative area?
Or would that be wrong to think about that?
Laura Pearson - Development Management Team Leader - 1:03:16
I mean certainly as part of the Buckinghamshire wide local plan
Sorry, it's something that if it is of concern to members
You could put forward as something consideration and inclusion in the forthcoming policies
However, in terms of the overall strategy by the developers for local plan and perhaps a bucks wide local plan and a national level
There is a clear drive for mixed communities
Correct and in obviously planning terms unless a harm can really be identified in terms of what would result from an
Accumulation of such facilities is going to be very difficult to go down that route. I would think and again chairman
Cllr Phil Gomm - 1:03:53
Thank you
And Laura Tlingit -Rertz obliging but I just want to bring that to the table because our residents and I just want them to understand
Cllr Patrick Fealey - 1:04:01
How we have to go from procedure. Thank you.
Councillor Stogbury.
Cllr Robin Stuchbury - 1:04:03
Yeah, thank you. Thank you
Listen carefully through the whole
debacle this and and there'd be some questions but some points the cumulative
thing I'm seeking those other applications nothing to do with this
application so in planning terms we can only consider the application which is
before us not the cumulative thing because it's not part of the planning
application is that correct? So as members are aware we have to consider each
Laura Pearson - Development Management Team Leader - 1:04:40
application on its own merits and so just for clarity there is one children's
home that was granted permission at number 21 which is the property and as
previously highlighted down this end and the other permission is that the
property we're currently considering so there's only two in total on this street
it's just that there are two permissions one of which is a proposal to vary the
condition upon that's in front of you today.
But in terms of, you can certainly look at cumulative,
but in terms of actually saying what is harmful
about that cumulative, it's that point that we need
to be talking about if members had a concern in that regard.
Cllr Robin Stuchbury - 1:05:20
Listening to the chairs opening,
gun bit about what we can and can't discuss,
which I thought was highly valuable.
In an application, it's seeking, listen to it,
the difference between two age profiles and cumulative harm.
And I'm struggling to find where you would,
if you were not minded to do it,
where you could assess one harm and there's nothing in it.
And the point made about why the application is here,
I thought was very obvious made by the chair
that the two members called it in under the constitution.
and that's their right and the chair respected that.
So I thought that goes away.
And the points that made about the cumulative nature of this
I think that needs to be looked at.
So, but I do think that maybe listening to it
that it would be useful
because the chair made the very good point
about this will not be the only application like this
that we'll have.
I think there are some important things to notice around the Human Rights Act and the
telling of these things that you mentioned briefly in the report.
And at the Human Rights Act, I find it that we wouldn't be able to disparage this application
away because they both have rights, so does the applicant have rights.
So in short, how would we, listening to all the debates, go forward with the, which is a concern,
but I don't think we can concern it, how outside this meeting through the chair can we have a discussion about the cumulative nature of development.
Because the point I get to is what we don't know in this application.
and having seen other applications come forward with the county.
Cllr Patrick Fealey - 1:07:30
Can you stop here for a minute? This is not just about care homes.
We get it all the time. You can find a coffee shop coming up and there's a coffee shop next door but one.
So there's lots of situations where there is a pressure on both sides and this is very similar.
So I think this is something not first meeting but maybe something that we can talk about and look at the future
But at the moment we get this all the time, correct?
You know, you can get a shotgun if we get knee up new nail bars and all sorts now
Absolutely coming up where they're within next door but one or one so I think I take your point the bun just understand it
Understand it. We have to listen to it. I'm like
Cllr Robin Stuchbury - 1:08:10
No point can I find in this?
Cllr Patrick Fealey - 1:08:15
that I take a point, we will take it away and we will look at it at some stage when we look at these things on the round.
It's not just this particular case of the care homes, it's a whole raft of other situations.
And this is a question...
Solar farms, we're getting it all the time, so it's good to test.
Cllr Robin Stuchbury - 1:08:37
This is a question I think we cannot consider as a planning issue,
but we have lots of applications for care homes which shows there's a need for it
and not all of them are Buckinghamshire Council care homes.
And we do need to monitor that.
Thank you. Councillor Mahone.
Cllr Patrick Fealey - 1:08:56
Cllr Frank Mahon - 1:08:58
Thank you Mr Chairman. I've got two points I'd like to raise.
The first one is page 28 of the Officer's Report.
there's an objection which says conflict with policies D1 and D5 of the VALP.
Is that true or false in the opinion of the officer is my first question.
Apologies for the cough.
Laura Pearson - Development Management Team Leader - 1:09:22
So those policies are not relevant in the assessment of this application proposal.
Rather in terms of the principle of development specific for this scheme,
I would direct members to paragraphs 5 .10 to 5 .15 of the officer report.
The de -policies referred to are not relevant to this scheme.
Cllr Frank Mahon - 1:09:47
Mr Chairman, I may have missed the bus on my next point because I probably should have asked the last public speaker who may probably know more than the officer know.
I am slightly concerned when both speakers spoke about the fact that no children had occupied that property.
And looking at page 19, relevant planning history, planning application for change of use in C3 residential C2 children's home was approved in December 2024.
He's concerned that it has been left for over two years and I assume it has been occupied for two years.
And I'd have to say now that I'd have to probably concur with the Councillor's speech when she talked about it saying on the website that it's only for 16 to 18 year olds.
but I stand corrected if it has been occupied over the last two and a bit years.
Laura Pearson - Development Management Team Leader - 1:10:59
So in essence although permission has been granted applicants have three years
to commence the permission so in this instance with permission only having
been granted in December 2024 the applicant has until December 2027 in
order to implement the consented change of use so we can't within the planning
world require a property to be occupied that falls wholly outside of our ability
as planners that's down to the choice of a homeowner a property owner as to
whether they have tenants in a property or not and but in planning terms they
have sufficient time remaining on their permission to go and implement the
Cllr Frank Mahon - 1:11:45
change views to a children's home. Okay so they've got another year they've got
about ten months left we're in February they've got about ten months left on
Laura Pearson - Development Management Team Leader - 1:11:54
planning yes? December 27 so a few more months than that. What's to stop them
Cllr Frank Mahon - 1:12:00
coming in in five six months time and asking for another condition from 18 to
Cllr Patrick Fealey - 1:12:11
Well there's nothing stopping them but it's not for today. We can't, you can't do anything about it.
That's speculative it may be. They can do it at any time, any applicant can, but as of today all we can do is look at our condition for...
Yep. So I'm going to have to draw a hold of that. Councillor Gibbon.
Cllr Kathy Gibbon - 1:12:34
I'm a little bit concerned about the way that this change isn't called a material change
because in similar situations it is, in other cases just like this, it is considered a material
change because there are fundamental changes to the care safeguarding and regulatory requirements
when you change the care from a 16 year old to an 18 year old.
So I just hope that there will be put in place the very different needs for these children,
because it's going from caring for a child to caring for a young adult who needs to have
help becoming more independent, getting a job or whatever.
But this sort of application seems to gloss over that and not really mention the fact
that there will be very, very different needs and different types of staff to cater for
the needs of these young adults.
Cllr Patrick Fealey - 1:13:23
On a personal level I would have thought on the original application it would have been up to 18.
Which would be I consider standard. I would not expect a child to have to move at 16 when they're just completing their exams and things like that.
Because of that actually the condition is 16. It should be for an analogue which is 18.
Okay, those are technical sessions. Now can we go to open debate?
Councilman Guevara.
Cllr Llew Monger - 1:14:08
Thank you, Chairman. A most interesting and informative afternoon.
Thank you to the speakers for their very thoughtful contributions.
The problem we face as this committee is that this, as has been said numerous times, we
are limited in what we can make any decisions on to what is before us.
And the application is simply to change the age groups for a property that already has
planning consent, which we cannot change because there's no application in that respect, to
change the actual age use from 10 to 16 to 10 to 18.
It's not 16 to 18.
The application is for it to be changed 10 to 16.
That for example might accommodate situations where you had siblings where one was 15 and
another 18.
not an unusual age split in any family. So I fully understand the reason for that.
Just as I understand concerns expressed by some of the residents.
So only the upper age limit is being changed. That's all we can decide on.
Personally I see no reason for that but I want to raise a couple of other points
that are not strictly planning but they clearly have come out of this debate
which I think it's important that are noted in our comments.
The actual operation of the premises is a matter for our own children's services,
for Ofsted, the Care Quality Commission and as their books, children's services.
I note and I found this out just while you've all been chatting around about things that are not related to the application,
that although the application is in the name of an individual, that individual is a director of at least three related businesses.
Panache Care Residential Limited, Panache Care Limited, Masaba Home Care Limited.
I find it unusual that the application is coming in the name of an individual and not one of these companies.
and I cannot understand, therefore, some of the concerns of the residents, but not relevant to this meeting today.
I believe that in addition, regardless of the vote on this, it would be important for perhaps the chair, or through the chair,
a note to go to the planning policy team to raise the issues that have been raised here about the potential for multiple properties in a limited area being converted to children's homes.
And it's interesting that this is clearly just a business operation.
So I think that's one side of what we should do and I think the other is to just ensure that children's services of Book's Council are fully aware as well.
So I'm asking you through the chair to send a note raising the concerns that have been raised by residents and by ourselves about this application just to ensure awareness.
With all of that said, I would move acceptance of the officer's recommendation.
Cllr Patrick Fealey - 1:17:41
Cllr Raj Khan - 1:17:54
Thank you, Chairman.
And listening to the residents and the local Councillor, I think they put their case up
really well.
I think it's really admirable when local Councillors do their work and bring things
to committee that their constituents have issues with.
I think some of the concerns are very legitimate and it's got to be people who actually live
there have noticed or perhaps not noticed anything at the moment because there's no
living there. But it's the perception. A lot of it is to do with perception. I think that
the most sensible thing to do is on this occasion, whilst I have absolutely no problem with children's
home or care homes, I think they do a wonderful service to our community. I think that the
very fact that the residents have raised the issues and the local two members who I know
would have looked into this quite seriously before they would have decided to have come
to this committee today.
Whilst I am very minded to support the application of the offices, but I feel a second bite needs
to be given that we actually physically and literally see what's really going on.
I am therefore having listened to all the debate, most of the debate took place with
the residents and the local councillor and the officer,
I think we should be asking for a site visit.
I think it's only fair, it's only reasonable,
and it really gives credence to the service
our local councillors who have been elected
by their local residents to show that we mean business,
we are willing to listen,
and we're willing to give it that second thought.
Cllr Patrick Fealey - 1:19:47
So therefore, I'm formally making a request for site visit.
We already have a recommendation on the table which I need to take first.
Councillor Tutsley.
Cllr Robin Stuchbury - 1:20:08
Thank you and Councillor Munger for looking into those issues which I was trying to allude
to about companies being in children's owners.
There's nothing to do with it.
going to have to support the application because there's no legal grounds to turn
it down and if we went for a site meeting what we would learn is exactly
what we can see within the paperwork which is a confined area in which it is
and the nature of what has been discussed. Thank the chair for the
initial part of it which I think is very important and the officers but I do
I think it raises real questions which I think Lou
has among her expressed about going forward
and I think they need to be considered.
But I have to support the application
because I can't come up with a grounds
in my head or conscience.
But today, I and the point that the chair made
is a very important point that children do need
to be able to stay with their siblings
and they need to be able to progress.
And I thought that was very well made.
And this does allow that.
So, and it's not for us to manage a planning application that hasn't gone through yet or hasn't been enacted.
Maybe because they've realised that they put the wrong application in, is why it's here today.
Cllr Patrick Fealey - 1:21:26
Okay, thank you very much.
Councillor Filwood, last one.
Cllr Dean Field - 1:21:30
Yes, sorry to come in so late there.
You remembered what you were going to say, did you?
Yeah, well it's all the same part of it.
And I echo what Robin has just said,
but I would find it a lot more easier
if the residents had an explanation
or a reassurance moving forward.
Because when you are in a resident within that area
and you've got two care homes
and they're not occupied, it's all speculation.
It's speculation on some on the officer side
when I read the report.
But however, I think consultation in this
would have gone a long way if a consultation took place.
I would support what Robin just said 100%.
Thank you very much.
Cllr Patrick Fealey - 1:22:25
And my view, sorry, my view is this,
I totally agree with that point
because we've done a lot of work with consulting
for the Bucks County Council, care homes and consulting with the local people and working
with members and that's worked extremely well. I'm also very conscious a child at 16 could
be moved, could have, as Councillor Munger rightly pointed out, could have siblings and
that and therefore I'm very happy to support the officer's recommendation to 18 and indeed
like I said earlier, we may start to look at or have to look at even older in some cases,
where children have got special needs and they will be with us because it's not just coming up
to the age, it's how we manage them when they leave care, you know, because there's a lot that
goes on in a child's life at that stage. So, Councillor Mahone, I'll give you the last word.
Cllr Frank Mahon - 1:23:22
Thank you Mr. Chairman. I am disappointed with the applicant that they didn't consult with the residents.
And I don't know what we can do with that because when it comes to the MOJ, when it comes to HS2,
all these major infrastructure projects, we almost demand as a council that they consult with the residents.
And as you're well aware, and most people in this room will be well aware, in my village
there was an application submitted for a Buckinghamshire Council care home.
And yes, there was a lot of noise and a lot of speculation and what might happen.
But when we actually went around and knocked on the doors and spoke to the residents, we
got a completely different scenario altogether, where by the end of, and when it came in front
of us at planning, and I didn't sit on the planning committee because I predetermined
the application. However, there was not one objection from three and a half thousand residents
residents in my village. And I put that purely down to consultation with the residents prior
to the application coming here. So moving forward, we should be learning from our mistakes.
Can we, as a council, when it comes to planning applications like this, can we certainly ask,
if not demand, that the residents are consulted with prior to it coming before us.
Because I think it's very important that the residents, and I think, Councillor Munger,
I'm very grateful to you today because you've laid out very clearly to the residents who may
be listening in, and we've got some of them here, the restraints we're under and we're almost
handcuffed here today in the decision we have to make. It's a decision about a condition,
it's got nothing to do with planning, it's a condition from 16 to 18, sorry 10 to 16
or going from age 10 to age 18. I'm disappointed that there wasn't consultation with the residents,
However, I will have to support this application.
Cllr Patrick Fealey - 1:26:00
Okay, fine. Thank you very much.
So we have the recommendation before us,
which has been seconded by Councillor Powell.
Please show if you're in favour of that recommendation,
officer's recommendation.
Okay, thank you very much.
Thank you for your time today.
If you don't mind remaining seated
for a little while, Councillors.
I've just got something I want to go through with it.