Agenda item

To consider the report of the Head of Planning Services.

(Report circulated)

The Development Control Manager presented the application for change of use from non-residential day centre to supported living units at Redhills House, Exwick.

The unit would be run by the Amethyst Second Chance Charity to house ex-offenders from Dartmoor Prison. There would be a maximum of 11 residents at any one time and it would be staffed 24 hours a day.

This facility would provide an environment to enable ex-offenders to return to the community and provide them with social skills and a support network. The residents would be released on licence and it was expected that they would stay at the unit from between 3 to 6 months with the maximum length of time being 12 months.

The Development Control Manager reported that 26 further objections had been received, on the grounds outlined in the report, which was mainly the fear of crime and disorder. Also one letter of observation had been received which suggested a condition restricting the use to Amethyst Second Chance.

A letter dated 6 December 2007 had been received from Chief Inspector Brigden of Devon and Cornwall Constabulary (a full copy of that letter was circulated to Committee Members).

The Development Control Manager in response to the appropriateness of the suggested additional security measures in the letter from Chief Inspector Brigden informed the Members that:-

• CCTV coverage of internal and external areas - Circular 11/95 relating to the use of conditions in planning permission required that conditions be reasonable.  It would usually be considered unreasonable to require capital monies to be spent on a temporary permission.  However, in this instance, given the sensitivity of the proposal, it was considered that the installation of CCTV cameras would be appropriate and a condition was recommended;
• 2m high fencing - this would be unacceptable in terms of the impact on the setting of the listed building and also failed to meet the test contained in Circular 11/95 in terms of reasonableness;
• Secure car parking - this was considered to be inappropriate given that the consent was on a temporary basis.  Further, it was considered that such works would be detrimental to the character and setting of the listed building;
• Routes in and out of site - this required a possible reconfiguration of the internal layout of the building which was considered unreasonable and could be detrimental to the character of the listed building;
• Security key management system - this would be unenforceable and unrelated to land use and would therefore be contrary to Circular 11/95: Use of Conditions in Planning Permission;
• Alarming of windows and doors – this was an acceptable condition;
• Regular contact between Devon & Cornwall Constabulary and Amethyst  - this was not a land use issue and therefore could not be dealt with by way of condition.

The Development Control Manager informed Members that an email dated 10 December 2007 has also been received from the Chief Inspector who had confirmed that he would not formally object to the granting of planning permission on a temporary basis.

Comments had been received from the Housing Enabling Manager. They were:-

• the building was currently used as a day centre and the proposed use was relatively intensive.  Alternative uses might involve reduced or zero housing supply therefore the impact on housing supply was positive;
• the expectation was that there would be some increase in housing demand but, in the context of the overall pressures on housing in the city, this would be slight;
• as the project was to provide housing to those who would otherwise be homeless, it was reasonable to expect a reduction in homelessness in the city.  Moreover, the regime within the project should prepare people better for independent living and make subsequent episodes of homelessness less likely.  If the project fulfilled its aim, it could be expected to have a positive impact on homelessness;
• the level of housing management within the proposed project and the sanctions available seem to make housing management issues unlikely.

The Housing Enabling Manager stated that the project could be seen as making a positive contribution to housing in the city provided delivery was in accordance with the vision.  Any risks would stem mainly from the implementation differing from the vision.

A letter dated 28 November 2007 had been received from the County Director Environment, Economy and Culture which stated the means of access, together with the existing off-street parking provision comprising six spaces were considered adequate to serve the proposed use and therefore he did not recommend that any conditions were attached to any permission. The Director Environment, Economy and Culture had no objection to the proposed development.

The recommendation was approval with 3 additional conditions regarding a 12 months temporary permission, installation of CCTV and alarming of all doors and windows.

Councillor Boyle having given notice under Standing Order no. 44 spoke on this item. He raised the following points:-

• was representing local residents who formally opposed the proposed use
• this development was on a busy through route used by children attending schools in the area
• this was a high density residential area and this proposal was out of keeping with the character of the area
• it was likely that the potential residents would have drug and alcohol problems and this development was opposite a pub
• understood that Amethyst Second Chance had a 20% better success rate than other such organisations but that this was the wrong location for such a unit
• would have a detrimental effect on the community
• the Chief Inspector’s response came in too late and in his correspondence he stated that the proposal could pose some problems with regards to crime and disorder
• requested that the meeting go into Part II i.e. exclude the press and public as he wanted to inform the Committee of further confidential information to support the case opposing this application.

The Planning Solicitor advised the Committee with regards to the implications of going into Part II session and how this may be perceived by the public attending the meeting.

The Members voted against going into Part II session.

Councillor Hannaford having given notice under Standing Order no. 44 spoke on this item. He raised the following points:-

• supported Councillor Boyle
• understood that ex-offenders needed rehabilitation facilities and that it was anticipated that 6 out of the potential 11 residents would not re-offend
• this was the wrong location for such a proposal
• 53 letters of objection and a petition had been received
• the letter from the Chief Inspector stated that he thought the proposal could cause problems
• the fence and the security to the staff car park proposed by the Chief Inspector could not implemented because it was a listed building
• the front doors to 10 and 12 Exwick Road were only a few feet away
• the proposal was close to 2 local primary schools and there was a bus stop around the corner which was heavily used by children
• the local children have used the car parking and grounds to play in
• the proposal was just opposite a pub, betting shop and off-licence
• asked the Committee to refuse this application.

Ms James (applicant) spoke in support of the application. She raised the following points:-

• asked the Committee to support the proposal
• this would provide a stable environment to help ex offenders reintegrate back into the community and prevent re-offending
• no sex offenders would be accommodated in the unit
• there would be a zero tolerance to drug and alcohol use
• if all ex-offenders could look forward to was sleeping on the streets they would be more likely to re-offend
• this proposal would be the first step to a less chaotic life style
• the residents would learn social skills to enable them to integrate into society
• experienced key workers would be on the premises 24 hours a day.

In answer to questions from the Members Ms James clarified that:-

• this was the first such project for Amethyst Second Chance but they had been working with prisoners at Dartmoor Prison
• the organisation was an independent charity
• the residents would have to be ‘clean’ for 3 months before they would be released on licence
• that majority of offenders’ problems were generated by drug and alcohol abuse
• the majority of residents would have a connection with the Exeter area
• the residents would be released on licence and would return to prison if the terms of their licence were broken
• each resident would have a Probation Officer who would be contacted immediately should the terms of the licence be broken
• Amethyst Second Chance had a meeting with the Community Police in the area over 2 months ago.

Some Members stated that although they supported the concept of the unit they were of the opinion that this site was a wholly unsuitable location given that it was in a high density residential area, near local schools and on a major pedestrian through route. They had concerns that this proposal would lead to an increase in crime and disorder and the comments of the Chief Inspector regarding crime and disorder were highlighted. They also felt that the Community Safety Partnership’s (CSP) views should have been sought on this proposal. A motion that the application be deferred to enable to CSP to be consulted was lost.

Other Members supported the proposals given the additional conditions proposed including the 12 months temporary condition.

In answer to a question from a Member, the Development Control Manager confirmed that the Chief Inspector had first been consulted on the application on 7 October 2007.

RESOLVEDthat planning permission for change of use from non-residential day centre (Class D1) to supported living units (Class C2) be approved subject to the following conditions:

1)         The development to which this permission relates must be begun not later than the expiration of three years beginning with the date on which this permission is granted.

Reason:  To ensure compliance with sections 91-92 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.

2)         The use hereby permitted shall be carried on only by Amethyst Second Chance and shall cease at such time as the aforementioned person cease to occupy the site.

Reason:  To enable the proposed use by the applicant to be monitored.

3)         The use hereby approved shall cease within 12 months of the date of this permission.

Reason: To enable the impact of use to be assessed.

4)                  No development shall take place until a scheme for CCTV coverage of both the external and internal areas of the site has been submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority.  Thereafter the CCTV system shall be installed and maintained entirely in accordance with the approved scheme for the duration of the use.

Reason: In the interests of security

4)                  No development shall take place until a scheme for alarming all windows and doors of the property has been submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority.  Thereafter the approved alarm system shall be retained in an operational manner for the duration of the use.

Reason: In the interests of security.

(Report circulated)