Children’s home refused near Kibworth despite officers' recommendation
A children’s home planned for what had been dubbed a “completely inappropriate location” by opponents has been refused despite being recommended for approval by officers.
Applicant Gavin Miller wanted to set up The Hardwicks Children’s Home in Hardwick Drive, Shangton, but the application was met with dozens of objections, including concerns from MP Neil O’Brien, Kibworths ward Councillor Phil King and Shangton Parish Council.
The proposed home would have been for up to five children and young people between the ages of six and 18, who required specialist support for emotional and behavioural difficulties and social, emotional and mental health needs.
Officers on Harborough District Council (HDC) had said the home would make a “meaningful contribution towards meeting an identified and significant local need for children’s residential care placements”, recommending it for approval.
However, HDC’s planning committee went against that advice and refused the scheme, claiming the home was not “suitably located” because it was isolated and “reliant on access” by car.
In addition, the authority said the building was not close to local amenities and “therefore contrary to Harborough Local Plan policies”.
The proposed location was a key theme throughout the many objections to Mr Miller’s plan, with one objector saying it would be similar to “incarcerat[ing] children in what would effectively be a prison located in, essentially, a retirement village”.
They said Hardwick Drive was “a completely inappropriate location” for the children’s home.
MP Mr O’Brien also raised concerns about issues including access and highway safety, disturbance and residential amenity, overlooking and loss of privacy, isolation, safety and suitability of location.
Under the heading “principle of development”, the MP said: “Residents are concerned about the principle of introducing an institutional use into a site that was approved and developed specifically for residential purposes. Allowing [a children’s home] in this location would risk undermining the character of the estate and setting a precedent for further non-residential uses.”
In his application, Mr Miller claimed the development represented a “low-impact, community-integrated service” providing essential care to vulnerable young people.
He added that the home would have minimal impact on the local area, and would “maintain the residential character of the property while offering an important social benefit through high-quality care provision”.
Following the plan’s rejection, Pj planning, on behalf of Mr Miller, have called on HDC to reconsider the decision. It says a rethink should happen before it submits an appeal to the government Planning Inspectorate by the end of the first week of March.