A contentious bid to use 5 homes for parenting courses has been refused, with Isle of Wight Council officers saying there is no ‘local need’ for it.
Critics of Jon Surman’s change of use application to house a Residential Children and Parent Assessment Centre in Flats 1 – 4 on 14 Park Road, Shanklin, and in a bungalow at 29 Clarendon Road, said plans would force out the properties’ existing, elderly tenants.
In an email to County Hall’s planning department last week, children’s services officer Julie Mepham said her team could not, at present, support the proposal.
Planners have rejected the application, writing:
“There is insufficient justification for the proposed Residential Children and Parent Assessment
Centre consisting of three assessment flats and one halfway house which would result in the loss of five smaller residential dwellings.“On balance, the proposal’s benefits do not outweigh the harm that would be caused to the local housing stock.”
A total of 23 angry residents cited their reasons why the change of use could not be justified, including that the proposals simply did not outweigh the harm that would be caused to the local housing stock, and the potential detrimental effect on the residents concerned.
One resident has told Island Echo:
“I’m so grateful to everyone that objected to this planning application, and I want to thank everyone for doing so. I will now be able to sleep at night for the first time for a very long time”.
Mr Surman’s agent, SJC Planning, said the centre would offer ‘assisted parenting development courses’, with clients being ‘monitored and helped with parenting techniques and behaviour by qualified social workers and health professionals’.
The plans have been met with objections from residents, Shanklin Town Council (STC) and one of the town’s County Hall representatives, Michael Beston. STC clerk Stella Janeway said the proposal would result in ‘displacing current longstanding tenants from their homes, one over the age of 80’.
Ms Mepham’s email said:
“After consultation with Kay Jones, service director children’s social care and after our discussion earlier today, our response to the application is that at this time we cannot sign a letter of support.
“Kay met with the proposed provider last year to appraise her of the reasons why children’s services were unable to support the application – namely, there is no current local need on the Island for this type of assessment home and, children’s services could not support an application whereby people would lose their homes.”
Mr Surman said the proposal would bring ‘great value’ to ‘Island families that need the service’ and that there were ‘not many suitable properties’ for the centre. He said the facility would create ‘over eight to ten’ new jobs, enable families to stay on the Island and improve parenting skills ‘in the short and long term, breaking the cycle of neglect’.
What madness was this application, parental development courses paid for no doubt with our hard earned taxes,just take the kids away from these sub stanfard parents, they will have a far better life in the long run..
And how much do you think kids in care cost the taxpayer? Any ideas on the stats of ex-care kids who end up in the criminal justice system? Tell us again about the age you grew up in, with youth clubs, proper cooked school dinners, parents wages that covered the cost of living and an abundance of social housing? Who paid for you to have all that, hmm?
If the children are taken young enough they tend to grow up healthy and well balanced and hardworking, I personally know, more so when they are given to foster or adopteee parents who work for a living, do not do drugs amd never had the children for the benefits they can get..
If children are ‘taken’ from their kin, they grow up feeling like outsiders, different, regardless of how competent and kind those carers are. Those feelings colour their lives forever. And who the hell are we to judge single mothers with our Victorian attitudes based on privilege? You also haven’t answered how much you think it might cost, given that 3.2 million children currently live in poverty, a social driver that more often than not fractures families due to the stresses. If we are apparently to poor to help them out of poverty now, how much more will it cost to put them into the care system? Or employ people to scrutinise parenting abilities in a group home and monitor behaviours and right reports to the various agencies?
Good. I’m disgusted at the old fashioned attitude that, with the best of intentions probably, turns the spotlight on single mothers as the cause for today’s kids being disaffected. To wit, there is a refuge for women fleeing domestic abuse which effectively forces women and their children to attend the most ridiculous courses in cooking, child play regardless of their abilities in those areas. Should they refuse, or not engage, it’s a black mark against them. Had I been battered by my husband and forced to flee with 2 children and then be made to jump through hoops like grandma sucking eggs rather than get the help actually needed, a counsellor, a home and a legal system that cares, I’d be livid. Run parenting courses by all means, they are needed, but not in a living situation. That sort of invasion of privacy and scrutiny will only make daily living and coping worse for parents already under immense stress. If they’ve got 5 homes going begging, give them to a few of those parents with no terms and conditions. You’ll be amazed how much better they cope then.
They are doing these courses for any altruistic reason, they would claom thousands in tax payers money for the privilege.
I entirely agree that women who have fled abusive homes should not be treated as domestocally incapable. However, it is a myth to assume all single mothers have fled violent partners. Many have chosen to have children alone with no means of support and this provides a ticket to many benefits for many years. People who choose to bring childreninto the world for their own reasons might well benefit from the services that this project sought to provide. It is dangerous to generalise in matters concerning families and children.
Chosen to have children alone? Immaculate conception theorist Marcus? You surprise me.