§ Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Ainger.]
9.35 pm§ Mr. Stephen O'Brien (Eddisbury)I and my constituents are pleased that through your good offices, Mr. Speaker, I have the opportunity to raise issues that are causing real concern—damage to property, the use of police time and, at times, fear of the threatening and abusive behaviour of a very small number of young teenage boys in the rural and village communities in the Eddisbury constituency.
The full title of the debate—"The Operations of the Sedgemoor Group and the planning system"—indicates why it is important and appropriate to air these matters on the Floor of the House. I have been in touch with the Minister and his office today in advance of the debate, so the right hon. Gentleman is aware of the key planning issue that arises concerning Government and his departmental responsibilities.
Let me give some background. Like many other constituencies, the Eddisbury constituency in south and mid-Cheshire is characterised by a large number of people living in rural and partially rural communities, with one large conurbation—in Eddisbury's case, Winsford. The parliamentary constituency boundary encompasses parts of three local planning authorities, which inevitably leads to disparities. Those authorities are Crewe and Nantwich borough council, Vale Royal borough council and the Chester City district council.
Although the fear of crime has escalated in rural communities in particular over recent years, the actual statistical experience of crime in those communities, from a relatively low base compared with most urban and suburban environments, does not necessarily reflect rising levels of petty crime and antisocial behaviour, as much of that goes unreported. In this context, I am glad that in Cheshire we have a welcome commitment from the chief constable to seek to increase the presence of police constables in our rural communities. Even though that is happening at a slow pace, communications between the police and those communities have been improving.
Against this background, in Eddisbury we have the operations of a private sector provider of homes and educational services for some of the most challenging, difficult, often damaged and vulnerable young people in our society, almost invariably from outside our local area. Sedgemoor College Ltd., based in Somerset, is the parent company of a group of companies that provides these facilities in Cheshire, notably in Eddisbury, and in other parts of the country. Its operations are regulated by the Commission for Social Care Inspection, which replaced the National Care Standards Commission on 1 April this year.
Sedgemoor's business is to buy or, not infrequently, to rent residential dwelling houses and place in them, say, four young people and two adult carers—in any event, no more than six people per home. The demand for this type of business has grown in response to the Government's inclusion policies and the closure and reductions in public sector-provided care homes, such as the closure, under the previous Labour/Lib Dem 126 administration at Cheshire county council, of Brook Farm school in Tarporley in the heart of my constituency. The school catered for both residential and day pupils with emotional and behavioural difficulties. Despite my and many others' long-fought campaign to keep it open, in the end we secured only a stay of execution for a year. It was a facility supported and welcomed by the Tarporley people in their community and it still, sadly, lies empty and unused.
The children with whom we are concerned are typically boys in their early to mid-teens who have been through a series of support channels and processes in or near the original family home. When local options have failed and their behaviour has not improved as a result of these earlier interventions, or where, sadly too often, their own family context is the cause in whole or part of the youngsters' behavioural problems, but where matters have not reached the point of a conviction carrying a custodial sentence or where that has been served, the boys are placed by the social services departments of the local authorities in their original home area in Sedgemoor-type care homes outside their original area, on a contract with a provider such as Sedgemoor. I am informed that that costs the local council tax payer in the original district approximately £2,000 a week, or about £100,000 to £120,000 per pupil per annum. Not surprisingly, such companies are showing successful financial returns.
Before I proceed further, I want to make it crystal clear, given the understandable sensitivity of the subject, that neither I nor anyone I represent in Eddisbury is arguing that we should not all continue to have the interests of children, however difficult and disruptive, as the highest priority. The issue is the appropriate care, security, nurturing and opportunity, including social and educational opportunity, for them. That support and provision should not, of course, be at the expense of the peace and freedom from fear of the law-abiding people in the communities where that care is provided.
Although the quality of care and supervision of those homes is an issue, it is not central to this evening's debate. But let me put it on record that it is not enough just to say that there are qualified carers in the homes. Carers must be of suitable calibre and have the personality, experience and authority that can effectively foster, guide and, yes, control those troubled youngsters in the context, as an experienced and talented social worker said to me last Friday, of a range of provision, only part of which, whatever the merits of the inclusion agenda. can be the sort of open homes that I have described. Where such homes are put into rural communities, it is incumbent on the provider, at all its levels, to generate through prior consultation and local communication licence to operate, just as every other private sector company has to do.
Some assert that revealing the names of the homes could put the children at risk. Frankly, that is unrealistic. Local communities always come to know of such homes rapidly, even where they are established without a public planning process, not least because of increased police attendance or an upsurge in local antisocial behaviour by teenage boys who are not known to anyone locally. In any event, secrecy and lack 127 of transparency and accountability raise suspicions in the local community, so they are deeply counterproductive.
Given that the law prevents such youngsters from being locked in their home, wardens can only seek to warn or follow them when they go wandering out into the local community. An inordinate amount of police time is taken up in searching for missing youngsters from the homes. About four hours is taken for every incident. Amazingly, it has been suggested to me that, because these children need care, I should not be raising these issues. If I did not do so, I would be giving in to a form of emotional blackmail and not doing my representative duty.
I believe that Sedgemoor has five current operations in my constituency. Some are residential homes and others are educational facilities that are attended daily. They are at Beeston, near Bunbury, Wrenbury, Newhall, Rushton and Audlem, which are all small rural and village communities. Sedgemoor has informed our local police that, until recently, when so much public attention started coming its way, it was seeking to expand in Cheshire, and especially in Eddisbury. Two or maybe even three applications for new facilities have now been withdrawn following local pressure. I pay tribute to Chester city councillor Neil Ritchie, to Crewe and Nantwich borough councillor Brian Dykes and to the evidence given by local people living near existing Sedgemoor facilities.
I have a burgeoning file of complaints—it is sitting here on the Bench next to me as evidence—and police reports, allegations and evidence about smashed car windows, threatening behaviour, broken house windows, road sign vandalism, damage to gardens and fences and provocative disturbances that often occur late at night and into the early hours, much of which I have passed to the local authorities, the police and the Commission for Social Care Inspection.
In all cases of applications or incidents, I have taken up the issues with the relevant authorities and the police have been concerned and attentive. That includes the personal interest of our chief constable, Peter Fahy, to whom I also pay tribute, not least when he joined me in a meeting with local representatives to discuss these issues on 23 April. Tonight's debate reflects one of the conclusions of that meeting, which was attended by 50 community representatives from across my constituency.
Naturally, I have raised my concerns with Sedgemoor directly, not least with one of its directors when they participated in a lobby of Parliament initiated by the Association of Independent Child Care providers to complain about the eightfold increase in stamp duty land tax, about who inspects the inspectors and about other matters dealt with in the Children Bill. Sedgemoor now says that it has removed one or more of the most recalcitrant children from the homes that have been affecting and blighting local communities in my constituency.
While all those things rightly raise issues as to the appropriate national policy and the most effective way of during for and rehabilitating these young people, the thrust of the issue for the Minister is the planning system 128 that applies to such homes. If an educational establishment is proposed, an application will be required, unless the building is already permitted under the C2 use class to be used in that way. If the proposal is to establish a residential home for these young people, the precedent is less helpful. The needs of the community can be addressed only providing that there is prior knowledge and scrutiny of any proposal for such a home. That is not available if specific planning permission in a public forum is not required.
The easiest way to highlight the problem is to quote the official responses that I have received from Crewe and Nantwich borough council. On 17 March, in reply to a letter from me, the chief executive, Mr. Alan Wenham, said:
The Council has recently had to deal with a number of planning applications submitted by Sedgemoor college. They have largely been applications for Certificates of Proposed Lawful Development to use an existing dwelling to house up to 6 people—normally 4 children and 2 carers. The Authority has been powerless to do anything other than grant the certificates, because the Use Classes Order accepts that where up to 6 people live together as a family (whether or not they are related), there is no change of use.The certificates have been issued in the knowledge that the occupants of some Sedgemoor College properties have caused problems in their local areas, resulting from noise, disturbance, vandalism and general anti -social behaviour. Local residents have naturally been concerned that the establishment of care homes would undermine their quality of life. However successive planning inspectors on appeal have taken the view that whilst the fear of such behaviour is a material consideration, it should not be a determining factor in making the decision.The homes work within a framework established by the National Care Standards Commission and it is understood that if there is a problem with the operation of a particular home, the Commission has the power to close it.After receiving that letter, I submitted an extensive bundle of legal precedents compiled by Councillor Ritchie, and received a further clear and helpful reply from Mr. Riddell Graham, executive director of legal services and solicitor to the council of Crewe and Nantwich borough, which encapsulates the planning problem. I shall quote relevant extracts from that letter, in which Mr. Riddell Graham restates his chief executive's comments and examines the precedents in helpful detail:
First, as of course you will appreciate, there are some situations where planning permission is not required at all. So a planning application is not needed and the grant of a permission or refusal does not arise. Two of these situations are particularly relevant to this issue. One is where a proposed new use falls within the same use class as the existing use. So, for example… if a building is used as a dwellinghouse for a family living together and someone wants to use it for up to six residents living together as a single household, then permission is not required, since both uses fall within class C (3) of the Use Classes Order 1987. A second situation where planning permission is not needed is where there is no material change of use. 'Material change' is only defined in a limited way in the planning acts although widely considered in decided appeals and cases. The governing factor is a comparison with the previous use of the land or building and this will always be a question of fact and degree— The most relevant case which Councillor Ritchie provided is the North Devon case"—? I can give the Minister the details—which illustrates these matters very well. There, the applicant, (an operator of registered children's homes) asked the planning authority for a Certificate of Lawful Development for a three bedroomed semi-detached house in a residential area used as a dwellinghouse (Class C3). The applicant wanted the Authority to 129 agree that there was no change of use because its proposal still fell within class C3, albeit a different section, namely C3 (b) i.e. a dwelling house used by 'not more than six residents living together as a single household (including a household where care is provided for residents)'. If there was not change of use class, planning permission was not required. The High Court said there was a change of use class. The judge decided that the residents, on the facts, were not living together as a single household. However, he went on to decide that, even though there was a change of class, there was no material change of use, so planning permission was not needed.Mr. Riddell Graham's long and helpful letter concludes with the following summary:
while I understand the points Councillor Ritchie is making, I take the view that the cases he mentions tend to support, rather than detract from, this Council's approach. I do not suggest that this is necessarily a satisfactory state of affairs, although it is the case that small group homes, rather than large institutions, play an important role in the Government's community care policy.Ultimately, I suppose, the acceptability of these changes depends on how well-run the homes are and whether the Use Classes Order, approved by Parliament in 1987, is still relevant in today's circumstances.That is the nub of the issue.The report of the planning officers on the application in Tilston in my constituency, which has since been withdrawn, reveals that once an area is found—in that case, by Sedgemoor—a clustering programme is often applied to enhance the geographical proximity of the operations. No doubt that is a commercial driver, but it is hardly likely to enhance community consent, not least because of the shared information that rapidly travels across any constituency.
The planning document states:
Local concerns have been raised about the location of the application site. It is not disputed that the site is within a rural area. Many local residents have expressed the view that this is unsuitable given the almost complete absence of local services and facilities, particularly relating to social outlets of the kind that are attractive to boys within the proposed occupational age range of 11–16 years. The procedure for selection of such properties is by assessment of geographical proximity to the residential units operated by Sedgemoor College in which the young people reside.The document goes on to discuss the need for particular types of education:
The pupils would originate from outside the County, but would reside within Cheshire to attend this proposed education establishment… Sedgemoor College operates over 80 residential/educational establishments nationally, very many of these being located in similar rural locations.The real issue however is the apparent intent of Sedgemoor in view of that planning position. I shall quote a letter dated 22 November 2002, from Mr. John Watts of Olorun Planning Partnership Ltd. to Mr. Jon Swift at the Sedgemoor head office. It relates to an application in another area but was used in attached papers in a submission to Crewe and Nantwich borough council concerning an application that we have reason to believe has since been withdrawn in the light of all the public focus in my constituency over recent weeks and months. The letter states:
I attach a letter dated 19 November 2002, from the Bassetlaw District Council, confirming that the use of this property as a Children's Home falls within Class C3.130This response repeats that of East Northamptonshire Council with S'Amagatai"—? the name of the house, I think—at Rushden. Hopefully, with these two responses 'under our belt' we can conclude that we have achieved what we set out to do. Removing the need for planning applications (including Certificates of Lawful Development), thus removing Sedgemoor's use of dwelling houses as children's homes from the public attention they usually attract. Perseverence does have its rewards!With the success of these two results, it is probably safe to conclude that I have now established a straightforward 'formula' by way of a relatively standard letter to planning authorities for the use of a dwelling house as a children's home (not exceeding 6 children).Please let me know if you would like me to repeat this 'formula' with future properties.I leave that on the record as apparent evidence of concern about the approach to this process and the need for transparency and prior open and public consultation to ensure that communities are encouraged to enhance their understanding and thus their approach to welcoming, we would hope, such homes into their communities. If that is not undertaken, it is likely than an initial hostility will be created from which it is almost impossible to recover, giving rise to a serious challenge not only to the children's interests, but to the whole inclusion agenda.
There is one final caveat. Where these use classes were last looked at, there was concern that if the sixth person in residence quasi-family rule was changed, that might preclude or diminish a small care home for the elderly. That is a fair concern. I call on the Minister to consider the growth of such facilities for young people, be they by applications or certificates of lawful use. Until he and the Government have had the chance to review the position, with a view, I hope, to redesigning and redefining the Use Classes Order specifically to deal with the accommodation of these young people, a condition and qualification should be made to define that by reference to an age range—say, under 20 or even lower—to ensure that the provision of small care homes for the elderly is not adversely prejudiced, given the crying need for the expansion of that provision.
I am grateful to the Minister for listening carefully to my submissions on behalf of my constituents. In looking forward to his reply, I have to say that I note with some dismay the e-mail that I received today from Councillor Brian Dykes of Bunbury, whom I had e-mailed to tell him that I had, with great gratitude, secured this debate. He says:
In reply to your e-mail all had being going well until Friday (last) 25 June when here in Bunbury problems arose again these started at around 6.30pm, with damage to motor cars and broken household windows this also happened again on Saturday and Sunday evenings, the police have been informed and have attended"—? the particular place near Bunbury, as well as a place at Rushden—to speak to the young boys concerned.It does appear that after all our problems the boys are still having freedom to roam our villages and return when they wish which appears to be after midnight and a night of trouble. With the still added problem that the staff at these homes are not showing any authority with the boys and allow them to 'come and go as and when they wish.'131 He then wishes me every success in the debate, saying:we really do need extra strong support in ensuring these homes are run correctly or, sadly closed as one may say.Will the Minister give an undertaking to consider the matter urgently and, in particular, to reflect on this aspect of planning law? That would give us an early chance to have the necessary prior consultation and to examine the appropriateness of providing care in such communities.
In considering planning law, the regulations and the guidance, I ask the Minister to consider the following specific issues: the definition of family for the use classes order of 1987: the introduction of a separate, defined use class under the order for children's care homes, with an age stipulation to avoid unintentionally affecting care homes for the elderly, and a moratorium on permitting any more such orders or, when permission is not required, on the issue of certificates of lawful use until the conclusion of the Government's reflections on this evening's debate. I hope that they will make a further determination to recast the definitions to achieve what I have suggested.
Given the arguable absence of a requirement for even the certificates, I hope that the Minister will at least consider favourably giving guidance to local planning authorities, the police and local social services departments, and advice to the Commission for Social Care Inspection, that no more such homes be established until the Minister has had a chance to reflect. That would inject the necessary engagement into the debate about the conditions and context in which such care is offered and made available to local communities.
I emphasise again that there is genuine anxiety among local people where the homes are based about the behaviour and conduct of the children and the planning requirements for opening new homes. Although we all have a deep concern and interest in ensuring that the young people are given proper care, supervision, security and the chance to be rehabilitated, it is the duty of those who run the homes and receive large sums of taxpayers' money through social services departments throughout the country to ensure that they are properly managed and that the understandable anxieties of local people are addressed.
I believe that my proposal provides a constructive way forward for the Government, elected representatives at all levels of our democracy, the people and the communities that we represent, the police, the planning officers and authorities, social services, the care home providers and, above all, the children, who are often the most scarred and vulnerable but none the less threatening in our communities.
§ The Minister for Housing and Planning (Keith Hill)I congratulate the hon. Member for Eddisbury (Mr. O'Brien) on securing the debate and providing the opportunity to discuss the Sedgemoor Group and the planning system, especially the operation of the use classes order, Class C3.
I appreciate the concerns of the hon. Gentleman's constituents about the matter. Indeed, as a constituency Member of Parliament I experienced similar issues in 132 the mid-1990s and I raised them in more than one Adjournment debate. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman agrees that it was a positive move by the Government to bring such small children's homes into a regulatory framework.
I understand that the Sedgemoor Group's business centres on providing child care, namely education and residential care, for children and young people. The group currently has an extensive range of satellite houses, each accommodating between two and four young people of the same sex. The satellite staff teams are managed and supported directly by qualified senior care managers.
It goes without saying that our children and young people deserve the best possible start in life. They need a caring and nurturing environment that helps them to value themselves and their community. I hope that that will be provided in caring and loving homes. Unfortunately, some children and young people have complex needs that families are unable to provide. Some need to be looked after because of family breakdown and others need to be looked after for their own safety. We as a society need to help those children and young people. The Sedgemoor Group looks after some of them.
Given the nature of the group's operations, especially its close involvement with young people with various forms of difficulties and complex needs, there is a possibility of problems arising in the integration of children and young people in the local community. That has evidently occurred in the hon. Gentleman's constituency. That is clearly regrettable and creates the need to seek solutions to the problems. However, before I consider planning issues, I want to refer to other possible recourses in dealing with those problems.
The Commission for Social Care Inspection is responsible for registering and regulating residential care providers, including children's homes. The commission issues the certificate of registration and, as part of that process, homes are inspected at least twice a year with one announced and another unscheduled visit. If local people are worried about the operations of the homes, they should contact the Commission for Social Care Inspection, which is required to examine the issues raised. However, it is obvious that the police also have an important role to play and they should be contacted if residents have concerns about the homes and the behaviour of the youths who are resident in them.
It must be clear to everyone that swift and effective action will be taken against unacceptable behaviour, and that rowdy and nuisance behaviour must be stopped immediately. One way of doing that might be to agree an acceptable behaviour contract. That is a voluntary agreement designed to engage an individual in acknowledging his or her antisocial behaviour and its effect on others, with the aim of stopping that behaviour.
It being Ten o'clock the motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Vernon Coaker.]
§ Keith HillWe also introduced antisocial behaviour orders in 1999, and have recently legislated to improve their effectiveness in the light of the experience of their 133 operation. ASBOs are civil orders, similar to injunctions. They prohibit individuals from specific antisocial actions and are available for any person aged 10 or over who has acted in an antisocial manner likely to cause harassment, alarm or distress and who is likely to do so again. The local community can contact their antisocial behaviour co-ordinator, who is best placed to give advice on their particular situation and offer possible solutions. Indeed, if there is poor management and bad behaviour, the solutions for these problems seem more likely to be found via the inspectorate and the police than the planning system. Nevertheless, the hon. Gentleman has made it clear that there is a view in some quarters that part, if not all, of the solution to the problems experienced in Eddisbury might be found within the planning system.
The planning system is designed to regulate the development and use of land in the public interest. It is used to direct development to appropriate locations, to ensure that society has the right buildings and infrastructure in the right place at the right time to enable it to function in the interests of all its members. Development control procedures mean that before carrying out some forms of development, including changes of use, planning permission should first be obtained. Such intervention in the development process by the responsible local planning authority is justified on the ground that it is in the public interest.
However, in any one year there are likely to be many hundreds of thousands of developments and changes in the use of properties. Therefore, in order to simplify the process, to reduce bureaucracy, and to make the planning system work effectively, certain powers exist to allow the general requirement for planning permission to be modified. Among these provisions is the use classes order. This works by setting out groups of similar activities, the use classes, and making it clear that changes between different activities within the same group do not require planning permission. This is because development is deemed not to take place.
This deregulation is increased by the general permitted development order, which also removes the need for planning permission for certain changes between activities in different groups or use classes. I might mention at this point that, despite the various deregulation procedures in place to help to reduce the burden, the number of planning applications made to local planning authorities remains high. In the last year, some 674,000 applications were submitted, compared with 634,000 the year before. In other words, without these general permissions and elements of deregulation, the local planning authorities would simply be swamped.
The hon. Gentleman's specific concern is with the operation of the use classes order, particularly class C3. I shall quote from that use class—I dare say that the hon. Gentleman has used the same quotation himself, but I am sure that he will bear with me—which allows:
Use as a dwellinghouse (whether or not as a sole or main residence)—?by a single person or by people living together as a family; orby not more than 6 residents living together as a single household (including a household where care is provided for residents).134 In simple terms, when a dwelling is occupied by a traditional family but is in future to be occupied by no more than six sharing the dwelling, such a household would normally fall within class C3 and planning permission would not be required.This part of the use classes order has remained unchanged since the order was put in place in its present form in 1987. In 2001, we commissioned Baker Associates to carry out a review of the use classes order and aspects of permitted development. On class C3, the review concluded that no change should be made to this part of the order. I announced this conclusion to the House on 27 November 2003, and I can restate that clear position today.
I am certain that this will disappoint the hon. Gentleman, but it is important that we do not overburden the local planning authority with unnecessary bureaucracy. I might also say to him that I shall continue to reflect on the points he has made; that is the purpose of such debates as this. Nevertheless, there would need to be compelling and universal reasons for change.
That said, it is for the local authority to determine case by case to which category a particular premises belongs. Accordingly, if in the view of a local authority there was a material change in strict land use terms—that is, movements of traffic, noise, security arrangements and so on—in the use of a particular dwelling house to the extent that it could be classified no longer as C3 but as C2, the local authority can so determine. However, I need to point out that such decisions can be subject to later challenge in the courts.
I might also add that the one area where a local authority could intervene is under article 4 of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995. This provides the means by which a local planning authority can issue a direction to control development that would normally go ahead without planning permission. Although, in most cases, article 4 directions require the consent of the Secretary of State before they come into effect, in this case they can come into effect immediately they are served by the council. However, they cannot be imposed where the works have already been completed.
Moreover, local authorities are advised in appendix D of Environment Circular 9/95 entitled "General Development Order Consolidation 1995", that it will rarely be justifiable to withdraw permitted development rights unless there is a real and specific threat to an interest of acknowledged public importance, necessitating tighter planning control in the public interest.
So, I have to advise the hon. Gentleman that he is probably wisest to continue the work he has clearly already undertaken with his local communities, the Sedgemoor Group, the police, the Commission for Social Care Inspection and the local antisocial behaviour co-ordinator to find a different solution. These are primarily management and behaviour issues. Imposing solutions through the planning system seems inappropriate.
§ Question put and agreed to.
§ Adjourned accordingly at seven minutes past Ten o'clock.