Judge to rule on residents’ crisis house concerns

A JUDGE is to rule on plans for a mental health “recovery house” in a city suburb which will be run by the charity which housed knife murderer Hannah Bonser.
Hannah Bonser killed teenager Casey Kearney in a South Yorkshire park. Picture: Ross Parry AgencyHannah Bonser killed teenager Casey Kearney in a South Yorkshire park. Picture: Ross Parry Agency
Hannah Bonser killed teenager Casey Kearney in a South Yorkshire park. Picture: Ross Parry Agency

Bonser was jailed for life last year for stabbing Casey Kearney, 13, to death, and her trial heard how she had used a house owned by Rethink Mental Health.

The charity provides short-term “crisis housing” and had given accommodation to Bonser for a week after she complained of seeing demons in her high-rise flat.

Hide Ad
Hide Ad

Bonser, 27, went to Rethink’s property in Imperial Crescent, Doncaster, minutes after stabbing Casey on February 14, 2012, and handed two knives to staff.

People who live close to Rethink’s latest project, in Thornsett Road, Nether Edge, Sheffield, first objected when a planning application was lodged last year.

Neighbours say the £500,000, seven-bedroomed semi-detached property is unsuitable for a variety of reasons, including privacy, parking and safety.

Their objections were overruled by Sheffield Council’s planning committee, but yesterday judicial review papers were lodged with the High Court in Manchester.

Hide Ad
Hide Ad

Pierre Drezet, 44, who lives on one side of the property, which is currently being converted, said the charity carried out very little consultation before going ahead.

The software engineer, who has three children, added: “Rethink had published criteria for houses they use, but this appears to have been abandoned.

“One of the charity’s requirements was that houses should be secluded, but this house and its gardens are overlooked by several properties including mine.

“There is an issue of safety, but there is also an issue of privacy, both for us and the people who will be using the house.

Hide Ad
Hide Ad

“We feel this is one of many things planning officers failed to address in the advice they gave to committee members who approved the application.”

It is understood around 360 people will pass through the house every year, with patients staying for a maximum of a week, just as Bonser did in Doncaster.

Neighbours are also concerned that patients will spend a lot of time outside the property smoking - something which Rethink has admitted is a problem.

Staff will be on site 24 hours a day and a helpline will be available all night for people who feel they may need the charity’s assistance when suffering a crisis.

Hide Ad
Hide Ad

Phil Potter, 53, a chartered surveyor who has lived in the house joined to Rethink’s property for 12 years, said the helpline office would be feet from his bedroom.

Both Mr Drezet and Mr Potter said they felt planning law had not been followed correctly in the case, a belief which led them to begin judicial review proceedings.

Other neighbours are supporting their efforts and Mr Drezet said that, between them, they had spent thousands of pounds taking legal advice on the matter.

Barristers have now agreed to act on a no-win no-fee basis for the residents, but it is not known how long it will take for a judge to deliver a ruling in the case.

Hide Ad
Hide Ad

Mr Drezet said no account had been taken of residents and added: “There has been no process followed for the selection of the house other than: Is it big enough for the NHS contract and does it have planning permission?”

Rethink provides services to NHS trusts and councils across England and also has crisis homes in Rotherham and Grimsby.

It provides services in Beverley, Halifax, York, Wakefield, Scarborough and Scunthorpe, but as yet had no other crisis houses in the region.

A Sheffield Council spokesman said the authority had complied with national planning guidelines.

Hide Ad
Hide Ad

He added: “We concluded that any potential impacts on immediate neighbours and on parking provision would not be significant enough to outweigh the presumption in favour of the application - and the benefits the scheme proposes.”

Related topics: