Appeal 6000761

The appeal is allowed, and planning permission is granted for conversion of house (C3) into children’s home (C2) at [site address] in accordance with the terms of the application ref PL/2025/01106/PPFL, subject to the following conditions:

The development hereby permitted shall begin not later than three years from the date of this decision.

The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with drawing nos PL01 and PL02.

The premises shall be used as a residential care home for up to three children and for no other purpose (including any other purpose in Class C2 of the Schedule to the Town and Country Planning ([name]) Order 1987 (as amended) or in any provision equivalent to that Class in any statutory instrument revoking and re-enacting that Order with or without modification).

The main issue is the effect of the development on the character of the area and the living conditions of the occupiers of neighbouring properties through noise and disturbance.

The appeal property is a detached house on a street of similar houses within a residential area. The property has an integral garage, kitchen, lounge, and reception room at ground floor and four bedrooms and a bathroom at first floor. An existing driveway at the front of the property provides space for off-road parking around an area of garden. At the rear is a private garden.

[address] is an existing residential estate road, wide enough for two-way traffic and with occasional parking laybys along its length. At the time of my mid-afternoon site visit there were a few vehicles parked on the street. By the end of my visit, I saw a noticeable increase due to parents parking to collect children from the nearby schools. Nonetheless, this increase in parking would be for a short period at the beginning and end of the school day.

The proposal is for the use of the property to house up to three children. Two carers would be at the premises at any one time. During the daytime there would also be a manager. Based on the information in the appellant’s statement the shift change overs would be between 07:30 and 08:00 and 22:00 and 22:30.

The proposal indicates space for three cars to be parked at the front of the house. Although this may not be achievable with the current layout, which is more akin to tandem parking, I saw at my visit that there is sufficient land at the front of the house to provide three spaces. Moreover, there are a number of other properties along [address] where the frontages already provide for parking of three or more cars.

When there are two care workers and the manager at the property there would be sufficient off-road parking for three vehicles. The carers would be responsible for transporting the children to school and other appointments and events. Nevertheless, additional vehicles would be present at staff changeovers and when other visitors are at the premises. During this time there may well be a need to park along the road. However, I have no compelling evidence that parking near to the appeal site would result in blocking a driveway or impeding the movement of traffic, including emergency vehicles, even at school peak times. It is also likely that no more than three cars would be associated with the proposed use for the majority of the time and this would not be significantly different to other properties along [address].

In considering the impact of the proposed use, it should be borne in mind that the property could be used as a dwelling by up to six residents living together as a single household (Class C3) or by not more than six residents as a house in multiple occupation (Class C4). Nevertheless, the need for staff to follow set working patterns implies that vehicles would come and go several times each day.

In my judgement the level of vehicle movements to and from the property would not be significant and not substantially different to a family home. It would not result in severe implications for pedestrian or highway safety and I note that the Council Highways consultation response raised no objections.

There would be activity resulting from the proposed change of use and this may be different to the scale of the activity from the current occupants of the property. However, as an existing family dwelling, which could accommodate a large or extended family, there would already be a level of activity, noise and disturbance from the occupiers and visitors. There is no substantive evidence before me to show that the proposed change of use would significantly increase the risk of noise or disturbance to occupiers of nearby properties.

[name] am cognisant of the concerns of the local residents, the proposal would not unacceptably harm the living conditions of the occupiers of neighbouring properties with regard to noise and disturbance. Moreover, the change of use, even with the change to the car parking layout, would not harm the character of the area, nor would it substantially change the character of the existing property.

For the reasons given above I find that the appeal proposal would not result in an unacceptable adverse effect on the character of the area, nor the living conditions of the occupiers of neighbouring properties through noise and disturbance. As such, the proposal accords with the requirements of Policy P14 of the Solihull Local Plan, December 2023, which seeks to protect and enhance the amenity of existing and potential occupiers of houses and other uses and only permits development where it respects the amenity of existing and proposed occupiers.

The Council received a substantial number of objections, including a petition, from local residents. I have also received several letters during the appeal. [name] am aware of the strength of feeling in the local community the level of objection is not determinative. I have found, for the reasons given above, that the proposal would not cause unacceptable harm to the character of the area or the living conditions of occupants of neighbouring properties.

Interested parties have raised concerns relating to the size of the bedroom/staff office which is indicated as being the smallest room at first floor. Even if I accept that this room is smaller than would be required under the [name] – [name], those requirements apply to new dwellings. Furthermore, the specific use of each room is not a matter for me to consider. The appellant would be able to change the use of any of the rooms to ensure that sufficient space is available for each of the children and for the staff. Furthermore, that there is only one bathroom is not a planning matter.

I also walked along the footpath at the rear of the properties on [address] and noted the various different boundaries to the houses. The appropriateness of the rear boundary to the property would be a matter for the owner to resolve. Nevertheless, the footpath is enclosed along its boundary with the golf course with a mesh style fence. The length and narrowness of the path from its entrance to the appeal site, and the lack of a quick getaway would, in my judgement, reduce the risk of this footpath being used to access the rear of the property and minimise the risk of crime, disorder or anti-social behaviour.

Although my attention has been drawn to other applications for similar uses and a similar use on [address] the character of the area remains residential and there is no signs of an over concentration of care home uses on [address] or in the surrounding area.

Whether the property meets care home guidance and whether it is appropriately managed is a matter for OFSTED and is regulated separately to the planning process. These matters are, therefore, not material to the planning decision.

The Council has provided a list of conditions within their Statement of Case and the appellant has had an opportunity to comment on these. I have considered the list in light of the National Planning Policy Framework and Planning Practice Guidance.

The standard condition, which limits the lifespan of the planning permission, is necessary and reasonable. Although this is an application for a change of use as changes are proposed to the car parking layout to the front of the property, I have specified the location plan and block plan as approved plans for the avoidance of doubt and in the interests of proper planning. However, I have not included the floor plans in the list of approved plans as no changes are proposed to the building and the use of each room would not be a matter for planning.

Given that the proposal has been considered on the basis that it would be a children’s home for up to three children, it is reasonable and necessary to limit the operation of a Class C2 use in this way.

The Council has also requested a condition that specifies that only two care givers and one manager shall be present at any one time, except during staff change over. This condition is not specific enough, does not take into account the three children that would be at the property, and would be breached whenever any visitor attended the property. Given that I have found that the development would not cause unacceptable harm to the character of the area or the living conditions of the occupiers of neighbouring properties, including through the level of vehicle movements, this condition is not necessary, reasonable, or enforceable.

The proposed use is in accordance with the development plan and there are no material considerations which outweigh this finding. Therefore, for the reasons given, the appeal should succeed.