Children’s home for youngsters aged 11-17 rejected following resident’s safeguarding concerns

Applicants had hoped to convert the property, on Broom Road, to a children’s residential care home for a maximum of two children aged 11-17, but the plans were rejected at today’s (November 21) meeting of Rotherham Metropolitan Borough Council’s planning board.

Proposals included two members of staff on shift, and the applicant, Homes 4 Young People, said that the young people’s needs may include emotional, behavioural and potentially learning disabilities.

A total of 14 objections were raised by local residents and Councillor Taiba Yasseen. Concerns raised include potential crime increase, loss of privacy, unsuitability of the house for a children’s home, impact on property values, and strain on local services.

Issues with parking, safety, and infrastructure were also raised.

Mr Ali spoke in favour of the plans at today’s planning meeting, telling the meeting that 55 per cent of looked-after children from Rotherham live outside the borough because of insufficient provision.

He argued that the property would resemble a traditional family home.

However, neighbour Richard Green objected to the plans, urging the board to reject the application.

Mr Green told the meeting: “Would you like to share your bedroom wall with that of a residential care home? Children and teenagers banging on the bedroom door at any hours of the day or night, vulnerable children on constant rotation or not knowing who could be talking over the fence or worse, grooming your infant daughter.

“If approved, what faith would families have in the decision-making process of the council, which has worked really hard to rebuild its reputation after the CSE (child sexual exploitation) scandal?”

Another objector, Ms Moran, added: “These children are damaged by life and need proper guidance and support.

“This to me is the landlord trying to make a quick buck. Think of the summer months when she [my granddaughter] will be playing in the garden. God knows what she will see and hear, things that a one-year-old should not be witnessing.”

Councillor Joanna Baker-Rogers called for ‘compassion’ when making the decision.

Coun Baker Rogers told the meeting: “These children will be supervised 24 hours a day. I know very few parents that supervise their teenage children 24 hours a day.

“You could very easily have someone move in with two or three, or even four teenage children.

“These are our most vulnerable children. I feel that the voice of compassion needs to be heard, and I really don’t feel I could vote against this planning application.”

Cllr Angham Ahmed raised concerns over the suitability of the home, adding that the staff comings and goings would be different to a family home.

Cllr Paul Thorp said he didn’t feel that the property was ‘appropriate’, and proposed to refuse the application, on the grounds of noise mitigation, which were accepted via a vote, going against council officer’s recommendations to approve the plans.

Cllr David Fisher added that “We know a family could move in, and we know that a relationship could be built with that family....when it’s a home. Unfortunately, that relationship isn’t built with the children and residents because it’s not a home, it’s a business. The noise that some of the children can make and the damage they can make in the buildings and the walls, it’s substantial enough to have a concern about taking away privacy from residents.

A planning report argued that the children in the home would be supervised 24/7, which would minimise impact on neighbours, and the home would be ‘akin to a “traditional” residential dwelling’

Chair of the planning board, councillor John Williams, urged ‘caution against making stereotypes and assumptions of what these children may or may not be’.