PL/26/0632

I walk Kendrick Road most days and only became aware of this application when I noticed a site notice on the lamppost on 19 July. I have since read the application documents and the council's file in full. I object on the following grounds: Loss of housing. The applicant's own form records a net loss of one residential unit. Policy H7 of the adopted Local Plan states that planning permission will not be granted for a net loss in the number of residential units unless exceptional circumstances are shown. None are demonstrated in this application. Parking. The council's own Highways Advisor, in his response of 3 July, found that the application provides 3 parking spaces against the 6 required for the declared staffing level. He noted that cycle storage, refuse storage, and staff shift patterns were all missing despite being requested. I have driven this road for fifteen years. The traffic-calming pinch points already queue at rush hour and during school runs. Adding a 24-hour shift operation with a 50% parking shortfall will make a bad situation worse. Defective consultation. I understand from an objection already on the public register that the site notice originally displayed at the property named Richfield Avenue, not Kendrick Road. I also note that no neighbour notification letters were sent. The application has been live since 27 May, yet residents on this road had no proper notice of it for nearly the entire consultation period. If the council's statutory publicity duty under Article 15 of the Development Management Procedure Order has not been met, any permission granted would be vulnerable to challenge. I ask that the consultation be re-run or extended before any decision is taken. Scale of operation. Five full-time and two part-time staff on rotating 24-hour shifts, with visiting professionals and agencies, at a three-bedroom, one-bathroom semi-detached house is not comparable to a family dwelling, as the planning statement claims. No family home on this road operates with six staff in rotation around the clock. I request that this application is refused. If it is not refused, I request that no decision is taken until the consultation has been lawfully re-run and the outstanding information has been supplied, and that it is then determined by the Planning Applications Committee in public, not under delegated powers. Please confirm receipt of this objection.

I am writing to object to planning application PL/26/0632, the change of use of 120 Kendrick Road from a family home (Class C3) to a 24-hour staffed children's care home (Class C2). I object on the following grounds, all of which are drawn from documents on the council's own file. 1. No lawful consultation has taken place. The statutory publicity failed by both routes available under Article 15 of the Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (England) Order 2015: the site notice first displayed at the property named the wrong road entirely (Richfield Avenue), no correct notice was displayed for the required period before the close of consultation, and no neighbour notification letters were served in the alternative. I first became aware of the application on [DATE YOU FIRST SAW THE CORRECT NOTICE]. The application was validated on 27 May, yet nearly the entire consultation period ran with this street unaware of it. A defective consultation of this kind is established grounds for judicial review of any permission granted. I ask that the consultation be formally re-run or extended before any decision is taken. 2. Conflict with Policy H7. The application conflicts directly with the council's own Policy H7 (Protecting the Existing Housing Stock), which states that permission "will not be granted for a net loss in the number of residential units or gross floor area" unless there are exceptional circumstances. The applicant's own form declares exactly such a loss - a net loss of one residential unit - and no exceptional circumstances have been demonstrated. 3. The application is incomplete and should not be determined. The council's own Highways Advisor, in the response of 3 July, recorded that information "must be addressed" - specifically staff shift patterns, cycle storage and refuse storage - and this remains outstanding. No Environmental Health response appears on the public file for a proposed 24-hour operation. An application this incomplete should not be decided. 4. Parking below the council's own standard. Applying the Revised Parking Standards and Reading Design SPD (Zone 2), which implements Policy TR5, the Highways Advisor found that 6 parking spaces are required against the 3 provided - "below the required standards." The on-street bays the applicant relies on are time-restricted and revert to permit holders after 5.30pm, and the home's occupants would be barred from residents' permits by condition, so the shortfall cannot be made up on the street. The applicant's own documents give three different parking figures - 4 on the Application Form, 3 on the Parking Plan, 5 in the Planning Support Statement. 5. Harm to residential amenity. Six staff on 24-hour rotating shifts, plus visiting professionals and agencies, at a three-bedroom, one-bathroom semi-detached house represents an intensification of use that harms the residential amenity of neighbouring homes, engaging Policy CC8, and does not match the applicant's claim of activity "comparable to a large family dwelling." Kendrick Road already suffers congestion at its traffic-calming pinch points at rush hour and school-run times, and parking outside my own home is frequently impossible. 6. A pattern of a deficient application. The application was ruled invalid on 22 May for missing basic plans, and its own paperwork remains internally inconsistent (the three parking figures above; the site area stated as both 350 sqm and "under 25 sqm"). For these reasons I object and request that the application is REFUSED. If it is not refused, I request that no decision is taken until the consultation has been lawfully re-run and the outstanding information supplied, and that it is then determined by the Planning Applications Committee in public, not under delegated powers. I have taken advice on the lawfulness of this consultation, and residents here take these issues seriously.

This application should be declined. The business model doesn't represent value for money to Reading taxpayers. Two children, which is the proposed capacity, could be much more cost-effectively cared for in a home with many more children and the ratio of paid carers per child is better. Also, special needs children can be unusually noisy - it isn't fair on neighbour to have the peaceful enjoyment of their homes ruined because of an inappropriately located facility for such children.

I'm objecting to the Residential Children's Care Home at 120 Kendrick Road, ref PL/26/0632. Nobody told us about it. The sign outside was for a different road. That's not a proper consultation, that's a box-ticking exercise gone wrong. It should be done again properly at the very least. Traffic on the road in rush hour is a nightmare and our own highways officer says they're three spaces short with no answer on where night staff park. Six staff round the clock in a three-bed semi is not "like a large family," it's a workplace. Refuse it. And if you won't, put it in front of the committee in public so we can all watch.

I wish to object to the proposed change of use from C3 residential use to a C2 children's home. My concerns relate to the potential impact of the proposal on the character of the area, residential amenity and parking provision. The application indicates that the home will accommodate two children supported by up to seven members of staff. Whilst I appreciate that staff may work shifts, the application does not demonstrate that the three on-site parking spaces are sufficient to accommodate staff, shift changeovers, management visits, social workers, healthcare professionals, contractors and family visits. This raises concerns that the proposal will result in overspill parking on surrounding roads, to the detriment of highway safety and the convenience of existing residents. I am also concerned that the proposed use will generate a greater intensity of activity than a typical family dwelling. Increased vehicle movements, staff arrivals and departures, visitors and servicing activity may result in additional disturbance to neighbouring occupiers, particularly during early morning, evening and weekend periods. Furthermore, the property is located adjacent to the Kendrick Road Conservation Area. The application does not provide sufficient information regarding any associated signage, security lighting, CCTV equipment, key safes, fencing or other infrastructure that may be required for the operation of the children's home. Such features have the potential to introduce visual clutter and harm the character and appearance of the adjacent Conservation Area if not carefully controlled. Finally, I do not believe the application contains sufficient operational information to enable residents and the Local Planning Authority to fully understand the parking, visitor management and day-to-day running arrangements associated with the proposed use. For these reasons, I respectfully request that the application be refused, or alternatively that further information is provided to demonstrate that there will be no unacceptable impact on highway safety, residential amenity or the character and appearance given its proximity to the Conservation Area.