PAPER C4

Purpose : For Decision

Committee : DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE

Date : 25 JUNE 2002

Title : CHRISTIAN RESPITE CENTRE, CARTER STREET, SANDOWN

REPORT OF THE STRATEGIC DIRECTOR OF CORPORATE AND ENVIRONMENT SERVICES

Continued use of short-term accommodation for homeless/vulnerable persons, Christian Respite Centre, 35 Carter Street, Sandown

SUMMARY

To review the determination of the above-mentioned planning application and confirm whether or not the issue of human rights was correctly addressed to a satisfactory degree so that both the decision to refuse planning permission and any subsequent enforcement action could be satisfactorily defended if there were to be any kind of (legal) challenge.

BACKGROUND

At the meeting on 27 November 2001 Members considered a planning application for the continued use as short-term accommodation for homeless/vulnerable persons. After consideration, in accordance with the recommendation Members resolved to refuse permission for the following reasons:

1. The continued use of the property as a house in multiple occupation would result in the permanent loss of a significant number of hotel bedrooms for holiday accommodation and its use for such a purpose would be contrary to Policy T5 of the IW Unitary Development Plan which seeks to maintain adequate levels of such accommodation, especially in primary tourist resorts.

2. The continued use of the premises as a house in multiple occupation would result in an over-intensive form of residential use in compatible with the surrounding area to the detriment of the character of the locality and amenities of adjoining residential properties and would be contrary to Policy H11 of the IW Unitary Development Plan.

On the basis that this was a retrospective application, a further recommendation authorised the service of an Enforcement Notice requiring the cessation of the use of the premises with a compliance period of twelve months.

The decision notice was issued and the Planning Solicitor requested to prepare an Enforcement Notice.

On 17 January 2002 a letter from Scott Community Limited regarding the Christian Respite Centre was addressed to all elected Members of the Isle of Wight Council and sent to the Council.

A public question was raised at the Development Control Committee on Friday 18 January 2002 by the resident=s Committee Secretary and this was answered by the Chairman and followed up with a written reply.

On 8 February 2002 a letter was received from the manager of the Christian Respite Centre referring to the written response to the public question believing that a slight change of wording is making a significant difference to them as a housing provider and making the following points:

_ Have no intention of closing.

_ Existing purely on Housing Benefit and the costs involved in relocation would be substantial.

_ Requesting assistance, firstly finding a suitable building for our purposes, one that can house at least twenty residents and five live-in staff.

_ Investigating St Lawrence Nursing Home which on the surface appears to be ideally suited.

_ Currently purchasing 35 Carter Street and will in a few years be in a position to secure substantial deposit for the purchase of St Lawrence.

_ Actual moving would be very costly in terms of funding and emotional disruption to residents.

_ Ask you regard this situation with some sympathy in an amicable manner rather than from position of opposition.

The Planning Solicitor received a letter towards the end of February 2002. That letter makes the following points in support of the existing facility remaining where it is:

_ Number of similar facilities in the area and their impact on tourism.

_ The centre has a firm policy on outlawing drugs on the premises and how clients are managed.

_ Requests that Council Members ask themselves where a centre like this is supposed to go.

_ It is closes, asks what will happen to their clients.

_ That on the Island, little chance of finding anywhere very far from residential or tourist facilities.

_ Asking to address the Development Control Committee.

Human Rights Implications

Although the Planning Committee extended the time period for compliance with the Enforcement Notice from three months to twelve months in recognition of the circumstances of the applicant, the Council=s Solicitor has expressed a concern that given the specific nature of the application, the issue of human rights was not referred to more explicitly in the report. As Members will be aware, since October 2000 when the Human Rights Act came into force decisions by Local Planning Authorities must take into account the implications of human rights.

Insofar as the Human Rights of the applicant is concerned I believe that there are issues firstly under Article 8 which is the Right to Respect for Private and Family Life which contains the following two criteria:

_ Everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life, his home and his correspondence.

_ There shall be no interference by a public authority with the exercise of this right except such as in accordance with the law and is necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security, public safety, for the economic well being of the country, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.

I also consider that the First Protocol Article 1 Protection of Property applies as this states:

AEvery natural or legal person is entitled to the peaceful enjoyment of his possessions. No-one shall be deprived of his possessions except in the public interest and subject to the conditions provided for by law and by the general principles of international law. The proceeding

provisions shall not, however, in any way impair the right of a state to enforce such laws as it deems necessary to control the use of property in accordance with the general interest or to secure the payment of taxes or other contributions or penalties.@

It is recognised within the new regulations that these rights are not absolute but may be restricted or limited in certain circumstances. The concept of proportionality is important and does introduce a limitation on a person=s rights, if there are clear wider community interests.

The information submitted with the application together with the additional letters received since the original determination in November 2001 have been considered. The matter has also been raised with the Head of Housing who has provided me with the following background information:

_ Council itself receives in excess of 200 enquires a year from single and homeless people. Only seventy or so eligible for statutory assistance, rest having to find their own accommodation. None likely to have access to rent in advance or deposits to enable them to assess the normal private rented sector.

_ Up to ten homeless people sleep rough on the Island at any one time and up to seventy are known to be occasionally rough sleepers. Council grants Housing Advice Centre ,1,000 a year to fund a private sector deposit scheme to enable most of the young single people to access private sector. This rarely sufficient to meet demand.

_ Over 400 single people are registered on the Housing Register as having a housing need.

_ The above figures show there are enough single people on the Island who are either homeless or in severe housing difficulties for there to be no doubt that there will always be a need for some form of hostel accommodation for single homeless people regardless of whether it is provided by the CRC or anyone else. Whether or not the existing CRC should be allowed to continue is not for me to say, but I would make the following observations:

_ When the Homeless Act 2002 comes into operation later this year, all Local Authorities will have twelve months to produce a homeless strategy which will have to include their strategy for dealing with all homeless, not just those for whom they have a statutory duty and their commitment to private sector partnership and provision. We will have difficulty with this if the only private sector provision is closing no matter what the justification.

_ I have no doubt at all that most of the current residents would be at severe risk at becoming street homeless/rough sleepers if the CRC closes. Some might be eligible for statutory assistance, but this would have to be in B & B at Council expense. The CRC receives no housing subsidy or assistance from the Council.

_ If the CRC closes, it will have to be replaced. Any new reprovision would have to be through a Housing Association funded by way of the Council=s capital allocation. Notwithstanding the financial implications, there would inevitably be a gap in provision because of the timescales involved. Any replacement would have to go somewhere.

_ Whilst I cannot speak for any other departments, I can confirm that this department (Housing) has never received any complaints about the CRC.

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

None.

OPTIONS

1. To reaffirm the earlier decisions to both refuse planning permission and serve an Enforcement Notice.

2. In the light of the additional information outlined in this report, to take the following action:

(a) Invite a further application (without prejudice to the final decision) to be submitted within 28 days.

(b) To defer the issuing of any Enforcement Notice until the new application is determined.

CONCLUSIONS

Members will recall that in November 2001 they refused planning permission and authorised enforcement action against the continued use of a former hotel by the Christian Respite Centre. Whilst the Enforcement Notice has been drafted a concern has arisen that the issue of human rights may not have been explicitly considered and so both or either decision could be open to a legal challenge. Consequently the matter has been reviewed and a decision to maintain the original recommendations is supported.

In coming to this recommendation to continue with enforcement action against the Christian Respite Centre, consideration has been given to the right set out in Article 8 (Right to Privacy) and Article 1 of the First Protocol (Right to Peaceful Enjoyment of Possessions) of the European Convention on Human Rights. Whilst it is accepted that this recommendation to commence enforcement action may interfere with the rights and freedoms of the applicant and the residents within the property, this has to be balanced with the equal rights and freedoms of the wider community as expressed in the Unitary Development Plan and in the third party representations. The policy objections placed in respect of the continued use of the property go to the heart of the UDP and it is not considered that the current use can remain even by imposition of conditions. It is also considered that enforcement action is proportional to the legitimate aim and in the public interest.

RECOMMENDATIONS

To reaffirm the earlier decisions to both refuse planning permission and erve an Enforcement Notice

Contact Name : S Cornwall tel 4556

M J A FISHER

Strategic Director

Corporate and Environment Services