Bungalow plan thrown out by councillors following concerns about foul language and anti-social behaviour

Eight bungalows have already been built at St Peter’s Gardens, Moss Pit, after planning permission was granted two years ago and they provide homes for people with learning disabilities and/or mental health conditions.

But other residents living in the street have reported a rise in incidents including swearing and racist language, screaming, shouting and aggression during the past year. Some no longer feel able to use their own gardens or allow their children out to play, members of Stafford Borough Council’s planning committee have been told.

But measures have been taken to reduce noise for neighbouring properties, a representative from care provider Aspirations said. And demand remains high in Staffordshire for the supported accommodation so that local service users do not have to move out of the area and away from their families.

Key Developments (Midlands) Limited sought permission to demolish existing garages at St Peters Gardens to make way for two new bungalows. Housing management is provided by Inclusion Housing, a national health and social care landlord for vulnerable adults, and Aspirations has been the care provider for residents at the existing bungalows since December last year.

The plans were recommended for approval by borough council planning officers. But committee members deferred their decision at their September meeting so they could visit the site.

Toby Wilde, who spoke on behalf of local residents, said: “I have made objections due to the noise, disturbances from antisocial behaviour we’ve all been subjected to and impact it’s having on mental health and young families’ ability to peacefully enjoy our properties and the surrounding areas. There have been countless incidents as reported by multiple residents, to the point many of us feel we can’t use our gardens or allow our children out to play because of the foul and racist language, disturbing screaming and other noises we’ve frequently heard.

“There has been a significant increase in police incidents since the facilities opened; in the last 12 months there have been 16 incidents. In the 12 months prior to that there had been two.

“Despite having parking, staff continue to use residential parking, so there is insufficient parking on the site for the staff needed. The application does not sufficiently address the need for parking on the site.”

Ward councillor Ralph Cooke, who called in the application, thanked the planning committee for visiting the site so they could see “how very close this development is to a number of houses”. He added: “It’s wedged in there and people’s back gardens are backing onto this, so they can be disturbed at any time of the day or night and have been.

“I said this was the wrong development in the wrong place. What we’re doing by allowing two more bungalows is exacerbating an already quite difficult problem.

“The residents are very much on the side of, and sympathetic to, the people living there. But there have been so many examples of poor behaviour by one of the residents and they are having to suffer the effects of this particular development in this area, which was shoehorned in to a quite tightly-knit and previously quiet residential area.”

Lyndsay Langley, who spoke in support of the application on behalf of Aspirations, said there had been incidents of verbal abuse. But the person involved had now moved out of the development to more appropriate accommodation for their needs and incidents had reduced.

She added that meetings had been arranged for local residents to attend. “At our most recent meeting, it was decided the next meeting would not be until February 24 due to a distinct reduction in incidents”, she said.

“This is as a result of the proactive steps taken by us as the care provider. We have installed air conditioning and soundproofing, in response to concerns about a non-verbal person’s vocals when he is happy, so windows don’t have to be opened.

“We have a positive relationship with police – the 16 incidents are not related to us – and we ensure any police involvement is in a person’s best interest. We’ve worked in partnership with the local authority’s social workers and NHS nurses to ensure the care and support is appropriate.

“People with a disability have the same rights as you or I to live in their own homes, where they have choice, control and independence. This is an alternative to residential care homes, units and hospitals.

“The cornerstone is that people live in their own homes. The two bungalows would ensure two more new homes for people who need this in Staffordshire, meaning they are not placed hundreds of miles away from families, in institutional settings outside of the area they come from.

“The model is in line with the Government’s 10-year vision to transform adult social care. It’s outlined in a White Paper which clearly states that people should be able to live as part of their community, connected to people who are important to them, living a fulfilling life.

“It’s in an accessible location in a community where they have got access to public transport, transport links and good facilities. We only support Staffordshire citizens and we have created 65 jobs for the local community – only seven are car drivers in response to concerns about parking and traffic.”

Committee members went against the planning officers’ recommendation and voted to refuse permission for the two new bungalows. They rejected the plans due to impact on amenities, parking issues, over-intensification of the site, antisocial behaviour and health and wellbeing concerns.

Councillor Julie Read said: “There have clearly been problems which you would expect with a scheme of this nature in the settling-in period. The danger of what is proposed now is that instead of settling in and becoming a positive part of the community, the scheme is being enlarged and drawing negative attention to vulnerable people living there.”

Councillor Tony Nixon said: “I accept these people have the right to live in their accommodation but the residents around it have the right not to be disturbed. I think we ought to consider the residents as much as the people who live in the accommodation.”

Councillor Marnie Phillips said: “We are absolutely in support of people being independent and I have empathy for the care provider who are trying to do right by their customers. But it is about the right development being in the right place and it has to be right for the customers as well as the residents.

“That area was never meant to have an infill of buildings – it was supposed to be garages for the local community and a bit of expanse of space breaking up the current development. I feel this is over-intensification and absolutely the wrong development in the wrong place.”