Plans for children's supported living home in Hartlepool's Elm Grove are rejected
Plans for new supported living accommodation housing up to five children with complex care needs have been rejected by councillors following more than a dozen objections.
Proposals to transform the property at 14 Elm Grove were submitted to Hartlepool Borough Council planning department last year.
The application from Active Care Group sought to convert the site to “offer a safe, supportive, and nurturing environment where children can thrive with the support of experienced care professionals”.
The proposals were “specifically designed to provide specialist care for up to five children with learning difficulties and complex care needs”.
The home would have provided 24-hour tailored support “with a highly trained team of up to twelve staff members, including management, during the day, and five staff members providing care overnight”.
Yet 18 objections were submitted to the council from residents raising concerns over the application.
These included the development not being “compatible” with the residential area, worries around the operator and that it could lead to increased noise and disturbance, congestion and insufficient and unsuitable parking.
The application went before the council’s planning committee and was refused by councillors by four votes to two.
This was in line with recommendations from planning officers who ruled the site was “not considered to be an appropriate or compatible location for the proposed use”.
They noted the application had “the potential to result in a significant detrimental impact on both the character of the surrounding area and neighbour amenity” due to the layout and “increase in activity and associated noise”.
Scott Wilkinson, representing the applicant, argued the scheme from the “recognised health care provider” sought to offer a “much-needed environment” for children with “limiting disabilities”.
He added: “The staff are there to support youngsters to live independently within a community environment, and that is what we are trying to create for them.
“This is not a children’s home, this is a home for children, it is a house environment we are trying to create.”
However an objector, speaking at the meeting on behalf of concerned residents of Elm Grove, raised concerns the application would put a “commercial operation into a residential setting” which is “wholly unsuitable”.
He added: “This creates more traffic than virtually the whole of Elm Grove.”