A retrospective planning application for an unregistered care home in Wootton has been approved by Bedford Borough Council’s Planning Committee – a month after it was “minded” to refuse due to “the harmful impact on the neighbouring area”.
The application had sought to regularise the use of a four-bedroom house at 10 Hollies Walk as a care home for up to four adults aged 18 to 65.
Read: Retrospective planning permission for unregistered care home in Wootton refused
During June’s Planning Committee (16 June), despite planning officers recommending approval, council officers were tasked to provide “justifiable reasons” for a refusal to be agreed at a later date.
These were presented to the committee on 14 July:
“The proposed development, by reason of the likely increase in day to day ‘comings and goings’ of staff, residents and support/health care professionals associated with the care home, would result in harm to neighbour amenity.”
They added, “This would be by reason of noise and disturbance from the increased movements and activity associated with the proposed use.”
“The proposal would therefore be contrary to Policy 32 of the Bedford Borough Local Plan 2030.”
The chair for this agenda item, Cllr Abu Sultan (Labour, Cauldwell) queried whether he had to read out the recommendation for refusal.
David Doome, the committee’s legal expert, said: “You’ve got a free hand, you’re not, you’re not bound by the previous decision.
“I mean, if you want to make a recommendation for a grant or refusal, that’s fine.”
Gideon Richards, team leader development management, gave the committee an update following an internal meeting.
He said the council’s Adult Services team said the property is a supported living service, regulated by the Care Quality Commission [CQC] under section 60 of the Health and Social Care Act.
“Adult Services therefore have raised no concerns or objections to the proposed development,” he said.
Cllr Alison Foster (Conservative, Harrold) then proposed that approval was granted.
Cllr Leigh Coombs (Lib Dem, Shortstown) said: “I don’t think anything’s changed.
“I know there were some concerns about the registration of CQC, and I know there were some concerns as to whether they were or weren’t [registered] so maybe that’s been wrapped up.
“But we still have the other issues that were going on with this property and its intended use.
“I believe it’s already being used in this regard and we had all of those neighbour comments and neighbour objections.
“I don’t think when I was talking about reasons to refuse this it was purely about the CQC.
“I think it was about the impact… the increased daily comings and goings.
“This is not going to be like a normal house.
“Therefore I don’t want to put this on the residents and I still feel minded to refuse, I haven’t changed [my view],” he said.
However, a majority of members voted to grant approval.
By John Guinn
Local Democracy Reporter
