Summary Pt 2
Council Outsourcing
Please feel free to use any of the content of this website on your planning objection. (You may wish to quote extracts to obtain written assurances that some of the issues do not happen to you)
The closure of Local Council care homes, nursing homes and residential homes (I will collectively refer to as ‘care homes‘) has led to councils ‘outsourcing’ gaps created by these closures with privately run care homes. These care homes are being developed in the middle of owner/occupier streets and roads. The ageing population and ‘care in the community’ have led to financially lucrative opportunities, aided by changes in planning laws.
Statements about property prices not being affected and about wanting to minimise the impact locally are used to gain planning permission and are in my opinion, completely erroneous. Council assurances about there being no ‘conflict of interest‘ or overlap between granting planning permission and council funding of care homes are equally questionable. In my case I will outline how the Council, Council planning committee and local County Councillor appear to have been (at best) ‘misled’ with assurances that residents’ privacy will not be affected and about probable care home redundancies. Assurances given about rear doors accessing this cul-de-sac have been forgotten, and repeated (unsettling) planning applications are being made. The Council have unacceptably, after granting permission, increased their funded residents from seven to nine at the care home. This is over a quarter of the total number of occupants at the care home (there may be even more).
Some care homes know their presence is being imposed and an apparent acceptance of this is found in a similar application when the care provider states, in relation to objections made ‘… many of which we see, in various guises with almost every C2 application we make.’ This indicates that the organisation knows that their presence is not welcomed.
I will outline how, with ease, the Council are able to make highly important decisions about your biggest ever single investment, and in making it, only take into account a very narrow field of objections. They would then appear able to abdicate all authority if you allow this to happen.
Please see Section titled ‘Current Planning/Use of Emergency Doors’ for a full ‘timeline’ relating to undertakings prior to planning permission being granted and the disregard of assurances.
This is more of a practical guide to issues you may experience. Technical advice on issues such as legislation and procedures can be found on the ‘objecting to planning permission’ websites of Ruth Allen and Martin Goodall. Additionally, a Wiltshire resident researching how to oppose a planning permission in the County kindly emailed telling me of a charitable organisation called Planning Aid. They offer impartial general planning advice and have a website – http://www.rtpi.org.uk/planning-aid/ or you can email them via http://www.advice@planningaid.rtpi.org.uk. The Wiltshire resident added that there is not a national Government department offering general planning advice.
You will note on the verbatim statements of the majority of parties involved in the planning process that they are happy to freely express their opinion about issues (perhaps they are used to them going unchallenged). Few are supported with evidence, law or case law.
Due to the requirements of the Care Standards Act 2000 the care home lost 7 of its places around 2009 because the ‘doubling-up’ of residents was no longer allowed. During a failed attempt to obtain planning permission, the care home’s planning agent stated that to achieve the necessary effect it required significant change to the aesthetic appearance of the building. This was to convert the attic of the building using dormer windows and was refused. This may give some indication of the home owner’s determination to develop his care home regardless of resident’s wishes.
Reason for Site
The main reasons for creating this website are to prevent any fourth planning application succeeding (from 2013). The third application was made on 29th January, 2016 and initially the Parish Council and (effectively) the Conservative County Councillor, in conjunction with Wiltshire Council would have granted the application.
The Councillor’s opinion was that my current and future concerns were unfounded. Following representations or having made enquiry, she changed stance and recommended stringent planning conditions (a Construction Method statement) From 2013 to 2015 when Wiltshire Council were repeatedly asked by myself, why no restrictions had been made on planning conditions, hours which could be worked, deliveries etc, they indicated no Construction Method statement had been issued on the 2013 granting of permission because the development was not large enough or sensitive enough to warrant this. By 2016 the ‘modest change‘ or similarly sized to a ‘household extension’ was also deemed too small for a Construction Method statement but a restriction on hours which could be worked was given. Why was this not granted in 2013?
It is also proposed to highlight to others how the ageing population, Council outsourcing and reduced budgets have led to greater numbers of residents in care and nursing homes and could put you in the same position as myself and others. It may be said that this was a legitimate legal process or accuse me of ‘Nimbyism.’ I will allow you to make your own decision about this and the approach of Wiltshire Council and Purton Council.
Also worthy of note is that planning permission was initially granted, as far as Willowbrook residents, the Adult Care Department of Wiltshire Council and the Planning Committee itself for 5 bedrooms for ‘older people.’ There had never been any mention of a home for residents with disorders such as obesity or autism.
I would also like to give ideas of how identified problems and issues (impacting on myself and other residents) may be of use to you, for example to help prevent permission being granted or to impose restrictions. A solicitor will look for £2,000 in advance to take your case. If you do not believe there is an issue, please carry out a search on the internet, Swindon Borough Council or Wiltshire Council’s planning websites using the search words ‘Care Homes’ ‘Nursing Homes ‘and ‘Residential Homes.’
Care Home
Having applied and been granted planning permission in 1988 without the knowledge of at least some residents, it is ironic that the owner of the care home made his own planning objections to Willowbrook being developed in 1985. He referred to proposals to be a ‘considerable nuisance’ to him and his residents and went on to refer to the inconvenience in relation to his privacy, noise levels, light and over-development.
(Viable alternatives in the village were suggested to him so that the self-same problems would not be experienced by Willowbrook residents)
As stated, 8 planning applications were made 1992 and 2009. The care home’s Planning Agent indicated in 2009 that the by then 27 (28 later that year)- bed nursing home had ‘been extended and altered, much over the years‘ and was no longer financially viable. The application was essential for the care home’s future. That a minimum of 30 beds were needed to make it financially viable and added that there was not sufficient space (without an attic extension) the car park already being ‘cramped.’ (The dormer windows would have affected other neighbours – see objections of Dr Beere, Ms Rudd and Ms Wilson) He added that 75 full and part-time staff were employed and there would be no increase in staff. In fact by 2013 despite permission having been refused, this had risen to 80. A resident appeared sceptical and asked about numbers of staff living locally and the number employed on the site itself. (The care home has other businesses).
In November 2009 the care home had 22 single occupancy rooms and 6 shared rooms which had to be phased out. (in March of that year the number was 27) A room was ‘lost’ during building work. It appears that 5 rooms were subject of the 2013 application but 6 built. One/two further rooms (having regard to the current application) will have been created.
Another issue worthy of note is, on the Planning Agent’s 2013 application he speaks of a 20% reduction of staff if planning permission was not granted. In the next chapter I will make the argument that only one place would have been lost (ie still over the 30 ‘break-even’ mark) had 8 and 9 Willowbrook been developed and had the Planning Committee been given the full facts.
The 2009 application was refused because, ‘The alterations…by reason of their appearance, size and bulk would be an incongruous addition…visually out of keeping with the character and appearance of the existing property and streetscene….by reason of the height, siting and close proximity to neighbouring properties.’ The dormer windows would have an ‘overbearing and detrimental impact on residential amenities of the adjoining occupiers.’ As such the proposal was considered contrary to he north Wiltshire Local Plan.
(The unknown author of the 2016 planning recommendation appears to believe it was ‘permitted’) There were also parking issues (see Care Home Owner and Builders)
Shortly thereafter 8 Willowbrook was purchased for £204,000 from those representing a retired Police Inspector who was in a nursing home in a vegetative state following a series of seizures. It came as a complete surprise when I learned the premises had been for sale and I had been speaking (and weed killing the overgrown garden) to an individual apparently authorising the sale. 8 Willowbrook continued to lie derelict until an ‘intervening act’ brought about the purchase and development of 9 Willowbrook.
As stated, the original application for 5 bedrooms and a similar number of utility rooms was later to become 6 bedrooms and ‘bariatric rooms, cinema room, new hairdresser, 24 hour café and ‘new state of the art’ bathroom.’ One potential autistic resident’s relatives were negotiating a place in the care home for him. The home’s use for obese residents and the additional accommodation was first heard of when the care home owner was interviewed by a local newspaper. He also said that his was the only home locally, designed and equipped with specialist equipment for bariatric patients.
The Council’s mantras ‘would have been granted in any case’ and “the exact number of rooms to be constructed is not in and of itself material to the determination of this application,” wear thin. This same mantra was used to account for why, when the matter went before the Planning Committee, it appears that permission was granted to a care home for ‘older’ people (not with other disorders) when a department within the council did not oppose the application. They also stated that there was no requirement for additional care home places in Purton but supported the application on the basis that current levels should be maintained.
Despite Wiltshire Council being requested by residents to inform them if a planning application (which was required) to demolish the garage of 9 Willowbrook was lodged, the demolition went ahead without permission early on a Saturday morning. The Local County Councillor then wrote to say that the (1986) garage had been ‘unsafe,’ hence the demolition. She further stated it would be rebuilt. The Councillor later told me there had been a change of plan. This garage would have been a welcome noise and debris barrier and would break up the view of the current care home. We then have yet another example of the Council’s ‘premature adjudication‘ (and variation on the mantra ‘would have been granted in any case) The Enforcement Officer recently stated that in respect of this demolition, that the officer was of the ‘opinion,’ that had an application been submitted to demolish the garage, it would likely have been approved.’
Footnote:- The Care Quality Commission appear to visit care homes every two years (sometimes more often) Their report may assist(on the internet).
Wiltshire Council and Human Rights
I pointed out several times to Wiltshire Council that with the strength of feeling of residents and numerous issues encountered that it would be indefensible and ‘morally and ethically‘ wrong for them to fund any further residents in addition to the seven they funded in October 2014. When I asked repeatedly for the current numbers (whether the controversial extension was being Council funded) I got a non-committal reply that it depended on how the person was classified.
Eventually I was given figures for a date of 21st January, 2016 figures for a month before their reply. An additional two persons (nine) are being funded. This and the arrival of a patient since the date with his/her apparent worldly possessions in carrier bags make me sceptical.
The Council have refused to confirm whether 9 Willowbrook (which had been advertised with local estate agents at a rental of £960 per month) is council funded.
There has been a policy brought about by Government cuts for Local Authorities to close their care and nursing homes and outsource them to the private sector. One such group is 85% Public Sector funded. In this case the Council maintain there is no ‘conflict of interest’ in them both granting planning permission and having council-funded residents at the care home. (I will later argue there should be safeguards) The events involving the rear doors of the care home , the care home making another planning application and additional council funded residents are issues which impact on Willowbrook resident and their private lives and clearly do mean that ‘planning‘ and ‘care‘ issues are intrinsically linked.
Wiltshire Council owes me a duty of care under the European Convention of Human Rights (ECHR) as a public body. The care home owner does not owe me any such duty but indirectly, if the owner’s actions are affecting resident’s right to a private life and the right to peaceful enjoyment of all their possessions (which includes the home and other land), surely the Council should be held to account. The care home owner’s apparent intention seems to be to extend his care home; having little regard to resident’s wishes and should issues again arise, the question should be raised whether the nine council funded residents should be so funded. Wiltshire Council minimise the impact by referring to the development like it was a porch or conservatory being built by saying the development was a, ‘relatively limited extension of an existing development within an established residential area is the type of development that takes place throughout the country on a daily basis.’
Four Willowbrook residents would tell you, that in their opinion, the Planning Committee meeting could be likened to a hurried Kangaroo Court. To add insult to injury the Planning Committee failed to impose conditions on hours and days on which builders could work and failed to place restrictions on collections and use of the rear doors. Even conditions acknowledged and suggested by the nursing/care home’s own Planning Agent were not granted by the planning meeting.
During construction of the annexe, several vehicles were parked in the street consecutively for seven weekends. Workmen have attended from before 7am and until after 8pm. Two residents have been verbally abused by sub-contractors to the site carrying out work at irregular hours when asked why work needed to be carried out in mid evening.
Two of the three widows living near the building site, remonstrated about driveways being obstructed. When one widow did, someone concerned in the management of the care home left her shocked and in tears after she confronted builders about parking.
I use the phrase ‘lack of transparency‘ several times on this website. I do not understand the relationship between the Planning Department and Planning agents but am suspicious about familiarity when I read phrases such as ‘Supportive commentary‘ (used on the same date as the application stating there had been no pre-application advice given) and ‘A favourable response was received at the end of November 2008′ I then see that the Highways Department raise no objection when it was obvious to the Parish Council clerk there are parking issues (and a tragic event locally makes heavier restrictions more likely)
The issue of only sending Planning notification letters to two addresses either side of the premises planning permission is being applied for and the failure to post planning notices in 1988 and in 2013 in Willowbrook is dealt with in the section ‘Wiltshire Council Complaints Department.‘
Restrictive Covenants
In addition, a Restrictive Covenant stipulating that 8 Willowbrook should be used as a dwelling has been breached and the breach ‘abetted’ by Wiltshire Council. Four original occupants have the case that they should be given greater protection from breaches because they entered into the original ‘contract agreement.’ Of the four, three are widows who would not be able to fund actions for damages or an injunction.
The County Councillor, speaking on behalf of the care home, stated that it was proposed to use 9 Willowbrook ‘to provide accommodation for disabled residents (potentially up to 2) to be able to enjoy independent living with provision of 24/7 carer within the bungalow.’ I totally disagreed with the Councillor’s assertion that the bungalow was ‘completely separate from the Nursing Home’ saying that this should have been taken account of at the Planning committee and there was a link. This appears to have been put ‘on hold’ for the present