Homes for rehabilitation and shelter Q & A DCP Section 11.4

This section includes residential homes for the care, shelter and rehabilitation in the community of groups such as the recovering mentally handicapped, ex-alcoholics, ex-addicts, vagrants, discharged prisoners, battered wives and unmarried mothers. The essential difference between these uses and residential and nursing homes for the elderly (see 11.3), apart from the age of residents, is that the period of occupancy of any one individual is likely to be relatively short term, but in some cases the potentiality for amenity harm will be greater. Accommodation for the homeless is dealt with at (11.5) and children's homes are considered separately at (11.6).

Q & A    11.4/10

My council is currently looking at an application for a hostel and considering whether fear of crime can be a material consideration. In the case in hand the fear is not backed up by substantive evidence, but is clearly an issue for local residents. Case law seems to suggest that even unjustified fears may be a material consideration. Is there a definitive ruling on this?

As you say, the courts have addressed this question, holding that public fear and apprehension about the impact of a development is capable of being a land use related material consideration even when not rational or fact based. This means that such fears must be taken on board in the balance of decision making. However, at the end of the day the actual weight that the decision maker may give to public apprehension is a matter of judgment having regard to all the facts of a particular case. Currently this matter is a live issue in the telecommunications field, and it is of note that earlier this year the secretary of state submitted to judgment when an appeal decision relating to a mast in a residential area was challenged in the High Court. Here an inspector had reasoned that resident's fears of health hazards from the installation were misplaced having regard to the scientific evidence, but he dismissed the appeal on the basis that if allowed it would serve as a constant reminder of their concerns. Clearly this is a sensitive area of decision making which will continue to give rise to tensions, and it would be helpful if clear ministerial advice was available.


Have you registered with us yet?

Register now to enjoy more articles and free email bulletins

Sign up now
Already registered?
Sign in

Have your say...

Before commenting please read our rules for commenting on articles.

If you see a comment you find offensive, you can flag it as inappropriate. In the top right-hand corner of an individual comment, you will see 'flag as inappropriate'. Clicking this prompts us to review the comment. For further information see our rules for commenting on articles.

comments powered by Disqus

Join the conversation with PlanningResource on social media

Follow Us:
Planning Jobs

Our Events