Conversion of care home (Class C2) to 13 self-contained units of 'move-on' accommodation (Class C3), with associated bicycle and refuse storage (amended description)
Minutes:
The Planning Officer presented the report and drew attention to the Supplementary Matters which reported:
Further written deputations will be read out as part of the officer presentation from:
Applicant - The Society of St James
Objector - Mr Kaye (former resident of 189 Havant Road - now deceased)
111 further representations have been received.
105 of the representations are objecting to the scheme on the following grounds:
a) inappropriate area for the proposed use due to being mainly populated by elderly residents and young families and close to schools;
b) the development would bring people with drug and alcohol problems into the area; there is an alcohol shop close to the site;
c) detrimental affect on the lives of local residents; increased noise and disturbance, concern that residents would have to leave the premises during the day;
d) additional strain on local services such as pharmacies and doctors;
e) small size of the flats unhealthy for future residents;
f) unclear what level of support the residents would receive; lack of overnight care;
g) increased risk of crime, antisocial behaviour and safety concerns for local residents;
h) potential negative impact on local businesses if local people feel discouraged to visit them;
i) negative impact on house prices in the local area;
j) benefits of housing homeless people outweighed by negative impact;
k) lack of communal areas for residents;
l) lack of notification and involvement of the local community in the application proposals;
m) lack of local facilities for residents and support services in the area;
n) flats do not meet relevant space standards and is more like a House in Multiple Occupation;
o) too close to a busy main road;
p) allowing the proposal would set a precedent for similar accommodation in the area;
q) an independent risk assessment should be conducted to assess the impact of the scheme on the local community;
r) too many rooms within the property; too dense;
s) concerned about lack of communication from the Society of St James when people were temporarily housed at the property during COVID-19;
t) the care home only had 9 residents and not many staff;
u) the scheme fails to justify the lack of parking against Portsmouth City Council's parking standards;
v) there is insufficient evidence to justify the small size of the units, contrary to Policy PCS19;
w) lack of appropriate conditions to ensure safety and protect amenity of neighbouring residents;
x) increased noise and disturbance to neighbouring residents; noise levels have already increased since people have temporarily been housed in the property;
y) concern that there are already residents in the property.
6 representations give support to the application on the following grounds:
a) Good for people to get a second chance;
b) support the aims of the Society of St James to assist and support people of all ages affected by homelessness;
c) the accommodation will benefit vulnerable people;
d) the proposed location would distance the residents from inner city areas where poor lifestyle choices are more likely to be made;
e) suggest that residents should be provided with targeted professional support, including a room for counselling sessions;
f) suggest more visitor parking is provided (e.g. by using the garden);
f) suggest adequate laundry facilities provided;
g) each flat should have a shower or bath;
h) the location away from the city centre would provide a safer environment for occupants;
i) an important scheme to meet the needs of the homeless community;
j) anti-social behaviour is more likely to be a risk if people are left living on the streets;
k) the property is located on a main road close to essential services and seems a suitable location;
l) suggestion as to whether one of the vacant retail units in Drayton could be used as a charity shop to further support the scheme.
It is considered that the majority of the matters outlined within the new objections have been satisfactorily addressed within the committee report (please refer specifically to paragraphs 5.5, 5.10-5.12, 5.15, 5.20-5.25, and 5.27-5.31). It can be confirmed that the occupants would not be required to vacate the premises during the day, as it would be their place of residence. The applicant, The Society of St James, has also provided some additional information in response to the latest comments, as summarised below. These points are also made within a written deputation from the Society, which will be read out at the planning committee:
· The Society of St James is a charity with many years' experience in delivering help for those in need;
· The property would accommodate adults with a range of ages and backgrounds, not specifically young people;
· Residents are likely to have been through a number of other stages of housing assistance, with the proposed accommodation being the last stage before they are considered ready for general rented accommodation;
· The purpose of the accommodation is for residents to have independence, without the need for communal facilities;
· The residents would not require 24 hour supervision, but support staff would visit several times a week and staff can be contacted at any time using a 24 hour on call system. There is an out of hours team who can attend the property at nights and weekends to resolve issues. Local residents can also be provided with the emergency numbers to report any issues or concerns;
· Some of the residents may have mental health issues and will already be receiving support from local mental health services, which would continue;
· The location of the site was carefully considered. It is within an established community with good access to shops and services, but is far enough from Portsmouth City Centre that can be prone to offering a detrimental social environment.
The recommendation remained unchanged.
Members noted that with the change to Standing Order 24 due to the COVID-19 pandemic, there had been some confusion over the deadline for deputations, meaning that not everyone who wanted to make a deputation had been able to so today. The Principal Planning Solicitor said that officers had considered all the representations received and reminded members that deputation requests must be registered prior to the publication of the agenda and then they would be invited to submit a further written representation.
As there were over 100 further representations received which the committee had not been able to hear, the majority of members felt that this application should be deferred until the next meeting to give people additional notice to submit their deputations prior to the deadline.
(Councillor Norton did not vote on this due to his earlier declared interest)
RESOLVED that the application be deferred to the next meeting.