City Council delays vote on Coventry Children’s Home
Councillors have delayed a decision on plans for a children’s home in Finham
Coventry City Councillors have delayed a decision on plans for a children’s home in Finham.
Concerns surrounding the owner of a Finham property earmarked as a new children’s home have prompted members of the city council’s planning committee to defer making a decision on whether the scheme is approved.
The semi-detached house in Alpine Rise will be home for three children if the plans are approved when it is considered again in the new year.
A report considered by councillors explained that the property would provide a ‘family environment’ for the youngsters aged between seven and 18.
The upstairs bedrooms would be allocated to the children with two downstairs rooms converted to a staff bedroom/office. It added that home would be staffed 24/7 with at least two members of staff present at any given time.
But an online petition, which currently has more than 100 signatures, called on the council to refuse or defer the plans, stating that residents strongly objected ‘due to the lack of meaningful engagement and the failure of the officer’s report to properly address repeated concerns regarding parking, traffic, noise, staffing levels, and day-to-day management’.
The petition added: “Residents also ask the planning committee to carry out appropriate due diligence and consider the suitability of the applicant to operate a children’s care home.”
This point was echoed by Cllr Mattie Heaven who spoke at the meeting to oppose the plans. She said: “We are not objecting on the need for children’s care homes . Our main concern here is around the suitability of this semi-detached family property in this location under the ownership of the landlord. This is not about rejecting care, it is about recognising that a standard family dwelling is not always suitable for children who require stability, specialist support and an environment tailored for their needs.
“Residents are asking committee to exercise a proper due diligence regarding the suitability of the landlord. I appreciate that this is not part of the material consideration but I feel it is very important for members to do due diligence. When you do, you will find cases where they have broken the law and having court cases against them.
“This is disguised under a limited company which is not a true reflection of the ownership of this property. This is a business run by a serial landlords who have been sanctioned for the type of activities they have done. This is why I would ask you to do more investigation. Defer it to do your own due diligence.”
Cllr Gavin Lloyd, a member of the planning committee, agreed. He said: “I am going to ask for this to be deferred for more information. The main thing I want more clarity on is the relationship between the current landlord and the provider.
“I will be voting against this purely from what I have found from my own due diligence on the landlord. If it can be deferred and I can share what I have then great but I certainly have questions that I don’t think are right to be raised publicly at the moment.”
Earlier in the meeting, planning officers stated that the ownership of the property was irrelevant when considering a plan to change its use to a children’s home and they pointed out that the council’s children’s services department had no objection to the plans but the committee overwhelmingly agreed that the matter be deferred.