Children’s home approved despite anti-social behaviour concerns

About 40 members of the public turned out to hear Slough council’s decision on a proposed new children’s home in Meyers Close – which fetched a raft of objections from neighbours.

The small home for just four young people between the ages of four and 17 would utilise a regular family house.

As such, there would be no changes to the building or its two parking spaces.

Slough Children First, which runs the council’s children’s services, said that 17 out of the 18 children in care are placed outside of Slough because of a lack of housing for them there.

As such, council planning officers believed that this application should be approved, to help these children stay local to their community.

Children from Slough would be prioritised for housing in the new home.

Katie Turvey, planning agent for the applicant, Cohen Care, explained that this style of home is designed to mimic that of a family rather than an ‘institution’, with care staff acting ‘like substitute parents.’

There will be few visitors, she said, and as such, little strain on parking.

However, there has been a hefty amount of opposition to the plan; far more than is usual for an application of this type.

About 40 people showed up to the planning committee meeting on Wednesday evening – nearly all of whom left once this application was decided.

Neighbours say there has been a ‘pattern’ of anti-social behaviour at this address, and they were worried it would resurface.

They did not agree with officers (who say that each application ‘must be judged on its own merits’) that this unfortunate past was ‘irrelevant’.

Ward councillor Cllr Gurcharan Manku (Con, Langley St Mary’s), said planning officers had neglected to acknowledge the ‘seriousness and intensity’ of these objections.

But Daniel Terry, planning consultant at Slough council, was concerned that the objections may be reflecting a stigma against children in care – ‘an assumption that they’re troubled.’

“I think we should be very clear why we think there will be harm that would come about as a result of this,” he said.

In his view, no more harm was likely as a result of this being a children’s home rather than a regular family home.

Panel member Cllr Pavitar Kaur Mann (Lab and Co-op, Britwell) echoed these concerns and said that assumptions about the children’s behaviour would not be factoring into her consideration.

Other councillors questioned whether this property and its garden would be sufficient for the children, some of whom may have complex needs.

Officers replied to say that, ultimately, it will be Ofsted that decides if Cohen Care’s provision is acceptable as a children’s home, and it will be ‘very strictly regulated’ by them.

The last key point was regarding a covenant which neighbours feel legally protects the house from this conversion.

But when committee members asked about it, they were told repeatedly by officers that this was ‘not a planning matter’.

They were told they should ‘disregard it’ completely and councillors ‘should not be discussing it’ at all.

Ultimately, councillors majority-voted in favour of approving the home.