Planning – Application Comments

With regard to the above application for retrospective planning permission to change the use of 50 De Parys Avenue., I wish to request that this permission should not be granted.

While the building has been used for this purpose without permission, there has been a great deal of anti social behavior both in De Parys Avenue and going through from Foster Hill Road, involving extreme noise, bad language, violence and drugs and the need for police involvement.

Bedford School authorities may feel awkward if they appear to be elitist but they are responsible for the care and education of children, and those children should not continue to hear and see the violence and to have drugs offererd to them. This kind of activity should not be happening in such close proximity to a school.

I therefore request that if the building is to be used for any social purpose, it reverts to the original one and is restricted to persons over the age of 65 and/or registered disabled.

I am astonished to discover that the facility has been used in this fashion and for this purpose without the proprietor attempting to seek planning approval for the past 5 years at least. As with many of my neighbours who are also objecting I can't help but conclude that this planning application has been triggered by Bedford Borough Council being made aware by local residents and the police that the property has been used for purposes other than that for which it was originally approved namely "sheltered housing restricted to persons over 65 and/or registered disabled".

Throughout the period in which the property has been used for purposes other than approved there have been ongoing instances of disturbance and aggravation and this has escalated beyond what is acceptable during this year. These are summarised below but cumulatively they represent an unacceptable level of anti-social and violent behaviour exacerbated by a complete absence of any on-site management or supervision of the property which is, I believe, a lack of duty of care to the occupants given that it is supposed to be a "supported housing" facility. My grounds for objection are as follows:

Anti-social behaviour
The behaviour of the residents has been worrying, with heavy drinking, drugtaking, loud music and swearing in the garden, which backs onto our property. We have tried to reason with the residents about this but the response has been consistently aggressive and hostile eg "come and say that to my F*cking face and I'll punch you out".

This came to a head with police being called out on 13th June 2023 to deal with a disturbance in the garden which consisted of fighting, garden furniture being thrown and abusive language. This was followed by more anti-social noise on 15th.

There was also a stabbing recently with one occupant attacking another requiring the deployment of 5 police cars and officers to deal with the incident. We are also aware of an incident in which a small child was left unattended and of residents entering a neighbouring house with permission and in a threatening manner.
Our next-door neighbour also spotted an intruder scaling his back wall to gain access to the garden.

I am sure police records of attendance will be available to substantiate this.

Extensive alcohol and drug use
A shed in the garden of 50 De Parys Avenue has been used as a 'crack den' a claim corroborated by the contractors who have been brought in by the owner to attempt to clean up the property in advance of this application.

Our next-door neighbour spotted an intruder scaling his back wall to gain access to the garden.

Lack of supervision
There has been a complete absence of on-site supervision despite the ongoing pattern of anti-social behaviour and attendant risks to the occupants and local neighbours. This also extends to regular instances of the fire alarms (which are loud to say the least) being tripped by the occupants who cannot reset them. Again I am sure that fire service attendance records will be available to substantiate.

Risk and disruption of our quiet enjoyment.
We have been constantly assured that the most difficult and aggressive occupants have been removed and that the problems have been resolved. Despite this there have been continued instances requiring the attendance of emergency and/or social services. These have not only disturbed the peace but have had a negative impact on the quality of life for the neighbours in terms of upset and concern and our ability to relax spend quiet time in our gardens. The increase in drug dealing in De Parys has also made it intimidating to walk down for fear of being knocked over by the frequent bicycles visiting the place to make their "drop offs" and has made it a much less pleasant place to live.

For these reasons I completely object to the proposed application and hope that you will see sense in turning it down.

As neighbours, living opposite this property cited in the planning application, we strongly object to this retrospective application, having witnessed the incredibly negative impact this has had on the neighbourhood.

I write this on 15th October, the day after yet another blue light call-out to the property. As well as being disruptive, the frequency of these call outs is an obscene waste of tax payer money. A few weeks ago, I witnessed 5 police cars for several hours trying to restrain a woman on the grass verge of De Parys Avenue... there are regular fire, ambulance and police callouts.

With a recent knifing in the property and the regular use of obscene language and aggression, I worry for my family including children who live with me - that one mismanaged property can make such as change to the fabric of a community is staggering.

The application states that this is supported living - I would be interested to understand the level of support that is being provided here - as it stands, residents are unable to even turn off the alarm system which goes off frequently - there is certainly no onsite support for this, and generally requires blue light services to intervene.

Events at number 50 seem to have really gone down hill in 2023 in particular, and I am really concerned what needs to happen in that house for someone to properly take action. The council need to act on this now, before something worse happens.

As a neighbouring resident to the west of the property we have been negatively impacted since the change of use breach and would say the changes are "significantly different" despite what the planning statement may assert (point 6.8).

From a large house full of elderly residents under care, to a large house full of previously homeless vulnerable people with complicated needs and with no noticeable supervision. The difference has been all too apparent, to the point where we have considered moving house to avoid the escalating trouble.

WhiIst we understand the need for accommodation that helps those who are homeless get back onto their feet, I would say 27 rooms in one house would be difficult to run without disturbance even if it was supervised, which from reports, observation and speaking to the landlord's representative myself, it's clearly not. While the vast majority of the residents I'm sure are no trouble, we have seen over the last few years that a small minority can make a big negative & potentially dangerous impact with no consideration for others or their neighbours, to the point where the other residents and the neighbours can begin to feel threatened.


We disagree with point 1.5 that it has functioned well during the time since change of use, as the numerous complaints and police records will illustrate. Also the terms "supported housing" and "run well" seem to me a misnomer when looking at the frequent instances of anti social behaviour and police call outs that we have witnessed. When we or other neighbours have approached the individuals creating disturbance, we have been met with abusive and threatening behaviour on each occasion.


We note other neighbours have commented that disturbances have escalated dramatically this year, but in our view there has been excessive noise and anti social behaviour since the breach of use. As a resident who backs partially onto the property we witness and hear how the residents use the back garden (mentioned in point 4.3) as a party venue on numerous occasions, both during the day and in the evening. This has occurred several times to the point where I have had to close all my doors and windows in the height of summer because of the noise and abusive language and loud music. It's hard to hold a work call with a loud lunchtime rave in the background. This is in sharp contrast to what was once a quiet back garden in one of the more quiet streets in Bedford. During covid we invested in numerous outdoor improvements to our own property but have been unable to use and enjoy these at times, due to the noise and disturbance from the residents that substantially interfered with the use and enjoyment of our home.

Point 6.9 refers to this being a residential area and proposes the change of use is compatible. Unfortunately the residents have proved to be anything but compatible with neighboring residents and businesses: a renowned private school and hotels and B&Bs, all of which draw visitors of Bedford to the surrounding street. If they are greeted by anti-social behaviour and unsavoury visitors to the property, that have been reported this will continue to further negatively impact local businesses and reputation of the area.

We strongly oppose the granting of new or retrospective planning permission for a change of use at Lilibet Court, 50 De Parys Avenue, and would respectfully request the existing permission for 'sheltered housing (c2), restricted to persons over the age of 65 years and/or registered disabled persons of any age' is enforced.

I strongly object to the proposal to run the property as supported housing for previously homeless adults. I oppose the planning application for the following reasons:

The owner has run the property as supported housing for adults for the past few years even though he had not sought council approval to run it as such. It was supposed to be sheltered housing for the over 65's.

The behaviour of the some of the residents has been worrying, with heavy drinking, drug taking, extremely loud music and anti-social behaviour in the garden in the afternoon and evening. This came to a head with the police being called out on 13th June to deal with a disturbance. The property directly backs onto our own. I find the foul language offensive and the aggressive behaviour intimidating. It has made me steer clear of the end of the garden.

It was found that a shed in the garden/ greenhouse at the facility has been used as a 'crack den'. This explains why an intruder went through our neighbours carpark and leapt over the wall to gain access to the garden during the night. I am concerned about this and fear for our safety.

The residents have been totally unsupervised although the property is supposedly supported housing. This lack of supervision has allowed anti social behaviours and has had a negative impact on the neighbours, neighbourhood and indeed some of the residents. I feel that the owners have failed in their Duty of Care and have put some of the occupants at risk.

There have been a number of serious incidents of assault. Recently an occupant was stabbed by another and a small child was left unattended. Emergency services had to be called- records of police attendance will be available.

I strongly object to the proposal to run the property as supported housing for previously homeless adults. Hence that is why I am writing to express my deep concerns regarding the proposed homeless shelter that is planned to be situated in close proximity to my home.

I understand the importance of providing support and assistance to homeless individuals; however, I believe that the current plan poses a significant risk to the safety and well-being of my family, particularly my children.

My objections to this shelter are based on several concerns:

Lack of supervision:

For the past few years the property has been run for the homeless with no supervision at all. This has resulted in worrying behaviour from the its residents such as heavy drinking during the day and anti social behaviours. Police had to be called out in June this year due to shouting, screaming, loud music, aggressive drunken behaviour and offensive bad language. More anti social behaviour continued during that month. This raises concerns about potential disruptive behaviour, including abusive language and drunken behaviour, which could have a direct impact on the safety of the residents in the neighbourhood, particularly children.


Other undesirable behaviours include a robbery at de parys guest house and a stabbing.

Proximity to My Home:
The shelter's proximity to my home is a significant concern. I believe it will have an adverse effect on the peace, security, and quality of life for my family. It is essential that we consider the well-being of all residents in the area.

I have children who I could not let out to play in the garden due to the obscene amount of bad language.

The noise levels due to the persistent playing of excessively loud music meant I had to keep the windows closed during the hot weather to try and get them to sleep. I ended up moving a child to sleep in another part of the house.
Potential Impact on Property Values:
The presence of a shelter with perceived security issues in the neighbourhood may negatively impact property values. As a homeowner, I am concerned about the potential devaluation of my property.

I'm not against supporting vulnerable people in the local community but the real concern is the fact the owners are irresponsible as they ignore their duty of care under the health and safety act. The owners neglected to pay any attention that resulted in a tsunami of unacceptable behaviours. The lack of any day time and night time supervision has had a direct negative impact on the local community. The owners are more interested in financial gain rather than fulfilling their remit to support vulnerable residents.

Furthermore the owners have neglected in their duty and responsibility to maintain the actual property to an acceptable standard. The building looks run down, the garden is not primed back, paint work is peeling, lots of littering.
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS 10/10/2023
Dear sir/madam,

I am writing with reference to the retrospective planning application on Lilibet Court 50 De Parys Avenue Bedford.

I strongly object to the proposal to run the property as supported housing for previously homeless adults. Hence that is why I am writing to express my deep concerns regarding the proposed homeless shelter that is planned to be situated in close proximity to my home, located on Foster Hill Road.

I understand the importance of providing support and assistance to homeless individuals; however, I believe that the current plan poses a significant risk to the safety and well-being of my family, particularly my children.

My objections to this shelter are based on several concerns:
Lack of supervision:
For the past few years the property has been run for the homeless with no supervision at all. This has resulted in worrying behaviour from the its residents such as heavy drinking during the day and anti social behaviours. Police had to be called out in June this year due to shouting, screaming, loud music, aggressive drunken behaviour and offensive bad language. More anti social behaviour continued during that month. This raises concerns about potential disruptive behaviour, including abusive language and drunken behaviour, which could have a direct impact on the safety of the residents in the neighbourhood, particularly children.

Other undesirable behaviours include a robbery at de parys guest house and a stabbing.

1. Proximity to My Home:
The shelter's proximity to my home is a significant concern. I believe it will have an adverse effect on the peace, security, and quality of life for my family. It is essential that we consider the well-being of all residents in the area.

I have 3 children who I could not let put to play in the garden due to the obscene amount of bad language.

The noise levels due to the persistent playing of excessively loud music meant I had to keep the windows closed to try and get them to sleep.
1.
2. Potential Impact on Property Values:
The presence of a shelter with perceived security issues in the neighbourhood may negatively impact property values. As a homeowner, I am concerned about the potential devaluation of my property.

I'm not against supporting vulnerable people in the local community but the real concern is the fact the owners are irresponsible as they ignore their duty of care under the health and safety act. The owners neglected to pay any attention that resulted in a tsunami of unacceptable behaviours. The lack of any day time and night time supervision has had a direct negative impact on the local community. The owners are more interested in financial gain rather than fulfilling their remit to support vulnerable residents.

Furthermore the owners have neglected in their duty and responsibility to maintain the actual property to an acceptable standard. The building looks run down, the garden is not primed back, paint work is peeling.

Thank you for taking the time to consider my concerns. I look forward to your response and hope for a resolution that takes into account the interests and safety of all community members.

Kind regards

I oppose the granting of retrospective planning permission for a change of use at Lilibet Court, 50 De Parys Avenue.

The proprietors of Lilibet Court have shown an inability to manage the property for the use that is being applied for, as well as complete disregard for the planning process. There is no evidence to suggest that the owner has either the ability or willingness to run Lilibet Court in the manner required for the change of use. The lack of supervision/hands-on management at the property, an apparent lack of support for residents, and an increase in the level and severity of incidents at the property is illustrative of this.

Anti-social behaviour and disturbance, both within and outside Lilibet Court, has increased significantly during 2023. Despite comments to the contrary in the Residential Amenity section of the Planning Statement provided by the applicant, Lilibet Court is NOT functioning well without any incidents. This is illustrated by the volume of calls on the emergency services in recent months and the seriousness of the incidents attended. There are also regular issues with cars parked across neighbouring driveways, high levels of noise and littering, and the regular flashing blue lights of emergency vehicles. In addition, frequent meetings of individuals on the pathway and grassy areas outside Lilibet Court and the adjacent residential properties suggests that significant drug dealing/use is being undertaken by Lilibet Court residents. This did not occur with the property's previous use and has an associated risk to residents and neighbours alike.

The proximity of Bedford School and high levels of footfall in the area should also be considered in the context of this application. De Parys Avenue is a busy street given its location close to Bedford Park and amenities in the town centre. As such, I'm concerned that a major incident could occur, either within or outside the property, to a resident, neighbour or member of the public, if the current use is extended.

I would appreciate these points being taken into consideration in the planning application process.

Lillibet Court have demonstrated a disregard to the planning process and more importantly the welfare of their vulnerable tenants with a total lack of due diligence and duty of care.

By accepting payment for housing, I will repeat vulnerable people, (with seeming SEMH (social, emotional and mental health) needs) without the necessary care being in place is a disgrace. It is nothing more than a (probably expensive) HMO which planning is also not in place for.

An almost weekly drain on local emergency services being constantly called for acts of violence and neglect (it appears fuelled by substance abuse) is a great worry. A child taken into care apparently only recently let alone a reported stabbing and thus a heavy police presence (a very stretched resource).

There will be a fatality at the premises if it is allowed to continue in this way.

Why would granting permission retrospectively encourage a business to change to a more expensive business model. The lease has been forfeited according the a notice recently displayed on the door and the minimum remote supervision has been dismissed it would seem - who is watching the CCTV now?

Not Available

We have been neighbours of Lillibet Court for a very long time and in the past the partnership between our two business' has worked well. We live onsite of the business at the back of the property.

Sadly this has changed dramatically since the decline in the management of the property.

It is now an eyesore with obvious health risks given the pigeon infestation they seem to be having. We have had comments for guests about the pigeon faeces all over the property that faces ours. We have put the necessary pest control in place - they haven't.

The repeat visits from the emergency services is a constant disturbance and not the best use of tax payers money. Sadly the cohort of residents don't appear to be getting the support they seem to need.

Our builder was threated with violence and that they would come and burgle our property the other day whilst waiting for a delivery of materials by a resident - just for standing on the drive.

Another resident threw multiple items out of their window, on several occasions during mental health crisis', into our drive and where both our children and dogs frequently walk. Thankfully nobody (human or canine) were injured.

Items are thrown over our garden fence which again is used frequently by our children and dogs. If our dog ingested anything it shouldn't it would cost a lot of money in vets bills.

Our children were unable to use their bedrooms for several days due to the extensive apparent drug use and the resulting smell that wafted into the bedrooms due to windows being open in the summer months . Let alone the anti-social behaviour that is a frequent occurrence in the garden with very "colourful language" resulting in violent outbursts and the emergency services being called.

The care and support for the residence is not evident and I struggle to see how retrospective planning is going to change that if the system has already been disregarded.

It is only a matter of time before a major incident occurs that the property - it is a ticking time bomb.

I am opposed to the grant of retrospective planning permission for Lilibet Court on the following grounds:

1. Since the change of use occurred (without the requisite planning permission it now transpires) there has been a steady increase in disturbance from the property to the nearby neighbourhood. This has increased exponentially since the beginning of 2023 resulting in a number of incidents requiring the attendance of emergency services (fire, ambulance and police) on a number of occasions.

2. There have been, to my knowledge, two serious incidents: one a stabbing and the other requiring the removal of an infant for its own safety. I am concerned that another serious incident could result in harm to or event the death of a resident or a visitor to the property.

3. Cars are parked over other residents' drives (most notably the two immediately adjacent properties).

4. There is an increase in anti-social behaviour from the residents and their guests.

5. There is no obvious support services provided to the residents, a lot of whom appear to have additional needs. If this property is permitted to be used for it's intended use there must be stipulations that its residents are provided with the support they need which must be onsite 24 hours a day. This is being run as a private enterprise which I do not have an issue with but, as a private enterprise, it is the owner of the property that should have and pay for the necessary support that is needed for this property and there has been no evidence that this has happened and no suggestion, therefore, that this will happen in the future.
6. Speaking to some of the residents, it is clear that they are concerned about their safety as well.

For the reasons above I am opposed to the change of use.

I would also like to add that the residents of the property (which has 27 rooms) have the opportunity to comment on the proposed retrospective change of use which seems to me to be a conflict of interest, given it could be in their interests to support this change of use. Whilst I do not oppose their rights to comment, I would ask that due weight is given to the fact that they are likely to benefit from the change of use - you are, in effect, providing the applicant with 27 possible advocates for support who will be direct beneficiaries of the change of use.