The Planning and Regulatory Committee met to discuss a planning application for a change of use of a property in Camberley. The committee unanimously approved the application to convert a residential property into a children's home, after hearing concerns from local residents and considering the suitability of the location. The committee also addressed public questions regarding outstanding planning applications and breaches.

Surrey County Council proposal 18 Crosby Hill Drive, Camberley

The committee unanimously approved the planning application for the change of use of 18 Crosby Hill Drive, Camberley from a Class C3 dwelling to a Class C2 residential institution, specifically a children's home. This will allow the property, owned by Surrey County Council, to house five residents, including two staff and three children aged 10-17.

Tiffany Young, a planning officer, introduced the item, noting that the application was subject to planning conditions and that an update sheet had been published to address a new representation and minor changes to conditions. She stated that the property is a five-bedroom detached house with a garden and parking area, and is well-screened by hedges. The plan is for the ground floor to be used as an office for staff, while the first floor will have three bedrooms for children and two for staff. There would be two staff members on shift at all times, with a maximum of six staff present during shift changes.

The application was considered in light of a ministerial statement issued by the government in 2023 regarding Class C3 dwellings, and formal permission was sought to meet requirements for regulated institutions. The planning officer highlighted the urgent need for secure and regulated housing for children in care within the county, to reduce placement costs and improve long-term outcomes. A condition was recommended to ensure the property remains a children's home and is not used for other purposes that could cause noise or disturbance.

James, the Principal Transport Development Officer, stated that the proposed use would not result in a material increase in traffic compared to its current use as a five-bedroom house. He noted that there are restrictions over what can take place on the site, and that there had been no recorded road incidents in the vicinity in the last 10 years. He also noted the proximity of bus stops and signalised crossings.

Nigel Jones, a surveyor speaking on behalf of Elaine Stanley of 23 Crosby Hill Drive, raised concerns about a restrictive covenant on the property, arguing that it stipulates the property can only be used as a private dwelling in one occupancy, and that the application is a clear breach of this covenant. He suggested the committee could be open to judicial review and should defer or refuse the application until further due diligence is conducted.

The committee chair stated that the restrictive covenant was not a matter for the planning committee to consider. This view was supported by other committee members, including Councillor Ernest, who stated that covenants are virtually unenforceable, and Councillor Peter, who agreed that covenants are not matters for a planning committee.

Rebecca Hannifan, one of the responsible individuals for children's homes within Surrey County Council, addressed concerns about the children who would be placed in the home. She stated that Surrey County Council is experienced in running children's homes and is highly regulated by Ofsted¹. She said that children are risk-assessed and matched appropriately, and that children who pose a significant risk to the public would not be placed in this home. She added that the aim is to create a normal home environment for the children, who will attend local schools and participate in activities like sports clubs.

Councillor Jeremy asked about the impact of such children's homes on residential areas. Rebecca Hannifan responded that the council's existing children's homes are blended into the community, and property values have not decreased around them. She added that staff are trained to be good parents and positive role models, and that they work hard to be neighbourly.

Councillor Trevor Hogg, speaking as a local member, supported Surrey's policy of housing Surrey's children in Surrey. He raised concerns about the steep reverse gradient of the driveway at 18 Crosby Hill Drive.

In response to Councillor Chris's concern about parking, James, the Principal Transport Development Officer, said that the driveway can accommodate five vehicles and that the garage must be kept in place. He added that it would be difficult to justify a condition forbidding parking on the highway, but that residents could request parking restrictions separately.

Councillor Ernest stated that the house is secluded and suitable for almost any use, and that objections to the use were strange. He argued that the number of occupants would be similar to other houses on the estate, and that anyone could buy a house and be an unwelcome neighbour. He concluded that this was a perfectly viable use for the house and that he was totally in favour of it.

Councillor Sarge supported Councillor Ernest's comments, adding that the 24/7 monitoring by responsible staff would provide security and that any parking problems could be addressed.

Public Questions

The committee addressed public questions regarding outstanding planning applications and breaches.

Jackie asked about the further information the council is waiting for in regards to an outstanding application, and the likely timeframe for this. The response was that the council cannot force the applicant to resubmit, and that officers are frustrated by the lack of control. It was noted that the original planning application stipulated that restoration should happen and that there should be timeframes on restoration.

Sarah asked whether any progress has been made on the Horsehill planning application. The response was that the council is still waiting for further information from UCOG² and has no power to force the issue.

Members Question Time

Councillor Jeremy asked for more information to pass on to the parish council and residents of Rook Lane about what is happening to remedy breaches. He said that he found the information a bit terse. He was told that the applicants have been actively working to ensure the safety audit has been done and that information would be provided.