Agenda item

Change of Use from Care Home (C2) to Hostel (Sui Generis)

 

(Planning application number: P2021/1395/FUL)

 

In the discussion the following points were made:

The Planning Officer advised that following a meeting with the Legal department, it was agreed to slightly change the wording of the Operational Management Plan condition to make the condition more robust.

 

Condition 5 (Operational Management Plan)

 

Prior to occupation, an Operational Management Plan (OMP) shall be submitted to and approved by the Council. The OMP shall be drawn up following consultation with the Designing Out Crime Officer, the Community Safety Team, Ward Councillors and the local community. The OMP shall cover, but not be limited to:

 

·       Locality management/patrols of local green spaces and shops (frequency and scope to be agreed)

o   Patrol logs reporting findings which should be brought to the attention of the duty manager

o   Any breach of noise nuisance should be reported by staff and considered for escalation

o   Community Safety to review ASB and drugs policy with escalation and sanction process

·       Community engagement

o   Regular meetings with residents to be established including regularity of their occurrence

·       Staff Training

·       Contact details and complaint management

·       Noise control

·       Dealing with Anti-Social Behaviour (including escalation and sanction processes and ASB and drugs policy document

·       Code of conduct for residents (including terms of stay)

·       Substance (drug and alcohol) misuse procedures

·       Escalation process

·       Safeguarding

·       Hours of operation

·       Referral process

·       Security

·       CCTV

·       Smoking

·       Fire safety

·       ASB and crime data monitoring

·       Positive action policy (including cooperation with the Council and police and an information sharing protocol)

·       A review/update of the Operational Management Plan (in consultation with Designing Out Crime and the Council’s Community Safety Team and local Ward Councillors) submitted to the Local Planning Authority for approval no sooner than 6 months and no later than 8 months after the first occupation of the hereby approved development, and submitted annually for approval thereafter, or sooner if requested by the Local Planning Authority.

·       The hostel shall not operate for more than 3 months without an approved plan.

 

The hostel hereby approved shall only operate if managed by an operator with an Operational Management Plan approved by the local planning authority and in accordance with the above requirements both as to content and consultation, and only operate in accordance with the Operational Management Plan so approved, ensuring that the Community Safety Team are involved in the implementation of the plan (and any revised plan).

 

 

REASON: To ensure the efficient operation of the hostel and protect the safety and amenity of future residents and the local community.

·       Site forms part of Isledon Gardens Village,Estate a 1990’s estate built and operated by a number of housing associations. Site is not in a conservation area with no nearby heritage assets. 

·       Meeting was informed that the proposed hostel would provide medium term accommodation for up to 30 residents, that it replaces a care home which has been vacant since 2018

·       Members were advised that although no external alterations are proposed other than the provision of a cycle store, a minimal number of minor internal alterations will be undertaken such as provision of an accessible bedroom, additional staff facilities, kitchen and bathrooms.

·       The Planning Officer advised that the loss of the care home use is justified as adequate replacement accommodation has now been provided nearby at St Anne’s Nursing Home, that the existing use is not fit for purpose following the assessment by the Care Quality Commission in 2012.

·       In terms of the provision of new hostel, members were advised that Development Plan supports new hostels provided they are suitable for the intended occupiers in terms of location, standard of accommodation, levels of supervision, management and support and importantly that the proposal does not give rise to a significant adverse amenity impact on the surrounding area.

·       The Planning Officer acknowledged the anti-social behaviour problems within the locality especially around Isledon Park and the surrounding streets, that a draft Operational Management Plan has been submitted by the applicant which states that staff will be on the premises 24hours a day on a rota basis and will include a manager and deputy manager amongst other professionals to support hostel residents

·       Meeting was advised that the Service Provider is yet to be finalised, that a preferred provider is to be presented to the Executive in October subject to planning permission.

·       The Planning Officer acknowledged that the facility will accommodate a maximum number of 30 residents.

·       A vacant building previously used as a care home, deemed not fit for purpose or viable especially after the number of residents were reduced from 30 to 15. No external alterations to the building except minor changes to secondary rooms

·       With regards to crime concerns, the Planning Officer advised that Community safety team is working with the Police to address this issue, that safeguarding is paramount to the individuals and the local community in general

·       The Planning Officer reiterated that the proposal is a hostel for homeless people and not a rehabilitation facility and will have secured doors and CCTV

·       Applicant has submitted a draft Operational Management Plan and although there is potential noise from such facility but this will be addressed by robust OMP

·       The Planning Officer in summary informed the committee that in general, the proposal is sustainable, that it will address the borough’s homelessness problem and making efficient use of a vacant building  

·       A member enquired that having regard to the proposed change of use, and whether there is scope for contribution to help alleviate any amenity impact. In response to a member suggestion on contributions, the Head of Planning advised that such scope will be secured by Directors agreement and not by s106

·       In comparison with other facilities, the Planning Officer advised that permission is rarely sought for such facilities, however with the draft operation management plan that is submitted as part of the planning statement, the scheme is stricter as it provides 24 security, secured doors, patrols and CCTV.

·       Resident was concerned with the siting of a hostel in a predominantly residential area especially in light of the prevailing anti-social behaviours and criminal activities. Residents felt betrayed with the lack of action on the drug activities on the estate and despite the submitted petition signed by residents, their concerns are still being ignored. The proposal will impact the amenity of existing residents, restrict their movement, that if the scheme is to go ahead, more restrictions will need to be put in place, that the facility to be for single sex and that the number of residents be reduced. Members were reminded of drug users leaving behind syringes and needle, a danger to park users

·       Another objector working in a nursery was concerned about the impact of having a hostel in close proximity to the school, a place that is used by the community for meetings. It was also noted that due to drug activity in the area, residents have not been using the nursery buildings for meetings for fear of being mugged as recently there have been an increase in criminal activity. Members were informed that in recent years there has been an attempted break into the school

·       Ward councillor indicated that although he supported the provision in principle he had concerns that residents with complex needs were being located in an area that still has on-going anti-social behaviour, that it was not a suitable area for their rehabilitation requesting that item be deferred pending a meeting of the appointed provider, ward councillors and the local community.in reason

·       Local community concerns have not been addressed and requesting that the item be deferred decision until ward councillors and the local community have been adequately consulted on the OMP

·       The Planning Agent acknowledged concerns highlighted by residents and in particular its disruption to the community, but reiterated the clear need of the proposed facility. Meeting was advised that in the last 5 years, Islington has experienced an increase in rough sleeping and that supported housing in the borough does not have sufficient capacity, that the waiting list continues to grow and that this proposal follows on from Governments announcement of ‘Everyone in’, a GLA initiative which will provide accommodation for 375 rough sleepers.

·       Members were advised that the accommodation for 30 rough sleepers is not permanent but interim for 12-18 months, for people already in emergency accommodation whilst the Council awaits placement for more permanent accommodation

·       The agent clarified the position about the number of dogs in the facility, that only 2 dogs will be allowed in the entire building and not 2 dogs per dwelling. In addition the agent welcomed the review of the Operational Management Plan within 6 months.

·       The Director of Housing Needs and Strategy informed the committee that the Council’s application represents the Council’s building for a fairer future for Islington residents and it’s aim to eliminate rough sleeping within Islington, that the scheme is for a single homeless person, noting that 66% of residents in Islington and London are sleeping rough for the first time, committing no crimes but are homeless simply due to loss of employment or being evicted from their accommodation by their parents, based on evidence from the Mayor of London and Islington Council

·       Members were advised that the scheme represents a bright start for the residents of Islington, that it will have 24 hour 7day a week,365 day on site support and a rota of 10 staff so no need for hotline. That the facility will have CCTV, security doors and additional security within the area

·       The funding for the scheme has come directly from the GLA with additional borrowing by the local council.

·       Members were advised that consultation between the local community and the provider had not been carried out yet as it is contrary to council policies and procedures before Executive announces the successful provider. Meeting was advised that Council went out to tender for the services and recommendations will be considered by the Executive on the 14^th October, to select a preferred provider reassuring members that a well respected provider with relevant experience has been recommended.

·       Council will continue to work in partnership with the local community on addressing crime concerns, that a panic room within the facility is recommended in order to handle individuals who may be evicted from the scheme due to anti-social activities

·       In response to questions about the complex needs of the residents of the hostel, the Director advised that 66% of rough sleepers do not have complex needs, that the other 33% may have issues but in general most of the occupants will be accommodated due to loss of their homes, veterans and loss of employment, that the essence of the proposal is to get them off the streets and give them a fresh start in life

·       On the suggestion about s106 contributions towards improving the local area, the Director reminded the meeting that majority of the funding is from central government and that money borrowed by the Council will be used for improvements to bring the vacant building back into use.

·       With regard to community engagement, the Director advised that following Executive decision to appoint a provider, there will be a meeting with ward councillors and subsequently a meeting will be arranged with the local community and the provider

·       On the question on the application be deferred for further consultation to be carried out and its impact, the Director of Housing Needs and Strategy informed the meeting that the delay would result in the scheme not being able to proceed and that funds would have to be returned to the central government

·       On the issue of drug and substance abuse, the Director advised that the Council will be working to build a better future for the vulnerable people, that the Council continues to promote its zero drug abuse policy

·       Members acknowledged the need for a facility, and that addressing issues around anti-social behaviour is based on the effectiveness of the Operation Management Plan and the specific details in condition 5 is being submitted to and approved by the Council

·       On the issue of community engagement, the Chair moved a motion that the full Operational Management Plan be specific stating that the provider have regular meetings with the ward councillors and local community and also the Community Safety Team concerns and recommendations as set out in the report be incorporated into the Operational Management Plan . This was seconded by Councillor Poyser 

·       A suggestion to include as an informative, that the applicants explore the possibility of financial contributions from the scheme to help alleviate any impact on the amenity around the site was noted and will be added to the decision

Councillor Klute proposed a motion to grant Planning Permission.  This was seconded by Councillor Poyser and carried.

 

 

RESOLVED:

That following consideration of the case officer’s report (the assessment and recommendations therein), the presentation to Committee, submitted representations and objections provided verbally at this meeting, planning permission be granted subject to the conditions and informatives set out in Appendix 1 of the officer report and subject to the prior completion of a Deed of Planning Obligation made under Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 securing the heads of terms as set out in Appendix 1 of the officer report.