Plans for children's home in Letchworth

The applicant sought permission to change the use of the HMO at 44 Sparhawke Road to a home for up to four children.

Development is subject to a number of conditions, including that work must begin within three years of permission being granted and that two off-street car parking spaces shall be provided for staff members.

A supporting statement released agents by Plande Planning Consultants, on behalf of the applicant, said the application would allow them to facilitate residential accommodation and care for children aged 11 to 18 who cannot stay with their families due to circumstances such as "neglect, abuse, family breakdown, or other traumatic experiences".

44 Sparhawke Road is currently a five bed HMO. (Image: Google Maps) Two full-time carers would also be present at the property 24 hours a day "like parents", and no physical changes would be made inside or outside the home.

• Planning application submitted for new Stevenage Next store
• Plans approved for new housing development in Knebworth

Plande's supporting statement also included plans to house children with learning difficulties or mental health issues. The planning officer argued that to facilitate this, further care would be necessary, therefore, the application should have requested the property became a care facility rather than a residential home.

The existing site features three bedrooms and two bathrooms on the first floor, and two bedrooms, with en suite accommodations and general living accommodation on the ground floor.

The proposed floor plan is unchanged from the HMO. (Image: Plande Planning Consultants) Neighbours commented on the application stating that they “strongly opposed” the plans due to fears of “anti-social behaviour”.

They said: “Sparhawke is a family neighbourhood which has many families with young children who would be vulnerable to the type of behaviour the proposed type of residents and the unsavoury visitors it could attract."

Editors' note: An earlier version of this article incorrectly stated that the application had been refused.

We would like to clarify that the refusal in fact referred separate application for a Lawful Development Certificate on the site, which was rejected pending planning permission.

We sincerely apologise for this error.