NEIGHBOURS should have been consulted over plans to convert a nursing home into a children’s home, a Newport councillor has claimed.
Cllr David Fouweather believes the city council took “the wrong approach” when judging that local residents did not need to be consulted over the proposed change of use.
He alleged neighbours have experienced anti-social behaviour since the property was repurposed.
“A change from a nursing [or] residential home to a children’s home is in my opinion quite significant, as there are often different issues associated with the applications – in particular as residents are now experiencing anti-social behaviour which would have not been present at the previous use of the premises,” said Cllr Fouweather.
According to a cabinet member, the matter relates to Newport City Council granting a lawful development certificate for a property’s change of use in November 2023.
At the time, the applicant in that case said up to two children between the ages of seven and 17 would live at the property, and generally children under its guardianship may have been taken into care “for a variety of reasons, including fears for their physical wellbeing, learning disabilities or because of emotional or behavioural difficulties”.
“Typically, the reason for the children needing care is simply that they are not yet old enough to live independently or require additional support that cannot be provided within their current setting,” the applicant added.
A planning report from the time shows no consultation was applicable to the case, and the application was not advertised for locals to share their views.
Planning officers judged the proposal for a children’s home with up to two children and two adult staff members “would not represent a material change of use” from the existing property, and was therefore considered “lawful”.
But Cllr Fouweather has asked the local authority to “revisit” the policy.
In response, Cllr Saeed Adan, the cabinet member for housing and planning, defended the “open and transparent” planning process.
Cllr Adan noted the local authority’s legal minimal requirements for consultations on planning applications “where the merits of a case are for consideration”, but said lawful development certificates fell outside that scope.
He said those cases involve “a legal determination, based on fact and whether a development is permitted by legislation”, and called it “a simple yes or no situation”.
“Changing this approach and consulting residents on all applications for lawful development certificates would be disingenuous,” the cabinet member added.
“In the case referred to, residents would reasonably believe that their comments would be taken into account in determining the application, when in fact they would not have any relevance nor influence.”
