Concerns over Lancs children’s care home plan in 'quiet neighbourhood'

A plan to change a West Lancashire family house into a children’s care home, prompting neighbours’ fears over disturbance, child safety and traffic problems, has been approved by councillors.

Cavalry Healthcare can change 1 Charles Close at Hesketh Bank from a residential dwelling to a children’s care home for up to four youngsters, West Lancashire councillors have decided. But a condition has been added, requiring the firm’s good neighbour plan and staff rota to be reviewed after two years.

The five-bedroom house is in a residential cul-de-sac. And it has been used recently by a Liverpool authority to care for an adult woman, which has allegedly created some separate problems, West Lancashire Council heard this week. The children’s care home plan was first submitted late last year and due for a decision this March. But it was deferred to get further comments from Lancashire Police and social services, and clarification about staff shift times.

• Concern over new Royal Preston location during general election hustings

• GCSE student in limbo after college scraps maths and photography courses 'half-way through'

It was considered again at the borough’s latest planning meeting. Some residents also attended the meeting and some expressed unhappiness with the decision afterwards. The applicant is Kate Durband of Cavalry Healthcare in Blackburn and the agent is Sunny Howd of Hedley Planning in Northumberland.

Speaking at West Lancashire’s planning committee this week, planning services manager Steven Faulkner outlined it and also gave an update on a planning appeal over a different care home application for a house at The Winters in Skelmersdale. Car parking for the Skelmersdale home had been disputed but was later judged as acceptable by a planning inspector. That should be borne in mind regarding the Hesketh Bank plan, Mr Faulkner said.

Regarding the Hesketh Bank application, he said: “There have been some local objections regarding potential disturbance and the care home being out-of-character with the area. However officers think the activities would be consistent with a residential area.

“We think the development will sit comfortably within its setting. We are aware of local concerns. But here have been some amendments and updates, and we recommend approval.”

Updates included the good neighbour plan and staff rota. Mr Faulkner also said a noise plan would allow for some monitoring over time. The police had not raised any concerns Lancashire County Council said there was a need for care for children with autism and special needs. The county was largely supportive, Mr Faulkner said.

On traffic, the county’s highways department had not objected and four parking spaces were proposed. The impact of cars would be similar to any other large family house.

CHILDREN’S CARE AND AN ADULT THERE CURRENTLY

A West Lancashire planning report stated: “Lancashire Children’s Services has confirmed the applicant is a provider of services for Lancashire County Council and has been working to address identified gaps on children’s home provision locally.

“There are not enough places for children with physical disabilities or autism and this will help to fill that gap. The provider and the county council have a close working relationship. Therefore it is likely that the children will be from the Lancashire area. Due to the intended cohort of children, the risk is lower than other types of children’s homes.”

Another section stated: “Comments have been raised that the [Charles Close] property is already operating as a children’s home. This has been raised with the applicant via their agent. who confirmed the property is currently supporting an adult in Charles Close who is approximately aged 36 years and has additional needs. Liverpool local authority adults services commissions the care. Liverpool has temporarily engaged with Tillyco Ltd for the use of the property whilst the lady’s home is renovated and we are providing a care package (not accommodation).”

The current arrangement is not expected to continue for much longer. This was a temporary proposal, the report stated.

‘CURRENT PROBLEMS’

At West Lancashire’s planning meeting. Conservative Coun John Howard raised concerns including about Cavalry Care. He understood it was owned by a care firm called Total which has a home in Preston. He said: “When I read information, I was concerned about Cavalry Healthcare – if they have not done this kind of work before? The person who put in the application says it’s an agency which supplies nurses.”

Regarding current use of the Charles Close house, he said: “There is a resident there who was supposed to be there for a limited period. But she has been there longer. She has caused some problems, shouting at people on Chapel Road. She only had pyjamas on and her body was exposed. It was filmed. It was 15 minutes before her parents or carers ran out to get her. If they cannot keep control of one person, I’m worried about looking after more.

“There is another care site near Charles Close which cannot get staff. Also in February there was an application for a [care] property at Banks which is not ready to go yet.”

Other concerns included staff numbers, Coun Howard said. He added: “If some children require two-to-one staff care, that will massively impact on staff numbers. The close is narrow and vehicle space is limited, And it took months to fix the fence around the electricity sub-station when there was a gap last time. The lack of attention to things worries me.”

In summary, he said: “I’d like this application refused on the grounds of over-development.”

TEMPORARY APPROVAL IDEAS

Conservative Coun Edward Pope said: “I have a few concerns. I would not say this should be refused but I would like the planning committee to consider a 12-month grant, to see how it goes.

“We’ve heard about other so-called care homes getting permission but they have not started taking anyone yet. What worries me is that Cavalry has been taken over by Total yet the information on conditions comes from Hedley Planning. I’m not sure how they tie-in? Clearly a lot of residents are concerned about this.”

He also raised concerns about nearby Chapel Road being busy and the planning officer’s comment about Lancashire County Council. He said: “Mr Faulkner said the county council is largely supportive. Do they have some doubts? I understand the county council and OFSTED will monitor the care. But many concerns are about the impact on the area and I’m not sure that will be properly considered. ”

‘THESE ARE NOT NIMBY FEARS’

Our West Lancashire Coun Linda Webster said she ‘echoed’ the concerns. She added: “I’m also mindful about avoiding a planning appeal and conscious that people feel worried about this. These are not NIMBY concerns. These are serious issues. I’d very much like to refuse this but I realise there’s a raft of issues.”

In reply, planning manager Mr Faulkner said temporary one, two or three-year approvals were not feasible for this type of application. Short temporary approval could also be unsettling for looked-after children.

Hedley Planning was the agent and it was common for agents to work with applicants, he said. Lancashire County Council and OFSTED were responsible for monitoring children’s care, while the planning system considered use of land and properties.

Mr Faulkner added: “We have to deal with the application rather than the applicant’s credentials. We have to deal with this in a consistent way with other applications. We cannot impose extra or unusual conditions.”

‘DIFFICULT’

Labour Coun Andy Fowler said: “This is quite difficult because the plan does not appeal to everyone and has caused concerns. However, we have got to consider it on planning grounds, I cannot see anything that would allow us to refuse it. The Skelmersdale property mentioned in the appeal was different and the circumstances were different.”

Mr Faulkner said the decision was for councillors but he was there to advise. He suggested a condition might be added, that the care firm’s good neighbour plan and staff rota be reviewed after two years, to see if they were working,

Various councillors agreed with this. In a vote, the majority backed this and granted permission for the care home use.